Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Back in June, when the Senate was in the early stages of its marathon health care reform debate, several Republicans blasted the  proposed legislation for including a grant program aimed at encouraging construction of local infrastructure to promote healthier movement.

Citing the possibility of more paved sidewalks, jungle gyms, and bike paths, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) lamented: "[H]ow can Democrats justify the wasteful spending in this bill?"

Despite loud protestations from the GOP and conservative think tanks about the grants, dubbed "Community Transformation" aid, it has survived intact in the final health reform bill that Democratic leaders will call up for a crucial test vote tomorrow.

The final Senate legislation opens the Community Transformation awards to non-profit groups as well as state and local governments. Proposals to promote increased physical exercise and "the infrastructure to support active living" would be eligible for funding, and grant recipients would be required to measure the resulting local health benefits.

The amount of money set aside for the program is not specified in the Senate bill. The House health bill limited annual funding to $1.6 billion, while the upper chamber of Congress names Community Transformation grants as one eligible use for a "prevention and public health fund" that would receive $5 billion by the year 2015.

No matter how you slice it, however, the Senate has recognized the maxim that transportation reform is health reform.

It's a storyline that the media and the auto industry have embraced: Higher gas prices are the magic ingredient that U.S. carmakers need in order to sell more fuel-efficient vehicles to consumers. 

The narrative is tempting, especially for those who believe federal gas taxes need to rise in order to fairly price the environmental impact of driving. But if it were true, the record rise in U.S. fuel prices that began in 2007 and lasted through 2008 might be expected to spur a notable increase in production of cleaner cars.

And that didn't happen, as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported today in a new analysis [PDF] of carbon emissions and fuel economy trends in the U.S. auto fleet. The average fuel-efficiency of American cars went from 20.6 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2007 to 21.0 mpg in 2008, according to the EPA, and is poised to rise by just 0.1 for the 2009 model year.

In real pollution terms, that means the average American car will emit just 2 gallons fewer CO2 per mile this year than it did 2008. For Dan Becker, a longtime environmental advocate who directs the Safe Climate Campaign, that paltry progress is an argument for stronger, consistent increases in the nation's fuel-efficiency and emissions standards. Becker said in a statement:

Conventional wisdom -- and auto company lobbyists -- maintain that high-priced gasoline is enough to improve fuel economy. Both are wrong. Gas prices have risen each year from 2002 to 2008; industry has failed to keep pace by improving mileage. This report demonstrates that even when gas hit more than $4 a gallon, mileage barely improved.

High gasoline prices won’t be enough to put cleaner cars on our roads. They do not force industry to change its wasteful and polluting ways. Strict laws do. The Obama administration must repeatedly ratchet up mileage and tailpipe standards. 

Sadly, the administration's plan to raise fuel-efficiency standards to 35.5 mpg by 2016 contains enough accounting loopholes to make Enron proud.

(ed. note. Please welcome contributor Chris Bradford, author of the economics blog Austin Contrarian.)

As this recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report reminds us, the answer is "very regressive."

The disparity between the federal government’s support for homeowners and renters is stark. In fiscal year 2009, according to CBO, Washington spent almost four times as much money ($230 billion) to support homeownership as it did to improve rental affordability ($60 billion).

That spending on homeowners included $80 billion for the tax deduction for  mortgage interest, $16 billion for the state and local property-tax deduction and $16 billion for the capital-gains exclusion.

But it also included temporary commitments, such as the Obama administration's mortgage modification program ($75 billion) and the first-time home buyer tax credit ($14 billion). And let's not forget the continuing federal outlays to subsidize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s credit activities ($43 billion). 

By contrast, Washington devoted just $60 billion to improving rental affordability, mainly through a combination of low-income housing tax credits, Section 8 rental assistance, and public housing.   

Most people, I think, will acknowledge a general uneasiness with this disparity. It seems unfair for the government to spend 80 percent of its housing budget on the 67 percent of its households who own property.

What's more, these federal subsidies flow disproportionately to the most affluent of those households. Homeowners see no benefit from the mortgage interest, property tax or capital-gains deductions unless they itemize -- which means that many homeowners get little or no actual subsidy. The subsidy rises with the value of the home and the tax bracket of the buyer.

In other words, the federal government handsomely rewards the affluent for buying expensive homes and leaves renters (as well as low-income home owners) relatively worse off in the process.

But Washington's housing subsidies, which have continued under both Democratic and Republican administrations, have an even more insidious impact in the nation's most expensive markets. There, they make renters worse off in absolute terms by raising the overall cost of housing.

How does this happen? While federal homeowner subsidies nominally flow to home buyers, the actual beneficiaries depend on the particular housing market.

