The Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for writing the funding portion of the bill, approved their financing plan along almost party lines this morning, 20-17. (Two GOP reps voted against the bill.)

This plan attacks three decades of successful investments in mass transit by ending the historic guarantee for dedicated funding for public transportation — originally started under President Ronald Reagan almost 30 years ago — placing every public transportation system in immediate peril and leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold.

The proposal would take away the 2.86 cents out of the total 18.4 cent motor fuel tax currently directed into the transit account of the Highway Trust Fund and redirect that 2.86 cents into highway spending. Transit would no longer have a guaranteed and protected funding source, instead becoming subject to yearly appropriations fights and the need to find offsets for funding — all while highway spending continues to be guaranteed with protected funds for half a decade at a time.

In just 12 hours after hearing the initial news, we gathered signatures from more than 600 groups, notable individuals and elected officials.

More than 75 national organizations signed the letter — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AARP, the American Public Transportation Association, the National Rural Assembly, American Society of Civil Engineers, LOCUS (real estate developers), National Association of Counties— and a huge list of other individuals and state & local groups, including the governors of Oregon and Washington, several state DOTs, state and local Chambers of Commerce, and hundreds of state and local organizations nationwide.

Unfortunately, the committee chose to ignore this broad opposition — including opposition from other groups like the conservative Club for Growth and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) — and went ahead with their short-sighted plan.

The markup wasn’t quite as contentious as yesterday’s in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, though it was about 16 hours shorter. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, with several years of experience on the transportation committee under his belt, took it as his job to educate his fellow members on this finance-focused committee about transportation — many of whom may not have ever taken up the transportation financing portion before due to how rarely it comes up.

Rep. Blumenauer noted that for 30 years, having a Trust Fund in place — a mechanism with some degree of certainty — has been crucial for transit agencies’ “ability to make multiple year commitments that allow them to operate with some degree of certainty.” (For more specific comments, check this Streetsblog Capitol Hill summary of the markup.)

This Ways and Means bill now moves to the House floor, along with the more substantial portion marked up yesterday by the transportation committee. That floor process could begin as early as late next week, but more likely the week of the 13th.

This morning we sent this letter (below) to the Ways and Means Committee and the entire House of Representatives in strong opposition to this House leadership plan to end a 30-year precedent of providing dedicated funding for public transportation from the federal fuel tax.

In less than 12 hours, we gathered signatures from more than 600 groups, notable individuals and elected officials. More than 75 national organizations — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AARP, the American Public Transportation Association, the National Rural Assembly, American Society of Civil Engineers, LOCUS (real estate developers), National Association of Counties— and a huge list of other individuals and state & local groups, including the governors of Oregon and Washington, several state DOTs, state and local Chambers of Commerce, and hundreds of state and local organizations nationwide.

Read the full letter here, where you can see the full list of all groups that signed.

Although Ways and Means markup is about to begin this morning, there’s still time to contact your House rep and let them know that you stand against this raid on transit funding.

—

Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin:

For the past thirty years, Congress has provided dedicated funding for highway and transit programs through an excise tax on gasoline dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. This funding structure has successfully provided highway and transit programs with secure, dedicated revenues and budgetary firewalls dating back to the Reagan administration. The success of this approach is without question: The Trust Fund has been critical to our nation’s ability to build an efficient and multimodal transportation system. With record transit ridership, now is not the time to eliminate guaranteed funding for our nation’s public transportation systems, which saved Americans close to $19 billion in congestion costs in 2009. For the first time in thirty years, the pending legislation H.R. 3864, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Financing Act, removes the certainty of a continued revenue source for our transit systems as well as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program.

Specifically, we are deeply concerned about the provision in H.R. 3864 that would terminate funding from the excise tax on gasoline and replace it with the Alternative Transportation Account. In place of gasoline tax revenues, the legislation would provide a one-time $40 billion transfer of General Fund revenues to the Alternative Transportation Account. Not only is this level of funding insufficient to fully fund the proposed authorized levels for the Alternative Transportation Account, but it would subject transit and CMAQ funding to the annual appropriations process. This change will make it impossible for public transit systems across the country to plan for the future. It will also make it impossible for the FTA to honor grant agreements.

In addition, this legislation does not make clear how the $40 billion in General Fund revenues will be offset in the U.S. budget. As a result of this funding gap, we are concerned that the $40 billion general revenue transfer may not occur leaving transit programs out in the cold.

We strongly encourage the Committee to reject H.R. 3864 and work to continue to fund highway and transit programs through dedicated funding.

Stop the House’s unprecedented assault on public transportation. There are just a few hours left before their vote Friday morning.

Send an urgent message to your representative today.

Will we be stuck waiting for the bus, or just tossed underneath it?

