I suspect the White House may be regretting that they didn’t put through a Transportation re-authorization bill two years ago when Jim Oberstar, the Democratic chair of the House Transportation Committee, pushed for it.
Today John Mica, the Republican chair of the same committee released a draft of the reauthorization bill that cuts spending by 35%, eliminates many specific programs (like Transportation Enhancements) that are friendly to non-auto modes and primarily directs the funds remaining to state DOTs (many of us would prefer a bias toward sending money directly to Metropolitan Planning Organizations).
Reaction was swift from Transportation for America:
We are particularly concerned at the proposal to eliminate dedicated funding that helps provide more safe options for walking and biking.
While Chairman Mica indicated an intent to preserve the historic share of 20 percent for transit, the overall effect is a devastating cut that leaves us well short of the amount required to meet rising demand for transit service, especially in this time of severe fiscal constraints.
and from House Democrats, including Oregon’s Peter DeFazio:
We need a transportation plan that puts Americans back to work, improves our crumbling infrastructure, and helps get our economy back on track. Today, the Republicans are offering a plan that slashes the budget for critical transportation and infrastructure spending in this county. Their proposal jeopardizes the safety of our traveling public, will cost us nearly 500,000 jobs, and puts us at an economic disadvantage with our competitor nations …. We need robust investment and this proposal does not measure up.
BikePortland notes that over the life of the bill, this would represent a reduction to Oregon of about $1 Billion.
Local observers of the Columbia River Crossing project took note that there is no dedicated category for projects of national significance. Project critic Joe Cortright notes:
It doesn’t look like there’s any chance of “new money” as part of reauthortization. That means, if Congress does earmark particular projects, it has the effect of cutting money that would otherwise flow to the states for transportation. This really puts the lie to the claim that CRC is going to get $400 million in earmarks without affecting any other revenue that would otherwise come to the state.
16 responses to “Mica Transportation Bill Prompts Strong Reactions”
So does that mean we won’t get the CRC and the “25,000 jobs.”
We can only hope the feds pull the Milwaukie Light Rail funding between now and next spring.
I’d say there is at least some slight chance of that occuring. Especially if one of the local partners is pulled out by the citizenry.
The dust up at the Clackamas BCC yesterday may be another sign that is happening.
http://bojack.org/2011/07/its_getting_ugly_in_clackistan.html
Perhaps McFarlane will soon be looking at the “phased” construction he mentioned at the Clackamas work session.
I’m sure a double decker bus fleet—probably less than $25 million (Everett WA, was 23 m.)–could do everything the Milwaukie MAX would do—plus extend to Oregon City with no problem.
Personally, I wouldn’t be too offended if the MOS to Milwaukie were built, without the Park Avenue extension. Would more than make up for removal of $50 million from the budget ($25 million from “Clackistan”–if nothing else, bojack has a sense of humor, and $25 million in matching funds). It might negatively impact ridership without the Park Avenue P&R, and the project might be able to restore some previously-deleted elements from the last round of cost reduction. (If P&R capacity is viewed as essential, putting back the garage at Tacoma Street might be an option).
I’m pretty sure a double-decker bus fleet would NOT be able to, without additional capital expense on infrastructure:
* Board dozens of passengers at a time in a span of twenty seconds.
* Zip past stopped traffic on McLoughlin Boulevard.
* Likewise, cross the Willamette unimpeded by cars stuck on the Ross Island or Hawthorne bridges.
Articulated busses, as opposed to the double-decker variety, could handle the first item better, though still not as fast as a 200′ long train can. But without installing a busway and/or building a new bridge, you wouldn’t be providing a service that offers significant improvement over the 33.
(And as I’ve noted before, the McLoughlin corridor would be an excellent one for quality BRT, and such was considered by Metro. But the city of Milwaukie insisted on light rail, so here we are…)
The new transit bridge will handle buses,too, right? And that should also attract more bicyclists from the inner SE portion of the MAX route. Wouldn’t that pose competition for the MAX?
When the new viaduct for Hwy 99E is finally completely open, there will be some improvement. A dedicated lane from 17th ave into town, would help though.
True, the stops would probably be longer. If the Milwaukie MAX were to prove to be anything like the Yellow line, the bulk of passengers are only during commute times. (At least that is what I observed a few years ago; perhaps it is improved.)
