So what’s in the bill? Politico has a copy of the leaked 14-page summary, but it covers the policy only in very broad strokes, so it’s not possible to reach any sort of real conclusions about the bill just yet.

One of the most notable aspects of the bill is the proposal to raise the billions needed to cover the yawning gap in anticipated gas tax revenues with money from increased oil drilling — an intent also illustrated by the title: “The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act.” The fact that the bill was written entirely by committee Republicans and tied to such a controversial new revenue source could result in a bill that gets little Democratic support in committee or on the floor.

Leaving speculation behind, no specifics are offered as to where the drilling would take place or how much revenue it’s expected to raise. On the subject, the summary says, “By removing barriers to new energy production, this fiscally responsible proposal will create a new, sustainable, revenue stream for infrastructure improvements, lower energy costs, and create infrastructure and energy sector jobs across the country.” We’ll have to wait for details on which “barriers to energy production” will be removed and how much revenue might be created.

We’ll have much more on this in the week to come as the full text is released and we can take a closer look.

It’s encouraging to hear House leaders say they intend to move forward with adopting a multiyear investment plan for transportation infrastructure that moves away from a 30 percent cut and toward full funding. But attaching the transportation bill to deeply contentious drilling proposals could lead to partisan gridlock and sidetrack long overdue transportation legislation — a stark contrast to the transportation bill marked up in the Senate just last week with a unanimous bipartisan vote.

While the Speaker’s press conference this morning was very short on details about the length or price of the bill, they did make it clear that their intent is to try and cover the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund through expanded oil drilling and exploration. That plan would certainly face immediate opposition from Democrats and moderates in the House and Senate.

There are serious questions, however about the amount of funding that could be raised over the next five years through this approach. As Sen. James Inhofe — the Republican co-sponsor of the Senate’s bipartisan bill – has noted, it is unlikely drilling-related revenues would come close to closing the existing transportation funding gap, and would not be available for several years. (New oil drilling could bring in perhaps a billion dollars over the life of the energy bills, and not for several years, according to recent scoring by the Congressional Budget Office. The shortfall is well over $50 billion over the life of this bill.)

In his response, Sen. Inhofe made it clear that expecting new oil drilling revenues to pay for an immediate multi-year transportation bill isn’t a realistic funding solution for this bill.

“While Speaker Boehner’s idea may be a long-term revenue source for transportation infrastructure,” Inhofe said, “we need to focus on the immediate problem of how we will fund a multi-year highway bill. …If this is how the House is able to move the bill forward then I applaud them. But we need money now for transportation; we can’t afford to wait.”

Calling the transportation bill an “important Republican jobs initiative”, Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, offered his priorities for authorization in a statement:

“It is my hope to mark up in the coming weeks a solid blueprint for the future of America’s transportation that will do the following: significantly streamline the process for projects by cutting red tape and unnecessary federal paperwork; consolidate duplicative federal transportation programs; provide flexibility, authority and responsibility to states and local governments to move transportation projects forward; and increase the ability to leverage financial resources and encourage more private sector participation in building infrastructure.”

Transportation for America has long advocated for the idea of tying the bill to an “oil fee” in the past. Our proposal was quite different, though, designed to ensure that any additional revenue from a fee on oil would increase the efficiency of the transportation system and help give people expanded options that can reduce the nation’s oil dependency. This idea received majority support from the public in a poll of ours, and two-thirds of those polled supported if it came with a cut in the tax at the pump.

Because details of the bill have not been released, it’s unknown whether any new revenue would be applied to a sound investment strategy. We look forward to an opportunity to review the draft legislation and will continue to work with transportation leaders in the House and Senate to see that a bill gets enacted as soon as possible.

The American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act will be H.R 7, a number reserved for one of the Speaker’s bills, when it moves sometime before the end of the year, according to the timeline presented today.

While the House and Senate agreement this week on a clean six-month extension of the current transportation program offers a temporary reprieve from deep cuts, advocates remain rightly concerned about the potential 35 percent across-the-board cut proposed by in the House when Congress takes up a longer-term bill next year.

