Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), rendered by political caricaturist Kerry Waghorn.

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.

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.

Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Tuesday struck a deal ahead of Friday’s make-or-break vote on climate change legislation to give greener transportation a place at the table.

The
climate bill gives the states 10 percent of its carbon emissions
allowances, the total worth of which is projected to hit $70 billion by
2010, to invest in energy-efficiency projects such as solar power or "smart" electricity grids.

Today’s
agreement allows 10 percent of those state allowances — yes, 10
percent of 10 percent — to help pay for transit expansions, new bike
trails, or any other transportation efficiency project.

The
climate bill already asks states and localities to meet targets for
transportation emissions cuts, so the funding pact would back up that
mandate with new money.

Energy and Commerce chairman
Henry Waxman (D-CA) just announced the change alongside transportation
committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Reps. Earl Blumenauer
(D-OR), Doris Matsui (D-CA) and Anthony Weiner. Here is Oberstar’s
statement:

I commend Chairman Waxman
for working with me to ensure that a portion of allowances are
available for projects that will expand options for public
transportation, bicycling, walking, and other green transportation
alternatives for our citizens.  This legislation provides only a small
portion of the funds needed to address surface transportation-related
greenhouse gas emissions, but is a very good first step.

The new House transportation bill brings good news for local transit agencies. (Photo: Wired)

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.

Colin Peppard, climate and infrastructure policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund, hailed the bill today for tying transportation decision-making to carbon emissions reductions. Yet Peppard closed on a caveat that is related to the bill's open-ended approach to transportation performance:

However, more work needs to be done to ensure that these forward-thinking goals are fully supported by the policies, programs, and funding laid out in this critical piece of legislation.  Questions remain as to whether state and local governments will truly be held accountable for delivering better transportation, economic, and environmental performance. 

David Goldberg, spokesman for the Transportation for America coalition, also praised Oberstar's outline of the bill for making a significant break from the status quo. He noted its dedication of funds to metropolitan areas, provisions aimed at combating climate change and its proposal for proportional voting at MPOs.

Goldberg added, however, that "there are too many places in the bill where localities and states are allowed to set their own performance measures and there is no overarching set of performance targets that would let you know the overall transportation program is making progress on issues of national priority."

The bill does take action on an issue of importance to many city governments: allowing local transit agencies to spend federal money on operating costs. Urban areas with populations between 200,000 and 500,000 would be cleared to spend 20 percent of their federal formula grants on transit operating, with the number shrinking to 10 percent for larger cities and 5 percent for cities with populations greater than 1 million.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) (Photo: SW Broward GOP)

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.

By separating the need to fill the trust fund from a broader debate over transportation reform, it undercuts the efforts of Rep. John Mica
(FL), Oberstar’s GOP counterpart, to pass a long-term bill that would
tackle the nation’s persistent infrastructure funding problems.

Senate
leaders already are tipping towards the Obama administration’s side,
aligning with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s call for an 18-month extension of existing law and questioning whether anything can be done other than filling up the highway account.

"I do not oppose on principle the effort to improve federal transportation programs, but we cannot allow debates over these reforms to prevent us from saving the highway trust fund in a timely matter," Patty Murray (D-WA) the Senate’s transportation spending chairwoman, told LaHood yesterday.

Congress
is a perennially time-crunched place, where the perception of crisis
tends to dictate legislators’ priorities. The more lawmakers who define
the transportation crisis as merely the fiscal health of the highway
trust fund, the less willingness there will be to tackle the broader
issues.

How often does this man hold a shovel? (Photo: World Economic Forum via flickr)

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.

"I believe
we can have discussions," LaHood told Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA),
chairwoman of the panel with jurisdiction over DOT spending, earlier
this morning. "Whether we get to the point where we
can include these as part of the fix of the the Highway Trust Fund,
we’ll have to see."

Rep.
Pete DeFazio (D-OR), chairman of Oberstar’s subcommittee on highways
and transit, told Streetsblog that he hopes senators will "have second
thoughts" about the administration’s 18-month extension. "When we met
with the Senate, we agreed to their principles. We told them we’d give
them a product," he said.

