Streetsblog San Francisco

California Senator Barbara Boxer will be at the center of a battle over whether or not the reauthorization of the transportation bill will address the global warming impacts of transportation, given her Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee is responsible for writing much of the bill's language. Any chance of reforming the transportation bill, which advocates are clamoring for, will require deft political maneuvering to mollify ranking committee member Senator James Inhofe. 

Several sources said that Boxer's cooperation with Inhofe is simple math. The $312 billion baseline for transportation over six years is insufficient to meet state of good repair needs and set the country on a course for innovation. Minnesota Representative James Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation Committee, has suggested $400-500 billion would be needed, while the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Organizations (AASHTO) and the American Public Transit Association (APTA) argue in their Bottom Line Report that at least $160 billion will be needed annually. In order get from $312 billion to $500 billion or better, Boxer will need to get approval for new revenue streams, which would require a filibuster-proof majority, something she might not get without Inhofe and other reluctant members on the committee. 

Several interviewees also pointed to Senator Boxer's alliance with Inhofe on an amendment in the federal stimulus bill for an additional $50 billion in highway money as a bad sign.

"You have polar bears and glaciers on your website... then throw people back in their cars?" said one official who insisted on anonymity.

Read more...

The Inhofe/Boxer stimulus bill amendment for $50 billion in additional infrastructure funds appears to be dead, with official word expected soon from Senator Harry Reid's office. Sources close to the negotiations say that at least five Democratic Senators were not going to support the amendment if transit and water provisions weren't improved, while Senate Republicans vowed to obstruct such improvements.  

Specifically, the Dems wouldn't support the amendment unless at least two significant criteria were met:

• Allocating a minimum of 30 percent of the total to clean water and public transportation/passenger rail.  Of the total funds allocated to highways and bridges, 10 percent would have to be set aside for Transportation Enhancements, i.e. bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
  
• Giving the Secretary of Transportation discretion to redirect funds from states that were not adhering to certain criteria to states that were adhering to them. The criteria Dems and enviros wanted to see, for example, would not have allowed states to receive funds by showing that a project improves vehicular Level of Service.

In other stimulus news, Senator Kit Bond's amendments, which would have funneled billions to highway spending at the expense of rail and other modes, are not expected to reach the floor either.

With a compromise amendment brokered by moderates Susan Collins and Ben Nelson apparently gaining bi-partisan support, the full Senate may vote on the bill as soon as tomorrow. One likely casualty: the $5.5 billion fund set aside for U.S. DOT to distribute at its discretion, which we're told will either be eliminated or substantially cut under the Collins/Nelson amendment.

Environmental groups in DC are guardedly optimistic that yesterday's barrage of phone calls and emails to Senator Boxer and company urging them not to write a $50 billion blank check for the highway lobby has not been in vain. 

Boxer did not introduce the feared highway amendment yesterday and word from her staff is that if the $50 billion is proposed, it will not be exclusive to highways.  Senator James Inhofe's communications director Marc Morano struck a similar tune, saying the money will go to "highways, transit," and water infrastructure projects."

In lieu of an amendment with specifics, Boxer outlined six proposals for global warming legislation, which would include:

• Reducing emissions to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming.
  
• Setting short and long term emissions targets that are certain and enforceable, with periodic review of the climate science and adjustments to targets and policies as necessary to meet emissions reduction targets.
  
• Ensuring that state and local entities continue pioneering efforts to address global warming.

On-again off-again EPW committee pal Inhofe pounced on Boxer's proposal for reducing greenhouse gases, saying it "will impose a long-term multi-trillion dollar energy tax on families and workers.  These principles offer nothing more than a punt on all of the difficult issues that Americans expect to be honestly debated." 

Boxer said she was confident she had the votes for her global warming plan, though no Republican committee members attended her news conference.  Given her confidence, I'm curious whether a deal has been struck with Inhofe to give Boxer the votes she needs on her plan if she gives him most of the highway money he has demanded?  As a result both sides can sing their party standards and save face while getting plenty of face time.

Flickr photo: Barbara Boxer