It’s in this spirit that the Don’t X Out Public Transportation rallies will commence next Tuesday, September 20. Organized in cooperation with the American Public Transportation Association in 15 cities, these events will highlight how a one-third cut in transit would hurt Americans in their daily lives — their ability to get to work, groceries and basic services, among other necessities.

With our economic recovery on life support and no signs of a thaw in the unemployment rate, this is the wrong time to be talking about cuts. In fact, according to APTA’s calculations, Americans looking to save money are already reducing their monthly budgets by hundreds simply by altering how they get to work. The numbers tell the story: Americans who switch from driving to riding public transportation to work save an average of $830 per month and nearly $10,000 every year, using the current national gas price average — $3.65 per gallon — as a baseline.

Democrats and Republicans in Washington have not always agreed on the prescription for an ailing economy, but most everyone acknowledges that continued joblessness is a problem in need of serious attention. Many Americans, both unemployed, underemployed or too discouraged to keep looking, are scraping by every month, with a big chunk still underwater on mortgages and debt. Why would Congress take away a money-saving lifeline like public transportation? And what about the job-seeker who cannot get and keep a job without access to these services?

If you want to speak up about prioritizing transit and preventing cuts, visit supporttransit.org to find an event in your area. You’re also encouraged to ride public transportation next Tuesday and wear red. The locations for nationwide events as of today are as follows:

• Birmingham, Alabama
• Boston, Massachusetts
• Chicago, Illinois
• Fall River and New Bedford, Massachusetts
• Greensboro, North Carolina
• Johnstown, Pennsylvania
• Los Angeles, California
• Miami, Florida
• Minneapolis. Minnesota
• New York, New York
• Oakland, California
• Providence, Rhode Island
• Springfield, Massachusetts
• Worchester, Massachusetts

Check this site for information on exact locations and times as details are confirmed. We’ll have more information later this week and early next week.

At the end of September, if Congress doesn’t act, the transportation bill will expire. This bill provides funding for highway construction, bridge repair, mass transit systems and other essential projects that keep our people and our commerce moving quickly and safely. And for construction workers and their families across the country, it represents the difference between making ends meet or not making ends meet.

If we allow the transportation bill to expire, over 4,000 workers will be immediately furloughed without pay. If it’s delayed for just 10 days, it will lose nearly $1 billion in highway funding — that’s money we can never get back. And if it’s delayed even longer, almost one million workers could lose their jobs over the course of the next year.

As a refresher, we’re currently on the 7th extension of the 2005 transportation bill (which incidentally expired exactly 700 days ago today in September of 2009.) The current extension of federal law expires at the end of September, leaving only a narrow window of time for the House and Senate — currently far apart on policy and funding levels — to come together on a new long-term transportation bill.

A “clean” extension would mean extending the old policy without making policy changes or tweaks — changes that don’t have time to be properly considered or debated. T4 America Director James Corless said in our statement earlier today:

Extending the gas tax and the current law that allocates transportation funds ought to be the bipartisan no-brainer it has been historically. To play politics with the extension would deliver a gratuitous shock to a struggling economy and to families relying on infrastructure-related paychecks.

Extending the old policy is urgently needed, but it’s still a band-aid. The bigger need will still remain: passing a robust, long-term transportation bill with updated policy and purpose that matches the needs of the 21st century in America. Corless continued:

Beyond that, the President is right to urge Congress to break the gridlock and adopt a fully funded, long-term authorization that will protect and create jobs while supporting a full-fledged economic recovery. To be most effective, the updated transportation bill needs to ensure timely project approvals, as the President noted; but more importantly, it needs to set clear priorities to avoid misspending our precious dollars. Those priorities should include holding states and localities accountable for smart investment strategies and for repairing and updating existing infrastructure, while expanding the network to provide more convenient, safe and affordable travel options for all Americans.

Rep. John Mica, the chair of the House committee responsible for writing the bill, released his own statement expressing his support for passing an extension, in which he said, “I will agree to one additional highway program extension,” seemingly acknowledging the reality that it will extremely difficult to pass a full six year bill in the short month of September.