Before the assembled media,
DeFazio was cutting in his criticism of the White House’s
transportation strategy. "The Obama administration has lifted a play
out of the Bush White House book," he said, predicting that the
extensions would last longer than LaHood’s proposed 18 months.

"Now
the administration of change has come and said, ‘We think the status
quo is just fine’ … it’s at least two years, more likely three or
four," DeFazio said.

The House Ways and Means Committee will
have a joint hearing next week on funding sources for Oberstar’s bill,
and DeFazio’s subcommittee plans to hold a markp Wednesday.

What
remains to be seen is whether senators will join the push — and
whether advocates will give full-throated support to the House members
in their clash with the administration.

When a reporter described as "not much," the new bill’s minor shift in the long-standing 80-20 funding distribution between highways and transit, a Democratic committee source conceded the point.

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.

House Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) has a brewing battle with the administration on his hands. (Photo: Jonathan Maus)

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.

Oberstar also appears poised to support "complete streets" principles in his bill, although his outline uses the phrase "comprehensive street design principles." The forthcoming House bill would also ask the Environmental Protection Agency to set national emissions reductions targets for the transportation sector, thus requiring state and local official to keep climate change in mind when planning future projects.

Oberstar's outline also attaches a number to the transportation funding gap that would result if existing law were relied on. Extending the 2005 federal bill for the next six years would result in $326 billion in funding, according to the House transportation committee -- about $125 billion less than the new bill Oberstar wants.

Of course, the missing piece is how to pay for that increased infrastructure investment. The revenue puzzle falls under the jurisdiction of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, however, meaning that Oberstar's will to fight LaHood on an extension may come down to how many allies the transportation chairman can find outside of his own committee.

I am very pleased that the White House is being proactive in working with the Congress to address the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund.  As we work our way out of this recession, the last thing we want to do is to drastically cut back on necessary transportation priorities.  The White House proposal to replenish the Trust Fund until 2011 will keep the recovery and job creation moving forward and give us the necessary time to pass a more comprehensive multi-year transportation authorization bill with stable and reliable funding sources.

Photo: AP

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.

This morning, I went to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress
on the situation with the Highway Trust Fund. I am proposing an
immediate 18-month highway reauthorization that will replenish the
Highway Trust Fund. If this step is not taken the trust fund will run
out of money as soon as late August and states will be in danger of
losing the vital transportation funding they need and expect. 

As
part of this, I am proposing that we enact critical reforms to help us
make better investment decisions with cost-benefit analysis, focus on
more investments in metropolitan areas and promote the concept of
livability to more closely link home and work. The Administration
opposes a gas tax increase during this challenging, recessionary
period, which has hit consumers and businesses hard across our country. 

I
recognize that there will be concerns raised about this approach.
However, with the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical
demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more
focused approach, we should not rush legislation. We should work
together on a full reauthorization that best meets the demands of the
country. The first step is making sure that the Highway Trust Fund is
solvent. The next step is addressing our transportation priorities
over the long term.

Update: In an interview with Bloomberg,
LaHood describes his decision as one to "face reality" instead of
"stringing Congress along with three-month or six-month extensions."

Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) (Photo: AAAS)

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.

House transportation chief Jim Oberstar (D-MN) is pushing for a full vote on his bill before September 30. Photo: StreetsWiki

The
uncertainty over Oberstar’s time frame is making for quite the guessing
game among transportation advocates, lawmakers and journalists. The latest bit
of insider chatter, mentioned by van-pool lobbyist Chris Simmons on
Twitter, has Oberstar releasing a "white paper" — or briefing paper,
in D.C. parlance — on his plans later this month before the complete
federal bill emerges sometime in July.

Simmons has even suggested a betting line on when the House bill would finally see the light of day.

Oberstar
spokesman Jim Berard confirmed to Streetsblog that the chairman’s
current goal remains to release his bill by the final week of June,
although the constantly shifting congressional schedule ensures that
nothing is set in stone.

Perhaps the most crucial question,
then, is whether the timing of Oberstar’s bill will have any effect on
the Senate’s willingness to take up the critical issue of
transportation before the 2005 federal bill expires on September 30.

