As you can see, we’re currently in the “conference committee” portion of the process, where a selected group of senators and representatives meet together to reconcile the differences between the two versions of their transportation bills passed by each chamber. In this case, that’s the Senate’s full, bipartisan, two-year MAP-21 bill, and the House’s extension of current policy and funding, with a few non-transportation-related policy riders they wanted to bring to the negotiating table.

The 14 senators and 33 representatives are meeting together regularly — the meetings are not public — to negotiate a final bill to send back to the House and the Senate for a final vote. The numbers of members by party are determined by the majority in each chamber, so there are more Republicans from the House, and more Democrats from the Senate.

As you can see from the graphic, once they finalize a bill that the conference votes to approve, it will go back for what should be the final vote in each chamber.

It’s still unclear if the House will be able to muster enough support to approve any bill, especially since they haven’t had enough votes up to this point to pass any transportation bill, choosing not to even bring HR 7 to the floor for a vote. Will the House vote for a final product that is composed mostly of the Senate’s bipartisan bill, even if it does include their preferred provisions to deregulate coal ash, approve Keystone XL and gut the environmental review process?  Only time will tell.

Until then, we are continuing to weigh in with the conferees (and hope you’ll join us!) to urge them to do five important things in their final bill.

First up for action? Ensure that the final bill makes it a top national priority to repair our roads and bridges, and holds states accountable for doing it. 

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)

All of these numbers make the inability for the House’s proposal to even come close to 50 percent approval ever more glaring. According to sources on the Hill, H.R. 7 was getting 180 votes or fewer in the “whip counts” by leadership to gauge support — far below even the minimum 218 that would represent a simple majority at just over 50 percent.

Check out this graphic below of votes on the transportation bills since 1987 and how they compare to this year’s effort in the House (and the Senate.)

The House should look closely at the path taken by the Senate to today’s approval of MAP-21: both parties working together, compromising where necessary, and making some common-sense reforms and producing a bill the majority can support. Thus far the House leadership has sought to write a bill that only the Republican majority can support, but even that strategy hasn’t netted total agreement within the GOP.

It’s time for the House to take another path. Either improve their bill and turn it into a bill that can win broad support, or take up this strong Senate bill that was crafted and approved by members of both parties.

We’ve prepared a short few pages on what MAP-21 means for the federal transportation program. This top-line analysis is a bit on the wonky side, but hopefully it’ll be helpful if you’ve been trying to summarize the 600 pages of bill text.

One of the most visible changes MAP-21 makes is to restructure seven core highway programs and 13+ formula programs into just five core highway programs. This graphic below illustrates those changes. Read on for the full summary, which you can also download here. (pdf)

Click to enlarge the graphic.

MAP-21 consolidates numerous FHWA programs into five core programs. The new program structure is as follows.

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP): ~$20.6 billion

This new program focuses on repairing and improving an expanded National Highway System (NHS). The NHS is expanded from ~160,000 miles to ~220,000 miles. States are required to develop asset management plans and as a part of these plans establish performance targets for the condition of roads and bridges and the performance of the system. In addition, the program includes provisions to hold states accountable for the repair of Interstate pavement and NHS bridges by requiring that they spend a certain amount of funding on the repair of those facilities if they fall below minimum standards established by USDOT.

Transportation Mobility Program (TMP): ~$10.4 billion

TMP replaces the existing Surface Transportation Program (STP) and allows states and regions to invest flexible dollars in a broad set of highways, transit projects, freight rail projects, and bicycle and pedestrian projects, as well as other activities like travel demand management. Fifty percent of these funds are suballocated to areas in the state based on their population. While this percentage is lower than the current 62.5 percent, the absolute amount of funding to be suballocated will remain the same due to an increase in program size.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): – $2.5 billion

Funding is provided to states to improve safety for all road users on all public roads. A road user is defined as both motorists and non-motorized users. States are required to collect extensive data on crashes and create a database containing information on safety issues for all public roads including identification of hazard locations. (8% of all funds in this program are set-aside for data collection.) States must also develop a strategic highway safety plan using the data collected. If states do not develop a strategic highway safety plan within a year using a process approved by USDOT, they are required to spend additional funding on safety projects. States are also required to develop performance targets on fatalities and serious injuries.

Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ): ~$3.3 billion

In the CMAQ program there are two pots of funding – one that funds typical CMAQ projects and another “reserved” fund.

CMAQ pot. Funds are provided to states and tier I Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to address the impacts of the transportation system on national ambient air quality standards. In states with non-attainment or maintenance areas, 50 percent of the funds are suballocated to tier I MPOs based on the area’s status with national ambient air quality standards. Funds cannot be used to construct new travel lanes except for HOV or HOT lanes. USDOT is required to develop performance measures for air quality and congestion reduction. Tier I MPOs that receive funds under this program are required to develop a performance plan that outlines baseline conditions, targets for each of the performance measures developed by USDOT, and a description of projects to be funded, including how those projects will help meet the targets.

