When a Cabinet secretary declares a “sea change” in national transportation and infrastructure policy, raising non-motorized transportation to the same priority level as motorized transportation, you’d expect intense coverage from the media. Right?

But as previously noted, reporting on Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s embrace of transportation equivalency last week has been limited to bicycle advocacy sites. One exception has been Trucker.com, a trade publication/website.

Today, a breakthrough! The Baltimore Sun took note. That is, the Sun’s transportation reporter, Michael Dresser, took note in a post on his “Getting There” blog. The post, “LaHood elevates biking, walking to parity with cars“:

Call it sacrilege. Call it radical. But U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has actually elevated the  bicycle and  the human foot to parity with the automobile in federal transportation policy.

On Monday, LaHood announced what could be — if it is backed with actual dollars-and-cents policy — a sea change from the auto-centric bias that has prevailed in federal transportation policy since World War II.

“People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” he said. “We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”

Dresser reports that the The WashCycle blog has called LaHood’s statement “simply the strongest statement of support for prioritizing bicycling and walking ever to come from a sitting secretary of transportation.”

We don’t call it sacrilege, but radical is a fair description. It is indeed a sea change in federal transportation policy that could have profound implications for the U.S. economy and the 80 percent of freight that moves by truck. The Sun is the first mainstream media outfit to recognize, however briefly, the potential impact. Hope it’s not the last.

The Trucker.com trade publication is the only non-advocate website we’ve found that has reported on Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s declaration before bicycle advocates last week of a “sea change” in federal policy: “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.” (See Shopfloor post, “Embracing Bicycles at Expense of Freight, Jobs, Reality.”)

The Trucker report included many details about LaHood’s comments, “LaHood says DOT ending favoring motorized transportation over non-motorized,” starting by setting the scene:

LaHood’s surprise appearance at the bikers summit and his subsequent remarks drew praise from those in attendance, who reportedly swarmed the secretary “like a rock star” when he tried to leave.

To make sure he could be seen, LaHood hopped up on a desk in the Senate hearing room where the group was meeting.

The Trucker also noted the Secretary’s comments on his DOT blog, The Fast Lane.

Included in the report were comments from an unnamed DOT spokesman, who dodged the Trucker’s question (which we’ve bolded):

“Secretary LaHood believes the way we design our communities has a huge impact on our citizens’ economic, physical and social wellbeing,” a DOT spokesman said when asked if LaHood’s new directive meant that much-needed highway infrastructure needs might be sidetracked in favor of bike paths. “Many Americans live in neighborhoods without access to public transportation or sidewalks. By focusing on livability, we can help transform the way transportation serves the American people, and create safer, healthier communities that provide access to economic opportunities.”

The spokesman noted that LaHood presently is presiding over the “most ambitious infrastructure investment program in more than half a century, the Economic Recovery Act.”

So far, the spokesman said, the DOT has obligated $37.8 billion for 14,011 highway, road, transit, bridge and airport construction projects in 53 U.S. states and territories.

“Secretary LaHood has always said that rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure and the job creation that comes with that are among his primary goals,” the spokesman said.

When a Cabinet secretary announces a “sea change” in federal policy that expressly rejects the economic priority of freight transportation — 80 percent of which moves by truck — it warrants wide attention, not just from Congress as we suggested in our earlier post, but also from major, national media outlets.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was hailed by activists who support more federal funding for bicycling infrastructure for his remarks last week at the National Bike Summit 2010. Unfortunately, in winning points with the bicycle lobby, the Secretary departed from economic reality.

Secretary LaHood reported his Bike Summit comments at his FastLane blog today, “My view from atop the table at the National Bike Summit“:

Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.

Reading this jaw-dropping policy announcement, we thought the Secretary had let his enthusiasm get the best of him. Alas, no, his comments were actually reinforced in what he described as a “major policy revision” posted at the Federal Highway Administration website, Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation.”

Treating bicycles and other non-motorized transportation as equal to motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe. If put into effect, the policy would more than undermine any effort the Obama Administration has made toward jobs. You can’t have jobs without the efficient movement of freight.

On Oct. 29, 2008, National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler testified on the economic stimulus bill at a hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Engler stated:

Eighty-percent of our nation’s freight, by value, moves across our nation’s roads, highways, and bridges by truck. The deteriorating condition of our surface transportation infrastructure and the challenges associated with traffic congestion have a negative effect on the manufacturing economy beyond wasted time and fuel. Nearly 20 percent of our small and medium-sized manufacturers recently reported to us in a survey that they risked losing a customer due to bottlenecks and other traffic delays over the past five years.

Pedicabs will not overcome those bottlenecks.

