It’s all in their hands — whether or not the bill prioritizes repair of our roads and bridges, preserves local communities’ access to funds that can make walking and biking safer, or helps struggling transit agencies keep buses and trains rolling along — and we need your help to impact the transportation bill’s final outcome as the clock ticks down to a final product.

Can you take a moment to call your Senators and representative and let them know that the conference committee must preserve the strong, bipartisan provisions contained in the Senate’s transportation bill MAP-21? 

Simply click here for a one-stop page to look up your legislator, get the script and report your call — or you can simply call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and use this script below. Leave your message with the person who answers the phone

Hi, my name is [NAME] and I live in [PLACE]. I’m calling to ask Representative/Senator [NAME] to support several important provisions from the Senate’s bipartisan transportation bill during conference committee. The conference committee on the transportation bill must do at least three things:

1. Preserve the Senate provisions that provide dedicated funding for repairing our roads and bridges — and hold states accountable for repairing them.
2. Protect my community’s access to funds in the Senate bill that make walking and biking safer by preserving the local grant program created by the Cardin-Cochran amendment, 
3. Keep the flexibility for public transportation “operations” in the Senate bill that allows struggling transit agencies of all sizes to maintain service during a fiscal crisis.
   

Please support the provisions in the strong, bipartisan Senate transportation bill during the conference. Thank you for your time.

Hang up and then if you can, report your call to us. If you live in the 50 states, repeat to call your Representative and two Senators. And ask your friends to join you in making calls by sharing via email, Twitter and Facebook. Time is running out.

To pass it, churches, faith-based groups and local organizers teamed up with businesses and institutions.  As we’ve seen in similar local measures, they won by explaining exactly what taxpayer money would buy, building a diverse coalition and getting out the vote.

This in-depth story is part of our Transportation Vote 2012 coverage. Communities across the country are preparing to vote on the people, plans and projects that will set the tone for transportation progress in the months and years to come. These are the places that will provide the energy, innovation and inspiration for the next national vision for transportation. Transportation Vote 2012 will help educate voters, advocates and candidates and keep abreast of transportation-related issues as they unfold.

A crisis point

Even before the prolonged fiscal crisis hitting governments everywhere, Baton Rouge’s Capital Area Transit System (CATS) struggled to do more with less. Over the last few years, service had degraded to the point that the wait for a bus exceeded 75 minutes and average rides were over two hours long. The system was saved repeatedly only by last-ditch city budget shuffles, creative grants and even private donations.

The biggest recent blow came when Louisiana State University backed out of the CATS system after years of student complaints and contracted with a new (more expensive) private operator. That meant a loss of $2.4 million from the CATS annual budget.

In 2010, a parish-wide tax to support the transit system failed at the ballot box, in part because large parts of the parish (same as counties in other states) don’t use or have access to the service. When projections came in that the transit agency would be so far in the red they’d have to shut down in summer 2011, it became painfully clear that something major needed to be done.

After cobbling together grants and funding to make it through 2011, the mayor appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission to make recommendations not only to save the service, but to create something much better. But the first job was to save the system, as Rev. Raymond Jetson, the chair of that commission, told the Baton Rouge Advocate:  “Before there can be a robust transit system, before you can do novel things like light rail between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and before you can have street cars from downtown to LSU, you have to have a backbone to the system,” he said. “And that backbone is a quality bus system.”

The commission learned that Baton Rouge was the largest city of its size in the country to have a transit system without a dedicated revenue source, subsisting on annual local government appropriations.

But before putting a funding measure to voters, the commission recommended significant reforms to the composition of the transit board and an end to the ability of the Metro Council to veto the board’s decisions. “Governance reform and long term accountability … helped separate it from the previous failed measures,” said Broderick Bagert of Together Baton Rouge, a broad, multi-racial, faith-based coalition of institutions backing the measure.

Photo courtesy of Frank McMains, www.frankmcmains.com

So how did they do it?

Coalition building

The first step was to build the core coalition that would push this measure to victory.

