Living Car Free - Interesting article on possible Obama pick for Transp. Sec.

My co-author at AustinBikeBlog.org (http://austinbikeblog.org) just wrote an interesting article on the names being banded about for Transportation Secretary in the Obama Administration and what that could mean for federal dollars being spent on cycling and pedestrian infrastructure: http://austinbikeblog.org/2008/11/10/will-obamas-secretary-of-transportation-choice-be-good-for-bikes-and-transit/

My favorite pick is Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner, New York City Department of Transportation (http://austinbikeblog.org/2008/10/27/nyc-dot-commissioner-makes-space-for-people-not-cars/), who realizes streets are community space, not just places allow cars to move as quickly as possible. She's started some great projects in NYC.

Any other thoughts on how Obama might improve things?

How much can be done at the federal level... other than just throwing money at the problem?

My co-author at AustinBikeBlog.org (http://austinbikeblog.org) just wrote an interesting article on the names being banded about for Transportation Secretary in the Obama Administration and what that could mean for federal dollars being spent on cycling and pedestrian infrastructure: http://austinbikeblog.org/2008/11/10/will-obamas-secretary-of-transportation-choice-be-good-for-bikes-and-transit/

My favorite pick is Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner, New York City Department of Transportation (http://austinbikeblog.org/2008/10/27/nyc-dot-commissioner-makes-space-for-people-not-cars/), who realizes streets are community space, not just places allow cars to move as quickly as possible. She's started some great projects in NYC.

Any other thoughts on how Obama might improve things?

New York Times featured a number of potential cabinet and staff members, but the only one I remember from this blog is Valerie Jarrett, who might become Obama's replacement in the Senate.

Yet, coming from the bike-friendly city of Chicago, you'd think an Obama administration would be more aware of bicycle and other transportation alternatives. This could become really important now that we are in a credit crunch. While cities may be finding it more difficult to afford upgrades to their car infrastructure, an alternative approach to transportation issues might be a good fit for some of these cities. And a savvy Washington administration that holds the purse strings, might not be a bad idea either. There are a lot of ideas that are popping at this time that would have seemed heresy a few years ago... now people are more inclines to say "hmmm... maybe that's not such a bad idea."

Based on a policy speech he delivered here in Lansing before the election, I think Obama has a good understanding of the synergistic effects of investing in infrastructure--alternative energy and plug-in cars as well as roads and railways.

Short term, this investment will create jobs as well as new markets for struggling businesses. Medium term, better infrastructure will encourage more onshore capitol investment, as well as ameliorate global warming and pollution. Long term, investment in something of real value might even help us get off this suicidal credit-debt merry-go-round.


My questions are:
Does Obama have the political will and skills to push through some big ticket spending that is fairly risky?
Does he have the wisdom to keep his focus on the big picture?
Can the Congress quit bickering enough to actually accomplish something more far-reaching than welfare for corporations?
Will businesses seek ways of making good profits that are compatible with larger social and strategic goals?
Will we--the American people--be able to actually debate an issue on its merits, make some decisions, then hunker down and make it work?

How much can be done at the federal level... other than just throwing money at the problem?

Actually, one key to ending a recesion or depression is to throw money at the problem. In the New Deal this meant that governments literally hired unemployed people to work on public infrastructure projects such as highways, parks and electrification. A more modern approach is for government to give tax credits to private companies that expand employment.

My co-author at AustinBikeBlog.org (http://austinbikeblog.org) just wrote an interesting article on the names being banded about for Transportation Secretary in the Obama Administration and what that could mean for federal dollars being spent on cycling and pedestrian infrastructure: http://austinbikeblog.org/2008/11/10/will-obamas-secretary-of-transportation-choice-be-good-for-bikes-and-transit/

My favorite pick is Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner, New York City Department of Transportation (http://austinbikeblog.org/2008/10/27/nyc-dot-commissioner-makes-space-for-people-not-cars/), who realizes streets are community space, not just places allow cars to move as quickly as possible. She's started some great projects in NYC.

Any other thoughts on how Obama might improve things?

The article on your blog is very helpful. Thanks for posting it here. :)

I guess my first choice is Blumenauer. I think it's fine for us to scrap for bike funding now, but a lot of good programs will not be funded at this time of crisis. We might have to wait longer thn we would like.

