Comments on: Is Transit a Priority for Nancy Pelosi? http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/29/is-transit-a-priority-for-nancy-pelosi/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:31:30 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Chris in Sacramento http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/29/is-transit-a-priority-for-nancy-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-62312 Chris in Sacramento Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:59:59 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5354#comment-62312 Keep in mind that there is hardly any such thing as national transportation policy, which, to the extent it exists, is better thought of as a means to political ends. Democrats and Republicans in Washington have constituencies to serve, after all. If Democratic-leaning unions and those precious suburban swing voters are cool with highway funding, then so is Nancy Pelosi. Until some cohesive, mulit-metropolitan, pro-transit, livable communities movement with bonafide electoral political muscle emerges, that's the way it's gonna be. Keep in mind that there is hardly any such thing as national transportation policy, which, to the extent it exists, is better thought of as a means to political ends. Democrats and Republicans in Washington have constituencies to serve, after all. If Democratic-leaning unions and those precious suburban swing voters are cool with highway funding, then so is Nancy Pelosi. Until some cohesive, mulit-metropolitan, pro-transit, livable communities movement with bonafide electoral political muscle emerges, that's the way it's gonna be.

]]> By: Ian Turner http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/29/is-transit-a-priority-for-nancy-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-62291 Ian Turner Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:47:55 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5354#comment-62291 Nancy Pelosi is in favor of transportation alternatives, but only in the true California fashion. Californians often rabidly favor non-auto transportation, so long as it is used by other people and makes more space available for the use of one's own automobile. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_98_percent_of_u_s_commuters Nancy Pelosi is in favor of transportation alternatives, but only in the true California fashion. Californians often rabidly favor non-auto transportation, so long as it is used by other people and makes more space available for the use of one's own automobile.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_98_percent_of_u_s_commuters

]]> By: rex http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/29/is-transit-a-priority-for-nancy-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-62290 rex Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:36:00 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5354#comment-62290 If stimulus is your goal, keeping someone employed who's job is to drive people to work seems like a no brainer. If stimulus is your goal, keeping someone employed who's job is to drive people to work seems like a no brainer.

]]> By: DMIJohn http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/01/29/is-transit-a-priority-for-nancy-pelosi/comment-page-1/#comment-62286 DMIJohn Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:04:50 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=5354#comment-62286 "We know we can’t do everything in one bill and there’s restraints on what we can spend. She said we have to do something to quickly turn around the economic situation." I assume the spokesman is talking about the "shovel-readiness" of transit projects. But if that is the case, why was the amendment by DeFazio for operating expenses shot down? Operating expenses is a direct cash injection. We have transit agencies across the country laying off workers, adding to the economic doldrums we find ourselves in. The NYT today said this of the stimulus in relation to sending aid to the states: "One area where analysts say the bill would be relatively effective is in providing assistance to states, many of which, to comply with balanced-budget requirements, are facing the prospect of steep cuts in jobs and services. Aid to states does not expand economic activity, but it helps prevent cuts that would make the downturn even worse." How is this any different for transit agencies? Agencies can run a deficit, but the consequences are dire. The logic is the same for sending transit agencies money for operating expenses as it is for states. "We know we can’t do everything in one bill and there’s restraints on what we can spend. She said we have to do something to quickly turn around the economic situation."

I assume the spokesman is talking about the "shovel-readiness" of transit projects. But if that is the case, why was the amendment by DeFazio for operating expenses shot down? Operating expenses is a direct cash injection. We have transit agencies across the country laying off workers, adding to the economic doldrums we find ourselves in. The NYT today said this of the stimulus in relation to sending aid to the states: "One area where analysts say the bill would be relatively effective is in providing assistance to states, many of which, to comply with balanced-budget requirements, are facing the prospect of steep cuts in jobs and services. Aid to states does not expand economic activity, but it helps prevent cuts that would make the downturn even worse."

How is this any different for transit agencies? Agencies can run a deficit, but the consequences are dire. The logic is the same for sending transit agencies money for operating expenses as it is for states.

]]>