Enter Together Baton Rouge, a relatively new organization of churches, faith-based groups, social workers, and university students and groups. Together Baton Rouge led the way as the grassroots behind the measure, coordinating call banks, get-out-the-vote rallies, more than 120 educational “transit academies” and door-to-door canvassing of tens of thousands of homes by hundreds of volunteers. (Note that LSU students chose to get actively involved even though CATS was no longer the provider of their transit service on campus.)

They began with three informational meetings with 300-400 people each, where “community members told other community members why things were bad and what the new plan was,” said Bagert.

“We asked two questions on the sign-in card: ‘Do you want to be part of a voter outreach campaign?’ and, ‘Are you part of an organization and would you be willing to organize one of these sessions?’ We built a strong base of people that wanted to help do outreach and educate their fellow community members.”

Photo courtesy of Together Baton Rouge

In part because of the groundwork of the Blue Ribbon Commission and other partnerships, the Baton Rouge Area Chamber got on board along with other business groups. Hotels and hospitals, whose leaders realized how much of their workforce depended on CATS each day, joined in.

Colletta Barrett, vice president of missions for Our Lady of the Lake hospital system told the Advocate that 10 percent of OLOL’s staff, or 400 people, use CATS.

It is imperative, she said, that a transit system is available to move people from North Baton Rouge to the medical corridor in the southern part of the parish.“It’s unacceptable that it takes an hour and 45 minutes to get to this side of town,” she said. “We have told our employees that we have an individual social responsibility to take care of each other.”

And:

Ralph Ney, hotel general manager for Embassy Suites [hotel], said about 15 percent of his workforce uses CATS to get to work, which sometimes results in his employees being late.

“It’s difficult to hire and maintain employees who don’t have transportation,” said Ney, who was a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission. “It’s evolved to where a lot of our employees don’t even take the bus because they can’t get to work on time, so they’re riding bikes or catching rides.”

A key part of the coalition was the Center for Planning Excellence (CPEX), a T4 America partner and non-profit that helps Louisiana communities with planning issues and addressing complex problems with effective, forward-thinking, implementable solutions. They became involved through their CONNECT initiative to build a diverse coalition across the New Orleans to Baton Rouge super region to advocate for smarter housing and transportation investments. The CONNECT initiative concluded that one of the critical pieces for regional connectivity is a viable, robust transit system serving the metro area. This was also strongly recommended in the new comprehensive plan for Baton Rouge, called FutureBR.

CPEX worked with many of the former members of the Blue Ribbon Commission to create the Baton Rouge Transit Coalition, a diverse set of partners who provided information, resources and conducted educational outreach to the Baton Rouge community.  They hosted numerous outreach meetings, advocated for the changes to CATS governance in the state house, created a website that became a clearinghouse for facts and research during the campaign, and worked closely with the Baton Rouge Area Chamber to solicit support from the business community — in addition to being a strong part of the grassroots effort led primarily by Together Baton Rouge.

In the end, the boosters of the transit measure had built a coalition that had strong grassroots, wide reach, and a diverse range of interests. Without the participation of any one of the core coalition members — Together Baton Rouge’s grassroots and trusted community members, CPEX and their coalition of transit boosters and others, and the area Chamber and the business community — the effort would not have had the same success.

Trusted messengers — and message

Broderick Bagert of Together Baton Rouge summed up this strategy simply: “We let the community leaders be out front leading the way. Not professionals, not paid staff, not elected officials, not transit officials.”

“One of the strengths of this effort was that the plan was created by community leaders and many of the important people were already behind the plan,” said Rachel DiResto of CPEX. “It certainly took some effort to get new folks on board, but the important pillars were already on board. We didn’t need to convince them.”

For the message, especially in the key districts with heavy transit usage and service, the campaign kept it very basic. “Save our system.” They noted that Baton Rouge was the only city of its size without a decent transit system, and talked about the people who depend on it each day: Perhaps the nurse who cares for your mother at the hospital, or your neighbor or friend. The campaign steered clear of some of the typical statistics in transit campaigns about reducing traffic congestion, gas prices or environmental impacts.

