Speculation abounds: who will be Barack Obama’s Transportation Secretary Choice? It’s far too early to really know, but we’re hoping here at Austin Bike Blog that the next Secretary of Transportation has a much better view of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure than our current one.
The current Secretary of Transportation in the Bush Administration, Mary Peters, made news in cycling and transit circles this summer when she stated that bicycle paths and trails were not transportation. Coming from where we are, odds are we’re going to get some improvement on the issues we care about, but the question is, how much?
So without further ado, here are the names we have seen thrown (so far!) around for Secretary of Transportation in an Obama administration, with a bit about each – and we should point out, this is pretty much all rumor thus far! Don’t count on any of these individuals being the actual choice.
Jim Oberstar. Image courtesy Lake Superior Images.
Jim Oberstar, Congressman from Minnesota’s 8th District (northeastern part of the state, including Duluth)
Rumored by: Minn. Star-Tribune, others
From his Wikipedia page:
Oberstar has been a champion of creating trails for cycling and hiking to promote healthy living and more active lifestyles. In 2005 he authored and had passed the Safe Routes to Schools act, a $200 million program that helps school districts address the growing problem of childhood obesity by building biking and walking paths to schools, hiring crossing guards and promoting safety programs.
Representative Oberstar would be one of our dream cabinet members, along with Rep. Blumenauer, below.
Jerry Costello
Jerry Costello, Congressman from Illinois 12th District (southwest part of the state, including Carbondale)
Rumored by: BND.com
From his Wikipedia page:
Costello is one of the more conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives. He has a pro-life voting record and has received favorable ratings from pro-life groups such as the American Conservative Union. Costello also has a strong rating from fiscally conservative groups due to legislation he authored during the 1990s that promoted a reduction in the federal deficit. He serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and also the Science Committee.
Rep. Costello is a supporter of Amtrak, but otherwise probably not our favorite rumored choice.
.jpg "Heminger")
Steve Heminger
Steve Heminger, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Rumored by: The Washington Post
Heminger at first seems like an intriguing choice, considering the bay area is one of the epicenters of bicycle culture in the U.S., but we have concerns that Steve may talk a good talk about bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, but not deliver. Consider this answer in a Rails to Trails Conservancy interview from May:
Why were walking and biking so marginalized in the commission’s report?
Our responsibility was to discover the policy areas that command national interest for federal investment. When certain issues command national attention, some are by definition more regional and local in scope. It’s not to say that those are less important—just that they are the responsibility of a different level of government. That’s where we ended up on the question of bicycle and pedestrian access. In all likelihood, walking and biking will play a large and growing role in one of the programs we recommended in metropolitan mobility. But that will be up to metropolitan officials, and I think that’s where it belongs. I expect there will be a robust debate about that recommendation, because there are explicit programs at the federal level now that address trails, but our finding was that those are more properly addressed at a different level of government.
James Clyburn
James Clyburn, Congressman from South Carolina 6th District (includes Sumpter, Columbia, Marion)
Rumored by: The State
The James E. Clyburn University Transportation Center at South Carolina State University is named after him. Rep. Clyburn is a supporter of mass-transit and an opponent of toll road projects, is a supporter of Amtrak funding, and has a pretty good environmental voting record. He has been a supporter of bicycle trails, but I’m unsure of his positions on urban cycling issues.
Valerie Jarrett. Photo courtesy University of Chicago.
Valerie Jarrett, co-chair of Obama-Biden Transition Project
Rumored by: Newsweek
It’s somewhat hard to find information on Valerie, but her Wikipedia entry does state that she was “Chair of the Chicago Transit Board from 1995 to 2005.”
Ed Rendell
Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania
Rumored by: Newsweek
I honestly can’t find anything about Governor Rendell’s positions on cycling, but he is a supporter of rail and bus transit. anyone know his positions on cycling infrastructure?
Earl Blumenauer. Photo courtesy CommuterPageBlog.
Earl Blumenauer, Congressman from Oregon 3rd District (Portland!)