In markets where it is easy to add new housing -- those with an elastic supply -- rising demand spurs more new housing rather than higher prices. Home buyers do indeed receive the subsidies’ benefits (though they often take an environmental hit from new, often sprawled construction patterns). The federal programs reduce their cost of housing without raising the cost of housing for renters. 

But the story is different in markets with high demand and tight supply, such as the expensive markets on the coasts -- highly desirable, highly productive metropolitan areas constrained both by geography and restrictions on new construction. In these markets, sellers possess a scarce good in high demand and can force buyers to bid away their federal subsidies. The federal subsidies are bundled into the sales price; in the end, home buyers are neither better off nor worse off than without the subsidies.

Renters, however, are unequivocally worse off. Continue...

As the federal deficit squeezes the Obama administration's options for financing ambitious new infrastructure projects, public-private partnerships (PPPs) are gaining currency as a possible solution. And in an illustration of PPPs' potential, the $86 billion private-equity firm Carlyle Group yesterday struck a deal with the state of Connecticut to run ... 23 highway rest stops.

The $178 million Connecticut deal is the first PPP in the three years since Carlyle began raising money for its $1.15 billion infrastructure group, according to the Washington Post:

[T]he agreement ... will include putting Subway restaurants as well as Dunkin' Donuts locations in the centers, according to a Carlyle spokesman. Dunkin' Donuts is owned by Carlyle.

Meanwhile, the same Connecticut governor who called Carlyle's donut investment "an unprecedented commitment to ... meeting the needs of the traveling public" recently vetoed legislation that would have eliminated the need for significant transit fare hikes.

Is this what President Obama meant when he called for "more creative, new approaches" to fixing "infrastructure that is falling apart"? Let's hope not.

Given that government audits have found existing federal transit regulations riddled with obstacles to attracting successful PPPs, perhaps it's not surprising that Carlyle chose to go the donuts route rather than collaborating on Connecticut transit-oriented development projects in the vein of the New York MTA's Beacon Station revitalization.

But that's no reason for Carlyle to take a victory lap while plans for a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) remain frustratingly unclear. If the administration follows through on its NIB plans, information-sharing and incentives will be needed to prod private capital into genuinely beneficial projects rather than new fast food joints.

For a taste of how groundbreaking federal infrastructure PPPs could happen on the local level, this presentation [PDF] by the deputy general manager of the Boston area's Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is a good place to start.

Streetsblog New York reported last week on the state DOT's expensive plan to widen part of the Major Deegan Expressway in the southwest Bronx, even as the agency fails to maintain upstate bridges. 

The dubious Deegan project sucks up $266 million in the state DOT's new five-year capital plan, while more promising initiatives -- like the potential removal of the Sheridan Expressway-- languish without much money at all.

The DOT is considering tearing down the little-used Sheridan, a decision that would clear trucks off local streets and make room for housing, shops, and parks by the Bronx River.

But the capital plan sets aside just $2 million for the project. As advocates said in testimony today, that's only enough cash to muddle through the studies already underway.

To repeat: New York state's capital plan includes $266 million to widen a highway in an asthma-choked area of the Bronx, and $2 million for a project that could dramatically improve neighborhoods pummeled by truck traffic. Addressing a State Senate committee yesterday, advocates made the case for a different approach.

"We call on the NYS DOT to reinstate funding for the Sheridan project by reducing the size and scope of the Major Deegan Expressway project," the South Bronx River Watershed Alliance said in a statement. "With scarce resources, the agency must do a better job of prioritizing transportation investments that promote the safety, health and well-being of New York City residents."

The Tri-State Transportation Campaign submitted detailed commentary on the full capital plan, which you can read here. Here Tri-State explains why the New York DOT, which doesn't expand highways to the same degree as other state DOTs, still has a weakness for widening certain types of roads.

Continue...

A very interesting article in USA Today on the future viability of suburbs came up in our Twitter feed this morning, via Community Research Partners of Columbus, Ohio.

The piece, by Haya el Nasser, starts out talking about how population is falling in many of the suburbs that grew most quickly over the last few decades -- places like Bellevue, Washington. These communities have become known as "boomburbs." But their boom days are past -- for now. Some have begun losing population.

The most interesting angle in the article, however, isn't the decline of suburban fortunes and the real estate market that fueled them. It's what municipal leaders and researchers are saying will be necessary to make those places economically viable in the future. Which is this: they'll have to become more like cities. Denser. More walkable. Not bedroom communities, but self-contained communities.

