GOP mayor, DOT chief, MTC head agree: Pass a bipartisan transportation bill
March 9, 2012By David Goldberg
There’s a timely and salient joint op-ed today in The Hill, from the Republican mayor of Oklahoma City, the transportation secretary for North Carolina, and the head of the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission, calling on House leaders to tack toward bipartisan consensus in amending their transportation bill.
House Speaker John Boehner has declared his intention to continue pressuring members of his caucus to pass a GOP-only version, lest they be “forced” to vote for the Senate’s bipartisan bill. The authors of the op-ed point out several areas of the House bill where changes could help win bipartisan support and allow the House to pass its own measure, but in a way that could easily be reconciled with the Senate. After all, the clock is ticking toward a March 31 expiration, and no one wants to see another extension showdown, or worse, a shutdown of another key function of government.
The whole piece is worth reading, but here’s one key passage from “View beyond the Beltway: Pass a bipartisan transportation bill”:
The original House bill talks about devolving power away from Washington, but it actually takes away some of the latitude that local areas have today. … We think the current shared partnership between states and local governments is an effective model for efficient distribution of limited transportation dollars. But a provision in the House bill undermines that process, because it says that if the governor doesn’t like something about the resulting plan, he or she can override it. House leaders should remove that provision, and strengthen the incentives to plan and build cooperatively among all levels of government.
We also would like to see House leaders restore dedicated funding for programs that make local communities safer for bicycling and walking. Given what a tiny share of the transportation budget it represents, we can’t see any advantage in killing these programs. But we see a lot of good in continuing to help towns revitalize their Main Streets and connect neighborhoods to make it safer for kids to walk or bicycle to school, getting some exercise in the process.
Senate reaches agreement on amendments, will begin debating transportation bill today
March 8, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
Just one day after a procedural vote failed, the Senate late last Wednesday reached an agreement that will allow them to begin debating the MAP-21 transportation bill and start voting on amendments today.
The hangup on moving the bill forward was disagreement on which amendments would be voted on — there were over 200 amendments filed, many of which didn’t have anything to do with transportation, and there was no way that all of them would be considered. A handful of them were included in a manager’s package that essentially folds them into the overall bill, including the Cardin-Cochran amendment and several others that T4 America is supporting.
A total of 30 amendments will be considered by the Senate, with no possible way for others to be offered or debated, per the agreement.
The real point of contention and the reason the cloture vote failed on Tuesday was the fact that many Senators wanted to debate and vote on potentially contentious amendments that have little or nothing to do with transportation, like opening up the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling, or approving the contentious Keystone XL oil pipeline — both of which are included in the 30 amendments that will be considered starting today.
Along those lines, there are 18 amendments having to do with transportation policy in some way, and 12 that have nothing to do with transportation, known as ”non-germane” amendments. Tables of both of those are below, and we’ll be filling in the summaries throughout the day as we read and decipher them.
The Senate made it through 7 amendments last Thursday, leaving about 23 for today, and a possible final vote on the Senate floor as early as tonight. But when or if they do pass MAP-21, per the agreement, they are not going to move it immediately to the House, giving the larger chamber another chance to pass a bill of their own. (The House is on recess this week.)
You can track the amendments with the tables below.
Last updated: 3/13/12 12:30 p.m ET — Summaries added for each amendment and vote totals will be added as they happen.
Final transportation-related MAP-21 amendments
| Senator and # | Description | Outcome or Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Cardin-Cochran 1549 | Local Access and Control This provides local communities and metropolitan regions with access to the "Additional Activities" pot of funding through a competitive grant program — funding that they can use for main street revitalizations, boulevard conversions, new bike facilities, or safety improvements to make streets safer for everyone. Large metro areas will receive some funds directly. Read our explainer on the amendment here | Adopted into Senate manager's amendment package on 3/1/12. Amendment text (pdf) |
| Franken-Blunt 1543 | Bridge Repair This would help provide adequate funding and flexibility to states to repair and rehabilitate the 180,000 federal-aid bridges that are not on the National Highway System (NHS). These bridges would become eligible for a 40% share of the main highway program funds (National Highway Performance Program) that aren't currently required for repairing the National Highway System. | Adopted into Senate manager's amendment package on 3/1/12. One-pager on federal-aid bridges (pdf) Amendment text (pdf) |
| Landrieu 1630 | Protecting MPOs from State Penalties This ensures that metropolitan areas (MPOs) aren't left on the hook for financial penalties if states do not meet their state requirements for fixing roads and bridges or develop a state highway safety plan. | Adopted into Senate manager's amendment package on 3/1/12. Amendment text (pdf) |
| Blunt-Casey 1540 | Repairing Non-Federal-aid Bridges This would require states to dedicate a specific percentage of their highway funds to repairing bridges that are not on the National Highway System and also not located on a Federal-aid highway. | The amendment passed by an unrecorded voice vote. |