Now normally here we’d put in a statement about how bicycles are great, we need to fund infrastructure for bikes, federal support, blah, blah, blah. And, sure, more power to them. But c’mon! A great nation and modern industrial economy cannot operate if executive branch agencies are incapable of making a distinction between bicycles and trucks.

The House Appropriations Committee, Transportation and HUD Subcommittee, holds a hearing this Wednesday, “Strengthening Intermodal Connections & Improving Freight Mobility.” Scheduled to testify are Roy Kienitz, DOT’s under secretary for policy, and Victor Mendez, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Committee members would do everyone a service by posing this question: “Secretary LaHood last week declared it was now federal policy that motorized transportation should not be favored over non-motorized transportation. What in the world?”

For approving coverage of Secretary LaHood’s comments from bike-oriented outlets, see the extended entry.

Harold Meyerson of The Washington Post, the Post’s left-wing op-ed contributor, argues today on behalf of a funding plan to expedite construction of Los Angeles’ electric rail system, already financed by a half-cent increase in the sales tax voters approved in 2008. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa  now wants federal loans — repaid by the existing funding stream — to speed up the $40 billion in spending originally scheduled over three decades. From “The road to America’s economic recovery starts in L.A.“:

If the work could be accomplished in 10 years, as the mayor now proposes, it would engender more than 150,000 construction jobs smack in the part of the country that is home to more unemployed construction workers than any other. It would also save nearly $4 billion by avoiding the presumably higher costs of labor and materials in, say, 2030.

What Los Angeles needs are bonds and loans to provide now the funds that it would repay with its sales tax revenue over time. Investment banks are likely to put up some of the money, but the city has found it necessary to seek a guarantee from Washington as well.

Meyerson has a good case. Traditional funding sources like the federal/state fuels tax are less capable of raising enough money to maintain and expand transportation infrastructure. The National Association of Manufacturers supports alternative approaches such as Build America Bonds that lowers borrowing costs for states and municipalities. (See the Feb. 4 trade association letter.)

Meyerson makes a credible argument in support of Mayor Villaraigosa’s proposal and for the economic value of infrastructure investment. If there’s any caveat, it’s that California and many of its municipalities are fiscal basket cases (often controlled by public sector unions) that no smart private-sector investor would lend money to. So, the federal government becomes the lender of last resort, and those decisions are subject to political pressure separate from the financial considerations.  

UPDATE (10:55 a.m.): Yes, this is the kind of thing that makes one reluctant to enter into any deal with the City of Los Angeles:

Many council votes are routine, and members could argue that time spent with lobbyists, mayoral aides or even reporters is more valuable than responding to repeated roll calls. But few make that case. A spotty voting record can easily become a political liability.

So instead of being recorded as absent, the council members have a technological fix: The chamber’s voting software is set to automatically register each of the 15 lawmakers as a “yes” unless members deliberately press a button to vote “no.”

(Hat tip: Iain Murray)

Marion C. Blakely, the president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, has taken note of the NAM’s new report from the Milken Institute, “Jobs for America,” including the analysis of the economic impact of NextGen, the advanced air transportation system, and aerospace manufacturing. From a statement:

Jobs for America says that more than 182,000 jobs could result from a $10.4 billion government investment in the Next Generation Air Transportation System.

NextGen is a solution at hand for our nation. The program is shovel ready and in addition to generating jobs will enhance the safety, security and environmental stewardship of our transportation system.

Jobs for America also calls out the value of aerospace manufacturing, which employs high-skilled labor and pays above average wages with an extensive value chain that stimulates many other manufacturing industries. According to our research, there are already 2,436 manufacturing, maintenance and installation facilities operating in every state of the union. Investment in NextGen will add more jobs to these already established and productive facilities.

We’ve been reading governors’ state of the state addresses to see if and how they mention “manufacturing” or “industry” and their cognates as a very rough measure of their interest in their state’s manufacturing sector. In the President’s case, the term arose during his defense of the stimulus bill.

Today, it’s the same exercise for President Obama’s State of the Union.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That’s right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don’t have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.

And…

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation’s goods, services, and information. (Applause.)

 For earlier posts on state of the state addresses, go here.

NAM’s President John Engler and SEIU’s Andy Stern appeared on CBNC before the President’s State of the Union speech Wednesday. Engler used the NAM’s new report from the Milken Institute, “Jobs for America,” to describe a growth agenda that embraces a more competitive tax structure — lower corporate tax rates and a permanent R&D tax credit — export control reforms, and major investments in infrastructure categories like energy, transportation and communications.

The 10 minute clip is here.

The National Association of Manufacturers today released a major economic analysis documenting the impact on the economy and jobs creation of several policy changes. The report was conducted by the Milken Institute, a nonpartisan and independent think tank in Santa Monica, that used respected and rigorous economic models to assess the impact of proposals.

