The federal government is going to face the mother of all financial crises, and will have no money for transportation. So I hope Obama's team won't be spinning grand plans.

Bicycles, walking, carpooling and telecommuting cost little in public funds. Rather than investing in transit, people will have to take advantage of those options, or move to places where transit already exists.

* Annually, about 120 people die in plane crashes in the U.S.
* Annually, 40,000+ people die in traffic crashes here.

And, if you were to calculate these statistics by passenger mile traveled, I bet you'd find an even more alarming discrepancy between airline and highway safety.

(Besides, Obama's airline policy should focus on getting people out of planes and on to high-speed rail. I know, Americans will love that!)

#2 I agree with the Cap'n that transportation spending has a huge, huge impact on land use, smart growth, livable streets and, of course, walking, biking and transit use. For the past generation, the bulk of federal transportation funds have been programmed for highways. Look where that's got us.

The next federal transportation bill needs to set mode shift goals to reduce VMT and increase transit, walking and cycling. States and localities should be required to develop their own transportation plans to be ranked against national goals and awarded funding accordingly.

Cities also need direct access to federal funds. This is done for HUD and Homeland Security. Why should NYC, which has something like the 4th biggest DOT in the nation, have to go through Albanya to access federal transportation dollars? (If someone has a good answer for this, I'm very interested.) Most Americans live in urban areas, and most of our GDP comes from them. In every local jurisdiction, forcing local government to go through state capitols delays projects and makes them more expensive.

If the nation is serious about combating global warming and public health ills and reducing traffic delay and strengthening commerce, then the federal government has a responsibility to direct much, much more money towards transportation alternatives.

They will be. The administration is creating a White House Office of Urban Policy.

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/

Are smart growth, cycling, walking, or livable streets really federal issues?

They are, because federal laws, regulations, funding formulas and general bureaucratic willingness influence individuals' choices of where to live, work and shop, developers' choices of where and how to build housing, workplaces and shopping, and how people get from one place to the other.

For the past sixty plus years, federal priorities have all favored single-use zoning, office and industrial "parks," housing subdivisions and highways. It has taken a lot for places like New York and Portland to resist it. A president who is clearly committed to smart growth and livable streets - and to discouraging sprawl and highways - can have a tremendous impact. Even more so if congress has similar priorities.

So yes, this is disappointing. Nice that they put this Downey guy in there, who has apparently gotten awards from passenger rail advocacy organizations, but none of these "team leads" seems interested in smart growth, pedestrian issues, or anyone who's interested in transportation beyond planes, trains and automobiles. Even if they have people like that on the teams, will they be heard by the team leaders?

It's great to see that there's no highway builders on board.

In fact, Garvey was Acting Administrator and previously Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Looking around, though, I have not yet found anything that indicates her stance on transit or roads.

It's great to see that there's no highway builders on board. It'd probably be too much to ask for a bike person with such a small mode share, let alone people who work with roller-skate or kayak commuters. But why no pedestrian expert? (I can just hear the bureaucrats at the DOT going, "They have pedestrian experts?") No experts on smart growth and the land use-transportation connection. Did they really need two airplane people?