Oberstar’s Handwritten Outline Of New Transportation Bill Leaks; Points to transformation of USDOT management structure “from prescriptive to performance”

May 8, 2009 at 4:45 pm

(Source: The Infrastructurist BNA)

A few days ago, Jim Oberstar, head of the House transportation committee, tipped his hand that he has big changes in mind for transportation policy in this country.

Now his outline for the new transportation bill has leaked. Oberstar has recently been circulating a “two-page handwritten outline” around the Hill, according to the BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, which obtained a copy of the document . They report the following tidbits:

Under the heading “the future of transportation,” the framework seeks to create a new undersecretary or assistant secretary for intermodalism that would meet monthly with all modal administrators. The outline includes the phrases “national strategic plan” and “mega-projects” in the list of agencies that would take part in the monthly meetings.  

It also includes a consolidation of DOT’s 108 programs into four “major formula programs”: critical asset preservation, highway safety improvement, surface transportation program, and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement. The “surface transportation program” section suggests that metropolitan planning organizations receive suballocations based on population.

According to the document, Oberstar would like the DOT’s management structure to shift “from prescriptive to performance.” He would call for DOT and states to design six-year targets for each of four performance categories and the framework would ask for annual reports to DOT and Congress as well as posting data online.   

Oberstar’s outline also addresses transit equity, including a hope to “level decision-making factors between highway and transit choices/projects.” The federal government pays for half of transit projects while it funds 80 percent of highway and bridge work, and transit advocates have been rallying for equal federal treatment.

SEE ALSO:

The Grid, Our Cars and the Net: One Idea to Link Them All – Wired interviews Zip Car founder, Robin Chase

May 8, 2009 at 4:13 pm

(Source: Wired)

robin_chase_main

Top photo: Flickr / Phil Hawksworth.

Editor’s note: Robin Chase thinks a lot about transportation and the internet, and how to link them. She connected them when she founded Zipcar, and she wants to do it again by making our electric grid and our cars smarter. Time magazine recently named her one of the 100 most influential people of the year. David Weinberger sat down with Chase to discuss her idea.

Robin Chase considers the future of electricity, the future of cars and the internet three terms in a single equation, even if most of us don’t yet realize they’re on the same chalkboard. Solve the equation correctly, she says, and we create a greener future where innovation thrives. Get it wrong, and our grandchildren will curse our names.

Chase thinks big, and she’s got the cred to back it up. She created an improbable network of automobiles called Zipcar. Getting it off the ground required not only buying a fleet of cars, but convincing cities to dedicate precious parking spaces to them. It was a crazy idea, and it worked. Zipcar now has 6,000 cars and 250,000 users in 50 towns.

Now she’s moving on to the bigger challenge of integrating a smart grid with our cars – and then everything else. The kicker is how they come together. You can sum it up as a Tweet: The intelligent network we need for electricity can also turn cars into nodes. Interoperability is a multiplier. Get it right!

Chase starts by explaining the smart grid. There’s broad consensus that our electrical system should do more than carry electricity. It should carry information. That would allow a more intelligent, and efficient, use of power.

“Our electric infrastructure is designed for the rare peak of usage,” Chase says. “That’s expensive and wasteful.”

Changing that requires a smart grid. What we have is a dumb one. We ask for electricity and the grid provides it, no questions asked. A smart grid asks questions and answers them. It makes the meter on your wall a sensor that links you to a network that knows how much power you’re using, when you’re using it and how to reduce your energy needs – and costs.

Such a system will grow more important as we become energy producers, not just consumers. Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids will return power to the grid. Rooftop solar panels and backyard wind turbines will, at times, produce more energy than we can store. A smart grid generates what we need and lets us use what we generate. That’s why the Obama Administration allocated $4.5 billion in the stimulus bill for smart grid R&D.

This pleases Chase, but it also makes her nervous. The smart grid must be an information network, but we have a tradition of getting such things wrong. Chase is among those trying to convince the government that the safest and most robust network will use open internet protocols and standards. For once the government seems inclined to listen.

Chase switches gears to talk about how cars fit into the equation. She sees automobiles as just another network device, one that, like the smart grid, should be open and net-based.

“Cars are network nodes,” she says. “They have GPS and Bluetooth and toll-both transponders, and we’re all on our cell phones and lots of cars have OnStar support services.”

That’s five networks. Automakers and academics will bring us more. They’re working on smart cars that will communicate with us, with one another and with the road. How will those cars connect to the network? That’s the third part of Chase’s equation: Mesh networking.

In a typical Wi-Fi network, there’s one router and a relatively small number of devices using it as a gateway to the internet. In a mesh network, every device is also a router. Bring in a new mesh device and it automatically links to any other mesh devices within radio range. It is an example of what internet architect David Reed calls “cooperative gain” – the more devices, the more bandwidth across the network. Chase offers an analogy to explain it.