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/barack-obama-bicycle-20080804-102522.jpg

How much can be done at the federal level... other than just throwing money at the problem?

I agree with Roody on this. One of the biggest problems with our federal government is that it has been running deficits over the last 8 years without anything to show for it. $600 tax credits do little to improve the economy long term. Building bridges, roads, rail lines, power grids, these things create the infrastructure that drives the economy. If you don't believe me, look at the stimulus plan the Chinese are doing. They aren't giving no questions asked bailouts to banks. They are investing in more industry.

Regarding bicycle infrastructure, I don't think we should wait. Bike facilities are cheap and easily added to other larger projects. If we can get them put in as part of any federal project, that would be huge. That's why we need a Transportation Secretary that thinks of pedestrian, cycling, and transit as part of a whole solution with cars, not just an afterthought.

How much can be done at the federal level... other than just throwing money at the problem?

Personally, throwing money at the problem is a grand idea.

Madison has streets that are in very poor repair. We have no train service. Our idiot mayor wants to cut bus service and increase fares to $2/trip. Many intersections are ok if you're in a car, and terrible on foot or on a bike. A new tenant in my building is blind, and many of the worst intersections make life *very* difficult for her.

The fix for all of these problems is money. And federal money would cover quite a few of the potential projects here, since a lot of the worst roads are US Routes... Add in that it would add jobs and improve quality of life, and I'm all for it.

How much can be done at the federal level... other than just throwing money at the problem?

You need money thrown at the problem to implement solutions on a large scale. You also need a plan to use the money wisely. That's what makes it important to elect someone with the right plans. That's why lots of people are hopeful we'll get some money spent in the right direction with this new administration.

The fix for all of these problems is money. And federal money would cover quite a few of the potential projects here, since a lot of the worst roads are US Routes... Add in that it would add jobs and improve quality of life, and I'm all for it.

Block grants from the feds to state and local governments is another way to spread stimulus money fairly quickly. These grants could be spent on projects that have already been planned but not funded. They could even be used for routine maintenence like potholes and bridges.

I guess what I meant was... most of the planning is done on the state and local level. The federal government may provide funding, so... no money without federal approval of the plan (including bike, ped, or other transport).

I just have a feeling that cities will continue to create "door lanes", and call it a cycling plan, and the fed will pay.

The only nationwide way to make this work is a comprehensive national plan... that the federal government would be overstepping it's bounds in mandating. Not that I'd have a problem with it if it means better cycling infrastructure.

Personally, throwing money at the problem is a grand idea.

Madison has streets that are in very poor repair. We have no train service. Our idiot mayor wants to cut bus service and increase fares to $2/trip. Many intersections are ok if you're in a car, and terrible on foot or on a bike. A new tenant in my building is blind, and many of the worst intersections make life *very* difficult for her.

The fix for all of these problems is money. And federal money would cover quite a few of the potential projects here, since a lot of the worst roads are US Routes... Add in that it would add jobs and improve quality of life, and I'm all for it.

I agree with you that throwing money at our infrastructure problems would be a grand idea- if we had any money. My concern is that we're so far in the red that we can't rely on traditional, New-Deal-type deficit spending to help us out this time. The last eight years have not been fiscally disciplined ones, to say the least, and we're now stuck in two wars at once, we just promised to pay $700B to bankers who still don't seem to be at all concerned about the general welfare, even after the bailout passed, we owe a whole bunch of money to China and other foreign powers, the middle class, the one part of the population that actually pays taxes, is rapidly becoming impoverished due to the credit crunch and markedly increased unemployment, and now Detroit wants a gigantic handout, too. It would be great to get people working again and to invest in improved/varied infrastructure, but I wonder if Obama, a man I voted for and greatly admire, can pull this off in the current situation. The sh*t is hitting the fan as we speak, and most Americans aren't thinking much about bike lanes right now.

I guess what I meant was... most of the planning is done on the state and local level. The federal government may provide funding, so... no money without federal approval of the plan (including bike, ped, or other transport).

I just have a feeling that cities will continue to create "door lanes", and call it a cycling plan, and the fed will pay.

