Missing the Train on the Recovery Package

Our
new President and Vice President rode the rails to D.C., echoes of history in
the air. Obama's deliberate choice of a train for his inaugural journey and
Biden's famed love for Amtrak raise hopes that the new Administration
will make public transportation a priority. Unfortunately, the current recovery
bill heads directly down the opposite track.

Transportation
drives our oil dependence and our global warming impact. The sector is
responsible for 70 percent of our oil consumption and second only to electrical
generation in its global warming footprint. Congress finally raised fuel
economy standards in the 2007 energy bill, for the first time in decades. And
this will help. But far more needs to be done, and the current bill just cut
allocations for intercity rail almost 80 percent from new House Transportation
Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar's original proposal, and made similar cuts for
public transit.

A
month ago, Oberstar -- a longtime supporter of transportation alternatives -- proposed serious investment in rail
and transit as part of the recovery bill. He did ask for $30 billion for
highways (which could be new highways or repairs). But he also asked for $12
billion for public transit, and $5 billion for intercity rail (including
high-speed rail). In an oil-addicted nation and a world of escalating climate
change, this was far too much on roads, but at least transit was a significant
part of the mix.

The recovery bill unveiled last week contains several important
steps in other key environmental areas, including support of loan guarantees for renewable energy, weatherization programs
for low-income families, and a boost to alternative energy research and
development. But compared to Oberstar's proposal, let alone where we need
to go, its transportation provisions are a major retreat.

The bill created by the
House leadership, the appropriations committee, and the Obama economic team would
cut $2 billion proposed by Oberstar to help transit agencies provide service
for growing ridership. This follows a 6.5
percent increase in transit use from 2007, the biggest in 25 years.
Meanwhile, local agencies are considering trimming services nationwide, due to
fiscal strain from the slumping economy. Intercity rail faces even bigger
cuts, from $5 billion to $1.1 billion. We already trail the rest of the developed world in
public transportation of every kind. Europe now plans to build thousands of new
miles of rail lines, and China is adding a high-speed rail link between Hong
Kong and Beijing. After eight years of malign neglect during the Bush
administration, we now risk falling even further behind, when this kind of
infrastructure is critical to both our economic efficiency and our ability to
tackle global climate change.

In
a problem with both versions of the bill, the highway investment isn't
explicitly targeted to repair and maintenance of crumbling roads and bridges. That's
indefensible, since the Department of Transportation already considers more than half
of miles driven on pavement as less than "good ride quality," and
that backlogged repair projects can be undertaken quickly, generating nine
percent more than new highway construction. For any money spent on highways,
the commonsense approach is "fix it first."

But most of the
transportation money will likely be spent on new highways, with a far worse energy
impact. Every year, U.S. public
transportation saves 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline and cuts 37 million
metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. It is a key foundation for additional
progress toward energy and climate security. And because in-city rail transit
is electric, it has the potential to be readily fueled by renewable
alternatives. New highway construction also promotes endless sprawl, with
accompanying inefficient use of resources, whereas public transportation
alternatives foster
more clustered development, including in suburban areas, making it possible
for people to avoid lengthy commutes for work, shopping, and even for
socializing and entertainment. The more transit alternatives are
interconnected, the more they build on each other, providing transportation
choices, easing congestion on existing roads, and promoting smart growth that
ultimately costs less and burns up far less time for people in daily commutes.

There's broad public
support for recovery approaches that prioritize transportation alternatives. A
new nation-wide survey
from the National Association of Realtors and Transportation for America shows
that the public is on-board for more transit funding, as well as for the
common-sense idea of repairing existing highways before building new ones. A
whopping 89 percent of those surveyed agreed that transportation investments
should support the goal of reducing energy use. Three-quarters wanted the plan
to support lower carbon emissions. 80 percent preferred prioritizing transit
and repair rather than new highways. And 45 percent believed new highways
should be excluded from the plan altogether. The survey also showed that the
public wants our new national team to preserve the environment, reduce
dependence on foreign oil, and increase transportation choices even if this
delays job creation.

All
of this is happening as new, hopeful leadership steams into Washington. As that
train pulls up, the legislative train is only just leaving the station, and it needs
to make several stops before becoming law. The highway lobby and its allies
will have their say. They already have. It's time now for the rest of us
to get on board and convince the new administration to change course by
boosting investment in transit and rail.