Obama on Transit

A candidate after my heart:

If we are going to solve our energy problems we’ve got to think long term. It’s time for us to be serious about investing in alternative energy. It’s time for us to get serious about raising fuel efficiency standards on cars. It’s time that the entire country learn from what’s happening right here in Portland with mass transit and bicycle lanes and funding alternative means of transportation.

That’s the kind of solution that we need for America. That’s the kind of truth-telling that we are going to do in this campaign and when I am President of the United States of America.

Well said. Obama's outlined a good transportation policy thus far but hasn't, in fact, always been incredibly outspoken about it.

Comments

This is vacuous campaign talk. I too want to see a heavy investment in mass transit and alternatives to cars and highways, but he is merely praising the city he's campaigning in, not articulating any concrete policy.

If this is, as you seem to suggest, being "outspoken," you are incredibly naive and too easily excitable.

Posted by jeff | May 22, 2008 3:19 PM

This is vacuous campaign talk

In an ordinary election year, I'd agree. But transit issues are kind of hitting people in the face right now. Its becoming clear, even to some conservatives, that investing in transit infrastructure is an inevitability. I bet you hear more and more of this going forward. Transit used to be a pet issue for infrastructure geeks on the left. Not anymore.

Posted by Roboticghost | May 22, 2008 3:39 PM

Plus he's apparently positioning himself as the truth-teller and presumably also painting John McCain as a liar, which ads are already out establishing. Good stuff. Tough to keep from being tarred oneself, though.

Posted by Daddy Love | May 22, 2008 3:47 PM

Hillary will save us from ourselves. Clinton '08.

Posted by Tim K | May 22, 2008 3:47 PM

Jeff,
The Oregan public transport system is ideal for what Obama is trying to introduce to america. Go to Obamas website and acquint yourself with his plans...they are there and very good.

Posted by Observer | May 22, 2008 3:48 PM

I also think the American people are rapidly heading in this direction themselves (those gas station signs aren't hurting the cause), so I suspect Obama really just needs to help coordinate plans and remove holdups, not persuade.

Posted by DTM | May 22, 2008 3:49 PM

Thank you Obamabots (I am a supporter too, but an ardent political skeptic as well).

I have read his website (thanks Observer) and followed his opinions on the subject,(mostly vague, but an upgrade from the usual) my point was not that he is clueless or without a plan, but that this anecdote from the campaign trail means nothing. While I am all for partisan supporting of a presidential candidacy, I thought this was supposed to be a forum for ideas, not political cheerleading.

The excerpted quote is vague at best, and clearly state campaign trail rhetoric. Nothing wrong with that, its called politics. But to suggest praising Oregon's mass transit/bike path system of transportation is tantamount to articulating a coherent policy, or "outspoken," is a bit of an ejaculatory preemption.

Posted by jeff | May 22, 2008 4:08 PM

There was a terrific piece this morning on NPR on using "waste heat" from industry to generate power. Well worth a listen, as this source could provide a huge amount of our power - if laws were changed to allow alternative generation of power.

Waste heat is a big energy source that currently is mostly wasted. Years ago I helped design and build a 25 acre greenhouse facility in Virginia that was profitable because it had use of waste heat from a co-gen plant.

Posted by wvng | May 22, 2008 4:08 PM

"alternative energy" ?

We have Senate Democrats yelling at oil company execs about high prices, while they ban drilling everywhere in US territory that oil and natural gas are known to be available. They yell about alternative energy, all the while banning windmills from good locations - witness Ted Kennedy and Governor O'Malley (Maryland).

Meanwhile, the only alternative that could fulfill actual demand anytime soon is nuclear, and gosh - Democrats stand athwart that option yelling "stop!" too.

Tell you what, Matt - when the people on your side of the aisle stop being a problem, you let the rest of us know.

Posted by James Robertson | May 22, 2008 4:12 PM

James,
The issue is that the only acceptable solutions for people like Matt involve punishment of the American people for their profligate ways. They won't stop until everyone is forced to ride buses or a bicycle to work, or pay to drive on a highway they've already paid tax dollars to build. Since they already live a hipster urban lifestyle, it doesn't really affect them. Thus, they can impose "solutions" on others at minimal cost to themselves.

Posted by Brad | May 22, 2008 4:21 PM

I personally endorse prospective nominee Carcetti's great ideas for when he takes the reins.

