senate Archives - Page 7 of 7 - Transportation For America

A real plan to fix bridges, or a reprise of attacks on pedestrian safety?

Our reports calling attention to our nation’s deficient bridges have gained enormous traction in recent weeks, to the point that members of Congress and the White House are citing our data in demonstrating the need for infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, some are using them to make disingenuous attempts to eliminate a small program they’ve been trying to put on the chopping block for years.

A New Trail Originally uploaded by M.V. Jantzen to Flickr.

Safe travels for people on foot, on bike and in cars on the new Wilson Bridge in Washington, D.C. Should we really have to choose?

The small Transportation Enhancements program represents less than 2 percent of all transportation funding, and more than half of that 2 percent is used to help make walking and biking safer — a worthy expenditure considering 10 percent of trips are taken on foot and 47,700 people on foot were killed from 2000-2009.

Senator Rand Paul is expected to offer an amendment next week to take all of the TE money and put it toward bridge repair. And a handful of others in Congress have been trying to kill this program for years, well before the current talk of austerity.

Sen. Paul’s proposal doesn’t represent a sincere plan to repair our bridges, but unfortunately, a handful in the media are still taking the bait.

The question is this: With the nation facing a transportation crisis that has gotten little attention outside of policy wonks and Washington, should the federal government continue to mandate that states spend federal dollars on pedestrian safety, bicycling trails, landscaping and historic preservation?

When you ask the wrong question, you often get the wrong answer. And this question in particular has been manufactured by those who would capitalize on the sense of urgency about our bridges to eliminate a program they’ve been after for years.

We’ve covered before how the money spent on walking and biking safety won’t actually do anything to address the bridge backlog. It would take Kentucky 66 years of bike/ped money to fix all of the bridges that are deficient today. And as we wrote in National Journal, “So what if we decided to ignore the significant safety issues faced daily by pedestrians and cyclists, and spent that money instead on bridge repair as some have suggested? We could indeed fix all the currently deficient bridges in the state of Missouri, for example. We’d just need to be patient because it would take 82 years. The State of Washington could get to its backlog in 164 years. And Pennsylvania could finish up with its deficient bridge list at the start of the 24th century.”

Raiding these safety funds to fix our bridges is like trying to stop a freight train with a BB gun. Beyond that, it’s false — and cruel — to suggest that we have to even decide between safety on our bridges and safety on our streets.

We have often pointed out the fact that states have the flexibility to spend up to half of their bridge repair money elsewhere, regardless of the condition of their bridges. But they also have the flexibility to spend most of their Surface Transportation Program dollars, usually the biggest pot of transportation funding, on almost anything they want. They could fix bridges, build transit, highways, bridges, sidewalks; it’s all eligible, and totally up to the states for how they spend it. No mandates from Washington.

Despite false assertions that we require states to build museums or turtle tunnels instead of repairing their bridges, there’s nothing stopping states from getting on top of their deficient bridges. Just like nothing has stopped Florida from spending their TE money each year while also setting up a bridge repair program to target funds first and foremost to bridges that need attention, resulting in some of the best bridges in the country. Meanwhile, Senator Paul’s state of Kentucky, with more than 2,700 deficient bridges, spends $6.50 on new highway capacity for every dollar they spend on bridge repair.

We don’t have to choose between being safe when we walk or being safe when we drive over a bridge. Anyone who tells you otherwise has their own agenda; an agenda that has very little to do with actually repairing our bridges.

It’s time for serious proposals from Congress to fix our crumbling bridges and infrastructure, rather than making a large percentage of people less safe in the name of grabbing a few extra bucks for our bridges.

Along these lines, a good step would be Senator Cardin’s “Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act.” Tell your Senators to support this important piece of legislation.

Proposal to fix bridges by taking away safety money won’t solve the problem

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) got a lot of media play for joining President Obama in Kentucky last week and unveiling his own plan to prioritize bridge repair by taking away a tiny amount of funding that helps improve safety for people walking or biking and redirecting it to bridge repair. But Senator Paul’s proposal is built on a series of false premises.

If you’ve seen recent stories on aging and deficient bridges — on NBC Nightly News, Chris Matthews’ Hardball or in countless newspaper reports — you heard echoes of our report flagging the urgent need to tend to our aging bridge infrastructure.