The above story about the hospital and hotel workers shows how the advocates built a larger, inclusive narrative and a vision for the community’s future. The events were filled with personal stories and made the impact of the system (and the potential impacts of not having it or having it improved) clear to everyone, regardless of who they were, where they lived, or whether or not they rode CATS.

Success wasn’t due to being the smartest person in the room armed with the most data and facts. It was about making the impacts real and relatable through powerful stories helping people realize the bonds and impacts of community.

“Outreach, outreach, outreach”

To deliver that message, Together Baton Rouge and the coalition held an insanely ambitious number of community outreach sessions they called “transit academies” or “civic academies” in churches, community centers and other venues. In the four-month campaign leading up to the April 21 vote, they hosted 120 of these sessions.

“Anywhere anyone wanted to hear more, we did a presentation,” said DiResto of CPEX. “And it paid off with more people who hadn’t been active voters showing up at the polls for a special election.”

Photo courtesy of Together Baton Rouge

These meetings were largely targeted to areas and precincts where support and heavy turnout would be needed to shift the outcome of the vote. “The diversity of those meetings was a huge plus,” DiResto said. “People who would never ride CATS were sitting in the same meetings with those who ride it every day. And their stories really impacted the former.”

The Advocate told one such story, about Fred Skelton, a 70-year-old Baton Rouge homeowner who had never ridden a CATS bus before. But during one community meeting he said he would be “first in line at his voting precinct to support” the 10-year, 10.6-mill property tax. The reason, he said, is because before his mother died, she used to stay at a nursing home where he’d visit her. When he visited, he said, he remembered frequently seeing groups of employees waiting for the bus.

“Those people who were waiting for the bus are the people who were taking care of my mother,” he said. “If we shut down the transit system, who will take care of those people?”

Strategic precinct targeting

Resources are always limited in a campaign, and therefore best deployed where they can make the most impact. The overall strategy — change minds of people on the fence, increase support from typically opposed groups, or focus primarily on the base — determines where resources should be targeted.

One of the biggest differences between this successful measure and the recent failed measure in 2010 was the use of more strategic targeting of resources in key precincts. Though the campaign did deploy some resources in suburban areas with small amounts of service, mostly to blunt opposition, the brunt of their efforts focused on getting out the vote in their strongest precincts.

Canvassing team. Photo courtesy of Together Baton Rouge

“We did detailed analysis of the electorate,” said Bagert of Together Baton Rouge. “We referred to the recent failed measure for background, which helped analyze the lay of the land. We focused our direct energy on turning out the strongest [most supportive] precincts, leaving out voters that had no voting history in the last 4 years. We tried to get 10 percent of the 2008 presidential election voters to vote for the measure.”

As a result of this strategy, the campaign was well poised to bounce back and succeed when The Advocate threw a curveball late in the game and editorialized against the transit tax, which likely cost the campaign a significant amount of support in precincts with already low support or people and groups that were undecided.

Making the benefits tangible and measurable

Whether it is the federal program or a local ballot measure, voters need to know what our dollars are really “buying” at the end of the day. Are they going to fix our bridges? How will they better connect workers with jobs, make their lives eaier, save them money?

On this count, the coalition in Baton Rouge did an admirable job of making this crystal clear — backed in large part by the commission recommendations that had large buy-in from day one. In every meeting they offered a list of promised CATS improvements:

CATS promises the following changes if the tax passes:

• Decreased average wait times for buses from 75 minutes to 15 minutes.
• Eight new express and limited stop lines, serving the airport, universities, mall and other areas.
• GPS tracking on the entire fleet, with exact arrival times accessible on cellphones.
• New shelters, benches and signage at bus stops.
• Expanded service to high-demand areas and increased routes, from 19 to 37.
• Three new transfer centers operating in a grid system to replace the outdated route system that leads all buses back to Florida Boulevard.
• A foundation for Bus Rapid Transit, a system in which buses get their own right-of-way lanes.

The ambitiousness of the promised changes was part of the success. Given the (somewhat unfair) perception that CATS was a poorly governed money drain, simply offering up a plan to pour money into CATS and hope for the best was not going to fly. People had to be inspired to believe that things actually would get better.