At
yesterday’s Bipartisan Policy Center transportation forum, few if any
of the lawmakers and policy experts on hand believed the Senate could
take up and pass its federal bill by the October deadline. Former GOP
Sen. Slade Gorton (WA) quipped that "to believe the entire Congress is
going to finish this transportation bill by September 30 .. is truly a
triumph of hope over experience," while current Democratic Sen. Mark
Warner (VA) was equally skeptical about his chamber’s chances.

Warner,
who sits on both committees with major jurisdiction over the Senate’s
transportation bill — Banking and Environment and Public Works — said
only that the latter panel is "very, very focused on climate change
first … I’m not sure I can give you an exact time."

The
slowdown of progress on the federal reauthorization bill could be a
blessing in disguise for transit and environmental advocates who want
to see a wholesale re-examination of the irrational structure that has
long governed Washington transportation policy.

But it also underscores the need to find a sustainable new revenue source for transportation funding, one that can stave off the looming bankruptcy of the highway trust fund while guaranteeing that money will be available to pursue much-needed reforms on the federal level.

Are
any readers prepared to take Simmons’ challenge and place a bet on the
House bill’s release date? I’ll put the over-under at June 30…

The federal transportation policy process: Thanks for clearing that up, guys! (Source: U.S. DOT).

But
the odds are that you haven’t heard much about how the process works.
What has to happen in order for Congress to meet that September
deadline? Well, if you’re a fan of unnecessarily complicated Washington
jargon, the federal DOT has a flow chart on the subject (pictured on
the right):

Let’s break it down a bit. The hardest step in
the transportation policy-writing process will be getting past the
chart’s third box, out of the congressional committees.

Remember that immortal Schoolhouse Rock tune, "I’m Just A Bill"?
The Bill famously sang that "it’s a long, long week when I’m sitting in
committee," but it’s almost certain to take longer than a week to get
the transportation bills onto the floors of the House and Senate.

There
are two reasons for the delay. First, Republicans in Congress are
salivating at the opportunity to rap Democrats for the local projects
they prioritize in the bill — what you often hear called earmarks or
"pork."

Now, what looks like "pork" to some looks like
progress to others; House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) took heat from
reporters in his own state for using earmarks to expand bike trails and
commuter rail. But Republicans love starting earmark fights, no matter
how counter-productive they are, and this year’s federal transportation
bill will be no exception. (In fact, the process is already starting.)

The
second reason that the transportation bill is almost sure to be delayed
is money. Few people on Capitol Hill are ready to debate raising the
gas tax or imposing a tax on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), although
those are the only two concrete options on the table for bringing
much-needed new money to the federal transportation trust fund.

But
higher gas taxes and a VMT tax are good ideas, you may be thinking.
Members of Congress, meanwhile, are thinking one thing: Why should we
support new taxes on driving when President Obama doesn’t?

So getting out of the chart’s third box is going to be the hardest step. Still, that’s only the beginning.

You
can skip the box marked "Any Differences?" because the chances of the
House and Senate passing identical transportation bills are about as
good as those of Transportation Secretary LaHood changing the name
of his blog. The process of smoothing out differences between bills,
called "conferencing," can take weeks or even months, depending on the
circumstances. Then both chambers of Congress have to approve the
unified transportation plan before it reaches Obama’s desk.

Even
after the federal bill passes, however, state-level Departments of
Transportation still have wide latitude to determine whether money gets
spent on repaving a crumbling highway or adding a lane to one that’s
hardly used. Lawmakers such as Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) have adopted a policy of steering cash directly to state DOTs.

As crazily complex as this process sounds — and it stalled spectacularly four years ago, when Congress was forced to pass twelve temporary extensions
before they could agree on a transportation plan — there is an upside.
The train-using, bike-riding public is watching closely this year, and
any delay in passing the federal bill will provide more opportunities
to get Congress on board with reforms such as "transit equity," which would require Washington to pay the same share for transit that it does for roads.

The first step, a transportation draft bill in the House, is expected just after the week-long Memorial Day recess.

And
no matter how long the bill takes to pass, one thing is assured: It’s
going to be an interesting summer for transit fans in Washington. 

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA). Photo: pbs.org.

In short, the House climate bill officially sets "complete streets" principles as planning goals for state and local transportation officials. The DOT and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would enforce the deadlines for each state and local transportation emissions-reduction plan and hand out grants to help areas implement innovative strategies for diminishing auto dependence.