Oh wait.. i mean Obama

Posted by Mogwai | May 22, 2008 4:26 PM

Bot or not, I was there in that crowd Sunday, and when he said the bike lane line, there was this swell of joy that rose up from the bikers in attendance. Nobody has ever spoken so directly to us before, so even if it were just words at this point, it's vastly better than, say, rep. Patrick McHenry, who called bicycles a "19th century solution to a 21st century problem" on the House floor (coincidentally, he was referring to a bill put forth by my rep. Earl Blumenauer, who spoke at the Obama rally earlier).

Posted by peejay | May 22, 2008 4:26 PM

Bike lanes are a nice thing, I'd be happy to have more of them. However, they aren't really much of a solution, because the average commuter isn't going to bike to work. There are obstacles beyond bike lanes, btw. I used to commute to a company that was located 15 miles away. I could have ridden to work, but there was a small problem: no showers there. I would guess that most people don't have showers at their workplace, and - at least in the warmer months - not showering is very much a non-option.

The reality is, personal transport will be the only useful thing for a lot of people for a long time, based on the distribution of housing and workplaces. You can wish the last 50 years didn't play out the way they did all you want, but that doesn't help.

Beyond transport, you have the growing demand for power based on the growing demand for consumer goods. Contrary to the dreamy thoughts of the environmental left, people simply aren't going to downshift their lifestyles. People will keep buying big TV's, more computers, more refrigerators, (etc, etc). That's reality. Don't want oil or coal being burned? Fine - we'll use nukes. Wind and solar simply aren't complete answers, because they aren't 24x7 solutions, and battery technology to store power in non-trivial amounts for non-trivial amounts of time doesn't exist (ask any laptop user).

Add to that the rise of India, China, and the rest of the world. Good luck telling them they can't live the lifestyle they've seen the West have for the last few decades; that's a laughable non-starter. Figure out whether you want more coal burning, more oil drilling, or more nukes - because - when the public is faced with brownouts and no A/C in the summer, the public will demand one (or all) of those. Ask Jimmy Carter how well his "wear a sweater" theory worked out for his political career.

Posted by James Robertson | May 22, 2008 4:57 PM

Raising fuel economy standards at the same time as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme is a dumb idea.

Here's why:

Raising fuel standards on cars will lower the price of oil, lower the cost of driving, and generally make it easier to keep using cars. (This is called the "rebound effect"; ask any environmental economist!) Therefore, raising fuel economy standards will make it harder to get people to use mass transit, to move closer to work, to buy local, etc.

(Raising standards until we have a market based scheme is a different matter, and probably isn't a dumb idea.)

Posted by A-ro | May 22, 2008 5:10 PM

I'm not surprised. Obama since leaving Occidental College, he's lived exclusively in an urban environment - never moved out to the burbs. He understands the critical important of public transportation in our society.

Posted by Judy | May 22, 2008 5:26 PM

rep. Patrick McHenry, who called bicycles a "19th century solution to a 21st century problem"

Well, I'm glad to hear that someone is coming out in favor of jetpacks and flying cars!

Posted by Tyro | May 22, 2008 5:30 PM

"It's time to get serious."

That's all it takes to make MY swoon. Don't mind the specifics, don't mind the costs. The hope and change embodied in that statement, "It's time to get serious" is all MY needs to get that hopey changey feeling.

Every politician has said this since 1974. Time to get energy independent. It's all crap unless you explain how your plans will actually work.

Posted by Wile E. Coyote | May 22, 2008 6:36 PM

wvng, I think the International Energy Agency would be happy to hear that :)

Posted by Jeff Morgan | May 22, 2008 7:36 PM

wvng, I think the International Energy Agency would be happy to hear that :)

Posted by Jeff Morgan | May 22, 2008 7:39 PM

I like his transportation policy, as far as it goes. What I'd like to see is a compelling energy policy with targets for changing electrical generation from oil to renewables. Also, how about biojet made from algae for air travel?

Everyone's for wind, solar, wave, etc., but nobody's saying how it fits together to run our two systems: electrical generation and transportation. What about natural gas? We have huge amounts, but haven't exploited it.

Just a few things I'd like to hear Obama talk about with more specificity.

Posted by Bluesbreaker | May 23, 2008 4:53 AM

The worst thing Obama could do is be more specific about transit. Telling Americans that they are going to have to drive less in the future and rely more on public transportation is liking telling Hindu nationalists that they need to eat more hamburgers. It is a sure-fire way to lose 49 states.

Americans want to be lied to about energy. They want to believe that we can consume ever-increasing amounts of oil and they will destroy any politician who points out that that is impossible.

Obama should keep his mouth shut about public transportation until after the election. If he wins by a large margin and the House and Senate are solidly Democratic, then he can risk his popularity by addressing the unpleasant truth of the unsustainability of our car dependency.

Posted by Jay | May 23, 2008 12:05 PM