Transportation will be one of Obama's most enduring legacies. Thanks, Ray!

I was disappointed to read that Ray LaHood will be leaving as Secretary of Transportation, partly because it's nice having one who's personally familiar with infrastructure needs in my native central Illinois, but also because transportation is a great overlooked success story of the Obama administration. Who would have guessed that a Republican in the cabinet would bring so much joy to the hearts of tree-huggers and good planning gurus?

In an excellent Huffington Post interview, LaHood talks about high speed rail, bicycles, livable communities, and everyone owning an electric car by 2025. That puts him about ten years ahead of other central Illinois Republicans.

"Look, we are behind on high-speed rail," he said. "But because of the president's vision and because of the work of those of us here at DOT, we have come a long way ... As long as President Obama is in the White House, whoever sits in this chair will have high-speed rail as one of their top priorities."

In contrast, Republican Congressmen from downstate Illinois, including Aaron Schock, John Shimkus, and Bobby Schilling rode the wave of obstruction by speaking against high speed rail and voting against the rail stimulus funds that were spent in their district. Despite their lack of help, Amtrak trains on the Chicago-St. Louis line are now going faster, and their on-time performance has improved dramatically.

Small changes with big local impacts
LaHood gave the short definition of livable communities: "If you don't want an automobile, you don't have to have one." That's a revolutionary idea in many towns like Springfield where it's nearly impossible to live and work if you don't own a car. Changing the focus federally at Transportation has a huge impact on how cities conduct their planning and what sort of projects are funded.

For example, an outdated focus was a problem with Springfield's community study on rail. They didn't study which location was best for passenger rail, where a multi-modal transit center could spur the most economic growth, or which spot is more pedestrian friendly. They viewed rail only in terms of how it inconveniences automobile traffic. Nothing happens overnight, but the changes LaHood made at transportation will keep nudging backward looking officials with 30 year old ideas about transportation in a new direction as they make decisions for the future.

One of Obama's best comments during the Presidential debates was that the long term solution on oil is to reduce demand. Otherwise, we can stop drilling on the Gulf Coast, but we'll just get oil from tar sands or a country with even worse environmental protections instead. That's one reason why several rounds of fuel efficiency and alternative fuel standards are so important.

As LaHood said, we're still behind on high speed rail. And, much more needs to be done to reshape our transportation infrastructure if we're going to deal with climate change. It's a long-term project that will take significant resources but create many jobs in the process. LaHood made significant changes to help reduce oil dependence and laid the groundwork to do more. If someone else had been President, stimulus funding for transportation could have gone toward nothing but the bottomless money pit of endless highway projects.

Serving the cynics crow
There were many pundits and bloggers on the left who criticized Obama's cabinet choices as proof that he was betraying liberals even before he was sworn into office. One of the most cited examples was keeping Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates. Another was Republican Ray LaHood, who was dismissed for his ties to Peoria-based Caterpillar. Surely, that would mean a focus on highways rather than a modern, green focus on all forms for transportation, they argued.

How did that turn out? Robert Gates managed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, advocated for major cuts in defense spending, and oversaw the withdrawal from Iraq. Ray LaHood promoted the kind of transportation policies that environmentalists and forward-looking city planners have been hoping for.

Some of the most significant progressive policies of Obama's first term were overseen by Republican cabinet members who did their best to get cooperation from others in their party. Obama's cabinet picks were not a betrayal of ideals, as the cynics speculated, but a sign of an effective leader who can use people with divergent views to work toward common goals.

Springfield divided on rail issue

I knew my rail editorial in the Illinois Times would be unpopular with much of Springfield's business and political establishment who have developed a groupthink mentality about rail consolidation. So, I was a little surprised by how much positive feedback I got. Many people told me they agree and I got a few emails like this one:
"Yaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!! Somebody finally said out loud what I've been thinking....thank you."

Throughout the entire debate one viewpoint has been hammered into the public. We've been told repeatedly that Springfield is united, as if saying so enough times would make it true. In fact, there has always been a sizable number of people skeptical about the contradictory and unsupported claims coming from local leaders.

