Streetsblog Los Angeles

George Voinovich (R-OH) may be the only senator who wants to forget about an 18-month extension of existing transportation law and move ahead quickly on broad reform. But that doesn't mean he's giving up.

Getting business interests to work on methods for funding a long-term transportation bill can help shift the political climate, he told Streetsblog Capitol Hill today after Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) vowed to continue searching for revenue raisers that can pay for massive new legislation.

"Right now, the president is frankly worried about health care, climate change, a lot of other things [and may have said] 'see, I don't need another thing on my plate,'" Voinovich said.

But, he added, the White House would likely come around if the private sector -- which has "been heretofore reluctant ... to step up" -- is willing to shoulder some of the extra tax burden needed to pay for increased infrastructure investment.

Voinovich made a passionate argument for taking up the House transportation bill, which he noted would help lower carbon emissions by encouraging greater use of transit and less auto dependence. But his ability to turn the tide in the Senate may be hurt by his imminent retirement from Congress, the insistence of the environment panel's senior Republican on a "clean" 18-month extension -- and the cold hard fact, as Voinovich put it, that "most of my colleagues haven't even looked at" the House bill.

The business lobby's readiness to bear extra costs in a bad economy is another factor. As Voinovich spoke to Streetsblog, he flagged down Jack Basso, director of program finance at the road-lobby group AASHTO.

The senator suggested pushing for a transportation funding extension shorter than 18 months, "to put the pressure on to get this thing done by next year." In response, Basso would say only that "we're supportive of the Oberstar [House] bill moving forward."

Green transportation advocates are pressing Congress to refuse any new spending that's not tied to reform of the existing system -- a call that influential senators in both parties ruled out today.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) joined Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK), the panel's ranking GOPer, in endorsing another 18 months of the 2005 transportation bill.

The extension, Boxer said, should be "clean as it can be, clean as a whistle ... not with these policy changes, because it will in fact jeopardize a quick passage of this extension."

Boxer's agreement to an extension free of policy reforms appears to be an acknowledgment that Inhofe and most other GOP senators would slow down approval of the short-term transportation measure. But she faced a lone critic today in Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), who challenged Boxer to back down from her opposition to raising the federal gas tax during an economic recession.

"I will tell you that if you go out to the people of America and say [a gas tax hike] is the solution, they're not going to buy it," Boxer said.

Voinovich reminded the Californian that she "is always talking about the environment; [drafting a new transportation bill] is going to have a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions." He suggested that senators "look at" the House transportation bill offered by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and pitch the American public on an increase in the gas tax, which has remained static since 1993.

In fact, recent polling supports Voinovich's argument, not Boxer's. A survey released earlier this year by the advocacy group Building America's Future found that 81 percent of Americans would pay more in federal taxes to support infrastructure investments.

But the alignment of Boxer and Inhofe, as well as Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) -- whose Finance Committee must agree on a revenue source for the next transportation bill -- in favor of a clean 18-month extension is enough to doom the House effort to pass a bill this year.

Boxer described the process as a "two-track effort," promising to work on a "transformational" long-term transportation bill during the 18-month extension period of the existing law.

Given Congress' full plate and Boxer's focus on climate change legislation, however, the chances of passing a broader six-year transportation bill before 2011 look slim right now.

Late Update: Boxer closed the hearing by asserting that the lack of a revenue source for a new transportation bill, not the crowded congressional calendar, is driving her support for a "clean" 18-month extension.

"For those who want to focus on transformation, I urge them to work with me on my global warming bill," which will have a transportation portion, she said.

Policy wonks across the capital are still poring over the 775-page bill released earlier today by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee. But searching the legislation for the key topics being debated by transportation reformers reveals new details and raises new questions.

The most common phrase in the bill may well be three innocuous words: "to be supplied." This is in no small part thanks to the uncertain future of funding for Oberstar's $450 billion plan, a problem compounded by a White House preoccupied with health care and in no mood to raise the gas tax.

Still, the sheer number of sections left "to be supplied" in the legislation makes it difficult to consider individual portions of the bill in the context of the nation's overall transportation investment.

For example, the section on performance targets for states receiving federal money to keep roads and bridges in good repair -- as opposed to building new projects -- leaves its minimum standards for structural adequacy blank.

