When Chrysler asked the government for a second round of bailout money in February, it submitted a 177-page restructuring plan that vowed to usher in a new era of fuel-efficient vehicles at the famously gas-chugging automaker.

The chart above, taken from that restructuring plan, shows six models of electric and hybrid cars labeled "ENVI," the name of the company's cleaner-car unit. Chrysler told the White House it would apply "electric-drive technology ... across all three brands (Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep)," and touted its goal of putting 500,000 cleaner vehicles on the road by 2013. Some environmentalists invoked the news to suggest Chrysler should receive more taxpayer aid.

The Obama administration ultimately rejected Chrysler's plan as too weak, setting the stage for a bankruptcy filing and a new marriage with Fiat. But the government still holds a 10 percent stake in Chrysler and has little chance of recouping its billion-dollar bailout of the automaker -- which makes the company's decision to disband its "ENVI" unit all the more alarming to fuel-efficiency advocates.

"It's certainly a bad sign for Chrysler that they emerge from bankruptcy and immediately shift into reverse on clean cars," Dan Becker, founder of the Safe Climate Campaign, said in an interview. "It doesn't bode well for their future, and it's a terrible way to thank the American people for investing billions of dollars in their future."

Chrysler's about-face on cleaner cars was first reported by Reuters, which noted that Fiat chief Sergio Marchionne was knocking down Chrysler's 2013 cleaner-vehicles projections from 500,000 to 60,000. A company spokesman noted that electric vehicle development was not canceled outright but "absorbed into the normal vehicle development program."

Still, Chrysler's restructuring plan was not the only rosy prediction turned on its head. The company received $70 million in Department of Energy grants in August to produce hybrid pickup trucks and minivans, only to cancel that project this month.

"It's a sign of Chrysler being tremendously out of touch with where the market is going," Lena Pons, transportation policy analyst at Public Citizen, said in an interview. "They're going to find it difficult to compete without having at least the engineering capacity [to produce EVs]."

A good day for the Gold Line Foothill Extension who's future Monrovia Station is depicted in this image from the Bottleneck Blog.

(editor's note: For more of a blow-by-blow from today's meeting visit the twitter feeds for LA Streetsblog, Soap Box and I Will Ride)

When the process to get from public meetings to a final vote takes over a year and a half, you can't expect the final vote to come without a fight and without some theatrics.  With people in costume actually outshining uber-gadfly John Walsh, Board-Member-for-a-Day Tom LaBonge pinch hitting for his colleague on the City Council Jose Huizar and perhaps strangest of all a short, supportive completely non-snarky comment by Stephen Box the meeting took over five hours but ended with a result most were happy with: a finalized Long Range Transportation Plan.

But the stars of today's hearing were not the people in the audience and those testifying, but a pair of County Supervisors from opposite ends of the County: Gloria Molina and Mark Ridley-Thomas.  Each found an effective way to advocate for their favored local project.  Per their styles, Molina used a "woe-is-me" strategy combined with a level of histrionics while Ridley-Thomas refused to back off his amendment to the plan which, while hardly earth shattering, could lead to accelerated time-lines for two of Metro's more controversial projects.

The key provision of the Ridley-Thomas ammendment mostly are aimed at protecting funding for buses, require staff to aggressively pursue federal funds for the Gold Line Foothill Extension and Crenshaw Corridor Project, require Metro to provide operations dollars for the Foothill Extension whenever it is completed and required quarterly updates on three highway widenings.  The aptly named The Source has the original wording of the amendment or you can find it on the Metro Board Agenda if you feel the urge to scroll through it.  However, you need to go to the Supervisor's website to get the final wording of the amendment that passed.

So what does this mean?  It means that the highway and rail projects that were approved in Measure R are now officially part of Metro's plans for the future.  A time-line was adopted, that you can read here, but as Metro earns federal funds and projects complete their environmental phases those time-lines can be amended.   You can find a quick outline of those time-lines here.  Also passed today were rules protecting the 20% of Measure R dedicated to buses and a $324 million projected budget for bicycle and pedestrian projects over the next 30 years.  And, as the Bus Riders Union tried just about every way imaginable to warn us, it means future fare hikes.

Now that the plan is approved, Metro can officially lobby the state and federal governments for the money to build the highway and transit projects within the plan.  If the plan had not been passed, supporters argued that it would be a disaster for Metro and Los Angeles County.  That bold declaration makes me wonder why they didn't pass it any other time in the past twenty months since they held public hearings.

On its twitter feed, I Will Ride announced that the Gold Line Foothill Extension and Crenshaw Corridor were placed as a priority ahead of the Westside Subway for "New Starts" funding, but given the unanimous passage of the LRTP and the Mayor's fixation on the Subway to the Sea, I'll believe that those projects get dollars ahead of the Subway when I see it.  (editor's note: In the comments section Dan Wentzel explains that Crenshaw and Foothill were moved ahead of only Phases IV and V of the Subway to the Sea.  The Subway extension from Wilshire-Western to Westwood remain ahead of Foothill and Crenshaw.)

As for Molina's part, she took the floor for the better part of a half hour with other local stakeholders concerned with the safety for the Eastside Extension, due to open in November.  In an angry rant in which she accused the Metro staff of favrotism and outright lieing to her, Molina channeled both Damien Goodmon and the Bus Rider's Union as she went on the warpath against just about everyone on the dais except Metro CEO Art Leahy who she felt was trying to help make the line safe as best he could.  The strangest part of her rant was where she said she would be at the opening, assuring her constituents the line was safe, even though she wasn't sure that it would be.

