LaHood for Transportation. Signifieth?

[DSeid]

Link.

President-elect Barack Obama has picked GOP Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois to be his nominee for transportation secretary, two sources told CNN on Wednesday.

Not universally loved as a picked.

“You’ve left me totally dumbfounded. Ray LaHood?” …

… You can’t blame Grimshaw for being caught off-guard. As she explained, she’s never “seen or heard anything he’s done” with regards to mass transit from his first election in 1994 until now, including the negotiations over SAFETEA-LU four years ago.

So what can we glean about LaHood’s record on this issue? The moderate Republican has broken with his party over Amtrak funding, voting yes last summer to expand passenger rail service. In 2005, he told the Peoria Journal-Star that “we’ve got a good Amtrak system in Illinois and I don’t think we want to destroy it by talking about privatization.” In 2006, he received a 66 percent rating from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, a major transportation construction lobby. He also voted in favor of the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, a bill to promote increased public transportation use that garnered string bi-partisan support. Other than that, we know very little.

As Ryan Avent notes, there are now two possible conclusions one can draw from the choice: either Obama doesn’t intend the DOT secretary to do the heavy lifting on his transportation policies or he doesn’t really care about transportation. During the campaign, Obama made some bold statements about transit and the energy economy, so I’m not convinced the latter has any merit. …

… What “transportation” really means here in the nation’s capital is a never-ending battle between rail advocates and highway advocates. The highway people have almost always won, of course.

Well add that in with this and we may see the direction that this signifies.

The US is experiencing its longest and steepest drop in driving, signaling a permanent shift away from reliance on the car to other modes of transportation … These recent declines in driving predated the steady hikes in gas prices during 2007 and 2008. … Financially, reduced driving will only intensify the federal and state governments’ need to seriously reconsider their current reliance on the gas tax to fund surface transportation. Environmentally, stalled or reduced driving should offer a positive development in the creation of a more environmentally-sustainable transportation network. Developmentally, reduced driving demand will instinctively lead to more demand for development less reliant on the automobile and could signal a continued reinvigoration of this nation’s cities and inner suburbs.

The synthesis of these travel trends, their significant implications, and the heightened interest in rethinking federal infrastructure policy create a unique moment. With important conversations underway about infrastructure spending as economic stimulus, the reauthorization of the current federal transportation law, and other legislative priorities like climate change and energy looming, our nation’s policy opportunities are unprecedented.

Maybe highways won’t win over rail and other mass transit as much these next few years.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

See? I told you that if Obama were elected he’d put The 'Hood in charge of the government.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[flickster]

As someone who lived in LaHood’s district for 10 years and have met him on multiple occasions, I know of nothing in his past that would garner attention in his direction for this selection.

In the many years he has been in office:

Peoria still does not have a direct freeway link to Chicago, or any other major metropolitan area. Lahood’s solution to this was to insist on building a freeway due north along the west side of the Illinois river to intersect with I-80 (completely ignoring the fact that I-39 runs parallel to that route on the east side of the river)

Peoria still does not have a completed ring road around the metro area.

Peoria does not have Amtrak Service
If these are just some of the examples of LaHood’s expertise in the area of transportation, I fail to see how his selection bodes well for the country.

[E-Sabbath]

Flickster, could you drop him a line, then? I’m as curious as you are.

[flickster]

@E-Sabbath

Flickster, could you drop him a line, then? I’m as curious as you are.

[Captain_Amazing]

He probably figures he wants a few Republicans in the Cabinet for symbolic reasons, and Transpertation is unimportant and non-partisan enough that that’s where he can stick one. Rep. LaHood is the new Norm Mineta.

[E-Sabbath]

Well, I figure, if you’re one of his constituents, he might be so kind as to answer you about these questions if you drop him an e-mail.

[Captain_Amazing]

@E-Sabbath

Well, I figure, if you’re one of his constituents, he might be so kind as to answer you about these questions if you drop him an e-mail.

What do you want him to ask?

"Congressman LaHood,

Why would President Elect Obama pick you as Secretary of Transportation when you’re so crappy on transportation issues?"

[flickster]

@E-Sabbath

Well, I figure, if you’re one of his constituents, he might be so kind as to answer you about these questions if you drop him an e-mail.

If you notice I did use the past tense, lived, when talking about my experience in LaHood’s realm. I know my profile location only states where Zydeco & Tejano meet, but I don’t think anyone could interpret that as central Illinois.

However, I do feel a worthy question for a journalist to ask might go along the lines of:

Rep LaHood, what do you claim as significant transportation improvements in your district that would qualify you to be the National Transportation Secretary?

Personally, I think his obvious qualification for the incoming administration is that he’s from Illinois, but that’s just my cynical side showing…

[E-Sabbath]

Well, if you don’t, I will.

And yeah, that was pretty much the question. I think it’s a reasonable one.

[DSeid]

@flickster

Personally, I think his obvious qualification for the incoming administration is that he’s from Illinois, but that’s just my cynical side showing…

And that he is a fairly pliant Republican who has sided with mass transit over highways. There are several other cabinet level positions that will be controlling the mix for how those infrastructure dollars get spent visavis the needs of transportation. LaHood won’t get in their way.

[E-Sabbath]

David S. Broder - The GOP Goes South, While Waging Ideological Warfare

This gentleman makes a good argument for Why LaHood. Not why Transportation, but why LaHood was a choice.

[DSeid]

So as a bit of future political theater LaHood will further entrench the GOP into a Southern party (and those who embrace similar values, like the Palins of the far North)?

@your cite

All the signs are that the stimulus spending will be opposed by congressional Republicans, whose shrunken ranks are increasingly dominated by right-wing Southerners who care not what their stance does to harm the party’s national image.

The spectacle of LaHood facing off in congressional testimony against those naysayers will dramatize a split that is crippling the GOP. … The Southern domination of the congressional Republican Party has become more complete with each and every election.

Well for that aspect I’d take it one step farther: not just Southern but rural Southern vs everyone else. The Democrats are winning the urban hearts and minds even in the South, and much of the South’s increases in population are in and near urban centers. Painting themselves into the corner of the rural South puts even the South at risk for them in the future.

Yeah, he serves the political theater aspect well.