First, the graphic:

Though we can’t see the rest of the questions or the context, it affirms a few things we already know about Americans’ attitudes about transportation — as evidenced in our own 2010 national poll — and how to fund what we need.

While Americans are actually voting in favor of taxing themselves to improve transportation in state and local ballot measures at a rate of about 70 percent, they often know exactly what they’re going to get in those cases: a new bridge, an expanded transit system, a system of repaired roads, or the like. But the federal program is much fuzzier in most people’s minds. The current system is broken and unaccountable, and putting more money into a broken system is like trying to bring more water up from a well using a bucket with a hole in it.

As James Corless wrote in an Infrastructurist guest post yesterday, “Some of the old guard transportation insiders in D.C. would be thrilled with doubling the overall size of our transportation program and pouring more money into the same broken system, but Americans know better. They want more accountability, safer streets, and more transportation options so seniors can maintain their independence and low wage workers can get to jobs.”

It’s also interesting that the sentence to the left of the poll summarizes it as “Americans would rather use tolls than taxes to build more roads,” when it could have just as easily been “Americans are OK with building no new roads if it means raising the gas tax or instituting tolls to pay for them.”

Maybe the poll asks the wrong question?

We’re not in favor of a moratorium on any new roads whatsoever, but this survey clearly reinforces the fact that Americans in urban and rural areas have moved beyond the idea that the solution to every transportation problem can and should be a new road.

We cooperated on a poll in 2009 with the National Association of Realtors, showing that Americans don’t think expanding roads and highways are the best use of scarce transportation dollars:

“As the federal government makes its plans for transportation funding in 2009, which ONE of the following should be the top priority?”

And as our 2010 poll showed, more than four-in-five voters (82 percent) say that “the United States would benefit from an expanded and improved transportation system, such as rail and buses” and a solid majority (56 percent) “strongly agree” with that statement. Fully 79 percent of rural voters agree as well, despite much lower use of public transportation compared to Americans in urban areas.

If you saw this graphic and your curiosity was piqued, perhaps it’s worth going back and poking through our national poll for a fuller picture.

At the rally, Transportation for America’s deputy director Lea Schuster stood shoulder-to-shoulder with prominent labor leaders and California lawmakers to tell Washington to help speed up the 30/10 Plan – a plan to build 12 major local transit projects in 10 years rather than 30. The plan would spur economic growth and protect the environment, create 166,000 jobs, ease congestion, and reduce air pollution and dependency on oil.

LA Labor Rally Denny: Lea Originally uploaded by Transportation for America to Flickr.

Move LA’s Denny Zane speaks at the podium, flanked on his right by T4 deputy director Lea Schuster, holding the Move LA banner touting the 30/10 plan for the LA metro area.

If Congress establishes the programs needed to move 30/10 forward, cities and regions around the country that have local transportation tax measures could receive up-front loans from the federal government to speed the construction of vital public transportation projects and programs. Fast-tracking the projects and speeding up the timetable would save millions in escalating material costs, while creating thousands of new jobs in the short run. Guaranteed and preapproved local tax revenues would then be used to repay the loans.

In the case of Los Angeles, voters approved a measure at the ballot box (Measure R) to tax themselves for 30 years to pay for transportation. Implementing 30/10 would allow them to get the money up front to build 12 projects over 10 years and pay back the loans over 30 years.

Speakers supporting the effort to establish the federal lending programs included Senator Barbara Boxer, AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, LA County Federation of Labor leader Maria Elena Durazo, and Move LA’s Denny Zane.

All the speakers cited 30/10 as a job creating and environmentally progressive transportation model for the rest of the country. As Senator Boxer said, “We know if we do embrace this notion of 30/10, we will create thousands of good-paying union jobs and we will reduce our billion-dollar-a-day addiction to foreign oil.”

LA area Representatives Jane Harman and Judy Chu both stated their support for the initiative with Jane Harman declaring, “30/10”’ will be my number one priority in Congress. And LA labor leader Richard Slawson hailed it as “our stimulus package.”

As roads, freeways and bridges have grown increasingly congested and fallen into a state of disrepair and federal transportation funds have become scarce, taxpayers in communities across the country have voted to tax themselves to raise money for long-term transportation programs to expand public transportation and fix aging infrastructure — proving again that Americans will increase their own taxes to pay for transportation if they know what their taxes are buying.

As with 30/10, well-planned transportation programs can provide the immediate economic stimulus needed to put people back to work and provide safe, clean, and affordable transportation options.

As Denny Zane, Executive Director of Move LA and one of the founders of the 30/10 Plan stated, getting the legislation needed to establish the federal lending programs to provide the upfront loans will take a national effort, a national coalition, and national leaders. He cited the success of Transportation for America and its leadership in putting together a coalition of more than 500 organizations and elected officials fighting for federal transportation reform as performing the “type of work that we need” and being the campaign that will “help put the votes together” to establish the programs to ensure that the 30/10 Plan and other initiatives like it become a reality.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Which of the following proposals is the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in your area?

As the federal government makes its plans for transportation funding in 2009, which ONE of the following should be the top priority?

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.

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 .