“Reserved” pot. This pot of funding is equal to the amount of funds provided for the Transportation Enhancements set-aside in FY09. Eligible activities under this pot include the following: transportation enhancements, safe routes to school, recreational trails, environmental mitigation, and certain types of road projects (including street redesigns and HOV lanes). States are allowed to use these funds for CMAQ projects (the first pot) if they build up an unspent balance of year and a half worth of funds.

National Freight Program: ~$2 billion

USDOT is directed to establish a primary freight network consisting of 27,000 miles of key freight corridors. States can use funds for highway projects that improve freight movement with a focus on the primary freight network and key rural freight corridors. A state may use up to 5 percent of funds for rail or maritime projects subject to certain conditions. USDOT must also develop a National Freight Strategic Plan, which will analyze performance and conditions on the primary freight network, identify bottlenecks, estimate future freight volumes and identify best practices for mitigating impacts of freight movement on communities. USDOT shall publish a Freight Condition and Performance Report on a biennial basis. States must establish performance targets and report on progress every two years.

Other key components

TIFIA program – $1 billion. MAP-21 expands the TIFIA program from $122 million to $1 billion and modifies the program from a competitive application process to a rolling application process. Provisions have been added that allow for applicants to enter into master credit agreements to provide funding for a suite of projects at once. In addition, there are modifications that make it easier for public transportation agencies with dedicated revenue sources to apply for TIFIA loans.

Planning and Performance. MAP-21 creates performance measures for conditions on the National Highway System (NHS), NHS performance, safety, freight, congestion mitigation and air quality. As part of the development of the plan, states and large MPOs shall analyze the baseline conditions for the performance measures and establish performance targets for each performance measure. The plan must include the future performance of their transportation system with regards to these performance measures including whether or not they will achieve their performance targets. Large MPOs may undertake scenario planning as a part of the development of their long-range plans. Smaller MPOs are required to develop long-range plans and USDOT will establish rules that provide for the standards they must meet regarding the performance measures required for the larger MPOs.

Statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs) and metropolitan transportation improvement programs (TIPs) must include performance measures and targets used in assessing the existing and future performance of the transportation system. A system performance report must include progress toward achieving state performance targets.

Project Delivery. MAP-21 includes numerous provisions intended to accelerate project delivery. Most of these provisions relate to administrative actions to be taken by USDOT. There are also provisions that relate to expanding the types of projects that can be undertaken through a categorical exclusion (a more limited environmental review). In addition, it allows for the earlier acquisition of right-of-way.

There’s some misinformation percolating about the size of the transportation enhancements program — the small dedicated program that has funded projects to make biking and walking safer and more convenient for 20 years. Some misleading data has been shared and then propagated in news stories, so we wanted to put up this very simple explainer to help set the record straight — and equip you to help us set the record straight.

There have been news stories and press releases saying that states are required to set aside 10 percent of their transportation funds for things like “like transportation museums, educational programs for pedestrians and the operation of historic transportation facilities.” Two things are incorrect and misleading here.

1. The purpose of the program:  Though there are 12 eligible uses in the transportation enhancements program — including the others mentioned above — more than half of TE funds are spent to make people on foot or bike safer. People who oppose this program like to cite some of the other eligible uses like highway beautification and transportation museums while neglecting to mention that the majority of the funding is used for just one purpose: making walking and biking safer.
2. The size of the program:  Most deceptively, this program does NOT make up 10 percent of a state’s transportation dollars that they get from the federal government. Not even close. Each state gets their transportation money from several pots, and one of them — about a quarter of the total — is called the “surface transportation program” (STP). Ten percent of that pot is set aside for enhancements, and about half of that total is spent on biking and walking. Local governments apply for this money, and there are far more applications than there are funds. While TE only accounts for 1.5 percent of transportation funding, it is the largest source of funding for biking and walking facilities– which carry 12 percent of all trips in the United States.

This chart below from our Transportation 101 document should help.

The bars below show the core federal program funding levels for 2009. The bar in red is the surface transportation program. 10 percent of that single bar is where enhancements come from, or about 1.5 percent of all transportation spending. About half of that TE program is spent on biking and walking, and a small bit of funding from a few other programs (Recreational Trails and Safe Routes to School) adds up to the total of a little more than one percent of all transportation dollars spent to make walking and biking safer — though pedestrians make up about 14 percent of all traffic fatalities.

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.

Source: USA TODAY