| DeMint 1756 | Turning federal program over to states This would transfer most responsibility for surface transportation to states and remove many regulatory requirements. The Federal government would continue to fund Interstate maintenance, transportation research, and safety. Finally, this amendment would end all dedicated funding for transit programs. | The amendment failed, by a count of 30-67. |
| Bingaman 1759 | Privatized highways This would reduce the amount of Federal highway money states receive each year to account for roads that have been privatized, The majority of Federal highway dollars are sent to states based on the total number of lane miles, this ensures that states don't get federal money based on including lane-miles that they're not actually responsible for maintaining. | The amendment passed by a count of 50-47. |
| Coats 1517 | State spending caps Under this amendment, states would get back only what they put into the Highway Trust Fund in a given fiscal year, defeating the ability of a federal program to shift revenues based on important regional or national purposes. | The amendment failed, by a count of 28-70. |
| Brown (OH) 1819 | Buy America This would apply "Buy American" requirements to all highway and transit projects. This would ensure that a higher percentage of manufactured goods and commodities (e.g. steel, concrete, etc.) are produced within the United States. | The amendment passed by an unrecorded voice vote. |
| Merkley 1653 | Farm vehicle exemptions This would exempt certain farm vehicles, including the individual operating that vehicle, from certain requirements, including commercial drivers' licenses, drug testing, and certifications | The amendment passed by an unrecorded voice vote. |
| Portman 1736 | Gas tax flexibility States would keep their gas taxes and be able to essentially "opt-out" of the federal surface transportation program entirely. Transportation projects developed by states that "opt-out" would not be subject to any Federal highway, transit, and related environmental regulations. | The amendment failed, by a count of 30-68. |
| Klobuchar 1617 | Ag transportation This amendment would exempt drivers from maximum driving and on-duty regulations for drivers of agricultural farm supplies and agricultural products during planting and harvesting periods. | The amendment passed by an unrecorded voice vote. |
| Corker 1785 | Discretionary spending cap adjustment This amendment would cut discretionary spending by $20 billion on top of the cuts Congress already has agreed to. | The amendment failed, by a count of 40-58. |
| Shaheen 1678 | Small bus systems Public transportation providers that operate between 50 and 75 buses would be allowed the flexibility to use a portion of their federal funds to cover the cost of operations. Systems operating fewer than 50 buses would be permitted to use a larger share of their federal funds to cover the cost of operations. | This amendment was withdrawn by the sponsor. |
| Portman 1742 | Rest areas This amendment would allow states to permit any non-highway use in any rest area along any highway, including any commercial activity that does not impair the highway or interfere with the full use and safety of the highway. | The amendment failed, by a count of 12-86. |
| Corker 1810 | Limitation on expenditures Beginning in 2005, Congress authorized spending more money each year from the Highway Trust Fund than it took in, resulting in declining balances. This amendment would eliminate this practice and ensure that expenditures from the Fund were equal to amounts deposited for a given fiscal year. | This amendment was withdrawn by the sponsor. |
| Carper 1670 | Tolling This amendment would expand the ability of states to apply for authority to toll certain Federal-aid highways, with proceeds available for investments in the corridor, helping to create alternatives in that tolled corridor. | This amendment was withdrawn by the sponsor. |
| Hutchison 1568 | Tolls This would reduce the ability of states to apply to USDOT for authority to toll certain Federal-aid highways | This amendment was withdrawn by the sponsor. |
| McCain 1669 | Grand Canyon – noise abatement This would exempt certain commercial air tour aircraft from noise restrictions, air traffic control restrictions (minimum altitude requirements) and environmental restrictions. In addition, it would set a 15 year deadline for conversion of air tour aircrafts operating in the Grand Canyon National Park to certain quiet technologies. | This amendment was superseded by provisions in the manager's package and withdrawn by the sponsor. |
| Alexander 1779 | Over-flights of national parks | The amendment passed by an unrecorded voice vote. |
| Boxer 1816 | Emergency exemptions This "Sense of the Senate" resolution urges agencies to take advantage of procedures in current law to move expeditiously when rebuilding after a disaster. | The amendment passed by a 76-20 count. |
| Paul 1556 | Emergency exemptions for projects When rebuilding any project closed due to safety reasons, this would exempt those projects from environmental reviews, approvals, licensing and permit requirements for rebuilding a project that was closed due to safety reasons. | The amendment failed, by a count of 42-54. |
Final amendments totally unrelated to transportation
| Senator and # | Description | Status and notes |
|---|---|---|
| Vitter 1535 | Outer Continental Shelf Allows the proposed 2010-2015 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program to bypass the environmental review process required by NEPA – thereby approving it. | Failed to reach the required 60 votes, falling 46-52. |
| Baucus | Regarding rural schools | Passed with more than the required 60 votes by 82-16. |
| Collins 1660 | Boiler MACT This amendment nullifies existing protections against mercury and toxic air pollution from incinerators and industrial boilers, then delays compliance with any new standards by a minimum of 3.5 years. This reduces EPA's current environmental quality standards for industrial boilers and eliminates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for major sources, area sources, and industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters. | Failed to reach the required 60 votes, falling 52-46. |
| Coburn 1738 | OMB/Duplicative Programs This would cut the discretionary funding caps by another $10 billion from the recently agreed upon level in the Budget Control Act (BCA). | Failed to reach the required 60 votes, falling 52-46. |