The funding for those grants would have to come from future spending bills, not from the auctions of carbon-emissions permits to polluting industries -- the so-called CLEAN TEA plan that Transportation for America and other advocacy groups have been hoping for.

Today's deal would auction only 15 percent of the emissions permits, giving the rest away free to coal companies, electric utilities and the auto industry. Why did CLEAN TEA fall by the wayside? Sadly, Democrats from coal- and oil-dominant states were prepared to bring down Waxman's bill unless their hometown industries got emissions permits for free. Even those Democrats who are still fighting to make polluting industries pay for their permits want the revenue to go back to the public in the form of tax credits, rather than to green transportation.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) (Photo by Washington Post)

Today's proposal, sponsored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (WV) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (NJ), is what's known on Capitol Hill as a "marker" -- a set of principles intended to help guide the drafting of major legislation. The Rockefeller-Lautenberg marker, which got some early love from the Washington Post, states that the next federal transportation bill should accomplish the following:

• Reduce national per-capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis;
• Cut national motor vehicle-related fatalities in half by 2030;
• Cut national surface transportation-generated carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030;
• Reduce surface transportation delays per capita on an annual basis; 
• Get 20 percent more critical surface-transportation assets into a state of good repair by 2030;
• Increase the total usage of public transit, intercity passenger rail and non-motorized transport on an annual basis.

Senator Chris Dodd, whose committee is responsible for transit policy in the Transportation Act, with USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood, via SenChrisDodd on Flickr

Editor's Note: We’re happy to announce the premiere today of our new Streetsblog Capitol Hill reporter, Elana Schor. Elana has rich experience covering Washington as a reporter for The Hill, the Guardian UK and Talking Points Memo. With major transportation, climate, and energy legislation before Congress this year and in 2010, she’ll help bring outside-the-Beltway readers inside the legislative process, break stories, and make Streetsblog Capitol Hill an engaging and entertaining must-read.  Welcome aboard, Elana.

Speaking to members of the National Retail Federation earlier today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood sidestepped what's becoming one of the peskiest unanswered questions on the Hill: Will Congress delay the federal transportation bill until next year?

In his address to the retailers' group, LaHood stuck mostly to his department's progress in allocating its $48 billion share of the economic stimulus bill. That stimulus money would create so many jobs by summertime, LaHood predicted jokingly, that many Americans would be "irritated" by the sight of "people putting up orange cones" on roads slated for repair.

When the topic turned to the timing of the forthcoming transportation bill, however, LaHood offered few specifics. The former GOP congressman declined to address a report in today's CongressDaily, a subscription-only Capitol newsletter, that the six-year transportation bill "is almost certain to be punted to next year, if not significantly scaled back."

LaHood did little to quell rumors of a delay in his remarks about the uncertainty surrounding new funding sources for the bill. "There is going to be a huge debate" over covering the predicted shortfall in the federal highway trust fund, he said. "At some point there will be a bill that'll come out of Congress" that will address the funding question.

So far, the Obama administration has ruled out raising the federal gas tax as well as imposing a tax on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), deeming both options politically unpalatable during an economic recession. Asked by one retailer about alternative funding options, LaHood mentioned increasing tolls on highways, expanding public-private partnerships, and acting on the president's proposal for a national infrastructure bank -- originally conceived as a $60 billion endeavor, but given $26 billion in the recent White House budget.

The details of Rep. Jim Oberstar’s plans for the next federal transportation bill are starting to come into focus. Last Friday, The Infrastructurist ran an item about a document on the subject that has made its way into the public eye:

Oberstar has recently been circulating a “two-page handwritten outline” around the Hill, according to the BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, which obtained a copy of the document. They report the following tidbits:

>
The outline calls for “transit equity.” Right now the feds pay 80
percent of highway projects and 50 percent of transit projects. That
would change.

> It would create DOT agencies focused on a “national strategic plan” and on “mega- rojects.”

>
“DOT’s 108 programs [will be consolidated] into four “major formula
programs”: critical asset preservation, highway safety improvement,
surface transportation program, and congestion mitigation
and air quality improvement.”

> The document seems to call for more transparency with transportation data.

