Maybe John McCain can somehow pull out one more win for small town America. But the odds look increasing long. More importantly, no future Republican nominee is likely to try another full-on, rural-based run at the White House. Or to repeat this autumn's theme of rural places as "real" and "pro American," using coded language to imply that big metropolitan areas are illegitimate and anti American. We are a metro nation and we do have a common stake in the success of all places -- from largest cities to the smallest hamlets.

Back in August, Citiwire's Neal Peirce noted that the convergence of city and suburban interests is already creating a more favorable environment for regional transit initiatives. It will be fascinating to see, following today's election, how this transition shapes federal policy too.

Photo of the flag flying in Inwood: Brad Aaron

Also, if you catch any interesting street conditions at your polling place, send a description or picture to tips@streetsblog.org. I'm guessing New York City is blessedly free of drive-thru voting, but you never know.

Though we found plenty of fodder this election season, transportation policy never emerged as a consistent talking point in the presidential race. This is more than a little surprising, considering the sad state of American infrastructure and the importance of same to this country's economic and strategic well-being. Then again, what kind of dialogue can we expect when one side's position can essentially be summed up in three words, two of which are "drill."

On this election eve, we turn to an unexpected source for a sober summation of the future of transport under either a McCain or Obama administration: the Pacific Shipper, "the Essential Transpacific News Weekly." In an insider-y feature story posted today, the Shipper susses out some of the main policy differences between the two candidates, from highways to waterways, and finds electeds and experts who think each is in for a rude awakening when it comes to funding.

Perhaps more than any national campaign in recent history, the major candidates have staked out very clear and decidedly different stances on transportation infrastructure investment.

McCain has made criticism of earmarks something of a crusade in his campaign, and says he wants to send more decisions on spending priorities to the states.

“I believe that a higher share of the taxes collected at the gas pump should go back to the state where those taxes were paid,” the Arizona Republican told the American Automobile Association, “and I’ve co-sponsored legislation that would allow states to keep almost all of their gas tax revenues for their own transportation projects without interference from Washington.”

“We’ve got a problem,” Mortimer Downey, a former deputy secretary of transportation in the Clinton administration and an adviser to the Obama campaign, told a public forum in Washington last week on transportation policy. “Infrastructure needs more investment. It is important, it is crumbling, and other countries are doing more than we are. We’ve got national issues we need to deal with, and transportation is the critical tool for doing that.”

He said the Obama camp has “a vision” for the next highway bill. “It should be a much better bill than the last couple. It shouldn’t have so many earmarks in it,” Downey said.

At the same forum, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, chief economic adviser to the McCain campaign, said the spending priorities are critical. “There is no area where earmarking has been more visible than in highway bills. We have to get more bang for the buck.”

Downey said the economy will make transportation programs more important. Obama favors, he said, “an economic recovery measure that would have infrastructure and get people working on, hopefully, small projects that would roll out quickly.”

After the jump, the Shipper looks at how the next admin might try to finance the 2009 federal funding package, and what the US Department of Transportation could look like under each.

How either administration would pay for a highway bill remains an open question.

Obama has endorsed a $60 billion National Infrastructure Bank to invest in projects of a national priority.

McCain dismisses that idea. “The notion that there is a need for an infrastructure bank is not something the senator supports,” Holtz-Eakin said. He called the plan “reminiscent of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

At the agency level, industry observers believe the two would offer starkly different approaches to regulation.

Industry officials believe an Obama White House would work closely with the Democratic Congress on such agency-level issues, and a strong majority in the Senate would clear the way for broader actions in areas such as “card check” legislation to make it easier for labor unions to organize workers.

A McCain Department of Transportation, meanwhile, likely would look much like the last eight years under President Bush.

“I think a McCain DOT is going to be very similar to what we have now,” said the U.S. Chamber’s Kavinoky. “There has been speculation about Mary Peters staying on as DOT secretary. In that case, I think you would see a lot of consistency between a Bush and a McCain administration.”

“An Obama administration is starting over; they have to put all new people in place, develop reauthorization proposals, that could delay the process,” she said. “It’s not an easy task to develop legislative concepts that could get through (the Office of Management and Budget).”

And who would head up the next USDOT? The Shipper mentions Downey and Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey as possibilities. Mary Peters tops the list of prospects under McCain, according to Congressional Quarterly, which also names Garvey as a potential Obama pick. A Politico piece picked up by Bike Portland says Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Jim Oberstar have been short-listed by Obama. And though we'd hate to lose her, New Yorkers have our local favorite.

Regardless of how little time the campaigns have devoted to the issue while on the trail, it will undoubtedly loom large for the next occupant of the White House, one way or another.