Rumored by: Newsweek, others (good coverage of this rumor on Bike Portland as well)
Rep. Blumenauer is one of our three dream appointments on this list. Just read this profile on Bike Commute Tips Blog to understand why we think so. Not only is he probably the absolute largest proponent of cycling in Congress, started the Congressional Bike Caucus, and comes from the U.S. cycling mecca of Portland, Oregon, but he is also of course a commuter cyclist himself. He recently passed the Bicycle Commuter Act. This guy really gets it.
From an interview with Outside Magazine:
John Kerry was –still is– a road biker, and George W. Bush is famously a mountain biker. Where do you see bikes fitting in to November?
We worked with leaders in the cycling community, for a great political event for Barack Obama. He’s a leader who gets it. He’s very supportive of cycling. There’s some great pictures earlier in the year with the Senator and his wife Michelle and their two daughters cycling along the lakefront in Chicago. No one would confuse him in those pictures with Kerry and Bush with their high-end equipment, hitting it hard. In terms of the picture I’d like to have for America, I’m actually more interested in Senator Obama and his young family out cycling on a weekend, showing how approachable and fun, and you don’t need Lycra and ten-thousand-dollar bikes. The family can be out there and enjoy the experience, each other, get exercise, and seek community.
Jane Garvey. Photo courtesy MITRE.
Jane Garvey, Board Member, the MITRE Corporation
Rumored by: Newsweek
Former head of the FAA from 1997 to 2002, we really have no idea why Jane Garvey has been rumored for this job, unless we’re about to all fly around in personal airplanes. Additionally, the organization she is on the board of is more related to homeland security issues than transportation.
Kathleen Sebelius
Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas
Rumored by: Newsweek
What better way for our country to rev up for our future infrastructure and transportation needs than to take our cues from Kansas? Um, yeah. She’s done a marvelous job as Governor, but is not the right fit for this particular cabinet position.
Peter Defazio. Photo courtesy Bike Friday.
Pete DeFazio, Congressman from Oregon 4th District ( west central coast, includes Eugene)
Rumored by: TrafficWorld
With a background as a former bicycle mechanic and a bicycle and pedestrian bridge that bears his name, well, what can we say? Rep. DeFazio would also be a huge proponent of cycling. His district includes Bike Friday and other bicycle manufacturers. Our only concern is that he is a tremendous budget hawk and may not be the best fit for the current economic situation.
Janette Sadik-Khan. Photo courtesy Streetfilms.
Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner, New York City Department of Transportation
Rumored by: TrafficWorld
One of our top three choices, Janette Sadik-Khan is one of the most innovative thinkers on pedestrian, cycling, and transit issues in the U.S. She has made amazing changes in New York City in only a year and a half as commissioner. We had a previous story on her here.
New York Magazine summed it up well by making her number 35 on their list of reasons to love New York: “Because She is a Cycling Radical(!)”
on Nov 10th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I’m all for more cycling infrastructure, but Steve Heminger is absolutely correct that there is absolutely no need for cycling issues to be handled at the federal level. There isn’t very much interstate cycling. Metropolitan areas can plan and fund their cycling infrastructure on their own.
On the other hand, there is plenty of other local infrastructure that is incorrectly funded by the federal government as well. I want cycling to be on an even playing field with driving (okay, I’d prefer the field to be tilted towards cycling), but adding more federal funding isn’t the way to do that. We should be getting the federal government to fund fewer roads that are used primarily for local transportation so the federal government can collect less taxes and local governments can collect more to more efficiently achieve their goals without their voices being drowned out by voters from across the country.
on Nov 10th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Hmmm, less federal money so local governments can tax more? I don’t know where you are living right now, but I’d say most local governments are at their taxing limits right now due to the continued cuts in federal and state support over the last two decades. Look no further than the move to dependence on toll roads and the bond election held every 6-12 months in Austin as examples.
I was at a transportation conference about a year ago where the head of a transit advocacy group was recommending that transit organizations get into land speculation on transit routes as a funding mechanism. (This is not necessarily a bad idea if you understand how streetcar lines were originally developed.) His reasoning was that local governments are chronically at their taxing limits and if people have to choose between paying for schools and paying for transit, they’ll choose schools every time.
