Posts by Elana Schor

Government

Oberstar bill includes more money for transit, complete streets

by Elana Schor   •   June 18, 2009 12:39 pm

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

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

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

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

• Highway funding would be consolidated into four funding categories, as would transit—effectively eliminating 75 funding categories from the current system.
  

• Oberstar's bill would establish the National Infrastructure Bank proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and other senior lawmakers, making the bank part of a broader metropolitan access program that would support urban areas in achieving "improved transit operations, congestion pricing, and expanded highway and transit capacity."

And that's not all. Oberstar also appears poised to support "complete streets" principles in his bill, although his outline uses the phrase "comprehensive street design principles." The forthcoming House bill would also ask the Environmental Protection Agency to set national emissions reductions targets for the transportation sector, thus requiring state and local official to keep climate change in mind when planning future projects.

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

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

Stay tuned.

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.

Government

LaHood asks for 18-month extension of four-year-old transportation law

by Elana Schor   •   June 17, 2009 5:40 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

LaHood's full statement follows the jump.

Government

Oberstar to release transportation outline on Wednesday

by Elana Schor   •   June 15, 2009 2:45 pm

Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, will release a "white paper" on his plans for the upcoming federal reauthorization bill in a press conference on Wednesday.

It's important to note that the paper will serve as an outline—legislative language is expected to emerge later. (Streetsblog Capitol Hill's bet is still on the final days before the July Fourth recess.)

Here's how Oberstar's office put it in an official release:

The authorization bill is currently being drafted and will replace the current authorization, SAFETEA-LU, which is due to expire on September 30. Oberstar has promised that the new authorization will transform the way the federal government invests highway, safety, and transit funds.

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.

Roads

GOPers blast the newest Dem star: How dare he pay for transportation!

by Elana Schor   •   June 12, 2009 4:30 pm

Democrat Creigh Deeds is the man of the hour for many in the D.C. political establishment, having managed to upset a well-funded ally of the Clintons in the closely watched Virginia gubernatorial race.

And now that Deeds is moving on to an even more hotly contested general election, his handling of the transportation debate could become a bellwether on the national level.

Deeds has long vowed to make Virginia's epic congestion problems his top priority, and his support for increasing the state's gas tax—currently low enough to rank 40th in the nation—to fund transport improvements is already drawing fire from the GOP. The Republican Governors Association's first release criticizing Deeds begins:

Despite prevailing in tonight's gubernatorial primary, even Democrats know Creigh Deeds' record of hiking taxes makes him unelectable this fall.

Can the GOP successfully paint Deeds as a profligate for wanting to pay for transportation upgrades? President Obama survived a similar challenge during last year's campaign when his opponents began pressing for a federal gas tax holiday, but Virginia Republicans may have better luck peeling off rural voters with their knocks on Deeds.

Deeds could help his cause by getting more specific about the types of transportation projects he wants to pursue. His lack of detail thus far has caught the attention of the Washington Post, the newspaper that provided him a game-changing endorsement.

The newly minted Democratic star could begin by reviving three transportation bills he offered during last year's Virginia state Senate session. The three proposals would encourage less punishing commutes by giving tax credits to employers who provide flex-time scheduling and telecommuting, as well as a tax deduction to anyone who takes transit, walks or bikes to work.

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.

Government

When will Oberstar's transportation bill drop? Place your bets now

by Elana Schor   •   June 10, 2009 2:09 pm

At first it was slated to emerge by June 1. Then its release was said to slip to this week. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) now plans to release his version of the six-year federal transportation bill by the end of the month, with a full House vote unlikely to come before Congress leaves for its annual August recess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.

Government

LaHood vows to avert federal transportation bankruptcy

by Elana Schor   •   June 4, 2009 5:30 pm

The Obama administration is working on a plan to fill the shortfall in the nation's highway trust fund by August without adding to the federal deficit, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told Congress today.

The circumstances behind the trust fund's financial troubles are well-known: a nationwide decline in driving coupled with political resistance to raising the gas tax—which has remained static since 1993—forced the Bush administration to push $8 billion into the federal transportation coffers last summer. But that infusion was not offset by corresponding spending cuts, which LaHood says the Obama team is committed to this time around.

"We believe very strongly that any trust fund fix must be paid for," LaHood told members of the House Appropriations Committee's transportation panel. "We also believe that any trust fund fix must be tied to reform of the current highway program to make it more performance-based and accountable, such as improving safety or improving the livability of our communities—two priorities for me."

