While commending Mica for his emphasis on efficiency and consolidation of federal programs, Janet Kavinoky of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that the spending reductions would destroy existing jobs while preventing the creation of new jobs needed to lower the 16.3 percent of unemployed construction workers. She added:

The 35 percent cut from current funding as laid out in the House budget will be devastating to construction and related industries—materials, equipment, design and engineering. As important, in the long run, disinvestment results in a less competitive economy and a drag on GDP due to underperforming infrastructure.

The Chamber indicated a preference for the yet unreleased two-year Senate proposal, which Kavinoky said “includes needed policy and program reforms and maintains funding levels at current services.”

AASHTO, the trade group that represents state transportation officials, also opposed the level of cuts while commending reforms on accelerated project delivery and reduction of some federal programs.

“We continue to have concerns about the proposed funding levels included in the bill, but we also realize that this is the start of a process that will include not only the House, but also the Senate and the Administration,” AASHTO Executive Director John Horsley said in a statement today.

Marcia Hale, president of Building America’s Future, welcomed many of Mica’s proposed policy reforms while stating her organization was “disappointed by the funding level.” Hale said she hoped the House and Senate could “find an acceptable bill with adequate funding levels to rebuild and repair our crumbling roads, bridges and transit systems,” adding:

Chairman Mica outlined several important policy reforms which BAF has long recommended, and applauds, including:  greater accountability, cutting through red tape to expedite project completion, leveraging federal dollars, providing increased funding for TIFIA, the elimination of earmarks, some increased flexibility to current tolling programs, and utilizing public private partnerships.

In a Natural Resources Defense Council blog post prior to the official release, Deron Lovaas called Mica’s proposal “a mindless approach to cutting spending” that “represents myopia at its worst.” He said he wanted to see strong fix-it first language, an oil-savings objective and performance measures with teeth.

The most positive response from a major group was from the American Highway Users Alliance — a special interest group that has made out quite nicely under the status-quo — who hailed Mica for setting the “right priorities”:

Faced with tight funding constraints from the House’s conservative budget resolution, Mica has been forced to make tough funding decisions.  We wish highway funding levels were higher, but we think it’s important that, rather than cut all programs equally, he took a courageous step in saying ‘No’ to many of the special interest groups that wanted to hold the money in Washington or mandate wasteful diversions.

UPDATE: Barbara McCann, executive director for the National Complete Streets Coalition also weighed in, saying Mica’s plan ignores the millions of Americans who use the roadways for non-automobile travel:

By failing to include a complete streets provision, the bill would allow states to continue to build multi-lane roads through communities where pedestrians are left to tramp through the grass, bus riders are forced to run across dangerous intersections, and bicycle riders have nowhere to go. In addition, the proposal would eliminate the very modest dedicated funding for bicycling and walking, claiming these are ‘non-highway’ or ‘non-transportation’ activities.  In fact, bicycling and walking make up 12 percent of the nation’s trips. Add in those getting on and off public transportation, and it turns out a good portion of the nation’s so-called ‘highway’ travel is make up of people who are not in private automobiles.  Unfortunately, safety statistics bear this out: 67 percent of all pedestrian fatalities in the last ten years took place on federal-aid roads.

During the six-week campaign, people can use AASHTO’s Facebook page to post YouTube videos and written comments about their transportation priorities, ideas, and personal stories. Already a number of people have weighed-in on their concerns, from traffic congestion and safety, to high-speed rail and job creation through greater investment in transportation projects.

To view or post your comment, go to http://www.transportation.org/IToldCongress.

We like their idea and encourage you to weigh in with them.

As some of our polls and other groups’ polling have shown, Americans have a pretty good idea what we want to spend our money on. We want to have more options for getting around. Nobody wants to be stuck with only one way to get where they need to go. We need to do a better job of fixing what we’ve already got before we spend money on a lot of expensive new things. Travel should be safe, no matter whether we’re in a car, on a train or on foot or bike. Our communities need to have the power to build what we need to get us where we need to go.

So go and tell AASTHO: What do you want?

A coalition of Americans from rural areas pushed back this week against a proposal to continue the status-quo transportation policy that places highway expansion above all other options. While highway and road building remains integral to connectedness, “it is not enough to address the economic and mobility needs of small-town and rural America,” the statement stressed.

