June 2010 Archives

As the Transportation Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development team up to award planning money for "sustainable community" projects, what should they be looking for?

The DOT and HUD formally announced last week that they're making available $75 million for planning on "projects that integrate transportation, housing and economic development." Those projects could include anything from zoning changes allowing more development near transit centers to freight corridors designed for minimum impact on the surrounding area. The alliance is intended to ease the bureaucracy of dealing with multiple agencies. DOT's share of the money is $35 million in TIGER II Planning Grants.

"Livability" has been a common theme in the Transportation Department under Secretary Ray LaHood. A year ago, DOT, HUD and the Environmental Protection Agency announced a sustainable communities partnership, and the current DOT/HUD collaboration has been in the works for months. LaHood wrote on the department's blog recently: "It's pretty clear that housing and transportation decisions affect each other, and the best projects build that relationship into their planning. So it only makes sense to build the housing-transportation relationship into how we evaluate those projects for funding awards."

So now that money is being given out, let's talk about its best use. What kinds of projects should get highest priority? Are there any projects held up in planning purgatory that you'll be happy to see get a smoother ride? What projects around the country could be used as models? Is there a danger that one kind of project could be favored over another, or one region over another?

8 responses: Marion C. Blakey, James Corless, Laura Barrett, Robin Chase, Gabriel Roth, Nancy LeaMond, William Millar, Tom Madigan

Much of the policy debate over electric vehicles has focused on their impact on the environment and energy consumption. For instance, when the federal government gave out more than $2 billion in stimulus money for electric vehicle technology last year, it was the Energy Department that selected the 48 winning projects. But are we paying enough attention to issues that are normally in the Transportation Department's purview, like fuel efficiency and infrastructure needs?

What's the best role for federal, state and local transportation departments to play in developing and promoting electric vehicle technology? If government is to take an active role in putting electric cars on the road, what can transportation officials do that they aren't doing now? Or should the electric vehicle experiment go on without the DOT? How much should be left up to the private sector, from R&D to charging stations? What practical questions aren't being asked?

14 responses: Jan Mueller, Tom Madigan, Cynthia J. Burbank, Parris N. Glendening, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., James Corless, Rob McCulloch, Emil H. Frankel, Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., Tom Madigan, John Horsley, Dave McCurdy, Gabriel Roth, Colin F. Peppard

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood this month sought to calm a dust-up with trucking advocates, responding to their concerns that the department didn't value the role of trucks in the nation's freight system. "Truck transportation... will continue to play an essential role in ensuring the economic health of the country and maintaining the United States' position as a leader in international trade," LaHood wrote in a letter to Bill Graves, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations.

Graves had written LaHood in April taking exception to public comments the secretary had made indicating trucks should take a lesser role in moving freight. One example Graves cited was the secretary's remark at a March meeting of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association that the "lion's share" of the department's $1.5 billion in TIGER funding "went into our freight system because it takes trucks off the road -- it takes gas-guzzling trucks off the road." Graves responded that it's not simply a matter of shifting the load to rail and waterways, and suggesting so "is not only factually incorrect, it can breed irresponsible policy."

The dust seems to have settled now. But what do you think about freight transportation and the future of trucking? Since trucks will make up a large portion of our freight mix for the foreseeable future -- Graves writes that trucks are projected to carry 71 percent of the nation's load in 2020 -- what's needed to make sure they're as efficient and clean as possible? Does this become a larger question about infrastructure? Are we using the best freight mix now, or is there a better one? What untapped possibilities do you see for rail and water transport?

7 responses: Emil H. Frankel, Ed Hamberger, Robert Puentes, Bill Graves, Jacqueline Gillan, John Horsley, Bob Poole

The Transportation Department proposed more consumer protections for air travelers last week, piggybacking off newly enacted restrictions on how long passengers can wait on the tarmac. Under the new rule, carriers must increase compensation to travelers who are bumped from their flights; advertise "full fare" ticket prices; publicize all baggage fees; let customers cancel their tickets without penalty within 24 hours of purchase; and ban post-purchase price increases, among other provisions. In addition, the tarmac requirements would be expanded to more airports and to foreign carriers at U.S. airports. The rule is currently open for public comment.

What do you think of the proposed changes? Do consumers need more protection from the airlines? Are there any other passenger issues that need similar attention? Or should government stay out of it? Do you see any negative consequences arising from the new rule -- for passengers as well as the airlines?

8 responses: Geraldine Knatz, Andy Steinberg, Kevin Mitchell, Bob Poole, Ron Kuhlmann, Greg Principato, Carol J. Carmody, Robert L. Crandall

Public transportation systems across the country are under tremendous pressure as the recession has reduced the state and local revenue streams that help fund their operating expenses to nearly a trickle. According to the American Public Transportation Association, 84 percent of transit systems have cut service or raised fares, or might do so. More than half have cut jobs and a third have laid off employees, APTA says.

In response, eight Democratic senators from the Northeast and Midwest have introduced legislation to provide transit systems with $2 billion in emergency aid to cover their operating budgets. By law, mass transportation can only use its share of revenues from the Highway Trust Fund, which provides most federal funding for transit programs, to pay for capital expenses.

Some public transportation advocates want Congress to go a step further and allow transit agencies to use their federal dollars to meet their day-to-day operating costs as well. Others fear that doing so would reduce needed capital investment and could reduce state and local government contributions to transit budgets as a result.

With the federal budget deep in the red, anger over Washington overspending on the rise, and other programs that serve public needs (like education) also clamoring for emergency aid, should the government spend $2 billion on emergency operating assistance for mass transit? When Congress takes up reauthorization of surface transportation programs next year, should it change the law so transit agencies can tap their federal funds to make up for shortfalls in their operating budgets so they don't need emergency aid in the future?

9 responses: Rob McCulloch, William Millar, Mortimer L. Downey, Phineas Baxandall, Rich Sarles, Gabriel Roth, Ed Wytkind, Laura Barrett, James Corless