While I give Molina a hard time, her criticisms sound similar to those voiced by former Board Member and City Council Transportation Committee Member Richard Alarcon, who has also been vocal that he doesn't trust Metro staff.  That makes two prominent Latino officials who have intimate knowledge of the Board expressing district and concerns.  I can't help but wonder if maybe Metro has a Latino problem.

Photo: Duncan Rawlinson via The Last Minute Blog

(editor's note: Dr. Michael Cahn is a lecturer in book history at UCLA. There is also someone with the same name affiliated with some bike group in town, but that is another chapter.  This story has received very light editing on my part and is re-printed with no change in content to give you an honest feel for the author's view.  Streetsblog remains excited about the changes occurring in Long Beach and cautiously optimistic about the value of bike-sharing programs in L.A.'s future.)

In 2001, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition released A Blueprint for a Bike-Friendly Los Angeles County. One specific demand outlined in this document was for Metro (MTA) to fund Bike Education and Promotion projects at five million dollars per Call For Projects (CFP) cycle. CFP is a competitive process through which METRO awards money for Transport Demand Management projects to cities and other agencies in the county.

The bicycle coalition realized ten years ago that the bicycle needs a firm place in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) process which aims at reducing the number of Single Occupancy Vehicles on the road. Metro apparently saw this differently, and in the last few years, the Call for Projects process, despite some inspiring presentations by Todd Litman and Michael Woo, remains an arcane and bureaucratic process, from which the bicycle programs has been effectively excluded. The money is awarded only to a cities, and other agencies or non-profits are not admitted to the process. As it happens, this process puts bicycle work at a most serious disadvantage.

With the new SB 375 (editor's note: for more Streetsblog's coverage of SB 375 click here, here or here.) regulations around the corner, new expectations are being created that the elite of TDM experts can somehow reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by a mighty 40% per a presentation by Metro's Michael Turner. But as long as the CFP process remains the same, the results are likely to remain the same, - small, little steps that actually get more people into one car; while Metro's Robin Blair sitting at the helm and encouraging us to be innovative, and start something new. I have seen him in this mode for two years now, and I am not happy with it. If you do not change the process, you will not change the results.

Which brings us to this year's Multi-Mobility Forum, a Metro-sponsored, invitation-only, event billed as a chance to work together in an effort to develop and implement effective multi-mobility strategies  in Los Angeles County. Calstart's Fred Silver delivered a compendium of Sustainable Community Transportation Strategies, in which the plain vanilla encouragement of cycling is suspiciously absent. We read about Ciclovia as a TDM strategy, and the old red herring called bike sharing.  Yeah, people don't bike because someone has forgotten to put in a bike sharing program? Exactly!

His list of 10 options flexible and easily inflateable and on one of his slides he brags about "20 to 30" options available. I don't care how the numbers go up, but if you don't fund simple bicycle encouragement programs, driven by cyclists, using cyclists, rewarding cyclists, then you are swimming with one arm only. Feels like drowning in cars?

William McCarthy from the School of Public Health has his affiliation misspelled on the program, but delivers a powerful reminder of the limited agenda of those TDM experts who work the transformation of Single Occupancy Vehicles to High Occupancy Vehicles and forget the body. He reminds us of the solid health benefits of the non-car friendly city. This public health expert is still stunned by the success of the anti-smoking movement, which became unstoppable when it focused on passive smoking. He exhorts the audience to lead the TDM work into a similar area: Stop focusing on the "sacrifice" of the driver, and start talking about damage created by car, and how to protect the whole community from it.

Then follow a few presentations by recipients of last years program. Jane Choi speaks for City of LA and Jay Kim for LADOT, both offering a compelling proof of how broken the Call For Projects process is. Both projects pretend to be studies of some kind, but not exactly by academic standards. Some strange and costly exercises which raise many questions and pretend to be useful for someone. Oh dear. Oh dear. I probably failed to get the point, but to me these "studies" seemed a sheer and utter waste of money. Painful, very painful, if you ever wondered how much it would cost you to get one friendly cyclist to convince and assist his colleague to try the bike on the way to work. Sterling work, just get it done, and don't waste my time with more studies which wait in vain in some drawers. Sitting in the 15^th floor, looking down on the broken landscape of what could be Los Angeles, tears come to my eyes as I see Jay Kim burning precious MTA dollars, compiling a list of difficult questions, instead of engaging cycling commuters, rewarding them for the encouragement work they all would love to do.

Then comes the City of Long Beach, dancing around some assumed and probably fraudulent attributes involving words like "most" and "bikefriendly". No doubt good things are happening there. But is this TDM money that is spent on encouraging cyclists? I am not sure. This matters, because we are here not to hear about sustainable transportation successes in Santa Monica (LUCE) or Santa Clarita, we are here to learn how Metro CFP will deal with the bicycle in the future. Or will they continue the habitual and all-Californian injustice of discounting the bicycle option right from the start. Injustice it is, and sheer stupidity, or something else I do not understand. Perhaps it is politics.

A strange and pathetic spectacle: Metro seems to encourage the multi-mobility audience to offer new programs, raise new options, but always knowing in advance what to do with the bicycle: Nothing. 30% of all trips are less than 5 miles, but METRO CFP somehow cannot support bicycle encouragement programs. A scandal for which I have not words. The drama is all in the person of Robin Blair, who presides over these proceedings as clown, sage and questioner, with a small band of ill trained soldiers. Has he invited us to teach us, to get our input, to feel the pulse of the time, to have a dialog with his own preconceptions? Has he invited us to remind us of the challenges of SB 375, so that we remind him of the exclusion of the unjust bicycle? Questions, questions.

How to improve the process? I'd say start with formalities and procedure. Make the invitation process public and put aside the old boys network of "you have been selected to participate." Inviting a distinguished speaker (McCarthy) two days before the event is striking proof how little importance Metro invests in serious TDM work. Circulate the program in advance of the event. Put it on the internet. Answer emails. This is good practice, but apparently very difficult at Transit Plaza. Even the speakers were left in the dark about the program and their time slot. This lacks respect and betrays the fatal arrogance of an institution which has grown too powerful. Be clear about what Calstart is doing in this process, and what their role is. Why is their logo on the program? Be clear about the nature of the event: Was that the "task force committee to develop the structure and objectives" for which an invitation was sent out in May 2009, and for which a meeting date was never divulged to the bicycle advocate who expressed an interest. Have we missed something?

When lawmakers failed on Wednesday to reach a deal on avoiding the cancellation of $8.7 billion in transportation spending authority, the consequences of Congress' inaction weren't immediately palpable to most voters -- but the loss is sinking in on the local level.

(Photo: USGS.gov)

From Texas to New Jersey to Colorado, local DOT officials are starting to lament the loss of federal funds that resulted from lawmakers' decision to give themselves one more month to resolve the stalemate over extending the 2005 federal infrastructure law.

And while the $8.7 billion cancellation is mostly imperiling road work, at least one state is cutting money for "enhancements," the catch-all term for bike paths, greenways, and other clean transport projects: 

Even though Congress has passed a one-month extension of the federal highway bill, Tennessee will still lose $190 million it had not yet contracted out.

State transportation officials say $30 million will come out of money for enhancement grants.

Enhancement grants have been made for cities to restore old train stations and build bike lanes or sidewalks. They are typically unconventional transportation projects, and TDOT spokeswoman Julie Oakes says competition is stiff.

It's unclear how many states are following Tennessee's lead, but we've got feelers out to various state DOTs and will update this post as more information becomes available. If any readers know of clean transportation projects that have been put at risk by the $8.7 bilion cancellation, please tell us more in the comments section.

Even states that are slicing only highway projects, however, are grappling with the fiscal uncertainty caused by the cancellation. Colorado's two Democratic senators noted last week that their state's scheduled loss of $115 million amounts to one-quarter of the total transportation aid they received under the economic stimulus law.

Congress still has the power to replenish the cancelled spending authority, whether this month or next. But given  House budget rules that require most new funds to be offset, and conservative senators' insistence on using stimulus money for that offset, an agreement may be hard to come by this week.

Late Update: Here's another example of the $8.7 billion cancellation affecting more than just roads. The Nevada DOT says it's having to cut $8 million from transportation enhancements, as well as $4 million in funding for federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) projects and $4 million from the Safe Routes to School program.

The state typically uses CMAQ money on new transit buses for Las Vegas and Reno, as well as ride-share programs to reduce transportation demand and "channelization" work that aim to manage traffic more efficiently, according to Kent Cooper, the Nevada DOT's assistant director of engineering.

"It's a very difficult economic time, and there's a huge impact to the state of Nevada in terms of being able to get contracts out,"Cooper said in an interview . "We got the stimulus money about five or six months ago. This seems to be reversing the impact of providing that stimulus money."

(Photo: T4A)

T4A's report illustrates the punishing effect of such cuts on transit riders, many of them low-income workers, with a set of well-trammeled statistics: demand hit a 50-year high in 2008; every dollar invested in transit produces an estimated $6 in economic growth; transit is far safer than car travel and provides greater public health benefits.

But when it comes to the political battle over remaking national transport priorities, T4A's transit cuts map -- viewable right here -- speaks loudest of all.

Transit fare increases and service reductions, T4A found, are concentrated in major cities and along the coasts. And as the current health care conflagration has shown, lawmakers rarely wield political power that's commensurate with the share of the population they represent.

As the Washington Post's Alec MacGillis catalogued in a commentary last week, Senate influence is particularly concentrated in the hands of small-state denizens such as Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D) of Montana, who fought to remove a provision helping transit agencies with punitive tax shelters from last year's auto bailout bill.

Per MacGillis:

And then there's the Senate's age-old distortion of distributive politics, in which goodies are doled out on anything but a per-capita basis. California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are among the 10 states that get the least back per tax dollar sent to Washington; Alaska, the Dakotas and West Virginia are among those that get the most.

In that context, it's not surprising that federal support for metro-area priorities such as transit is so perilously thin. Even in the House, where urban representatives lead several key committees, transit backers have yet to convince the Ways and Means panel to move forward with a solution to the immense revenue gap that has stalled progress on new long-term transport legislation.

A letter sent last month urging Ways and Means chairman Charles Rangel (D) -- who represents a transit-heavy district in New York City -- to press on with a transportation bill this year was signed by 15 of the committee's 26 Democrats. Yet metro-area members such as Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), whose district is near Oakland, and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) of Atlanta were absent.

And the legislation that T4A's report singled out as a concrete boost for transit agencies, Rep. Russ Carnahan's (D-MO) proposal to provide federal help with operating costs, does not count Rangel as one of its 60 co-sponsors. The bill also lacks a Senate counterpart, despite the presence of two transportation-minded Democrats in leadership positions (Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Environment Committee chairman Barbara Boxer of California).

Of course, the political savvy of rural lawmakers does not automatically mean transportation reform must fall by the wayside; West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D), chairman of the Commerce Committee, has taken the lead on a plan to set national performance targets for reductions in emissions and vehicle miles traveled.

During the lengthy process of pursuing a "New Starts" funding agreement with the U.S. DOT, local transit officials are often at the mercy of cost-benefit calculations that have failed to keep pace with evolutions in transport planning. But one aspect of that slog could soon change, thanks to Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).

When evaluating a bid for federal aid by the Columbia River Crossing (CRC), a proposed multi-modal road and light rail link between Portland and Vancouver, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) decided to treat the broad project as separate highway and transit efforts -- effectively prohibiting state gas taxes and proposed bridge tolls from counting towards the local share of the CRC's transit costs, as the Oregonian reported.

Murray fired back by using her power as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee's transportation panel to insert a relevant provision in the DOT's 2010 budget. Her language requires the FTA to calculate the local share of multi-modal transit proposals based on "all local funds incorporated in the unified finance plan" for the project.

Murray's move, if it survives a conference with the House, should ensure that the CRC's FTA pitch is evaluated using more appropriate math. Yet Murray's language would apply across the board, meaning that other regional transport plans blending roads and transit could have an easier time winning federal money for the latter portion of the project -- as opposed to just the former.

New Orleans plans to outsource nearly every aspect of its mass-transit system to a French company, an approach that could appeal to other cash-strapped American cities looking to cut spending without eliminating bus or rail services.

Under terms of a deal struck earlier this month, the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority will pay a subsidiary of Veolia Environnement about $56.3 million each year, and potentially $600 million over the next decade, to finance, manage and operate the city's bus and streetcar lines.

The deal could eventually save Norta -- which spends about $72 million a year to run its system -- as much as 30%, said Chairman Cesar Burgos.

Transit outsourcing is a notion that sounds reasonable enough, particularly given Congress' reluctance to let large cities use federal money on operating costs. But the Journal omitted a notable detail about Veolia, the French company that's poised to run transit networks in New Orleans and Savannah, Georgia: It is battling Los Angeles' Metrolink commuter rail in court over a September crash that killed 25 people.

That crash occurred when Robert Sanchez, a Metrolink engineer hired by Veolia, ran a red light and hit a Union Pacific freight train. Sanchez was later revealed to be sending text messages 22 seconds before impact, and federal investigators found that he invited a local teen to try driving his train.

Veolia strongly defended its safety record following the Metrolink crash, though L.A. has since scaled back its use of private transit contractors amid local reports that listed the company's past missteps.

Veolia's website notes that its deals are not "privatization" -- a word that carries a somewhat loaded political subtext -- but "outsourcing," which does not entitle a private firm to "the acquisition of all of the public company's assets."

But no matter what term is used, letting contractors bid to manage local transit raises the question of whether safety and service trade-offs are inevitable as the firms work to maximize their profit potential.

The rest of the Journal's article on transit outsourcing is viewable in full after the jump.

"This is a model that will grow jobs...and create an enormous opportunity for cities," said Mark Joseph, chief executive of Veolia's transportation unit.

Outsourcing can introduce new risks, including the financial soundness of the companies involved and the potential for a backlash if residents come to feel a deal isn't in the public interest. In the past year, financial issues have grounded or delayed deals to privatize Chicago's Midway Airport and build a new tunnel to the Port of Miami.

It is unusual for a big-city transit agency in the U.S. to delegate so much control to a private company, but the New Orleans transit deal shows how far some cities may go to preserve key services as the recession drags on.

Across the country, the traditional revenue streams that transit agencies rely on are declining, but interest in bus and rail service is growing. Faced with a budget crunch, an increasing number of cities may join New Orleans in seeking to curb costs by turning operations over to private companies that can potentially run systems more efficiently.

Officials in Savannah, Ga., are negotiating a similar contract with Veolia to the one New Orleans worked out. Patrick Shay, a board member of the regional authority who has been involved in the talks, said Savannah needs help in areas ranging from software to supply-chain management in order to improve its bus system.

In the Phoenix area, Valley Metro's new 20-mile light-rail line is being operated by private contractor Alternate Concepts Inc., and the transit authority plans 37 miles of new rail service in the years ahead. Already, Valley Metro outsources its bus services. "We live, breathe and eat with our contractors," said Susan Tierney, a Valley Metro spokeswoman.

In March, the transit authority in Houston awarded a $1.5 billion contract to a division of Parsons Corp. to build, operate and maintain four new light-rail lines. Transit agencies in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, are seeking a private partner to finance, build, maintain and run a 67.7-mile passenger-rail network starting in 2013.

Outsourcing, particularly the kind of wholesale delegation coming to New Orleans, doesn't work for every transit agency. In Los Angeles, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority contracts out service on 21 of its 200 bus lines at savings of roughly $45 per hour of operation, according to spokesman Rick Jager. Despite the savings, Mr. Jager said the authority has no further plans to outsource because labor agreements with its unionized work force prevent it.

Many agencies with older systems "can't get off first base with contracting because the labor unions are so powerful," said Cal Marsella, general manager at Denver's Regional Transportation District.

The Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents bus drivers across the country, didn't respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Marsella's agency outsources about 47% of its fixed-route bus service to Veolia and Ohio-based First Transit Inc. Buses operated by the companies are on time at roughly the same rate as the buses driven by RTD employees, Mr. Marsella said, but the privately run buses produce cost savings of roughly $30 an hour. Among the reasons: Starting pay for bus drivers employed by RTD is $15.49 per hour, versus $12.25 for ones the companies hire.

In New Orleans, the city's unionized bus drivers will become Veolia employees, and their labor agreements will be honored, Mr. Joseph said.

The California Transit Association, that called the winter budget deal that zeroed out the state's operations assistance program "Armageddon," were the plaintiffs in the case that resulted in yesterday's big win for transit.  They celebrated and explained the court decision yesterday.

While the Court claims no authority to order repayment of funds re-routed in past budget deals, the decision means that continued diversion of voter-mandated transit funding is illegal going forward. And that means that approximately $1 billion earmarked for the General Fund as part of current negotiations must be restored to transit.

“The ruling clearly states that the rip-offs are illegal,” said Joshua Shaw, Executive Director of the California Transit Association and lead plaintiff in the suit that was originally filed over $1.19 billion taken from the Public Transportation Account (PTA) as part of the 2007-08 budget agreement. “It says they’ve been illegal since before 2007, and it says that the definition of mass transportation that lawmakers have adopted since then to mask these diversions is illegal.”

Unsurprisingly, the Schwarzenegger Administration is already promising an appeal and is asking the appeals court to stay its decision pending the outcome.

Update: Dana Gabbard of So.CA.TA. sends the text of the decision.  It can be viewed here.

The news isn't good.  Despite pretty rhetoric about trying to ween the state off its car-dependency, California is actually spending more of its stimulus funds on highway projects, and highway widenings, than the national average.

Chart: California Public Interest Research Group

That California's roads aren't in great shape isn't news to anyone that lives here, yet the Golden State is spending more money on adding more highway capacity than 41 other states. Eleven other states, including the progressive transportation hotbeds of South Dakota and Alaska, didn't spend a dime on highway expansion.  Meanwhile, California is home to the highway widening that is sucking up more stimulus dollars than any other highway project in the country right here in Southern California.

Of course, using stimulus funds to further the destructive cycle of highway widening isn't just bad transportation policy; it's also bad use of stimulus funds.  Highway widenings are one of the least effective transportation projects when it comes to injecting money into local economies.  A greater percentage of the funds will be used for asphalt and equipment than funding local workers than "fix-it" or other projects.

California didn't just fail to lead the way on curtailing highway expansion, it also failed to take the lead on transit growth as well. That a state government led by a Governor who jet-commutes to work while robbing taxes dedicated to transit to balance the state budget shouldn't be a surprise, but in its press release, CALPIRG notes that there is plenty of support from the Californians that don't own private jets.

When asked in a poll by the National Association of Realtors how they would spend the recovery money, a very strong majority of Americans (80%) said they prefer that stimulus transportation funding be used for repairing roadways and bridges and for public transportation. The public wants a balanced transportation system, as evidenced by local ballot measures like Measure R in Los Angeles to build more public transportation, and the statewide high-speed rail ballot measure passed last fall.

The stimulus provided a chance for states and transportation agencies to begin to make the kind of changes that people are crying out for when it comes to transportation planning.  Few states seem to have made that commitment, and sadly California isn't one of them.

The D.C. Metro accident that killed nine riders this week has renewed calls for rail safety upgrades and reminders that car travel remains far riskier than transit. But the crash is also shedding light on a problem that goes beyond Washington: tax shelter deals between banks and struggling transit agencies -- deals that were given a retroactive pass by Congress even though the IRS considers them illegal. 

The tax shelters at issue are called "sale in, lease out" deals, also known as SILOs. Starting in the 1980s, local transit agencies began selling rail cars and other equipment to Wall Street firms, which would then turn around and lease the goods back to the agencies.

Why would either side want to get into such arrangements? Sarah Lawsky, an associate professor at George Washington University Law School, has explained the situation in detail. But the short answer is that banks got tax write-offs for their newly leased transit equipment, while local agencies got a cash benefit for giving away tax deductions they could not use.

Congress outlawed SILOs in a 2004 tax bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). His original language was retroactive, Grassley's office said yesterday in a release, "but was watered down during conference negotiations to apply only prospectively."

That exception for existing SILO deals was added by Congress amid fierce lobbying by both Wall Street and urban transit agencies, as the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

The Internal Revenue Service declared SILOs illegal in 2005, prompting some banks to accept lower payments in settlement deals with transit officials. However, Lawsky noted in an interview that some banks -- inspired by the congressional exemption -- have decided to try their luck in court with transit agencies.

"Some people want to settle and take 20 cents on the dollar," she said. "Some people want to say no ... we entered into these deals before the statute."

It remains to be seen whether the SILOs played a role in this week's D.C. Metro crash. But when federal safety inspectors asked the WMATA, which runs the D.C. Metro, in 2006 to replace its aging Rohr series rail cars -- the model that crumpled in this week's crash -- the agency declined.

WMATA was "constrained by" SILO leases from phasing out the Rohr cars, it said.

And that's just the beginning of the fallout from the tax deals, which have affected transit systems all across the country.

AIG served as a guarantor for many SILO deals, and its collapse late last year prompted several banks to seek "termination payments" from transit agencies that were otherwise up to date with their SILO leases. D.C.'s WMATA, in fact, was one of those transit networks fighting legal battles over AIG's unraveling.

A report released by Moody's Investors Service in March found that 17 of 25 major transit agencies embroiled in SILOs had lowered their risk by renegotiating with banks in the aftermath of the credit crisis. But that doesn't mean urban transit systems are all out of the woods -- Atlanta's MARTA transit agency was left with a $390 million exposure even after unwinding many of its SILOs, according to Moody's.

Meanwhile, congressional Democrats are still trying to convince the federal government to step in as a guarantor for the transit deals. After former President Bush declined to hear their appeals, Reps. Jim Moran (VA) and Chris Van Hollen (MD) inserted language into a January bailout-reform bill that would give Treasury backing to SILOs, but the bill was never taken up by the Senate.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), whose home-state transit agency faces $150 million in looming bills from SILOs, introduced a bill this week that would impose a 100 percent windfall-profits tax on any payments requested by banks. In a statement on his proposal, Menendez said:

Manny Diaz, outgoing president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Photo: usmayors/Flickr

The transportation stimulus report was released over the weekend during the mayoral conference's annual meeting, which lost high-profile attendees to a firefighters' strike in the host city of Providence, Rhode Island.

Its data suggests that cities, while they remain economic engines and shoulder much of the environmental cost of congestion, are getting the short end of the stick from state DOTs that have control over a significant share of stimulus money.

The top 85 American metro areas have received $8.8 billion, or 48 percent, of the $18.6 billion in stimulus aid given to state DOTs by the Federal Highway Administration, according to the mayoral conference's report.

The report found several cities that generate a large amount of economic activity for their states getting a comparatively small share of transportation aid. Los Angeles, for example, contributes 39 percent of California's GDP but received 25 percent of its stimulus money. Indianapolis fared even worse, netting just four percent of Indiana's transportation stimulus money while generating 39 percent of the state's GDP.

Using congestion estimates from the Texas Transportation Institute's (TTI) most recent Urban Mobility study, the mayoral conference's report also found that urban areas have not received stimulus money to match their traffic burden.

New York City pays 9.4 percent of the nation's congestion costs, according to the TTI, but has received 3.6 percent of the nation's road-repair money. San Francisco's congestion costs are 3.1 percent of the national total, but its share of FHWA stimulus aid was 0.4 percent.

Whether road-repair money should be distributed primarily on the basis of economic production or congestion remains open to debate. However, the mayoral conference concluded simply that state DOTs "should take into account" the economic production of cities in order to maximize the impact of the stimulus' transportation dollars.

"To do so would prompt states and federal decision-makers to increase their funding commitments to the nation's metro economies, raising the productivity level of their investments," the report concluded.

The issue of operating costs has heated up in recent weeks, with local transit officials supporting federal aid as a step towards more equitable funding consideration of all transportation modes.

Critics of the idea contend that it is disingenuous to bill stimulus money for transit operating as a short-term response to the economic recession -- or as Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) put it last week, "there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program."

Former U.S. DOT chief Mineta (r.), with his biggest disappointment. (Photo: Academy of Achievement)

In the interview, Mineta -- who now works on infrastructure at the consulting firm Hill & Knowlton -- spoke openly about the transportation funding crisis and called for the Obama administration to reconsider its opposition to a VMT tax:

I think the "Vehicle Miles Traveled" program ought to be seriously considered. Even if you go to a VMT, you still have some form of tax. But the beauty of the VMT approach is that all you look at is how many miles you travel on the highway. It captures activity regardless of energy source.

Mineta also showed refreshing candor in describing his biggest disappointment during five years at the Bush White House: the former president's staunch refusal to reform the gas tax. Mineta explained that he planned in 2001 to pay for a $330 billion federal transportation bill increase gas taxes by 2 cents per gallon in the first, third and fifth years of the six-year legislation. But here's what happened, per Mineta:

We went to the Oval Office, and after we went through the entire presentation, President Bush takes a marker, circles the gas tax increases, and says, "Norm, I don't want any of those tax increases. Get those out."

So Mineta pared his proposal back, suggesting merely to index the gas tax to inflation -- which has already worked for six state governments and could soon become law in Bush's home state of Texas. But alas, Bush couldn't let go of his fondness for running deficits in the name of "fiscal conservatism":

We returned to the Oval Office, went through the presentation, and afterward President Bush said, "Norm, that's a tax increase. Get that out." So I then took all the unobligated surplus, left $1 billion in the highway trust fund, and used the balance to build a $267 billion surface transportation program that Congress finally passed in 2005. Not long after, the administration asked for an $8 billion infusion of general funds into the highway trust fund so it wouldn't be running a deficit by 2007.

Photo of poster appearing outside Metro Board Room by Stephen Box.

The big news from today's Metro Board meeting was that after our leaders subjected themselves to the pain of listening to the public, they were able to sorta-kinda pass the FY 2010 budget and put off a decision on whether to abandon their contract with Ansaldo Breda for another two months.

If this article seems at all sarcastic, angry or mean-spirited it's because the level of governmental dysfunction shown by the Metro Board earlier today was out-of-control.  Apparently the Board had a lot of really important things to do today besides their jobs so they punted on major decisions and tried to rush the public so they could still be there to show support to their favorite projects or special interests.  Picture a science fair where none of the students bothered to research or prepare for the fair.  Then picture all of the participants showing up a half hour late.  That was the feel of today's Metro Board Meeting.

Hint to the Metro Board: You're more likely to be on time to the meeting if you actually take transit instead of driving there yourself.

The FY 2010 Budget

I have to qualify the passage of the budget because before debate on the slew of budget related amendments could be passed, the Board was informed that the bulk of the motions were illegal.  Undaunted, and needing to preserve funding for their special projects, the Board voted to pass the budget in spirit including all amendments that would fund other projects with many of the sources of those funds left T.B.A. 

The projects, such as the Harbor Gateway and Gold Line Foothill Extension, that were to receive extra funds from the budget will receive some sort of funds found from some other place in Metro's deep pockets.   While these projects are now "funded" the Board will have to vote on their funding again next month.  Shockingly, it turns out that the Metro Board can't just change the timetable passed by voters when we approved Measure R last year.  Stupid voters and the public will!  It keeps getting in the way of our rulers best intentions for us.  A full list of all the projects that were sorta-kinda funded can be found under item #9 on today's agenda.

I guess it's a good thing that Metro is running a huge surplus and has money just lying around to fund whatever the Board wants or else I would think that today was an exercise in public relations that had no bearing on reality.  Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

The debate on the FY 2010 Budget came after public comment, passage of the consent agenda, reports by Board Chair Villaraigosa and Metro CEO Art Leahy, the debate on the fate of Ansaldo Breda, and general confusion by the Board.  Pam O'Connor had already left on "city business" and Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas seemed outraged that he was being kept away from whatever else was on his schedule.  The Board seemed annoyed that the public wanted to speak before their vote, with Villaraigosa warning that he was about to lose quorum if the peasants wouldn't put down their damm pitchforks and let the adults get on with real business.  When people still wanted to speak, he relented to state law and Metro's bylaws and let the peasants have their say.

Honestly?  If I were either the Bus Rider's Union or the members of Fix Expo, I would have gotten everyone I could to testify in another language, doubling their speakers time for translation, and basically filibuster the Board.  If they can't be troubled to clear their calendar to do their jobs, it's really not the public's problem.

Comment on the budget resolutions was dominated by political leaders talking up their favorite local project that was due to sorta-kinda get money; South and West L.A. residents demanding a safer Expo Line and B.R.U. members and supporters demanding that any budget with bus cuts get rejected.  While their were some notable exceptions, the Board seemed, well, bored with the process.  Villaraigosa and Ridley-Thomas left.  Board Members Katz and Fasana stood behind Katz's seat and read their blackberries and chatted.  L.A. City Councilman Jose Huizar, Lakewood City Council Woman Diane Duboise and Caltrans representative Doug Failing deserve Gold Stars for at least pretending to care what the public was saying.

The Metro Board will officially pass whatever funding schemes the staff devises for their favorite projects during discussion of the 2009 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan.

Board Punts on Decision on Ansaldo Breda Contract

Personally, I never saw a point in repeating what someone else has already written just to see it appear under my byline.  Blogdowntown's Eric Richardson had an article on the debate and vote of the Metro Board's decision to stick with Ansaldo Breda posted within two minutes of the final vote.

After a contentious negotiation, the board instructed Metro's CEO to negotiate the financial guarantee by June 15, and voted 10-1 to extend the contract option until July 31.

The lone no vote was cast by Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who argued that the transit operator's previous problems with Ansaldo Breda demanded a competitive bid. He asked whether the financial guarantee would "provide cab fare for the people who would be riding the line" if the rail cars don't get built on time.

The only thing I will add is that sticking with its "contempt for the little guy" theme in this month's meeting, Board Member Zev Yaroslavsky cut off what was non-relevant testimony by longtime gadfly John Walsh while he was attacking the Mayor for selling out the city.  However, he didn't see the need to shut off the microphone nor shout for security to remove the speaker while any of the union members or leaders present testified on how the Board needed to support Ansaldo Breda because of the impact it could have on local jobs. 

The Metro Board is legally not allowed to consider where the cars will be built when making the decision to whom to award the contract.  Of course, I would bet the mortgage that eventually Ansaldo Breda will be awarded the final contract without it ever going to open bid.

Villaraigosa Leads Board in Showing Contempt for Public

The clear low light of the day was caused by the contempt shown for the public by the Board at nearly every turn. 

From the sign greeting the public that stated it would stop accepting public comment cards the moment the meeting began bucking the process at every other Metro Board Meeting I've attended, to starting the meeting with public comment instead of ending it delaying votes on crucial issues while we waited for Villaraigosa to grace us with his presence, to Villaraigosa's hour and a half late arrival compounded by his whining that the public's desire to comment on the budget was going to require him to leave before the vote, to the slew of Board Members that hadn't bothered to clear their schedules for the most important meeting of the year; the Board presented the public a picture of a group of elected leaders completely out of touch with reality who view the public as obstacles to their rule.

Hey, he might not have had time to show up to the meeting on time or stay for a vote on the Budget, but at least Board Chair Villaraigosa was able to grandstand during the "Board Chair's Report" and had time to pose for pictures with Metro's entrants in the transit rodeo.

La Linea de Oro

One thing that came up repeatedly in public comment was the renaming of the Gold Line in Boyle Heights to La Linea de Oro.  Despite a Metro press release stating that the renaming had huge public support, a handful of community leaders showed up to wonder who exactly this public was.  They opposed the renaming and pointed out that none of their community groups nor the Neighborhood Council had been asked their opinion.  Maybe LADOT did their public outreach for them.

Tri-Rail trains like these could stop running by 2011. (Photo: National Corridors Initiative)

Tri-Rail's troubles are largely attributable to the bad economy, which has clipped the amount that the network's three participating counties can contribute to the transit system by an estimated $9 million. Making matters worse, the county aid must be matched dollar for dollar by the state DOT, doubling the size of that gap and forcing Tri-Rail to the brink.

As the Palm Beach Post noted yesterday, Tri-Rail's request that state legislators okay a $2 rental car tax to save transit service is hardly a politically extraordinary one. But the Post's editorial also reveals Washington's role in perversely perpetuating the funding crisis.

Here's the rub: Tri-Rail got $16 million for new trains in the recent stimulus bill, but none of that can cover the shortfall because federal money generally cannot be used to cover operating costs.

Making matters worse, the Federal Transit Administration has informed Tri-Rail that it risks losing a crucial $256 million grant if daily service dips below 48 trains. Meanwhile, members of Congress are requesting up to $400 million in earmarks to extend Tri-Rail service to the northern end of Palm Beach County. What's the use of money to lay new tracks if Tri-Rail can't afford to run any trains?

The simple fix for this conundrum would be allowing local transit agencies to spend money from Washington on operating costs, an idea welcomed by both Transportation Secretary LaHood and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Yet the devil will be in the details, because expanding the potential uses for federal transit aid doesn't mean an automatic increase in the size of that pot of federal aid -- which is already illogically small. Saving transit systems such as Tri-Rail could mean a painful trade-off between building worthy new projects and making sure existing trains can run on time.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) (Photo: Washington Post)

There is growing national interest in bicycling, and there is a wide array of public benefits that are derived from non-motorized transportation. Increased bicycling opportunities can reduce congestion, improve mobility, enhance quality of life and livable communities, and promote recreational and healthy activities. While federal support and program integration for bicycling has improved greatly since 1991 - increasing above one-percent of funding in recent years – the new authorization of the surface transportation program provides an opportunity to build upon this progress.

His letter suggests four specific goals for bike advocates in Congress:

• inclusion of a "complete streets" policy in the federal transportation bill, similar to the one included in this week's House climate change bill;
• increased accessibility for transportation users through "better physical integration of roads, sidewalks, bike paths and transit systems";
• more equitable distribution of highway safety funds to reflect the 13 percent fatality rate for pedestrians and bikers;
• increased funding for the Safe Routes to School program, which helps protect children who walk or bike to classes each day.

Earmarks grew largely in the shadows until a series of pet project-related ethics scandals rocked Washington earlier this decade, helping the Democrats take control of Congress amid promises to make the process more transparent. Still, the House transportation committee is taking a looser approach to earmark openness this year: instead of requiring members of Congress to pose their earmarks early, the panel is merely encouraging members of Congress to do so.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) isn't ashamed of his earmarks. (Photo: Washington Post)

So how can activists on the local level find out whether their local representative is backing big highways or light rail? The Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group based in Washington, has pored over the websites of all House members to see who followed the transportation panel's optional deadline.

Sadly, only 83 lawmakers are letting the public see their transportation earmark requests, compared with 321 who heeded the binding transparency rule followed by the House Appropriations Committee. (The House has 435 members in total, but some swear off earmarks entirely.)

Sunlight's list of transportation earmarkers can be found here. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), co-leader of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus, has an impressive list of transit projects on his list. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is seeking more money for the Washington Metro's planned Purple Line and to expand transit options for Southern Maryland.

On the flip side, two Republican members of Congress are catching some flak for their earmark requests. More on them after the jump...

Sunlight investigator Bill Allison spotted Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) requesting a hefty $83 million for Interstate 66 in his home district -- which really should be renamed, because it's unlikely to ever extend out of Kentucky. When a road project already has a website dedicated to its undoing, one suspects it's not the best use of taxpayer dollars. 

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) (Photo: whorunsgov.com)

Bachmann's office told the Star-Tribune that she held off because the state DOT has yet to endorse the Northstar expansion. Yet that delay was caused by the project's inability to meet federal cost-effectiveness standards that are long overdue for an update. Will Bachmann come around? She's already put in a call for five road and bridge projects in her state.

LADOT Bike Coordinator Michelle Mowery talks to Councilman Tom LaBonge. Photo: Ingrid Peterson

Discontinue bikeways function, including bicycle path maintenance, bicycle programs and school bicycle and transit education.

Discontinue work on Safe Routes to Schools

While I'm sure there are some of you that look at these paragraphs and wonder how we'll survive without those yellow bracelets that tell us to "ride right and stop at the light," there's more at stake here.  As Kent Strumpell put it in an email:

That LADOT would even consider eliminating Bikeways programs as their solution to this budget crisis is a vivid example of how out of touch the Department is.  With more people riding bikes than ever before, with a vibrant cycling culture developing and with congestion and climate change consequences screaming at us, this is exactly the wrong time to cut the entire bikeways staff.  If you think cycling doesn't get enough attention in Los Angeles now, wait until we have no staff at all to look out for our needs.

I couldn't agree with Strumpell more.  With Los Angeles already a punchline for Car-Culture jokes throughout the world; eliminating the bikeways department is a great way to make certain those jokes continue ad infinitum.  The only argument that would make sense would be if one wanted to argue that Bikeways was under performing; but that would speak to a need to reform the program not eliminate it altogether. Over at LAist, Zach Behrens gets to the bottom of the fiscal nature of the proposed cuts, and why parts of Bikeways should be saved; but even if it makes fiscal sense the LADOT has already sent the message to cyclists that they don't have their full support.

The first pushback against the proposal came this morning on the Council floor when a group of cyclists, Midnight Ridazz and LACBC staffers, took to the podium to rail against the plan.  The proposal will still be heard at least by the Budget and Finance Committee and full Council before it goes to any sort of actual vote.  A full Action Alert by the LACBC, including contact information for Robinson, the Budget and Finance Committee and Mayor Villaraigosa, can be found after the jump.

According to the California Transit Association, in a press release forwarded by Kymberleigh Richards of So.CA.TA.,  there was more damage he could do.  An unexpected budget surplus created a lifeline for transit, and Schwarzenegger was there with the scissors to cut it:

...the governor apparently couldn't pass up another opportunity to inflict more damage on public transportation in California. The revised budget proposal diverts another $336 million in transit-dedicated "spillover" revenue to instead cover transit bond debt service, which is by law a General Fund obligation.

"It's just more of the same from a governor whose disdain for public transit has by now been well-established," said a beleaguered Joshua W. Shaw, Executive Director of the California Transit Association. "Just when you think there's nothing left to take, he finds a way to dig the hole even deeper."

Since the last time the state created estimates on gas tax revenue sometime in the winter, higher than expected revenue from the state's gas tax actually produced a surplus of several hundred million dollars. During the 2007 budget compromises, Schwarzengger agreed that any spillover would be split 50-50 between the General Fund and the Public Transportation Account.  The P.T.A. can be used to fund either capital projects or to restore some of the state's now-missing operating funds.

However, yesterday Schwarzenegger ignored the agreement when he announced that the surplus is going to pay off bond debt and all of the $336 million was going to the general fund anyway before this budget maneuver.  Given the contempt the jet-setting Governor seems to hold public transit in, it's hardly a surprise that he could "forget" an agreement reached two whole years ago or that he found a new way to rob transit agencies of funds they've been promised for years.  According to the C.T.A., the state has diverted over $5 billion in transit funds over the last decade, $3 billion in the last two years alone.

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.