Urbanites and transit riders may be cheered by LaHood's call to tie new highway funding to livability. Yet the administration's quest to offset its trust fund fix, which will cost as much as $7 billion, could prove fruitless.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA), chairman of the panel that greeted LaHood today, put it simply when asked if the necessary spending cuts could be found. "That'd be very tough," he said, noting that his own annual transportation spending is unlikely to become law before the highway trust fund runs out of cash.

Livable streets advocates may wonder why the highway trust fund is relevant to their cause, particularly since the mass transit account of the fund isn't projected to go bust until 2012.

The answer is pragmatic and incremental—but unfortunately, so is Congress. Replenishing the trust fund with a cost offset, as LaHood suggests, requires a serious conversation about finding new long-term revenue sources for not just highways but all modes of transportation.

If lawmakers take the easy way out by not paying for the trust fund fix, it doesn't bode well for their chances of writing a new federal transportation bill that dedicates more money to streetcars, buses and rail, not to mention more responsible spending on roads.

Already there is a broad acknowledgment in Congress that the six-year federal bill will likely be put off until 2010. Rep. Tom Latham (IA), the senior Republican in charge of transportation spending, even predicted that the federal bill would not pass until 2011; next year is an election year, after all, which never inspires courage in the Capitol.

The ball is now in the court of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over the trust fund and would be tasked with finding spending cuts to offset any upcoming transfer of transportation money. Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) has influence and moxie to rival any of his fellow lawmakers, but he has been silent on transportation funding issues as health care and climate change legislation take center stage for now.

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.

Transit

Transit planners to Congress: Please figure out how to fund us

by Elana Schor   •   June 4, 2009 3:30 pm

To all but the most ardent transit wonks, the phrase "New Starts" sounds like a motivational tape sold on late-night TV. But those two words actually represent Washington's predominant mechanism to pay for major transit expansions—everything from expanding an existing rail station to building a new bus line.

Since its inception in the 1970s, New Starts has provided states and localities with more than $10 billion. Unfortunately, the program has forced local planners to clear cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles in order to prove their projects' cost-effectiveness while ignoring the economic-development benefits of transit.

During a Senate Banking Committee hearing yesterday, some of those planners sent an urgent message to Congress: Please fix New Starts.

"I can say with some certainty that if a mayor requested an additional station for a New Starts project today—a request that would improve the project through increased ridership and economic development—the result would be project delay and cost increases," Richard Sarles, executive director of New Jersey Transit, told the senators.

Actually, there was only one senator in the room: Robert Menendez (D-NJ), chairman of the Banking panel's transportation subcommittee. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) left the hearing after reading a brief statement on the importance of keeping federal transit funding high, providing a dismaying illustration of Congress' lack of urgency on transportation issues despite the system's imminent insolvency.

The low turnout didn't impede a lively debate, however. Two shortcomings of the New Starts process were singled out as ripe for reform: the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) intense level of review for even smaller transit projects and the lack of consideration of economic development in evaluating funding pitches.

Mariia Zimmerman, policy director at the advocacy group Reconnecting America, said her recent research has found that several newly built transit lines are 15 years ahead of ridership estimates issued during the New Starts process. She questioned the effectiveness of the FTA's existing ridership-prediction model, dubbed the Transit System User Benefit, given its poor track record at determining cost-effectiveness.

"It is interesting to note that some of these [successful transit] lines would not have ben funded if rated solely on their cost-effectiveness rating," Zimmerman said. Indeed, the Obama administration recently cleared Portland's streetcars for $75 million in New Starts money that the Bush-era DOT had denied, citing a subpar cost-effectiveness rating.

Zimmerman suggested that Congress give states and localities more freedom to count private investment, such as the building of lower-income housing developments near new transit, as a match to help win New Starts money from Washington. Menendez appeared open to making housing construction part of the process, noting that Sarles' Hudson-Bergen light rail network has generated $5 billion on that front alone.

Gary Thomas, president of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, had another suggestion for bringing New Starts ratings into the 21st century: Start accounting for the environmental benefits of extra transit. "In addition," he added, "the cost calculation should consider only the federal project cost—local sponsors should be able to add project features at their own expense without harming their cost-effectiveness rating."

Increasing transit's overall share of the discretionary transportation budget—that is, creating transit funding outside of New Starts—was mentioned in written testimony but didn't get much airtime at the hearing. As the federal transportation bill moves slowly towards reality, that subject may need to be dragged to the forefront.