Senator Paul proposes that we take what he pegs (erroneously) as the “10 percent” we currently set aside for “turtle tunnels and squirrel sanctuaries and all this craziness” and divert it toward an emergency fund for urgent bridge repair.

Senator Paul’s math is way off. Paul – like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn last week and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor the week before – is grossly misstating the size of the program being attacked, the so-called “transportation enhancements” program. This program amounts to 1.5 percent of the total federal outlay for transportation, not 10 percent. Not even close.

This program, created 20 years ago, is the main source of funds to create safer conditions for those bicycling or walking — often correcting past mistakes by making dangerous roads built with federal dollars safer for everyone. While a share has gone toward other uses, such as environmental mitigation, more than half of the meager 1.5 percent is spent on making people safer.

The backlog in needed bridge repair, covered in our national report, runs to the many billions of dollars in every state. Senator Paul’s proposal would do very little to actually fix our bridges while making people less safe.

Kentucky doesn’t have more than 1,300 deficient bridges today because they spent a few million dollars making their streets safer for people walking or biking. If Senator Paul’s proposal became law and the 1.5 percent was directed into bridge repair, it would take Paul’s home state of Kentucky nearly 66 years with those funds to repair of all its bridges that are currently rated as deficient. And that doesn’t even account for the bridges that would be added to the “deficient” list in the years to come. (Kentucky has more than 4,500 bridges over 50 years old. That number could double by 2030.)

Clearly, we need far more money to repair our bridges, but we lack policies that hold states accountable for fixing their bridges. The current federal program has money dedicated for bridge repair, but allows states to divert up to half of that funding to build other more politically-driven projects.

There are ways to address this problem. States like Florida have put in place fiscally responsible policies to take care of what they’ve already built, balancing the need to fix bridges and build new roads. And Florida’s bridges are among the best in the country. Florida has both spent their “enhancement” funds and ensured their bridges are in good shape. Why can’t Kentucky and other states say the same?

The necessary closure of the Sherman Minton Bridge brought long overdue attention to the condition of our nation’s bridges. But there is nothing stopping state transportation officials from making priorities and dedicating resources to the bridges posing the greatest risk. Kentucky has a particularly poor record on this front. Ten percent of the state’s bridges are structurally deficient. Kentucky received $390 million in transportation funding under the Recovery Act but failed to seize the opportunity to invest in repairing its crumbling infrastructure, spending only 26 percent of their federal dollars on maintaining their existing infrastructure, the fourth worst ratio in the country, according to Smart Growth America.

There are praiseworthy elements of Senator Paul’s plan. Creating and maintaining a database for emergency bridge repairs is a worthy idea. But we need better accountability for states to spend money in responsible ways to repair bridges and roads. We would welcome the Senator Paul’s support for the Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act, sponsored by Maryland Senator Ben Cardin. The act would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish “state of good repair” standards for highways that receive federal funding, ensuring that precious tax dollars actually go toward the most pressing needs.

Updated: The League of American Bicyclists weighs in on the proposal.

Senate committee due to release bill next week, must prioritize repair

We’ve heard that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is releasing their portion of the transportation bill next week. (Though as Tanya Snyder at Streetsblog pointed out, they promised it would be released in two weeks, three weeks ago.)

There’s a vital piece of policy that must be included in the Senate bill next week, and there’s not much time to make sure the EPW committee members hear about it.

Earlier this week, Senator Cardin introduced a bill that would make the upkeep of our roads and bridges a top national priority. Now we need to make sure this priority is actually adopted as part of the full transportation bill. With the Senate EPW committee expected to release their draft bill next week, time is short to signal our support for this important legislation. Tell your Senators to sponsor this important bill.

We continue spending limited transportation dollars to build roads we can’t afford to maintain — all while our existing infrastructure cracks and rusts and crumbles due to deferred maintenance. Our next transportation bill needs to ensure that we first and foremost take care of our existing investments, saving us money over the long-term.

Send an email to your Senators and make sure they know that their bill absolutely must prioritize repair.

South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson stresses rural transit needs as gas prices continue to escalate

Gas prices in the U.S. continue to escalate and could hit $4.25 by Memorial Day, according to some projections. These spikes tend to hit smaller communities and rural areas particularly hard, as residents and businesses must travel farther and use more energy during daily activities.

