Surrounded by a throng of curious commuters under the clock at Grand Central Terminal last Friday, Sen. Hillary Clinton held a press conference calling for increased federal funding for mass transit, saying municipalities around the country needed a "federal partner to get us over the hump of increased demand."

On August 1, Clinton introduced the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act to the Senate; it has already passed the House of Representatives. The bill would provide $1.7 billion, including $237 million for New York, to help public transit systems keep fares down and prevent service cuts in the face of rising fuel costs and soaring ridership (download the bill).

"Across America places that thought there would never be much demand for public transit are now finding that there is," said Sen. Clinton. "We can't keep burdening public transit systems without giving them the money they need to run." Noting that "we are living off the investments of a prior time," Clinton added that "it is unacceptable that [mass transit] commuters would be burdened with further fare hikes and service cuts.... Commuters should not be penalized. They're part of the solution."

Asked how the city could increase the capacity of its overburdened mass transit system, NYC DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said "buses can be a major component," and spoke of "re-engineering the city's 6,000 miles of streets...to better accommodate buses."

MTA chief Elliot Sander, whose agency is struggling with debt and has already said another round of fare increases is on the horizon, emphasized the need for federal support. "If we don't have a planning process in this country," he said, "we will fall further and further behind."

You can see Sen. Clinton's Sept. 9 testimony on the mass transit legislation before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs here.

Photo: Sarah Goodyear

The problems that the bill addresses are not confined to two states. News of service cuts and fare hikes keeps pouring in from places as far-flung as San Diego, Corpus Christi, Cleveland, and Burlington. All are getting squeezed by fuel costs while handling ridership surges as great as 35 percent or higher. 

Keeping service running smoothly while new riders switch to transit is not solely the concern of one party, either. Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio just directed a $1.5 million earmark to Dayton's transit agency, saying "it is critical that we continue to make our public transportation systems more efficient and accessible."

Securing funds through national legislation rather than piecemeal earmarks will send a stronger message: Better transportation choices can provide relief for people hit hard by high gas prices. Discussion of this bill, say transit advocates, will help set the tone as debate ramps up about next year's national transportation funding package.

The Senate Banking Committee, which is considering the bill, needs to hear from people who support it, says Hanley. "We need 60 Senators ready by Labor Day to return to the Senate and insist on transit stimulus."

Photo of a bus boarding in Allentown, PA: Allentown Morning Call

Click through for this cartoon by Gary Varvel of The Indianapolis Star, referencing the now infamous tussle between John McCain and Paris Hilton. (And click here if you have no idea what we're talking about.) While the 'toon itself bears a ring of truth, the bigger irony may be that the presidential candidate who's now promoting perhaps the most feasible and immediately effective energy plan is no longer in the hunt.

If the bill makes it through the Senate, the Oval Office figures to be a major hurdle. President Bush has signaled his reluctance to subsidize operating costs for transit, although that philosophy seems not to apply when it comes to subsidizing the habits of America's motorists.

Meanwhile, in places like Louisville and the Denver suburbs, the prospect of service cuts and fare hikes continues to loom at precisely the moment that more people are depending on transit to get around.

A tipster sends these photos of more storefront bike-ped advocacy, this time at Paragon Sports on Broadway, north of Union Square.

Meanwhile, further uptown, Patagonia on Columbus Ave. has a Bike Month display encouraging customers to sign a letter to New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary CIinton in support of S.858, the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act, which would give a federal tax break to those who bike to work, similar to that which motorists receive.



Streetsbloggers may remember North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry ridiculing the cyclist benefit during debate over an energy bill last summer. Maybe Senators Schumer and Clinton can differentiate themselves on this issue, provided they can take time away from shilling for additional tax cuts for driving.

Patagonia photo: Brad Aaron

By a 49 - 41 percent margin, American voters say eliminating the federal gas tax for the summer is a bad idea... Republicans split 45 - 46 percent on the gas tax 'holiday,' while Democrats say 49 - 42 percent it's a bad idea and independent voter turn thumbs down 56 -38 percent.

The proposed gas tax cut is a loser in red states, 48 - 42 percent, blue states, 49 - 43 percent and purple - or swing - states, 51 - 39 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh- pe-ack) University poll finds.

"Rising gas prices are more than just an abstract worry. Americans say they've cut back on their household spending and on how much they drive," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"But the political quick fix - a gasoline tax holiday for the summer - has more opposition than support. Imagine that: American voters opposed to a tax cut."