Graphic: Pacific Shipper

It is, after all, a simple sounding solution that appeals to politicians in love with the quick fix, oil companies desperate for access to new sources, and auto-dependent Americans, many of whom now find themselves stranded in far-off suburbs, trapped in expensive car commutes and completely lacking freedom of choice when it comes to transportation. No matter that drilling here and drilling now isn't going to do much of anything to reduce gasoline prices or wean Americans from their crushing oil dependence. 

If you're curious about the masterminds behind the message, head over to Newt Gingrich's "tri-partisan" American Solutions web site. There, you can download "The New Language of Smart Energy," a 42-page talking points memo from Republican pollster Frank Luntz. Luntz handily sums up his findings as "The 10 Communications Commandments for 2008." Not surprising, given the buckets of fossil fuel money behind Gingrich's American Solutions, the Commandments can pretty much be summed up as "Thou Shalt Drill. Thou Shalt Drill Here. Thou Shalt Drill Now."

Here, courtesy of Frank and Newt, is some of the messaging that oil companies are using to maintain their grip on U.S. energy policy and get to those environmentally-sensitive leases. Mock and ignore them at your own peril.

• First off, before even getting into the Ten Commandments, make sure you present yourself as having risen above partisan politics.
• Then frame the issue in terms of national security. Our dependence on oil isn't the problem. It's our dependence on "foreign oil" that's the problem. All that stuff about oil being a globally traded commodity? Too complicated. Skip that. 
  
• Shortages "are unacceptable in our 21st century economy." All that stuff about geology and peak oil? Too wonky. Skip that.
• "It is about American oil and American gas." (Bold and underline formatting courtesy of Frank Luntz.)
• The more you can talk about futuristic "breakthrough technology," the more you'll be embraced by the American public.
  
• "Diversity of supply leads to security of supply." But focus, mainly, on diversity of oil and gas supply not diversity of energy sources.
  
• Do: Talk about new technology and the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. Don't: Talk about conservation or sacrifice.

Newt, Frank, and the rest of their ilk seem to be in retreat for now. But with some drivers returning to their gas-guzzling ways, how long until the next "crisis" hits -- and the oil-suckers emerge from their crypt?

Happy Halloween.

Graphic: Carly Clark

Insert new question here.

We've noted throughout this election season that transportation policy is something of a third rail in presidential politics. Gas prices and auto industry jobs are irresistible fodder for campaign promises, but even the candidate who has decent ideas about rail travel and bike infrastructure doesn't mention transit on the stump. (The other one doesn't have much to say in the first place.)

If you want topics like intercity rail and federal support for transit projects to get more attention on the national stage, the place to go is the Transportation for America website. T4A is currently collecting signatures calling on Obama and -- suspend your disbelief -- McCain to address the future of the U.S. transportation system at the final presidential debate Wednesday night. Sign on by 1:00 p.m. tomorrow and your petition will be delivered to campaign representatives before the debate.

Wondering how to make the case for transit to a national audience? T4A policy director Mariia Zimmerman puts it in compelling dollars-and-cents terms in this piece, "Reinventing American Transportation," which accompanies the Blueprint for America series on PBS. (Excerpt after the jump.)

Today, transportation is the second highest household expense after housing. America has invested in a stunning national highway system, but lags far behind other nations in building transit and high speed rail corridors that could complete our national transportation system.

For some families, long commutes and a lack of affordable or convenient transit mean that they are actually spending more on transportation than housing, particularly in exurban areas where people have relied upon the "drive until you qualify" approach to homeownership. And yet for those who do have transit available, they are saving almost $9,500 per year. Public transportation already saves the U.S. 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year.

Providing the transit, walking and biking infrastructure so that more people in our growing nation can live in closer proximity to daily needs and use their cars less could save billions more gallons of oil. It can also restore value to many of our urban neighborhoods: In most regions, homes near jobs and/or transit stations are holding their value, while those with the longest commutes are seeing steep declines and little buyer interest.

America has a long history of visionary transportation investment that has left a sizable imprint on our landscape and world standing. Our canals, railroads, bridges, and highways have shaped settlement patterns and served as the backbone of our economy. While these investments shaped the past, it is time now to ask what kind of investments America needs today when gasoline prices are high, oil dependence is a national threat, climate change is threatening the globe, and families are looking for more affordable and reliable options.

The next president and Congress should endorse a bold program to build modern, world-class train and bus systems in our cities and towns, high-speed rail that connects urban and rural areas, complete streets safe for biking and walking, and to get our highways, bridges and existing transit in tip-top shape.

Photo: ddkim/Flickr

Image via Caroline McCarthy

The six-page report [PDF] holds few if any surprises for Streetsbloggers, but it nicely highlights respective statements from McCain and Obama on topics like federal spending, road pricing and public transportation, with links to source materials.