Our nation has consistently underfunded maintenance of our infrastructure the last 40 years and the hens are coming home to roost on this in the form of our economic crisis. While I agree the priorities most be finally made at the local level, the leadership and much of the funding to rebuild our country can only come at the federal level.
on Nov 11th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I don’t think it’s impossible; it’s just politically difficult to raise taxes. If the public can be convinced that local control over tax dollars is better than federal control, then I don’t see why it would be a problem.
“the leadership and much of the funding to rebuild our country can only come at the federal level.”
I disagree wholeheartedly. Outsourcing the responsibility for fixing local problems to the federal government is part of why we’re in such a sorry state today. We’ve had eight years of stasis on many of the issues that need to be tackled to make our cities more livable and environmentally sound, while locally in Austin, there’s a broad consensus that dealing with those issues needs to be a top priority. Getting everything funded by the federal government is simpler to do today than raising money locally, but it’s clearly not the best way. We need to work on making it easier for local leaders to make the decisions necessary for progress, and that can’t be done if we keeping giving so much of our tax dollars to the federal government where our voices are drowned out by people who disagree with us.
on Nov 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I’d say again that I think the final decisions should be made at the local level, but we need the leadership at the national level because these problems are national in scope. Putting cycling, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure on the table as an equal part of the transportation makeup with cars will go a long way towards building better, more sustainable communities nationwide. I believe this is only truly achievable with national leadership.
As for local taxes, the flaw in your reasoning has to do with how taxes are collected federally versus locally. At the federal level, we have a progressive tax system that taxes people more as they make more money. At the local level, the system is based on the regressive sales tax and property taxes, a system that has no baring on your ability to pay. Tax increases at the local level disproportionately affects the poor and those on fixed incomes. The federal system is the opposite. In addition, the federal government can run deficits, while the local government can’t.
Asking the federal government to help isn’t outsourcing. It’s using a system that is better equipped to fund the solution.
on Nov 12th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Cycling, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure are not national problems. They are fundamentally local (except for intercity rail). Global warming and environmental issues in general are (more than) a national problem, but the federal government shouldn’t be micromanaging solutions to those problems. Setting targets and enforcing them with a carbon tax or a cap and trade system is a much better solution that lets individual cities and states come up with solutions that work best in their specific contexts.
You’re correct that in Texas, most taxes are regressive. It doesn’t have to be that way. Nothing is stopping us from instituting a progressive income tax except for political will. I think people could be convinced to go along with it if the pretext was wresting control over state and local issues from the federal government.
You’re also correct that the federal government has an advantage since it can run a deficit, but as far as I know, the only thing in the way of Texas and its cities running deficits in the state constitution (I’m guessing on this one, but I think I read that somewhere). The federal government’s poor track record with deficit spending has probably closed that door for the near future, but my point is that this is our government, and we should be trying to optimize it to reach our goals instead of settling for the option that is currently most convenient. The federal government is better equipped to fund expensive infrastructure today, but that doesn’t need to be the case, and it is clearly suboptimal for us to let the rest of the country have a say in how we build our city when it has no effect on them whatsoever.
on Nov 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
You say global warming is a national problem. I don’t know how begin to address that problem if you don’t get people out of their cars and stop our wasteful land use policies. Cycling, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure are an critical part of the equation to make this happen. This will not happen by local initiative alone. The federal government can help make tremendous progress by prioritizing what kind of projects get funded.
In fact, if we left major issue like this to local initiative we wouldn’t have 40 hour work weeks, a minimum wage, child labor restrictions, customer safety standards, speed limits, seat belts, air bags, fair hiring practices, a unified air traffic control, and the right to vote for over half our population. The federal government is not the daddy to come in and do everything for us, but it is a critical partner in making progress happen a heck of a lot faster.
on Nov 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Name of Gerald R. Cichy, former Director of Transportation in Mongomery County, Maryland has been advanced.
on Nov 12th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Fantastic — thanks for the tip! I’ll look into that one.
on Nov 12th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Elliott, how is the federal government choosing specific solutions to lower carbon emissions superior to setting a target and letting the chips fall as they may? This is a big, diverse country. One-size-fits-all solutions dictated by the federal government are not the most efficient way to solve this problem.
