Why is it that the “logic” used for the religion against any highway construction is never applied to anything else?

As far as conventional traffic engineering standards and the highway lobby are concerned, the only thing that will “solve” congestion is bigger roads and more elaborate highway facilities. That’s usually what congestion relief means. Of course, those “solutions” are short-lived because the new capacity fills quickly, especially when they enable new sprawl development. Under the conventional traffic paradigm, another round of road widening will be needed in short order; an endless cycle that’s good for the highway business and bad for the community.

The measures that you describe in San Francisco more often go by the label of “demand management.” See http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/ for more.

Not that we don’t need to think about a more holistic approach to planning and transit, but congestion relief doesn’t seem all that bad. As long as it doesn’t just lead to bigger roads.

Also, it seems like our transportation policy is driven in part by our planning and zoning decisions. Did the commission make any recommendations or observations in that regard?

The language of “mobility” serves only the auto and highway lobbies. But in general, people don’t want “mobility” for its own sake. They just want convenient, efficient access to their daily activities. In many cases that can be provided with better land use planning and smarter use of existing infrastructure. Making “mobility” the priority simply paves the way for more big-ticket highway facilities: Cloverleafs, flyovers, double-decking, etc.

The National Surface Transportation Policy Commission report advocates streamlining the permitting process, mainly by shortening the environmental review of new facilities. From what I have heard, the need for this reform is real and valid. However, any changes to the environmental review procedures must be carefully vetted by environmental and smart growth organizations to make sure critical protections aren’t being shortchanged.

The National Surface Transportation Policy Commission report recognizes transit as an essential part of the nation’s transportation infrastructure. It’s going to be essential to see that recognition realized in the form of supportive administrative procedures, funding and guiding principles. It was disturbing to hear that a major pro-rail passage in the Report was unilaterally excised, even though it was adopted by a 9-3 majority vote of the commission. (See Surface Transportation Commission’s Pro-rail Section Disappears from Report)