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.

Transit

LaHood, Biden meet with governors on high-speed rail

by Elana Schor   •   June 3, 2009 4:30 pm

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Vice President Biden met at the White House this afternoon with officials from 20 states in contention for funding as part of the Obama administration's high-speed rail program.

"This is how the interstate highway system started, folks," Biden told the governors, according to the pool report filed by the White House press corps. "It wasn't like the Lord on the eighth day said—boom!—there's the interstate highway system."

The group included eight governors—from Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia and Missouri—but not New York's David Paterson, who's taking some flak from a Democratic state legislator for his decision to focus on legislative priorities in Albany.

Applications are due this summer for the $8 billion in high-speed rail money that was added to the economic stimulus bill, and detailed guidance on that process is slated for release by month's end.

It's still unclear, though, how many projects are in line for a share of that pot, not to mention the passenger demand and matching-funds requirements that rail proposals would have to meet.

As Sarah pointed out in her Streetsblog Network post today, directing the money to the most high-demand areas remains a key concern for transportation planners.

Another unanswered question is whether Congress will sign on to the administration's pitch for $5 billion in annual high-speed rail funding over the next five years. LaHood is headed to the House Appropriations Committee tomorrow morning, where part of his job will be to sell that long-term rail investment to his former colleagues on the Hill.

Meanwhile, the most well-represented corridor at the meeting appears to be the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, which would link Chicago with St. Louis, the Detroit area, Wisconsin and the Twin Cities of Minnesota. In an April letter to LaHood, governors from that region estimated the cost of their high-speed rail corridor at $3.4 billion, using 3,000 miles of track that don't require negotiations over rights-of-way.

Midwestern senators are also working the phones to ensure that freight rail doesn't stand in the way of an expansion of high-speed passenger service. Will the Midwest initiative's political might—both LaHood and the president are Illinoisans—help vault it ahead of the competition?

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.

Roads

Bush transportation secretary's biggest disappointment: Bush

by Elana Schor   •   June 2, 2009 9:26 pm

DC Velocity magazine has just released a lengthy interview with Norman Mineta, the Bush-era transportation secretary and former Democratic member of Congress.

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.

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.

Roads

Obama's highways chief: Wishy-washy on emissions?

by Elana Schor   •   June 2, 2009 4:30 pm

Victor Mendez, nominated by the White House to lead the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), spent more than an hour this morning with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee—but the most illuminating moment in the hearing came as the clock was running down.

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE) asked the nominee a simple question: What does Mendez, a former Arizona state DOT director and ex-president of AASHTO, think of recent legislation codifying "complete streets" principles and expanding the "Safe Routes to School" program on childhood bike and pedestrian safety?

Mendez, whose legacy in Arizona centers on a massive Phoenix freeway project, wavered a bit. Both ideas "fit neatly into what I believe is Secretary LaHood's livability concept," Mendez replied, describing Safe Routes to School as a good thing for his state but not addressing "complete streets" directly.

Though Carper was openly dissatisfied with the answer, he moved on to an even simpler question: Given that previous hikes in auto fuel-efficiency standards have ultimately led to more driving (and increased congestion), does Mendez think that lowering carbon emissions from the transportation sector should be a goal of the upcoming climate change bill?

Theoretically, it should have been easy for Mendez to endorse that concept, especially on the same day that his future boss blogged on the benefits of transit. But if the future highways chief encouraged decreasing transportation emissions, then—horrors!—he might be open to the transit sector's plea for a share of the emissions allocations in the climate bill.

So Mendez wavered again, deferring to Transportation Secretary LaHood. "I think he's going to yield to you for advice on this," Carper said, asking his question one more time.

One more time, Mendez ducked the query. Finally, he asked the senator if reducing transportation-related emissions implied endorsing a specific policy or a general goal. When Carper replied that a general goal was all Mendez would need to endorse, the nominee did so—in measured tones.

Perhaps it's too much to ask that a former leader of the highway-building lobby be more openly committed to decreasing the environmental impact of transportation, which accounts for a third of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions.

But if Mendez can't bring himself to openly support the "complete streets" plan backed by President Obama, and if he couldn't sign on to a specific policy for reducing emissions, it's worth asking whether he supports national climate legislation in the first place. And if he doesn't, what's he doing in the administration?

Cross-posted from Streetsblog.