A key House Committee is threatening to kill three decades of successful investments in mass transit — originally started under President Ronald Reagan — by ending the guarantee for dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders already faced with service cuts and fare increases out in the cold.

In a stunning development late last night, House leadership and the Ways and Means committee made a shocking attack on transit that would have huge impacts for the millions of people who depend on public transportation each day.

They proposed putting every public transportation system in immediate peril by eliminating guaranteed funding for the Mass Transit Account and forcing transit to go begging before Congress for general funds each year — all while highway spending continues to be guaranteed with protected funds for half a decade at a time.

Get involved. Can you take just a moment and tell your representative that this short-sighted idea is intolerable for their voters?

This incredible move would roll back 30+ years of bipartisan federal transportation policy and reverse a decision made by President Reagan in the 1980’s to fund our nation’s transit system out of a small share of gas tax revenues. This change would mean no more guarantee of funding each year and no long-term stability for public transportation. States, cities, communities and their transit systems could lose billions.

We released a statement earlier today decrying this unprecedented attack on transit.

“We are deeply concerned that if this measure passes, Americans who use public transportation, or who would like that option in the future, will be thrown under the bus,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “This couldn’t come at a worse time for people who need an affordable, reliable way to get to work, or for employers who need workers.” Corless noted the demand for transit has been rising as the economy slowly recovers and people are using public transportation to get to jobs and to avoid volatile gas prices. Over the course of the five-year transportation program, America’s population will continue to age rapidly, and a growing number of seniors will be looking to transit services maintain their independence.

It’s not just us, though. Even the association of state DOT heads submitted a letter to the committee urging them to reconsider their ill-advised plan.

The Mass Transit Account has been in existence since 1982 and AASHTO has continuously supported this account as a critical component of the Highway Trust Fund. AASHTO has long supported the principle that 20 percent of the gas tax revenues that have been put in place since 1982 be allocated to a dedicated mass transit account. We believe that the two complementary accounts need to be maintained in order to support a well-funded, multimodal transportation system.

We respectfully request that the current Highway Trust Fund structure with its two accounts and respective revenue allocations be retained.

Transit is unquestionably a critical component of our nation’s transportation system, and one that millions of people (or voters, if you’re reading, committee members) depend on each day to get around. More people on transit means less congestion, less pollution, and fewer cars on the road.

Tell your representative that this unprecedented attack on transit won’t stand.

The draft bill contains few surprises, as the White House hinted at many favored reforms in its 2012 budget blueprint in February. The proposal, titled the Transportation Opportunities Act, boosts resources for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s core highway program while making significant investments in transit. High-speed rail receives $8 billion upfront and $53 billion over six years, and $27.5 billion is directed toward a new Livability Program that folds many existing pedestrian, bicycling and transit elements under one umbrella.

The current Highway Trust Fund is renamed the Transportation Trust Fund to better reflect what has for decades been a multimodal program.

As an opening bid, the administration proposal offers a lot to like for transportation reformers. The plan embraces the bipartisan consensus around consolidating duplicative programs and includes strong State of Good Repair standards for both highways and transit. Plus, $31.9 billion is directed toward new merit-based Transportation Leadership Awards targeting states that adopt best practices such as strong data collection, reduced traffic fatalities and consideration of housing and the environment.

Throughout a project’s lifespan, states and regions would have to measure their current performance at meeting infrastructure needs and then let citizens know how new investment would impact future performance under a number of scenarios. Constituents would actually be able to see what they are getting for their tax dollars.

While critical of the proposal’s lack of specificity on revenue, Ken Orski of Innovation Briefs noted:

Many of its programmatic provisions – for example, those dealing with accelerated project delivery, tolling, highway and motor vehicle safety, “state of good repair” policy, pursuit of VMT fees, performance management and freight policy — are worthy of consideration and will likely find their way into the final bill.

The administration’s livability program contains unprecedented investment in transit, biking and walking. However, the decision to consolidate existing programs under the livability banner has the potential to jeopardize resources for popular initiatives like Safe Routes to School and Transportation Enhancements. It is unfortunate that livability —which folks outside of Washington seem to be perfectly comfortable with — has become subject to partisan fissures. The administration will need to tread carefully on these provisions to avoid losing ground.

While no one expects the administration proposal to emerge from the Congressional milieu untouched, it is sure to inform the relevant committees in the House and Senate as they continue drafting. A revised bill with the full and official backing of President Obama would both expedite this process and increase the prospects for meaningful and long overdue reforms.

One of the new rules will definitely have two significant impacts on transportation spending.

First, it would subject transportation spending to the annual appropriations process. Basically this means that instead of having transportation funding be more or less automatically tied to spending determined by the six-year transportation law, appropriators in Congress would decide funding levels each year — likely lower than what the transportation bill “authorized” and potentially leaving money unspent in the highway trust fund each year.