Robert Lang, a professor of sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas who coined the term "boomburbs," put it this way: "The irony is that if they want to keep growing, they must grow as cities, which is diametrically opposite of how they got so big in the first place."

And transit will be key to that transformation:

Will light rail pave the way to a different future in Irving, Texas? (Photo: pinecone via Flickr)

Population has declined since 2006 in Irving, Texas, but the city is prepared for healthy growth as soon as a light-rail line to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport is completed. "Eventually, you have to shift your focus to not just booming growth but redevelopment," Mayor Herbert Gears says. "That (rail) line is what's given us the opportunity to create an urban center."

Condominiums, apartments and retail are planned along the transit line. The city projects a 240,000 population by 2015, an 11% jump.

Growth in Henderson, Nev., near Las Vegas, has slowed but not stopped. "With the slowdown we've seen, it gives us an opportunity to take a breath," says city spokesman Bud Cranor. Henderson is focused on creating "green" jobs and a more sustainable urban environment, he says.

The article highlights what is emerging as a powerful unifying argument for smarter development: economics. It's an approach that could bring conservatives and liberals together. And it will certainly be part of Transportation for America's upcoming discussion on conservatives and public transportation.

More from the network: Bike Portland on results from an ad campaign that asked, "Should cyclists pay road tax?" Dotage St. Louis on an attractive replacement for a parking lot. And Rights of Way in Portland, Maine, on what a difference a four-foot narrowing of a street can make.

• Controversy grows over the Obama administration's ill-starred attempt to count jobs created or saved by the economic stimulus law, including transport projects (Bloomberg, NYT Blog)
  

• Nominee for Amtrak's board of directors says the train network needs better financial management (NorthJersey.com)
  

• Green transportation analyst: Let's redirect unused infrastructure stimulus money to transit (Det. News)

• Untapped demand leading to transit growth in unlikely places (Planetizen)

• When you hear members of Congress say that U.S. emissions limits can't come without China changing its ways ... well, we're a notable contributor to their higher pollution levels (WSJ Blog)

• Asphalt and concrete makers join the groups pushing for quick passage of a new long-term federal infrastructure bill (Dow Jones)
  

Hey, we need your help again for our next slide show. This one is going to make you feel good. We're looking for pictures of kids on bikes -- on their own, with their parents, on trailers and seats and Xtracycles and whatever other kind of rig there is. Show us what you've got.

Send your JPEGs to sarah [@] streetsblog [dot] org, or tag them with "kidbikes" and "streetsblog" in Flickr. Your deadline is next Tuesday, November 24.

Our past slide shows have been on bike traffic, space hogs, work bikes and crummy transit conditions. Check them out if you haven't already.

As the Obama administration today faced new criticism of its methods for tracking jobs created or saved by the $787 billion stimulus law, a bipartisan quartet of mayors was weighing in at the Brookings Institution about the recovery effort's impact on their local economies.

The mayors' verdict: Directing stimulus money through state capitals has left cities with the short end of the stick.

"Cities are not getting their proportional share" of stimulus money, said Scott Smith, the GOP mayor of Mesa, Arizona.

Federal recovery aid has helped "on the fringes" of Mesa's budget, Smith explained, but most funding hasn't been able to blunt the near-term effects of the local budget crunch.

In other words, he said, Washington aid could help build a new firehouse but was less likely to hire any workers to fill it.

Despite a push from urban mayors to send direct stimulus money to cities, the states ended up controlling the distribution of the federal recovery funds. That allowed state legislatures to "take a lot of" Obama administration money to fulfill their legal mandates for balanced budgets, according to Elaine Walker, the Democratic mayor of Bowling Green, Kentucky.

State officials "siphon off a portion" of federal stimulus money to pay for their administration costs, Walker lamented today, even as they "don't want to allow [city leaders] the option of increasing our revenue streams because that may be construed as raising taxes."

The perils of directing federal aid through state capitals are especially palpable on the transportation front, where state DOTs are apt to push projects that have no local support and take a negative approach to safety. But the mayors' observations went beyond infrastructure and spoke to the overall effectiveness of the massive recovery law, which may well determine the legacy of President Obama's first years in office.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said his city has received only $14 million of its $157 million in "awarded" stimulus money. Nutter told the Brookings audience that he suspects, "quietly, some of the federal officials would admit that running the bulk of the [stimulus] money through the states" was a bad call.

"You want to put people to work? Build something in cities," he added, sneaking in a Palin-themed jab: "Every bridge in the state of Pennsylvania goes somewhere."

Any proposal to fund new U.S. infrastructure investment by taxing financial transactions -- such as Rep. Pete DeFazio's (D-OR) bill taxing Wall Street oil speculators -- would require international participation to prevent the trades in question from migrating overseas, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said today.