Similar specificity and transparency, including a long-range map of projects, helped win 67 percent of the vote for Measure R in Los Angeles. Supporters in Atlanta hope that a pre-approved list of transit and road projects will help convince voters to support a regional sales tax this July. The Baton Rouge formula – specific improvements, accountability reforms and relentless grassroots engagement – could offer a path to similar success.

Wrapping it up

The transit ballot measure was approved on April 21 in Baton Rouge, 54 percent to 46 percent and the municipality of Baker, 58 percent to 42 percent. In Zachary, a more suburban area with little service, it was rejected, 79 percent to 21 percent. Early returns showed the measure losing with only 40 percent support, but “then the precincts we had worked came in and voted in historic levels, supporting the measure at around 90 percent in those key precincts,” according to Bagert. “The key was really getting strong vote in supportive precincts.”

The story isn’t over, however.

The governance reforms for CATS, including changing the Metro Council’s veto power, are still passing through the state legislature. (The council’s veto power over changes in fares, routes, schedules and other operations was cited by the Blue Ribbon Commission as a key factor crippling the transit system.) The board nominating process will also change so that 13 different groups that have a stake in transit system (hospitals, businesses, etc.) can nominate members to the board.

Though some groups that were opposed are considering some legal challenges to the tax itself, the Baton Rouge story shows us a great success story of how a community rallied around their important transit system, fought to save it and improve it, and built a winning campaign to do exactly that.

Advice for others

Facing a ballot measure in your area? Planning one? Here are four last smart pieces of advice to take with you from Rachel DiResto from the Center for Planning Excellence.

• Bring core partners to the table early and find your champions who have to be willing to speak well to various audiences and who are willing to expend time and energy for your cause;
• Frequent communication with other partners is critical to maximize resources and not duplicate efforts;
• Focus on the voter outcome – grassroots advocacy is essential – target those folks who are supportive and mobilize them to show up to vote instead of spending all of your energy combatting those opposed.
• Frequent outreach to different sectors – know your message for various audiences

The election day team for Mid City. Photo courtesy of Together Baton Rouge

Excited? Encouraged? Learn something that you didn’t know before? Let us know in the comments.

Our sincere thanks go out to Broderick Bagert of Together Baton Rouge and Rachel DiResto and Lacy Strohschein of the Center for Planning Excellence for their time and information for the behind-the-scenes story of their success. And also to Rebekah Allen of the Advocate, whose solid reporting on the issue for the last few years was invaluable for understanding and background, as well as the source of valuable quotes.

Follow all Transportation Vote 2012 coverage here.

One thing is certain: as Congress is finally close to passing a transportation bill more than 953 days after it first expired, many cities and communities have charged ahead with more “fine-grained” approaches to transportation funding and construction. These cities and regions have a sharp understanding that the choices made about infrastructure today affect their economies for years to come and are taking steps to make those needed investments today.

But will they be enough without the strong federal partner we’ve had for the last 50 years leading the way?

That remains to be seen, according to this compelling new report from the Urban Land Institute out yesterday, which lays out the state of infrastructure investment here and around the world. But it also points out innovative ways to take the situation we have — flat-lined federal investment and no likely windfall of cash for large scale infrastructure anytime soon — and do all we can with the dollars we have to build the system that will carry us deep into the 21st century.

One key change ULI suggests we might see is one we’ve been pushing for from day one at T4 America — and also in the current House/Senate conference: measuring the performance of the dollars we spend to see if they’re helping us meet our goals, and holding states accountable if they don’t. “Ironically, fiscal constraints finally may compel some better results,” they say, “figuring out what matters most, and what will get the best bang for the buck, becomes even more urgent.”

The report is a good overview of the state of our country’s infrastructure, how we fund it, and the challenges we’re currently facing right now — all of which are things we’ve all heard regularly. There’s been no shortage of reports and calls to action and reminders of the sorry state of our country’s infrastructure over the last few years. Which is why the most exciting parts of this report chronicle all the different ways that states, cities and local communities are stepping out on their own, raising funds from innovative sources, casting their own vision for transportation, and hoping that the federal government will soon again reaffirm its commitment as a strong financial partner.

