Some details on Chairman Oberstar’s transportation proposal
June 18, 2009By Stephen Lee Davis
| Read T4 America’s official statement on the release of the summary outline by Chairman James Oberstar. |
We’ll have a number of posts today and tomorrow breaking down some of the notable spending levels and reforms proposed in Chairman Oberstar’s outline of the transportation bill. In the meantime, we thought we’d give you a few details that we’ve looked over while scanning the outline of the bill this morning. Note that today’s 11 a.m. press conference — which will included a longer version of the proposal — has been delayed until 2 p.m. due to “House votes.”
According to Oberstar’s summary, the upcoming bill will restructure and transform federal transportation policy away from multiple “prescriptive programs” into a “performance-based framework” “designed to achieve specific national objectives.”
The outline calls for terminating and consolidating more than 75 of the 108 total programs into a few broad large program areas, but it maintains current funding silos between separate modes. Here’s a quick breakdown. (Remember that these numbers are not final, and could be very different when the bill is released next week.)
- Highways: $337.4 billion (75%) of $450 billion
- Transit: $98.8 billion (22.2%) of $450 billion
- Safety Programs: $12.6 billion (2.8%) of $450 billion
Its important to note that the $98.8 billion in proposed transit funds is not necessarily an accurate reflection of how much money public transportation would receive in total. Oberstar’s outline includes $50 billion for a new “Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program,” which will “provide significant funding to help the largest metropolitan regions address congestion,” and a refocused “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” (CMAQ). While money for both of these programs are included in the highway allocation, it would be possible under the proposal to spend these funds on public transportation projects to achieve the stated goals of CMAQ and the Metropolitan Mobility programs.
Chairman Oberstar’s outline also calls for $50 billion to develop high-speed rail — in addition to the money in the stimulus package and yearly appropriations bill for this year — an area of transportation that has never received funding in previous transportation legislation.
Oberstar told Congressional Quarterly this morning that he is still planning on releasing full bill text and marking up the bill in his Highways and Transit Subcommittee next week.
Check back later today for more details and analysis.
What do Americans really think about spending on transportation?
June 15, 2009By Stephen Lee Davis
Parade Magazine has an article about transportation up on their website that includes an online poll. They question asks readers, “should America divert some funding from highways and bridges to invest in public transit?”
There are many problems with this question, but even with the false framing of this debate, results are currently split near the 50/50 mark. The most glaring issue with the poll is that it makes it seem like there’s something written in stone determining that federal transportation money is “roads” money — instead of money that should be spent on whatever can best keep us moving and give us the most bang for our buck.
Spending money on public transportation or other transportation options won’t prevent us from repairing and maintaining our existing roads and bridges. In fact, our roads and bridges aren’t in poor shape because we don’t spend enough on roads overall — it’s because we’ve neglected to maintain our existing roadways and instead spent taxpayer dollars on more new roads and highways, whether or not these were the best investments of our transportation dollars
Regardless of where we’ve spent money in the past or “what we used to do,” people are ready for something different.
Rather than asking Americans if we should “take” money from roads, what happens when you ask Americans a more basic questions: “Where should we spend our transportation money?”
Earlier this year, Transportation for America and the National Association of Realtors did just that in our own poll. (Background on the poll here and here). The bottom line? An overwhelming majority of Americans believe restoring existing roads and bridges and expanding transportation options should take precedence over road-building alone.
Given that the U.S. population will increase by one-hundred million people by 2050, which of the following transportation approaches do you prefer to accommodate this growth?
| Build and improve rail systems, such as commuter rail, light rail, and subways | Build new highways and freeways | Not sure |
| 75% | 20% | 5% |
I’m going to mention types of transportation, and I’d like you to tell me which one or two you think are not getting enough attention and emphasis from the federal government.
| Trains or light rail systems | Roads | Buses | Bike paths or trails | Sidewalks | None | Not sure |
| 56% | 27% | 21% | 15% | 14% | 2% | 3% |
Many communities experience traffic congestion. I’m going to read you two statements about traffic congestion and I’d like you to tell me which of these is closer to your view: A) Some people say that we need to build more roads and expand existing roads to help reduce traffic congestion. B) Some people say that we need to improve public transportation, including trains and buses, and make it easier to walk and bike to help reduce traffic congestion. Which of these is closer to your view?
| Improve public transportation | Build more roads and expand existing roads | Not sure |
| 67% | 27% | 6% |
Which of the following proposals is the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in your area?
| Improving public transportation | Developing communities where people do not have to drive as much | Building new roads | Not sure |
| 47% | 25% | 20% | 8% |
As the federal government makes its plans for transportation funding in 2009, which ONE of the following should be the top priority?
| Maintaining and repairing roads, highways, freeways and bridges | Expanding and improving bus, rail, and other public transportation | Expanding and improving roads, highways, freeways and bridges | Not sure |
| 50% | 31% | 16% | 3% |
Oberstar: I will not support an extension of SAFETEA-LU
June 4, 2009By Stephen Lee Davis
Rep. James Obertsar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told Congressional Quarterly this week that he will not pass an extension of the federal transportation bill if the new bill is not finished when the current law (SAFETEA-LU) expires on Sept. 30. (From today’s print edition. Not publicly linkable)
Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., said in an interview that he will not sponsor or support an extension of surface transportation programs if a new long-term authorization bill cannot be completed by the Sept. 30 deadline.