The bigger questions still lingering from all of this news today are whether or not the extension will be “clean” — without policy riders of any kind — and what impact this will have on the long-term transportation bill being considered by each chamber. The House draft bill has already been released, and rumor has it that the Senate is planning to release theirs in just a few weeks. But the two versions are far apart on funding and length for certain, and possibly with regard to policy.

Stay tuned, September will be a busy month. The legislative calendar will get rolling when Congress gets back in session on the day after Labor Day.

First, the New York measure — known as “Brittany’s Law” in honor of 14-year old girl struck by a car in a crosswalk on her way to school — sailed through the legislature with unanimous votes and broad-based support earlier this summer. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign, a T4 partner, played a pivotal role in passage of the bill, along with the New York chapter of AARP. Republican Senator Charles J. Fuschillo, chairman of the transportation committee in the upper house, was the original sponsor.

Complete streets policies aim to make new and reconstructed roadways safe and accessible for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users and transit riders, as well as motorists. Sadly, the status-quo for most users around the country is woefully unsafe and insufficient, perhaps nowhere more so than in Florida.

“As any pedestrian in Florida knows, walking in this car-obsessed state can be as tranquil as golfing in a lightning storm,” wrote the Times’ Lizette Alvarez yesterday, continuing:

Sidewalks are viewed as perks, not necessities. Crosswalks are disliked and dishonored. And many drivers maniacally speed up when they see someone crossing the street.

Then there are the long, ever widening arterial roads — those major thoroughfares lined with strip malls built to move cars in and out of sprawling suburbs.

New York Times photo from the story by Chip Litherland.Send us your photos of similar unsafe streets designed for speeding traffic

Alvarez, who spoke with T4 America for the piece, noted that four metropolitan areas in the state were ranked as the worst in the nation for pedestrians in our Dangerous by Design study, with Orlando at number one. And, as her reporting demonstrated, these statistics are borne out by real people everyday:

Just down the street, the same scene played out repeatedly, only pedestrians raced across the road (where there was no median) to a neighborhood supermarket. One group included a child in a stroller. The road, like so many others, was built for cars and not people.

Fortunately, Orlando officials are starting to see the situation with the urgency it demands. They are building miles of new sidewalks, putting in audible pedestrian signals and instituting measures to slow traffic. Frank Consoli, traffic operations engineer for the city of Orlando, told Alvarez the goal was “to change the culture and this thinking that is car-centric.”

But local efforts alone will not suffice. As the article points out, many roads fall under multiple jurisdictions with conflicting priorities. That’s why actions like those of Governor Cuomo and New York State legislators are crucial — to ensure the kind of uniformity and safety that pedestrians everywhere deserve.

As we pointed out in Dangerous by Design, two-thirds of the 47,700 pedestrian fatalities from 2000-2009 occurred on roads eligible for federal funds or with federal guidelines for design. Since federal transportation dollars have helped build these unsafe streets that treat pedestrians as an afterthought, the federal government must play a role in fixing the problem.

In the House, Democrat Doris Matsui of California and Republican Steve LaTourette of Ohio have introduced national complete streets legislation, and Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is sponsoring a companion piece.

Portions of the Orlando metropolitan area, incidentally, are represented in Congress by John Mica, the powerful chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Will Mica respond to the needs of his constituents by making safe and complete streets a priority in the next transportation bill?

We’re gathering pictures of unsafe conditions for pedestrians to show online and in meetings with members of Congress here in D.C. Share the conditions near you by sending in photos. Details here.

A major recurring theme of the House’s transportation bill proposal has been to “do more with less.” One of the ways that they propose to do that is with a once fairly obscure and small federal loan program known as TIFIA.

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or TIFIA, would be greatly expanded under Chairman Mica’s bill. TIFIA is a federal loan program that provides direct loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit to finance transportation projects of national and regional significance. The program has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support, as evidence by its inclusion in Mica’s draft.