Sounds encouraging, except that those polled apparently don't see their own consumption as part of the problem: 

"Who's to blame? Oil companies and President Bush get more blame even than the oil producing countries. And almost nobody is blaming gas guzzlers," Carroll said.

On that point, the Q-polled public and its Congress agree.

Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat from Manhattan, immediately issued a statement condemning the measure:

S.7594-B, introduced by Senator Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island), would exempt gasoline and diesel from the State's excise tax, Sales Tax, and Petroleum Business Tax, from May 23, 2008 to September 2, 2008.  These taxes are currently used to provide funds for highways, roads, bridges, and mass transit.  By suspending the taxes the Senate Republicans will create an estimated $600 million budget gap for these necessary services.

"This bill is obviously meant to prey on the desperate need for relief of New York's suffering drivers," said Senator Liz Krueger.  "In reality this bill will only worsen the economic crisis in New York, and at best result in little to none of the intended aid.  Increased demand will lead to higher prices and negate any positive effect the gas tax holiday was meant to have."

So far so good, but then Krueger serves up a cocktail of alternative policies meant to ease the burden on drivers. Even in relatively rail-rich New York, transit doesn't enter the picture.

Among the ideas she floats, which were all proposed by Senate Democrats and rejected by Republicans:

Initiating a middle income gas and diesel fuel tax rebate program, which will give a $100 tax rebate to all New Yorkers, who earn $75,000 or less, that live in and have a vehicle registered in New York.

Instituting criminal penalties for price gouging and increasing fines of offenders to $25,000. 

But if the goal is to lower people's transportation costs, why reward only car owners? How about packaging that relief in the form of incentives to take transit instead of driving? And why promote the idea that gas prices will go down if only those "price gougers" along the supply chain would stop taking advantage of innocent consumers?

While Krueger does mention conservation and reducing the gas consumption of the state's vehicle fleet, encouraging non-government workers to drive less is noticeably absent from her proposals. As the summer driving season gets underway, will any politician outside the second smallest state in the union have the guts to talk about mode switch?

Clinton advisers also said that the candidates and her team would discuss her political message going forward and whether her signature issue over the last two weeks - a suspension of the federal gas tax this summer - was worth extending to the upcoming primary states of West Virginia and Kentucky.

While some advisers said that the message helped make Mrs. Clinton more popular with working class and financially struggling voters, some analysts said that it angered Democrats in Washington who dislike the gas tax idea, and that it was too small an issue to run on credibly. (Mr. Obama opposes the gas tax relief, calling it a gimmick.)

"In 1976 Ronald Reagan had a big principled argument to continue against Gerald Ford, built around détente and economic policy, and in '80 Kennedy had a big principled argument about health care and economic policy," said Mr. Shrum, who worked on the Kennedy campaign. "What is her big principled argument against Obama? The gas tax holiday?"

Though polls showed Americans didn't see the cut as a solution to high gas prices, Clinton upped the ante heading into Tuesday's primaries by challenging Congress to take an up-or-down vote on the issue. And though some of her advisers may see it as a loser, another Times story from today indicates that the candidate, for the moment at least, might disagree. Speaking to supporters last night in Indiana:

Mrs. Clinton again promoted her plan to lift the federal gasoline tax for the summer and impose a windfall-profits tax on the oil companies.

CONFIDENTIAL/URGENT POLITICAL PROPOSAL

Dear Sir

First we must solicit your confidence in this issue. This is by virtue as being utterly confidential and "top secret".

We are SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON, the wife of the former United States head of state, PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, and also SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, friend and associate of current head of state PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH. We got your contact through business inquiries as we were searching for contacts of a citizen who can help save our and our family's political careers since our country has been frustrating us.

We are top officials of the United States Senate Government who are interested in importation of oil into our country with funds that are presently trapped in the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND dedicated to improving transportation. We wish to send this money to overseas accounts in the MIDDLE EAST but cannot due to restrictions in Congress Transportation Equity Act requiring that this money must be spent to build roads, bridges and high speed trains.

If you accept we will deliver to your a sum of 30 DOLLARS in the summer 2008 in form of a "GAS TAX HOLIDAY". You will then deliver this money to accounts of our friends in Middle East by taking it to your nearby gasoline station where they have information to forward the money. Please supply your bank account, social security number, address and your vote in DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION.

But bear in mind that this transaction requires absolute confidentiality. Do not visit WWW.GASTAXSCAM.COM where there is information about dangers of our proposal and a petition to stop us from this diversion of funds.

