Stimulus bill goes out of its way to neglect transit funding

February 5, 7:33 AMDC Transportation ExaminerKatherine M. Hill

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Transportation Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

My utopia, the one where I can walk or easily reach a destination via transit, also includes a lack of potholes. I want you to know this before I tear into the highway, automotive-friendly and transit-unfriendly stimulus bill. Not because potholes are a danger to cyclists, but because I have a bony bottom and soaring through Charm City can be a pain. (That's not the only reason. Potholes are bad on cars, they give the distinct appearance of a less affluent area, et cetera.)

I sincerely believe that the new administration can help turn our nation from car obsessed to a transit-friendly nation. The Washington Post's travel section waxes every week on the wonders of transit friendly cities in Europe and Asia, and how wonderful it is to exist in a city that makes life easier through its transportation. (This is notwithstanding the rather dour report on Amsterdam last month, which let me down on all my dreams concerning a vacation in the Netherlands. The biking through a field of tulips still exist.) Obama's transportation platform was open to public transportation (pdf), and though he can not be faulted for the many amendments, I remain disappointed in the package.

I don't want to get rid of cars, and I'm not even asking anyone to change the 'tude in this post, I'm just asking for a little more. I'm asking that we open our minds to a better, healthier, less congested future. We can start by demanding our politicians to help us instead of hurt us. Highway-only funds give way to a concrete wasteland, where pollution and sprawl are king. Welcome to the United Suburbs of America.

Yesterday saw Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) introduce two incredibly damaging amendments. #162, removing all money from high speed rail ($2 billion) and #169, which Transport Politic said "would remove the bill's proposed $5.5 billion to be devoted to discretionary funds that could be used for highways or transit, as per the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation." The $5.5 billion would all go to highways. Highways are already receiving buckets of money, about $30 billion has been approved, while tax breaks are handed out to new car buyers. I want to keep the auto industry going, but I'd like for transit agencies to hold on to its jobs and routes, too. (Plus Hollywood is geting $246 million!)

The $25 billion Murray amendment, which promised $5 billion to transit failed. The rest went to roads, sewers, highways (the largest chunk), water, and 655,000 jobs.

When our politicians propose these ridiculous add-ons it's like a slap in the face. I want to see transit outside of major cities; I want reliable and efficient service in the smallest towns, and I wonder if these morons sometimes hear "high speed rail" and "public transportation" and think "urban areas." And I think we know where the minds proposing these ideas go next.

The House bill passed $30 million to highways with a paltry $12 million to transit, upped from $9 million. Drew Hammil, spokesperson for House speaker and alleged transit advocate Nancy Pelosi called the $12 million "a huge step forward," and it is, but it could be better. It should be better. $3 billion does not feel like a victory. I want a solution to our problems, and though the stimulus isn't a cure-all for much of anything, I desperately want it to be. At its current state, the stimulus stands to make the situation worse.

Instead, it could do the following: Prevent futures collapses as the result of the economy (see AIG's collapse and its potential and far reaching effect on transit, and DC's save), build a nationwide rail system (see my dream here), make roads, highways, and bridges safer, save jobs and service cuts, and fix languishing projects. I don't need wi-fi or power outlets. I don't care if there are quiet cars, or if every journey takes longer (we can sleep in our seats).

Update: The following was sent in an e-mail from TRAC's Chris Merriam. I was waiting on Merriam's permission to re-print his words. I think Merriam sums up why this issue is insulting and frustating:

This is unacceptable.  We've spent the past 50 years building mostly highways in America, and all it's gotten us is more congestion and sprawl, which has put us in our current position of dependence on oil.  It'd be one thing if this money were going into fixing existing roads, in order to avoid a repeat of the infamous Minneapolis bridge collapse.  But it is becoming more clear that these amendments are aimed at expanding roads and building new ones.  If this happens, it will only deepen our dependence on oil and cars, pave over more farmland and forests, and hurt our cities.