Leaves you wanting more, doesn’t it?

Today Transportation for America is releasing a 100-page document called "The Route to Reform," in which they outline policy recommendations related to the upcoming reauthorization of federal transportation funding legislation (download the executive summary here or the full report here). 

From the executive summary: 

The
next transportation program must set about the urgent task of repairing
and maintaining our existing transportation assets, building a more
well-rounded transportation network, and making our current system work
more efficiently and safely to create complete and healthy communities.
It should invest in modern and affordable public transportation, safe
places to walk and bicycle, smarter highways that use technology and
tolling to better manage congestion, long-distance rail networks, and
land use policies that reduce travel demand by locating more affordable
housing near jobs and services. And it should put us on the path
towards a stronger national future by helping us reduce our oil
dependency, slow climate change, improve social equity, enhance public
health, and fashion a vibrant new economy.

Getting there
from here will require some significant reforms. To meet these goals,
the T4 America coalition offers four main recommendations for the
upcoming transportation authorization bill:

• Develop a New National Transportation Vision with Objectives and Accountability for Meeting Performance Targets.
• Restructure Federal Transportation Programs and Funding to Support the New National Transportation Vision and Objectives.
• Reform Transportation Agencies and theDecision-making Process.
• Revise Transportation Finance So We Can Pay for Needed Investments.

This
transportation bill is going to be of crucial importance to all the
issues we discuss on this site on a regular basis. The T4A report
provides a great overview of the key points on which advocates can push
for reform. Take a look.

Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing
about the future of national surface transportation. This much isn’t in
doubt: Current policies need a major overhaul. What to change and,
especially, how to pay for it are very much in question.

Several
panelists spoke about the need to reform the nation’s transportation
priorities and set firm goals, like reducing car dependence and traffic
deaths. Shifting away from policies that emphasize highway capacity and
reward gas consumption didn’t sit that well with senators from states
like South Dakota and Texas, but there was a broad sense that the next
surface transportation bill must reverse years of underinvestment in
the nation’s infrastructure. Nevertheless, Secretary of Transportation
Ray LaHood reiterated the Obama administration’s opposition to a
promising funding solution — raising the gas tax — and obeyed the directive from up top to never again mention a tax on vehicle miles (VMT).

At
around the same time, a very different story was unfolding in the
House, where James Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, pushed for his preferred funding solution, a
VMT tax. Asserting that the technology to implement this solution is
already available, he asked his committee to rapidly advance the timetable:
"Why do we need a pilot program? Why don’t we just phase it in?" Since
Oberstar has taken a leading role in shaping the next transportation
bill, this may mean that a VMT tax will be included in the first draft.

Back at the Senate hearing, several panelists called attention to the
impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund, which uses money raised
by the gas tax to pay for transit and roads projects. Steve Heminger,
director of the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
estimated that the U.S. needs to invest at least $225 billion annually
in its transportation infrastructure. We’re only spending about 40
percent of that today, and the downward trend in driving means the fund
is drying up. Few options will suffice to raise the needed revenue, he
said, other than increasing the gas tax or imposing a VMT fee.

LaHood skirted the funding issue and focused on rethinking existing
transportation priorities. "Our initial focus will be on expanding the
transportation choices available to American families," he said. LaHood
repeatedly described his intention to help communities become more
transit-friendly, walkable
and bikeable. He cited the administration’s desire to get Americans out
of their cars, but never made the link that higher gas prices create
powerful incentives to reduce car dependence. His prepared testimony instead asked for "innovative" ideas from Congress to address
the transportation funding dilemma, leaving aside any specifics.

For Streetsblog, Freemark will break down the legislation, explain its progress through Congress, and fill us in on some of the people working to shape it. His first post looks back at the current transportation funding bill, called the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" (SAFETEA-LU), which was approved in late July 2005 after a year of infighting in a sharply divided Congress.

* * * * * * *

Ultimately, SAFETEA-LU’s greatest failing may have been its failure to articulate a truly multi-modal vision for the nation's surface transportation network. Essentially a continuation of 1950s-era policies, it repeated the same-old same-old about a need to complete the Interstate highway program, directing billions of dollars to state DOTs to pour asphalt and expand roadways. Nowhere did the legislation suggest a need to adapt to a future in which American dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels must be dramatically reduced. That's the challenge faced by Congress today.

