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.

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.

Read more...

One of the themes of the financial and economic crisis we've faced over the past two years is that government, pressed into responding to serious economic pain, has often found itself supporting the activities that got us into this mess in the first place.

Irresponsible behavior by banks led them to the brink of collapse -- a collapse which would have sent the global economy into a terrifying period of decline -- and so the government stepped in to prevent bank failures (after learning a lesson from the dreadful experiment with Lehman). But these interventions have put banks in a situation where they stand to gain enormously from taking large and dangerous financial bets.

Similarly, government policies such as low gas tax rates and import protections on light trucks encouraged the development of a bloated domestic auto industry focused on the production of inefficient SUVs.

When high oil prices and deep recession then threatened to push General Motors and Chrysler into bankruptcy, leading to hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, the government felt it had no choice but to step in to keep the companies afloat.

Now the government owns large stakes in companies that will only profit if the American public goes car-buying crazy over the next few years.

The list goes on. The economic crisis that currently afflicts us has made it clearer than ever that we need to change the way we do many things, but because the economy is in such difficult shape, it is hard to pursue anything other than policies designed to keep the economic engine from stalling out completely. Big transitions must wait for later.

Can the same be said for sprawling urban development? Have government interventions essentially bailed out the very places that proved most vulnerable amid oil shocks and housing busts?

Chris Leinberger argued that very point in a recent blog post at The New Republic's Avenue:

While there is no federal or private ... dataset that identifies where exactly in metropolitan areas the most mortgage defaults are, local analyses and some news reports indicate the bulk of the problem is on the fringe...Thus, some of the biggest beneficiaries of federal efforts to stem foreclosures and keep families in their homes are those located in exurbia.

He has a point. Foreclosures have been concentrated on urban fringes, so federal efforts to modify mortgages and otherwise reduce defaults have tended to direct more aid to exurbs than inner suburbs and city centers. In addition, rates of home ownership and car ownership are higher in the suburbs than in city centers, so federal housing subsidies (including the new home-buyer tax credit and low interest rates generally) and automobile subsidies ("Cash for Clunkers") have had a geographic bias toward suburbanites.

To a certain extent, this has been unavoidable. Most Americans live in auto-oriented areas in suburban places, and a large share of those Americans are facing financial difficulty. Any measure that helped stressed households, including checks of equal value cut to all workers, would tend to benefit suburbanites more than urban dwellers.

One should also be careful not to oversell the value of the interventions. Efforts to reduce foreclosures have actually had pretty depressing results.

But certainly the government might have done things differently -- and pursued policies designed to help households as much as possible -- rather than those aimed at keeping households in homes they couldn't afford, or moving families into homes in unsustainably sprawling locations. So it's important to ask: What can we expect for exurban areas and how will the government's policy choices affect them?

Read more...

Early this week, I noticed a number of my favorite bloggers linking to this Elisabeth Rosenthal essay at Environment 360, on the mysterious greenness of European nations. The average American, as it happens, produces about twice as much carbon dioxide each year as your typical resident of Western Europe.

Rosenthal attributes much of this difference to behavioral factors relating, it seems, to Europeans' unique tolerance of inconvenience. She writes:

But even as an American, if you go live in a nice apartment in Rome, as I did a few years back, your carbon footprint effortlessly plummets. It’s not that the Italians care more about the environment; I’d say they don’t. But the normal Italian poshy apartment in Rome doesn’t have a clothes dryer or an air conditioner or microwave or limitless hot water. The heat doesn’t turn on each fall until you’ve spent a couple of chilly weeks living in sweaters. The fridge is tiny. The average car is small. The Fiat 500 gets twice as much gas mileage as any hybrid SUV. And it’s not considered suffering. It’s living the dolce vita.

She later adds:

Also, in Europe, the construction of most cities preceded the invention of cars. The centuries-old streets in London or Barcelona or Rome simply can’t accommodate much traffic — it’s really a pain, but you learn to live with it. In contrast, most American cities, think Atlanta and Dallas, were designed for people with wheels.

What makes this particularly remarkable is that she opens the essay by discussing an experience she has in Stockholm, in which she insists on taking a taxi from the airport, which ends up being much slower and more expensive than the train.