The only nationwide way to make this work is a comprehensive national plan... that the federal government would be overstepping it's bounds in mandating. Not that I'd have a problem with it if it means better cycling infrastructure.
I think you're right. We might end up with a lot of "bike lanes to nowhere." Cycling advocacy groups should be on the lookout for this kind of thing.

To be effective as an economic stimulus, the money for transportation has to be released very quickly. That's why I'm in favor of federal block grants to states, counties and cities. These monies could be used for deferred projects or for projects that are already planned but projected for future years. Presumsbly many of these projects would include cycling facilities.

I'd love to see my city get a grant for pothole repairs. This would probably be considered as money for motoring interests, but it would actually benefit us cyclists even more.

Block grants are a bad idea because cities just use the money for their own bills. I think any money given to states and cities for infrastructure creation and improvement projects should have time limits and should only be used for the infrastructure.

The city of New Orleans owes the fire fighters union over $250,000,000.00. In a fifteen year legal battle the city finally lost the case and was ordered to pay it. They have NO money to do it. If New Orleans got a grant with no strings attached they would spend it on paying their bills and not on infrastructure.

Every few days there is another news story about some city in the USA going bankrupt due to industries closing or a shrinking tax base. You can bet any block grants to those cities would use the money for paying bills and not infrastructure improvements.

Block grants are a bad idea because cities just use the money for their own bills. I think any money given to states and cities for infrastructure creation and improvement projects should have time limits and should only be used for the infrastructure.

The city of New Orleans owes the fire fighters union over $250,000,000.00. In a fifteen year legal battle the city finally lost the case and was ordered to pay it. They have NO money to do it. If New Orleans got a grant with no strings attached they would spend it on paying their bills and not on infrastructure.

Every few days there is another news story about some city in the USA going bankrupt due to industries closing or a shrinking tax base. You can bet any block grants to those cities would use the money for paying bills and not infrastructure improvements.

You might feel differently if you lived (like I do) in a city where GM is the largest employer, :eek: and foreclosure rates are higher than average. Another hard winter and snow removal costs will eat up the PW funds, leaving us high and dry in pothole season. We've had some success in economic diversification, but new businesses won't want to come to a town with impassable streets. I think block grants would also help prevent layoffs of municipal workers and that also would be a great help. And, like I said before, smooth pavement benefits cyclists as much--or more--as motorists.

I agree that most grants should be used for infrastructure, but maintenence is also important. The city got transport grants to put new benches and litter baskets on our bike trails, and other funds to extend them (bike trails to nowhere). But they can't find the money to keep the pavement smooth enough for bikes.

Of course, different towns have different needs. Somebody needs to figure out what those varying needs are. That somebody also needs to assure that grants are used for the intended purposes, as you say in this post. There was corruption and waste involved in the large block grants of the Nixon era. The "somebody" that I'm talking about is, of course, the Secretary of Transportation. It's an especially important position right now and I'm glad that bikinpolitico started this thread.

Forgive my ignorance if this sounds silly, but what about using a system similar to Adopt-a-Highway? Maybe the cycling commuters in a community could meet together, pool their dollars and Adopt-a-Route?

Well, whatever. I hope the new Sec. of Transportation IS a cyclist.
But that's probably a pipe dream.

Forgive my ignorance if this sounds silly, but what about using a system similar to Adopt-a-Highway? Maybe the cycling commuters in a community could meet together, pool their dollars and Adopt-a-Route?


I bought a small broom last summer. On leisurely rides I carry it and stop to sweep broken bottles and other sharp objects off the paths. In the middle of the city there used to be a guy who went out with a trailer of tools and did what he could to keep the paths clear. It was like his hobby or something. I know individual action isn't so fun as being part of a group with t-shirts and money and potlucks, indians, chiefs and group politics etc. but you could approach it like gardening where you're just taking care of something.

I bought a small broom last summer. On leisurely rides I carry it and stop to sweep broken bottles and other sharp objects off the paths. In the middle of the city there used to be a guy who went out with a trailer of tools and did what he could to keep the paths clear. It was like his hobby or something. I know individual action isn't so fun as being part of a group with t-shirts and money and potlucks, indians, chiefs and group politics etc. but you could approach it like gardening where you're just taking care of something.

