More than a few people have likened the devastation inside some neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan, to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. One observer said succinctly that Detroit has suffered a ”slow-motion hurricane Katrina.”

Architect and urban planner Reed Kroloff has been able to see both cities close up. As dean of architecture at Tulane University, he was responsible for bringing back 97 percent of the school’s student body and 100 percent of its faculty after the disaster. In 2005, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin appointed Kroloff to the “Bring New Orleans Back Commission” to assist in the reconstruction of the city. Kroloff left New Orleans in 2007 to become the director of the Cranbrook Academy of Art in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. He continues to write and think about how cities on the brink can be brought back.

“I think that (Detroit) actually has an opportunity to be successful,” Karloff said, during an interview for Blueprint America’s “Shrinking Detroit” report,“but it’s going to take a long time. It took a long time to ruin it. You can’t fix it overnight.”

In this extended interview Kroloff talks about how cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Youngstown, Ohio, can retool their economies in the 21st century, now that their 20th century factories and mills are shut down and residents have fled. Interestingly, Pittsburgh – and its turn from steel to high-tech research and development – could provide a model.

Related:

Not in my backyard? Lisa Margonelli at the 2010 TEDx Oil Spill conference

When birds wash ashore

An artist's conception of a high-speed rail station in California. Officials there approved a $4.3 billion proposal to build California's first segment of high-speed rail line that would run through the state's agricultural heart. (AP Photo/ California High-Speed Rail Authority)

The Republican Party has drawn a line, taking on President Obama’s high-speed rail plan as he begins to defend his presidency with the 2012 election not far off. The opposition solidified on Wednesday when Gov. Rick Scott (R.-Fla.) became the third Republican state leader to turn down federal dollars for high-speed rail. Wisconsin and Ohio first refused a combined billion dollars for lines that would have connected the Midwest; Florida now rejects a link between Tampa and Orlando, forgoing more than $2 billion.

Just as in Wisconsin, the money in Florida would have covered almost the entire cost of construction. And just as in Wisconsin, the governor argued that high-speed rail would forever obligate the state to subsidize the cost to keep trains running.

Scott’s announcement came a little more than a week after Vice President Joe Biden called for spending $53 billion on passenger trains and high-speed rail projects over the next six years. An initial $8 billion of that plan is already a part of the budget recently released by the White House.

Losing Florida, however, is a huge blow to the Obama administration, which wants to make high-speed rail accessible to 80 percent of Americans within 25 years. Around this time last year, the president came to Tampa amid fanfare and with funding in hand to announce the beginning of an American high-speed rail system. Obama chose Florida because the 85-mile Tampa-to-Orlando line, on which trains would travel as fast as 170 miles per hour, was to be the national showpiece for high-speed rail. Construction could have even started this year because the state already owned much of the land along the route, which would allow it to be built relatively quickly.

Without a change in the national plan though, high-speed trains won’t be running anytime soon in the country. With Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida out of the picture, California remains the farthest along in its rail development, with trains potentially running by the decade’s end.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he was “extremely disappointed” by Scott’s decision in a statement Wednesday, but that the money would likely be redistributed to other states.

Although Scott threatened to turn down the billions in rail money when he ran for office last year, many in the state were surprised that he actually followed through. Florida’s unemployment rate is about 12 percent, and the rail project had been expected to create thousands of new jobs.

Had the money been accepted, it’s possible to imagine that Obama, less than two years from now, would be out stomping for votes from points between Tampa and Orlando, touting job creation and 21st century transportation improvements. Instead, the state is now home to a substantial Obama loss. If Florida turns out to be a swing-state come election time (as it always seems to), Republicans may have just won the first battle for the state and, perhaps, the White House.

Roseville, Minn., in the 1950s

In the shadow of the recession, a great migration of sorts has occurred in the suburbs. Though, since the rows of houses were first built outside America’s city limits, this population turnover has been a long time coming.

A Brookings Institution preview of the 2010 census released last year shows that the nuclear family out in suburbia with its kids and white-picket fences and two-car garages has been a mischaracterization for at least the last decade, if not longer. Racial and ethnic minorities now account for a majority of the population in 17 metropolitan areas, most in the South and Southwest, but regions like New York and the Northeast will soon follow. Also, since 2000, the number of 55- to 64-year-olds nationwide grew by nearly 50 percent. This past January, the first baby boomers turned 65.

Brookings demographer William H. Frey talks to Blueprint America about his findings, and what all of it means to a new kind of suburbia.

Tom McNamara: Freedom, the pursuit of it at least, seemed to bring about the suburban boom. But, Americans have always been after freedom. What was it about the 1950s that made “suburbia” the dream?

William H. Frey: I think the idea of freedom was a draw. You had a new house and you were a new part of a growing metropolitan area. We like to idealize what was going on in the 1950s. After all, this was when the country was just building the Interstate Highway System — allowing people to go to the suburbs in the first place. It was after World War Two and the G.I. Bill enabled people to get homes at very low interest, as well. These were the parents of the baby boomers, so families were mushrooming all over the place.

But it’s not all rose colored. What we often forget about is that most people who moved to the suburbs back then were white people, not minorities. There was a great degree of racial segregation. And it has been argued that many of the people who moved to the suburbs moved there to get away from the minority populations in the cities.

