I think it would be shame if this enormous stimulus package gets pushed through and there’s little for rail or public transit. However, goal of the program is to get money into the system with jobs that could start tomorrow. While new rail and public transportation projects might be on the table, there’s a lot of legal wrangling that has to happen first, compared to repairing bridges or retrofitting existing public buildings with more energy efficient tech – no permission necessary. Just sign it into law. It’s a stimulus bill, not a transit bill. That’ll come later next year.

Transit may get a bump in an “equal but separate” sort of way, but there is no national political figure, party or movement that will come out in a strong way against private cars and the associated infrastructure. Neo-liberals, progressives, neo-conservatives, conservatives, and libertarians, will not advocate against them. Even the majority of the green party thinks that hybrid and electric cars are going to save the planet.

We are going to print-up $35 billion to bail out the auto industry. That is enough to give every tax payer a $300 bicycle. After doing that, do you really think that Washington is going to turn around and ask consumers to not buy cars and get on our bikes or take the bus? We used to be citizens and now we are consumers, things have been going down hill ever since.

“One of the worst parts about the auto bailout is that it will now be in the taxpayer’s best interest (financially) for the big3 to do well, meaning more cars”

Minimum of 13.5 million per year according to someone I heard on Bloomberg Radio. 12 million is not enough.

Guess what — it may not even be possible to get bicycles next year. Bicycles come from China. A freeze in the letter of credit market is hurting trade. Maybe we can get China to stimulate bicycles.

He’s never really done anything to back transit or progressive energy policy. His energy policy has been stuck between poverty exacerbating bio-fuels proposals and incredibly eco-unfriendly coal-to-liquids legislation. The L continues to fall apart in a funding crisis. He’s not a progressive on these issues. I know that people “feel” that he is, but that’s just because he’s an incredibly manipulative person.

I don’t know why people just assume Obama is “secretly pro-transit” … There is a nice paragraph on his website… but will this really happen:

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Strengthen Core Infrastructure: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will make strengthening our transportation systems, including our roads and bridges, a top priority. As part of this effort, Obama and Biden will create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. These projects will directly and indirectly create up to two million new jobs per year and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity.

Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities: Our communities will better serve all of their residents if we are able to leave our cars to walk, bicycle and access other transportation alternatives. As president, Barack Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account.

… so… is he sticking to this or not?

He’s the president-elect of the United States, not the president-elect of the Northeast Corridor. Sorry, but remember where you live in the larger scheme of things. I would hope one considers the likelihood that the denser states will be more likely to “use it or lose it” on transit anyway, because the states have been taking responsibility for transit and rail investments more for the past decade or so. The Feds are more interested in designing their allocations for things like whatever we do on the border and beyond. We give the states the benefit of the doubt on what transportation mode they want to actually invest in, for better or worse. If Obama wants to help, he could eliminate the double standard of matching federal dollars to a higher proportion on state highway projects than local transit projects. Sure, I would love to see the DOT have a budget even close to the same atmosphere of the Pentagon, but the federal government’s power is mostly in granting incentives in addition to money. Of course, advocates for such things as transit in Washington are always good, but also remember that the Democrats didn’t gain a majority by electing Representatives who always lean to the left of Staten Island. A federal “mobility tax” is a lot farther off than, say . . .

Ian,

The reference to the border and beyond was merely a jab at our federal spending on homeland security and defense…it had nothing to do with transportation. The 90% federal match you mention was already discussed in my prior comment as the “double standard.” I’ll try not to use as much blanket language; point taken.