Here’s a not from the Streetsblog network urging folks to call their Senators NOW. There are also efforts going on to specifically strip bike funding…
Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are leading a small group of centrist Senators which, reportedly, is trying to cut the stimulus by about $100 billion. Supposedly, they feel the stimulus is too large. But according to a memo obtained by The Plum Line, they’re also adding in some items as well.
According to the memo, they hope to cut $3.4 billion from public transit, but at the same time, are adding in more money for “additional transportation funding.” Presumably, if they’re cutting transit, that additional funding would go to roads. (It might be airports, I suppose, but I doubt it.)
They’re also cutting such items as Head Start, food stamps, child nutrition, firefighters, COPS hiring, NASA, and the CDC, while adding funding for defense operations and procurement.
The Senators reportedly in the room are Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Begich (D-AK), Tom Carper (D-DE), John Tester (D-MT), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Jim Webb (D-VA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Michael Bennett (D-CO), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Udall (D-CO), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and George Voinovich (R-OH). We don’t know if all of them support these cuts or not (Carper is a big rail advocate, for example).
This group seemed to be trying to take the mantle of the “responsible” people limiting the stimulus’ excess. Of course, many economists think the stimulus is, if anything, not large enough. If it is to shrink, we should cut those items that won’t spend the money right away. Those of you in defense can correct me if I’m wrong, but any new defense spending would end up going to projects pretty far down the road. Meanwhile, giving poor families food stamps and hiring more police can be spent right away.
Few people actually believed Collins, Nelson, and the rest of this “gang” were trying to actually be responsible spenders. It’s clear, now, that they aren’t even trying to make it look that way.
Call your Senators. Especially those of you who live in Virginia.
Let’s hope Earl is on the conference committee.
12 responses to “Senate Attacks Alternative Transportation in Stimulus”
They also are trying to pull bicycle path funding, (go look at bikeportland.org)
Have bike paths been shown to improve commerce or anything? I know roads and transit can, but I’ve never really seen any good studies showing that bike use adds significantly to the GNP of a nation.
I think that’s the point of a stimulus, not to get pet projects passed, but maybe I missed something.
One in every ten jobs in the US is tied to the auto industry. The bicycle industry adds at best only a pittance to the US economy. Transit fares cover only twenty-something of the operating costs. The stimulus dollars need to be used for paving streets, repairing bridges, other infrastructure maintenance that is long overdue, and even for tax breaks given to those who purchase a new American car thereby helping out the struggling auto manufacturing industry. We’re talking about the economy here and the financial sustainability of the economy; not building more bicycle infrastructure that gives bicyclists yet another free pass instead of paying their own way, or more transit alternatives that require ongoing and escalating taxpayer subsidies just to keep the wheels rolling. Oregon’s plan is called green, but in actually takes green out of the pockets of many in the form of income. Moreover, as noted by one of the speakers who testified at the Metro CRC hearing yesterday; the State of Oregon has had the highest (possibly one of the highest) average unemployment rates of any state in the nation for the last decade or so. In other words, a sustainable economy and Oregon’s zealous environmental policy extremism simply do not mesh.
Terry Parker:“One in every ten jobs in the US is tied to the auto industry.”
It’s not the job of the free market to protect certain sectors. Do you apply this same logic when the rail industry in America that went down the tubes years ago?
Terry Parker:“Transit fares cover only twenty-something of the operating costs.”
Mass transit was a private industry in America not too long ago (and is in many countries today). This stimulus plan overwhelming favors the automobile from paying actual user-fee costs of travel, creating a skewed transportation market.
It’s easy to “choose” your car when it’s cheap and someone else is paying for it (sure, we can apply this to mass transit – but mass transit isn’t going to change unless the auto transit sector does too. Both are competing systems.).
Assuming both transportation systems paid “their way”, you would see less people driving and more people taking mass transit and that 23% (almost 40% for MAX) fare to cost ratio would increase drastically.
Not to mention there would be less traffic because people would be taking mass transit more.
How about no unfair subsidies for either transit mode?
When are people gonna get PISSED OFF AT THIS S*** and hit the streets?