McNamara: In a nutshell, this brings us to suburbia today. Minorities and new immigrants that lived in the city, America’s urban centers in the 1950s, have now spread out across the country. And, in great numbers, they have moved into the suburbs. Why?

Frey: The American dream, to some degree, is still attached to moving to the suburbs. The reality of suburbia now is that the suburbs are really a microcosm of the whole country. There are new minorities coming in. For instance, Hispanics are moving to some of those suburban communities that had an entirely different race and ethnicity in the ’50s. Those Ozzie and Harriet couples are gone in a sense, but these new groups, like the Hispanics, have children too. There really is a kaleidoscope of demographic groups that characterize our suburbs today, when you just look at the suburbs as a whole, it’s really a hodge-podge.

There’s always been this kind of transition in our neighborhoods — as one group moved out, another group moved in.

McNamara: So, what happened to Ozzie and Harriet?

Frey: Those early suburbanites who came to the suburbs in the 1950s, they’re entering seniorhood now. In fact, the biggest part of the suburban population will continue to be the older part of the population who moved there when they were younger and just stayed there. They’re aging in place. They’re part of what demographers are calling the “age-wave” — the aging of suburbia.

For the most part seniors don’t move very much. The migration rates of seniors are very low. So for most people, even if they’re in their 50s or in their 60s, many have to be dragged kicking and screaming from their home.

McNamara: And their kids?

Frey: You’re talking about baby boomers, ranging in age from about 45 to 65. The first boomers just turned 65 this year, and they’ll continue to age in place — largely in the suburbs — as they get into their 70s and older.

The boomers are a mix of people who either moved to the suburbs sometime during their adult years or have been there since they were kids — some of them never left! And they are also divided in terms of their economic status — there are rich suburbs, there are poor suburbs, there are suburbs that are made up largely of owned homes, there are suburbs that are made up largely of rented homes.

The boomers are not a homogenous group even though they might have been homogenous at an early age. The suburban boomers are a group that has experienced a variety of lifestyle changes and choices. Many are single parents. Many are single people or divorced people. And there are of course still couples living in the suburbs. Empty nesters, too. The list goes on and on.

The suburbs might have first been built for families with children, with parks and playgrounds and good schools. But now the population that lives in the suburbs has a variety of needs and they don’t just fit into that stereotype anymore.

McNamara: The takeaway for me is that the suburban perception is no longer the same as the suburban reality. For example, this summer I was in the Atlanta suburbs along a strip of highway that was once home to a largely white, car-owning population. Today, however, the seven-lane roadway is home to mainly new immigrants who don’t own cars. As a result, jaywalking is their best transit option.

What are the implications of this suburban demographic shift on our built environment?

Frey: With respect to transportation, the suburbs of the past are not well suited for the suburbanites of the present. First of all, the new suburban demographic is not always able to have two cars in the family, or maybe not even one car in the family if they’re a new immigrant group. And, if they’re older, they may not be as well able to travel in cars and on freeways.

Additionally, over time, of course, we’re going to hit the wall when it comes to energy costs in this country. Every time in the last 30 or 40 years, whether there’s been a big spike in gasoline prices, this conversation comes about that you aren’t going to be able to get to work if you live in the suburbs. People talk about, “Well, this is the end of suburbia.” And I think this just points to the importance of our transportation infrastructure and how it can be made to adapt to, perhaps, more clustered living within the suburbs. Or, at least, find alternatives to the car — because when I look ahead in the next 20 years or so, relying on building more roads to get more people where they need to go is not going to be the way we want to go.

McNamara: It seems like the shift in our suburban population has largely happened — minorities and new immigrants are there already. And, in terms of our aging, the suburbs will only get older. What can we do? Are we prepared as a country?

Frey: Well, not yet. The new minority populations are quite visible, especially in communities that haven’t seen these minorities before. However, their needs are often times difficult for people to understand.

I would say for the aging part of the population, the people that I talk to, there’s not a big outcry yet. There should be soon, but this is the kind of demographic change the sneaks up on you because we’re talking about aging in place. All of these people are there already — it’s kind of a hidden demographic force. One day, we are going to look around and say, ‘Oh my god, we do need to have a change in our transportation system, we do need to figure out ways to get people to medical care centers…’

I think we can take a lesson from the Social Security and Medicare situation we’re in right now. Good demographers knew 30 years ago that we were going to be hitting the wall with these programs. But from a political standpoint we don’t seem to want to deal with them until our backs are absolutely against the wall. And I think that unfortunately may be the case with changing our suburbs to meet the needs of the people that live there today.

An internationally known demographer, Bill Frey specializes in issues involving urban populations, migration, immigration, race, aging, political demographics, and the U.S. Census. He is also a research professor in population studies at the University of Michigan.

In the shadow of the recession, a great migration of sorts has occurred in the suburbs. Though, since the rows of houses were first built outside America’s city limits, this population turnover has been a long time coming.

A Brookings Institution preview of the 2010 Census released last year shows that the nuclear family out in suburbia with its kids and white-picket fences and two-car garages has been a misscharacterization for at least the last decade, if not longer. Racial and ethnic minorities now account for a majority of the population in 17 metropolitan areas, most in the South and Southwest, but regions like New York in the Northeast will soon follow. Also, since 2000, the number of 55to 64 year olds nationwide grew by nearly 50 percent. This past January, the first baby boomers turned 65.

