|
Washington, D.C. – November, 19, 2009 - Today in a hearing of the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation examining components of the Administration’s surface transportation research and development (R&D;) portfolio, Republican Members questioned the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) stated goal of promoting “community livability.”
At his Senate confirmation hearing on January 21 of this year, Transportation Secretary Roy LaHood identified four priorities for his time at the DOT: safety, the economy, sustainability, and community livability.
“I am particularly concerned with the appropriateness of the Administration’s ‘community livability’ goal,” said Subcommittee Ranking Member Adrian Smith (R-NE). “At a minimum, it represents a concept difficult to define and measure progress toward. More troubling, however, key aspects of the livability agenda appear to involve significant Federal government intrusion into the manner in which Americans travel and live, in general.
“The automobile is central to our identity and quality of life, and almost 95 percent of Americans get around by cars,” Smith continued. “Even in urban areas, Americans have demonstrated a great willingness to accept heavy traffic congestion and long commutes in exchange for the opportunity to live in a larger home with a yard, in a neighborhood with good schools and low crime. In this sense, it seems the Administration’s vision of a ‘livable community’ is quite different from that of average Americans.”
Echoing these concerns, one of today’s witnesses, Mr. Alan Pisarski, argued that this intentionally vague goal could be used to justify any number of policy choices. “Certainly the term livability will need to be subjected to a far more rigorous delineation of its scope and content before tangible programs with measureable performance outcomes can be structured,” Pisarski said. “Without these steps it would become perhaps the perfect federal program: almost anything could be funded under the rubric of livability; with such an amorphous goal there would be no real measure of success or failure; and funding could go on forever with no real accountability.”
Smith also questioned Administration witnesses on proposals to transition highway revenue generation away from the current gasoline tax to a vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) based tax, citing concerns that such a system could disproportionately burden rural areas. When asked whether a VMT is something the Administration is really considering, The Honorable Polly Trottenberg, DOT’s Assistant Secretary for Policy, stated that it is not something they plan to pursue.
The following witnesses also testified at today’s hearing:
The Honorable Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration;
Mr. Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Vice Chair, AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways;
Mr. Robert E. Skinner, Executive Director of the Transportation Research Board, The National Academies; and
Ms. Ann Flemer, Deputy Executive Director, Policy, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California; Vice Chair, Intelligent Transportation Society of America.
For more information on the hearing, or to read witness testimony, visit the GOP Science and Technology Committee website.
###
111-82 |