| Nelson FL-Shelby-Landrieu 1822 | RESTORE (the Gulf) This would address a key recommendation of the President’s National Oil Spill Commission to direct 80% of Clean Water Act penalties collected as a result of the BP Gulf oil disaster towards restoration of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. | Passed with more than the required 60 votes by 76-22. |
| Wyden 1817 | Keystone pipeline This prohibits oil exported through the Keystone XL pipeline to be sold internationally. | Failed to reach the required 60 votes, falling 34-64. |
| Hoeven 1537 | Keystone pipeline This would have Congress approve the already-rejected Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline without necessary environmental review or a process to determine if the project is in the national interest. | Failed to reach the required 60 votes, falling 56-42. |
| Levin 1818 | Offshore Tax Havens Adds special measures for jurisdictions, financial institutions, or international transactions that are of primary money laundering concern or significantly impede United States tax enforcement. | Passed by an unrecorded voice vote. |
| Roberts 1826 | Energy Tax Extenders This bill is offered as a side-by-side to Stabenow's 1812 but also including approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. | Failed to reach the required 60 votes, falling 41-57. |
| Stabenow 1812 | Energy Tax Extenders This includes provisions to extend critical incentives that support renewable energy and energy efficiency. It extends the renewable energy production tax credit, the 48C manufacturing tax credit, the 1603 Treasury Program, the efficient existing and new homes tax credit and the efficient appliances tax credit, allows for the inclusion of algae in biofuel incentives and expands the 48C investment tax credit to offshore wind. | Failed to reach the required 60 votes, falling 49-49. |
| DeMint 1589 | Repeal of energy tax subsidies This would repeal incentives for clean energy, including the renewable energy production and investment tax credits, and the cellulosic biofuel tax credit, as well as subsidies for traditional fossil fuel industries. | Failed to reach the required 60 votes, falling 26-72. |
| Menendez-Burr 1782 | Alternative vehicles (natural gas) This would promote the purchase and use of natural gas vehicles with an emphasis on heavy-duty and fleet vehicles. | Failed to reach the required 60 votes, falling 51-47. |
Updated: Senate improves their bill with three key amendments, but crucial vote looms
March 5, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
UPDATED: 3/6 4:00 p.m. The Senate rejected the motion for cloture, 52-44 by a mostly party-line vote. Brown (MA) and Collins (ME) crossed party lines to support the motion to move the bill forward. Streetsblog Capitol Hill has a good summary of what transpired today. But by all means, you should still write or call your Senators to let them know you think the bill needs to move forward without delay. We’ve modified the message to reflect today’s events. Leave any questions in the comments.
—
 |
| Senator Boxer, one of the four main architects of the Senate’s bipartisan transportation bill, meets with Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe and Los Angeles MTA Executive Director Art Leahy to discuss transportation issues. |
In case you missed the news Friday, thanks in part to the drumbeat of tweets and messages and letters and phone calls from many of you, the Senate made some important changes last week to strengthen their two-year transportation bill.
But with a March 31 deadline still looming for shutdown of all transportation programs without a new bill and a crucial vote scheduled for tomorrow (3/6) at noon, your Senators need to hear that they must move this bill without delay.
We celebrated a big victory late last week as the Senate agreed to include three amendments we have all been working for, including the Cardin-Cochran amendment to give local governments a say over small projects in their communities — projects that make bicycling and walking safer and more attractive, revitalize our Main Streets, or make better connections to transit, among many other uses.
A “cloture” vote to end this phase of debate and move the bill to the Senate floor is scheduled for noon on Tuesday, 3/6. While this vote won’t be the last word, it is key toward solidifying the Senate’s progress and a failed cloture vote could stall the bill significantly.
Last week we learned just how effective our 500-plus coalition members and the thousands of you have been with your advocacy, specifically on the Cardin-Cochran local control amendment that was incorporated into the bill last week.
“Oh, we’ve been hearing about that Cardin-Cochran amendment,” we heard repeatedly, as we visited numerous Senate offices last week with 30-plus T4 America coalition members who flew to D.C. from all over the country to lobby their members of Congress on the transportation bill. Staffers in numerous Senate offices said they’d been getting phone calls and emails about that amendment specifically for the last few weeks.
While we are certainly still working for several more improvements to the bill, it’s time to move it one step closer to winning passage. We need to make sure that the Senate moves this bill forward without delay. The cloture vote expected Tuesday would help to make this much-improved bill the starting point for further debate as it moves toward a final vote.
Our Senators need to hear from their constituents that we can’t wait to pass a bill that will improve mobility and travel options for all Americans while preserving our existing infrastructure. We need to keep this Senate bill moving forward.
Send a message to your Senator anytime before noon on Tuesday with this page.
And after you send that email, come right back and make a quick phone call and tell them to support the Senate transportation bill on the floor Tuesday. Keep the pressure on!
Transportation for America applauds changes to Senate surface transportation bill, urges support for Tuesday vote
March 5, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
Transportation for America Director James Corless today issued the following statement in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s unveiling of the latest draft of the Senate’s surface transportation authorization, MAP-21, and the majority leader’s call for a cloture vote on Tuesday, March 6:
“With the revisions Majority Leader Reid has negotiated with the committee chairs and ranking members, the Senate has taken significant steps to strengthen their transportation authorization bill and has earned the support of our coalition.