Brookings demographer William H. Frey talks to Blueprint America about his findings, and what all of it means to a new kind of suburbia. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2011/01/suburbbroll200×100.jpg ]]> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/profiles-from-the-recession/interview-boomtown-the-great-suburban-demographic-shift/1175/feed/ 0 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/profiles-from-the-recession/interview-seniorville-the-suburbs-turn-65/1178/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/profiles-from-the-recession/interview-seniorville-the-suburbs-turn-65/1178/#comments Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:39:49 +0000 tom mcnamara http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/?p=1178 Tom McNamara, Blueprint America

America is on the brink of a massive demographic shift as the first of the baby boom turned 65 this New Year. Already, an estimated 39 million people across the country are 65 or older — just over 13 percent of the population. By 2030, when all baby boomers will be over 65, there will be 72 million seniors — about 20 percent of the population. And our suburbs — where half of all Americans live today — will be hardest hit.

Elinor Ginzler, AARP’s Director of Livable Communities, talks to Blueprint America about how Americans can live in suburbia as they age. Already, the suburbs are a tough place to get around. Getting older won’t make it any easier.

Tom McNamara: This is one of those statistics that hits you right in the face: Roughly 7 in 10 current seniors and baby boomers live in our country’s suburbs. What does that mean to the livability — transportation access, housing options, and the ability to get to family, friends, medical care, or, even, maintain one’s independence — of suburbia as this large demographic continues to age?

Elinor Ginzler: The keys to successful living at any age are a home that is safe, affordable, comfortable, convenient and adaptable to changing family needs, a community that has all the features you need, and a range of transportation choices to get where you need and want to go to engage in community life. Americans of all ages have some of these features in today’s suburbs. But, modern suburban development is auto centric. For drivers the biggest problem is congestion. People who don’t drive are dependent on family and friends to stay connected.

And, people who no longer drive need more conveniently located retail and services and/or safe and convenient ways to get where they need or want to go. Many local policymakers are only now realizing the implications of changing demographics. Suburban homeowners need to make sure that their homes that were originally built for young families won’t limit their ability to live comfortably as they age. Will the design of their home support them as they age and possibly develop limitations in mobility, sight or hearing? Those are the questions we need to start asking.

McNamara: Paint a picture of suburbia then and now. Who built the suburbs? What’s happened to them and their children? What’s happened to them?

Ginzler: American suburbs began cropping up in the second half of the 19th century. But what most of us think of as the suburbs sprang up in the post World War Two era. The availability of long-term home mortgages for returning G.I.s, the affordability of family cars and the construction of the Interstate Highway System enabled young couples with families to move away from Main Streets and core city neighborhoods. Developers built large communities of detached, single-family homes with large lots on cheap land made accessible by highways and new local road projects. However, as time passed, these homes grew farther and farther from the core city where most of the jobs remained.

Baby Boomers grew up in the suburbs and most of them still live there. Some of them even moved their older parents nearby as they have gotten older. They are increasingly facing challenges in staying connected and engaged in their communities that have been designed so that people live in one area, work in another area and shop in still another area. For people who stop driving, this leaves them literally stranded without options in their homes.

McNamara: What’s the identity of the suburbs today in American culture, in the context to the age wave?

Ginzler: For many Americans, the contemporary suburb is still the preferred living arrangement. Privacy, large lots, few public safety concerns and good schools make it a destination of choice. However, the American suburban population is aging. Some are choosing redeveloped inner ring suburbs or downtown living to be closer to where the action is. Add to that the increasing cost of gas to fuel our cars and it is clear that the “Loop-and-Lollipop” cul-de-sac neighborhoods of the 20th Century face significant challenges…

Though, many local governments are trying to reinvent themselves. Without some changes to their communities, many older non-driving suburbanites risk being stuck in their homes. (The average American man will outlive his driving years by 7 years and the average older woman by 10 years.)

McNamara: So, what needs to be done to ready suburbia for the age wave? What can government — local, state, federal — do to help the aging? What kind of investment needs to be made?

Ginzler: The future of suburbia is starting to take shape: shopping malls, strip malls and other commercial centers are beginning to remake themselves into mixed use, walkable centers with multifamily housing (apartments and condos). Many older adults aging in their current homes are taking advantage of services and culture in these new town centers. Others are opting to leave the maintenance and yard work behind and move into multifamily housing.

Communities that hope to meet the mobility needs of older residents are introducing transit service routes that connect older adults to grocery stores, pharmacies, libraries and other important destinations. Volunteer driver programs, taxi voucher programs, church and community-sponsored transportation and family and friends are helping older Americans overcome the mobility barriers of today’s car-dependent suburbia.

Local governments would be well served to look at the friendliness of their walking environment in their communities. Simply improving sidewalks and changing the timing on crosswalks can mean the difference between keeping people stuck at home and creating an environment that supports healthy aging.

Meanwhile, as local governments plan for the future many are developing plans for transit-oriented developments that cluster housing, services, retail and entertainment around transit hubs — either bus or light rail. State and local governments are encouraging (by regulation or incentives) builders to develop homes that have at least one no-step entrance, wider doorways, a full bath and a room that could be used as a bedroom on the main floor. They are also increasingly adopting Complete Streets policies to upgrade our streets for all users: drivers, pedestrians, transit-users and cyclists.

