I am told that as a Senate staffer, Rogoff was very helpful in obtaining Federal support for Seattle’s streetcar.
Peter M. Rogoff, Nominee for Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation
Peter M. Rogoff has served for 22 years on the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee, including 14 years as the Democratic Staff Director of its Transportation Subcommittee. He is an acknowledged expert in the area of federal infrastructure budgeting and finance, having had an active role in the financing of each of the last three comprehensive surface transportation reauthorization bills dating back to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. He was instrumental in the establishment of new user fee regimes to finance expanded security measures following the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Rogoff has had an instrumental role in advising policy makers on the operating and capital needs of Amtrak, including the initiation and financing of high speed Acela service, as well as the financing of dozens of new light rail and bus rapid transit systems across the United States. Rogoff has been active in overseeing and reforming troubled procurements in the FAA, Coast Guard, FTA, and FHWA. He was the principal staff strategist for both the .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) law and the youth drunk driving “zero tolerance” law. Together, these laws are credited with saving tens of thousands of lives. Rogoff has also been centrally involved in efforts to strengthen safety inspections of substandard trucks, cargo vessels, and pipelines. Rogoff is a recipient of the U.S. Coast Guard Distinguished Public Service Award and the Lester P. Lamm Memorial Award for outstanding leadership and dedication to U.S. highway transportation programs. He earned his MBA degree, with honors, at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University and his B.A. degree in American Studies at Amherst College.
2 responses to “Federal Transit Administrator Named”
He really is a great guy. He wants to lower the requirements to match European crash standards as well. That would make a lot of things, especially the debate over DMU’s, much better.
I had a feeling he’d get the position, now to find an equal supporter at the FRA and I could only see great progress being made.
One thing that might make sense is to have more than two classes of railroads, essentially–regulated, and unregulated–and traffic may not mix between the two.
Obviously, there are good reasons that freight trains ought not share rails with streetcars or light rail; but it stands to reason that their are intermediate classes of railstock that can safely interoperate on both.
If I were cynical–I might suspect that much of the dictates of the FRA are intended to make rail less competitive–by imposing a regulatory regime far more stringent and burdensome than is imposed on roads and road vehicles. (I’m not that cynical, BTW… the FRA is probably like any other bureaucracy)