The National Rural Assembly released the statement, joined by YouthBuild USA, the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL), Redwood Coast Rural Action and others.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) released a report this month on Connecting Rural and Urban America that primarily focused on road and highway building as a solution to transportation issues. The Rural Assembly’s statement stressed that AASHTO “did not go far enough to provide transportation alternatives” in its analysis.

Increased transportation options are especially crucial for low-income and older rural residents, many of whom must navigate education and career opportunities without access to to a car. Rural Americans with disabilities also rely upon regional buses and other public transit to meet their daily needs.

Kim Phinney, rural and tribal development director for YouthBuild framed the issue well, saying that a new long-term transportation bill “gives us the opportunity to move beyond the decades of seeing rural transportation as merely digging ditches and laying pavement,” adding that “we don’t ensure equity and access by building more roads alone.”

Two reports out this week speak, in quite different ways, to the urgent need for a fresh approach to federal transportation policy.

In “Road Work Ahead”, U.S. PIRG sounds the alarm on the escalating deterioration of America’s infrastructure and the need to get serious about repair and restoration. The “Unlocking Gridlock” report from AASHTO, the trade association of state Departments of Transportation, emphasizes the problem of congestion in our increasingly urbanized nation, offering highway expansion as the solution.

The subtext of the PIRG report is that expanding highway capacity – whether by widening or building new roads — is generally a bad idea, because it comes at too high a cost: Deferred maintenance on existing roads and bridges, perpetuation of over-reliance on cars with an associated dependency on oil and other problems.

For AASHTO, congestion comes at too high a cost, and the report marshals a compelling case that people should have a way to avoid those costs. However, the report comes up short in two respects: It does not adequately explain how we built a system that functions so poorly for many commuters, and it offers only one solution — more of the same.

We believe strongly, and our polling shows most Americans agree, that maintaining existing roads and bridges in top condition is our first priority. This doesn’t mean we think highway expansion is over for good. But it cannot continue to be the default solution, simply because it is the only tool that current federal policy supplies to the entities that get most of the money – the state DOTs.

The real crux of the two reports is that we have a national policy that is decades behind the reality of this century: Whether in states with low or high population, Americans are concentrating more and more in urban areas, both large and small. Yet our national policy seems almost to be designed to thwart urban mobility. Roads and bridges in our towns and metro areas take the worst pounding, and are most in need of repair and maintenance, but don’t get the resources they need. Metros plagued by congestion need a full array of tools: fixes to bottleneck-creating highway designs, rail and busways, congestion-management technology and planning and land-use approaches that minimize impact on highways and maximize transit investments.

But as we said before, the DOTs have one tool: bigger highways. You know the old saw: When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

The figures are startling and compelling. By AASHTO’s estimates, poor road conditions cost U.S. motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs, which comes out to an average of $335 per motorist. According to the USDOT, 12 percent of America’s bridges are “structurally deficient,” and in some states that figure is higher than 20 percent. Among federal highways, 45 percent are in poor, mediocre of fair condition.

The traffic gridlock resulting from inadequate transportation options has hindered quality of life and slowed the economy, as AASHTO has pointed out. Drivers with a 30-minute commute lose 22 hours (roughly three full work days) sitting in traffic, and travel on U.S. highways has increased five-fold over the past several decades. Expanding capacity in a smart and targeted way has been and will continue to be a part of the solution.

Our continued challenge will be to draw from every tool we have to make our transportation system smarter, safer and more sustainable. Although PIRG and AASHTO come at transportation issues from a different perspective, both agree that the status quo is unsustainable, and our team at Transportation for America couldn’t agree more. We look forward to working with AASHTO, PIRG and all interested groups toward a reauthorization bill that increases affordable and efficient transportation options, creates benchmarks to ensure accountability for taxpayer dollars and makes our roads safer and less congested. Only with an “all of the above” approach that says yes to safer highways, yes to transportation choices and yes to accountability can we truly say our system has met 21st Century needs.

• Protecting our climate and gaining more energy independence begins, and doesn’t end, with the climate bill making its way through Congress. (Reuters)

• The speed of spending federal stimulus dollars remains a contentious issue. (USA Today)

• Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar looks to make his mark with the next transportation bill. (Congressional Quarterly)