McNamara: How much is the age-wave on the radar of policy makers in Washington? Sure, AARP is interested and spreading the word — but what about our elected officials? Does aging in the suburbs of political legs?

Ginzler: The establishment of the federal Sustainable Communities Partnership and the Sustainable Communities Act (which was introduced, but not passed in the last Congress) represent major steps in the federal government’s understanding of the wide range of challenges facing communities. The Act would advance the unprecedented collaboration among the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, which have pledged to work together taking housing, transportation, and environmental protection into account in planning and funding their programs toward the goal of promoting sustainable/livable communities. This kind of collaboration at all levels of government is needed to solve the wide range of problems facing our communities as they age. However, government also needs to ensure that issues affecting older adults are addressed.

Policymakers and their families, just as many of their constituents, are now experiencing the challenges (and rewards) of caring for a loved one, and that often alerts them to issues that properly belong in the public arena. We’ve heard personal stories from elected officials on both sides of the aisle about this. Some Members of Congress have introduced legislation to help support family caregivers. Others policymakers are caring for older loved ones and know first hand about the need for safe streets that serve everyone. They have advanced legislation making roads safer and more user-friendly for pedestrians and all drivers.

McNamara: There is a difference between policymakers knowing and acting. How much of the responsibility falls to families and children of the aging? Whether we like it or not, what are we all responsible for?

Ginzler: Families and children of aging parents are on the front lines and are most often the ones to step in and help take care of their loved ones. Remember that there are 44 million people in the US today taking care of older family members and friends. That represents over 75 percent of the long term care support provided to older people. Family and friends take on everything from navigating the healthcare system to finding services (including transportation and homecare), even feeding and dressing their loved ones, taking them to the doctor, paying for care, or having their loved ones move in with them. Most family caregivers give this help because, they say, that’s just what families do.

McNamara: Is there a political response?

Ginzler: Policymakers can help support family caregivers in their caregiving role by helping to make sure families can access information about services and other resources for their loved ones; that respite care, counseling, training, and other supports are available to caregivers; and by supporting other policies that help support family caregivers, such as the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Program.

McNamara: What does the future hold for families of the aging?

Ginzler: Boomers can help their parents today (and themselves when they become care recipients) by talking with their loved ones early and repeatedly about where and how their folks want to live in the future, what their wishes are if they are ill, and where to find information about their finances and health care if they are suddenly unable to care for themselves. AARP’s book, Caring for Your Parents, has advice on how to have these important family conversations. Check it out.

America is on the brink of a massive demographic shift as the first of the baby boom turned 65 this New Year. Already, an estimated 39 million people across the country are 65 or older — just over 13 percent of the population. By 2030, when all baby boomers will be over 65, there will be 72 million seniors — about 20 percent of the population. And our suburbs — where half of all Americans live today — will be hardest hit.

Elinor Ginzler, AARP’s Director of Livable Communities, talks to Blueprint America about how Americans can live in suburbia as they age. Already, the suburbs are a tough place to get around. Getting older won’t make it any easier. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2011/01/200×100watchforseniors.jpg ]]> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/profiles-from-the-recession/interview-seniorville-the-suburbs-turn-65/1178/feed/ 1 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/profiles-from-the-recession/video-fixing-america-with-high-speed-rail/1161/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/profiles-from-the-recession/video-fixing-america-with-high-speed-rail/1161/#comments Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:11:57 +0000 tom mcnamara http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/?p=1161
Last month, Blueprint America’s colleagues at Need to Know debuted a new segment on the program: Fixing America.

This week, their big thinkers take on infrastructure and the economy — can High-speed rail get America back on the right track? Guests include Petra Todorovich, director the America 2050; Felix Salmon, a financial blogger for Reuters; and Patricia DeGennaro, a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute.

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

Last month, Blueprint America’s colleagues at Need to Know debuted a new segment on the program: Fixing America.

This week, their big thinkers take on infrastructure and the economy — can High-speed rail get America back on the right track? Guests include Petra Todorovich, director the America 2050; Felix Salmon, a financial blogger for Reuters; and Patricia DeGennaro, a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/05/boldendev200×100.jpg ]]> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/profiles-from-the-recession/video-fixing-america-with-high-speed-rail/1161/feed/ 0 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/america-in-gridlock/interview-what-to-expect-from-a-republican-led-transportation-committee/725/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/america-in-gridlock/interview-what-to-expect-from-a-republican-led-transportation-committee/725/#comments Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:00:19 +0000 tom mcnamara http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/?p=725 Tom McNamara, Blueprint America

After the election shake-up, Rep. John Mica (R., Fla), will be the new House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair next year || Photo: Washington Post

On Capitol Hill, the new year will bring a new Congress and a change in leadership in the House after Republicans won big last month in the midterm elections. However, the new House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair, Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.), is something of an enigma when compared to his Republican counterparts as they prepare to take control. What no one can even guess about is the tone that Rep. Mica will set on transportation policy.

Here’s why: When current Transportation Chair Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.) steps down (it is worth noting that the 36-year member of Congress also lost his reelection bid), he gives way to not just any Republican but one of his closest political allies in Mica. Last year, the Florida Republican even went before Congress defending the Minnesota Democrat’s stalled transportation bill, which would have doubled government spending to over $500 billion and lessened the importance of highways in favor of mass-transit. To say the least, Mica showed another side of Republican thinking on transportation.