PLEASE NOTIFY US URGENTLY OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROPOSAL

Awaiting your rapid response

Yours truly

SENATORS HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN MCCAIN

With primaries in North Carolina and Indiana less than a week out, Barack Obama seems to have taken Streetsbloggers' advice with this ad explaining why a suspension of the federal gas tax, as called for by Hillary Clinton and John McCain (among others), is a sham. It's a masterful spot: the swelling orchestral score, the shots of everyday North Carolinians nodding in agreement as the candidate links the lie of the "short-term quick fix" gimmick to the need for fundamental change in Washington.

But Obama doesn't go all the way here. Though he does call for Americans to reduce fossil fuel consumption, he suggests doing it by raising efficiency standards, substituting oil with unspecified alternative fuels, and giving the middle class a $1,000 tax cut for good measure. The word "transit" never comes up no matter how many times you watch. Believe me.

On the trail, however, Obama is talking up passenger rail. After the jump, an excerpt from a Politico pool report filed after Obama and wife Michelle met with the Fischer family in Beech Grove, Indiana. Cheryl, 52, is a hospital technician. Mike, 53, is a machinist for Amtrak.

The Fischers consider themselves a "rail family," with generations of family members working at the same shop.

Mike Fischer, who is a member of the machinists union, explained his situation: He said Amtrak is planning to layoff 77 workers. He could be impacted. He could be given an option to take a job in Chicago or Wilmington, Del., which mean moving away from their children and grandchildren.

"What do they offer if you decided not to go?" Barack Obama asked.

"Unemployment," Mike Fischer said.

Barack Obama suggested the Fischers contact their members of Congress.

"You guys should talk to Evan Bayh to find out what the situation is," Barack Obama said. "The irony is with the gas prices what they are, we should be expanding rail service. One of the things I have been talking bout for awhile is high speed rail connecting all of these Midwest cities - Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis. They are not that far away from each other. Because of how big of a hassle airlines are now. There are a lot of people if they had the choice, it takes you just about as much time if you had high speed rail to go the airport, park, take your shoes off."

He continued to talk up Amtrak.

"This is something that we should be talking about a lot more," Obama said. "We are going to be having a lot of conversations this summer about gas prices. And it is a perfect time to start talk about why we don't have better rail service. We are the only advanced country in the world that doesn't have high speed rail. We just don't have it. And it works on the Northeast corridor. They would rather go from New York to Washington by train than they would by plane. It is a lot more reliable and it is a good way for us to start reducing how much gas we are using. It is a good story to tell."

So why not tell the story, Senator? Get Mike and Cheryl Fischer to talk about our country's rail heritage, and an entire industry left to rot as we subsidize foreign governments to keep Big Oil in windfall profits. Bring the music up as you tell the people how rail can again be the backbone of our nation's transportation system, creating thousands of jobs while building a cleaner, greener America. Now that would be some real truth.

As Politico reports, rather than talking about climate change and auto dependence, Schumer is pushing a Democratic plan to go after "Wall Street speculators, OPEC, price gougers and Big Oil":

[R]egardless of the legislative realities — not to mention the futility of promising short-term decreases in gas prices — Democrats have embraced a political opportunity. By proposing aggressive legislation that takes on the boogeymen of the oil tycoons and profiteering speculators, Democrats are trying to corner Republicans into choosing between a president who is chummy with the oil industry and a decidedly populist energy bill.

“We need to stop the speculation” that’s driving up oil prices, said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who has been involved in discussions with Democratic leaders who debated energy policy at a closed-door lunch Tuesday. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) promised “short-term relief and long-term relief” and insisted that “Big Oil should pay” for any suspension of gas taxes.

As Politico points out, the main elements of the plan, which include substituting gas tax revenues with new taxes on oil companies, investigating price gouging, and diverting oil from national reserves to increase supply, are mostly long shots and short-term fixes. Why can't Schumer and Clinton take a cue from the New York City Model of transit oriented development and show some true leadership?

Democratic front runner Barack Obama just released a campaign "Fact Sheet" entitled, "Strengthening America's Transportation Infrastructure" (download it). While Hillary Clinton has put forward some outstanding and heavily transit-oriented plans of her own, Obama appears to be the first major party presidential candidate to outline a national transportation platform that explicitly seeks to "create policies that incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of sidewalks and roads" (if anyone knows differently, let us know in the comments section). Whatever the case, it's a significant step up from the 2004 campaign featuring George W. Bush's mountain bike fitness regimen and John Kerry, spandex-clad on an $8,000 Serotta.

