This just in from across the pond: “America, despite its wealth and strength, often seems to be falling apart.” Not news really. But somehow it’s seems more pathetic when written by people who take high speed rail service for granted.

In a recent article entitled “Life in the slow lane,” The Economist details just how far behind the United States is when it comes to infrastructure investment, describing in great detail our debilitating traffic congestion, dysfunctional rail service, and antiquated air traffic control system.  Turns out that a recent World Economic Forum study found the United States now ranks 23rd in the world  for overall infrastructure quality.

Making matters worse, there’s also a messy bureaucracy to contend with:

The formulas used to allocate the money shape infrastructure planning in a remarkably block-headed manner. Cost-benefit studies are almost entirely lacking. Federal guidelines for new construction tend to reflect politics rather than anything else. States tend to use federal money as a substitute for local spending, rather than to supplement or leverage it.

In a recent Blueprint America interview with Alison Stewart, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell grapples with many of the issues detailed in The Economist.  Rendell, along with former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, formed a non partisan group called Building America’s Future, which advocates more and smarter infrastructure investment.  Rendell tells Stewart:  “I don’t believe this [infrastructure] is a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, it’s an American issue.”

But in Washington these days, it seems no issue is non-partisan.  As our friends from The Economist coolly conclude:

Roads, bridges and railways used to be neutral ground on which the parties could come together to support the country’s growth. But as politics has become more bitter, public works have been neglected. If the gridlock choking Washington finds its way to America’s statehouses too, then the American economy risks grinding to a standstill.

Is Obamarail the new Obamacare?

Much like last year’s debate over health care reform, Republicans and President Obama once again find themselves at odds, this time over whether or not to build a nationwide high-speed rail system. Already, Republican governors from Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida have rejected over a combined $3 billion for building high-speed rail, stalling the Obama plan, at least for now.(View full post to see video)As the administration tries to get back on track, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat and co-chair of Building America’s Future — a non-partisan advocacy group calling for infrastructure investment — is making the case for spending now on modernizing the national transportation system, even as an emboldened Republican Party tries to cut government spending and tighten the country’s belt.

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.

Blueprint America examines how Detroit, a symbol of America’s diminishing status in the world, may come to represent the future of transportation and progress in America.

Detroit is the crucible in which the nation’s ability to move toward a modern 21st century transportation infrastructure is put to the test. The documentary shows how investments in the past — beginning with the construction of canals in the 18th century — profoundly shaped Detroit’s physical layout, population growth and economic development. Before being dubbed the Motor City, Detroit was once home to the nation’s most extensive streetcar system. In fact, it was that vast network of streetcars that carried workers to the area’s many car factories. And it was the cars made in those factories that would soon displace the streetcars in Detroit — and in every major American city.

Detroit’s engineers went on to design the nation’s first urban freeways and inspired much of America’s 20th century transportation infrastructure system — from traffic signals to gas stations — that became the envy of the word.

But over the last 30 years, much of the world has moved on, choosing faster, cleaner, more modern transportation and leaving America — and Detroit — behind. Viewers are taken on a journey beyond Detroit’s blighted urban landscape to Spain, home to one of the world’s most modern and extensive transit systems; to California, where voters recently said yes to America’s first high speed rail system; and to Washington, where Congress will soon decide whether to finally push America’s transportation into the 21st century.

The following responses do not represent the views of Blueprint America. They were selected in an effort to encourage a diverse debate reflecting all viewpoints on the often contentious issue of transportation in America.

by Ben Fried, Streetsblog New York

by Adrian Moore and Shikha Dalmia, Reason Foundation

by Chris Leinberger, The Brookings Institution

by Elana Schor, Streetsblog Capitol Hill

by Chris Bedford, Sweetwater Local Foods Market (Michigan)

———————————————————————–
AMERICA 2050 is a national initiative to meet the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation as it prepares to add about 130 million additional Americans by the year 2050.

For more on America 2050, visit www.america2050.org.

So as the country plans and prepares, the aftereffects of the Recession weigh heavy. “Recovery” is a loaded word these days. An unprecedented multi-billion dollar public works investment to start recovery was made by the federal government to rebuild both the weakened economy and stressed national infrastructure. Still, that recovery has been questioned as unemployment and underemployment remain high.