Below is an interview Blueprint America had with Mica back in 2009 when he was the minority leader of the Transportation Committee. What’s interesting is the fact that ideologically — at least on transportation issues — the incoming Chair aligned more often with liberals than conservatives. “If you’re on the Transportation Committee long enough,” said Rep. Mica, “even if you’re a fiscal conservative… you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment.”

That was then, however, when Mica was in the minority. See if you can read between the lines — will the new Chair continue to champion Oberstar’s stalled bill or will the Republican align with his party and cut spending now that he is calling the shots?

FROM JUNE 2009:

Last week, the Obama administration offered a temporary finance plan that, if implemented, could put off legislation to overhaul federal highway and transportation programs. It would also delay a possible vote to raise the national gas tax past the 2010 congressional midterm elections. The proposal came just a day before Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, released an outline of the legislation – THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 – aimed at reforming transportation nationally.

Rep. Oberstar had been counting on a September 30 deadline — when the current law authorizing federal highway and transit programs expires — to bring lawmakers together to not only renew federal transportation funding but to also rethink how it is funded.

The proposed transportation bill calls for $450 billion in federal funding, which is a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005.

The following is an interview with Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.), ranking minority member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, about the recent developments of the transportation bill:

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The current highway authorization expires at the end of September. So what exactly is expiring?

REP. JOHN MICA: Every six years Congress adopts a federal authorization for highways, which outlines transportation policy, projects, and funding distributions for the whole country.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Right now, however, the Obama Administration wants to delay authorization.

REP. MICA: We’re on the verge of a transportation meltdown. The Administration has proposed an 18-month extension of both the highway authorization bill and the highway trust fund. That will require, depending on how long it is extended, between $8 and $15 billion.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, typically, the transportation bill is not authorized every six years – it’s generally extended.

REP. MICA: Right. I think the last time we tried to authorize it we had 13 extensions.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Are you opposed to this 18-month extension by the Obama Administration?

REP. MICA: Well, I think that it would be better to go ahead with the transportation bill Rep. (Jim) Oberstar has introduced. We have been working on the bill for some time.

Still, I think we take that bill as the starter. The problem you’ve got with an 18-month extension is that it puts many of the major infrastructure projects on hold. The 18-month extension is a job killer. It gives you a temporary relief with the highway trust fund, but because you don’t have projects approved and policy and funding mechanisms in place for the future, it ends up killing jobs and delaying decisions on projects across the country. For example, there are 6, 800 project requests in the House bill alone – all of these would go on hold.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: How will the extension be funded – this $8 to $15 billion?

REP. MICA: They would take it out of general revenue, which would basically be deficit spending – and fund it. They have talked about some offsets, but I haven’t seen any specifics. Last year, however, we did allocate $8 billion to keep the highway trust fund solvent. That said, it was with no offsets.

When we’ve spent $3 trillion so far this year with no offsets – $8 to $15 billion seems like a very small amount.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: In the meantime, what is to be done about the highway trust fund?

REP. MICA: The highway trust fund will continue to lose money – for several reasons – as federal funding is based on an 18.4 cents a gallon national gas tax that hasn’t been increased in years. One, because of the economy, there’s not as much motor vehicle traffic. And two, every day the fleet is becoming more efficient, so people are driving further and paying less.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Why, then, is the Obama Administration wanting to delay authorization?

REP. MICA: A political reason – because they don’t want to promote another tax increase, which sure puts them in a bind as most of the Democrats in Congress favor a tax increase. Also, I think that they’ve got themselves overextended with taking on many controversial measures.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What do you favor in terms of funding transportation?

REP. MICA: There are two things we need to do. We need to leverage the funds we have coming in through a host of creative financing mechanisms. One, would be a dramatic increase in public-private partnerships. Two, would be leveraging some of the funds that we have coming in using bonds, full faith, and credit of the United States. And, guarantee programs toward financing infrastructure projects. Three, the national infrastructure bank and other financing or assistance programs.

That’s the first part.

The second part is speeding up the process. Most projects that the federal government is involved with take an inordinate amount of time for approvals, and they cost much more because there are so many delays and hoops that people have to go through.

I offer what I call the Mica 437-day process plan, which is the number of days it took to replace the bridge that collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. Rather than the seven or eight years it takes complete any other bridge, which would be the normal time frame.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: And why did it just take 437-days to complete?

MICA: It was done on an expedited approval basis, which I think you could do with most projects that don’t change the basic footprint of the infrastructure that you’re rebuilding.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Is an expedited approval process included in the transportation bill? That said, are you supportive of the highway authorization?

REP. MICA: I’m supportive with reservations. First, I’m trying to move the process forward, but there are things, if I were writing it, that I would write quite differently. If the process continues to be open and participatory, then I can be supportive. It does need some clean-up, and it needs some revision. I’d like to see much more of the ideas that I have advocated on, such as speeding up the approval process and increasing the revenues that are available without raising taxes. Those are my two big ones.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What is the likelihood of the transportation bill passing?

REP. MICA: It’s 50-50. It’s hard to say if we can get support. I think that with rolling the bill out this week, we will have an option of our bill versus the 18-month extension. Then you just have to work it, and see if you can bring a coalition of people who are interested in building and solving the problem of infrastructure now, rather than putting it off until later.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: And, what would you say of the support right now for the transportation bill?

