Urban areas have a lot to contribute to the congressional climate change debate. (Photo: SDOT Blog)This week, I was fortunate to attend the Open Cities conference
in Washington (along with fellow Streetsbloggers Elana Schor and Aaron
Naparstek), on the ways in which new media is shaping urban policy.
The takeaway, for me at least, was a clear sense that technology
is dramatically changing the lay of the land for local urbanists.
Better data (and access to data) are helping to identify potential
targets for planning improvements and easier navigation of cities and
transit systems. Blogs and social network technologies have allowed
urbanists to better communicate with each other, inform the public, and
influence local governments.
Rare is the big American city that lacks a vibrant urban blogospheric community.
But
there was an odd disconnect at this conference whenever a national
policy figure took the podium. Speakers came across as detached and
awkward where the web's potential was concerned (Adolfo Carrion) or
warm and interested but fundamentally unsure of the best opportunities
for engagement (Raphel Bostic).
Whereas New York City
Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan's talk to the gathering
was invigorating because it was clear to all involved how speaker and
audience could help each other be effective in achieving common goals,
speeches from federal figures landed with the hard thump of
uncertainty.
However promising the speakers' expressed
goals were, it was less than obvious to all involved how the web might
support or influence policy, and how the federal government might
deliver tangible results.
I thought of this disconnect as I sat in a meeting
on climate policy last night with Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley (D). In that
discussion, it quickly became clear that the messages that are
resonating with voters are not related to the economic consequences of
warming or the moral case for reducing emissions. The messages carrying
the day have very little to do with climate at all.
What
works with the American people? A focus on ending dependence on oil and
on generating clean energy jobs. Those are the priorities that convince
voters to support the passage of a climate bill even after being
confronted by an opposition message on the cost, real or exaggerated,
of proposed plans.
What these
goals translate into, in the mouths of most politicians, and policy
wonks, and journalists, is an emphasis on what can be done about the
automobile. Merkley, who represents a state containing perhaps the most
transit-friendly city in the country and which is home to a company now producing
the first American-made streetcars built in decades, didn't mention
transit at all until asked about it -- he focused instead on the
economic potential in hybrid technologies and electric cars.
Obviously,
cars aren't going away any time soon, and it is important and necessary
to keep improving the efficiency of the nation's automobile fleet. But
this national blind spot where transit is concerned is distressing.
Yes,
any climate bill that passes will likely include funding for transit
and rail. But given that the biggest selling points of a climate bill
are the likelihood that it will reduce American dependence on oil and
create green jobs, a major new investment in rail, transit, and cities
generally should be given a starring role.
This isn't rocket
science. Transit investments are no longer the provenance of the big,
old, and dense eastern cities. Metro areas from Norfolk to Charlotte to
Houston to Denver are embracing transit. Funds for such investments are
oversubscribed.
New money for transit systems could
significantly speed the construction of projects currently in the
works, thereby pushing forward the time at which development around
those systems, perpetually in short supply,
can be built. Create more opportunities to build transit-oriented
development -- the one kind of housing not oversupplied at the moment
-- and you put people back to work.
Additional transit
funding allocation could reduce the inclination among city planners to
scale back system plans based on current economic conditions. And lest
we forget, budget shortfalls amid the recession continue
to affect service and threaten transit system jobs. This problem won't
go away until something like strong economic growth returns.
Meanwhile, demand for high-speed rail funds is high
around the country, and the amounts allocated so far -- while generous
relative to what has come before -- are small compared with what it
will take to bring functioning systems online. Money for street
improvements and new pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure could put
people to work almost immediately, in ways that would help reduce
transportation costs and emissions.
The obstacle to a greater
role for these approaches is largely one of perception. Smart growth
and transit are seen as niche solutions -- not something which is
likely to be accepted or used by most Americans, who will remain
dependent, as ever, on the automobile. But this is where the urban
blogging community can be of use.
When you have vibrant
communities dedicated to transit investments and better planning in
places like Phoenix, Atlanta, and Austin, you have the basis for
convincing legislators that these are not fringe policy tools, but
rather priorities which should be championed and supported, heavily, at
the federal level.
But while urban leaders in cities
traditionally wedded to the car are beginning to understand that there
is a constituency for a different approach to urban design and
transportation, the congressional delegations in those states aren't
hearing the message.
To them, the climate bill simply isn't
about transportation or urban planning. They're not thinking about
improving the bill by increasing the funding for those priorities, and
they're not making a decision about whether or not to support the bill
on the basis of what they're hearing from local urbanist groups.
I
think there has been frustration among urbanists at the way their
issues seem to have been sidelined in the Obama administration's first
months. With the stimulus law on the books and a federal transportation
bill delayed indefinitely, it hasn't been clear to urban advocates how their ideas might be important to the national discussion.
The
climate bill is the answer. This is where urbanists can become
relevant. The audiences for urban advocacy blogs -- and legislators --
need to hear some important messages. Urban investments can help get us
off oil while creating thousands of jobs. A climate bill should make
these investments a priority. And passage of the climate bill should be
a major priority.
People care about these topics,
but for some reason the important connections -- between better urban
planning, a greener and more vibrant economy, and climate legislation
-- aren't clicking. It's time we made them click.
