Streetsblog San Francisco

Appearing this morning at the release of a new report
on transportation’s role in fighting climate change, House
transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) challenged the
Obama administration to back up their emissions rhetoric with action
and pass his six-year, $450 billion infrastructure bill.

FTA’s Peter Rogoff (in hard hat) heard strong words from Rep. Oberstar today. (Photo: WP)

After
U.S. DOT deputy secretary John Porcari and Federal Transit
Administrator Peter Rogoff delivered laudatory remarks about the Moving Cooler
report, a joint project of government agencies and environmental
groups, Oberstar took the stage with pointed words for the two senior
officials.

"They need to … catch up with the House" on transportation
policy-making, Oberstar said of Porcari and Rogoff, who were sitting
within spitting distance of the chairman.

"If you don’t
pass our bill, you’re not going to get a head start on these
strategies" for reducing the carbon footprint of the transportation
sector, Oberstar told the White House aides.

He added: "The president gets it — the crowd around him doesn’t."

The
White House continues to press for an 18-month postponement of the next
long-term transportation bill, which Oberstar asserts could drag reform
past the two-year mark and continue an inequitable system that favors
new highway construction over transit. 

"When highway
planners sit down to build a roadway," Oberstar said today, "they don’t
go through the gymnastics of a cost-effectiveness index," as transit
planners are currently required to do. "They sit down, get the money,
and build a road."

Expanding transit, the House chairman concluded, is difficult "if you’ve got a millstone around your neck."

Yet
the House bill has a millstone of its own obstructing movement: the
lack of revenue to fund a doubling in new transit investment and other
Oberstar priorities. As Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) acknowledged this
morning, hiking the federal gas tax — which has remained at 18.4 cents
per gallon since 1993 — will not be feasible until the recession
dissipates.

"We are going to raise gas and diesel taxes
sometime in the next decade," Blumenauer said, but "not while the
economy is in freefall."

After weeks of uncertainty and tension, the congressional impasse
over long-term transportation funding is headed for resolution this
week — but the reprieve may be temporary.

A decisive week lies ahead for House transport chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN). (Photo: Capitol Chatter)

When we last left House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), he was calling for a
$3 billion fix for the nation’s highway trust fund. That low number is
intended to keep the pressure on the White House to reconsider its push
for upwards of $20 billion to postpone an overhaul of national transport policy until early 2011.

Oberstar has claimed a
powerful ally in Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who reiterated her support for a
six-year transportation bill during her weekly press briefing on
Thursday. But Pelosi sought to downplay any hint of a rift with the
Senate, which has already acted on the Obama administration’s 18-month stopgap plan.

"Oh, eventually we will have a transportation bill," Pelosi said. "It is
just a question if we take it in a smaller dose or a bigger dose."

The
question is a huge one to both transportation reform advocates, who are
hoping for a new bill that boosts transit funding and state-level
accountability, and business groups that are counting on long-term legislation to help boost their fiscal health during an economic recession.

And
it’s a question that may be answered within days. The House is set to
leave for its month-long August recess by the weekend, making the fate
of the highway trust fund a suddenly high priority.

The Senate plans to remain in Washington until around August 7, but its transportation funding plan is moving forward
quickly. On Thursday afternoon, the Banking Committee became the last
panel in the upper chamber of Congress to sign off on the White House’s
18-month postponement.

Even as that was occurring, however,
Banking chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) said he would prefer a six-month
extension of the existing transportation law.

Read more…

Having entertained legislators' own ideas about how best to fund future transportation spending, the House Ways and Means committee turned to representatives from the administration and key interest groups today to hear their thoughts on the matter.

The administration's view could not have been much clearer -- this business is all very important, but we're not ready to commit to anything at this time.

Roy Kienitz, the Department of Transportation's Undersecretary for Policy, made it quite clear that the administration is not prepared to support any of the new funding mechanisms proposed -- not a VMT tax, not indexing the gas tax to inflation, and not taxes on imported oil and refined gasoline.

Kienitz did leave the door open to a tax on trading of oil futures, which he said the administration would have to investigate thoroughly. A key concern is that in a world where oil is traded on global markets, such a measure would simply shift trading off of American soil.

Why the stubborn refusal to engage in the funding debate? Ostensibly, the administration is reluctant to adopt new taxes or fees amid recession.

But this explanation rings hollow. Congress could easily delay the time at which revenue-raising measures take effect until 2011 or later, as is being done with funding mechanisms in the health reform bills under consideration.

The president must know this. A reasonable assumption is that he simply does not want to have a tax debate at this time, not with other key priorities involving new tax burdens also being considered.

That’s the implication of a Roll Call story today that states: "Momentum Builds for Transportation Bill."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (Photo: moniquemonicat.wordpress.com)

Here’s
how the exchange in question played out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s
(D-CA) weekly briefing. Pelosi was asked for her position on a possible
second stimulus bill, and she replied:

I am committed to the first stimulus. I don’t think it has been given all
the time to work. … The
question is always open as to what the Administration may recommend to us,
but right now, I believe that we have much more to gain from seeing through
the first stimulus. 

I
am a proponent for bringing up a full transportation bill, which is a great
jobs bill.  At some point, we may have to do something on the extension
of unemployment benefits. But in terms of the investments that were
made in the first package, I want to play that out.

We

have to be very careful about the spending on this. … [R]ight now I
think that we have big issues with health care and how we fund that,
and if we do go someplace, I’d like to see us do the transportation
bill.

