Government
House bill delayed, but transit, walking, biking aren't safe yet
Congress is in recess, and the House's atrocious transportation bill has been dismembered and delayed, but if you want to preserve funding for transit and active transportation, don't let your guard down yet. There's still plenty to watch out for as the House and Senate attempt to reauthorize federal transportation programs.
There are some stark differences between the House and Senate bills. But what is scariest may be their similarities.
When two companion pieces of legislation pass their respective chambers, a conference committee combines them. The committee is made up of members of both the House and the Senate, and it is their job to resolve differences between the two bills. (Most recently, a conference committee forged a compromise on extending payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance.)
Committee members are limited in that for each provision, they must choose either one chamber's version or the other's There are already large chunks of the House and Senate bill that are the same. Both eliminate dedicated bike-ped funding, for instance. The House bill admittedly goes much further than the Senate's, but if the two bills were to be conferenced right now, Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancements and Recreational Trails would all be history.
The committee would then have to choose how to weaken those programs: eliminate them altogether, like the House bill, or keep them eligible under Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program but let states opt out of them. Another critical choice: fund CMAQ from the Highway Trust Fund, as in the Senate bill, or fund it from the the smoke-and-mirrors "alternative transportation account" envisioned in the House bill. "We have to keep the bike-ped programs alive in the Senate to be able to fight for them in conference," David Burwell, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment, told Streetsblog. "That's why Senate Amendments 1549 [Cardin/Cochran, making CMAQ city-friendly] and 1661 [Klobuchar, protecting Rec. Trails] are so important to the bicycling community. If they don't get added to the bill, the fight is over in conference."
There are other amendments pending in the Senate that would add some language already adopted by the House. The House's Keystone XL pipeline proposal has already passed as part of H.R. 3408, the "drill" part of "drill and drive." If a Keystone XL pipeline amendment succeeds in the Senate, it cannot be removed by the conference committee.
Both chambers have to vote on the committee's end product, the conference report, before they send it to the president. If the committee doesn't think it can reach a compromise that will pass both chambers, we're headed for an extension. If it passes both but President Obama vetoes it, as he has promised to do with the House bill, we're headed for an extension.
Comments
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- DC's divide need not be black and white
- Preservationists ask to shrink 3rd Church replacement
- Planners are the new public health officials






Build your roads if you want, but for gods sake what is the justification for completely defunding everything else? Bigger roads have yet to prove that they can satiate the vehicular commuters desires.
by Tysons Engineer on Feb 23, 2012 3:20 pm
by dal20402 on Feb 23, 2012 7:14 pm
Why should non-road projects receive 20% of the amount road projects receive when non-road projects provide less than 1% of the transportation that road projects provide? The money should be apportioned in accordance with demand. Non-road projects already get vastly more than their fair share.
by Bertie on Feb 23, 2012 8:22 pm
by DSN Post on Feb 26, 2012 11:40 pm
That's hyper causality at its worst. Of course road systems receive so much more because 99% of the infrastructure is designed for roads, especially when you view most of America as a whole. But in corridors such as DC Metro its absurd to say such a statement. Only 60% of Arlington residents use the car on a daily commute because of the fact that there are vast other options in Arlington. Given the option and availability for Mass Transit in an urban region it has been proven that the system will be used and fewer people will use cars. This is fact, not some theory unlike the road models that keep telling use that more lanes = less traffic which is still unproven statistically or empirically.
This is coming from a transportation engineer, so if you want me to go into my tirade on this I can do so, but Im sure a certain little birdie will run in here to fight against me if I did.
by Tysons Engineer on Feb 27, 2012 1:51 pm
Add a Comment