We urge all Senators to advance this legislation and support Tuesday’s cloture vote, so that it can move forward to final passage. While our coalition will continue to work to seek further improvements to the bill in several important areas, the Senators who developed this bipartisan legislation deserve enormous credit for incorporating changes that will help to ensure that the federal program improves mobility and travel options for Americans rich and poor, urban and rural, while preserving our existing infrastructure. It is encouraging to see that the Senate is able to continue to do the people’s business and move forward on a bill that is so critical to our economic health and future well-being.”
Senate responds to massive support, adopts several important amendments into overall bill
March 2, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
 |
 |
After getting thousands of phone calls, letters and messages from constituents, mayors, city councilmembers, health and business groups and others spanning the spectrum, the Senate moved three key amendments into the overall Senate bill yesterday, including one that will give local communities more control over their transportation dollars.
While there are other amendments that our coalition will continue to work on in the Senate, this is a huge victory and a terrific step forward for strengthening the MAP-21 bill. We want to thank Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus and Vitter for accepting these amendments to improve the Senate bill.
Yesterday, we hosted T4 America partners who flew to Washington, D.C. from across the country as they spent the day meeting with their House and Senate offices to ask those elected leaders to a) improve and fix the House bill and b) support a handful of key amendments that would strengthen the Senate bill.
One of the primary goals was to get Senators to support the bipartisan Cardin-Cochran amendment that would restore local control and help make our streets safer.
Thanks to the hard work of Senators Cardin and Cochran and the outpouring of support from across the country from individuals and groups of all stripes, that message had been received by many offices we visited with T4 coalition members. All day in meetings with Senate offices, staff repeatedly noted they’d been getting an overwhelming number of phone calls, letters and emails for the last two weeks about the Cardin-Cochran amendment.
Mayors especially were letting their Senators know just how important it is for local communities to have direct access to a small amount of dollars to revitalize their main streets, make it safer for children to get to school, improve connections to their transit systems, and other small improvements that often fall between the cracks of the larger projects states tends to focus on. The amendment was supported by groups as diverse as the American Public Health Association, the National League of Cities, AARP, the American Heart Association, the National Rural Assembly and hundreds of others.
Thursday late afternoon, we got news that the Cardin-Cochran amendment (as well as two others — more on those in a moment) had been adopted into what’s known as the manager’s amendment package. Without going into too much legislative jargon, it’s basically a package of amendments that have been agreed upon by Committee leaders that are incorporated into the bill without requiring a vote on the floor.
Another bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Franken (D-MN) and Blunt (R-MO) included in this package would help repair more of our bridges by making the 180,000 federal-aid bridges not on the National Highway System eligible for a share of funds in the main highway program, keeping all of the road and bridge repair programs organized together. This gives states the power to decide which bridges are the most important to be fixed and fix them, rather than being required by the federal government to fix certain bridges while others go begging for the flexible funds that can be spent on transit, walking and biking or other uses.
The last notable amendment we’ve been supporting that was included would help protect metropolitan areas from losing the small bit of funding that they receive directly, sponsored by Senators Landrieu (D-LA) and Murray (D-WA). Under MAP-21 if states don’t spent their money wisely and fail to meet the performance goals and objectives, metropolitan areas won’t be punished or lose any portion of their transportation dollars. While we strongly support the performance provisions we believe it is important that metropolitan areas not be punished for the actions of the state department of transportation. This amendment addresses that issue.
Transportation for America thanks Senators Cardin, Cochran, Franken, Blunt, Landrieu and Murray for their work to help strengthen and improve the Senate transportation bill. Their work and that of each Senator’s staff has been invaluable and we really appreciate their efforts.
Information on the Senate amendments continues to be updated on our amendment tracker page.
As the House revamps HR7, several amendments that could help win passage
February 29, 2012By David Goldberg
Last week, we published our list of the ten biggest reasons that opposition to the House transportation bill, HR7, was continuing to grow. At almost the same time, House Speaker John Boehner announced through a spokesman that his team would “revamp” the bill, to make it shorter in duration, possibly smaller in funding size and to scrap the plan to end dedicated funding for public transportation.
That latter move should take care of one of the bigger concerns with HR 7 as initially proposed. House leaders could address most of the other issues by following the lead of Representatives Petri, LaTourette and Blumenauer and Senators Boxer and Inhofe, and incorporating bipartisan solutions to fix or improve critical aspects of the bill. The result would be a bill that is far more likely to win bipartisan support, much as the Senate bill is doing, and make the job of reconciling the two bills infinitely easier.
Several examples of amendments that have bipartisan support in the House or are similar to provisions of the bipartisan Senate bill include:
Bridge repair
Though we have more than 69,000 deficient bridges in our country — almost five times as many McDonald’s restaurants — the House bill eliminates the bridge repair program. Representative Boswell (D-IA) has offered two amendments – 116 and 117 – that would help.
The first would require the Department of Transportation to establish state of repair standards for bridges on the National Highway System (NHS) bridges. States would have to spend a certain percentage of federal funds on repairing their NHS bridges unless they their bridges meet the standards for good repair. States that fail to meet the new standards would need to spend additional funds fixing their NHS bridges. This mirrors provisions in the bipartisan Senate bill.