REP. MICA: Well, I think it could pass in the House.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What about the Senate?

REP. MICA: A little bit more dicey.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: You were quoted as saying, referring to the Obama Administration wanting to delay authorization, “That’s a real slap in the face to a lot of hard work … I would have been mortified if this had been done to me under Bush.”

REP. MICA: I’m not Rep. Oberstar, but for his administration, after working as hard as he has to move the bill forward, to have the rug pulled out from under him, with this just out of the blue proposal, is a hard pill to swallow.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: In terms of your role as a Representative from Florida, and getting funding for your state and your district, what needs to happen to that process?

REP. MICA: Well, I’m more interested in the country at large in terms of infrastructure. If we can provide adequate funds for improvements across the country, then it benefits every district – not just my own. Simply, I’m not taking a parochial viewpoint for my own district or for my own state.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: You are a Republican – and you support transportation and infrastructure spending?

REP. MICA: Well, I tell you though, if you’re on the Transportation Committee long enough, even if you’re a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it’s so much more cost effective than building a highway. Also, it’s good for energy, it’s good for the environment – and that’s why I like it.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: If anything, you’d say that your time in Congress and on the Transportation Committee has brought you around to these ideas?

REP. MICA: Yes. And, seeing the cost of one person in one car. The cost for construction. The cost for the environment. The cost for energy. You can pretty quickly be convinced that there’s got to be a more cost effective way. It’s going to take a little time, but we have to have good projects, they have to make sense – whether it’s high-speed rail or commuter rail or light rail. We got to have some alternatives helping people – even in the rural areas – to get around.

/wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/06/john-mica-washington-post200×100.jpg A look back at an interview with then-ranking minority leader of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.), as he is set to take over as Chair next year. ]]>

After making headlines for weeks, yesterday New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made it official: He’s killing the commuter rail tunnel between Manhattan and New Jersey. The project is too expensive, he says, and his state doesn’t have the money to cover its share of the costs. The demise of the largest public works project in decades illustrates the stark political choice many voters will make next week: either spend our way out of the recession with big projects like high-speed trains and tunnels or save our way out with good old fashioned belt-tightening.

Christie made his choice clear last week with a childhood story: “In our house, when I used to go to my mother and say, ‘I’d like something new, I’d like to buy something.’ My mother would look at me and say, ‘Well, of course, Christopher, you can have that, just go in the back yard and take the money off the money tree. You know where that is, right?’”

The New Jersey governor is only in his first year of office and not up for reelection, yet he has been crisscrossing the country this election season endorsing Republican candidates and preaching his wildly popular brand of fiscal conservatism.

In closing the story of Christopher and the money tree, he made a connection to the unchecked spending he sees today: “There is no money tree in Washington, D.C. … To me it is a moral imperative to say no to these things.”

Does Chris Christie have his finger on the country’s pulse?

Nearly two years after an economic stimulus steeped in infrastructure building promises and $787 billion in government spending, Americans by and large have had enough. In a September 2010 Rassmusen poll, 61 percent of U.S. voters said cutting government spending and deficits would do more to create jobs than President Obama’s call last month for $50 billion more in infrastructure spending, what’s being dubbed”stimulus part two.”

And while Christie isn’t the first politician to take a stand against Washington, he certainly turned down an awful lot of money: $6 billion in combined federal, regional and stimulus funds for a new and needed (even Christie thought it was a good idea) commuter rail tunnel. In fact, for saying no, New Jersey could owe the feds some $600 million it has already spent on the project.

NJ Governor Chris Christie holds a Town Hall Meeting on his Reform Agenda for the state in Moorestown, NJ. Photo: NJ Governor's Office/Tim Larsen

It’s not every day a governor turns down billions in infrastructure spending. It was estimated that the project would have created 6,000 new jobs, greatly lessened commute times and increased property values for state residents. But that isn’t exactly the deal Christie walked away from. The tunnel would have left the same residents on the hook for $6 billion in projected cost overruns on top of the $3 billion the state was already obligated to pay.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman, took an impromptu trip to the New Jersey capitol last week to convince Christie to change his mind. But, in the end, the feds were unable to calm the governor’s fears that cost overruns would trash New Jersey’s budget. Later, the DOT chief only had this to say by way of Twitter, “Is it just me, or is it hard to argue against writing the next chapter in American innovation?”

No train

Apparently, it is getting easier to argue against the next chapter of American innovation, especially if it’s being proposed by the Obama administration. If elected, Republican gubernatorial candidates from Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and California are promising to say “no” to federal dollars for high-speed rail. Being against massive government investment in high-speed rail isn’t hurting their chances either. The anti-rail candidates are in command in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida; and California is a tossup. And it’s no coincidence that Christie has campaigned in all of these states.

High-speed rail is one of President Obama’s signature initiatives. In his State of the Union address this year, the president backed up his national rail vision by announcing that $8 billion in stimulus money would be distributed to various states, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and California, to get the country’s next generation of transportation moving.

“The bottom line is that high-speed rail is a national program that will connect the country, spur economic development and bring manufacturing jobs to the U.S.,” said Secretary LaHood in a statement. “It will also transform transportation in America, much like the Interstate highway system did under President Eisenhower. It’s hard to imagine what would have happened to states like Ohio and Wisconsin if their leaders had decided they didn’t want to be connected to the rest of the country back then.”