The report is “Jobs for America,” and the Milken Institute has put up a website with the full study, explanatory slides, and other material: http://www.milkeninstitute.org/jobsforamerica/

“Jobs for America” concludes that proposed corporate tax cuts, export control reforms and key infrastructure investments could create more than 11 million jobs in the U.S. by 2019.

Specifically:

• Reducing the U.S. corporate income tax to match the average of other industrial countries (OECD nations) would boost total employment by 2.1 million jobs.
• A permanent R&D tax credit, increased by 25 percent, could generate 510,000 jobs within a decade.
• Modernizing U.S. export controls would expand exports in high-value areas, increasing total employment by 340,000.
• Investing $425.6 billion across 10 infrastructure categories (including highway and transit, energy efficiency, wastewater treatment, Smart Grid, nuclear, etc.) would generate 10.7 million jobs over three years.

“Jobs for America” provides the substantive economic analysis that should guide policymakers with a clear course of action if, as many assert, jobs is the No. 1 facing the country.

See also NAM release, “New Study Gives Roadmap for U.S. Job Creation and Long-Term Growth”

Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware, a Democrat, delivered his State of the State address on Thursday, Jan. 21, and he used the word “manufacture” in his speech (transcript).

We’ve been search for references to “manufacturing” and “industry” in governors’ speeches this month, and Markell’s mention certainly qualifies. His reference comes as he describes a multifaceted policy and spending approach toward economic growth in Delaware, using as a starting point the announcement by Fisker Automotive that the company will manufacture a plug-in hyrid sedan at the former GM plant.

Fisker also received support from federal taxpayers via the Obama Administration, including a $528.7 million dollar loan from the Department of Energy. Vice President Biden traveled back to Wilmington to announce Fisker’s siting choice.

The governor did not discuss the federal funding, but he plugged the state’s company recruitment and regulatory reform initiatives, thanked the congressional delegation, lauded the state’s workforce and praised the UAW. He also put Fisker in a larger policy context:

Fisker’s decision to locate in Delaware will only be a success when the cars produced here get sold in showrooms across the world. Fisker has announced an extensive dealer network and their business plan calls for them to export half the cars produced here. One of the most attractive aspects of Delaware was our easy access to, and high-quality workforce at, the Port of Wilmington. Businesses like Fisker need to efficiently get products to the market. That is why I am recommending $10 million in bond bill funding for the Port of Wilmington and that we move forward with the Northeast Corridor Rail project and the Route 301 bypass project – all important infrastructure projects that will make Delaware more competitive.

To restore Delaware’s promise and prosperity, we should not only build, assemble and distribute the next generation of cars in Delaware. We should invent and manufacture the technology for the cars – as well the technology for other industries of tomorrow. …

That is why I am supporting in this year’s bond bill plans to provide a center for high-tech laboratories, health sciences, alternative energy research and development, and other emerging industries at the old Chrysler site.

Global trade, infrastructure and R&D are powerful tools to encourage economic growth.

Education is also a prerequisite. A section of Gov. Markell’s speech was entitled, “A Great Economy Demands Great Schools.” Earlier in the week, he joined Sen. Ted Kaufman and DuPont to announce  a Statewide Council to Improve  Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Education.

All in all, Gov. Markell’s State of the State address presented the big picture of how to achieve economic growth and jobs for the state, one that embraced the important elements for a strong manufacturing sector. It’s appreciated.

For earlier posts on other governors’ state of the state addresses, go here.

The National Association of Manufacturers and the Council of Manufacturing Associations — industry-specific trade groups — released a new report today that reaffirms the importance of manufacturing to the U.S. economy but points out the mounting challenges.

The report, “Manufacturing Resurgence – A Must for U.S. Prosperity,” is the third in a series of economic reports by Joel Popkin and Company featuring data and analysis about the importance of U.S. manufacturing to the nation’s economy.

The report recommends numerous strategies to create manufacturing jobs and stimulate manufacturing innovation and productivity, including:

• Reduce  the corporate income tax rate
• A permanant R&D tax credit 
• Make policy decisions now to  guide private-sector R&D  investments in clean energy technologies
• Improve the U.S. education system, especially in the science, technology, engineering and math fields (STEM);
• Support small business viability by widening the lowest corporate income tax bracket
• Invest in all levels of infrastructure.

Americans’ standard of living is at stake. The report builds on previous work done in 2003 and 2006 and notes:

[The] basic conclusion of this report is the same as its predecessors: America’s manufacturing innovation process is vital to promoting economic growth, productivity gains and increases in our standard of living. At the end of the 2006 report, a potential scenario was described whereby innovation declined, manufacturing contracted and the U.S. economy suffered losses of good jobs and found further improvements in its standard of living endangered. That scenario may well be playing out now, triggered by circumstances that were not foreseen at that time.