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.

James Corless, director of Transportation for America, issued this statement in response:

The decision to halt progress on modernizing our world-lagging rail network is emblematic of an overall failure of congressional leadership and vision. Once again, Congress finds itself lurching from appropriations bill to appropriations bill, creating and killing programs and keeping outdated programs on life support, while China and Europe surge forward. The resulting chaos is undermining our ability even to repair and maintain our existing infrastructure, much less build a a 21st century transportation system that will allow us to compete in an increasingly global economy.

The one bright spot is that Congress preserved – though at a slightly lower level – the merit-based TIGER and sustainable communities programs, which promote competition and fund innovative, multi-disciplinary solutions to our transportation challenges. When Congress takes up the next transportation authorization, which is increasingly urgent, it must build on this sort of approach, while resurrecting a vision that can move us ahead of our international competitors.

The budget deal zeroes out high-speed rail funding from $2.5 billion enacted in fiscal year 2010. The one week extension to keep the government running through Friday had cut high-speed rail funds back to $1 billion for fiscal year 2011. Those funds had not been committed to any states because Congress never finalized a budget for fiscal year 2011. In addition to the $1 billion, the budget rescinds $400 million from fiscal year 2010 that had been returned by Florida Governor Rick Scott earlier this year.

Other cuts include:

• The New Starts program, a key source of funding for transit projects, is reduced to $1.6 billion.
• The TIGER program is reduced to $528 million from $600 million, a loss of $72 million.
• The Partnership for Sustainable Communities is reduced from $150 million in FY10 to $100 million.
• $3.1 billion in highway contract authority that has not been obligated to specific projects is also cut.

The total cuts to the New Starts program depends on the comparison. The $1.6 billion figure is $400 million less than fiscal year 2010 levels, but only about $220 million less than what the President requested for this year. Of the savings, $200 million became unobligated after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie chose to cancel his state’s planned ARC tunnel project.  Seven projects are expected to be impacted by the New Starts cuts.

The final figure for New Starts is only slightly more than what the House passed in HR. 1 several weeks ago. HR1 would have also eliminated funding for high-speed rail and TIGER grants.

With the Federal Government slated to close at midnight, the House and Senate passed a final one week stop-gap measure to allow the details of the agreement to be ironed out. The continuing resolution itself contains $2 billion in cuts that largely hit the U.S. Department of Transportation and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

By next week, Congress is expected to finalize its fiscal year 2011 budget — which runs through September — at the agreed-upon funding levels. President Obama made brief remarks on the budget compromise at the White House shortly after 11pm last night.

The cuts to transportation and housing passed last night were deemed largely non-controversial because they matched closely with the funding levels requested in President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget.

The High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail program will receive $1 billion, a reduction of $1.5 billion from the previous year, and the New Starts program — a key revenue source for transit projects throughout the country — loses $280 million, though the resulting figure is reportedly sufficient to fund projects that have already received grants from USDOT. Other cuts include:

• $6.3 million from the Transportation Planning, Research, and Development account
• $2.5 million from the Federal Railroad Administration’s Research and Development; and
• The Transit Research and University Research Centers Program budget is reduced to $64.2 million.

Details on the remainder of the fiscal year cuts and how they will affect transportation are not yet available, although Politico has early information on a few items:

One of the toughest fights, casting the White House as the budget cutter against reluctant Republicans, was in highway and transportation spending. But here the administration succeeded in cutting about $630 million in so-called orphan earmarks and $2.5 billion in unexpended contract authority.

We expect to hear more about the final package soon.

UPDATE: A White House blog post confirms that the fiscal year 2011 cuts include $630 million in earmarked transportation projects and $2.5 billion in funding that was slated for transportation projects.

Photo courtesy of the Washington Post.

Ryan’s budget would cap transportation spending at 2008 levels. Noting that the general fund has been tapped for $35 billion in recent years to cover shortfalls in the highway trust fund, his proposal aims to keep the fund “solvent without additional general fund transfers or increases in the gasoline tax.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the gas tax will raise $230 billion over the next six years. That’s more than $50 billion below SAFETEA-LU, the current transportation law.

The proposed budget would cut at least $17 billion in transportation investment per year over the next several years, according to one analysis. The proposal does not address specific funding levels or cuts for individual programs, and it has as little to say about policy except for a strong bias against inter-city rail. His proposal also contains a misleading statement that would seem to blame bike trails for the shortfall in the trust fund. For the record, those items amount to less than 1.5 percent of annual outlays, while paying enormous dividends in safety, health, reduced energy consumption and quality of life.

“We share the Chairman’s desire to ‘focus every dollar on pursuing a targeted and cohesive national transportation policy,’” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “However, we cannot get to ‘targeted and cohesive’ by having budget writers make narrow and premature choices about which modes matter and which ones don’t.”

Corless added that the sweeping nature of Ryan’s budget proposal makes it all the more critical that we begin serious debate, soon, on passing a smarter transportation authorization.

“For our money, that will necessarily include, at a minimum, realigning the highway program to emphasize repair and rebuilding our roads and bridges (see our report on the latter here); enabling communities to meet their needs for more and better transportation options; and insisting that state transportation agencies account for their progress on road and bridge maintenance, access for people of all ages and incomes and providing alternatives to congestion,” said Corless. “These are the policies that will ensure our future economic prosperity and quality of life.”

Although some in the press have characterized the development as a victory for Republicans, the $4 billion in reductions is decidedly modest and overlaps with programs already targeted in President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget. Only two budget items — $650 million from a one-time Federal Highway Administration program and a handful of legislative earmarks – are transportation related.