As we’re fond of pointing out, when there’s transparency and accountability for exactly what transportation dollars are going to buy — this new transit line, that new busway, this new bridge project — transportation ballot measures pass close to 70 percent of the time, even when voters are taxing themselves. Check out this graphic from the report on transportation ballot measures.

Click to enlarge.

There’s also a great section on Measure R and America Fast Forward, Los Angeles’ innovative plan to build 30 years of transit projects in 10 years. Two-thirds of L.A. voters approved a 30-year sales tax as a dedicated funding stream for the program that will also be used to leverage what they hope will be loans and low-cost financing from the federal government. This L.A. story, just like so many others of innovation highlighted in the report, are indeed examples of innovation, but examples that urgently need federal help and partnership to truly succeed. They’re stepping up with innovation and local funding, but they can’t go it alone.

Let’s hope that Congress passes a strong transportation bill soon and affirms a new role for the federal government in both supporting and rewarding the kind of innovation highlighted in this report that’s beginning to bubble up around the country.

Read the full report here.

This is a noteworthy accomplishment in this Congress, and one that House leaders should take note of before dismissing HR 14 out of hand. (HR 14 is identical to the Senate’s MAP-21, and is before the House right now.)

No one is saying the House shouldn’t debate its own amendments to the Senate bill. Indeed, there are several areas we would like to see strengthened. But with the clock ticking, construction machines idling and Americans looking to get to work, the Senate bill’s bipartisan provisions form a strong base for a House debate.

That was exactly the message contained in this bipartisan letter (pdf) sent to House leadership just this week by Rep. Dold (R-IL) and Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) and signed by Reps. Biggert (R-IL), Quigley (D-IL), Charles Bass (R-NH) and Larsen (D-WA).

“With funding for transportation and infrastructure projects expiring at the end of the week, it is critical that we act as soon as possible to provide certainty in the transportation and infrastructure sector that employs so many Americans,” said Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL-10). “I firmly believe transportation is a bipartisan priority that extends beyond partisan politics- that is why I am urging the House to consider the bipartisan Senate bill if it cannot bring a viable longer-term bill to the House floor by the March 31 expiration.  We must reach a bipartisan consensus now to ensure that local transportation agencies can better plan for the future, and so that these important projects and jobs can continue.”

Would we, like the House members who signed this letter, prefer a longer bill, in an ideal world? Yes, if it had the right policies and an appropriate source of revenue.

However, with the time available, and in an election year where every vote is a litmus test, an attack ad waiting to happen or a political message of some kind, the Senate is offering a sound path forward that everyone should be able to live with now, and build from in the future.

Relatedly, we have completed a long and detailed summary of everything we know about the Senate’s MAP-21 bill, which you can download in its entirety here. (pdf)

The initial House bill proposed eliminating all dedicated funding for public transportation, ending a bipartisan agreement that’s been in place since 1982. Though the current rumor is that the House will restore that funding after massive opposition from across the country, other provisions are still in place that will cut funds from larger transit agencies, create unneeded bureaucracy, and also result in a fragmented system of moving freight.

Under H.R. 7, transit providers that operate both bus and rail services would be barred from a program used to buy buses or build bus facilities.

The ironic consequence, under a bill advertised as reducing streamlining bureaucracy, is that large transit agencies — rather than forego $900 million in aid — would be forced to split into separate rail and bus agencies.

Rep. Gerold Nadler, who represents part of New York City, pointed this out during the markup of the bill in the House Transportation Committee, a fact that no one quite seemed to realize up to that point. It wouldn’t prevent large transit agencies from getting these grants for bus service, it would just employ a host of lawyers, he said, as every large U.S. transit agency like New York’s MTA splits into two agencies.

This shortsighted provision means that tax dollars that should be providing much-needed transit services in local communities are diverted to bureaucratic overhead instead. Amendments offered by several members (numbered 17, 59 and 136) would reinstate current law and eliminate this provision.

H.R. 7 also would foster bureaucracy in freight planning, according to Leslie Blakey from the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors, via a guest post at Transportation Issues Daily:

The new movement to relinquish federal responsibilities to states stands to fracture a comprehensive system of interconnectivity.