While too much of the talk in Washington emphasizes gimmicks like grand jury investigations and “drill, baby, drill,” some leaders have engaged with constituents on increasing transportation options, one of the most important steps we can take to relieve pain at the pump.

Senator Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota, recently conferred with the Brookings Area Transit Authority, which seeks additional funding and capacity to operate its 21 vehicles. Brookings has a population of 22,000 and is home to South Dakota State University.

Senator Johnson, who is currently serving as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, noted that investment in transit systems is a vital economic development tool for many South Dakota communities. The system in Brookings faces the dual challenge of an aging population demanding more services and rising prices due to the spike in energy costs.

Brenda Schweitzer, the authority director, “noted that rising gas prices have increased BATA fuel bills by $2,000 just within the past month,” according to the Brookings Register. The Register also reported that “the organization’s out-of-pocket match for fuel is at $5,000 per month right now.”

Johnson assured Schweitzer and other participants in a recent panel that he would use his clout in the Senate to push for a transportation bill that meets the needs of South Dakotans and sparse communities across the country.

“With reliable transit systems, we can strengthen our economic development by connecting people to medical services, schools, family and jobs,” Johnson said on his website. “Meeting with people on the ground who deal with rural transit issues every day helps me as I work to ensure that the needs of rural communities are met.”

The Banking Committee has particular jurisdiction over the transit elements of the next bill, which has been overdue for renewal since late 2009.

Photo: Roll Call

What does the FREIGHT Act really mean for our freight and ports?

Port of Oakland originally uploaded by ingridtaylar

There were a few questions bouncing around via Twitter and elsewhere about the new FREIGHT Act introduced yesterday by Senators Lautenberg, Murray and Cantwell. We issued a joint press release with a few other groups, but it’s worth spelling out in plain language some of the benefits of the bill.

For context, it’s worth understanding how freight transportation policy currently works now to understand how much of an improvement this bill would provide.

Today, there is no national freight program or specific national policy. There’s no dedicated federal transportation money that states, regions or ports can spend to improve throughput or operations at ports, intermodal facilities and freight corridors. And among the traditional federal transportation programs, freight rail projects in particular (much like passenger rail) aren’t eligible projects.

So if a port is congested or wants to expand, there’s little available federal money to spend directly on rail or any other mode. Your choices are highways or highways. When a state or port does spend to improve operations, there is no accountability to make sure they’re actually reducing port/freight congestion, moving freight faster, or reducing air pollution in surrounding communities — a significant issue of environmental justice.

Under this new bill, there would finally be a coordinated national policy for freight and ports across the country, and for the first time public health and air quality surrounding freight hubs and facilities become strong criteria for awarding dollars.

No matter what ports decide to spend money on to improve their operations, they’d have to consider air quality, greenhouse gas reductions, and noise and water pollution in the surrounding communities with future federal investments. On top of that, there would be a merit-based grant program for projects that do the best job of improving freight operations while using money most effectively and hitting the benchmarks laid out in the bill.

Benchmarks? The goals in the bill set a powerful framework for accountability, spelling out what they money should accomplish, so taxpayers can know that their money is being spent wisely.

Reduce delays of goods and commodities entering into and out of intermodal connectors that serve international points of entry on an annual basis.
Increase travel time reliability on major freight corridors that connect major population centers with freight generators and international gateways on an annual basis.
Reduce by 10 percent the number of freight transportation-related fatalities by 2015.
Reduce national freight transportation-related carbon dioxide levels by 40 percent by 2030.
Reduce freight transportation-related air, water, and noise pollution and impacts on ecosystems and communities on an annual basis.

For example, a port in a coastal city in California would have to consider the impacts on the health of those communities surrounding the port. Would investing in more freight rail capacity ease congestion, lower overall emissions, and reduce local air pollution? These are the kinds of questions that would have to be answered.

“A truly multimodal national freight program that is accountable to measurable performance targets and benchmarks is something the U.S. has needed for a long time,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America in our press release.

“We applaud Senator Lautenberg for recognizing that our freight system can move our goods from coast to coast and power the economy while also being part of the solution for many of our most pressing problems: air quality, dangerous emissions, oil dependence, and congestion on our highways and interstates, to name just a few.”