> The new transit bridge will handle buses,too, right? And that should also attract more bicyclists from the inner SE portion of the MAX route. Wouldn’t that pose competition for the MAX?
Yes. But the new transit bridge is a major capital expense, one not included in your proposal of spending “less than $25 million” to buy a fleet of larger busses.
I don’t think that TriMet views busses and trains as competitive; I think they view them as part of an integrated system. (Likewise, TriMet is not in the business of discouraging people from walking and biking so that they can collect more fares). The fact that the MLR bridge can handle busses is most definitely considered a feature and not a concession.
> When the new viaduct for Hwy 99E is finally completely open, there will be some improvement. A dedicated lane from 17th ave into town, would help though.
Certainly. That, too, costs money above and beyond $25 million, however.
>True, the stops would probably be longer. If the Milwaukie MAX were to prove to be anything like the Yellow line, the bulk of passengers are only during commute times. (At least that is what I observed a few years ago; perhaps it is improved.)
The Yellow, like all transit (and highways), experiences peak loads during the AM and PM rush hour. But they aren’t running mostly empty during mid-day.
This is a PROPOSAL at this time, not yet a BILL.
LA is a big winner with a proposed $1 billion per year for its transportation/transit budget.
On one hand, the proposal by Rep. John Mica of Florida would authorize $1 billion a year, up from the current $110 million, for a federal transportation loan program that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa sees as critical to his efforts to speed expansion of the L.A. region’s transportation system.
(from LA Now)
It also would allow for tolling on NEW interstate routes (not so good for local, Third Bridge proponents) but bars new tolling on existing interstate routes (a big problem for the CRC proposal, I think).
Mica acknowledged that his bill would cause cuts to states for road and bridge programs. But he also said the legislation would “create long-term jobs,” encourage public-private partnerships that would allow private entities to do some projects, and cut red tape so projects are done cheaper and more efficiently.
Mica said: “This proposal maximizes the value of our available infrastructure funding through better leveraging, streamlining the project approval process, attracting private-sector investment, and cutting the federal bureaucracy,”
But, it’s only a PROPOSAL, at this time.
This bill is bad news. Its a loss of political will. Sure, there is not enough money to go around, but that just means these people need to roll up their sleeves and get to work. This displays the lack of will to act like leaders and be proactive. This is a reactive bill and shows weakness. Not only that, handing over control to state DOT’s scares the crap out of me
More evidence that planners almost brought down western civilization:
From The Costs of Smart Growth Revisited: A 40 Year Perspective :
“Soaring” land and house prices “certainly represent the biggest single failure” of smart growth, which has contributed to an increase in prices that is unprecedented in history. This finding could well have been from our new The Housing Crash and Smart Growth, but this observation was made by one of the world’s leading urbanologists, Sir Peter Hall, in a classic work 40 years ago.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002324-the-costs-smart-growth-revisited-a-40-year-perspective
Thanks
JK
More evidence that planners almost brought down western civilization
More evidence that hyperbole is not a persuasive form of argument.
Yes, yes. Urban growth boundaries and other legal restrictions on the development of real estate is the direct cause of the widespread fraud and over-leverage in the lending and financial markets that led to the current economic crisis.
Whatever…..
Now that JK has had his say (and his link has been allowed to stand), and the absurdity of his comment has already been pointed out, let’s go back to actually discussing the Mica Bill, rather than turning this into another “whatever JK insists on talking about” thread. Thanks.
JK’s comment should be deleted, as it is completely off topic. Feel free to delete mine as well, once his is gone.
[Moderator response: The decision has been made to let the comment stand. – Bob R.]
Everyone should remember that this bill is only Mica’s proposal and has practically zero chance of passing, there’s no room on the congressional calendar for debates, vote, and reconciling this with the 2 year reauthorization from the Senate.
What’s likely going to happen is a simple 2 year extension of SAFETEA-LU so they can argue again after the ’12 election.
What’s likely going to happen is a simple 2 year extension of SAFETEA-LU so they can argue again after the ’12 election.
Then…no CRC?
But….what about the “25,000 jobs?” (Or is it supposed to be 35,000?)
Gosh….I was hoping to get at least a few hundred of those. Well, maybe if the CRC still gets a little operating cash it can go forward and buy the properties that it would need to remove.
And eliminate those permanent jobs that are there right now.