Brad Plumer frames the piece as a fascinating read in light of the "lifestyle taboo," writing:

It's not considered the height of political savvy here in the United States to point out that European lifestyles are greener than our own. Don't expect that line in an Obama speech anytime soon. Too many facets of European life—the cramped apartments, the clotheslines for drying laundry—would likely strike suburbanites as inconvenient, burdensome, or even downright primitive...

Rosenthal wonders whether similar measures could fly in the United States: "I believe most people are pretty adaptable and that some of the necessary shifts in lifestyle are about changing habits, not giving up comfort or convenience." Maybe so, but this sort of talk still tends to be taboo in mainstream U.S. green circles. Josh Patashnik wrote a terrific piece for TNR last year on Arnold Schwarzenegger's brand of "pain-free environmentalism" in California—it's all just peachy to talk about swapping out coal-fired plants for solar-thermal stations, but ixnay on trying to rein in suburban growth or coax people into smaller homes.

I see several problems with Rosenthal's essay and with Brad's framing of it. One is that it's not really correct to attribute the huge gap in per capita emissions between America and Western Europe to the charming European habit of drying their clothes on clotheslines.

As Brad notes, power sources play a major role, whether one is talking about greater use of natural gas, the French nuclear industry, or Iceland's geothermal capacity.

Climate is extremely important. Western Europe is fairly temperate relative to much of America (and especially compared to the dirtiest parts of the country). In the same way, Californians are much greener than Texans, thanks to the moderate conditions along the heavily populated Pacific coast, which reduce the number of days on which home heating or cooling is needed.

But there are lifestyle issues involved, particularly where transportation and land use are concerned. Read more...

Despite talk of a nascent economic recovery, the brutal toll exacted on state budgets by the recession continues -- with palpable consequences for transit riders and already lower-income urbanites. Could the cure for cities' fiscal woes be a dramatic shift in drug policy?

Quite possibly, according to an op-ed in today's Washington Post written by two veteran Baltimore police officers, one of whom now teaches at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Though the revenue-raising potential of decriminalized drug use is not their primary rationale for ending the nation's "war on drugs," the duo argues that legalizing -- and taxing -- drug sales would help fill strained local coffers.

We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we're at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall.

Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do -- for all of us, especially taxpayers. While the financial benefits of drug legalization are not our main concern, they are substantial. In a July referendum, Oakland, Calif., voted to tax drug sales by a 4-to-1 margin. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug war would save $44 billion annually, with taxes bringing in an additional $33 billion.

The prospects for broad federal de-escalation of the "war on drugs" are slim, but a significant test of the idea's fiscal potential could come next year, when California voters may decide on a ballot initiative that would expand and tax drug dispensaries. That state's $26 billion budget gap forced a round of painful cuts that hit almost all sectors of city life.

On Capitol Hill, legislation by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) that would set up a commission to recommend drug policy and criminal justice reforms is slowly gaining momentum, though its potential impact on state budgets would take years to materialize.

Debate over the incendiary urban policy issue of gun possession came to a head today in the Senate, as a proposal to let individuals carry concealed firearms into states with strong weapons limits -- such as New York and Illinois -- was defeated by a narrow margin.

The gun amendment, proposed by GOP Sen. John Thune (SD) would have let residents of states that permit concealed weapons to carry those guns across state lines, effectively neutralizing stronger laws passed by states that use firearm restrictions to combat urban crime.

The Thune amendment fell short by two votes, losing 58-39 as New York Sen. Charles Schumer (D) and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin (D) led a successful filibuster. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also led a group of urban mayors in lobbying against the proposal.

Late Update: Politico gets New York reaction to Thune's claim that concealed weapons would make Central Park safer, including a cutting quip from Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer: "I can't believe someone this ignorant gets elected to the United States Senate."

The link between transportation and public health, explored on this page days ago, is plumbed further in a report released today by PolicyLink and the Prevention Institute with an introduction by Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transport committee.

The report brings together the key pivot points in the transportation debate, many of which have led the news: safety, air pollution, greenhouse gases, physical activity, mental health, and equality.

And Oberstar, in his introduction, neatly sums up the regrettable but manageable consequences of the nation's love affair with its interstates to the exclusion of other priorities:

The asphalt poured and lane miles constructed enhanced our mobility and strengthened our economic growth; but too often, this auto-centric mindset took hold and crowded out opportunities to invest in a truly sustainable intermodal transportation system, in particular a system that meets the needs of under-served communities.