A response printed this week doesn't seriously address the issues I raised but they did introduce a new scare tactic. Their principle argument can be summed up as, "This is a really old idea we've studied lots of times and we already bought some land, so just trust the experts."

The writers mentioned that two social service agencies would be relocated. They didn't acknowledge the other half dozen agencies immediately surrounding the proposed site.
They didn't address how the city would make room for residential or commercial development without relocating the remaining agencies.
They didn't address how the city can make a multimodal center appealing to foot traffic if it's still surrounded by shelters and rehab centers.
I get the impression that maybe those questions haven't been thought through.

They developed a new scare tactic by claiming that there can be no multimodal transit center unless it's on 10th. That contradicts previous claims that the city simply hasn't bothered to study whether a multimodal on 3rd could work. It also defies common sense. The Amtrak station is surrounded by a parking lot to the east and a parking garage to the south. To the north is an eyesore building begging to be torn down and another parking lot. There's plenty of room, although it may have to look different than what's proposed for 10th.

The refusal of local governments to consider something different that would work in the available space doesn't mean it can't be done. This tactic is typical of the exaggerated claims citizens have been subjected to, much like the horrifying postcards consolidation advocates distributed while the planning commission refused to develop a more appealing remediation plan for the 3rd street corridor. Residents weren't told that we have other options for 3rd corridor remediation.

They reference the Tier 2 study several times, but as I pointed out, previous studies focused on the problems associated with freight rail without seriously considering which location is best for a passenger rail station. It's a perfect example of how the results of study can be manipulated by limiting the scope of discussion. The corridor study conducted locally had to be reworked after criticism from federal officials that it didn't consider all reasonable options. I suggested during the public comment period that they consider how a multimodal center on 3rd could benefit downtown development, and they didn't bother. They only concluded that it would limit expansion of the medical district, but Memorial has begun two expansions since those claims were made.

Worse still, the editorial echos the language of the corridor study group that rail is a relic of the past. This implies that they're ignoring the national push to expand passenger rail and reaffirms my impression that consolidation advocates are overly focused on road traffic.

Some of their arguments may explain the groupthink of city leaders. They point out that it's close to the convention center. Also, the idea was first proposed decades ago, and they already spent money buying land.

Sangamon county Republicans control the convention center board, the Springfield Mass Transit board, the regional planning commission and the patronage jobs in each of those bodies. It inspires no confidence that studies conducted by bodies at the behest of the same small circle of local Republican leaders, who all knew what results they were looking for in advance, all came to the same conclusion. They're all working on the same team, and agencies knew their studies were expected to support an idea developed at least 30 years ago. Of course that team likes a multimodal center whose only obvious economic development benefit is that it might help out their friends who run the convention center.

Just because they made up their mind about something decades ago, and have refused to consider alternatives, doesn't make passenger rail on 10th the best option. There are advantages and disadvantages no matter what Springfield chooses to do. What really irritates me is the way citizens have been propagandized and manipulated throughout this process. Many of us remain un-united.

My high speed rail guest editorial in Illinois Times

My guest editorial in Illinois Times will surely annoy some of my friends and many of Springfield's local leaders. But, I'm not convinced that the 30-year old ideas about where to locate mass transit are the most well thought out. The way Springfield residents have been propagandized on the rail issue is offensive.

The businesses which might be most inconvenienced by an expanded Third Street corridor facility are a luxury car dealership and the private Sangamo Club. I suppose their clientele have more clout than citizens who use social services near 10th. That those most in need in our community are also the most likely to have services dislocated by rail consolidation is a serious social and environmental justice problem. 

Springfield could have spent the past two years discussing the least painful way to accommodate freight traffic resulting from the new Joliet rail terminal. Instead, we have been presented a worst-case scenario with exaggerated postcard images and a steady drumbeat of hyperbole. We have been told a multimodal transit center would bring economic development to 10th Street, but mysteriously, the same facility would bring economic ruin on Third. It’s past time to have a calm discussion about passenger rail without the scare campaign.

Find the rest here.