New poll shows Americans strongly support public transportation; more walking & biking

American voters overwhelmingly support broader access to public transportation and safe walking and biking, according to this new national poll conducted for Transportation for America and released to the media today this afternoon. With the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ramping up efforts to draft a new long-term transportation bill before the end of the year, the results should be instructive to Senators.

You can read the full details about the poll, including a full presentation on the findings at https://t4america.org/resources/2010survey

More than four-in-five voters (82 percent) say that “the United States would benefit from an expanded and improved transportation system,” including modes of transportation like rail and buses. An overwhelming majority of voters agree with this statement — no matter where they live. Even in rural America, 79 percent of voters agreed with the statement, despite much lower use of public transportation compared to urban Americans.

Some in Washington believe that building or expanding more roads is the best way to tackle congestion — but the majority of Americans don’t agree with them. Three-in-five voters choose improving public transportation and making it easier to walk and bike over building more roads and expanding existing roads as the best strategies for tackling congestion. (59% to 38%).

Click the graphic to read more about the poll. Find something interesting or surprising? Share it with us in the comments.

T4 America co-chair testifies before Senate on rural transportation

Mayor Smith speaking at the T4 America platform launch in 2009.

Mayor John Robert Smith, T4 America co-chair and President of Reconnecting America, testified before a Senate committee today about the transportation challenges facing rural areas and small towns — and offered six practical suggestions for how the federal government can help them meet these challenges head-on.

Far from being left behind or left out of federal transportation policy, Mayor Smith’s recommendations provide a clear road map for boosting the economies of Main Streets across America and connecting small cities and towns to increased economic opportunity. As the former Mayor of Meridian, Miss., and the board chair of Amtrak, he has experience on almost all sides.

The word may have connotations of big cities and tall buildings, but our small towns are decidedly “urban” — at least in the sense that many residents live decently close to a town center or square, with a street grid that gives people the option to walk. Schools may still be within walking distance in the town’s core, kids ride their bikes around town, families walk when they can, and these historic downtowns are still magnets for business and community events.

But while major metro areas are battling gridlock and congestion, smaller towns are looking at issues of access, ensuring that residents have good connnections to economic opportunities — and that they can get where they need to go quickly and affordably.

“Long commutes, volatile energy prices, and shifting demographics all impact the prosperity of these communities,” Mayor Smith testified this morning. “Many small towns and rural areas lack the financial resources, planning capacity, or authority to implement solutions to their transportation needs. A bold new policy is needed at the federal level to meet those needs.”

He knows a thing or two about how transportation decisions can affect economic opportunity on Main Street after years as a mayor. “In my own hometown [Meridian, Miss.], through investment in our downtown and the creation of a transportation hub, we bolstered the local economy and reversed the decline of our historic buildings and city center. Other communities like ours can experience that same revitalization if our country will commit the resources needed to enhance the economic competitiveness of existing communities,” he said.

Download this Brief (pdf)

Mayor Smith, T4 America and our many partners in rural areas that developed these recommendations are seeking to provide a framework for residents of our small towns and rural areas to have the transportation options they need so they’re not stranded without options.

Residents of these areas are demanding good transit networks, safe streets, bridges that don’t fall down and highways that aren’t cracked and potholed.

Mayor Smith’s testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee coincided with the release of a whitepaper on rural transportation entitled “Principles for Improving Transportation Options in Rural and Small Town Communities,” which describes T4 America’s recommendations in much greater detail.

You can read his full testimony here.

And read the official campaign press release.

Opposition to Senate extension results in looming shutdown of federal transportation programs

Do you live in Kentucky? Call Sen. Bunning’s State HQ and tell him to end his roadblock. Click here for more information on making a call.

At a point in history when American trust in Congress is at or near all-time lows, it’s probably not a great time to interrupt regular programming to announce that a single Senator kept the Senate from passing an emergency one-month extension of the current transportation bill before adjourning today, leaving it to expire over the weekend and threatening the flow of money to transportation programs — federal and state.

The transportation bill, which has already been extended four times since its initial expiration in 2009, funds federal and state transportation programs. Which means that come Monday or Tuesday (it’s uncertain which at this point), federal transportation agencies from the Department of Transportation to the Federal Transit Administration will be furloughing employees and in a state of near shutdown.

