Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood talks about livable communities: "
by Sarah Goodyear.
When Ray LaHood was nominated by President Obama to be the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT), it
seemed like an afterthought. The selection of LaHood, a Republican Congressman
from Illinois with a reputation for political pragmatism, was seen by many as a
gesture at bipartisanship that indicated just how little the administration
cared about possible innovations at the DOT.
Over at Worldchanging,
Alex Steffen called the appointment “a profoundly uninspiring vote for business
as usual,” and at Streetsblog,
where I worked at the time, Aaron Naparstek wrote this:
The selection of a downstate Illinois Republican with close
ties to highway
lobby stalwart Caterpillar Inc. is being taken by many as a clear sign that
progressive transportation policy is, for now, nowhere near the top of the
Obama’s agenda.
What a difference 20 months makes.
LaHood has proven to be much more than a roads-and-bridges
secretary. He’s been an outspoken and articulate proponent
of high-speed rail. He’s mounted an aggressive campaign against
distracted driving. He’s jumped
up on a table to address the National Bike Summit, saying that, “I really
came here just to say thank you to all of you for hanging in there with us. You
all have made a big difference.”
And perhaps most significantly, he has emerged as a defender
of the “livable communities” concept, advocating for the construction of a
transportation infrastructure that would make walking, biking, and modern
public transit available—and attractive—options for every American.
Reform of the nation’s transportation system is still
stalled out at the congressional level, with the reauthorization of
transportation funding legislation now running more
than a year behind schedule. There’s widespread Republican
opposition to Obama’s $50 billion infrastructure spending proposal.
But LaHood, who has a jovial, guy-next-door demeanor, is
still upbeat. We had a chance to talk with him by phone the other day about
what exactly “livable communities” are—and if Republican legislators will ever
vote to fund them.
Q. So tell me, what does this concept of
“livability” really mean?
A. This is something I’ve never really talked
about, but growing up, I lived on the east side of Peoria. When I was growing
up, I could walk to my grade school. We had one car, but we would bike
everywhere we went. We could walk to the grocery store. In those days, we had
streetcars and buses, which people used to get to downtown Peoria, which was
probably five miles from my house. I used to take a bus to my dad’s business. I
grew up in an era [of] livable neighborhoods and livable communities—what
we’re really trying to offer to people around America. When there was no urban
sprawl, when you didn’t have to have three cars, when there weren’t houses with
three-car garages, everybody had one car.
That era was lost on a generation that decided
they wanted to build big malls and have cities expand in a way that didn’t
really reflect the ideas of livability.
When I came to this job, I thought about it in
that context, but also in the context of a city like Washington, D.C., or
Chicago, where you can live without a car. Where, on the weekends, my wife and
I can take our bikes, and if we want to go all the way to West Virginia on our
bikes from Georgetown, we can do that. If we just want to go to Bethesda, we
can. If we want to go for a walk, we can. This is a city where you can live
without a car and get to airports, get to your job, get to the grocery store,
and it’s the kind of community that offers people many different transportation
options and amenities that I think have been lost in other cities.
So, as we travelled the country the last 20
months, visiting more than 90 cities in 40 states, what we found was that
there’s a pent-up demand in America for more walking paths, biking paths, more
transit, more buses. I just helped inaugurate a streetcar program in Atlanta.
I’ve been to New Orleans, where they want to expand their streetcar system.
I’ve been to Portland. On the day that I was going to the streetcar
inauguration in Portland, I saw over 200 people at 7:30 in the morning riding
their bikes to work. I’ve seen what’s happened here in Washington with walking
and biking paths, the biking avenues or lanes that have been created along
Pennsylvania Avenue, along 14th street and 16th street.
It’s what Americans want.
Q. But politically, it’s been a little bit of a
tough sell. There are a lot of people, especially on the Republican side of the
aisle, who seem to think that encouraging density and more walkable communities
is, in effect, forcing people to live in the kinds of places that they don’t
want to live in.
