Dec. 12, 2008 -  What Makes a Good Secretary of Transportation?

by Andy Singer

To stimulate the economy, President-elect Obama and congressional Democrats plan to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure. Much of this money will be channeled into transportation. For the last 60 years, “transportation” in the U.S. has meant “cars.” The transportation sector in the United States is the largest consumer of petroleum and largest producer of greenhouse gases and air pollution. As such, from an environmental, energy policy or foreign policy perspective, Secretary of Transportation is one of the most important cabinet appointments that Barack Obama will make.

Hopefully, Obama will look for a candidate who is both up on transit and down on cars — someone who appreciates both the car’s environmental problems and its land use problems. There are those who understand that motor vehicles contribute to diminished air quality, climate change and oil dependency but they approach the problem with a narrow focus on alternative fuels or increased CAFE standards. Such a strategy ignores the fact that as much as half the pollution, greenhouse gas and oil consumption caused by cars is created in their manufacture and disposal or in the building and maintenance of highway and street infrastructure. These candidates focus on moving more people through space, rather than creating spaces that lessen the need for travel.

The latter approach requires not only transit but an emphasis on better land use—land use that puts people within walking or biking distance of jobs, goods and services, as well as land use that creates the population density or “mass” that mass-transit requires to be effective. Examples of measures that can lessen people’s need to travel include:

• Cleaning up urban brownfields and Superfund sites to create more affordable urban housing and office/factory space
• Creating mortgage loan programs that favor development in urban or inner-ring suburban areas
• Congestion pricing that subsidizes automobile alternatives
• Mixed use zoning and better city and regional planning
• Removing barriers to walking and biking through traffic calming
• Safe-Routes-to School programs and other measure

Such an approach will require a Transportation Secretary who can work with the heads of other federal and state agencies like the EPA, Interior, Treasury, Education and state Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Thus the ideal candidate will understand both the environmental and land use problems created by our current car-oriented system. They will have a history of strong support for public transit and non-motorized transport (biking and walking). They will have experience working with large bureaucracies and other agencies. And, finally, we want someone we can afford to lose at his or her current position, whatever it might be.

Some of the candidates who’ve been mentioned are Janette Sadik-Khan, Jim Oberstar, Earl Blumenauer, Peter De Fazio, Ed Rendell and Steve Hemminger. Of these, Sadik-Khan, the current transportation commissioner for the City of New York stands out as the best. She understands both the land use and environmental problems posed by cars. She has shown herself to be a strong supporter of public transit, congestion pricing and policies that favor cyclists, pedestrians and better land use over cars. She has hands-on experience managing a large, multi-modal bureaucracy that provides transportation services for 8 million people and, in the process, has dealt with many other agencies and public interest groups. Lastly, if she were to become Obama’s Secretary of Transportation, she would probably be replaced at her current position by someone who is equally competent. Her boss, Mayor Bloomberg has supported transit, congestion pricing and non-motorized transport and would probably appoint someone with similar views to fill her position.

Ed Rendell, the current governor of Pennsylvania would be the next most desirable candidate. Though he’s stated that he doesn’t want the job, he has shown strong support for transit, progressive tolling and better land use. He has experience managing an even larger bureaucracy (the State of Pennsylvania) and has dealt ably with all its agencies and interest groups. If he took the position, he could probably be replaced as governor, but it is unclear whether his replacement would be as staunch a supporter of transit or as politically adept.

The next most desirable candidates, in order of preference, would be Earl Blumenauer, US Representative from Oregon and Jim Oberstar, Representative from Minnesota. The former sits on and the latter chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Both have long histories of advocating for transit funding and non-automotive approaches to transportation. Unfortunately, both might be needed in Congress for the upcoming reauthorization of the Transportation Efficiency Act and crafting of a stimulus package. They could help shepherd any legislation through congress and make sure that it favors transit and not just more highways. Blumenauer might be more readily replaceable than Oberstar. The governor (Tim Pawlenty) who would temporarily appoint Oberstar’s replacement has not shown himself to be a friend of transit, and the voters in Oberstar’s district are less pro-transit than those in Blumenauer’s district (Portland). Neither candidate has as much day-to-day experience managing major bureaucracies like the Department of Transportation.

Peter DeFazio is another US House member from Oregon (Eugene). He also sits on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee but has not distinguished himself as much as Blumenauer or Oberstar as a supporter of transit and automobile alternatives.

At the bottom of the list is Steve Hemminger, head of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission—the San Francisco Bay Area’s MPO. Under his leadership, a car-only rebuild of the Eastern span of the Bay Bridge was rammed through over mayoral and public opposition. (The original bridge was designed to carry both cars and rail transit). Also, he has advocated for a major new car-only tunnel bore through the East-bay hills—a 4th bore of the Caldecott tunnel, which would bring in an additional 3000 cars per hour into the Bay Area from its eastern suburbs—adding to traffic congestion and fueling additional sprawl. In general he has shown himself to be overly supportive of highway building interests and lacks a solid record of progressive transportation achievements. Of all the candidates, however, he has the biggest connection to the Democratic Party’s political apparatus. In addition to serving on the MTC, he was appointed by current US House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to serve on a national surface transportation planning review commission.

Whether Obama chooses one of these candidates or someone else, hopefully he will choose a forward looking progressive who will focus on public transit and better land use. Stay tuned!

Andy Singer is a cartoonist and illustrator by day and an alternative transportation activist by night. He is the author and illustrator of "CARtoons," published in 2001 by Car Busters Press, a collection of cartoons and essays examining the social, economic and environmental impacts of automobiles. He and his wife live car-free in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Andy has read extensively on transportation, planning and energy issues. His favorite transportation books include-- "The Power Broker" (by Robert Caro), "Asphalt Nation" by (Jane Holtz Kay), "Energy and Equity" (by Ivan Illich), and "Getting There: The Epic Struggle between Road and Rail in the American Century" (by Stephen Goddard). If you haven't read these books, you should! he says.