Senate committee boosts funding for clean transportation in the climate bill
October 26, 2009By Stephen Lee Davis
| Please thank your senators for moving forward on this landmark bill and ask them to continue to support strong transportation measures in the climate bill. |
The long-awaited allocations in the Senate climate bill were released over the weekend, and the news is good for increasing access to cleaner transportation options. Late Friday evening, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released the final numbers on where the revenues raised under a cap-and-trade climate bill would be directed.
The Senate nearly triples the funding for clean, sustainable transportation over the House climate bill, which only set aside an optional one percent of funding. (Streetsblog Capitol Hill has some details on the allocations.)
After hearing from advocates and their colleagues in the Senate, the authors of the Senate climate bill agreed to include a higher, guaranteed level of funding (roughly 2.4% over the life of the bill) for clean transportation options, such as public transportation, affordable neighborhoods around transit stops, vanpooling and streets safe for walking and biking.
We want to let the Senate know, especially those committee members, that we appreciate their leadership on this issue and we want them to defend that funding as the bill moves through other Senate committees. There is still a long road ahead for the climate bill and the Senate needs to know you will support their efforts to continue fighting for more money for clean transportation.
Take a moment to thank senators for making clean transportation part of the climate bill — and tell them to defend that money over the coming weeks.
Transportation for America is happy for the strong transportation provisions, but we are not stopping at 2.4%. We’re going to continue asking the Senate to increase that amount as the bill moves forward. It only makes sense — transportation pollution is responsible for nearly one-third of our national greenhouse gas emissions.
We applaud Sen. Barbara Boxer and the rest of the Senate EPW Committee for this strong statement that funding clean transportation options is a vital part of reducing our emissions.
How does the new transportation bill draft measure up?
June 24, 2009By Stephen Lee Davis
| “A bill to transform Federal surface transportation to a performance-based framework to reduce fatalities and injuries on our Nation’s highways, address the mobility and access needs of people and goods, improve the condition, performance, and connectivity of the United States intermodal surface transportation system, provide transportation choices for commuters and travelers, promote environmental sustainability, public health, and the livability of communities, support robust investment in surface transportation, and for other purposes.” |
That’s how the new 775-page draft of the House Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 opens up. Considering that this is federal legislation here — not literature — that’s a pretty lofty opening to guide the upcoming six-year transportation bill.
But does reality match the rhetoric in the 774 pages that follow?
| Read the official T4 America statement on the bill draft |
First, Chairman James Oberstar is to be commended for releasing a draft bill that goes beyond just reauthorizing a modified version of the existing transportation law (SAFETEA-LU). There are some real signs of change in this bill and transportation reform advocates across the board are encouraged by the overall language and direction of the bill. Compared with the opening paragraph of the last bill (Wait, there were no opening principles!), STAA is off to a great start.
While there are principles and vision in the introduction about performance, connectivity, environmental sustainability, public health, livability; reading the fine print in the legislation leaves unanswered questions and areas of concern — such as how funding will be allocated among programs. Most obvious, as others have pointed out, is the omission of dollar amounts for specific programs, formulas and sources of funding. A final verdict on this draft won’t be complete without knowing answers to the funding questions.
| “Having individual programs that work better is certainly a step in the right direction, but it is absolutely critical to be sure those programs work together towards achieving a set of national objectives.” |
| — James Corless, T4 America |
Once you dig into the fine print, it becomes clear that although individual programs are assigned certain goals and performance measures, there are no clear, cross-cutting, national performance targets for measuring the success or failure overall of such a massive investment.
Though Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of spending money on infrastructure and transportation — and can even get behind increased taxes to do so — that support generally comes with the caveat that they want to know we’re buying something useful, and not just spending twice as much money to do more of the same.
With a price tag between $450 billion and $500 billion for this transportation bill — almost twice the cost of the last bill — it’s more important than ever to have positive answers to some big-picture issues. That’s why we need to ask some critical questions about this legislation: If the bill got passed:
- Would more Americans have low-cost, convenient travel and living options?
- Would more Americans have easier access to jobs?
- Would older Americans have more options for aging in place and low-income households have more affordable transportation choices?
- Would fewer Americans die or be injured, whether while driving, walking, bicycling or taking transit?
- Would we be able to reduce emissions and cut energy use while still providing choices for getting from A to B?
- Would America be able to continue competing economically on the world stage?
Here is a quick look at some of the positive things in the bill, and some that need improvement or are sorely lacking. Keep in mind that these are in flux and can be improved with even small changes to language of the bill. The funding levels that are to be determined will also have a major impact in where these different issues ultimately stack up.
Continue reading below the fold to see a short breakdown of the good, the needs-improvement, and the missing elements.
(Continue Reading)
President Obama: “I would like to see some long-term reforms in how transportation dollars flow…”
February 18, 2009By Stephen Lee Davis
President Obama gave an interview to five columnists aboard Air Force One last week en route to Chicago, and he talked at length about infrastructure, transportation, and the need to make serious reforms in transportation spending this year when the five-year transportation bill is reauthorized. He hinted at how proper investments in transportation and infrastructure can help boost the economy and meet other national goals like reducing energy usage — all while making a downpayment on a 21st Century transportation system we’re all hoping for.
 |
| President Obama with his Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. From the Obama-Biden Transition Project’s Flickr stream (Creative Commons) |
An excerpt from the very long interview:
Q. Mr. President, if I could ask you about infrastructure, You’ve got infrastructure spending in the stimulus package. The need is much faster than that and the money is tight. Do you anticipate any significant further additions in federal infrastructure spending in the reasonably near future, and are you making plans to establish an infrastructure bank?
President Obama: Well, number one, we’ve got the transportation reauthorization bill that’s going to be coming up. So one thing to keep some perspective about on the recovery package is this is supposed to provide a jolt to the economy above and beyond what we’re doing already in the federal budget. And so I expect that Secretary LaHood, working with the various transportation committees are going to be moving forward on a transportation bill. I would like to see some long-term reforms in how transportation dollars flow, and I’ll give you just a couple of examples. I think right now we don’t do a lot of effective planning at the regional level when it comes to transportation. That’s hugely inefficient. Not only does it probably consume more money in terms of getting projects done, but it also ends up creating traffic patterns, for example, that are really hugely wasteful when it comes to energy use.
If we can start building in more incentives for more effective planning at the local level, that’s not just good transportation policy, it’s good energy policy. So we’ll be working with transportation committees to see if we can move in that direction.
The idea of an infrastructure bank I think make sense — the idea that we get engineers, and not just elected officials, involved in thinking about and planning how we’re spending these dollars. I may get some objections from my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, on the Hill about that, but I think there should be some way for us to — just think how can we rationalize the process to get the most bang for the buck, because the needs are massive and we can’t do everything, and if it’s estimated that just on infrastructure alone it would cost a couple trillion dollars to get our roads, bridges, sewer systems, et cetera, up to snuff, and we know we’re not going to have that money, then it would be nice if we said here are the 10 most important projects and let’s do those first, instead of maybe doing the 10 least important projects but the ones that have the most political pull.
States worry about dwindling road funds
July 24, 2008By Andrew Bielak
States across the country are in a panic over their declining revenue from federal and state gas taxes, and many are simply hoping that “Washington will find a way.” (Stateline — Stephen C. Fehr)
-
- 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 - T4 jobs proposal would create nearly half a million jobs, according to Economic Policy Institute
February 17, 2010 - Obama’s 2011 budget gives a lift to livability and transportation
February 2, 2010
- Transit grants out the federal door, but what about the cuts?
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.