The second amendment would apply to bridges on federal-aid highways outside the NHS. States that cross a threshold percentage of structurally deficient bridges would have to spend a portion of their National Highway System (NHS) funds to fix these bridges.
Local say over dedicated resources and major highway projects
The House bill ends two popular programs that gave localities the ability to restore Main Streets, and make roads safer for kids walking to school and for others on foot or bicycle. Amendment 103 would provide dedicated funding for grants to local communities for projects that help improve local communities including promoting safe routes to school and other projects for safe non-motorized transportation. The amendment is sponsored by representatives Petri (R-WI), LaTourette (R-OH), Blumenauer (D-OR) and Lipinski (D-IL).
As drafted, HR7 undermines local communities by allowing governors to order metropolitan areas to include major projects in their local transportation plan over the objections of local communities. Amendment 25 by Nadler (D-NY) and Carnahan would restore the ability of metro regions to develop a transportation improvement plan, in concert with states, that meets their community needs without unilateral amendment by the governor.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program today is dedicated to help communities deal with two of the biggest outcomes of an excess of people driving alone at rush hour: air pollution and congestion. A provision in HR7 upends that intention by opening this air pollution fund to construction of regular highway lanes. Amendments 191 and 97 proposed by representatives Bluemnauer (D-OR) and Ellison (D-MN), would restore the current function to helping reduce exhaust and emissions, with the only new highway capacity eligible being high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.
Reducing regulatory burdens on transit providers
Amendment 16, by LaTourette (R-OH) and Carnahan (D-MO) would allow all transit agencies to use a portion of their federal transit funding for operating expenses during times of economic crisis. Currently, large transit systems are barred from using their federal formula transit dollars for operating expense. The amendment also would provide small public transit agencies with additional flexibility to use federal funds for operating expenses.
As drafted, H.R.7 promotes creation of new bureaucracy by requiring transit operators with both bus and rail service to split into two separate entities (one providing only bus service and one providing only rail and other services) in order to receive formula funds for buses and related facilities. Amendments offered by several members (numbered 17, 59 and 136) would reinstate current law and eliminate this provision.
“Streamlining” project delivery and environmental review
HR7 has been sharply criticized for taking dramatic steps that would severely undermine the most basic environmental and public involvement safeguards. Amendment 268, by Rep. Connolly (D-VA), would replace the controversial House provisions on project delivery, which makes substantial changes to the environmental review process required under the National Environmental Protection Act, with the bipartisan provisions on project delivery and environmental review provisions from the bipartisan Senate EPW bill, MAP-21.
These amendments don’t cover the universe of needed changes, but they share the virtue of having been drafted and introduced, with bipartisan support, making them relatively easy fixes, should House leaders decide to move forward with an authorization, rather than another extension.
Breaking News: House leadership scraps 5 year transportation bill
February 23, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
The twitter feeds of those who follow the crossroads of transportation and D.C. politics just blew up a few minutes ago with news first broken by CQ’s Kathy Wolfe (but linkable here at Roll Call) that Speaker Boehner and House Leadership have shelved their 5-year transportation bill in favor of a possible 2-year proposal — as well as potentially dropping the controversial provision that would eliminate dedicated public transportation funding.
It’s far too early to confirm all the details at this point — the story quotes Boehner’s spokesperson saying that a “revamp” is in the works but the rest of the news is sourced to an anonymous senior GOP aide in the House — and it could be an attempt by House leadership to feel out in which direction they need to head to find a way forward for their troubled bill.
The aide says that this change to transit funding (i.e, elimination of it) could be “postponed.”
That would be welcome news and most certainly a big improvement to the House bill, though it’s hardly the only outstanding issue with the House’s proposal as it currently stands. (Read about the top 10 issues with the bill here.) There are also reports that a shorter bill could even be smaller, sized to existing gas tax revenues, but it’s too early to know what direction they’ll go in.
The bill could very well end up being shelved, which would be preferred to passing a bill with so many issues.
But we at T4 America don’t want to celebrate the demise of a bad transportation bill, we want to continue to work with the hundreds of local partner organizations and tens of thousands of our grassroots members to support the passage of a strong transportation bill that moves us forward into a new era of transportation, puts people to work, gets us where we need to go and lays the groundwork for decades of prosperity.
We’ll be keeping a hopeful eye on developments in the House to see if they move forward with fixing some of the issues that have fostered so much opposition.
The more they see, the less they like: 10 reasons why opposition to the House transportation bill is growing
February 21, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
As the House prepares to take up its transportation bill next week, criticism is pouring in from a diverse range of transportation stakeholders, elected officials, health professionals, business and labor groups and public interest organizations. The bill also has drawn a rare veto threat from the Obama administration. As an editorial in New York’s Newsday last week summed it up: “Bad on transit, bad on safety, bad on the environment.”