An expansion of TIFIA can play a constructive in leveraging both public and private sector dollars in support of innovative projects. As an example, Los Angeles would receive immediate benefit by being allowed to proceed with a suite of transit projects approved voters under a recent ballot measure. L.A. taxpayers have already voted to tax themselves to build these projects, but the innovative financing in TIFIA is one way that L.A. could meet their goal of building 30 years of projects in 10 years — by getting low-cost federal loans or bonds up front that would be paid back with dedicated tax revenue, speeding up project delivery.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called TIFIA a “key component” that “has proven to be a powerful tool in getting worthwhile projects launched from the drawing board to their construction phase.”

More details are needed to determine what kind of projects would benefit more broadly under the House plan. Will an array of transit projects be able to meaningfully participate in new financing options? Will projects with the greatest returns on investment and benefits for a community be prioritized? What kind of incentives will exist for the kind of comprehensive planning that Los Angeles undertook? And, what role would private sector participants play in both the financing and planning aspects?

The House proposal does not create a national infrastructure bank, which has been endorsed by President Obama and a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators. Instead, the bill would make additional federal funds available for states to create their own infrastructure banks. Currently, 33 states operate federally-funded state infrastructure banks, and according to AASHTO, have entered into 579 project agreements with a total dollar value of $5.56 billion. South Carolina’s state infrastructure bank, for instance, accounts for 56 percent of the total dollar value.

I-5 Repair Originally uploaded by WSDOT to Flickr.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica cites the need to restore credibility and solvency to the Highway Trust Fund in defending his austere transportation proposal. But the House plan is discouragingly vague on one of the most effective means of accomplishing this goal: prioritizing repair and maintenance of our nation’s existing infrastructure.

Prioritizing the repair of our existing infrastructure would be one of the best ways to make good use of limited dollars by ensuring that our current system and past investments are preserved, protected and restored.

We know that the status-quo isn’t meeting our needs. More than 69,000 bridges — nearly 12 percent of our nation’s total highway bridges — are classified as “structurally deficient” and close to 50 percent of our major highways are rated below “good” condition. The American Society of Civil Engineers graded our nation’s roadways a near-failing “D-,” while bridges received a “C” and transit systems a “D.”

Prioritizing repair is also fiscally responsible, which ought to be a chief selling point in the current political climate. AASHTO, the trade group representing state transportation officials, has found that every $1 in upfront repairs can save up to $14 down the road.

Conversely, when states fail to make necessary repairs, motorists usually end up paying for the delay or damage out of their own pockets. On average, poorly maintained roads cost each driver $335 per year. With less money to spend overall, the lack of a strong repair policy is a glaring oversight.

It remains unclear how the House proposal will address our nation’s crumbling infrastructure in a cost-effective way. While the outline and comments from staff at the press conference indicated that there will be performance measures in the bill, there’s nothing explicitly mentioned on any repair guidelines or standards. Will “state of good repair” be one of the performance measures?

One logical step forward would be for the bill to incorporate language resembling Senator Ben Cardin’s Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act, which would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish “state of good repair standards” for highways that receive federal funding. Will Rep. Mica’s goal of doing “more with less” extend to the long overdue rehabilitation of our current transportation system? Or will the bill simply entrench a failed status-quo with a smaller pricetag?

Click below to blow up this graphic explaining the money that can be saved through “asset management” programs — and the money that is wasted by neglecting repair needs.

Transportation performance measures — and accountability for meeting them — are keys to improving the federal transportation program and ensuring that taxpayers’ funds are invested wisely. House committee staff confirmed that states will be held accountable for decisions through performance measures, which could be a significant step forward – depending on how the measures work.

But like so many other parts of the House proposal, the devil will remain in the details. A few key questions need to be answered:

What will the performance measures actually measure? If the measures only consider congestion and mobility, for example, will states be required to build larger highways without consideration of equity and environmental impacts? It is important that these performance measures are connected to improved system performance. If they are not, these measures simply become a tool to highlight the impact of past decisions, both good and bad. Or put another way, the targets need to be related to actually improving the condition of the system.

