Comments on: New Metro Formula: Helping Those Who Help Themselves http://citiwire.net/post/2040/ Our mission... to reflect a new narrative for 21st century cities and regions. Leaving behind the 20th century pattern of cheap energy, endless automobility, burgeoning suburbs, threatened inner cities. To a challenge-packed 21st century: energy prices headed north, perilous carbon emissions, deepening have-have not divisions, excruciating social problems and deep challenges in education. But a time of exciting promise, too. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:15:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Rex Curry http://citiwire.net/post/2040/comment-page-1/#comment-1370 Rex Curry Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:42:55 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=2040#comment-1370 Opening the "deal or no deal" briefcase for the super growth areas should not occur without a reasonable answer to the mode neutral question (love that one), followed by the evaluation of the density per destination. In my book, that is what makes 90 percent of NYC's or D.C.s train stations viable. On the downside it is in everyone's interest to have this system, yet the rules say the burden is on riders alone. One battle at a time I suppose. Opening the “deal or no deal” briefcase for the super growth areas should not occur without a reasonable answer to the mode neutral question (love that one), followed by the evaluation of the density per destination. In my book, that is what makes 90 percent of NYC’s or D.C.s train stations viable. On the downside it is in everyone’s interest to have this system, yet the rules say the burden is on riders alone. One battle at a time I suppose.

]]> By: Robert Puentes http://citiwire.net/post/2040/comment-page-1/#comment-1348 Robert Puentes Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:24:04 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=2040#comment-1348 Overall, we agree (with Seltzer) and have <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/06_transportation_puentes.aspx" rel="nofollow">written extensively </a> on the need for fundamental makeover of the federal transportation program. National transportation policy adrift which is why we say the program is not just broke...it is broken. There are certainly those who see the current situation and want to spend more on all kinds of things but that is not what we're saying. As far as the federal government goes, this is not just about spending. First and foremost we need reform, <i>then</i> we need to invest. So what we've proposed for overall reform is a three part strategy. First, we concur with you that the federal government should define the purpose for the program and a framework to guide future transportation investments. So we're in agreement there. But the proposal goes way beyond that. We also think it is critical for the federal government to get out of the way and empower metropolitan areas to innovate. These places are the economic nation’s engines and, especially in the intermountain west, are on the front lines of our nation's future growth. This is where the <a href="http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/detail.cms?item=11970" rel="nofollow">New Partnerships idea </a>comes in. To empower metros they need a broad strategy of "modality neutrality" that establishes equal treatment of highway, transit, and non-motorized projects. This is a <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/0219_infrastructure.aspx" rel="nofollow">lesson from the U.K. </a> that allows decision-makers to evaluate all projects on their ability to deliver cost-effective benefits by the best means available not through the rigid federal rules or funding silos assigned to a particular mode. They also need to aggressively deploy a range of market mechanisms like congestion pricing that are not fully supported by the federal program today. The problem is that you can't just bestow this flexibility everywhere since most metros are not equipped to handle these responsibilities yet. So why not experiment with those places that have stepped into the breach and gone out and secured long term funding from their voters for a discrete set of projects? In many ways the accountability and transparency are already built-in, that’s the third part of the strategy. (These are not insignificant amounts of funding, either. For metro Phoenix, the local share is 53% of the total transportation revenues for the next 20 years. The federal government provides only 21% and the state only 26%.) So why not use incentives like enhanced flexibility in exchange for greater accountability? In the end, that may be the most important innovation. Overall, we agree (with Seltzer) and have written extensively on the need for fundamental makeover of the federal transportation program. National transportation policy adrift which is why we say the program is not just broke…it is broken. There are certainly those who see the current situation and want to spend more on all kinds of things but that is not what we’re saying. As far as the federal government goes, this is not just about spending. First and foremost we need reform, then we need to invest.

So what we’ve proposed for overall reform is a three part strategy. First, we concur with you that the federal government should define the purpose for the program and a framework to guide future transportation investments. So we’re in agreement there. But the proposal goes way beyond that.

We also think it is critical for the federal government to get out of the way and empower metropolitan areas to innovate. These places are the economic nation’s engines and, especially in the intermountain west, are on the front lines of our nation’s future growth.

This is where the New Partnerships idea comes in.

To empower metros they need a broad strategy of “modality neutrality” that establishes equal treatment of highway, transit, and non-motorized projects. This is a lesson from the U.K. that allows decision-makers to evaluate all projects on their ability to deliver cost-effective benefits by the best means available not through the rigid federal rules or funding silos assigned to a particular mode. They also need to aggressively deploy a range of market mechanisms like congestion pricing that are not fully supported by the federal program today.

The problem is that you can’t just bestow this flexibility everywhere since most metros are not equipped to handle these responsibilities yet. So why not experiment with those places that have stepped into the breach and gone out and secured long term funding from their voters for a discrete set of projects? In many ways the accountability and transparency are already built-in, that’s the third part of the strategy.

(These are not insignificant amounts of funding, either. For metro Phoenix, the local share is 53% of the total transportation revenues for the next 20 years. The federal government provides only 21% and the state only 26%.)

So why not use incentives like enhanced flexibility in exchange for greater accountability? In the end, that may be the most important innovation.

]]> By: Tony Arranaga http://citiwire.net/post/2040/comment-page-1/#comment-1332 Tony Arranaga Tue, 08 Jun 2010 04:38:39 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=2040#comment-1332 A Phoenix area comment: Interesting to see how/if all this will play out. As I'm sure you're aware, the economy and recent budget cuts forced METRO to push back start dates for expansion lines here in the Valley. Disappointing news, considering the starter line has seen so much success since trains started rolling through the streets. While this plan sounds good on paper, I wonder how much of a dent it will make when it comes to funding future transportation projects around the metro Phoenix market? A Phoenix area comment: Interesting to see how/if all this will play out. As I’m sure you’re aware, the economy and recent budget cuts forced METRO to push back start dates for expansion lines here in the Valley. Disappointing news, considering the starter line has seen so much success since trains started rolling through the streets.

While this plan sounds good on paper, I wonder how much of a dent it will make when it comes to funding future transportation projects around the metro Phoenix market?

]]> By: Ethan Seltzer http://citiwire.net/post/2040/comment-page-1/#comment-1330 Ethan Seltzer Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:55:39 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=2040#comment-1330 Dear Mark and Rob... after generations of Federal investment in the roads and water that enable places like Phoenix to be Phoenix, and all the sprawl that comes with it, we now "owe" them more for more of the same? You can't be serious. I'm not a proponent of spreading it everywhere, but still, you offer no real basis for strategic investing here other than to, well, see more spent. How about some ideas for what ought to be accomplished, what "success" looks like, and therefore what criteria ought to guide Federal investments in the next decade. Dear Mark and Rob… after generations of Federal investment in the roads and water that enable places like Phoenix to be Phoenix, and all the sprawl that comes with it, we now “owe” them more for more of the same? You can’t be serious. I’m not a proponent of spreading it everywhere, but still, you offer no real basis for strategic investing here other than to, well, see more spent. How about some ideas for what ought to be accomplished, what “success” looks like, and therefore what criteria ought to guide Federal investments in the next decade.

]]>