As we’ve said on these pages many times, the country desperately needs a new transportation bill that provides robust funding and updates national priorities and policy for the needs of this century. But HR7 falls short in a number of key areas according to this growing chorus of groups, because the bill:
|
1. Ends three decades of dedicated federal funding for public transportation.
Despite significant stakeholder opposition (including a letter signed by over 600 organizations), House leaders propose to end a bipartisan agreement dating back to the Reagan administration and eliminate all dedicated federal funding for public transportation.
H.R. 7 would take from transit the small share of the federal gas it now receives, and replace that revenue with a one-time, lump sum transfer from the general fund — even though no one knows where all of that money will come from.
Critiques of this provision have been sharp and relentless. The Sacramento Bee called it “a radical change to U.S. transportation policy.” The Illinois Chamber of Commerce said it will “put hundreds of millions of dollars for transit in peril,” a warning that has reverberated among dozens of suburban Republican legislators in transit-rich regions across the country, including a number from the Chicago area who have started in the last week to speak out against the bill. And perhaps former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell said it best of all: “A transportation bill without transit is no transportation bill at all. The nation’s millions of transit riders deserve better than this.”
(Image is the American Public Transportation Association’s ad in last week’s Beltway media outlets.)
2. Cuts overall transportation funding for nearly every state and relies on risky and speculative funding sources.
As anyone who has followed the surface transportation bill in Congress knows, the legislation is first and foremost about money. H.R. 7 threatens cuts to overall funding in just about every state and relies on drilling royalties, federal pension cuts and other undefined sources to make up the difference between gas tax revenues and the spending.
That’s drawn the ire of a growing chorus of interest groups, including some powerful state departments of transportation.
“H.R. 7 relies heavily on unproven funding sources,” wrote North Carolina DOT Secretary Gene Conti (pdf) in a letter to T&I Committee Chairman John Mica earlier this month. “According to the Congressional Budget Office, the combined shortfall of the Highway Trust Fund reaches approximately $50 billion in FY2016,” Conti said in the letter. “The energy portions designed to raise revenue…remain unpredictable.” And an unusual cross section of groups including NRDC, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Taxpayers Union wrote to every member of Congress last week with a simple message: “we urge you to reject the unprecedented linkage of drilling bills with the transportation law.”
3. Takes away local control, planning authority and resources.
While H.R. 7 is wrapped in the rhetoric of devolution and shifting power away from Washington, the bill is increasingly being criticized for concentrating power in the hands of the states rather than further empowering local governments and regional agencies.
In a strongly worded alert (pdf), the National Association of City Transportation Officials warned: “If enacted this terrible bill would give authority back to states from cities; provide maximum flexibility to state transportation departments to choose what transportation projects to fund without regard to the need of cities,” and flatline funding to metropolitan areas. Many local officials have expressed alarm over a provision allowing states to force major Interstate highway projects upon local communities, overruling local elected officials and citizens who have developed their own vision and comprehensive transportation plans.
4. Ends the “Safe Routes to School” program and other dedicated funding to make streets safer for walking and bicycling.
The House bill eliminates two small but overwhelmingly popular programs — Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to School — that have helped communities do everything from revitalize their Main Streets to make it safer for kids from to walk and bicycle to school.
Effective and popular as they are, these two programs represent less than 2 percent of overall funding, even as they help to reduce the thousands of pedestrian and bicyclist deaths each year.
A growing coalition of public health organizations has also begun to seriously engage on the issue. The American Heart Association last week ran full-page ads in Beltway media (see right) defending the Safe Routes to School program, and joined a broad range of health groups including the American Public Health Association, Trust for America’s Health and the National Association of City and County Health Officials in pressing their case against HR7 through members alerts and letters to the Hill (pdf).
State DOTs have also started to weigh in with a strong defense of both programs. “Transportation Enhancements are an important component of our state transportation program,” wrote one DOT Secretary earlier this month to the state’s congressional delegation, “and should be preserved as a guaranteed program at the federal level.”
5. Eliminates the bridge repair program and offloads responsibility for thousands of deficient bridges to local governments.
Though we have more than 69,000 deficient bridges in our country — almost five times as many McDonald’s restaurants — the House bill eliminates the bridge repair program.
Unlike the counterpart bill in the Senate, it fails to require states to ensure their bridges meet an overall standard for state of good repair.
The House proposal leaves many bridges — federal-aid bridges not on the National Highway System — in a tenuous position. Previously these bridges were fixed with funding from the National Bridge Program but these funds have been put into the National Highway System program — a program where funds can only be used on a very limited subset of roadways, about 160,000 miles nationally out of 1 million miles of federal-aid highways.
6. Allows transportation money in a pollution-control fund to be used on new roadways for solo drivers.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program today is dedicated to help communities deal with two of the biggest outcomes of an excess of people driving alone at rush hour: air pollution and congestion. Congress declared clean air a national priority in the 1970s, and in 1991, lawmakers recognized that the way we use our roads contributes to air pollution and congestion problems in metro areas. So they created this small program giving states this funding to help provide other options, promote carpooling, or address other impacts of too many people driving alone at peak hour. A provision in H.R. 7’s section 1108 upends that intention by opening the fund to construction of regular highway lanes.
7. Requires more bureaucracy at transit agencies.
In addition to ending dedicated transit funding, H.R. 7 goes even farther to pull some funds from larger transit systems immediately. Transit providers that operate both bus and rail services would be barred from a program used to buy buses or build bus facilities.