The section that creates a program for the unique transportation needs of metropolitan areas has no blank areas, but it leaves major decisions in the hands of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and state DOTs.

The secretary is asked to look at certain performance areas when deciding on new projects, including traffic reduction, road safety, less dependence on single-vehicle trips, and access to public transit. But the task of setting actual goals in those areas, such as percentage-based reduction in local per-capita VMT, is left up to the state DOTs and local metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to decide alongside the federal government.

The tangible targets proposed by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), which include accountability measures that cannot be tweaked by individual states and localities, are nowhere to be found.

Read more...

As their committee’s leaders butted heads
with the Obama administration, a group of Republicans on the House
transportation panel proposed to fill the $7 billion hole in the
nation’s highway trust fund with unobligated money from the economic stimulus law.

The
bill, offered yesterday by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and eight
co-sponsors, has almost zero chance of passing in the
Democratic-controlled Congress. But its appearance suggests that
lawmakers whose sympathies generally lie with Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN),
the House’s transportation chief — who is determined to pass a new
federal bill this year — are likely to be diverted by the immediate
task of filling the trust fund by August.

In his endorsement
of the Diaz-Balart bill, Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL) underscored the
bipartisan appeal of Oberstar’s quest for a new bill. Johnson lamented
the business in his home district that would be lost if the Obama
administration won its fight for a transportation funding patch:

As a member of the Transportation Committee as well as the Highway
and Transit Subcommittee, I have been gearing up for the
reauthorization for many months. Elected officials from throughout the
District have spent time and energy preparing their plans and projects
with me and my staff in anticipation of this important reauthorization.
Now the administration is telling them to shelve it all.

The
result of this ill-conceived decision will be the loss of jobs,
critical infrastructure and economic development in [my] district
and throughout the nation.

Let’s forget for the moment that House Republicans voted against the stimulus en masse,
which casts a dim light on their bid to take advantage of available
economic recovery cash for highways. Here’s why the Diaz-Balart
proposal could have a significant political downside.

Read more…

Senior members of the House transportation committee today fired a warning shot at those pushing an 18-month extension of existing federal law, putting the Obama administration and key senators on notice that their $450 billion proposal would move forward this year.

Rep.
Jim Oberstar (D-MN), the transportation panel’s chairman, described a
delay in long-term funding as a risk to jobs and growth opportunities
that were created by the recent stimulus law.

And Oberstar made no attempt to hide his disdain for
the Obama economic advisers who helped trim transit’s share of that
stimulus plan. Holding up a red shovel for a phalanx of photographers,
Oberstar quipped: "There are folks in the economic gang at the White
House who never had a shovel in their hands or a callus on their
fingers."

His GOP counterpart on the committee, Rep. John
Mica (FL), vowed to join Oberstar in amassing House support for a
transporation bill that could clear the lower chamber of Congress by
the end of September — though even their allies concede that Senate
passage is a long shot.

"I view this as the most critical
jobs bill before Congress … we’re going to do it together, one way or
another, come hell or high water," Mica said, adding flourish as he
advised critics not to "underestimate Oberstar and Mica."

Several
advocacy and interest groups are joining the committee’s effort to push
a six-year transportation bill across the finish line. The Laborers’
International Union of North America released a statement that plainly
said, "We agree with Chairman Oberstar that the surface transportation
bill should not be delayed."

The American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), which represents the nation’s
transit agencies, also lent its voice in support. "Our members need
this bill to pass as soon as it possibly can," APTA President William
Millar told Streetsblog.

Yet the key for Oberstar and Mica
may be how many senators endorse their call for a long-term
transportation re-write this year. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood already has admitted
that the "reform" he called for as part of his 18-month extension would
have a slim chance of passing, given the contentious debate that’s
likely to erupt simply over averting bankruptcy for the nation’s
highway trust fund.

Read more…

(editor's note: Elana Schor has done yeoman's work analyzing the newly released white paper from Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) which very well could end up being the framework for the next authorization of the Federal Transportation Trust Fund.  Oberstar's work on this issue really puts the "work" done by the Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee Chair, Barbara Boxer, to shame.  You can read all of Elana's coverage, including a look at the highways-transit split and funding for metro areas proposed by Oberstar at Capitol Hill Streetsblog.)

