Donald Trump's Secretary of Transportation

[jbnv]

I'm surprised that there isn't yet a thread about this important person (to this community, at least).

[hbelkins]

She's married to my state's senior senator. I hope this appointment will bring a windfall inflow of transportation dollars to Kentucky.

[froggie]

I hope this appointment will bring a windfall inflow of transportation dollars to Kentucky.

At the expense of every other state, unless (and even if) Congress increases transportation funding...

[coatimundi]

Probably the most, if not only, qualified member of his cabinet thus far. It'd be nice if they let her run a couple of other departments as well.

The problem is that she hasn't been in a transportation role before, so it's hard to tell where she stands on anything. Are we going to see more highway funding? Are we going to see some Kentucky pork? If you go by partisan line, then you can make assumptions, but she may go her own way policy-wise.

[formulanone]

Well, thank goodness it wasn't Chris Christie.

[coatimundi]

Well, thank goodness it wasn't Chris Christie.

[oscar]

The problem is that she hasn't been in a transportation role before, so it's hard to tell where she stands on anything. Are we going to see more highway funding? Are we going to see some Kentucky pork? If you go by partisan line, then you can make assumptions, but she may go her own way policy-wise.

I think transportation policy really is Congress' plaything, and so her expertise or leanings in that area are pretty unimportant.  What she brings to the table are (a) her marriage to the Senate Majority Leader (whether that would give her more influence with Congress, or the President-elect and majority leader more influence/leverage with each other, who knows?), and (b) her experience in managing a medium-large Federal bureaucracy (the Labor Dept.).

[jakeroot]

Before the mods get lock-happy, I'd like to point out the rule on political discussions:

Political discussion is discouraged. Since discussion of roads will always involve politics to some degree, it is not outright banned

Lock it if you want. But only if it gets really divisive or off-topic (as the rules dictate).

[Brandon]

Well, thank goodness it wasn't Chris Christie.

There's a joke about blocking bridges in there somewhere.

[jbnv]

I'm just interested in discussing the incoming Transportation secretary, since her workings might be of significant relevance to our common hobby. The less politics and the more cold hard facts, the better.

Before the mods get lock-happy, I'd like to point out the rule on political discussions:

Political discussion is discouraged. Since discussion of roads will always involve politics to some degree, it is not outright banned

Lock it if you want. But only if it gets really divisive or off-topic (as the rules dictate).

[jakeroot]

I'm just interested in discussing the incoming Transportation secretary, since her workings might be of significant relevance to our common hobby. The less politics and the more cold hard facts, the better.

As am I, and many before myself. My primary concern is that the mods have, in the past, locked threads before things got too politically-focused. It's always up to the moderator, but they should hold off locking until things get too deep. Distrust develops by moderating in advance (i.e. before rules are broken).

[coatimundi]

The problem is that she hasn't been in a transportation role before, so it's hard to tell where she stands on anything. Are we going to see more highway funding? Are we going to see some Kentucky pork? If you go by partisan line, then you can make assumptions, but she may go her own way policy-wise.

I think transportation policy really is Congress' plaything, and so her expertise or leanings in that area are pretty unimportant.  What she brings to the table are (a) her marriage to the Senate Majority Leader (whether that would give her more influence with Congress, or the President-elect and majority leader more influence/leverage with each other, who knows?), and (b) her experience in managing a medium-large Federal bureaucracy (the Labor Dept.).

Where she comes in is the funding side, and that's where the real money comes in. Look at any transportation infrastructure project over the last few years - road or otherwise - and I think you'll see a USDOT side to the majority of projects, usually with federal matching funds and grants. DOT's policies directly influence who gets money from the pot: road, rail, transit, etc. Congress can legislate high-priority projects and sweeping but mostly vague highway bills, but most of the projects out there are still driven by the states.

[Mr. Matté]

The problem is that she hasn't been in a transportation role before, so it's hard to tell where she stands on anything.

Actually under H-Dubya, she was the Deputy Secretary of Transportation.

[1995hoo]

Well, thank goodness it wasn't Chris Christie.

There's a joke about blocking bridges in there somewhere.