As an ironic consequence, this could actually spur creation of new bureaucracies as agencies split themselves into separate bus and rail providers in order to qualify for this critical source of funds — approximately $900 million total. This needlessly diverts tax dollars to bureaucratic overhead that should be used to provide much-needed transit services to local communities.
8. Bets big on little-known “State Infrastructure Banks.”
Despite heaping criticism against the creation of a national infrastructure bank (an idea that just over a year ago drew broad bipartisan support), House leadership has crafted H.R. 7 to provide $750 million each year for the capitalization of state-level infrastructure banks.
If states fail to capitalize the banks (more than a dozen states currently don’t have banks), federal transportation funds would be automatically redistributed to other states.
This provision has only recently started to get any attention but questions are mounting. “Rather than bringing a tough, merit-based approach to funding, many State Infrastructure Banks are simply used to pay for the projects selected from the state’s wish list of transportation improvements, without filtering projects through a competitive application process,” explained Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Robert Puentes in a recent brief on state transportation policy. Michael Likosky, Director of NYU’s Center on Law & Public Finance, goes even further: “Unfortunately, the House Transportation bill chooses to increase spending on a State Infrastructure Bank program that benefits only a handful of states, reinforces siloed-off solutions, and would drive pension funds to nation-build overseas rather in America.”
9. Undermines basic safeguards to protect human health and the environment, and to give citizens a voice in the project review process.
Transportation for America, like many others who are promoting responsible reform, have put forward a number of ideas for improving and accelerating the project selection process so that moving them to construction can happen faster and more smoothly. But H.R. 7 has been sharply criticized for taking dramatic steps that would severely undermine the most basic environmental and citizen transparency safeguards.
As the New York Times editorialized: “(HR7) would demolish significant environmental protections by imposing arbitrary deadlines on legally mandated environmental reviews of proposed road and highway projects, and by ceding to state highway agencies the authority to decide whether such reviews should occur.” That criticism was echoed by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber (pdf), who condemned the same provisions, warning in a letter to Oregon’s congressional delegation that “H.R. 7 goes about regulatory streamlining the wrong way, exempting most projects from NEPA review and classifying all projects within the right-of-way as categorically excluded from NEPA regardless of their impacts.”
10. Abandons any true “national” interest in transportation.
For anyone who believes that infrastructure investment is a national priority, and that America must be bigger than the sum of its 50 parts to compete in the global economy, H.R. 7 should be cause for alarm.
Gone are any and all national discretionary programs — no Projects of National and Regional Significance, no competitive TIGER program, no freight program. The Interstate highway program itself could never have been built if everyone in Montana was asked to pay for their own stretches of I-90 and I-15. It worked because it was and is a national system.
Just as the Port of LA/Long Beach moves goods through to the rest of the US, and the CREATE project in Chicago is alleviating freight rail bottlenecks so products can make it from coast to coast, there is an unmistakable need for a national strategy with national investments. Yet H.R. 7 abandons that concept, and with it may well be setting the stage for the federal government to back into a block-grant approach to transportation investments. That could put the nation on a perilous course towards abandoning any and all future federal investments in transportation.
—
Make no mistake, America desperately needs a new transportation bill – now more than ever.
But more and more stakeholders are quickly realizing that H.R. 7 isn’t it. Many organizations that — like T4America — have campaigned for several years for passage of a new transportation bill with robust funding are drawing the line at passing a bill like this for the sake of passing a bill. Labor organizations like the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA), whose members need the jobs an updated program will create, have concluded that the House bill is a non-starter. “While LiUNA appreciates the effort of Chairman Mica to move a multi-year authorization with a higher funding level than was originally proposed,” wrote LiUNA General President Terry O’Sullivan in a letter to Speaker Boehner, “the product that has emerged is not one that we can support.”
Senate debate beginning; amendment tracker
February 15, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
The Senate is scheduled to begin debating their transportation bill (MAP-21) today. We’re going to be keeping a close eye on a handful of amendments that could improve or make damaging changes to the bill as they’re offered, debated and voted on. Save or bookmark this page to keep tabs on these amendments that we’re tracking.
(This is in no way an exhaustive list of all Senate amendments or even all of the relevant ones. But it’s a short list of significant ones we’re keeping our eyes on.)
Last updated: 3/1/12 10:40 a.m.