Before you get too excited, it's worth noting that Obama's paper looks like it was a bit rushed. Is Amtrak really "the only form of reliable transportation" in "many parts of the country?" What parts of the country would that be? The plan is also missing language from Obama's energy plan concerning the equalization of subsidies for motorized and non-motorized commuting.

Nitpicking aside, we do get a good view of what a President Obama would aim to do for more Livable Streets. In addition to encouraging biking and walking, he wants to:

• "Provide states and local governments with the resources they need to address sprawl and create more livable communities."
  
• "Double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account." Presumably this includes better transit for inner-cities.
• Provide long-term federal support for Amtrak and "increase the availability of rail transportation options for residents of rural communities."
  
• Support the development of high-speed freight and passenger rail.

Now that we have transportation plans from both Obama and Clinton; John McCain, where you at?

Photo: alison.jane/Flickr

It's Super Duper Tuesday, primary election day here in New York. If you're still mulling your options and trying to figure out who the best candidate on Livable Streets issues is, Damien Newton of Street Heat L.A. and the editor of soon-to-be-launched Streetsblog Los Angeles, dug up the positions of the Democrats and Republicans for us. Grist and the Los Angeles Times have also done some nice candidate round-ups.

Also, last Thursday, NYU's Rudin Center hosted a presidential candidates forum on transportation and infrastructure here in New York City. I was there. Unfortunately, none of the candidates showed up. Four Democratic candidates sent proxies and the Republicans didn't even bother to do that.

Realistically, New York City probably doesn't merit a non-fundraising candidate visit towards the end of a hotly contested national primary. Still, it was hard not to come away from the forum with the feeling that there is no "livable streets candidate" in 2008. The issues we talk about here on Streetsblog -- as important as they are in people's daily lives and at the local political level -- simply aren't a big part of the national policy debate just yet. There were hints, however, that the candidates are starting to pay attention.

Here's what the candidates' reps had to say, in order of appearance:

Frank McArdle, a senior advisor to the General Contractors Association of New York, spoke on behalf of Senator Hillary Clinton. "We fundamentally need to change the way we look at transportation in the U.S.," McArdle started. "Road space is not a free good. Oil is not cheap." Palms pressed in front of his chest as if in prayer, he continued. "There's no way we can deal with the consequences of global warming and energy security unless we allow people to get out of their cars and off of airplanes. The system is broken and she recognizes it." Clinton, who made a big speech on transportation policy after the Minneapolis bridge collapse, would spend an additional $1.5 billion per year on "public transportation," McArlde said.

Yet, the visionary talk of fundamental change came to a screeching halt as soon as the issue of congestion pricing came up. Hillary wants to make sure that "congestion pricing is not simply a tax on the working middle class," McArlde said. "When we relieve congestion what are we doing it for? So 'Beemer' drivers can go faster?" Before implementing congestion pricing we need to make sure reliable transit alternatives are in place, otherwise we'll have "crowding on the buses in Douglaston in Bayside." Bayside, eh? Perhaps that's a hint as to where the Senator is getting her talking points on this particular issue.

David Eisenbach, a media and politics professor at Columbia University, represented former Senator Mike Gravel. He delivered an early 20th century history lecture on General Motors' destruction of urban trolley systems and the CIA's overthrow of Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. We don't need "a mass transit bill," Eisenbach said. We need to get "a look at Dick Cheney's notes from meetings with oil executives."

Doug Biviano, a civil engineer from Brooklyn, spoke on behalf of Congressman and former Cleveland mayor Dennis Kucinich. He noted that 45,000 Americans die on U.S. roadways annually, adding up to "fifteen 9/11's every single year." The solution? "We need to understand the interconnectedness of everything, make peace the organizing principle of our society and make transportation policy sing like the gospel."

David Narefsky, a Chicago lawyer specializing in infrastructure financing, spoke on behalf of Senator Barack Obama. He too started with a history lesson. President Dwight Eisenhower's Interstate Act of 1956 was "a transformational moment" and "the last time the U.S. had a unified vision for transportation," he said. "We need to make investing in infrastructure, once again, a national priority." Narefsky was light on specifics. Obama believes we need "world class infrastructure" and "21st century technologies."