As House Democrats weigh their options for a new job-creation plan, slated for a vote before year's end, infrastructure spending is attracting new support from party leaders. But the question of how much to spend, and whether a new six-year transportation measure could be presented as a jobs bill, is tied up in ongoing uncertainty over where the necessary funding would come from.

DeFazio's recommendation to impose a small per-trade tax on the Wall Street oil futures market has picked up endorsements from progressive economists and writers as well as 29 of his fellow Democrats. Pelosi, however, was cautious in addressing its prospects today during her weekly press briefing.

"One of the concerns that some of us have about it," the Speaker said, "is what it [might do] to us in terms of transactions going offshore."

Emphasizing that the idea "is just something that is on the table," Pelosi added that passing a tax proposal such as DeFazio's would require consultation with and buy-in from other nations: "It would have to be an international rule, not just a U.S. rule."

Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is among those who have expressed concerns that a Wall Street transaction tax, unless properly structured, would drive financial activity onto foreign commodity exchanges, thus generating lower-than-expected revenues.

Imposing a transaction tax "country by country ... would be a problem," Frank told the Wall Street Journal last month.

Pelosi's response today does not signal a decline in House-side momentum for DeFazio's proposal; she noted that financial regulators in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have spoken favorably of transaction taxes (also known as "Tobin" taxes).

But even if House Democrats ultimately embrace the idea as a revenue-raiser for their jobs bill, the proposed tax is guaranteed to face an uphill battle in the Senate -- where Wall Street has no shortage of powerful allies.

As Streetsblog Capitol Hill readers may know, there is no love lost between lawmakers on the House transportation committee and President Obama's economic advisers.

When the Obama administration first pushed to delay the next federal long-term infrastructure bill by 18 months, transport panel chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) quipped that "folks in the economic gang at the White House" -- think economic adviser Larry Summers -- "never had a shovel in their hands or a callus on their fingers. And Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR), who said in January that Summers "hates infrastructure," offered another no-holds-barred take last night.

In an interview with MSNBC's Ed Schultz (viewable above), DeFazio confirmed that House Democrats are discussing plans to spend unused money from Washington's $750 billion Wall Street bailout on job-creation programs, including infrastructure. But Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are set against the idea, DeFazio added.

"Unfortunately, the president has an adviser from Wall Street, Larry Summers, and an adviser from Wall Street, Timmy Geithner, who don't like that idea," the Oregonian lawmaker told Schultz.

"They want to keep the money [because] there may be more needs on Wall Street, or maybe we should use it to pay down the deficit."

DeFazio went on to hint that progressive Democrats in the House are discussing a formal suggestion that Geithner and Summers be removed from their posts: "We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans."

President Obama may be optimistic about continued U.S. economic growth as 2009 ends, but the reality on the ground in urban America -- which an estimated two-thirds of the population calls home -- is undeniably, disturbingly bleak.

That was the message delivered today by two economists and a bipartisan quartet of U.S. mayors at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Michael Nutter, Philadelphia's Democratic mayor, seemed to sum up the mood as he mused aloud that the federal government had seen fit to deliver no-strings-attached cash to financial and auto companies deemed "too big to fail."

"Cities and metro areas are too important to fail," Nutter said, adding that successful urban government is "equally or, I'd suggest, more important than anything that's going on in industries."

Unfortunately, economic data suggests that cities are only just beginning to bear the brunt of what some have christened "The Great Recession." Steve Cochrane, managing director of Moody's Analytics, showed today's Brookings audience a map of the nation with states where employment could be expected to rebound the quickest.

A dozen states, including urban-dominant economic powerhouses such as New York, California, and Illinois, were colored bright red -- meaning that their employment recovery could be expected after 2013, or even later. A city-by-city map of housing price declines had more bad news for northeastern and West coast cities, showing that the foreclosure crisis has yet to hit bottom in those areas.

What does this mean for urban priorities, particularly transportation and infrastructure? The percentage of city officials reporting to the National League of Cities (NLC) that they are "less able" to meet financial needs jumped from 3 percent in 2007 to 88 percent in 2009, the highest number in the 26 years the NLC has measured metro fiscal health.

When the NLC asked urban officials to describe where they were cutting spending, 62 percent said capital infrastructure projects were being delayed or canceled. That high number suggests sustained, intense cuts in cities' ability to work on their built environments, NLC research director Chris Hoene said today. "[Cities] are going to be in trouble for years," he predicted.

How is the economic downturn affecting city services? Transit riders in many areas are sadly familiar with service cuts caused by budget austerity, but other aspects of urban community maintenance are dying out.