Bringing a small broom along is a good idea. (Ran over the remains of a broken bottle this morning, couldn't evade it in time. Fortunately none of it got picked up by my tire.)
Wondering what would make a good temporary pothole filler until the city gets around to fixing them? There's a bad one in the bike lane that could easily spill somebody into traffic. Since I know where they are, I can avoid them, but somebody else may get a nasty surprise. :eek:

Bringing a small broom along is a good idea. (Ran over the remains of a broken bottle this morning, couldn't evade it in time. Fortunately none of it got picked up by my tire.)
Wondering what would make a good temporary pothole filler until the city gets around to fixing them? There's a bad one in the bike lane that could easily spill somebody into traffic. Since I know where they are, I can avoid them, but somebody else may get a nasty surprise. :eek:

This is beginning to sound like a "green guerilla " movement. However, I have seen people where I live do this exact thing... spontaneously, as a group, having a party while they cleaned up.

Bringing a small broom along is a good idea. (Ran over the remains of a broken bottle this morning, couldn't evade it in time. Fortunately none of it got picked up by my tire.)
Wondering what would make a good temporary pothole filler until the city gets around to fixing them? There's a bad one in the bike lane that could easily spill somebody into traffic. Since I know where they are, I can avoid them, but somebody else may get a nasty surprise. :eek:

At least around here, you can call in bike lane potholes to the regular city pothole line... Same with paths IIRC. But the paths are kept up so well that the worst you'd usually see is a narrow crack.

At least around here, you can call in bike lane potholes to the regular city pothole line... Same with paths IIRC. But the paths are kept up so well that the worst you'd usually see is a narrow crack.

I could call the city's public works dept. I have seen trucks going along the MUP and guys cleaning up stuff on the path, or at least checking on it. The biggest problem there is the ground squirrels throwing big piles of sand across the lanes when they dig. :rolleyes:
From what I understand, is they have to include bike lanes when they widen and improve the roads. From what I've read about sharrows, I like that idea a lot better, because some bike lanes put me too close to the curb.

regarding bicycle infrastructure, I don't think we should wait. Bike facilities are cheap and easily added to other larger projects. If we can get them put in as part of any federal project, that would be huge. That's why we need a Transportation Secretary that thinks of pedestrian, cycling, and transit as part of a whole solution with cars, not just an afterthought.

Put a rider on every road/bridgebuilding bill that a certain percentage of the money must go for nonmotorized transport. It needen't be even a very big percentage.

I'd be happy with someone in office that has actually driven a car in the last ten years,as opposed to flying and riding in limos.

Put a rider on every road/bridgebuilding bill that a certain percentage of the money must go for nonmotorized transport. It needen't be even a very big percentage.

I'm not certain, but I think yhey already have something like this.

I'd be happy with someone in office that has actually driven a car in the last ten years,as opposed to flying and riding in limos.

Even better--Joe Biden commuted by train from the Capitol to his home in Delaware.

Put a rider on every road/bridgebuilding bill that a certain percentage of the money must go for nonmotorized transport. It needen't be even a very big percentage.


I'm not certain, but I think yhey already have something like this.

If IIRC the current requirement is that it be considered...but that is no guarantee it will be included. Also with a huge chunk of the federal highway dollars being used for freeways, inner loops, outer loops and widening of US highways cycling/pedestrian infrastructure is probably the last thing they think about. Also as I understand it, most local roads are funded on a city, county or state level, and I don't believe they have any requirements unless they are utilizing federal dollars and again it is strictly voluntary. THAT needs to go away and the requirements of cyclists and pedestrians become mandatory.

Something else I have noticed in many areas is sidewalks leading up to the edge of a WM parking lot, but no sidewalks once you get on their property, except right in front of the store. One in particular in North Charleston, SC you have to either walk on the grass/mud or walk in the roadway once you leave the public street!:notamused: They could make very effective use of zoning to encourage access by alternate means but do not appear interested, the car is still king...perhaps a doddering, old failing king...but still king!


Aaron:)

I'm not certain, but I think yhey already have something like this.

If they have, I haven't seen it in any of the local projects around here.

My plan would be to hire about 100,000 beat-cops and make sure they all know that their jobs came out of bike trans money so that when one shows up to the scene of a bike/ automobile "interaction", they know who needs to be cited and prosecuted.