Obama, Narefsky said, has supported federal funding for Amtrak, wants to see the development of high speed rail, is "a strong supporter of smart growth land use policies" and believes we need to "provide local governments resources they need to address sprawl." How do we pay for it? Obama "has not come out in support of a gas tax," Narefsky said. He prefers a "more direct imposition on users," putting a price on vehicle miles traveled rather than gasoline.

Photo: Ultraclay / Flickr

 
This is part two of a two-part series on where candidates for president stand on transportation issues, authored by Streetsblog Los Angeles correspondent Damien Newton. Damien currently runs the blog Street Heat, which is soon to become Streetsblog L.A., our first foray into foreign territory. Damien was New Jersey coordinator for the Tri-State Transportation Campaign before relocating to California last year. Yesterday he examined the platforms and records of the Republican presidential candidates; today, the Democrats.

For the Democrats, the race for the nomination has been about one thing: change. Each of the Democratic candidates offer some vision of change for how our government views and funds transportation. Streetsblog noted in one if its first posts of the new year that Senator Barack Obama is the only Democrat that promotes cycling as part of his platform. Back in November, I noted on my blog that Obama has also pledged to force states and municipalities to include energy conservation in any transportation plan that involves federal funds, and says he would equalize tax benefits received by car and bike commuters. While Obama is strong on stopping sprawl and promoting walking and biking, he doesn’t mention transit anywhere on his web site that I could find. However, a look into Obama’s record shows a strong history of transit activism. As a U.S. senator, Obama worked with fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin to get financial help for Chicago’s L-Trains. As a state senator, he worked with community groups to increase access to transit for the disabled and underprivileged. As first lady, Michelle Obama could emerge as a vocal supporter of urban transportation projects; Mrs. Obama served as chair of Chicago Transit Authority’s Citizen Advisory Board.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to offer a specific proposal to improve transit: an annual increase of $1.5 billion in urban rail funding. The plan also offers specific information on fighting sprawl and increasing development density. As a candidate for the Senate, Clinton preached the value of "leaving cars in their garage," and has since acted to support transit measures. Recently, her Senate office released a statement on the potential Amtrak strike. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, an outspoken supporter of her campaign, often notes that more funds were available for urban transit projects when her husband was president.

Senator John Edwards’ energy plan pledges to promote policies that will slow sprawl and reduce vehicle miles traveled. However, Edwards only mentions transit as a tool for "restoring economic fairness." The former senator and Democratic VP nom has received support from a New York based transit union, but that seems to have more to do with his odds of being elected than his transit advocacy. At least when Nevada’s UTU endorsed Clinton, it managed to mention transportation related issues. Edwards’ one term in the Senate didn’t produce a strong record either for or against any major transportation plans. He even skipped a vote on the Highway Transportation Funding Bill.

So it appears that each of the leading Democratic candidates does embrace the notion of some sort of transportation reform, but wholesale "change" doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

Tomorrow, January 31, NYU's Wagner Rudin Center will host a transportation and infrastructure forum, moderated by "Gridlock Sam" Schwartz, to which all Republican and Democratic candidates have been invited.  

Video: YouTube via Street Heat, which offers analysis from an L.A. perspective

Newsday reports:

A high-voltage transmission line running through Central New York could spur the creation of environmentally friendly wind farms across the state, according to Bill May, project manager for the Albany-based New York Regional Interconnect Inc., who hopes to build the line.

However, there is intense opposition coming from many upstate residents. Perhaps that is why Sen. Charles Schumer and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have expressed doubts about the project:

Schumer has criticized NYRI for having what he calls a "my way or the highway" approach, while Clinton has criticized the proposed route. May warned that "without making some decisions now we will begin to see, you know, significant reliability shortfalls" in New York's supply of electricity.

From scorning Staten Island's inadequate mass transit system and the average commute time of 44 minutes, to applauding recent funding for the defunct North Shore rail line, Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday assured borough residents that their traffic and transit concerns are not being overlooked in the nation's capital.

"Staten Island also has the longest average commute in the nation," Clinton said incredulously. "You know, when I got that statistic I double-checked and tripled-checked. ... I thought to myself, 'Wow, that's saying a lot.'"

Mrs. Clinton followed the tone set by Chamber CEO Linda Baran, who emphasized the lack of mass transit during her introductory remarks.

"Simply put, we need to get people out of their cars and off the roads," Ms. Baran said.

Emphasizing the borough's transportation woes seemed a successful tactic for Mrs. Clinton, from the standing ovation she received.