Perhaps most importantly, and of much greater concern to most people than the fact that federal transportation officials in D.C. might be sent home for a few days, the government checks that go out every two weeks to state departments of transportation to reimburse them for their ongoing contracts for transportation projects will not be sent out on Monday as usual, regardless of what happens Monday, according to several of our sources.

As Elana Schor (@eschor) pointed on Twitter this afternoon, this means “$184 [million] per day in lost transpo reimbursements for road repairs, bridge building, and transit.”

Chairman Jim Oberstar held a press conference to talk about the issue this afternoon, calling Sen. Jim Bunning’s obstruction “astonishing” and comparing it to the government shutdown of 1995. He detailed the specifics of what will happen at federal and state transportation agencies as the flow of money that funds highway and bridge repair, transit agencies and programs will shut off Monday. Later this afternoon, he said in a press release on Facebook that “I find it outrageous that one senator can kill a piece of legislation and cause chaos for our cities and states. Thanks to this one person’s intransigence, Minnesota will not be reimbursed for its federal share of highway projects until we get this mess sorted out.”

He points out that some states may have to suspend work on projects — something that Missouri has already done by announcing that they won’t open up several new projects for bid next week with their funding stream so up in the air.

As usual, Elana Schor at Streetsblog DC has some of the most thorough coverage of the issue, though it is making headlines in Politico, CQ and other outlets.

We’ll have more intel and reaction on Monday, and hopefully news about a solution to the bill’s expiration.

Have you seen an announcement (like Missouri’s) in your state of halted projects, delayed contracts, or furloughed workers? Let us know in the comments.

Sen. Reid promises Sen. Voinovich to move a full six-year bill in 2010?

Republican Senator George Voinovich from Ohio might be looking to put a little public pressure on Majority Leader Harry Reid in a release touting the Ohio Senator’s vote in favor of moving the Senate jobs bill forward late Monday.

In a statement posted on his site, Voinovich explains his reasons for supporting the jobs bill in the Senate, touting the job-creation benefits of investing in transportation. But it also appears that the Senate leader let Sen. Voinovich know that he’d bring a six-year bill to the Senate floor for a vote in 2010:

“I spoke to Majority Leader Reid prior to this vote and he assured me that he understands the importance of a surface transportation reauthorization bill,” Sen. Voinovich continued. “I reiterated that it is the best way to create jobs, provide an immediate stimulus to the economy, rebuild our nation’s infrastructure and reduce our carbon footprint. Leader Reid gave me his commitment that he will bring the reauthorization of a multi-year surface transportation bill to the floor for a vote this year. I look forward to working with Senator Reid, Senator Boxer and others to do so as soon as possible so we can put Americans back to work.”

Updated: Here’s Elana Schor’s take over at Streetsblog DC. No comment still from Sen. Reid, but she notes that this makes 2 comments in a week about a 2010 vote in the Senate.

FAQ: Transportation bill expires, emergency extension passed

The Senate Garage Fountain (Olmstead Fountain) and the US Capitol Originally uploaded by kimberlyfaye

UPDATED: We posted a similar question-and-answer document covering the specific issue of rescissions. Read that here.

As you may have read on Streetsblog Capitol Hill, where Elana Schor has been closely tracking the inexorable march toward expiration of the old transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU), the Senate passed an emergency one-month extension of the current law last night, just hours before the deadline.

There have been a lot of questions flying around today, so we’re going to try to post some simplified answers to clear up any confusion. Federal transportation policy is not the simplest code to decipher, but we’ll try our best to start with the basics.

The short explanation?

The Senate failed to pass an extension of their own to match the House’s recent 3-month extension before the transportation bill expired last night.

To prevent transportation spending from stopping entirely, Congress added a one-month extension of current transportation law to a last-minute bill (a Continuing Resolution) that keeps the federal government from shutting down in case they don’t pass the required individual spending bills for the next year. The one-month Continuing Resolution did not address the scheduled loss of $8.7 billion in transportation funds that will be taken from states, starting today.

Click through the jump below if you want much more detailed information. (more…)

Transportation Secretary affirms smart principles for US transportation system

National Bike Summit – Day two-8 Originally uploaded by BikePortland.org

DOT Secretary Ray LaHood speaks at the National Bike Summit in Washington, DC

“Livable and Sustainable Communities.”

