Okay, so we’ve got a team leader, a transit planner, an aviation administrator, a transportation security expert, a boat guy and another airplane woman. No freight rail, Amtrak or intercity bus people. And no Zeppelin people!

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?

Cap’n Transit said:

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.

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

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

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

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

I would say that the extensive highway funding is more influential than any effect the federal government has on zoning.

#1: It is very sad that there is no one with traffic safety expertise here (if there is, someone please correct me). It seems that plane crashes = transportation safety for the Obama transition team. The lead reviewer for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an aviation safety consultant. Consider this:

* 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.