Assuming both transportation systems paid “their way”, you would see less people driving and more people taking mass transit and that 23% (almost 40% for MAX) fare to cost ratio would increase drastically.
I definitely think this is quite possible. If people were better attracted to transit (because driving looked more expensive), there would be no need for Fareless Square to attract riders and, moreover, many now-poorly-used trips would see more riders filling up the empty seats, bringing in more revenue for about the same amount of costs. Note though that low-density development subsidies would also have to be addressed to see the greatest effect.
Jason McHuff:“Note though that low-density development subsidies would also have to be addressed to see the greatest effect.”
ws: Certainly this is an issue, but assuming that the actual/true costs were visible to the consumer, you would see far fewer auto-dependent communities being built in the first place, even with subsidization.
What needs to occur is an immediate reduction on property/income/sales tax, and an increase on actual costs of transit ridership.
The actual costs represented in transportation will be the true indication of choice. It’s easy to live in an auto-dependent suburb where the cost of riding the automobile is not presented to the individual.
Of course, Terry, you didn’t listen to MY comment at the CRC testimony before Metro.
That person who testified about Oregon’s unemployment was wrong.
There are as of January 27, 2009 – according to the U.S. BLS five states with higher unemployment rates than Oregon.
Additionally, the states with the 10 worst unemployment are all states with drastically varying politics and transportation policy.
Unemployment Rates for States
I’d also like to comment that the states with traditionally low unemployment numbers are generally those that are not producing much economic output.
Wyoming has the lowest unemployment rate but what exactly does it do for the country compared to California (which has one of the highest unemployment rate).
No offense to Wyoming, but a lot of states that are seeing high unemployment rates are “donor” states, meaning they give more in tax dollars than they get back. Oregon is also a donor state (so is Washington).
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html
Maybe the states that have such low unemployment shouldn’t be taking as much in terms of federal tax dollars, since they’re “doing so well”.
I digressed a bit, but it’s interesting to discuss.
Wyoming has the lowest unemployment rate but what exactly does it do for the country compared to California (which has one of the highest unemployment rate).
It used to be that California was a place that was sparsely populated and fairly unimportant, then people moved there. There was a time when Phoenix and Las Vegas weren’t a place anyone would want to move to.
Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio were not always the economic powerhouses they are today. Wyoming may not be an economic powerhouse today, but things can change over a generation or three.
Detroit used to be a great urban center, a great example of a fine American city. I hope Portland doesn’t become the Detroit of the Northwest.
Detroit’s main problem is that it is so wedded to the American auto industry. There is no diversification.
Portland (and Oregon) had that problem with the timber industry in the recent past.
The other “problem” with Detroit was that the city was all but abandoned with the advent of the “suburbs”. I have a few friends from Detroit, and their families are always amazed at how “vibrant” and “alive” the urban neighborhoods are in Portland. In Portland, there has been no mass abandonment of the inner city. I don’t know what the future may bring Portland, but that is another substantial difference between Detroit and Portland.
Wyoming probably has low unemployment due to it’s mining industry. Just a guess there.
I do know that having a city where people could at least function if they could not afford a car is a very good thing. I have lived places where it is 100% impossible to survive without a car. Before I moved to Portland I never would have imagined that a family with 3 adults and a child could function normally with only one car. We could even squeak by with no car – if we really tried hard and changed our lifestyle. But three employed adults and a child in a “commuter” school with only one car between the 4 – is a good testament to the transit, bike and walk-ability of Portland. And we even drive that single car less than “average” annual miles for a car in the U.S.A. Take away the bike and transit access, and this becomes impossible.
I’ve been to Detroit and lived in Michigan for a number of years. If you want to see what fear-mongering coupled with unbridled suburban growth can do to a city just take a drive through Detroit. Just from the freeway you can see many burned out buildings. Short of that, take a look at Google Earth and look at how many blocks are now devoid of housing. This is a city that, at its peak, had over 2 million residents. It now has 900,000. There is still plenty of money in Michigan. Suburban Oakland County is one of the richest in America. The Portland Metro area is incredibly vibrant across the board. Detroit, and its inner ring of suburbs, is a completely different story.