Those four words might not be at the top of the list of what one would expect to hear from the person in charge of how the federal government spends our tax dollars on all forms of transportation — ports, railroads, highways, interstates, sidewalks, bike lanes and more — but that’s exactly what U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood named as a primary goal for DOT while testifying before a Senate Committee yesterday (ahead of T4 America.)

In his remarks, he made it clear that DOT and the Obama administration see the deep connections between where and how we spend transportation dollars and the quality of life for everyday Americans.

One of the clear issues with our national transportation program since 1991 is that it’s been like a huge ship without a rudder — spending billions each year without any clear goals or vision for exactly what those billions should accomplish for us. Economic development? More travel options for everyone? Making transportation affordable and safe for all Americans?

After talking at length about the many challenges facing America, Secretary LaHood made it clear that DOT will be governed by some very clear principles in the future, including better quality of life as a goal for transportation spending:

With these great challenges it is essential that our transportation policies be framed so that we can meet these demands and at the same time be consistent with the major goals I have established for guiding the actions of the Department of Transportation: economic recovery; safety; and livable and sustainable communities will be the key organizing themes as we in the Department reformulate existing policies and develop new policy directions for the future.

You can download his full remarks from the committee web site here, (.pdf) but continue reading for a few select quotes: (more…)

Though a Worthy Down Payment, Stimulus Raises Urgent Need for New Transportation Vision

	Download this Release (.pdf) Download this Release (.doc)
	Contact: David Goldberg 202-412-7930 david.goldberg@t4america.org Ben Grossman-Cohen 202-478-6185 bgrossman-cohen@mrss.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The transportation spending priorities in the stimulus bill conference report passed by the House of Representatives today are a significant departure from the status quo and ought to represent the leading edge of a major new thrust in our national infrastructure policy. The Senate is expected to pass the conference report as soon as tonight.

Given the need for haste in crafting the bill, congressional and Administration negotiators were handcuffed by backward-looking, existing programs even as they tried to shape investments for a future of reduced oil dependency, greater opportunity for Americans to join the middle class and cleaner transportation choices. Despite some shortcomings resulting from current transportation law, Congress has adopted a bill that if properly enacted by state and local authorities, could be a down payment on a new direction for America’s infrastructure:

$27.5 billion allocated to the Surface Transportation Program (STP) that should go a long way to restoring our transportation networks to a state of good repair. Unfortunately, Congress neglected to include language ensuring this money is prioritized to fix crumbling roads and bridges, so now the onus is on state and local governments to ensure these funds are not spent improperly.
Unprecedented flexibility for spending STP funds — traditionally spent mostly on highways — on ports, transit, passenger and freight rail or other projects as national, state or regional needs may require.
A significant share of transportation dollars directed to local decision makers and metropolitan regions rather than state departments of transportation.
$8.4 billion for public transportation, recognizing the strong and growing demand for transit service. However, none of these funds can be used to prevent cuts in service and jobs at transit agencies suffering from massive budget shortfalls. It is up to Congress to ensure this gap is filled in upcoming appropriations negotiations.
$9.3 billion for intercity and high-speed passenger rail, an encouraging indication that Congress realizes how important it is to expand alternatives to our overburdened highway and aviation networks.
The inclusion of up to $825 million for projects that will make our streets safer for walking and biking, providing help for commuters who have increasingly turned to these alternatives to save money and increase their physical activity.

When President Obama signs the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, it will provide a down payment on the transportation investment needed to get our economy moving. But the urgency of recreating our national transportation program to address the challenges of the future is more starkly clear than ever.

Now Congress and the Obama-Biden administration must begin consideration of the successor legislation to the expiring SAFETEA-LU law — our current, 1950s-era federal transportation program. This critically important legislation must provide a new 21st Century vision for investment in our transportation system that is safer, healthier, cleaner, more equitable and smarter so that our nation can compete and thrive in the future economy.

Comparing transportation spending in the Senate and House stimulus

With the stimulus successfully passed through the Senate, it moves into conference with the House, where the two chambers will try to hammer out the version to be voted on again by each house before heading to the President’s desk if it passes.

Here is our side-by-side comparison on the transportation spending in the two versions. For the non-policy wonks out there, you’ll want to stick to the numbers at the top before it descends into the particulars of the second half of the table.

Check back here later Tuesday or Wednesday morning for our complete list of what we’re asking Congress to do in conference. (For example, keep the House’s $12 billion for transit.)