Yet the report's most compelling aspect may well be its discussion of the debate over adding national policy targets to the upcoming six-year transportation bill -- a topic Oberstar has weighed in on of late.

Read more...

Paved roads are a fact of life in most of the country, but should they be permitted in the nation's protected forest areas? The Obama administration says no, as Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack affirmed today in a directive that prohibits road construction in nearly 50 million acres of forest land.

As the Associated Press reports, the most immediate impact of Vilsack's move will come in Alaska, where the Tongass National Forest was poised for a road-building project linked to new logging. But preserving roadless forests is a hot issue all across the west, particularly in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has sought to keep roads out of three national forests that are close to the Los Angeles metro area.

It's important to note, though, that Vilsack's directive is only in place for a year -- meaning that roadless forests won't be assured protection unless Congress steps in to pass the bills sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA).

And for anyone wondering whether keeping roads out of forests is a local issue, check out the Forest Service's list of pavement-free zones in each state. You may be surprised to know how many protected areas there are.

This morning our friends over at Transportation for America are launching a new site called My Commute Sucks, designed to give people around the country a place to vent their frustration over the nation's overburdened and inefficient transportation systems. Commuters can share their tales of commuting woe, upload photos and videos, and also take action by contacting members of Congress to ask for a more sane and sustainable approach to transportation policy.

Already the stories are starting to pile up. Here's one from a New Jersey commuter named Betty:

The Garden State Parkway in New Jersey is a nightmare, just like Jersey's other main arteries.

I would love to bike to the train, but the town of Little Silver doesn't have safe cycling roads. Pedestrians are also at risk on some of the very busy, sidewalk-free and shoulderless roads. 

Finally, the trains are a mess with many discontinuous lines, requiring bus/taxi/light rail connections between stations. ugh 

Build bikeways and we will come! Fix the trains and we will ride!

Brian Fellows asks:

Why should we tolerate 1- and 2-hour commutes?  Think how much time we spend away from our families, burning fossil fuels, and getting stressed out -- every day, every month, every year.  The quantity is staggering.  Even now, just 5 months after the start of our metro area's light rail system (which people are flocking to!) it still takes me an hour to get to work.  Building more lane-miles simply induces more people to drive -- and there you have it: even more traffic.  I would like Congress to attach requirements to highway money that mandate recipients/states to design higher-density and mixed-use development along the highway corridors. 

Go ahead and add your own story. The site has lots of interactive features, including a Twitter feed for micro-rants (tag with #mycommutesucks). You can also follow them on Twitter, they're @mycommutesucks.

When she wrote a column for the New York Sun last year about letting her nine-year-old ride the subway on his own, Lenore Skenazy was pilloried by many as an irresponsible mom. She stuck to her guns, though, and started a blog dedicated to "sane parenting", advocating the idea that we are over-sheltering our children from infinitesimal threats such as stranger abduction. According to Skenazy, the kind of independence represented by that subway trip is necessary and healthy for children -- and their parents as well.

Now she's making the publicity rounds promoting her book, Free-Range Kids. In a recent interview with Salon, she pointed out that  while many American parents are terrified to let their children walk a few blocks or ride public transit, they think nothing of driving them everywhere -- even though car crashes are the leading cause of death for children in the US:

Skenazy: If you don't want to have your child in any kind of danger, you really can't do anything. You certainly couldn't drive them in a car, because that's the No. 1 way kids die, as passengers in car accidents.

Salon: Rationally, why aren't cars the bogeyman instead of stranger abduction?

Skenazy: It would change our entire lifestyle if we couldn't drive our kids in a car, and it's a danger that we just willingly accept without examining it too much, because we know that the chances are very slim that we're going to have a fatal car accident. But the chances are 40 times slimmer that your kid walking to school, whether or not she's the only one, is going to be hurt by a stranger.

Skenazy's answer gets to the heart of why it is so hard for people to accept the many ways in which automobiles hurt everyone in society, perhaps especially children -- through crashes, through polluting the air, through promoting obesity. We can imagine a life in which our children are not allowed to play outdoors, walk to a friend's house or spend any time unsupervised. But we just can't imagine life without cars.

Or can we?