[US71]

Before the mods get lock-happy, I'd like to point out the rule on political discussions:

Political discussion is discouraged. Since discussion of roads will always involve politics to some degree, it is not outright banned

Lock it if you want. But only if it gets really divisive or off-topic (as the rules dictate).

As long as you keep it civil. Throwing insults is strongly discouraged.

[jbnv]

If I really wanted to start scrap, I could mention that she's from a Clearview state and express hope that she will reinstate its use and get the DOT out of the business of regulating fonts.

But I won't, because civility.

[formulanone]

I think an overwhelming majority of the board just wants to know her views on permitting certain highway numbers to be directly written into law.

"How would you deal with the ongoing I-238 anomaly? And would you reject US 96 for an odd-numbered 3dus?"

Away from roads, I wonder if they're going to keep pressure on airlines to cover more types of baggage damage, which has quietly and unceremoniously been improved for the sake of passengers, in the past few years. Naturally, passengers are paying for that one way or another, but at least you're not as likely to be left with a useless bag as compared to before.
(Link - PDF warning)

[Brandon]

If I really wanted to start scrap, I could mention that she's from a Clearview state and express hope that she will reinstate its use and get the DOT out of the business of regulating fonts.

But I won't, because civility.

Please, we don't need to start a civil war over fonts.  I can just see it now, the Clearview States of America versus the FHWA Union.

[1995hoo]

As long as you keep it civil. Throwing insults is strongly discouraged.

Unless I'm mistaken, it appears some posts were deleted. I applaud whichever moderator did that.

[machias]

If I really wanted to start scrap, I could mention that she's from a Clearview state and express hope that she will reinstate its use and get the DOT out of the business of regulating fonts.

But I won't, because civility.

I'll go for the tangent: The safest road signs are the signs that are consistent and meet motorist expectations. Word recognition is easiest when the letting used on a sign is consistent from sign to sign or even line to line. 

My hope is that the new Transportation Secretary is level-headed, serious about improving our transportation infrastructure across the entire United States and not politically leaning in any direction.

So much for that.

[NE2]

Trump is a mezzanine.

[jakeroot]

Trump is a mezzanine.

I'm drunk right now but even I know this BS doesn't work. Try again.

[J N Winkler]

Looking at Chao's biography on Wikipedia, I see she comes from a shipping background and her appointment as USDOT deputy secretary was preceded by stints as deputy administrator of the Maritime Administration and chair of the Federal Maritime Commission, so I think she is into boats, not highways.  I presume she won't dilute USDOT's intermodal focus, but I would be very surprised if she proved to be a strong advocate for funding improvements to the highway infrastructure through increases in the federal fuel tax.  This said, the preoccupation with innovative finance is bipartisan--Obama was sticking it into campaign materials long before Trump came up with his cracked P3 plan--and previous attempts by USDOT secretaries to lobby for tried-and-true funding methods have not been crowned with success.  The case in point is Mary Peters, who became USDOT secretary under Bush 43 after serving as FHWA administrator and Arizona DOT agency head, and made a push to triple the fuel tax (as recommended by a blue-ribbon commission on transportation funding) that went nowhere.

So, as far as highways are concerned, I think we are going to be treading water for at least the next four years, because I don't see that Trump has the mandate to push his P3 plan given that he has won in the electoral college only and the failure of transportation-related P3 deals across the country has brought home the extent to which they backload costs on the public purse while the big investment banks walk away laughing.  I expect congressional Democrats to make the calculation that it is better to keep on applying the bandaids until the calculus finally falls in place for a comprehensive funding package that is less nakedly exploitative of the taxpayer.  I don't think Ms. Chao has or is going to get a rope to throw us.

[english si]

Looking at Chao's biography on Wikipedia, I see she comes from a shipping background and her appointment as USDOT deputy secretary was preceded by stints as deputy administrator of the Maritime Administration and chair of the Federal Maritime Commission, so I think she is into boats, not highways.

So I-42 and I-87, I-795, US74, etc in NC are top priorities, being as they link to ports.

[Scott5114]

I think she is into boats

I mean, I'm not gonna judge...