You’ll need to click through to see the full table if you’re on the main blog page. (more…)

Senate compromise preserves transit funding — for now

It appears the Senate compromise on the stimulus package keeps transit and highway funding unchanged. Neither the high speed rail funding or competitive grants for any mode were reduced, as was originally thought to be the case. We’re suspending our appeal to make calls for now.

The Senate will move to vote on the overall stimulus package Monday or Tuesday. Then it moves to conference committee with the House to determine the balance between the two bills that will ultimately be voted on by both chambers and sent to the President’s desk.

Streetsblog Network members The Transport Politic and Greater Greater Washington both had good summaries of the Senate compromise. The Transport Politic breaks down the funding compared to the House version, and points out some crucial differences that will be hashed out in conference:

The final version of the compromise stimulus bill, which was formulated by a group of about 20 moderate senators, has been released by Senated Ben Nelson (D-NE). It does not decrease funds currently proposed to be allocated to high-speed rail or transit programs, but it does not meet the higher standards for funding for fixed guideways and New Starts that were provided in the amendment added to the House version of the bill by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

Greater Greater Washington reminds us that while transit wasn’t raided and redirected to highway funding, there’s still no assurance that the highway funds will be directed to where they can be the most effective. Repair and maintenance will create more jobs, spend money more quickly, and will not come with the price tag of future billions in maintenance like new highways do.

People on the left and right have plenty of other complaints about this stimulus. And it still gives the lion’s share of money to states under the old formulas which favor highways. There’s no “fix it first” requirement making sure state DOTs repair crumbling bridges before building greenfield freeways. Still, we were able to stop the Senate from making things a lot, lot worse. That’s a start.

Nothing is truly finished yet. Until the Senate passes their version, amendments could still spring up and funding levels could change. If it passes, the House and Senate will conference together next week to determine how to balance out portions of the bill that are not in line with each other.

For example, the House has $12 billion for transit, while the Senate has less than $9 billion. As TP points out, “the bills are different enough that we won’t know what the final bill will look like until the Senate/House conference committee releases its report after it meets.”

Stay tuned here on the blog or on Twitter to follow updates next week as the bill proceeds. Watch Monday for news about urging the conference to keep the House’s higher transit figures.

BREAKING: Threat to transit funding in Senate compromise?

UPDATED: (8:30 p.m. 2/7/09) The Senate agreement reached last night has no changes for transit, highways, intermodal competitive grants, or high-speed rail. We recommend halting calls on the proposed cuts to transit. See this newer post for more updated information.

The so-called “compromise” plan about to be put forth by Senators Nelson and Collins would cut somewhere between $80-100 billion from the Senate stimulus package. How do they propose to get there?

In part, by cutting transit’s already paltry amount nearly in half, and raising the amount of highway spending by an undisclosed amount.

According to a Senate memo obtained by The Plum Line, there is a proposal to remove $3.4 billion from transit funding and raise the funds for highways above the $27 billion already earmarked for highway spending. If true, cutting $3.4 billion from public transportation (and increasing highway spending) would reduce the roads/transit split in this bill far below even the tepid 80/20 share that current federal spending reflects.

Tell your senator not to support any proposed change to the stimulus package that reduces funds for transit below those in the original Senate proposal, but rather to push for increasing the funds to meet the soaring demand for reliable, clean transportation. And tell them not to increase highway funding without increasing transit proportionally.

Call-in information removed in light of agreement reached in Senate.

For targeting purposes, the Senators reported to be in the room are Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Begich (D-AK), Tom Carper (D-DE), John Tester (D-MT), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Jim Webb (D-VA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Michael Bennett (D-CO), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Udall (D-CO), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and George Voinovich (R-OH).

Leave us notes in the comments on your calls if you like.

Friday Senate stimulus update

UPDATE: Look for a list of amendments on the docket at the bottom.