Our goods movement system is not confined to politically-designated state borders – rather, it is an expansive, holistic system that stretches from coast-to-coast and across international boundaries. Along our commerce system, bridges serve to connect states, single freight hubs provide service to several states in a 5-mile radius, and roads weave back-and-forth over state lines.

One key provision…encourages states to compose their own freight advisory committees and develop their own freight plans. Emphasis on the need for freight planning is a welcomed notion; however, planning for our national freight system must take place at the federal level.

So instead of having one national freight plan to keep goods flowing, H.R. 7 would create 50 different state freight advisory boards, with 50 state plans for freight movement. This fragmented, scattershot approach stands in stark contrast to the clear national focus for freight in the Senate bill.

Moving freight across the country is a national issue that needs a national plan, and if the House truly wants to streamline and cut unneeded bureaucracy, they should look closely at the national approach in MAP-21 and abandon their fragmented approach that would do neither.

—

With the House in recess and the Senate poised to pass a bipartisan transportation bill this week, we’ll be taking a longer look at a few other issues with the House transportation bill in the coming days — and how some of those issues can be fixed. Though they may have addressed one issue by restoring dedicated transit funding (reportedly, though not publicly confirmed), there are still other issues that need work to improve the bill and get a bipartisan majority of House members to support it.

After almost 40 years of building our world-leading interstate system, many people started to realize that this excess of people driving alone at rush hour created a whole lot of air pollution and congestion. Some busy cities were seeing their air fill up with nasty pollution and smog from tailpipe emissions, and their roads were choked with traffic several hours a day.

After the environmental disasters of the 60′s and 70′s helped catalyze the movement to clean up our air and water, Congress declared clean air a national priority in the 1970s and Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. On the transportation side, in the transportation bill written in 1991, Congress created a new program called the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ), dedicated solely to helping communities deal with the negative side effects of over-reliance on major roads for rush-hour travel.

A provision in the House’s transportation bill (H.R. 7) upends that intention by opening that fund to construction of regular highway lanes.

Essentially, the bill’s authors in 1991 recognized that efforts to build our way out of congestion had reached a point of diminishing returns, where each new lane simply invited more cars, leading to more emissions and, ultimately, still more congestion. They decided that it made sense to take a very small slice of transportation dollars to help address and mitigate those problems.

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program gives states a small pot of funding to help provide other options, promote carpooling, or address other impacts of too many people driving alone at peak hour. Washington, D.C. used some CMAQ funds to kick-start their world class bike sharing program known as Capital Bikeshare, which helps people make short trips throughout the city and part of the region without having to get in a car, a bus or a train. Other cities have used it to fund new transit service in or adjacent to a congested corridor, add new high-occupancy vehicle lanes to provide an option that rewards carpooling on congested roads, or improve the flow of traffic with more intelligent transportation systems.

Some states even give the CMAQ funding directly to their metro areas, because the local leaders in a metro area usually know best how to spend the funds and address their most pressing needs.

Our cities are as congested as they’ve ever been, and though our air is significantly cleaner than it was in the 1970′s thanks in part to cleaner vehicles, it doesn’t make any sense in 2012 for the House bill to “decide” that air pollution and congestion are no longer negative side effects of building new roads, reversing 20 years of stated transportation policy.

Two proposed amendments to HR7 would fix the problems with CMAQ. Amendments 191 and 97, proposed by Reps. Blumenauer and Ellison respectively, would restore the current function of CMAQ to helping reduce exhaust and emissions. And high-occupancy vehicle lanes would once again be the only new eligible road capacity.

—

With the House in recess and the Senate poised to pass a bipartisan transportation bill this week, we’ll be taking a longer look at a few other issues with the House transportation bill in the coming days — and how some of those issues can be fixed. Though they may have addressed one issue by restoring dedicated transit funding (reportedly, though not publicly confirmed), there are still other issues that need work to improve the bill and get a bipartisan majority of House members to support it.

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

Final amendments totally unrelated to transportation

—

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.

Help keep the pressure on and take a moment to urge your Senator to support moving the bill and get it one step closer to passage.

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!

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.

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.