August 2010 Archives

You never have to wait too long for a new study or report on the shaky condition of our highway funding system. A survey of transportation news in August alone would have found think tanks, journalists and bloggers alike offering their prescriptions for an unfocused, malnourished, misdirected or imperiled Highway Trust Fund.

Just asking how to fix the highway fund seems redundant. But if we come at it from a different angle: Are we raising the money and spending the money in ways that reflect how we actually use the highway system? What do we need to consider in the way of costs and benefits that we aren't taking into account now? Or is the highway-specific premise too limiting in a multimodal world -- is this conversation really about finding a more flexible and comprehensive way of paying for transportation?

6 responses: Emil H. Frankel, Gabriel Roth, Laura Barrett, Jack Kinstlinger, Rich Sarles, Gabriel Roth

A new congressional proposal is designed to ensure a place for freight in planning infrastructure and transportation policy.

The legislation, dubbed the FREIGHT Act, would create a strategic plan for freight transportation; establish a special freight planning and development office within the Transportation Department; and set up an infrastructure grant program. The overarching goals, according to its Senate sponsors, are to make freight transportation safer, more efficient and more eco-friendly.

Supporters admire the bill's scope and say we're overdue for a comprehensive freight policy; at least one major trucking group, however, says the legislation wouldn't go far enough to improve highways.

What's your take on the FREIGHT Act, both its substance and its scope? Should it be folded into a larger transportation reauthorization bill, or is it needed sooner than that? What would you like to see in the freight transportation strategic plan?

12 responses: Leslie Blakey, Emil H. Frankel, James Corless, Ed Hamberger, John Horsley, Jeffrey Shane, Tom Madigan, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., Geraldine Knatz, Kurt J. Nagle, Greg Cohen, Mortimer L. Downey

Is it still possible to promote new bicycling and walking options in harmony with vehicular traffic? Or as city space gets more limited, will planners have to take sides?

There was talk in New York recently about tearing down the Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx and replacing it with open space along the Bronx River -- about 13 acres' worth, according to the New York Times. The paper summed up the clash by calling the Sheridan "a reliable thoroughfare for truckers and an eyesore for Hunts Point residents" and saying it had become "a battleground in a national fight to take urban spaces back from the automobile." John Norquist, president of the Congress for the New Urbanism, was quoted as saying, "We're rolling back the freeway system."

Plans to raze the Sheridan hit a bump when the New York State Department of Transportation found that doing so would make local traffic worse. But we probably haven't heard the last of the broader argument.

So what's at stake here? Will cars and trucks be targeted in future urban transportation planning? Should they be? Who wins or loses if auto space (lanes or even whole roads) is turned over to bicyclists or pedestrians? What cities are striking a good balance today, and what can they teach us about the future?

11 responses: Jose Luis Moscovich, Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Bill Graves, Laura Barrett, Patrick J. Natale, P.E., John Horsley, Keith Laughlin, Eric Britton, Michael A. Replogle, Andy Clarke