One category in particular caught our attention: "Smart Growth Considerations," from page five.

"Obama will build upon his efforts in the Senate to ensure that more Metropolitan Planning Organizations create policies to incentivize greater bicycle and pedestrian usage of roads and sidewalks. As president, Obama will work to provide states and local governments with the resources they need to address sprawl and create more livable communities." –BarackObama.com

"McCain hasn't released a formal policy identified as targeting urban issues." –WSJ.com

While it's true that much of "heartland" America still couldn't care less about bike lanes and sidewalks, as we've seen, livable streets issues are pushing further into the mainstream. Whether those issues, and the often starkly differing views held by the candidates, will emerge as part of the national discussion over the next five weeks remains to be seen.

As confirmed in many respects by the Brookings breakdown, one thing is a near certainty: the composition of next year's federal funding package will vary dramatically based on who takes the White House.

Photo: Chesi - Fotos CC/Flickr

Before VP candidate Sarah Palin crystallized her views on the future of US energy policy in her "drill or do nothing" speech to the Republican National Convention, we only had a vague idea of her record on transportation and development, gleaned mostly from her time as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla.

As news of Palin's past continues to surface, here's Slate with a Wasilla video postcard. Says reporter and narrator Alex Sheshunoff:

You read that Palin was the mayor of a small town, and you think of central squares and tree-lined sidewalks and neighbors who give pies to one another. Wasilla isn't that kind of place.

Video link. Thanks to Doc Barnett for the tip.

If there was any question as to where a John McCain-Sarah Palin White House would stand on transportation, the prospective VP's speech to the Republican National Convention left little room for doubt. Here's Palin from last night, via Grist:

"Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines and build more nuclear plants and create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources."

Grist notes that Palin, um, fudged a little in her refutation of Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere." Despite her claim that as governor she turned down federal funds for the bridge, Palin once supported the much-maligned project, and Alaska is using the earmarks intended for it to build a road to the proposed bridge site.

Though Palin scored millions in hated "pork" for bus and rail projects, her tenure as mayor of Wasilla apparently did not bring about much in the way of livable streets improvements.

Writes Charles Wohlforth in The New Republic:

I had written a Frommer's travel guidebook about Alaska (I live in Anchorage and was on the Municipal Assembly here at the time). In the book, I frankly described Wasilla as a place to skip, "the worst kind of suburban sprawl of highway-fronting shopping malls and gravel lots."

Wasilla boosters were furious and a local media debate erupted. A good many people came in on my side: Wasilla, with a complete lack of community planning, is truly Alaska's least attractive town.

Streetsblogger Doc Barnett concurs:

Frommer's description of Wasilla is accurate. Its residents (including some of my family) live there to get away from all the big-city problems of multicultural Anchorage. No, seriously. And then they try to figure out how to shorten driving times around the gigantic natural feature (Cook Inlet) they have decided to put between themselves and their jobs (if any).

In a collection of local news headlines tracking Palin's career, Politico lists a story citing her support for a Wasilla bill to outlaw non-motorized vehicles -- "skateboards, in-line skates, bicycles, scooters" -- on public or private property where signage prohibited their use, under penalty of fines and/or confiscation.

Photo from Wasilla, AK via Mudflats

The Washington Post reports that during Palin's two terms as mayor of Wasilla, when it had a population of 6,700, the town enjoyed a number of transportation-related funding successes, including:

• $1.9 million for the Wasilla Intermodal Transit Project, to realign rail and bus routes to increase use of public transit in the region.
• $15 million for a rail project to connect Wasilla with Girdwood, the home town of Sen. Ted Stevens (R).
• $600,000 to upgrade bus stations.

The story contrasts Palin's skill at lining up earmarks -- with the aid of a lobbyist law firm now tainted by federal corruption charges -- against McCain's professed distaste for "pork barrel" spending. The Post says Palin once supported the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," a $223 million structure that was to replace ferry service between the town of Ketchikan and Gravina Island, but that she later "reversed course."

Despite her accomplishments for public transit in Wasilla, Grist says Palin has "developed an anti-environmental reputation" since she was elected governor of Alaska less than two years ago. Palin has proposed eliminating the state's gas tax, and in June told a national TV audience that McCain was "wrong" to oppose drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

"I think he's going to evolve into eventually supporting ANWR opening ... I'd like the opportunity to change his mind about ANWR."

Here is Grist's summary of Palin's environmental record.

Photo: Wikipedia Commons

You know, John McCain is my friend. And I know you hear that phrase used all the time in politics. I mean it. John McCain is my friend.

We've traveled the world together. It's a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism demonstrated by John still amazes me.

But I profoundly disagree with the direction John wants to take this country, from Afghanistan to Iraq, from Amtrak to veterans.