So far, Obama's been full of $H!t:

Obama's 5 Biggest Lies (so far)


1.) I'll close the loop hole that creates incentive for corporations to move jobs overseas.

2.) I'll make it so that you can take 10k out of your 401k w/o a penalty.

3.) My stimulus plan will create jobs; its really a jobs Bill.

4.) I'll bring home about one brigade per month, of troops from Iraq.

5.) Tax rebates to stimulate spending (AARPs Only).

6.) Within my first 100 days in office, my justice department will review every decision made by the previous (Bush) admin. Appparently Obama thinks warrantless searches and wiretaps are okay.

Not only did Obama lie about all these things, he and his administration are devastating every single industry here in the midwest, includiing auto manufacturing and air defense systems.

I had "hope"d that he had more going for him and more to gain by being a stand-up guy than to be another "lie, lie, lie and then lie some more" guy, but its now obvious he did not.

You would funnel the money through the American Association of Retired Persons, Mike S.?

Yaeh, That's me.


Some other things I would do as trans sec'cy would be:

1.) Limit vehicles with more than two axles and a GVW of > 4000 lbs. to freeways.

Our surface streets and roads are not, and never were, designed to be used by huge trucks and mobile homes.

Local drivers would be hired to pick up goods at freeway distribution centers, and deliver to local markets.


2.) Unless and until non-motorized vehicles are allowed to operate and have the same consideration as motorized on interstate freeways, all non-motorized vehicles would have the right-of-way at all times on non-interstate freeways.

Commonly collected tax dollars are used time and again to build interstate freeways through corridors that were established, maintained and used heavily by non-motorized vehicles, making the task of a disadvantaged class even more difficult than it already was.

This practice intentionally creates and constitutes an overly undue burden for non-motorized vehicles (especially pedestrians) and has done so for so long that some compensation is due them.

In that vein I propose that all non-motorized vehicles have the right-of-way over all motorized vehicles on every roadway, except interstates, at all tmes.

But, instead of hiring me or anyone who would do such things, Obama will hire someone like that kid who plays Taj in the lampoon films. Or, anyone black, asian or hispanic.

No Danny. I don'T.. race bicycles, against people, for money.

How come I log into these boards every time to compose but then when I go to post, I have to log in again?

How come I log into these boards every time to compose but then when I go to post, I have to log in again?
Check the "Remember Me" option when you log in.

Limit vehicles with more than two axles and a GVW of > 4000 lbs. to freeways.


My Camry weighs 4,360 lbs. Exclude mid-sizes too? :lol:

My Camry weighs 4,360 lbs. Exclude mid-sizes too? :lol:

Yes.

Also, make three-wheelers legal (they aren't everywhere.)

Based on a policy speech he delivered here in Lansing before the election, I think Obama has a good understanding of the synergistic effects of investing in infrastructure--alternative energy and plug-in cars as well as roads and railways.

Short term, this investment will create jobs as well as new markets for struggling businesses. Medium term, better infrastructure will encourage more onshore capitol investment, as well as ameliorate global warming and pollution. Long term, investment in something of real value might even help us get off this suicidal credit-debt merry-go-round.


My questions are:
Does Obama have the political will and skills to push through some big ticket spending that is fairly risky?
Does he have the wisdom to keep his focus on the big picture?
Can the Congress quit bickering enough to actually accomplish something more far-reaching than welfare for corporations?
Will businesses seek ways of making good profits that are compatible with larger social and strategic goals?
Will we--the American people--be able to actually debate an issue on its merits, make some decisions, then hunker down and make it work?


Not to toot my own horn, but my predictions of 9 months ago are turning out to be pretty accurate--and still unanswered.

I'd be happy with someone in office that has actually driven a car in the last ten years,as opposed to flying and riding in limos.

Ya know, I've thought the same thing for years. I've driven my late granddad's Lincoln Town Car -- I know what it's like to float down the road. I should drive them around in my Civic just so they can feel how rough the streets can be.

I doubt I will see it in my life, but I think every major city should have at lease 2 ways out of town besides a freeway, something a cyclist could stand a chance of riding without a fear of being hit by a car.