However, the measure to fund the government for two weeks received 85 Democratic “no” votes in the House — including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi —  and a chilled reception in the Senate even from those Democrats voting in favor. Unifying the more liberal-leaning Senate Democrats wary of deep cuts with moderates who are more open to them could be difficult. Some members were also alarmed by remarks from Speaker John Boehner that cutting “one slice at a time” could achieve his party’s goals if deep reductions were not passed in one package.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica was a yes vote, as was top committee Democrat Nick Rahall. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer and Republican counterpart Jim Inhofe also voted yes.

Though spared for the time being, crucial transportation programs like New Starts, high-speed rail and TIGER grants remain on the chopping block. So far, cuts to transportation have not received a lion’s share of the attention, though Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois highlighted his opposition to TIGER grant cuts at two events last month and several House members offered amendments to restore essential funding to public transportation.

This week’s compromise does not preclude a shutdown later this month, given the seemingly wide gulf between the two parties on what level of spending cuts are acceptable. Some Democrats said they fear the short two-week timeline will induce gridlock and result in Republicans re-offering their $61 billion spending reduction plan as an alternative.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Positive features of the draft bill

1. Critical Asset Investment Program. This program creates a substantial, dedicated funding stream for maintaining roads and bridges and will not allow states to divert those funds to highway expansion projects. The bill also requires transit agencies to show how they are maintaining their systems in a state of good repair. How large this program is remains to be seen.
2. Simpler, more streamlined programs. The bill streamlines federal transportation policy by eliminating or consolidating 75 of 108 existing federal programs into several core areas, and proposes a streamlined process for projects and approvals.
3. Greater Local Control. More money would flow directly to metro areas, increasing their authority and ability to plan transportation projects, and the bill requires extensive planning from metro areas, with some detail on performance targets and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that they meet goals.
4. A Stronger rural voice. Rural areas get a bigger say in state-level transportation decision-making.
5. Transit New Starts projects. Eliminates the “cost effectiveness” index that made reducing travel time per dollar spent the top criteria for funding eligibility. The bill proposes that the many benefits of a new transit project be considered, also streamlines project delivery. (Read our post on New Starts here)

Areas in need of improvement

1. Livability. The bill is heading in right direction by prioritizing investments in neighborhoods where people can bike, walk, take transit or drive, and affordable homes can be found near transit stops and job centers. But the Office of Livability can’t just be an isolated initiative in the Federal Highway Administration; it needs to be a fundamental part of how localities qualify for all transportation funding. The office needs more money and authority, and should cut across agency boundaries to promote a more integrated system.
2. Public transportation. The total funding levels for for transit increases from 18 to 22 percent to nearly $100 billion over the life of the bill, but T4 America believes this money should be a funding floor that could increase with more flexibility — not a ceiling on how much transit will receive. In a truly mode-neutral scenario, whatever project and mode gives us the best bang for our buck and helps us meet (the missing) performance targets would be funded. There is some money that can be “flexed” to transit, but there isn’t much direction or performance criteria, and the structural biases that prevent this flexible money from being easily spent on public transportation still exist in the legislation. Transit agencies should have some discretion in using federal funds to sustain operations and quality service.
3. Clean transportation and the connection to climate change. The bill gives a nod to having transportation do its part on climate protection, but there are no real teeth, no hard targets for reductions, and no clear priority given to projects that can help reduce emissions.
4. Metro Mobility and Access. The creation of a new Metro Mobility and Access Program is a move in the right direction, and would supply more resources to help large metro areas address their most pressing transportation needs. But the goals are mostly about moving cars, and there isn’t any focus on improving land use and transportation demand to reduce congestion and improve access. However, the program will sub-allocate money to metropolitan planning organizations, and any money that flows directly to local communities is an improvement.

Critical missing, transformational elements

1. Goals, performance targets and accountability. Having individual programs that work better by themselves represents progress -– but having programs that work in harmony towards achieving a set of national objectives is critical if we are going to be successful in moving to a truly integrated, intermodal national transportation system. The bill does have ample language on developing complicated measures and statistics for some programs — but if they don’t feed back into concrete national targets with accountability, we’ll just have a truckload of meaningless statistics.
2. Freight. The requirement of a freight plan inclusive of truck, rail, ports, etc., is positive. However, the funding appears to be aimed only at expanding highway capacity for freight, missing the opportunity to explicitly make freight transport by rail a priority.
3. Blueprint planning. While an earlier outline of the bill showed real promise on helping states, local and regional agencies conduct long-term planning to address their transportation needs while integrating them with housing, land use, and economic development issues, the full legislation falls short on the details. Moreover, without incentives or details for more funding to help meet the extensive planning requirements included in the bill, the language on blueprint planning raises more questions than answers.
4. Land use. There’s nothing substantive to provide incentives to coordinate land use and development with transport so people have more options to live in walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods. Though very popular across the country with developers and localities — and highly in demand by consumers — the words “transit-oriented development” (TOD) appear only once in the bill.
5. Equity and Affordability. Among the four E’s (economy, environment, energy and equity), equity seems to have gotten the least attention the bill. Severely underfunded programs for low-income, disabled and aging Americans were consolidated without any specifics on improving overall effectiveness or coordination or details on funding levels. The overall costs of housing and transportation, which place a severe burden on millions of Americans, were barely discussed in the bill, despite the focus on “livability.” Making sure that all Americans have safe access to affordable transportation choices should be a overarching priority of the bill.
6. Workforce development. There is brief discussion of a National Workforce Development Council, but no provision as yet for workforce development in the highway portion of the bill, and no mention of green jobs. This is another area that could be quickly improved with specifics, funding, and clear guidelines for measurement.

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.