Less of this, please... (Photo: SkilliShots/Flickr)

The $10 billion in public transportation funds is distributed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a variety of uses. The FTA administers the urban areas program, which allocates money to metropolitan areas for transit system capital expenses, as well as a rural areas program that helps states pay for rural transit. SAFETEA-LU also included a fixed-guideways formula, aimed at keeping mostly older rail transit systems like those in Chicago or Boston in working condition. Finally, the New Starts/Small Starts program allowed the FTA to fund competitive grants for major capacity expansion such as new subway or bus rapid transit lines.

...more of this... (Photo: Paul Purser/Flickr.)

SAFETEA-LU provided for $40 billion in annual funding from the highway account, the traditional federal source for financing Interstate highways. But under the law, money from the account could actually be spent on more than just roads. Roughly $6.5 billion per year was allocated to the "Surface Transportation Program." States were allowed to use this money to fund transit and "bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways." The "Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program" -- about $1.7 billion a year -- went to projects likely to reduce pollution, and specifically forbade funding "a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles."

There's one problem, though. The federal government may allow such funds to be spent on non-auto uses, but that's rarely the case.

That's because, while each metropolitan area has a federally-mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) whose role is to establish priorities for transportation investments, state departments of transportation have ultimate discretion over how national highway funds are used. The inevitable consequence? Asphalt-happy DOTs usually choose to invest highway funds in roads, even when MPOs advocate for improved transit or bikeways. According to Transportation for America, only five states -- California, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- have taken advantage of the flexibility of these funds. The rest have spent the vast majority on auto infrastructure.

What’s more, SAFETEA-LU made it easy for states to build roads and hard for them to build transit projects. While funds for new roads were simply distributed to states based on a formula, new transit lines had to undergo the rigorous New Starts process -- competing with other projects from all over the country -- before winning a share of federal dollars. There was no such required audit for road projects.

...and this. (Photo: Richard Masoner/Flickr).

The source of all this money is another problem. Funds for surface transportation come primarily from the national gas tax, 18.4¢ per gallon of gas (24.4¢ for diesel). Until last year, the gas tax was a reliable source of funds, but the recent decrease in miles driven by Americans and an increase in fuel economy forced the Congress to authorize $8 billion in emergency funds for roads from the general budget for fiscal year 2009. The same scenario is likely to occur in the coming year.

SAFETEA-LU provided no alternatives to the gas tax, but the next transportation bill may well do so. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood proposed using a mileage tax as a new source of revenue last month, but his initiative was quickly shot down by the White House press secretary, who said that the tax is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration. A recent U.S. Government Accounting Office study suggested that additional monies could come from increasing the gas tax, encouraging tolls or moving funding from dedicated revenues to the general budget. Congress has yet to grapple with a long-term solution to this crisis.

Intercity rail development also fared badly under SAFETEA-LU, receiving only $100 million yearly through the legislation. Until last year, Amtrak was forced to plead to Congress every year for separate operations funding from the general fund; now, thanks to five-year guaranteed funding legislation pushed through by huge majorities in both houses of Congress, it receives $2.5 billion a year. President Obama's stimulus bill also turned things around for rail corridor construction, with $8 billion set aside and $1.3 billion dedicated to Amtrak. This money came from general tax revenues, not the Highway Trust Fund.

Then we have the much-maligned earmark system. Under SAFETEA-LU, thousands of appropriations worth more than $24 billion were earmarked by congressmen for projects in their local districts. One example: Congressman Jerrold Nadler's $100 million for the New York Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel, a project for which funds weren't even requested by the agency that was supposed to be sponsoring it, the Port Authority. SAFETEA-LU also famously appropriated $250 million to a Ted Stevens special: a certain "Bridge to Nowhere."

But many of the earmarks were for much smaller projects that helped communities provide citizens with more transportation options, such as bike lanes or pedestrian bridges. Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez earmarked more than $6 million for the Brooklyn Waterfront Greenway, a project driven by grassroots commitment. Such infrastructure would be almost impossible to fund in any other way, given the way the law is written and state DOT reluctance to transfer highway funds to non-auto uses.