Instead, Oberstar said late Tuesday, he would allow the programs to expire, and lawmakers would have to answer to states that lose their federal transportation support. “It all dies,” Oberstar said.
That threat may be hard to sustain, particularly given the importance of infrastructure spending to create jobs during the current economic recession. Democratic leaders in both chambers would have the final say on the matter.
During the last big battle over federal transportation legislation — which started in 2003 and didn’t end until the bill was signed in August of 2005 — 12 different extensions were filed as lawmakers struggled to write and agree on language for our current transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU.
The extensions on the bill allowed Congress to continue funding surface transportation projects, even as policy for the next five years was being hammered out. Needless to say, things would not be looking good for our transportation system if this Congress couldn’t pass a new bill by September 30 and refused to extend the existing legislation
Ultimately, the House will have to wait on the Senate to pass their own version of the transportation bill, where four separate committees have jurisdiction over different parts of the bill, and early indications are that the Senate may push the work back until 2010.
On top of that, Charles Rangel, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — which will be in charge of finance on the new transportation bill — has already stated that transportation is not at the top of his committee’s list of issues.
Will Oberstar’s claim bear out? One thing is certain. While House leadership may eventually put pressure on him to pass an extension, the current transportation bill cannot be extended without going through his committee.
Crafting a vision for the future — and then paying for it
February 26, 2009By Andrew Bielak
As Congress moves towards the reauthorization of our transportation program, we can expect that one of the biggest challenges the federal government will face will be figuring out just how to pay for our vast transportation needs. After all, as Americans continue to drive less, revenues from the gas tax — which hasn’t been raised since 1994 — continue to decline, and both federal and state governments are increasingly unable to find enough money to fund basic maintenance and repair work.
The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission took a shot across the bow today by releasing its report on the funding needs for our system — advocating, among other things, a 10-cent increase in the gas tax, a long-term transition to a mileage-based system that taxes people based on how much the drive, and an expansion of innovative funding mechanisms like congestion pricing and high-occupancy vehicle lanes.
While the report advocates some respectable principles including long-term sustainability and energy independence, we believe the authors missed a golden opportunity to provide a vision for the 21st century. Before figuring how to collect money from taxpayers, we need to decide what we should be building today and for the future, rather than merely spending money on yesterday’s priorities.
As the results on transit-related ballot measures across the country demonstrated on November 4, Americans are more than willing to pay for a green, modern transportation system, as long as they have a good idea of where their dollars are going. If we hope to find new ways to pay for that system, and are to expect present and future generations to foot the bill, the new administration and Congress needs to come out with a bold vision that breaks with the old ways of the status quo — and should show the American people just what a 21st century transportation network could look like .
Road funds may fall by $2.6 billion over 6 years
October 16, 2008By Andrew Bielak
An economic downturn and falling gas tax revenue puts Virginia’s transportation system in a tough spot. (Associated Press — Larry O’Dell)
U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar and future transit funding
October 14, 2008By Andrew Bielak
U.S. Representative James Oberstar, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, answers questions from the Kansas City Star about the challenges facing our transportation system and the role of transit in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and oil dependence.
McCain Pledge Sought For Dulles Rail Project
October 9, 2008By Andrew Bielak
Presidential candidate John McCain voted against a bill last week to improve rail safety and increase funding for Amtrak, but Republican legislators from Virginia are working hard to earn his support for a plan to extend DC’s Metrorail to Dulles International Airport. (Washington Post — Michael Laris)
Senator Holds Up Bill on Train Safety Device
September 26, 2008By Andrew Bielak
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn blocks legislation to improve safety for the nation’s trains, objecting to the bill’s $14 billion price tag and a provision giving a funding boost to Amtrak. (Wall Street Journal — Christopher Conkey)
Transit takes near billion-dolllar budget hit
September 22, 2008By Andrew Bielak
For public transportation in California, the hits keep coming — facing overflowing ridership and record costs, transit agencies must now deal with a $952 million-dollar cut in funding by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The state’s budget for roads and highways does not face a similar cutback. (San Francisco Chronicle — Rachel Gordon)
Ravitch Commission Faces Difficult Task of Shoring Up MTA’s Future
September 19, 2008By Andrew Bielak
New York’s overburdened, financially-strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority is struggling to come up with the cash necessary to support its ridership base, and a commission led by former MTA chair Richard Ravitch is looking all options available for attacking the problem. (Streetsblog — Ben Fried)
-
- U.S. Transportation Department makes good on promise to ensure our streets are made safer
March 16, 2010 - Obama’s livability programs help rural America too
March 16, 2010 - Transit grants out the federal door, but what about the cuts?
March 8, 2010 - Transit riders in Atlanta face massive cuts, “wholesale restructuring” of service
March 5, 2010 - Opposition to Senate extension results in looming shutdown of federal transportation programs
February 26, 2010
- U.S. Transportation Department makes good on promise to ensure our streets are made safer
The United States of Transit Cutbacks
Driving is down and transit ridership is at record highs. Yet transit agencies across the country are considering layoffs, service cuts and fare hikes. Find out more and learn what you can do to help at t4america.org/transitcuts
Transportation: In your eyes
Send us your transportation-related photos.
