Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Last night's news about the denial of Rep. DeFazio's amendment to fund transit operations left us wondering whether parliamentary issues were really the deciding factor. In general, it appears, the Democratic leadership is coming down hard against any add-ons to the recovery package. "There's a desire to keep the bill at the size it is currently," said one House staffer involved in the negotiations who wished to remain anonymous. "Pelosi's office and the Appropriations Committee are resistant to amendments that increase the size of the bill."

Now it's up to the Senate to get this provision into the stimulus bill. Bus and subway riders all over the country need Chuck Schumer and rookie Kirsten Gillibrand to earn their keep on this one. New York's Senate delegation has to come out strong for transit operations if American cities are going to stave off a wave of fare hikes and service cuts.

And wouldn't it be nice to see MTA chief Lee Sander ride the train down to Washington and make the case for transit operations? This seems like a golden opportunity for the MTA CEO to campaign on behalf of straphangers and save the fare.

Meanwhile, as Sarah mentioned last night, the focus in the House now shifts to Jerrold Nadler's proposal to add $3 billion for transit capital investments. The people to call today are Nancy Pelosi (202-225-0100) and Appropriations Chair David Obey (202-225-3365). The Speaker, especially, should be trying as hard as she can to make more room for transit investment if she wants to do right by her San Francisco district.

Janette Sadik-Khan, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Lee Sander. Photo: Paul White.

The Build for America campaign officially launched yesterday afternoon at Grand Central Terminal, one of six events held in cities across the nation. DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan -- joined by MTA chief Lee Sander, U.S. reps Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, and a bevy of advocates -- advanced the case for committing ambitious levels of federal support to modernizing the nation's transportation system.

"America's transportation system is facing a perfect storm of huge costs, declining infrastructure, dwindling resources and dependence on foreign oil," said Sadik-Khan. "And while we're struggling just to fix and maintain our roads, our global competitors are building systems that we simply don't have." The United States does not have a high-speed rail system, she added, and the nation's transit systems are struggling just to keep up with ridership demand.

Most speakers hewed to an economic argument: Federal investment in transportation infrastructure can create jobs as the nation faces the prospect of a deep recession. Investing that money wisely, they said, requires re-orienting spending priorities away from new highway construction and toward rail and transit.

Read more...

Clinton was joined by (l-r) Larry Hanley, of the Amalgamated Transit Union, NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and MTA chief Elliot Sander

Surrounded by a throng of curious commuters under the clock at Grand Central Terminal last Friday, Sen. Hillary Clinton held a press conference calling for increased federal funding for mass transit, saying municipalities around the country needed a "federal partner to get us over the hump of increased demand."

On August 1, Clinton introduced the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act to the Senate; it has already passed the House of Representatives. The bill would provide $1.7 billion, including $237 million for New York, to help public transit systems keep fares down and prevent service cuts in the face of rising fuel costs and soaring ridership (download the bill).

"Across America places that thought there would never be much demand for public transit are now finding that there is," said Sen. Clinton. "We can't keep burdening public transit systems without giving them the money they need to run." Noting that "we are living off the investments of a prior time," Clinton added that "it is unacceptable that [mass transit] commuters would be burdened with further fare hikes and service cuts.... Commuters should not be penalized. They're part of the solution."

Read more...

Yesterday around 10 a.m. I got on the number 3 subway line at Bergen Street in Brooklyn, where I easily found a seat. As usual, I noticed that there was space on the baby-blue benches all the way up to 96th Street, where I switched trains to go to Columbia University at 116th Street. Only the last few stops on the 1 train were crowded.

This almost daily journey of mine up to Columbia, where I've been going a lot lately to research a book, was anecdotal confirmation of what any serious study would probably show you: the city's transit system, while packed at rush hour, has considerable capacity in the off-peak hours.

While I enjoyed my ease in finding a seat, for the city and for its citizens it would be better if the subway lines were more crowded during non-rush hours. The city's transit lines are one of its more expensive and valuable pieces of infrastructure. Having more riders means that the taxpayers, who, lest we forget, ultimately own the subway, are getting more value out of this publicly owned piece of infrastructure.

There's an easy way to do this and that's to substantially lower the cost of an Unlimited Ride MetroCard so that most residents buy them. This is a far more effective way of encouraging off-peak ridership than lower-cost single fares at off-peak hours, which has also been discussed.

Economists talk about the elasticity of purchases, meaning how price sensitive a purchase is. Commuting to work is very inelastic because most people have to get to work and they will pay what they have to to get there. Sure, in the long run they may move to a different neighborhood if commuting costs are too high, but they won't change habits much on a daily basis.

Not so with more optional trips. If you are thinking of stopping for a book on the way home, or trying out a new place for lunch, or even sunbathing in a park, then an extra $2 or even $1 will be a significant deterrent. This is a very elastic commodity. If you have an Unlimited Ride MetroCard, then the cost of an additional trip, once you have committed the "sunk cost," is zero. That's a good thing for citizens' quality of life, and a good thing for the economic health of the city.

Read more...

 
Beer good, ethanol bad 

Pledging support for alternate fuel sources may make for feel-good politicking, but "simply" developing a substitute for gasoline could do more harm than good. Instead, a panel of experts said last week, Americans must seriously address their addiction to fossil fuels, along with the built environment that enables it.

Moderated by new MTA Director Elliot Sander, the panel -- Sonia Hamel, senior associate at the Center for Climate Strategies; Paul Roberts, author of The End of Oil; Lee Schipper, chief of research for EMBARQ; and Steve Winkelman, manager of the Transportation Program for the Center for Clean Air Policy -- spoke before a packed conference room Friday at the Waldorf-Astoria. The transportation workshop was part of the Regional Plan Association's annual Regional Assembly, where Mayor Bloomberg and DOT-commissioner-in-waiting Janette Sadik-Khan would later deliver a congestion pricing one-two punch.

Though no "slam dunk," said Schipper, congestion pricing should be a no-brainer, in part because it would convey the value of Manhattan street space. (Wrote Schipper on the Times' Empire Zone blog: "We pay for parking on the streets and off the streets, why can't we pay for using the streets when they are crowded?") Contrary to what some opponents have suggested, Manhattan's water-locked geography would make congestion pricing easier to implement -- a la Stockholm -- not more difficult, Schipper said.

The focus of Schipper's presentation, however, was not congestion charging, but alternative fuels -- or "alternative fools," as he calls them.

Read more...