Meanwhile, earlier in the week, a panel of Democratic pols and economists seemed to agree that new investment in American infrastructure -- including freight and commuter rail -- is sorely needed, but came up short on the subject of funding. Roll Call reports:

They all expressed the need for a private-public partnership, but the question of where to raise federal funding caused anxiety among the elected officials.

One key issue was that the current system for infrastructure funding, implemented in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, relies on gas taxes for revenue. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) called any attempt by Congress to raise the gas tax “dead on arrival.”

But Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Pa.) said that with or without the gas tax something had to be done to bridge the funding gap, noting that the $1.6 trillion cited by the ASCE report would only cover maintenance, not new projects.

“When I became governor I had to raise $2.4 billion in taxes,” Rendell said. “When re-election came around — people aren’t stupid — one incumbent lost and she voted against the tax increase.

“This is the time we have to challenge the American people. Folks, you get what you pay for.”

Photo: Associated Press via CNN 

As the Democratic convention convenes in Denver, Matt Davies of the Journal News drills down on the national energy policy debate. Click through for the punchline.

Signe Wilkinson of the Philadelphia Daily News has a different spin on the Obama-McCain tire inflation hulabaloo. Click through for the full strip.

"I was with Governor [Tom] Ridge yesterday, and we visited a General Electric plant in Erie that makes -- guess what? -- locomotives. That's not viewed as, quote, high tech, is it? But you'd be amazed at the product, of the thousands of workers that are working there and building a locomotive that over half of their business is through exports, because they build the best locomotives in the world in Erie, Pennsylvania."

As Sean notes, high tech and well-made as Erie-produced trains may be, a more significant factor in the plant's export ratio could be that "because of decades of terrible transportation policy, there's not much of a market for locomotives in this country." And who do the folks in Erie, PA have to thank for that? Why, Senator John McCain, for one -- who, as perhaps the most outspoken opponent of domestic rail in Washington, has done everything in his power to cripple the very industry those "thousands of workers" depend on for the well-being of themselves and their families.

But hey, if McCain is elected president and finally succeeds in putting Amtrak out of business, maybe all those GE employees could get jobs building the Car of the Future.

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.

He has hired new advisers, and with them he seems to have worked out a new approach. He is no longer telling the sorts of hard truths that people would prefer not to confront, or even half-truths that they might find vaguely discomfiting. Instead, he's opted out of truth altogether.

So, what is the hard truth about America's energy predicament? Kolbert goes on:

The Department of Energy estimates that there are eighteen billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in offshore areas of the continental United States that are now closed to drilling. This sounds like a lot, until you consider that oil is a globally traded commodity and that, at current rates of consumption, eighteen billion barrels would satisfy less than seven months of global demand. A D.O.E. report issued last year predicted that it would take two decades for drilling in restricted areas to have a noticeable effect on domestic production, and that, even then, "because oil prices are determined on the international market," the impact on fuel costs would be "insignificant."

If the hard truth is that the federal government can't do much to lower gas prices, the really hard truth is that it shouldn't try to.

With just five per cent of the world's population, America accounts for twenty-five per cent of its oil use. This disproportionate consumption is one of the main reasons that the United States-until this year, when China overtook it-was the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. (Every barrel of oil burned adds roughly a thousand pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.) No matter how many warnings about the consequences were issued-by NASA, by the United Nations, by Al Gore, by the Pope-Americans seemed unfazed. Even as the Arctic ice cap visibly melted away, they bought bigger and bigger cars and drove them more and more miles.

The impact of rising fuel prices, by contrast, has been swift and appreciable. According to the latest figures from the Federal Highway Administration, during the first five months of this year Americans drove thirty billion fewer miles than they did during the same period last year.

Read on...

The Gas Tax Holiday may have petered out, but John McCain still has a lot of petroleum-based populism left in the tank. His latest campaign ad, "Pump," primes the audience with a little wishful thinking.

"Gas prices -- $4, $5, no end in sight," a voice intones, "because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" An image of Obama floats across the screen in response, as a crowd chants his name.

While it's easy to refute the "Drill Now!" argument, even on strictly economic terms, the There Will Be Blood contingent figures to be quite sizable this election season. Ersatz moderate David Brooks, for one, seems impressed by McCain's energy platform, which he praised in a column last week:

The high point of his campaign, so far, has been his energy policy, which is comprehensive and bold, but does not try to turn us into a nation of bicyclists. It does not view America’s energy-intense economy as a sign of sinfulness.

Sinfulness? Forget moral judgments. An honest policy assessment would recognize that a less "energy-intense" transportation infrastructure will go a long way toward reducing the economic pain of "rising prices at the pump."

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?

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