Obviously, things are moving very fast in the Senate today. Here is a summary of a mix of rumor and fact as of 1 p.m. EST if you’d like to follow more closely:

The Inhofe amendment — to take unspent stimulus funds after one year and direct them to highways, water, and other infrastructure projects on lists submitted by states — was re-filed. But it was objected to by Finance Chair Baucus over a unanimous consent agreement. It’s not completely dead yet, as some outlets have claimed. It still could potentially resurface. Baucus has now asked all Senators to refrain from offering any more amendments.
Votes on amendments are scheduled to begin around 1 pm. (They’ve begun voting on amendments now.)
A bipartisan group of senators continues to work on an agreement to reduce spending levels by approximately $107 billion, according to C-SPAN. The $5.5 billion in competitive grants for transportation could be on the chopping block. The appropriators are working on recommendations from Collins/Nelson/McCain and others.
Majority Leader Sen. Reid will likely make the procedural call to end debate and move to a vote this evening. According to the New York Times, if the compromise on spending cuts have not been reached, he could move on Sunday, with the vote coming Monday.
All of this could change at any point. Check back here, or follow us on Twitter for more updated information.

According to the Senate Majority Leader’s calendar, the previously failed Murray/Feinstein amendment to raise infrastructure spending (roads and transit both) is still due to be considered today. Though Sen. Bond’s two amendments to move high speed rail and competitive grant money to highways are not listed on this calendar, they could still be alive however, so take action and write your Senator if you have not already.

1 p.m.: Voting has ended on first four amendments, none of which concerned transportation. General debate is underway now. After debate, “the Senate will consider the following amendments. They will be considered in rotating fashion going back and forth to each side.”

Conrad-Graham #501 (strikes funding/foreclosure prevention)
Dodd #145 (foreclosure mitigation);
Cantwell #274 (Energy), with a modification which is at the desk
Feingold #485 (Energy conservation);
Grassley #297 (FMAP);
Enzi #293(Health IT);
Vitter #107(ACORN);
Bunning #531 (Business Credits);
Wyden #468 (Bonuses); and
Thune #538 (Tax Rebate)

As you can see, there is no mention (YET) of the Murray/Feinstein, Bond, or Inhofe amendments. Infrastucturist passed on a quote from an Inhofe’s staffer about his $30 billion amendment: “Senator Inhofe intends to bring it up, and we think there may be a good opportunity to do so today.”

We’ll keep this updated through the afternoon as the bill progresses.

Photo from Wikimedia Commons

Schumer amendment in Senate could boost transit funding

Take Action! Write your Senator!

UPDATED: Sen. Schumer has the release posted on his web site now. Copy updated to reflect that below. Coverage of the Grand Central press conference today from Bloomberg News

Sen. Chuck Schumer and fellow New York Congressman Rep. Jerrold Nadler released a statement today detailing Sen. Schumer’s amendment to increase funding for transit in that chamber’s version of the economic recovery package. (Rep. Nadler authored the amendment that passed the House last week.)

Sen. Schumer’s amendment would boost transit funding from $8.4 billion up to $14.9 billion, with additions to the vital program (New Starts) that would provide funding for new, ready-to-go transit projects across the country. Currently, the House version has $2.5 billion for New Starts, where the Senate version has zero. This amendment would correct this imbalance, while also boosting the overall amount for transit.

You can read the full release here. An excerpt:

“Last week, we scored a major victory in Washington, as the House of Representatives approved my amendment to increase transit funds in the stimulus bill by $3 billion, bringing the total amount of transit dollars in the package from 9 billion to 12 billion. This additional funding would mean hundreds of millions more in transit money for New York, creating thousands of local jobs, protecting our environment through green projects, and improving public transportation across the region. These funds would go a tremendous distance toward stemming the advance of our deepening economic recession. And now, with the support of Senator Schumer in the Senate, we have taken one great step closer to realizing this essential goal.”

Schumer’s amendment would boost funding in the Senate version of the stimulus package by $6.5 billion, from $8.4 billion currently in the bill to $14.9 billion. Specifically, Schumer’s amendment would increase funding in the transit capital pot from $8.4 billion to 10.4 billion, add $2 billion for rail modifications, and $2.5 billion for New Starts. The last two funding increases would match funding in the House bill.

Contact your Senator today to send a message. Tell them to support increased transit funding — and Sen. Schumer’s amendment — in the Senate package.

Let them know that this is exactly the kind of spending you want to see in the stimulus package — spending that can boost the economy while investing in long-lasting infrastructure that will help us meet our national goals of improved infrastructure, less oil dependence, and lower emissions.

You can check back here or with Streetsblog NYC for more breaking news on the Schumer amendment and transit funding in the Senate bill.