Wisconsin

More than $810 million in federal stimulus money is going to build a high-speed train line between Milwaukee and Madison. Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker has made that issue central to his campaign, even holding a “Stop the Train” rally over the summer. Walker argues that taking the money will forever obligate the state to spend $7 million to $10 million a year. High-speed rail will not be self-supporting, he says. His website, NoTrain.com, runs an advertisement in which he calls the rail project a boondoggle. “I’m Scott Walker,” he says in the video, “and if I’m elected as your next governor, we’ll stop this train.”

Ohio

Republican candidate for governor John Kasich has promised to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to connect Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by high-speed rail. In a recent debate, Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat seeking re-election, was dumbfounded his opponent would return that much money, “Your position, quite frankly, really puzzles me,” Strickland said.

Florida

Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has flip-flopped on the high-speed rail line from Orlando to Tampa. In a CNN debate Monday night, Scott said he’d pull the plug on the project if the state had to pay for any portion. The next day, Scott softened, “I would go through first and wait until we can see the feasibility study and see what it’s going to cost taxpayers. Then I would make the decision,” he said.

All told, after an initial $1.25 billion in stimulus earlier this year and another $800 million just this week from the feds, Florida only has to pay for 20 percent of the project.

California

After an investment of $2.3 billion in federal stimulus, Republican candidate for governor Meg Whitman has maintained that the time for the $45 billion high-speed rail plan, connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, is not now. “In the face of the state’s current fiscal crisis, Meg doesn’t believe we can afford the costs associated with new high-speed rail at this time,” said Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman, to The New York Times.

However, as the California High Speed Rail Blog points out, the costs for the project are not associated with the state’s budget, and any delays could only jeopardize the stimulus money.

And just this week, the feds announced that another $902 million is on the way for high speed rail development in the state.

A 21st 20th century infrastructure

It remains to be seen how much power fiscal conservatives will have in saying “no” to high-speed rail and other big infrastructure investments. These deficit hawks, demanding to know where Chris Christie’s proverbial money tree is, could stand in the way of the Obama administration’s goal of bringing America’s infrastructure into the 21st century.

Producer Fae Moore, editor David Kreger and special correspondent John Larson for Blueprint America

JOHN LARSON:
Laura Grosso lives with her husband Tony and their two sons in Queen Creek, Arizona, a suburb on the outer fringes of Phoenix. They bought this three bedroom in 2006. Even though it was far from work and family, it was just what they were looking for

LAURA GROSSO:
We wanted Dominic and Franco to be happy here, and to have a nice childhood, like how we grew up. Because we grew up in the mid-west, where it was open and everyone had grass. So, this is kind of a little piece of how we wanted it to be for them.

JOHN LARSON:
Like millions of other young American families who bought during the last housing boom, the Grossos decided to trade more time behind the wheel for an opportunity to live their American dream.

LAURE GROSSO:
We understood that it was really far out, but we thought, well, this is– we can afford this house, it’s big enough for us. And, here we go, we like the area.

JOHN LARSON:
You might think this is a story about how the Grossos are coping with a looming foreclosure. But it’s not.

It’s about how families hit hard by the housing crisis are also getting slammed by rising transportation costs.

When they signed on the dotted line, the Grossos never thought about what they would spend for gas, insurance and car payments …but last spring, when the transmission on their second car died, the cost became all too clear. They had already taken paycuts and they could not afford a new car.

With no mass transit, the only option for both Grossos to get to work? They go together.

They rouse the babies and they’re out the door before sun up.

First stop: 25 minutes to Mesa, to unload the boys at grandma’s house

20 minutes later, they reach Scottsdale, where Laura lets Tony off in time for his six AM shift as a security guard in a hospital.

It’s another 15 minutes to Tempe, where Laura works in administration at Arizona State University. After a full day’s work, they’ll do the whole thing in reverse in the afternoon…round trip that’s about 120 miles a day.

And how many hours you figure?

TONY GROSSO:
Well, it’s at least about two and a half, two hours. Depending on traffic and stuff.

JOHN LARSON:
It sounds exhausting.

TONY GROSSO:
We don’t think about it. We do it.

JOHN LARSON:
There’s no question driving is a way of life for most of the 4 million people who call metro Phoenix home.

It’s hard to grasp just how spread out the region is. Phoenix and the surrounding valley cover over 2,000 square miles.

The population grew by more than 1 million people in the past decade alone. A sea of new homes went up almost overnight. When gas prices spiked between 2007 and 2008, people were suddenly paying twice as much to get around…..and that’s exactly when foreclosures peaked in neighborhoods like Queen Creek.

LAURA GROSSO:
It was a ghost town. The streets as you go down the street, it was just for sale signs, the houses were vacant…

JOHN LARSON:
Studies show this pattern – the farther out, the more foreclosures– held true in most major American sprawl towns…

As they post-mortem the housing crisis, policy makers are increasingly putting transportation costs under the microscope. Shaun Donovan is the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

SHAUN DONOVAN:
In some ways the foreclosure crisis has been a wakeup call on that front. What it said to folks is, “Hey, wait a second. Look at the houses that are on the periphery of these metropolitan areas. Those are the ones that have actually lost the most value.