Continue...

Despite the growing national attention to the dangers posed by distracted driving, full accountability for drivers who kill or maim pedestrians while fiddling with electronic devices is likely a long way off. As today's post from Streetsblog Network member Sustainable Savannah notes, law enforcement officials too often seem to see things from the perspective of the person behind the windshield:

Photo: hebedesign via Flickr

While researching a recent pedestrian death in Savannah, I ran across this television news report, which I think deserves to be examined on its own. If I’m hearing him correctly, this is the message delivered by a Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police officer:

"Someone could be looking down at their cellphone. Next thing they know they look up and there’s a kid in the road or a person in the road where they are not supposed to be at. And they don’t have time to stop. And like I said, pedestrians will lose that battle every time."

Perhaps this short comment from the officer was taken from a longer segment in which he railed against distracted driving. I hope that’s the case and if so, I commend him for it. But if not, it suggests a terribly casual attitude toward an awfully dangerous practice.

Sustainable Savannah links to Tom Vanderbilt's recent excellent essay on Slate, "In Defense of Jaywalking." Read it if you haven't already. It is a concise and well-researched examination of the biases against pedestrians -- biases that are reflected in media coverage and law enforcement, but most importantly, in street design.

More from around the network: Transportation for America will be hosting an online discussion December 7 on conservatives and public transportation. Biker Chicks of West Chester decries the push to register bikes in Philadelphia. And Mobilizing the Region talks about how transit operating aid is the best route to job creation.

• House Dems continue a growing drumbeat in favor of infrastructure investment to create new jobs ... but the funding question remains unanswered (WSJ)
  

• Texas Republican gubernatorial foes Hutchison and Perry trade jabs over transportation funding (News Messenger)
  

• A new poll with an eye-rolling setup: 6 in 10 people think transit and carpooling are good for the environment, but 4 in 10 aren't likely to take advantage of the options. But 3 in 10 respondents live in rural areas where "transit is generally not readily available" (AP)

• Ah, Maryland: the Montgomery County Council wants state transportation authorities to lower their planned tolling charges on the massive new Intercounty Connector road (Balt. Sun)

• Ah, Virginia: Dwindling revenues will hit the state to the tune of $851 million over the next six years (Times-Dispatch)
  

• Inspired by Transportation for America's pedestrian safety report, one Florida performance artist is aiming to cross the state's dozen most dangerous intersections (Sentinel via T4A)

• NIMBYism constrains California solar power projects (WSJ Blog)
  

Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and fellow lawmakers today pressed the Obama administration to take a more active role in ending the current political stalemate over federal transportation funding, but the sense of urgency they sought emerged only intermittently during an 80-minute session on infrastructure.

Roy Kienitz, U.S. DOT's undersecretary for policy, told Boxer that the cancellation of $8.7 billion in contracting authority -- which took effect when Congress passed the first of two stopgap federal transport law extensions in September -- is forcing a 30 percent cut in local spending power, although each state will feel the effects at a different pace.

"It's pretty important when we see that we're giving the states 30 percent less than they should be getting," Boxer replied, asking the administration for help in marshaling support for a six-month extension of the 2005 transport law.

She added that senators would appreciate White House assistance in ending "the standoff" with the House, where transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) continues to call for passage of his new six-year transport bill.

Boxer described the House approach as: "Let's just bring it to a crisis point, then we'll go double the gas tax and solve the whole problem." She noted that Democrats lack the votes for that strategy in the Senate (and likely the House as well).

But the administration gave a fairly lukewarm answer to Boxer's urging. Deputy Transportation Secretary John Porcari restated the White House's endorsement of an 18-month extension before conceding that a six-month window is "better than a 30-day."

In a startling tonal contrast, Porcari acknowledged minutes later that America is dangerously "behind the curve" on infrastructure investment.

"We're clearly not doing right by the next generation with what we're doing now," he said.

The lack of sustainable funding remains the biggest obstacle to taking up a new long-term transportation bill, and Boxer nodded to that fact by asking the administration to begin working on alternatives to the federal gas tax -- which has remained at 18.3 cents per gallon since 1993 and lost value as fuel-efficient cars become more popular.

"[A]t the end of the day, we need to think outside of the old ways," she said. "So far, there hasn't been a lot of ideas forthcoming [from the White House], because there are a few other things on the plate -- and I get it. But this needs attention."

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), a member of the environment panel, asked Kienitz whether the administration was planning for a new transportation funding mechanism. "We're working hard to prepare internally," Kienitz replied, before adding that "none of that" is close to the form of an official proposal. 

Continue...