The other issues you mention are not the same. Labor rights cannot be done on a local level because they increase the cost of doing business solely within that area. Business would just move out of the locality and continue to mistreat their workers. There is no analog with what you’re suggesting. The federal government should set targets for carbon emissions and enforce them with some form of carbon taxation. State and local governments as well as the private sector will *have* to meet those goals because they can’t afford not to.
I don’t understand why you want the rest of the country to tell you what to do when it isn’t necessary. We’ve seen this system fail already. It only works when the people you agree with are in power at the federal level. For the last eight years, the federal government has been telling California and other states that they can’t set more restrictive emissions standards than the federal government. That is ridiculous, and I’m sure you agree. Why do we want the federal government to have that kind of power? It is absolutely not necessary, and it has proven to be detrimental to progress. It needs to stop.
on Nov 15th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Natrius,
How do you suggest local governments cover the cost of infrastructure improvements? Run a deficit? As you pointed out, most cities use federal funding for infrastructure improvements. With strapped budgets and decreased incomes, how do you expect small towns (or most big cities for that matter) to pay to fix failing bridges, obsolete transit or non-existent bicycle infrastructure?
Trust me, cities don’t have money for this stuff now.
What should federal taxes be spent on anyway? What is a federal issue for you? I am mostly just curious, not argumentative.
I suggest you research SAFETEA-LU, the 2006 transportation bill which included a provision for $100 million for non-motorized transportation pilot programs. Look at what amazing improvements this money has done for the four communities involved in the pilot grants.
on Nov 16th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Jack Opiola has been contacted by the Obama team. He might be candidate for Secretary of Transportation
on Nov 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Eric: Recessions are a special case. Government spending helps end recessions. If local and state governments can’t afford spending during a recession, the federal government should spend money to help our intertwined national economy.
In normal times, there is no reason why local and state governments can’t pay for their own infrastructure. The federal government’s money comes from the people. Instead of giving so much money to the federal government so they can skim some off the top then give it back to us, why don’t we give it to more local governments in the first place? It doesn’t make any sense.
In regard to SAFETEA-LU, if the goal of the spending was to research non-motorized transportation programs to see what works, then that makes perfect sense for the federal government to fund. It provides a springboard for local and state governments to use as they look into what specific programs are best suited to their areas. It benefits all of us. Funding such programs everywhere would be a mistake. They are local by nature, and there’s no reason our money should be used to fund local transportation across the country.
Federal taxes should be spent on things that benefit greatly from us banding together to fund, such as defense, basic scientific research, and food and drug safety testing. Each state or city funding research doesn’t make sense unless they’re just trying to grow the research industry in their area or the federal government has refused to research something, like stem cell research. Each state handling their own foreign relations and fighting their own wars doesn’t make much sense.
Local transportation, on the other hand, does not benefit from federal funding. It is actually *harmed* by federal funding. If the federal government disagrees with a local governments plans, then the federal government doesn’t give them their piece of the pie. For example, cities get federal funding for rail systems all the time. Austin has gotten ZERO in rail funding because our line doesn’t meet their criteria. (The line is silly in the first place, but it’s our money and we should be able to waste it as we see fit.) This makes no sense. I don’t benefit from other cities’ rail lines. Why am I funding them?
on Dec 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
In times of depression, many things that we take for granted are changed. Still, based on Mr. Obama’s concern for the envirionment, I think that he will be good to bikers. One project that would serve to lower greenhouse gasses and to encourage international cooperation, President Obama should seriously consider the Trans-Global Highway which was proposed by Frank X. Didik a number of years ago. Their site is at http://www.TransGlobalHighway.com
on Apr 22nd, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Interesting, I wonder what the statistics are on your first point there…