A. I think when politicians begin to listen to
their constituents, what they find is that their constituents are way ahead of
them on livability and sustainability, on having cleaner, greener communities,
on having walking and biking paths, on having streetcar systems. I think when
politicians who are elected by the people begin to listen to their
constituents, they begin to get with this kind of livable, sustainable
community program.
Q. Do you think in the current political climate,
there are a certain number of people in Congress who are just invested in
opposing whatever the president comes up with?
A. I think there are some traditional people in
Congress who like the idea that we continue to build roads and bridges and
things like that. I think we’ve sent a pretty loud message that one of our
signature transportation programs will be livable and sustainable communities.
One of our signature transportation programs will be connecting America with
high-speed intercity rail, so people can get out of their cars. They can take
a train ride to see Grandma rather than doing it in a car.
I just think these are signature programs now.
They’re not going to go away, not because of Ray LaHood or because of Barack
Obama, but because this is what people want. Once politicians begin to learn
that, they begin to adopt the idea that these are good opportunities for their
constituents and for Americans.
Q. When we do get to the reauthorization of
transportation funding, what do you think that’s going to result in? Do you
think that there is going to be a change in the funding formulas?
A. I think you will see a sizable chunk of money
for livable, sustainable communities. I think you will see reform of MPOs, the
metropolitan planning organizations, so they incorporate more of communities
and more stakeholders. I
think you’re going to see one of the signature programs will be high-speed
intercity rail that ultimately will connect America in the next 25 years, or
at least 80 percent of America. More emphasis on
streetcars and other transit options for people, because this is what Americans
want. This is the direction we’re going.
We had over a two-hour meeting with [Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee] Chairman [Jim] Oberstar [D-Minn.] on all of our
signature programs, and there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference from what we
want and what he wants. We’re always going to build road and bridges, and we
have a state-of-the-art interstate system. But people want more than that now.
Q. Do you think that suburbs and cities have
competing interests, or do you think that their interests are complementary? How
can you talk to people about how those interests are complementary, and not
just have it be this thing where suburbs are pitted against cities?
A. I think walking and biking paths provide the
connectivity for cities and suburbs. In my hometown, Peoria, I told you what it
was like back in the ‘50s and ‘60s when I was growing up, as a boy. They just
have gotten the rights to a rail line called the Rock Island Line. Right now
it’s a 26-mile
walking and biking path. They’ve just now purchased the rights to the rest
of the rail. They’ve just torn up all of the rail, and they will connect
several communities, both suburban and rural. I think these walking and biking
paths, are the pathways, if you’ll pardon the pun, to connect urban and rural
and suburbia.
I think another way to do it is through good transit
programs, where you have transit programs in cities that also provide service
to the rural and suburban area. Again, in my hometown, they’re building a huge
VA clinic in suburbia, which was once in the downtown area. The only way they
got away with doing that is that the transit system said, we will have regular
service in order to deliver veterans who need transportation services. That’s
the kind of connectivity—so you can get to a VA clinic if you don’t have a car
or access to a car, that you can ride your bike from a downtown area all the
way out to suburbia or to a rural area. That if you live in a rural area, you
can get to a grocery store or your doctor’s appointment or hospital, because
the transit system will provide those services. That’s the kind of connectivity
that I think people want, and that we’re really thinking about.
Q. What have you learned in this process about what
Americans want? Have there been any surprises?
A. I’ve been in public service for 30 years, as a
staffer for 17, then as a member of the House for 14, and now I’ve been in this
job 20 months. In a job like this, you can make a difference. The one thing
that I have going for me is that President Obama supports all of these
activities. He really has given us the opportunity to develop some significant,
signature programs that have never been considered or highlighted by DOT.
I think people have always thought of the
Department of Transportation as the department that builds roads and bridges.
But you can do big things, and dream big dreams, and the president has really
given us the opportunity to do that. You can think outside of the box. We’ve
been thinking outside of the box. I didn’t realize that we’d really be able to
do that.
Related Links:
A report from the front lines of the “transit space race” [VIDEO]
U.S. sets new standards for truck, bus emissions
The Senate livability bill has no teeth. That’s okay
"