Rep. Jim Oberstar, the House transportation committee chairman is set to brief reporters this afternoon on his $450 billion, six-year federal transportation bill -- which he plans to pursue regardless of the Obama administration's push for an 18-month extension of existing law.

But Oberstar's early outline of the bill, which could get a vote in the committee as soon as next week, is already available. And it suggests that the Minnesota Democrat and Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) have made good on their promises for a sweeping re-organization of the often debilitating federal transportation bureaucracy. Here are the highlights:

• The $450 billion price tag, which represents a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005, includes $87 billion in highway trust fund money for transit and $12 billion in transit cash from the Treasury's general fund. The 2005 bill gave transit less than $44 billion in highway trust fund money and $9 billion from the general fund.

• Oberstar isn't about to quietly accept Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's admonition that the 18-month extension is necessary to "face reality." In fact, the committee's outline of its bill warns that an extension could be devastating to state DOTs that have "been unwilling to invest in large, long-term projects until enactment of the reauthorization act."

• Highway funding would be consolidated into four funding categories, as would transit -- effectively eliminating 75 funding categories from the current system.
  
• Oberstar's bill would establish the National Infrastructure Bank proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and other senior lawmakers, making the bank part of a broader metropolitan access program that would support urban areas in achieving "improved transit operations, congestion pricing, and expanded highway and transit capacity."

And that's not all. More details of the forthcoming House bill follow after the jump.

Read more...

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is asking Congress to extend the existing federal transportation law for 18 months, averting the coming insolvency of the nation’s highway trust fund while putting off broad-based transport reform for as long as the Bush administration did in the days surrounding the 2004 election.

LaHood’s request comes at an awkward time for Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee. Oberstar had planned to release an outline of his priorities for a new transportation bill tomorrow and vowed to oppose any short-term extensions of the Bush-era legislation — exactly what LaHood is now seeking.

LaHood urged Congress to couple its extension with "critical reforms" to existing federal transportation policy that streamline cost-benefit analyses and help to promote more livable communities.
But it’s far from clear that such changes could pass Congress by the
end of next month, when lawmakers are slated to leave Washington and
must come to a decision on shoring up the highway trust fund.

In
addition, LaHood’s call to effectively postpone debate on long-term
transportation policy reform may not sit well with the small but vocal
group of lawmakers who would prefer to start a broader discussion this
year.

Extending the existing law also puts off a
discussion over whether to keep relying on the gas tax to fund
transportation improvements or move to a new revenue source — a
politically volatile issue for the Obama team, but one that lawmakers
from both parties increasingly say is necessary.

Oberstar plans to stick to his schedule for moving forward on a new
transportation bill, his spokesman told Streetsblog. During an
invitation-only briefing with reporters earlier today, he called
extending the existing law "unacceptable."

LaHood’s full statement follows the jump.

Read more…

While lawmakers maneuver to fill local transit agencies' operating budget gaps with economic stimulus cash, Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) is taking it a step further with a proposal that would make federal operating aid permanent -- and use it as an incentive to spur more state-level funding as well as emissions reductions.

Carnahan introduced his bill on Monday with a single co-sponsor, Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), but the Missouri lawmaker is courting 10 other colleagues to sign on, according to advocates at the Transportation Equity Network.

At issue is the federal government's current ban on transit operating aid for cities with populations larger than 200,000. Yet cities are free to spend federal money on transit capital upgrades, leading to problems for agencies that can afford to purchase new trains but lack the money to run them.

Carnahan's hometown of St. Louis is feeling the sting of the current rules: Its Metro has had to cut bus service by 44 percent to help close a $50 million operating budget deficit.

But could permanent federal help with transit operating encourage urban areas to become unduly dependent on Washington? Yonah Freemark suggested this week that Congress should conclusively revamp its formula for transit funding before using stimulus money to rescue local agencies.

Carnahan's bill seeks to start that process by requiring larger metro areas to run at least 100 buses during peak travel times before federal operating aid can be used. State and local governments would also have to kick in extra money for transit operating to match the feds' increased contribution.

Transit agencies in areas that win some of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's $1.5 billion in stimulus grants would be eligible for even more federal money if they successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent.

Carnahan's statement on the bill follows after the jump.

Read more...