| Senator and # | Description | Outcome or Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Cardin-Cochran 1549 | Local Access and Control This provides local communities and metropolitan regions with access to the "Additional Activities" pot of funding through a competitive grant program — funding that they can use for main street revitalizations, boulevard conversions, new bike facilities, or safety improvements to make streets safer for everyone. Large metro areas will receive some funds directly. Read our explainer on the amendment here | Formally adopted into Senate manager's amendment package on 3/1/12. Amendment text (pdf) |
| Franken-Blunt 1543 | Bridge Repair This would help provide adequate funding and flexibility to states to repair and rehabilitate the 180,000 federal-aid bridges that are not on the National Highway System (NHS). These bridges would become eligible for a 40% share of the main highway program funds (National Highway Performance Program) that aren't currently required for repairing the National Highway System. | Formally adopted into Senate manager's amendment package on 3/1/12. One-pager on federal-aid bridges (pdf) Amendment text (pdf) |
| Landrieu 1630 | Protecting MPOs from State Penalties This ensures that metropolitan areas (MPOs) aren't left on the hook for financial penalties if states do not meet their state requirements for fixing roads and bridges or develop a state highway safety plan. | Formally adopted into Senate manager's amendment package on 3/1/12. Amendment text (pdf) |
| Blunt-Casey 1540 | Repairing Non-Federal Bridges Restores the former small portion of money dedicated to repairing other federal-aid bridges that aren't on the federal highway system. MAP-21 currently only requires states to spend Transportation Mobility Program (TMP) money on these bridges if conditions worsen. This would restore the small amount of money dedicated to repairing these bridges. (Off-system bridges are those not located on a federal-aid highway.) | Reached floor as part of agreement on amendments. Check this page for updates on current amendments. |
| Bennet-Warner 1705 | Encouraging Development Near Transit This would provide local governments and others federal credit instruments – similar to TIFIA loans that would be paid back – for public infrastructure near transit stations. to help encourage private sector development. It will prioritize applicants that do scenario planning. | NOT accepted in agreement to debate as part of bill. Click for details and a new list of amendments that were accepted for debate here. Amendment text (pdf) One-page summary of amendment (pdf) |
| Shaheen-Murkowski (and others) 1679 | Protecting Small Metro Areas This removes the provision to disband metro area planning organizations in areas under 200,000 people. It also allows MPOs serving areas smaller than 100,000 to voluntarily disband. | NOT accepted in agreement to debate as part of bill. Click for details and a new list of amendments that were accepted for debate here. |
| Cardin 1542 | Equal Opportunity (Jobs) This requires the Secretary to undertake an assessment of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination on federal-aid transportation projects, report on that every four years and make data publicly available | NOT accepted in agreement to debate as part of bill. Click for details and a new list of amendments that were accepted for debate here. |
| Cardin 1552 | Stormwater Pilot Program Directs DOT to establish a pilot program to reduce stormwater runoff from federal-aid highways and authorizes funding to appropriated. The pilot program must be created for 3 states or regions. | NOT accepted in agreement to debate as part of bill. Click for details and a new list of amendments that were accepted for debate here. |
| Akaka 1720 | Rural Transit Improvement Currently, all human services transit providers are required to coordinate with each other. This amendment would require all of the rural transit providers — including those above already required — to communicate and coordinate when planning their transit service. This is more important in spread out rural areas with many small providers covering a wide, spread-out area — resulting in more effective service and better use of taxpayer funds. | NOT accepted in agreement to debate as part of bill. Click for details and a new list of amendments that were accepted for debate here. One-pager on rural transit (pdf) Amendment text (pdf) |
| Carper-Lieberman 1665 | Protecting Air Quality This reinserts the requirement that states need to include congestion mitigation and air quality performance targets in state transportation planning. | NOT accepted in agreement to debate as part of bill. Click for details and a new list of amendments that were accepted for debate here. Amendment text (pdf) |
| Begich 1724 | Increasing MPO suballocation Restores the suballocation percentage for metro areas to levels in current law, resulting in more money allocated directly to metro areas under MAP-21. | NOT accepted in agreement to debate as part of bill. Click for details and a new list of amendments that were accepted for debate here. |
| Gillibrand 1648 | Workforce Development Authorizes new construction careers demonstration program. | NOT accepted in agreement to debate as part of bill. Click for details and a new list of amendments that were accepted for debate here. |
Votes in doubt, Speaker Boehner delays final action on HR7
February 15, 2012By David Goldberg
A day after deciding to split the mammoth transportation-energy-federal pensions package that is HR7 into three parts in hopes of easier passage, House Speaker John Boehner this morning all but acknowledged that even the transportation portion lacks enough votes to ensure passage this week. The vote likely will not come until after next week’s President’s Day recess.
Meanwhile, the transportation bill continues to garner negative reviews. Editorials and stories from Chairman Mica’s home state of Florida over the last two days have added to the chorus of those who are panning it. And last night, the Obama Administration issued a veto threat, citing not only the Keystone XL and drilling provisions, but also the threat to public transportation, a gutting of environmental review that would prevent citizens from raising concerns about projects’ impacts, and many other issues that make the bill a non-starter even without the provision removing transit from the transportation trust fund.
We’ll have an update later in the day on developments in the Senate as well as a roundup of amendments in both chambers and where they stand.
-
- Saving a transit system and turning the tide for the future of a mid-sized city
May 15, 2012 - U.S. communities step up, hoping a strong federal commitment to infrastructure will follow
May 10, 2012 - Graphic: A closer look at the Senate MAP-21 vote by state
March 27, 2012 - Fixing the House bill: Cutting regulatory burdens and bureaucracy
March 15, 2012 - Fixing the House bill: reducing air pollution by providing more travel options
March 13, 2012
- Saving a transit system and turning the tide for the future of a mid-sized city
Connect with T4 America
Interactive Features and Reports
T4 America on Twitter