Will the measures help direct the flow of funds? For example, the outline states that the transit formula programs will incentivize performance by incorporating performance measures into the distribution formulas. Will highway programs be held to the same standard?

Will states actually be held accountable for meeting the targets? Committee staff indicated that states will be required to spend a portion of their highway, transit and highway safety funds in areas where they are under-performing. Will states need to analyze how proposed plans to spend funds will impact measures so elected officials and the public can understand the impacts of decisions before they are made?

Especially with a smaller amount of money to spend, ensuring those dollars are well spent is more important than ever. Setting a diverse range of performance targets and holding states accountable for meeting them is a smart way to get the most bang for our buck. The House bill makes a positive and necessary step in this direction, but the ultimate verdict will come with the details in the full bill text.

P4211073_1 Originally uploaded by paulkimo90 to Flickr.

The House proposal contains scant information about public transportation, but by most indications, non-highway projects would have more difficulty receiving funding and prioritization compared to current law.

The outline did not explicitly call for maintaining the historic 20 percent share of Highway Trust Fund dollars for public transportation, though both Chairman Mica and Committee staff indicated verbally at a press conference that the 80/20 ratio would be preserved, albeit as part of a much smaller share of total dollars. Though even with the 20 percent share intact, the overall 35 percent cut would result in steep fare hikes, service cuts, job losses or some combination thereof.

Though overall funding would decrease by 35 percent, the bill purports to increase funding for rural and suburban transit systems but does not identify a dollar amount or from where these dollars might be taken. Many rural and suburban systems are indeed underfunded and require additional support, but this investment ought to occur in the context of sufficient resources for all networks.

Would the House bill take money from already cash-strapped and demand-heavy urban transit systems? And, if not, where would these additional dollars come from? Would allocations be determined by merit or by politics?

Consistent with the bill’s efficiency theme, Mica proposes to streamline the New Starts program, the main source of current funding for building or expanding transit systems. The bill purports to cut project development time in half but does not specify how this would be accomplished. Private-sector partners would also be given new opportunities to offer services, though once again, details are scant.

What specific changes would the House bill make to current New Start criteria? Would private services be allowed to take the most lucrative routes, leaving municipal services to pick up the slack on money-losing alternatives? What about transit agencies that are already engaging in constructive public-private partnerships?

Amtrak’s operating funds are slated to be reduced by 25 percent in the first two years of the bill, and limitations would be placed on Amtrak’s use of federal dollars in the future. With demand for Amtrak services at record-highs, what is the justification for such a steep cut?

The bill does not provide any specific funding for high-speed rail, which will be dealt with in companion legislation. High-speed rail would become an eligible project under the existing Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program that provides loans for rail projects, but it is not clear what revenue sources would be available to repay these loans. Will high-speed rail have the same opportunity to compete for federal dollars as traditional highway and transit projects?

The House transportation bill would impose a 35 percent across-the-board reduction on the entire federal program, resulting in the loss of approximately 630,000 jobs in the next fiscal year, according to numbers from the Federal Highway Administration. That means a one-third drop in resources for roads, highways, bridges, transit systems and all other projects reliant on USDOT dollars.

With a gas tax increase off the table and scant support for other new revenue sources, Chairman Mica has argued that the proposed funding levels offer the only opportunity to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent and stable. He says that a six-year bill with lower spending levels provides greater predictability for state officials and a two-year bill at current levels, as the Senate is proposing.

The spending levels in the House proposal have received the lion’s share of the bill’s criticism. Committee Ranking Member Nick Rahall said the cuts would “undermine our nation’s long-term economic competitiveness, and jeopardize our economic recovery.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the dollar amount “devastating to construction and related industries” and “a drag on GDP,” while the American Public Transportation Association called it “woefully short of what is required to address the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure investments needs.”

Mica stated publicly that his “hands are tied” by the rules adopted by the House in accordance with Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s blueprint. He also told the press that his colleagues in the House “would vote down a Mother’s Day Resolution if it had extra spending. That’s the climate we’re in.”

In the unveiling of the bill, however, he expressed openness to exploring additional revenue sources in consultation with House Ways and Means Committee.