The places that have retained the most value, where prices have dropped the least, are places that have access to transportation.”

JOHN LARSON:
It wasn’t just the marketplace that created sprawl, says Donovan.

ARCHIVAL FILM NARRATION:
This is the American dream of freedom on wheels….

JOHN LARSON:
The federal government has been in the business of promoting car dependent development for a long time… ever since President Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act back in 1956.

Over the decades Washington spent trillions building highways, and subsidizing the suburban housing industry. As long as gas was cheap and there was room to grow it seemed to work. But today the American dream is gridlocked, literally. Clogged roads pollute the air, gas prices are high, and many people are spending more time on the road than with their families.

SHAUN DONOVAN:
The average family in America today spends 52 percent of their income on housing and transportation combined. The single largest costs in the average American family’s budget.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
We can no longer afford to sit still. What we need is a smart system of infrastructure equal to the needs of the 21st century…

JOHN LARSON:
The Obama Administration is trying to sell Congress and the public on a new blueprint. One that changes the way we design communities and get around in them.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
A system that cuts congestion and ups productivity.

DONOVAN
What we’re trying to do is provide more choice. And by the way, that’s what I hear when I’m out in communities every day – we want more choices. “Look, I’m not going to get rid of my car,” is what I hear. “It’s not that I’m going to not have a car. It’s that I don’t want always have to get in my car. I want to be able to get on my bicycle sometimes. I want to be able to walk. I want to have transportation choices.”

JOHN LARSON:
Providing more affordable choices means first and foremost promoting public transportation, something car loving Arizonans have historically resisted.

Until the Phoenix light rail. The controversial 1.4 billion dollar light rail opened in 2008 after a narrow margin of local voters approved a half cent sales tax and Washington agreed to pay for 40 percent of the construction costs.

So far ridership has more than exceeded expectations. About 33,000 people a day, many of them students, ride the 20 mile rail which connects downtown to the university neighborhoods of Tempe and Mesa.

Right now the rail only reaches a small portion of the region, but there are plans to extend it 57 miles out into the valley.

Emily Talen is a professor of urban planning at Arizona State.

EMILY TALEN
The light rail has a certain sexiness to it that can really get people excited and energized.

It’s got to be seen as one step in an evolution of turning this ship around, this sprawling, unsustainable, place into a different kind of community.

JOHN LARSON:
The outlines of this community are starting to emerge. In the past five years developers have poured $5 billion worth of private investment into residential and commercial construction along the light rail

Most local and state politicians support plans to expand the system, but with the economy on life support few are willing to raise taxes to do so. Which means new trains will not be heading to the outskirts any time soon.

And for some developers on the outskirts, that’s just fine.

DENNIS WEBB:
They can get this 4,000 square foot house for $236,000.

JOHN LARSON:
Dennis Webb is the vice president of operations for Fulton Homes, one of Arizona’s largest home builders. Just a few miles down the road from where thousands of foreclosed houses sit empty, Fulton Homes is building brand new ones. Once the economy comes back, he says, so will the market for the exurban lifestyle that he’s selling.

DENNIS WEBB:
People want to live in a safe, family environment, where they can have their kids right nearby, have a pool, have a backyard and barbecue and things like that. That’s the way they want to live.

JOHN LARSON:
I took a little drive around the development and I was looking for the light rail station. Now where–

DENNIS WEBB:
Keep looking!

JOHN LARSON:
Webb doesn’t see people giving up their cars any time soon. And government efforts to fight sprawl rub him the wrong way.

DENNIS WEBB:
It’s the West, it’s the frontier. I think the government has very little– should have very little voice in dictating where people want to live.

JOHN LARSON:
Meanwhile, the Grossos just keep on driving. They aren’t expecting trains to help them out of their financial difficulties any time soon….they’re just trying to hold onto what they’ve got.

JOHN LARSON:
What would be the worst possible thing that could happen now.

TONY GROSSO:
Well, the car thing, I think, I mean, that’s… that car is our lifeline right now. So, everything we do revolves around that car. So, if that goes, we do.

What hasn’t changed is that the majority of a family’s income still goes to covering housing costs. But the affordability of where you live doesn’t always equal the amount you pay in rent or on your mortgage — it’s often times higher. The problem is that when you buy a house, for example, an hour from where you work, the true cost of housing has to include the cost of commuting — after all, that’s the total cost of where you live. It’s the consequence of, “Drive until you qualify.”

According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology, a sustainable communities think tank, under the traditional definition of housing affordability (30 percent or less of household income spent on housing), seven out of 10 U.S. communities are considered “affordable.” Not too bad.

So when the definition of affordability includes both housing and transportation costs, the number of “affordable” communities in almost all metro regions of the country decreases significantly to 40 percent.

STRETCHED TO THE LIMITS

Look no further than the American Southwest: If you live in the greater Phoenix–Mesa, Arizona, area, you’re probably spending more than 45 percent of your income on housing and transportation. In most parts, at least 20 percent of your monthly income is going to cover filling up your gas tank alone.

Housing + Transportation Affordability Index: Phoenix–Mesa, Arizona From the Center for Neighborhood Technology, click the above link for a further look at housing and transportation costs in Phoenix and even your own neighborhood.

© Copyright 2003-10 Center for Neighborhood Technology