So is Pelosi backing her
transportation committee chairman, Jim Oberstar (D-MN), whose push to
pass a transportation bill this year has faced opposition from the Senate and the Obama administration

A
House Democratic leadership aide told Streetsblog Capitol Hill that no
decisions on a timeframe for the transportation bill have been made,
but discussions are ongoing and all parties agree that a short-term problem exists.

We now have in our hands the 775-page Surface Transportation Authorization Act, which was released yesterday by James Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee. It is, in many ways, a remarkable bill -- a blueprint for how transportation planning and infrastructure construction might undergo a significant shift away from the mindsets that have dominated for the past half-century. There is a lot to like in the bill.

Current spending levels, to say nothing of the increases proposed in the bill, will be impossible to sustain in the absence of a new source of revenue. This is a huge obstacle to passage.

As currently written, STAA would significantly strengthen the Office of Intermodalism and work toward making DOT planning "mode neutral" -- that is, not operating under the assumption that highways will always get first priority in planning and funding.

It would create an Office of Livability, focused entirely on seeking balance in mode choice by boosting transit ridership, bicycling, and walking. The bill seeks to streamline the process by which new transit projects apply for funding, and it allows federal officials to consider likely changes in land-use from transit construction in considering whether a project deserves funding.

STAA aims to empower metropolitan planning organizations. It seeks to depoliticize funding decisions and support private investment in infrastructure by creating national and metropolitan infrastructure development banks. It lays the groundwork for significant new investments in high-speed rail in America (though it cuts the definition of high-speed to 110 miles per hour or higher).

The bill includes a push to support "complete streets" and a national bike route network. It establishes increased transit ridership and reduced carbon emissions as explicit goals. And of course, the bill is targeted to allocate a lot more money than in previous reauthorizations, with a lot more money for transit (though transit's share increases only modestly).

But as my colleague Elana Schor noted yesterday, what's missing from the bill is as telling as what's included. The 775-page length may suggest excessive comprehensiveness, but in fact much of the bill is little more than placeholders. "[To be supplied]" is in ample supply, as is "[$]." Ideally, actual numbers would follow immediately after the dollar sign.

Read more...

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee, made an interesting comment earlier this month in the Journal of Commerce:

Former Rep. Bud Shuster (R-PA) struck a deal 11 years ago that sealed off transportation money. (Photo: NYT)

Infusing cash to keep the Highway Trust fund afloat at the end of fiscal 2009 is a matter of payback, Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said Monday.

Oberstar [said] that the U.S. Treasury owes the trust fund $21 billion plus interest since Congress agreed to shift a trust fund surplus to the general fund in 1998.

Can that really be true? Even in the post-bailout age, $21 billion is a lot of money. And if it is true, why is everyone from the House GOP to the National Governors Association pressing for a highway trust fund fix right now (or five minutes ago)?

For the answer, let's hear from Bud Shuster, the Pennsylvania Republican and former chairman of the House transportation committee. Shuster had a well-earned reputation as a deal-maker -- he masterminded the construction of Interstate 99 in his home state, dubbed the "road to nowhere" by critics -- and during the drafting of the 1998 federal transportation bill, he set out on a quest to end all quests.

Shuster wanted to reverse President Lyndon Johnson's move to put the highway trust fund, which collects gas tax revenue to fund transportation projects, into the government's unified budget. Here's Shuster, explaining himself:

Read more...

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar’s (D-MN) new federal bill, which he previewed Wednesday despite pushback from the Obama administration, is officially out.

You can download the 775-page legislative text right here,
thanks to Transportation for America. Streetsblog Capitol Hill is
thumbing through it right now to provide highlights later today.

Senior members of the House transportation committee today fired a warning shot at those pushing an 18-month extension of existing federal law, putting the Obama administration and key senators on notice that their $450 billion proposal would move forward this year.

How often does this man hold a shovel? (Photo: World Economic Forum via flickr)

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), the transportation panel's chairman, described a delay in long-term funding as a risk to jobs and growth opportunities that were created by the recent stimulus law.

And Oberstar made no attempt to hide his disdain for the Obama economic advisers who helped trim transit's share of that stimulus plan. Holding up a red shovel for a phalanx of photographers, Oberstar quipped: "There are folks in the economic gang at the White House who never had a shovel in their hands or a callus on their fingers."

His GOP counterpart on the committee, Rep. John Mica (FL), vowed to join Oberstar in amassing House support for a transportation bill that could clear the lower chamber of Congress by the end of September -- though even their allies concede that Senate passage is a long shot.

"I view this as the most critical jobs bill before Congress ... we're going to do it together, one way or another, come hell or high water," Mica said, adding flourish as he advised critics not to "underestimate Oberstar and Mica."

Several advocacy and interest groups are joining the committee's effort to push a six-year transportation bill across the finish line. The Laborers' International Union of North America released a statement that plainly said, "We agree with Chairman Oberstar that the surface transportation bill should not be delayed."

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA), which represents the nation's transit agencies, also lent its voice in support. "Our members need this bill to pass as soon as it possibly can," APTA President William Millar told Streetsblog.

Yet the key for Oberstar and Mica may be how many senators endorse their call for a long-term transportation re-write this year. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood already has admitted that the "reform" he called for as part of his 18-month extension would have a slim chance of passing, given the contentious debate that's likely to erupt simply over averting bankruptcy for the nation's highway trust fund.

Read more...

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.

House Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) has a brewing battle with the administration on his hands. (Photo: Jonathan Maus)

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. More details of the forthcoming House bill follow after the jump.

Read more…

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.

Photo: AP

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.

Read more…