Since 1998 during the last two transportation laws (SAFETEA-LU and TEA-21), appropriators have been required by House rules to fund overall transportation programs at the aggregate levels written into the authorization, like current law SAFETEA-LU. This change will allow congressional appropriators to fund transportation below funding levels authorized in the transportation law or even below gas tax receipts.

While the new rule won’t actually allow diversions of transportation dollars to non-transportation uses as some highway advocacy groups claimed last week, it nevertheless poses some significant issues. It would have an impact on the economy and on local projects that rely on the certainty of guaranteed funding to bid out contracts and build projects. It could create even more uncertainty than we already have with the continued stopgap extensions.

There’s no doubt that the highway trust fund isn’t covering what we need to spend as general funds have been used to shore up the trust fund in the past few years. But cutting transportation spending even further won’t solve the real problems, namely that the money — whether it’s more or less than before — is too often given out to states with no strings attached and no accountability for what that money should accomplish.

We need a better program that spends money wisely to meet the needs we have in 2010, not just a cheaper one.

Second, the new rule would prohibit the Appropriations Committee from funding any program not specifically authorized in law. This means that innovative programs that were created outside the six-year transportation authorization like TIGER or the Bush Administration’s Urban Partnership Program wouldn’t receive funding from the trust fund because they were new programs not included in the transportation authorization. (The UP program was the source of funding for congestion pricing in New York, before that project fell apart locally.)

In the last 8 years, both Republican and Democratic presidents have developed creative programs like these to better address our nation’s transportation needs. If this rule had been in place these two programs would not have been funded and projects like the Norfolk-Southern’s Crescent Corridor and Minneapolis’s I-35 multimodal corridor improvements among others could not have moved forward.

The Act extends current transportation law until December 31, 2010 and restores $19.5 billion in interest to the Highway Trust Fund. This works out to $14.7 billion for highways and $4.8 billion for mass transit. The HIRE Act also restores $8.7 billion in contract authority that was rescinded due to late Congressional action last September.

This clean extension is far superior to the stop-gap measures of the past several months. State Departments of Transportation and regional officials can now move forward on new projects with confidence.

Also of note, the Act extends the ability of urban areas to apply mass transit funding to operating assistance. Painful cuts to public transportation are a real drain on communities across America. This provision will help keep people in their jobs while helping commuters access jobs.

For a more thorough run-down of how the HIRE Act affects transportation, read this summary prepared by T4 America.

A new study conducted by SubsidyScope, an initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts, reveals that not only are roads and highways not self-sustaining, but the amount covered by gas taxes has been declining — leaving an increasing amount of their massive cost to be subsidized. Pew projections – using Federal Highway Administration numbers – show user fees contributing a slim majority of the revenue to the Highway Trust Fund, with the difference made up through bonds and General Fund dollars. Public transportation does, as the critics assert, operate “at a loss,” but so do roadways (see chart below, courtesy of Subsidyscope).

The researchers wrote: “In 2007, 51 percent of the nation’s $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees — down from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.” Forty-years ago, they noted, user-fees generated 71 percent of highway revenues.

Of the 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax, 2.86 cents – about 15 percent – is directed toward mass transit projects, and an additional 0.1 cent toward environmental clean-up, according to the report. That leaves more than 80 percent strictly for highways. Even if we spent 100 percent of gas tax revenues on highways, only 65 percent of their total cost would be covered. There would still be a need for significant outside revenue – in other words, subsidies. Does that mean highways are “government waste?” Or are transportation dollars an investment to provide access to jobs and movement of goods?

One reason for the decline of the user-fee’s contribution is that the gas tax has not kept pace with inflation. Today, there is limited political appetite for a gas tax increase. Americans are also driving cleaner cars than they used to, due in large part of federal action on fuel economy. Less gas purchased means lower gas tax revenues.

So, to the critics who seem to be against all subsidies — unless they’re going to cover highway projects: let’s drop the claim that highways “pay for themselves” and have a debate rooted in fact rather than myth.

With the House passing a $7 billion patch for the Highway Trust Fund yesterday afternoon to keep it from running out of money before September, we thought it might be useful to post a brief Q&A about the trust fund patch and how the full six-year transportation authorization bill could be affected. The $7 billion patch now moves to the Senate for a vote, probably this afternoon, before reaching President Obama’s desk. The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) provides funds for the federal portion of transportation projects.

If the patch is approved by the Senate, Congress will then be is now facing a much bigger decision before the current transportation bill expires on September 30th: pass a new six-year transportation bill, or pass a short- or long-term extension of SAFETEA-LU, the existing transportation bill.

What is the short-term patch and who supports it?