But, if history holds true, the investment in infrastructure could modernize America (again) just as the Depression of the 1930s spurred spending to unite the states of the country with electricity, sewers and roads. What kind of America will these new Americans live in?

THE NEXT AMERICAN SYSTEM is a look back at the first American System as the country looks forward in this new century. That first system came from political minds such as Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and John Quincy Adams in the early 1800s — defining a young country’s economic and infrastructural future.

Through two documentary projects (BEYOND THE MOTOR CITY and ROAD TO THE FUTURE), Blueprint America interviews today’s thinkers and tells the stories of everyday Americans as an older country looks for its next move. As simplistic an idea as it may seem, a new transportation system could be the answer.

BEYOND THE MOTOR CITY

Blueprint America examines how Detroit, a symbol of America’s diminishing status in the world, may come to represent the future of transportation and progress in America.

Detroit is the crucible in which the nation’s ability to move toward a modern 21st century transportation infrastructure is put to the test. The documentary shows how investments in the past — beginning with the construction of canals in the 18th century — profoundly shaped Detroit’s physical layout, population growth and economic development. Before being dubbed the Motor City, Detroit was once home to the nation’s most extensive streetcar system. In fact, it was that vast network of streetcars that carried workers to the area’s many car factories. And it was the cars made in those factories that would soon displace the streetcars in Detroit — and in every major American city.

Detroit’s engineers went on to design the nation’s first urban freeways and inspired much of America’s 20th century transportation infrastructure system — from traffic signals to gas stations — that became the envy of the word.

But over the last 30 years, much of the world has moved on, choosing faster, cleaner, more modern transportation and leaving America — and Detroit — behind. Viewers are taken on a journey beyond Detroit’s blighted urban landscape to Spain, home to one of the world’s most modern and extensive transit systems; to California, where voters recently said yes to America’s first high speed rail system; and to Washington, where Congress will soon decide whether to finally push America’s transportation into the 21st century.

ROAD TO THE FUTURE

Blueprint America goes to three very different American cities — Denver, New York and Portland, and their surrounding suburbs — to look at each as a microcosm of the challenges and possibilities the country faces as citizens, local and federal officials, and planners struggle to manage a growing America with innovative transportation and sustainable land use policies.

With roads clogged and congested, gas prices uncertain, smog and pollution creating health problems like asthma, cities that once built infrastructure to serve only automobiles and trucks are now looking to innovative new forms of transportation systems — like trolleys, light rail, pedestrian walkways and bike paths.

Whether it is talking to residents pushing sustainable development in the Bronx, smart growth in Denver, or a journalist in Portland whose beat is bicycling, Blueprint America finds a common theme: America’s love affair with the car may be a thing of the past, and that may be the road to economic recovery.

This is our year. Infrastructure is no longer just a word thrown about by policy wonks and engineers. The public, and more importantly politicians, have made public works, especially transportation, a front and center issue. The White House brings a fresh outlook on transportation policy and land use decisions – US Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently announced his “2-foot NM” rule which would require all business trips by US DOT workers of less than two miles to be made on two feet. Already, President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (known to most as the Stimulus Package) provided approximately $46 billion directly to transportation and much of that to green transportation. And, just as we’re beginning to put that money to use, we’re also beginning to launch into high gear on the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill. The reauthorization will provide a longer-term strategy for building up an innovative, sustainable transportation policy.

The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETY-LU), the current authorization of federal transportation policy included $287 billion in approved funding and expires on September 30, 2009. We strongly urge legislators to act quickly on reauthorization to avoid further injuring our financially-strapped transportation system. They must also “think big” (say $500+ million big) and think wisely and efficiently.

The new administration clearly talks a good game when it comes to sustainable transport; reauthorization is the perfect opportunity to “walk the talk.” But, it’s not just a matter of money – transportation investments can be constructive, or destructive, to our nation’s resources. Poor funding decisions can also increase our dependence on foreign oil which affects, in turn, foreign policy. Where and how we spend is key to a sagacious program. In short, we must rely less on cars and trucks and more on rail and bus. We must live closer to where we work and be able to walk, bike or take transit there. We must end our culture of “consuming a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk.”

