Beyond the Stimulus: Congress Lays Down Mass Transit Markers
During the debate over mass-transit funding in the stimulus bill, TPMDC highlighted the puzzling disconnect between the Obama administration's calls for investment in sustainable transportation and its low level of actual money to modernize the system.
Now that modernization debate has moved into its next phase, with Congress poised to take up its five-year transportation authorization bill later this spring. The prospect of kick-starting a true greening of U.S. transportation policy has prompted lawmakers to introduce two bills that form a progressive marker for that coming debate.
The first is known as Complete Streets, offered last week by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA). It would ensure that federal transportation spending is apportioned to benefit not only auto drivers but pedestrians and bike riders as well. Complete Streets initiatives have been launched at the state and local level in Minnesota, New York, Washington, California, and elsewhere.
The second green-transit marker bill, known as CLEAN TEA, highlights a growing schism over the distribution of revenue from a possible cap-and-trade climate change regulatory system. CLEAN TEA would ensure that 10% of the revenue from auction of carbon emissions permits goes toward green transportation projects.
The Obama administration has suggested that as much as 20% of auction proceeds could go towards green transit, but Republicans are mounting an early pushback to that effort by insisting that 100% of the proceeds from the system be given back to taxpayers. Look for this question to become a flashpoint during the climate change debate, if and when it finally occurs later this year.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Honestly, I'm just glad were GETTING the chance to have these bills setting the tone for the debate. After the last 8 years, this is music to my ears.
March 19, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
set the tone*
damn my wandering mind.
March 19, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fixing a hole where the rain gets in, perhaps?
March 21, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite a change, I agree. A most welcome change.
March 19, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
As South Carolina Governor Allen Stanford and Mississippi Governor Haleys Barber would say, "mass transit" is no more than a euphemism for socialized transportation. I'm tired of free rides. Let people pay to get around out of their own pocket. Quit picking my pocket, Euroclowns!
March 19, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I walk, ride my bike, or take transit instead of driving, I am sacrificing my own personal convenience but am freeing up road space for other motorists, thereby reducing congestion. Currently, drivers pretty much get a "free ride" from my congestion-reducing behavior. When drivers spend money on programs that encourage other people to not drive, they benefit from reduced congestion. Drivers should pay for that benefit.
In addition, because most businesses provide free (or below-cost) parking, which is paid for by charging higher prices to all customers (including those who don't use the parking), pedestrians/cyclist/transit users are constantly subsidizing drivers. If you agree to stop picking my pocket, I might not ask for some of that money back.
March 19, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
agree to stop picking my pocket
I'd settled for:
"agree to stop trying to kill me when I'm on my bike"
March 19, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
another redneck that has never left his own neighborhood.
theres more to the world then the confederacy.
March 19, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see, transportation gets it's just due. That is money we get back for sure.
March 19, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
"Republicans are mounting an early pushback to that effort by insisting that 100% of the proceeds from the system be given back to taxpayers."
from a linked article: "Corker: 100% of Any Cap-and-Trade Revenue Should Be Returned to the American People, Not Used to Grow Government "
I am not in favor of growing government (except in a small percent to improve regulation and oversight in area sorely lacking those). Is anyone seriously proposing that some large fraction of C&T revenues be used to grow government, or is this just another right wing strawman?
March 19, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry to rain on everyone fantasy dream of a utopian road system, but putting federal dollars into a mass transit plan that include bike lanes is just a waste. Let the cities pay for their own city planning adjustments. Buses I can see. Subways and light rail, maybe. But bike lanes and sidewalks?...give me a break. This is a complete give away to cities.
March 19, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of trips are rather short for lots of people. Biking and walking work really well assuming it is actually possible but a lot of places it isn't. You need to be a track star to cross a busy 4 lane road and you can pretty much forget it on a bike.
Who would think that someone with a handle like busdrivermike would be so profoundly ignorant about transportation.
March 21, 2009 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
busdriver mike, more than half the country lives in cities, and have been paying taxes to rural "givaways" for a generation. I don't begrudge them the money, I grew up in a small farming town. But the idea that something which benefits more than half the population is an unjustified expense is ridiculous.
March 21, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
busdriver mike does not seem to understand the purpose of the Complete-the-Streets bill. All the bill says is that when Federal dollars are used on a road project, that project should serve all the road users -- including bikes/peds. This is not utopian, but common sense.
March 21, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my question: why aren't Congressional Dems insisting that 100% of the revenue from the auction of carbon emissions permits go toward green transportation projects? That would indicate a true committment to getting us off our addiction to foreign oil.
For instance, in the West, there are plans right now to turn I-5, the main north/south highway that stretches from the Mexico border in California all the way up to Washington state's border with Canada, into the "Green Highway," with alternative fuels filling/electric car recharging stations all along it's route. Washington state is set to proceed with plans this summer.
But why stop there? Why not line the highway's route with solar panels that would generate energy, or with wind turbines? It would cost a fortune to do so, but think of the eventual benefit. And the additional energy-generating modifications to the "Green Highway" - and projects like it in other regions - could be funded with the revenues from carbon emmissions permits. But only 10% won't do the trick.
(Here's an article about the "Green Highway" plans: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/for-a-western-interstate-alternative-fuels-beckon/)
March 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink