Lahood speaks as Villaraigosa, Metro CEO Art Leahy and Metrolink CEO John Fenton look on, Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

In recent weeks, two competing pieces of legislation are moving in Washington, D.C.  The first, is moving through the House of Representatives on a series of highly partisan votes and is reviled by advocates for transit, walking, bicycling and complete streets for it’s over-the-top support for highway construction.  The other is moving through the Senate with unanimous bi-partisan support and funds a more balanced vision for transportation funding.

But in yesterday’s “sunshine” press conference, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, decided to look on the positive.

“It’s time for them to pass the surface transportation bill.  it’s time for them to pass America Fast Forward,” Villaraigosa offered in a deflection of a question on Congressional investigation of how Los Angeles spent some of its federal stimulus funds.  Later, responding to a direct question from Streetsblog about the partisan bill moving in the House of Representatives, Villaraigosa focused on Congressman John Mica’s (R-FL) support for America Fast Forward.

America Fast Forward is the mayor’s proposal to change and reform federal law to encourage federal investment in projects supported by local dollars.  Under the proposal, Los Angeles Metro would likely be able to accelerate the construction of transit projects funded by a sales tax passed by voters in 2008.

“I am still positive about the portion of the bill that expands the current $128 million to a billion dollars for the TIFIA program which is one of the programs that L.A. needs to accelerate the 30 years of transportation funding into a shorter period of time, hopefully a ten year period,” Villaraigosa began.

“I’m also heartened that he did include three of the five reforms that we have said are necessary to accelerate that program.”

The Mayor did touch on the controversy surrounding the House Bill, but refused to weigh in.   “I know there is some dissidence between the Senate and the House version, and I don’t want to get in the middle of that right now so I’ll leave it with a positive comment, for now.”

However, the non-partisan reaction to the “Mica Bill” didn’t stop Villaraigosa or LaHood from praising the legislation put forward by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and her competing legislation moving through the Senate.

“I want to give a loud shout out to Senator Boxer for working in such a bi-partisan way to put together a surface transportation bill that got total unanimous vote out of her committee, 18-0″ proclaimed LaHood, responding to the same question.   “She has the ranking Republican on her committee, Senator Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma.  That bill is going to be on the Senate floor.  It’s a two year bill.  It’s a good bi-partisan bill that addresses the transportation values of America.  That’s the way transportation has always been done. and I can’t give a big enough shout-out to Senator Boxer to working so hard with Senator Inhofe to get this bill to the Senate floor.”

Villaraigosa jumped in to praise the Senator.  ”Ditto to that, I was remiss.  Barbara Boxer doesn’t have a bigger fan than Antonio Villaraigosa.”

Both pieces of legislation have passed through the committee system in their respective chambers, but a final vote has not been scheduled for either.  While both the former Republican Congressman  and the man some feel could replace him as Transportation Secretary held their fire on the House Republicans, it’s clear that each favors the bill moving through the Senate.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Secretary Ray LaHood exchange a handshake during yesterday's press event at Los Angeles Union Station. Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

Delivering a “message from President Obama,” LaHood set the tone for a defense of the president’s vision for High Speeed Rail. “”High speed rail is coming to California,” Lahood began. “We will not be dissuaded by the naysayers or those that think that high speed rail is not the next generation of transportation.”

Later, noting that the President’s vision was larger than just a rail plan for California, LaHood talked of the California project as a model for the nation.  ”We believe the high speed rail corridor in California will be the role model for high speed rail in the country.”  Other rail projects won’t capture the country’s imagination as the California project.  For example, the proposed rail project in Illinois would increase rail speed from seventy to one hundred ten miles per hour.  California High Speed Rail will run at speeds up to 200 miles per hour.

Responding to complaints from Steve Gregory, a reporter from the conservative news talk radio station KFI, about the costs and ridership projections, Villaraigosa took the microphone to offer his own defense.  After noting that projections for Los Angeles’ subway and Bus Rapid Transit systems are both well above projections, he pointed both to local benefits of a statewide transit network and to the investments America has historically made in transportation over the decades.

“High Speed Rail in California is the natural extension of the 21st Century transportation system we’re building here.  For me, this is an easy one.  We need to get on this train.  We need to stand for the proposition that California needs to lead the way,” Villaraigosa opened.  ”Imagine if they had asked President Eisenhower to cost out the federal highway system in 2012 dollars.”

The Mayor’s verbal gambit to defend the $100 billion price tag for construction of the high speed rail line was seized on by Dan Richard, the executive director of the High Speed Rail Authority.  A recent report by the authority noted that the original $42 billion estimate for a project between Sacramento and San Diego was low.  Instead, a $100 billion estimate for a route between San Francisco and Los Angeles was more likely.  Richard noted that one third of the price increase was because current projections take into account inflation that is expected over the next thirty years of construction.

Despite the high cost projections for construction, Richard notes that the line will pay for itself during operations.

“All of our analysis shows that ridership will be strong.  Every high speed rail project in the world more than pays for its own operations,” Richard said in response to a question from a television news reporter.  ”Even under the most pessimistic projections, we bring in more money than it takes to run the system….none of us wants to launch a system that doesn’t have riders.”

If the goal of the press event was to change the debate on High Speed Rail from complaints about cost and management to a discussion of the benefits the line will bring, yesterday was a mixed bag.  While the press conference was featured on most nightly news telecasts, only one print publication, La Opinion covered the event.

On the way home from the press conference, I listened to Gregory’s coverage on the wildly popular “John and Ken Show.”  While Gregory stuck to playing unedited audio clips of the event, the shows hosts interrupted to lambaste the project as “the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars I’ve ever seen” and the Secretary as “a buffoon.”  At the end of the day, rail supporters were probably heartened by the show of political strength for the project, but the skeptics remained just as skeptical as ever.

Photo: Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel

As he’s said before, Mica doesn’t have a bill in his “back pocket.” It’s hard to say if he was praising or criticizing his predecessor, Rep. Jim Oberstar, when he told the APTA audience, “He had waited 32 years to become chair. He knew exactly what he wanted in the bill, and he hand-wrote it out and projected it up on a screen and everyone was to march, and I did, until we started to get picked off by the administration and other folks who had other ideas, and it never happened.”

Mica also announced a series of stakeholder meetings to be held in the last week of March to supplement the field hearings the committee has been holding around the country. The meetings will help lawmakers craft a transportation reauthorization bill. Mica told the APTA members that they will be among those invited. It will include “all the Washington folks that haven’t been heard.”

Then he’ll “buy beer and pizza” (and fruit smoothies, as requested by Sen. Barbara Boxer) and lawmakers will sit down and hash it all out, he told reporters after his speech.

As for the broader budget fight, Mica alluded to the current deal to pass another extension for three more weeks – “Then, my advice and counsel would be, grab a hold of your shorts and hang on,” he said. “It might be a wild ride.”

He said it’s “above his pay grade” to guess whether more extensions will follow. “It’s not the way to fund the government, but a lot of people were sent here with a mission to cut spending.”

Mica got in his usual jabs at Amtrak, which he likes to call a “Soviet-style” train operator, incapable of developing real high-speed rail. It’s a sad time for high-speed rail proponents, like him, who were excited about the president’s vision, he said, “It’s like trying to celebrate and you’ve got a box of cigars and the first three cigars explode in your face.”

In his opinion, Florida was a bad choice for a high-speed corridor, but he and other advocates should “dust ourselves off and move forward.” He said all future inter-modal centers will be built in downtowns (and not leave passengers “at a gas station outside of town”) with consideration given to transit connections, which Tampa doesn’t have.

Mica drew on his own personal history as a “transit-dependent” to explain his support for a strong public transportation system – and one with reliable service at all hours, not just rush hour.

“I became a fan [of public transportation] when I was young, and I didn’t always have the money for a car,” he said. “I took public transportation. I used to take the last bus out, when I worked all night at the Miami Herald in the mail room, and I took the first bus out in the morning, at 6:30. And over the weekend, I had two other jobs. So I personally know many people depend on the service you provide.”

In response to a question about the new inter-city rail caucus, just founded by Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Mica said he’s “not a big caucus-joiner” and encouraged people to put their energy into the committee process instead. He told them this is their chance to influence legislation – “you’ll never have a more open process than what I’m providing” – and told them that if the final bill is missing something, “it’s your fault” for not providing input.

LaHood also addressed the gathering, speaking only briefly before taking questions about transit safety, including the Public Transportation Safety Act, which he said was a priority for him this year. He said he was stunned, after Washington, D.C.’s metro crash, that DOT has no jurisdiction over transit safety. The Banking Committee passed the bill last year, and they’re still tweaking it. “If you look at the bill, which we hope will be reintroduced, and if there are some things you don’t like about it, let us know.”

He paid homage to the inter-agency Partnership for Sustainable Communities, and listed the benefits it provides, like collaboration on a TIGER grant to build affordable housing and sidewalks near transit in Kansas City, Missouri.

Not surprisingly, LaHood was asked (not by me, this time!) how the administration plans to pay for its transportation proposal, and not surprisingly, he said he looked forward to working with Congress on that, but a gas tax hike is off the table.

One attendee said that people in London are paying $12 a gallon for gas and perhaps our gas tax could go up a bit more, as it did under President Ronald Reagan, for the dual purpose of deficit reduction and transportation. But LaHood balked at the questioner’s cajoling for a candid answer “just among us friends in this room.”

“I wish that were the case,” LaHood joked back. “Do you know how many media people are sitting in the back, just waiting for me to say something? Do you want me to keep my job? (“Yes, sir, I do, very much!”) Then don’t be asking your question.”

Secretary Ray LaHood indicates how many details he’s going to give Congress on how to fund the transportation budget proposal (Photo: AP)

On Valentine’s Day, the Obama administration released its budget proposal for next year. It included significant cuts to some programs, like heating assistance for the poor, and modest increases in others, like education and energy. But the president saved his biggest doozy for transportation – $556 billion over six years, about twice the current spending levels.

LaHood immediately grew impatient with the inevitable question – “How are you suggesting we pay for this?” Right away, he threw that hot potato back to Congress, saying it was up to the legislative branch to figure it out.

He could have started that process this morning, when he appeared before the Senate Budget Committee, but he again seemed impatient with the very question. (And this was the Budget Committee, after all – of course their primary concern is going to be the financial piece.)

The Senate, remember, is still controlled by Democrats, so he had an easier time there than he’ll have in the House. But everyone in Washington is focused on reining in deficit spending, although they may differ on how and how much.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said he was “flabbergasted” by the size of the president’s budget request – a 62 percent increase for the USDOT “at a time when all of us know we’ve got to contain spending and do something about the surging debt we’ve got.”

Indeed, LaHood’s persistent refusal to engage on the funding question – at a time when Congress is obsessively trying to cut spending – is beginning to sound tone-deaf. Every time anyone presses him for specifics on how to make this plan work, he returns to soundbites about how bold the plan is.

Well sure, Mr. Secretary, we like bold, but we like possible even more.

“We’re placing this country at risk,” Sessions said. “In all honesty, if you can’t tell us what kind of tax you think would fund this and are prepared to defend it, I think there’s zero chance of us passing such a tax as this.”

But Lahood and Obama haven’t proposed a tax. Experts on and off the Hill agree that the only credible way to fund the country’s current infrastructure program – much less an expanded one – is a gas tax increase or a shift to a vehicle-miles-traveled fee. The administration says these options are “off the table,” leading Sessions to deride the mystery funding source as the “new phantom tax; the not-gas-tax-tax.”

Committee Chair Kent Conrad – a Democrat and a big supporter of the secretary’s – also asked how LaHood proposed to close the ever-growing funding gap in the Highway Trust Fund. What are the options for closing this gap, and how realistic are they?

LaHood’s answer? “We want to work with Congress on our way forward.”

LaHood acknowledged that the Highway Trust Fund is deficient. “People driving less; they’re driving more fuel efficient automobiles,” he said. “As things stay stirred up in the Middle East, in countries that produce crude oil, we know that gasoline prices are going to continue to go up, and probably as a result people will be driving even less frequently than they are today, and that’s not going to help us in the collection of the gas tax.”

The secretary asserted that the transportation bill is a jobs bill, and that the effect on the economy would be positive.

Some senators proposed non-tax-related sources of revenue like Build America Bonds and tolling. LaHood mentioned the proposed infrastructure bank and the TIFIA loan program as possible funding sources (though the I-bank, especially, is not really a source as much as a destination of funding, at least at first).

Several Republicans – and some Democrats – also criticized the small percentage of the stimulus package that was devoted to infrastructure spending. They said that if we were worried about jobs and crumbling infrastructure, that was our big-spending moment to take care of it. And that moment, they say, has passed.

Will Rick Scott reconsider his decision to forego high-speed rail in Florida? Photo: Orlando Sentinel

Scott was given an extension last week by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, while the two parties worked on ways to minimize the risk involved for the state of Florida. The governor had been given one week to reconsider his decision, one that was criticized by fellow Florida Republican John Mica, chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

According to reports from a local newspaper, state transportation officials have floated the idea of making Amtrak or a private company responsible for any potential cost over-runs, one of the concerns cited by Gov. Scott in his refusal last week.

LaHood made the following statement this afternoon on the situation:

“This morning I met with Governor Rick Scott to discuss the high speed rail project that will create jobs and economic development for the entire state of Florida. He asked me for additional information about the state’s role in this project, the responsibilities of the Florida Department of Transportation, as well as how the state would be protected from liability. I have decided to give Governor Scott additional time to review the agreement crafted by local officials from Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland and Miami, and to consult with his staff at the state Department of Transportation. He has committed to making a final decision by the end of next week. I feel we owe it to the people of Florida, who have been working to bring high speed rail to their state for the last 20 years, to go the extra mile.”

Rep. Mica released a statement expressing his support for the continued talks:

“I am pleased an agreement has been reached between Governor Scott and Secretary LaHood to extend the timeframe for consideration of additional alternatives for the Florida rail project. I hope a sub-grantee arrangement can be structured that will salvage part or all of the project in a viable way that will protect Florida taxpayers from financial risk.”

In a previous statement, LaHood had said Florida’s money would be transferred to other states. The high-speed rail line would have connected Tampa at Orlando and would be the nation’s first, true high-speed rail line.

The plan is a blueprint that Congress can use as a basis for its transportation reauthorization bill. It has a lot in common with then-Transportation Committee Chair Jim Oberstar’s bill from 2009. And, like Oberstar’s bill, it leaves unanswered the question of how to fund transportation investments. This time, however, it comes in the midst of an all-out Republican war on deficit spending.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says the president's proposal represents the administration's "big bold vision" for transportation. Photo: Tanya Snyder

How much of this plan will survive the GOP cutting machine is anyone’s guess. There’s a lot in the president’s proposal that’s worth saving. Some notable elements:

• Transit funding is going up by 127 percent, while funding for roads and bridges is getting a 48 percent increase. That represents a significant shift in the highways-to-transit ratio, which will go from an 80-20 split to a 74-26 split.
• The Highway Trust Fund is getting a long-overdue name change. The new Transportation Trust Fund will now have four accounts – the traditional highways and mass transit accounts and also new accounts for passenger rail and an infrastructure bank.
• Some advocates are disappointed that the proposed infrastructure bank will be housed at DOT and not be formed as an independent entity, as many had hoped. Still, the shift to more discretionary, competitive grants is a huge victory for reformers.
• The consolidation of 55 road programs into five means there will no longer be separate pots of money for bridges, for example, or trucker rest areas, according to Undersecretary Roy Kienitz. That money will be rolled into a larger pot of funding for highways that states and local governments will compete for. The five programs will be: the National Highway Program, Highway Safety Improvement, Livable Communities, Federal Allocation and Research, Technology, and Education.
• The TIFIA loan program will go from a $120 million allocation to $450 million; TIGER, which has given out $2.1 billion in grants so far, will get $2 billion the first year in the president’s proposal.
• The funding for livability programs – $28 billion over six years – will include bike and pedestrian improvements, but allocation decisions rest with the states.
• While the new bill doesn’t have a line item for a new national freight policy or a new office overseeing freight movement, Kienitz said freight programs got the lion’s share of TIGER grants (pun not intended, I think) and will be well-positioned to get money from the infrastructure bank.
• Amtrak funding will be split into two accounts: one for state of good repair and one for new system development.

In a briefing at the DOT with reporters today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood reiterated that transportation has historically been a bipartisan issue and he expects Congress will be unanimous in wanting to pass this bill, as it will create jobs in their districts. But this bill is falling into a unique political environment.

First, the House is an earmark-free zone now. A massive transportation bill was easier to vote for when lawmakers could point to specific projects in their districts that would be included. Now that their districts will have to compete for money, it might be a far harder sell. When asked about that, LaHood simply said, “We’re gonna find out.”

Second, the Republican scissorhands that control Congress, with their single-minded determination to cut spending, are sure to have a harsh response to a half-trillion dollar proposal that has no real revenue stream attached to it.

Indeed, LaHood said the administration plans to spend no more than it brings in, but they don’t actually have a plan for accomplishing that goal. He said he’d leave it to Congress to work out the revenue part. DOT officials admit it is a “non-trivial” amount of money to look for. Meanwhile, he stands by the decision not to raise the gas tax while unemployment is still high.

As the White House rolls out this budget proposal, based on input administration officials collected in six listening sessions around the country, the House Transportation Committee is holding its own listening sessions. Today it held the first two, both in West Virginia, where lawmakers heard from contractors and highway authorities about the need for a new bill.

When asked how he planned to sell a rural-oriented Congress on the bigger slice of the pie for transit, LaHood said some of that transit money will be for rural areas, not just big cities. He wants to make sure rural people who can’t or don’t drive have access to transportation “so that rural America is not left out.”

FocusDriven's Jennifer Smith, at left, with Ray Lahood at an event held earlier this month. Photo: UPI

A year ago, the Department of Transportation helped launch FocusDriven, an advocacy group for victims of motor vehicle crashes involving drivers using cell phones.

“In one year, we’ve made progress – but at least 5,500 people still die every year in crashes,” said FocusDriven president Jennifer Smith, who lost her mother in a collision involving a distracted driver. Vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists are especially at risk when drivers aren’t paying attention.

“I am noticing a lot of pedestrians and cyclists getting killed,” Smith said. “They’re at most danger. They don’t have the car to protect them. And these people are hitting them and not even realizing that they hit someone. That’s how engrossed in the conversation or the text message they are.”

At a press conference at the DOT headquarters in Washington, Secretary Ray LaHood listed the accomplishments of the relatively young campaign against distracted driving.

“In 2010, legislators in 43 states considered more than 270 distracted driving-related bills,” LaHood said. “Because of our collective efforts, 30 states have outlawed texting behind the wheel, and eight states have banned handheld cell phone use for all drivers.”

The Obama administration has also banned federal employees, commercial truckers and bus drivers from texting while driving.

Now he’s taking his message to the automakers. He’s already had talks with top officials at GM, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and BMW. Tuesday, he’ll be in Detroit to talk to the chairmen of Ford and Chrysler. He applauds Subaru’s recent commercial featuring a father admonishing his daughter not to use her cell phone while driving.

And that’s the message he’s taking to the automakers: “devote some of your money that you’re devoting to advertising for your products to the idea that distracted driving is very dangerous.”

Automakers have made their attempt: GM and Saab vehicles now feature Onstar systems that allow drivers to answer the phone on their dashboard and talk without a handheld device. But Jennifer Smith says that’s not enough. “There are more than 25 credible research papers that show no safety improvement while using a hands-free device, yet we are continuing to be told that hands-free technologies are a safe alternative,” she said. “If our brains cannot process what our eyes are seeing, then we are at risk.”

Will LaHood settle for automaker efforts that include “safety” technologies that don’t keep us safe? He declined to answer whether these technologies are the answer.

Meanwhile, he wants to see a federal bill like ones that were introduced, but not passed, in the last Congress. “I think a national law is a good idea,” he said. However, with 30 states already banned some cell use while driving, the states appear to be well ahead of the feds on this one.

Still, the secretary rests most of the responsibility with the driver who either decides to leave the phone in the glove box or doesn’t. Much of the language of the campaign against distracted driving is about choice. “Each day I get another reminder that someone made a choice that a phone call or a text message was more important than someone’s safety,” says Smith. “It was more important than someone’s life.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), center, talks to Transport Secretary Ray LaHood, at left. (Photo: WS DOT via Flickr)

Sen.
Patty Murray (D-WA), chairman of the upper chamber’s transportation
spending panel, praised the mission of the sustainability office but
told LaHood she has "concerns about" the Obama administration’s pitch
to send $200 million in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding
to the effort next year.

"I also have questions about how these proposals from [U.S.] DOT fit into our larger debate over" paying for the next long-term federal transportation bill, Murray said.

Murray’s
measured assessment of the new alliance between LaHood, Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan, and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) focused on how federal officials would define
the concept of "sustainability" as they determined how to dole out
grants to local development plans.

But her Republican
counterpart on the spending panel, Sen. Kit Bond (MO), took a harder
line in challenging LaHood on the administration’s ability to
positively influence on-the-ground urban and rural planning.

"I’m
not as confident [as others] that trusting federal decision-makers in
Washington to lead the process, to tell communities how they should
grow, is the right way to go," Bond said, tangling with LaHood as he
aligned with a road construction industry group that criticized the
administration’s sustainability budget.

Sending that $200
million from highways — about one-two-hundredth of the FHWA’s annual
budget — to the sustainable communities office "may reflect a view
that we want to get rid of auto transportation," Bond said.

"The
idea we’re giving up on [roads] or don’t care about the highways is
nonsense," LaHood shot back. "People want other alternatives. We have a
state-of-the-art interstate system. If people need more capacity, they
can tell us that."

Bond’s reply was equally charged: "I’m telling you that."

Murray
and Bond’s panel is charged with translating the White House budget
request into annual spending legislation for the U.S. DOT and HUD.
Congress ultimately approved
the administration’s proposed $150 million in sustainability grants
last year, but this year’s higher funding pitch could face a tougher
path to passage amid the lack of progress on a new six-year federal
transport bill.

Still, that continued reliance on extensions
of existing transportation law — which have necessitated a transfer of
more than $30 billion from the general Treasury to the highway trust
fund since 2008 — gave LaHood ammunition against Bond and Murray’s
complaint that road users would be ceding that $200 million in highway
money to the sustainability office.

When lawmakers pay for transport programs from the general Treasury, LaHood said, "part of that money comes … from all
the taxpayers — who, in some instances, want something other than
roads. I have to put that on the record."

Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood, at left, with EPA chief Lisa Jackson at right. (Photo: Getty Images)

The
final rule was jointly unveiled by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Lisa Jackson, who
described the higher fuel standards — known as CAFE, for Corporate
Average Fuel Economy — as "a win for automakers and drivers, a win for
innovators and entrepreneurs, and a win for our planet." 

Environmental advocates joined the auto industry in
welcoming the higher CAFE standards, which the EPA estimates would
yield $240 billion in total benefits over the life of the rule –
compared with a total cost of $52 billion for carmakers and drivers.

“By
completing these rules, the Obama administration is putting our country
on the road to creating thousands of clean energy jobs and cutting our
dangerous dependency on oil," Roland Hwang, transportation director at
the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

Dave
McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, urged
the White House to follow the rule by beginning "to work on [fuel
standards for] 2017 and
beyond.” 

The new CAFE rule includes a notable break for
electric cars, giving a zero-emissions rating to the first 200,000 such
vehicles made by each manufacturer despite the fact that carbon
emissions would result from the power needed to charge them.

Jackson
said the benefit was included to bolster the administration’s "bullish"
stance on plug-in technology. "We all know that’s not entirely true,"
she acknowledged of the government’s zero-emissions designation,
"because when you plug in, there’s
some emissions associated with the power you’re using  … but we
wanted to incentivize them."

In the text of the final rule,
the EPA described its 200,000-vehicle zero rating as a compromise with
green groups that objected to its initial proposal to offer the rating
to all electric vehicles.

"Many
state and environmental organization commenters
believed that the combination of these incentives could undermine the
GHG [greenhouse gas] benefits of the rule, and believed the emissions
compliance values
should take into account the net upstream GHG emissions associated with
electrified vehicles compared to vehicles powered by petroleum based
fuel," the rule’s authors wrote.

The EPA’s earlier proposal
also had included a "multiplier" that would effectively count electric
or hybrid cars as more than one vehicle when automakers calculated the
average fuel efficiency of their fleets. The final rule, however,
abandoned the "multiplier" concept.

The benefit for luxury carmakers, nicknamed the "German provision,"
would give manufacturers selling fewer than 400,000 cars per year in
the United States extra time to comply with the new fuel rules between
the model years of 2012 and 2015. Automakers which stand to gain from
that efficiency "lead-time allowance" include BMW and Mercedes.

The
EPA and U.S. DOT estimated that their stronger fuel-efficiency standard
would increase the average cost of cars by $950 as of the 2016 model
year, but Jackson noted that most auto buyers would "offset the costs"
by saving on fuel bills during their first three years of driving.

Asked
about the auto industry’s eagerness for certainty from the federal
government for 2017 and beyond, LaHood told reporters that "anything
post-2016 will come after people get a good week of sleep … they’ve
been working night
and day to get this right."

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) (Photo: William Woods)

McCaskill, known for
fiscal hawkishness, asked LaHood to "work with me to put an end to this
practice" of earmarking money in long-term federal transportation
policy bills, which allot six years’ worth of highway trust fund
revenue to specific local projects.

McCaskill said the growth
in congressional earmarking of transport funds "distorts the operation
of the federal-aid highway and transit programs" because
lawmaker-directed spending circumvents state and local "planning,
review, and selection processes."

That broad
characterization of transportation earmarks is true in a large number
of cases, but many others benefit projects that have already met with
approval from state and local planners.

Grants under the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts program, for example, are historically earmarked
by lawmakers eager to see aid flow to local rail and bus systems, but
each project has already made it through an extensive vetting process.
In other instances, earmarks help cash-strapped transit agencies
complete environmental and engineering studies that might not be
possible without federal assistance — such as the $6 million in
planning funds that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) directed to Chicago’s Circle Line proposal last year.

Earmark reforms
adopted by the House transportation committee last year ask lawmakers
to document the local benefits and other sources of funding for favored
projects.

Check out excerpts from McCaskill’s letter to LaHood after the jump.

Dear Mr. Secretary,

I
am writing to express my concern about the continuing practice of
earmarking in surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Over
the last 20 years, we have seen this practice explode, spending
billions of dollars on the priorities of individual members, resulting
in a loss of funding for individual states and a waste of taxpayer
dollars. As the Congress looks to consider a new transportation bill
this year, I ask that you work with me to put an end to this practice
so that we return to a more equitable and thoughtful distribution of
funding transportation projects. …

When the Congress
passed the last transportation reauthorization bill in 2006, 11% of the
bill, equaling $22 billion, was earmarked. In comparison, throughout
the 1980s, only 1% of transportation funding was earmarked. This growth
in member-requested projects is frustrating because earmarks bypass the
planning, review, and selection processes of the state and local
governments and agencies.

That is not to say that these projects are without
merit. Many of them would be worthwhile initiatives; but earmarking
distorts the operation of the federal-aid highway and transit programs.
It reduces the allocations provided for states’ core transportation
programs and often funds low-priority, earmarked proposals over the
higher-priority, publicly vetted proposals. …

With our
current budgetary situation and the escalating federal debt, we cannot
allow the process of earmarking to continue. Determining how to
prioritize transportation projects cannot be and should not be decided
by individual members of Congress. Our state and local projects,
working with federal agencies, are better equipped to know what the
priorities should be for addressing our infrastructure needs.

Instead,
we should [direct] our efforts towards funding for formula and
competitive grant programs as was originally intended by the Congress.
This will result in better and more equitable distribution of funding,
better use of taxpayer money, and transportation projects that work for
everyone. …

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (Photo: Getty Images)

In
an address to the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA)
annual conference, LaHood highlighted the $787 billion stimulus law’s
contribution to transit and high-speed rail and extended a hand to
local officials who have been forced to pursue service cuts and fare
increases.

"If we didn’t have a lousy economy, a lot of these issues would
bubble up more quickly," LaHood told transit planners who lamented the lack of progress on new federal legislation and the tough budget choices brought on by the recession.

"Part
of the solution," LaHood added, "will be when the economy comes back"
and the White House is more open to discussing tax increases as part of
the financing mix for long-term transport funding.

But in
the meantime, LaHood’s remarks served as a friendly warning to the
transit industry that, given the capital’s current political reality,
its $8.4 billion haul from the stimulus should be considered a victory.

One
exchange in particular epitomized the state of play between the
administration and transit agencies: When an APTA conference attendee
from Grand Rapids, Michigan, asked the packed audience of local
officials to raise their hands if they had raised fares or cut service
during the past year, a sizable number of hands rose into the air.
Minutes later, Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff leapt up to
ask how many officials would be cutting more or laying off more workers
if not for the stimulus.

Even more hands went up in response to Rogoff’s query.

"The
big sticking point of all of this is money," LaHood said. "That money
[to pay for a new federal bill] just doesn’t exist right now."

Despite
that grim news and the long line of transit planners who shared their
fiscal woes with LaHood during a question-and-answer session, one
opening emerged for the industry to make headway on its Washington
agenda. The U.S. DOT chief signaled openness to expanding urban transit
agencies’ ability to use federal capital grants to cover operating costs.

That capital-to-operating flexibility now sits at 10 percent,
a level set soon after the stimulus law’s passage. "Maybe that’s not
the right percentage," LaHood said. "Maybe we need to work with
Congress to allow you to do more when the economy is bad." He floated
the idea of a "sliding scale" for federal operating aid that would vary
based on economic growth.

On two other big-ticket federal transit issues, however, the federal outlook appeared hazy following LaHood’s appearance.

Asked about the so-called "CLEAN TEA" plan
to give transit a dedicated share of the revenue from climate change
legislation, LaHood touted his work in the president’s Green Cabinet
before admitting, "I can’t say [CLEAN TEA] has been part of our
discussions. But it possibly could be in the future."

Another questioner brought up the stimulus law’s provision
increasing the monthly pre-tax transit benefit for commuters to $230 –
equalizing the tax-free funding for transit and parking — which is set
to expire at the end of 2010. LaHood replied that he had not the
"slightest idea" of the issue’s status, though Rogoff explained that
the tax question is under the Treasury Department’s purview.

"We
intend to talk to our partners at Treasury" about the value of keeping
the pre-tax transit benefit equal to that for employee parking, Rogoff
said.

Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) (Photo: Politico)

But
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s visit with Senate appropriators
today was anything but humdrum, as Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) challenged him
repeatedly to defend the White House’s efforts on sustainable
development and high-speed rail.

Bond cited a recent Wall Street Journal editorial by Wendell Cox, a conservative pundit who has penned laudatory literature for road lobbying groups, in accusing the Obama administration of frittering away taxpayers’ money on high-speed rail.

LaHood fired back, remarking wryly that Bond’s home state sought high-speed rail grants and publicly celebrated
its $31 million haul. "I got calls on this every day from senators and
governors" clamoring for an opportunity to build inter-city passenger
rail, LaHood said.

Answering Bond’s charge that the rail
funding process was less than transparent, the U.S. DOT chief threw in
a bold claim: "I don’t know of one lobbyist that darkened
our door with an application … that came to our door with the idea they
were going
to have some edge."

A November investigation
by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity found that more than 50
government entities and private companies have hired high-speed rail
lobbyists, including the AFL-CIO, the Mayo Clinic, and overseas train
manufacturers such as Siemens and Bombardier.

The sharpest
exchange between Bond and LaHood came on the topic of walkable local
development, which the U.S. DOT has worked to promote through $150 million in 2010 grants and an inter-agency partnership with housing and environmental protection officials.

"What
is livability?" Bond asked LaHood, minutes after comparing the task of
defining the term to defining pornography. (The origins of that
reference are explained here.)

"Communities where people have access to many different forms
of transportation, and affordable housing … maybe they don’t want a car, so they can
walk to work or take mass transit to work," LaHood said, using the newly built-up neighborhood surrounding his office as an example.

Bond’s reply summed up the challenge of crafting new federal transportation policy in an era marked by rural-urban-suburban culture clashes. "I’ve got a lot of constituents for whom
livability means having a decent highway," he said. "They’ve got to drive between one town and
another town."

LaHood
gamely tried to put Bond’s criticism in perspective, noting that
highways received the lion’s share — $27 billion — of the
transportation funding in last year’s economic stimulus law.

Yet
Bond only dug in his heels, arguing that Americans had shown their
eagerness to use roads and bridges but would not embrace rail or
walkable infrastructure. "When did it become the responsibility of the
federal DOT to
build sidewalks?" the soon-to-retire senator asked, before LaHood that reminded him Congress set up dedicated funding for pedestrian improvements nearly 20 years ago.

LaHood, at left, with the president at right. (Photo: whitehouse via Flickr)

Leaving aside the gaping logical hole in that statement — which Robert Mackey of the New York Times suggests (check out the 12:04 post here)
may have come from Souder’s argument that lower speed limits would save
more lives than "100% safe" cars — there is plenty of research out
there pointing to the beneficial effects of lower speeds on safety.

Traffic author Tom Vanderbilt recently cited
the impact of 20 mile-per-hour urban speed zones on reducing road
injuries in the United Kingdom, and a 2007 study by the AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety [PDF] outlined the following "general rule of thumb":

When
travel speed increases by 1%, the injury crash rate increases by about
2%, the serious injury crash rate increases by about 3%, and the fatal
crash rate increases by about 4%. The same relation holds in reverse: a
1% decrease in travel speed reduces injury crashes by about 2%, serious
injury crashes by about 3%, and fatal crashes by about 4%.

Could
LaHood be unaware of the relationship between lower speeds and
decreased risk of injury? It’s certainly possible — despite the former
GOP lawmaker’s good record on infrastructure reform and sustainability,
both in concept and in practice, he remains a relative newcomer to the nitty-gritty of transportation, as the Times reminded readers in a highly readable profile last year.

The
Obama administration today offered a one-page sample proposal to crack
down on texting behind the wheel, aimed at helping guide states through
the process of crafting their own distracted driving legislation.

(Photo: brainlink.org)

The sample bill text [PDF]
was prepared by the U.S. DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, which invited road safety groups to join auto industry
representatives, the AAA, and officials from state DOTs to help craft
consensus language.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
called the legislation in a statement "another powerful tool in our
arsenal to help
the states combat this serious threat” of texting while driving in a
statement that accompanied the sample text — which carves out an
exemption from any fines or penalties for drivers who (emphasis mine):

Receiv[e] messages related to the operation or navigation of a motor vehicle; safety-related information including emergency, traffic, or weather alerts; data used primarily by the motor vehicle; or radio.

States
that adopt the Obama administration’s sample language, then, would
allow drivers to continue getting traffic tweets and texts from their
local DOTs, a practice dubbed "mixed messages" by the Associated Press
in a September investigation.

"It’s
not a perfect bill, but it was something that everybody in the group
felt they could put their name on it and say, ‘this is a good start,’"
Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, said in an interview, adding that the exemption for drivers getting traffic and weather alerts "may have just slipped by us."

If
the Advocates were to write their own version of sample distracted
driving legislation, Stone said, "we probably wouldn’t include" the
exemption. But she noted that the group has no plans to draft its own
language for states working on texting bans.

The U.S. DOT
noted in its release today that the sample bill "reflects current
circumstances and state of knowledge, but may be revised in the future
to incorporate new research findings, address evolving technologies, or
to harmonize with other legislation."

A research team from the University of Utah reported in December that reading incoming text messages had a more deleterious effect on drivers’ braking response times than writing texts.

It was billed as a day to discuss the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Trust Fund, it turned in to a stirring defense of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and ended with a commitment from a United States Senator to do all she could to help turn Los Angeles into a transit town within the next ten years.

Following this morning's press conference by local transportation reformers, labor leaders and environmental advocates; Senator Barbara Boxer, the Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, and USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood held their own press conference.  Flanked by metro mechanics and Board Members at the downtown bus refurbishment center.  While the advocates were focused on the future, Boxer and LaHood spent much of their time talking about the past, most notably the year-old Stimulus legislation, recent High Speed Rail grants received by California, and this week's TIGER Grants.

"Stimulus funds are hard at work everywhere you look, from the 405 and on L.A.'s light rail system!"  LaHood exclaimed.  The Gold Line Eastside Extension received nearly $67 million in Stimulus funds, while the massive widening of the I-405, the largest highway project funded by Stimulus dollars, received just under $190 million.

LaHood also seemed particularly pleased about the TIGER Grants, pointing out how well Boxer had lobbied on the state's behalf.  He returned to this theme repeatedly, which drew a tepid response from his audiences in the town hall and the press conference, probably because Los Angeles County hadn't received any TIGER funding.

However, most of the news was made not at the press conference, but back at Metro headquarters for the Town Hall meeting.  Boxer outlined a timeline for the reathorization of the Federal Transportation Trust Fund and vowed to do all she could to accelerate transit projects in L.A. County to, in the words of Mayor Villaraigosa, "vindicate the will of the people."

"I hear you. I get it. I'm all over it."  With those ten words U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer embraced local efforts to complete all Measure R transit projects within the next ten years and turned Denny Zane and the Move L.A. Coalition into the most influential transit group in Southern California.  Zane was the central figure in creating the "30 in 10" plan and promoting it, most recently at a press event this morning.  Boxer noted that there are some laws already on the books that could help move projects faster than Measure R's current thirty year timetable, and that if other laws need to be changed, she would do all she could to help make those changes.

As for reauthorization, Boxer signaled her intent to pass her MAP 21 legislation, which would replace SAFETEA-LU, by the end of the year.  However, Boxer had no answers to questions about funding the new transportation trust fund, nor would she commit to any funding formula such as a guaranteed set-aside for transit.  She also avoided discussing the legislation being offered by the House Transportation Committee Chair, Minnesota Democrat James Oberstar; suggesting that a bicameral plan to support reauthorization hasn't been created yet.

She did, however, push the audience to call Congress, especially Republicans, to support the "Jobs Bill" that will be voted on this Monday.  Part of the legislation would extend funding of the current transportation trust fund until December 31, under the current funding scheme.

LaHood also signaled support for "30 in 10" in the afternoon, so he must have had a major change of heart from the morning.  At the morning press conference, he brushed off a question by The Source's Steve Hymon on future federal spending on the Subway to the Sea and Downtown Connector with a terse, "I'm not going to evaluate projects in front of you."  In the afternoon, he was saying that after speaking with Villaraigosa he would do what he could to help the city reach its transit dreams.  "We'll work to leverage the Measure R funds."

In addition to the three major topics, there were three other interesting asides during the question and answer portion of the discussion.  The first was a terse exchange between Senator Boxer and Keith Millhouse, the Chair of the Metrolink Board of Directors.  Referencing the $50 million the federal government allocated for safety systems known as positive train control systems following the September 2008 Chatsworth Crash, Millhouse tried to put the two on the spot to guarantee Metrolink the rest of the funding.

Boxer roared back that while the federal government is working to make certain that funding for every rail system to have positive train control systems will be in place; it's up to Metrolink to do everything it can to keep their trains safe in the short term.  The two continued a back and forth over whether Metrolink should have two engineers at the front of each train as well as a camera.  Millhouse wouldn't commit to that, while Boxer wouldn't commit to a timeline to get Metrolink its PTS funding.

The next audience member to speak was Paul Dyson, the president of the Rail Passengers Association of California and Nevada.  Dyson took up for Millhouse, claiming there were many examples of crashes being caused by a pair of engineers distracting each other.  Boxer asked Dyson to send along those instances, but seemed doubtful they existed.

Having riled Boxer, Dyson turned to LaHood and questioned the $2.25 billion High Speed Rail Grant given to California.  Dyson pointed to the huge cost of the project to connect Anaheim to the Bay Area, nearly $40 billion and commented that the grant was too small to be useful in construction and to high to not be wasted by bureaucrats.   For the second time that day, LaHood lost his cool and fired back:

This is the first time I’ve ever heard someone say they didn’t want $2.25 billion after working on high-speed rail for 10 years...Your argument is ridiculous. The reason that we gave that money to California is because you’ve done a good job. If you think it’s being mismanaged, come forward and tell us about it. We don’t find that to be the case.

This is a somewhat amazing claim, as there has been plenty of criticism of the High Speed Rail Authority in California covered in such small local papers as the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times.  While LaHood dismissed  Dyson with a joke about sending those complaints along with his proof that engineers can distract each other along to Boxer; he managed to get a laugh and show a disconnect with the local debate all at the same time.

Last, the Senator had a strong message of support for transit advocates on operations.  Responding to a question from Esperanza Martinez of the Bus Riders Union; Boxer pointed out that it doesn't make a lot of sense to build a world class transit system if you can't afford to operate it.  Earlier, LaHood had pointed out that both the administration and Boxer had supported legislation that would make it easier for transit agencies to spend federal dollars on operations.

For more on today's events, The Source has two stories on today's events.  One on LaHood and Boxer's press conference and one on the invitation-only Town Hall meeting.

Boxer and LaHood get on the same page. Photo: Associated Press

If this sounds familiar, it's because Boxer held a similar forum downtown back in September of 2008 where various officials from around Los Angeles, ranging from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and then-Metro CEO Roger Snoble testified about their priorities in a federal transportation funding and policy bill.  The basics of the hours and hours of testimony can be described in two terms: "new starts" and "ports."  There was no mention of words such as "bicycle," "pedestrian," or even "Smart Growth."

The key to whether this "Town Hall Forum" is a chance to have a discussion of what various transportation stakeholders need and desire in a transportation re-authorization bill will be up to Boxer, LaHood and Leahy.  Last time non-VIP's had to wait through hours of presentations by elected officials and bureaucrats before any advocates or other people that don't collect a government pay check.  If this is really a Town Hall hearing, then hopefully all of the stake holders, including commuters that don't have a paid driver get to speak.

The Southern California Transit Advocate's Dana Gabbard agrees,

I'm glad to see Senator Barbara Boxer and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have announced they are reaching out to stakeholders seeking input on the currently stalled federal transportation funding reauthorization bill. Which is all well and good IF the attendees reflect a wide range of stakeholders, not just usual suspects. Heretofore our region hasn't always done as well as it should in that regard. If a more diverse group of people see the process as being connected to their needs and concerns, maybe the chances would improve of some progress occuring in passage of the bill sooner rather than later. At least the preliminary agenda includes some good concepts for discussion, including livability and safety.

I guess we'll have to wait and see for another nine days.  Rest assured, this website will "go dark" next Friday, but we'll be live tweeting from Metro's Board Room.

Transportation Secretary LaHood, at left, with the president. (Photo: NYT)

"There is a great deal of interest in this concept in the Senate," LaHood told reporters during a wide-ranging discussion of the White House's transport budget for the fiscal year that begins in October.

Asked about resolving any differences between the administration's Fund plan and a more bank-like entity envisioned by senior lawmakers, LaHood emphasized his openness to cooperation: "The idea is that we'd work with Congress on their ideas."

LaHood also noted that the U.S. DOT's $78.8 billion budget request for 2011, which marks a 2 percent increase from last year's levels, includes $50 million in grants for an issue that he has turned into a personal signature for him -- cracking down on distracted driving.

One topic of particular interest was the White House's continued assumption of transfers from the general Treasury to the highway trust fund (HTF) pending enactment of a new long-term federal transportation bill. As the federal gas tax, last raised in 1993, remains static and lawmakers decline to discuss an alternative funding source, the presidential budget document projects that the HTF would need more than $11 billion to make it through the current fiscal year.

LaHood told reporters that while "we've gone along with the short-term extensions" of the 2005 federal transport law, the most recent of which expires at the end of this month, the White House has always sought to postpone the next bill until 2011.

"The biggest dilemma for all of us is finding $400 [billion] to $500 billion, given that the highway trust fund is insufficient to fund all the things we want to do," the former House Republican added.

Sen.
Robert Byrd (D-WV) used the STP program to earmark millions of dollars
for road projects in his home state, including the above "King Coal
Highway." (Photo: MCRA of WV)

Among the budget items slated for elimination are a $10 million fund
aimed at helping cities and towns adapt to climate change, $34 million in
rail line relocation grants — which, the White House noted, is siphoned off by
congressional earmarking rather than a merit-based process — and a $12
million inter-city bus security program that was unsuccessfully
targeted in last year’s budget.

But
the largest proposed funding cut under the U.S. DOT’s
purview is
the Surface Transportation Priorities (STP)
program, which distributed $293 million last year to an array of local
road, bridge, and trail projects earmarked by members of Congress.

The
STP program is "not subject to merit-based criteria or competition; nor
are states or localities given the flexibility to target them to their
highest transportation priorities," the White House wrote in explaining
its bid to zero out the spending.

Eliminating STP funding
(which the Obama administration proposed to do in its budget for the
current fiscal year) is likely to prove a heavy lift with lawmakers who
depend on politically valuable transportation earmarks to win favor
with voters. The program is a longtime favorite of road-building
stalwarts such as former Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman
Robert Byrd (D-WV), who earmarked more than $20 million in STP money
for West Virginia roads in 2008 alone.

However, STP
money has also benefited clean transportation projects that might not
otherwise have secured federal aid. In recent years, lawmakers have
steered program funds to build a trail along Connecticut’s Quinnipiac
River ($1.4 million), conduct a seismic retrofit of San Francisco’s
Golden Gate Bridge ($1.9 million), and build new parks in Louisville, Kentucky ($5.8 million in 2008, courtesy of Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell).

Will
the administration succeed in its latest effort to slim down
congressional transportation earmarking? The first clues are likely to
emerge later this month and next month, when Transportation Secretary
LaHood and other U.S. DOT officials begin their rounds of testimony on
Capitol Hill.

(Chart: US Conf. of Mayors)

All
this despite the fact that those 363 cities accounted for 90 percent of
the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) last year and 86 percent of all
jobs.

Looking at the chart at right, the weight of urban
contributions is even clearer: the most economically vibrant U.S. city,
New York, had a higher productivity rate in 2008 than all but 10
foreign nations.

Going further down this list (to rankings not pictured at right), the transportation contrasts become clearer.

The United Arab Emirates, where Dubai just opened a $7 billion subway line, has a lower GDP than Miami, where transit cuts are a fact of life. Singapore, which boasts a vast rail network, has a lower GDP than Detroit, the only major U.S. city without rapid transit.

Still,
as diverting as it may be to compare American cities to their
international counterparts, the domestic struggle for better urban
transportation planning has less to do with overseas competition and
more to do with entrenched bureaucracy.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told the mayors’ group today that he understands the complaints from metro areas that federal stimulus money was siphoned off by state-level politicking and failed to reach cities in sufficient proportions.

"Congress
wanted the money out the door within 120 days," LaHood said. "The only
way you can do that is through these relationships we have with the
[state DOTs]."

To better meet urban needs in a jobs bill that
"will be structured pretty much the same way the current one is,"
LaHood added, he is pressing
for a larger infusion for TIGER, the stimulus’ merit-based grant
program where metro areas can apply directly for federal transport aid.

"It’s
the one way that cities can have direct access to the money without
going through anyone else," he explained to the mayors.

Still,
the heartening prospects of extra TIGER money may not salve the
transportation funding gaps developing in many large cities. The
mayors’ group reported that of the 85 biggest metro areas, 35 are
dealing with double-digit unemployment and getting proportionately less
transportation aid from the state DOT than they contribute to the state
economically.

Among those cities getting super-shortchanged: Los Angeles, Atlanta, Detroit, Miami, Chicago — and Portland.

(Photo: The Slatin Report)

Now it seems that the tax credit for new home buyers, opened up to
even existing homeowners as part of an $11 billion expansion passed in
November, is having a similar effect on the homebuilding industry.

As MarketWatch reports
from the Las Vegas International Building Show, homebuilders are still
mourning the housing bubble that popped so perilously as subprime
mortgages imploded, but they are cautiously optimistic about this year
as compared with 2009. Still, mitigating factors persist — and here’s
one:

Payback from the expiration of the home-buyer tax credit.
"The tax credit is pulling people forward who were in the market
anyway. So the sales pace isn’t quite as vibrant as suggested by the
raw data. There could be a payback that materializes (in July) when the
current version expires," Sullivan said.

Unless, to the chagrin of environmental groups and many, many voters
who rent, Congress decides to extend the sprawl-enticing tax credit one
more time in the summer. Lawmakers are often reluctant to let temporary
tax credits fade away when industries are lobbying in favor of their
extension — even if the underlying economic logic is demonstrably
shoddy.

And
if Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s comments at the Detroit Auto
Show this month are any guide ("You see no criticism of ‘cash for
clunkers’ in America"), even the auto rebates could make a return.