We were pleasantly surprised to find $8 billion in the stimulus bill for high-speed rail. Reauthorization should quintuple that number to spark at least five and maybe 10 high-speed rail corridors. It should be noted that China is spending over $1 trillion on high-speed rail, the largest public works project in the world next to President Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. Our goal is to make rail between large cities competitive with air travel for short-haul trips of less than 500 miles. This would reduce our carbon footprint and increase efficiency at overloaded airports. The United States rail system should also be strengthened to accommodate a much larger share of freight traffic. Rail is more energy-efficient than trucks and one freight train can potentially remove 200 trucks from the highway system.

Current transportation policy allocates much of its funding to Departments of Transportation (DOTs). But as most DOTs are run at the state, rather than at the city level, the objective of the DOT is generally to efficiently move people between cities. And besides the rail initiatives discussed above, this typically means investment in highway infrastructure. Very few cities actually have their own DOTs. However, approximately 80 percent of Americans currently live in metropolitan areas. Therefore, there should be a much greater emphasis on providing funding for efficiently moving people within cities. But even the city DOTs that do exist are bound within the physical city limits. The new transportation bill should establish funding and authority at the regional level to ensure that all metropolitan areas modernize across city borders to incorporate the full range of transportation modes. Further, each regional transportation planning entity should be required to establish a clear statement of objectives and be accountable.

Building highways in cities should be the option of last resort. Cities should be offered “highway diet” subsidies to not invest in new roads but rather reduce car use through approaches like congestion pricing and improved transit. Instead of just a few hundred million being offered nation-wide for congestion pricing as done in the recent past, we suggest $10 billion that would be used to incentivize cities to make major modal shifts away from highways. We suggest this be cost-neutral by reducing highway investment by $10 billion. (Frankly, as long as it’s cost neutral the cap could be way higher).

In terms of public transportation, the reauthorized federal transportation bill should encourage more competition in mode selection. For example, BRT is now competitive with light rail in terms of environmental impacts, speed and capacity at a third the cost. A new “New Starts” program (the federal funding vehicle for many light rail projects) needs to be revamped to reflect the reality of 2010 technologies.

Finally, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, have already been in discussions over possible linkages between transportation and housing policies. This could include locating affordable housing near public transportation, connecting existing housing communities with transit services, or building shorter street blocks to facilitate walking. We believe that there should be provisions in the new bill to encourage such links.

The 2009 reauthorization of the existing transportation bill should recognize the importance of sustainable transportation both within and between the country’s metropolitan areas. It should provide funding and authority to regional transportation planning entities with a focus on changing existing modal splits. Our reliance on the interstate highway system for short-haul passenger or freight trips needs to change. We should shift our mid-haul trips from air to rail. Within urban areas we need to expand the use of BRT for high-quality mass transit. We must understand both that transportation affects where we live and work and that where we live and work affects transportation. Overall, we must reduce driver-only travel, curtail our reliance on foreign oil, and change our day-to-day behavior. Only a multi-agency approach can achieve a multi-modal society.

About 1,100 of the authority’s 70,000 employees will be laid off. Fares for commuter rail, subway and bus transit will increase at least 20 percent across the board. Service cuts include the elimination of 35 bus routes and two subway lines, the W and Z. Off-peak and weekend subway, bus and commuter rail service will be cut back. Existing tolls on bridges will also rise.

Still, the MTA had hoped to avoid the draconian measures.

The vote came as legislators at the state capitol in New York have so far failed to act on a plan developed by a panel headed by the MTA’s former chairman, Richard Ravitch, imposing tolls on free East River and Harlem River bridges and creating a new corporate payroll tax to fill the budget gap.

After weeks of debate and deliberation, The New York Times reported, “several Democratic senators from Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx remain adamantly opposed to the tolls. And with Democrats holding a bare 32-30 majority in the Senate, and Republicans refusing to provide any votes for the plan, the Senate majority leader, Malcolm A. Smith, has been forced to come up with an alternative plan that could win enough support to pass in his chamber…”

That plan, though, comes up too short in adequately addressing the MTA’s budget needs – a deficit of $1.2 billion in operating costs alone. It includes a 4 percent fare increase, half of what Ravitch had proposed, and would impose a tax of 25 cents on every $100 of payroll on employers within the 12 counties served by the authority, significantly less than the 34 cents that Ravitch had proposed.

As a result, with no sufficient alternatives offered by the state legislature – and with no new tolling on drivers – the MTA voted to burden local transit users (who already cover the highest proportion of transit operating expenses in the country) to keep the system from bankruptcy.

A look at the subway fare increase

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York