The short-term patch would repair the trust fund insolvency through a $7 billion cash infusion into the HTF. The funds would be transferred from the General Fund before Congress goes on recess in August and would ensure that states can continue to obligate transportation funds through September 30th, 2009. The patch would address the funding shortfall due to declining gas tax revenues that are no longer sufficient to cover the federal portion of transportation projects.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar supported this option and testified before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on July 23rd asking for the $3 billion patch. (That patch has since been increased to $7 billion to match the Senate’s preferred amount.)

How does this relate to the upcoming expiration of SAFETEA-LU on September 30th?

With this cash infusion Congress could continue to focus on pushing the authorization of a new 6-year surface transportation bill this September. The original $3 billion figure was based on recent estimates made by DOT but both the White House and DOT officials have expressed concern that $5-7 billion is a more accurate figure needed to keep the HTF solvent through September. (The House passed a $7 billion patch.)

What is the extension and who supports it?

An extension would continue SAFETEA-LU policies and funding guarantees for a specified amount of time to allow Congress and the Administration to continue working on a full 6-year comprehensive bill.  A proposed 18-month extension would extend SAFETEA-LU to March 2011. Numerous Senators have stated their preference for an 18-month extension, which is also currently supported by the White House. On July 23rd the Senate Banking Committee became the third Senate committee to approve an 18-month extension bill. Congress is also considering the possibility of a short-term extension of 3, 6, or 12 months in lieu of a longer-term extension.

How would the extension be funded and how does it address the near-term shortfall in HTF funds?

An extension of SAFETEA-LU for any length of time would be paid through gas taxes and a possible General Fund infusion. (More funding from some source would certainly be required, as gas taxes do not cover the current funding levels.)

The Senate Financing Committee Chairman Max Baucus released a funding proposal (S. 1474) on July 21st that would maintain the HTF’s solvency throughout an 18-month extension.  This provision will transfer $26.8 billion from the General Fund to transportation ($22 billion to HTF, $4.8 billion to the mass transit account).  The fund transfer will begin in time to provide near-term funding (through August) before HTF reaches insolvency.

Any questions? Ask away in the comments and we’ll try to answer.

No word yet on how this will affect the proposed transportation bill outline to be released by Rep. James Oberstar tomorrow morning. Be sure to check back over the next few days for the latest.

From the DOT press room:

“This morning, I went to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress on the situation with the Highway Trust Fund. I am proposing an immediate 18-month highway reauthorization that will replenish the Highway Trust Fund. If this step is not taken the trust fund will run out of money as soon as late August and states will be in danger of losing the vital transportation funding they need and expect.

“As part of this, I am proposing that we enact critical reforms to help us make better investment decisions with cost-benefit analysis, focus on more investments in metropolitan areas and promote the concept of livability to more closely link home and work. The Administration opposes a gas tax increase during this challenging, recessionary period, which has hit consumers and businesses hard across our country.

“I recognize that there will be concerns raised about this approach. However, with the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused approach, we should not rush legislation. We should work together on a full reauthorization that best meets the demands of the country. The first step is making sure that the Highway Trust Fund is solvent. The next step is addressing our transportation priorities over the long term.”

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has a story up covering LaHood’s proposal, and includes a quote from Rep. Oberstar, responding to the idea of an extension:

In a meeting with reporters Wednesday, Mr. Oberstar was adamant that Congress must pass a new law before the current one expires.

“Extension of current law is unacceptable,” Mr. Oberstar said. “Now is the time to move.”

UPDATE 2: Michael Cooper of the New York Times covers the proposed extension, and gets a statement from Jim Berard, spokesman for Rep. Oberstar. “The chairman is not too pleased with the administration’s proposal,” he said.

Just yesterday, we noted that our transportation system is facing a severe financial crisis. The main source of funding for our federal transportation investments, the Highway Trust Fund, is desperately short on cash, and will need as much as $7 billion from the general fund by September to continue paying for our infrastructure.

While we recognize the need to find new sources of revenue to pay for our roads, bridges, public transportation systems, and walking and biking paths, we believe strongly that we can’t afford to just pour more money into a broken system and must tie any increased funding to strong, measurable reforms.

Or as we said yesterday, we need a federal transportation system that works, not the same broken thing at twice the price.

It appears that the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and the administration agrees pretty strongly with that sentiment. During a hearing today in front of the transportation panel of U.S. House Appropriations Committee, LaHood made a clear, concise point on linking more funding to accountability and performance measures.

“We believe very strongly that any trust fund fix must be paid for. We also believe that any trust fund fix must be tied to reform of the current highway program to make it more performance-based and accountable, such as improving safety or improving the livability of our communities — two priorities for me.”

Check out this post from Elana Schor and our friends at Streetsblog for the whole scoop.

There’s still the sizable challenge of figuring out how to pay for the transportation infrastructure that will keep our country economically competitive and give Americans better options. But it’s incredibly encouraging to see that Sec. LaHood is broadcasting our message on Capitol Hill loud and clear — no new money without reforming the broken system.