“Wi-Fi is like a bridge that connects the highways on either side of the stream,” she says. “You build it wide enough to handle the maximum traffic you expect. If too much comes, it gets congested. When not enough arrives, you’ve got excess capacity. Mesh takes a different approach: Each person who wants to cross throws in a flat rock that’s above the water line. The more people who do that, the more ways there are to get across the river.”

 

“Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers and tanks and airplanes are running around using mesh networks,” said Chase. “It works, it’s secure, it’s robust. If a node or device disappears, the network just reroutes the data.”

And, perhaps most important, it’s in motion. That’s what allows Chase’s plural visions to go singular. Build a smart electrical grid that uses Internet protocols and puts a mesh network device in every structure that has an electric meter. Sweep out the half dozen networks in our cars and replace them with an open, Internet-based platform. Add a mesh router. A nationwide mesh cloud will form, linking vehicles that can connect with one another and with the rest of the network. It’s cooperative gain gone national, gone mobile, gone open.

Chase’s mesh vision draws some skepticism. Some say it won’t scale up. The fact it’s is being used in places like Afghanistan and Vienna indicates it could. Others say moving vehicles may not be able to hook into and out of mesh networks quickly enough. Chase argues it’s already possible to do so in less than a second, and that time will only come down. But even if every car and every electric meter were meshed, there’s still a lot of highway out there that wouldn’t be served, right? Chase has an answer for that, too.

Click here to read the entire article.

Fear Growing Senator Boxer Won’t Deliver Progressive Transportation Act

May 7, 2009 at 2:48 pm

(Source: Streetsblog)

California Senator Barbara Boxer will be at the center of a battle over whether or not the reauthorization of the transportation bill will address the global warming impacts of transportation, given her Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee is responsible for writing much of the bill’s language. Any chance of reforming the transportation bill, which advocates are clamoring for, will require deft political maneuvering to mollify ranking committee member Senator James Inhofe. 

Several sources said that Boxer’s cooperation with Inhofe is simple math. The $312 billion baseline for transportation over six years is insufficient to meet state of good repair needs and set the country on a course for innovation. Minnesota Representative James Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation Committee, has suggested $400-500 billion would be needed, while the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Organizations (AASHTO) and the American Public Transit Association (APTA) argue in their Bottom Line Report that at least $160 billion will be needed annually. In order get from $312 billion to $500 billion or better, Boxer will need to get approval for new revenue streams, which would require a filibuster-proof majority, something she might not get without Inhofe and other reluctant members on the committee. 

Several interviewees also pointed to Senator Boxer’s alliance with Inhofe on an amendment in the federal stimulus bill for an additional $50 billion in highway money as a bad sign.

“You have polar bears and glaciers on your website… then throw people back in their cars?” said one official who insisted on anonymity.

Because Boxer has traditionally been a champion for environmental causes, several advocates said that monitoring her on this issue would be new and potentially uncomfortable. TransForm Executive Director Stuart Cohen said he first saw a red flag late in 2008 when Senator Boxer spoke in San Francisco about highway and road infrastructure needs in the stimulus bill while failing to mention transit.  But, Cohen added, “we would have to adjust to the idea of watchdogging Senator Boxer; she has been such a reliable ally.”

Transportation for America (T4A) Communications Director David Goldberg said an appropriately large sum of money is needed in any discussion of the transportation bill, but he was more concerned about how legislators would spend that money. “We think there is a need of at least $500 billion, but support is contingent on reforms that would make it a wise investment.”

Colin Peppard, Climate and Infrastructure Campaign Director for the Environmental Defense Fund echoed the T4A sentiment. “What we’ve gotten for our money so far is not a good deal,” he said. “The public wants a better product. Hopefully the authorization lays out priorities that enhance safety and focuses on investment in new capacity that increases energy independence and reduces greenhouse gases.”  

Getting Inhofe, one of the premier global warming deniers, to support a bill that calls for reducing greenhouse gas impacts from driving would be a political coup. He has said that environmental review is an onerous burden for infrastructure investment and that the inclusion of global warming rhetoric in a transportation act is unacceptable.

Click here to continue reading.

Quantifying the pothole problem – New AASHTO report “Rough Roads Ahead” addresses the costs of poor highways

May 7, 2009 at 11:15 am

(Source: AASHTO)

Rough Roads Ahead:  Fix Them Now or Pay for It Later, a report released today by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and TRIP, reports that one-third of the nation’s major highways, including Interstates, freeways and major roads, are in poor or mediocre condition.  Roads in urban areas, which carry 66 percent of the traffic, are in much worse shape. 

Extracts from the press release: Driving on rough roads costs the average American motorist approximately $400 a year in extra vehicle operating costs. Drivers living in urban areas with populations over 250,000 are paying upwards of $750 more annually because of accelerated vehicle deterioration, increased maintenance, additional fuel consumption, and tire wear caused by poor road conditions.

 “The American people are paying for rough roads multiple times,” said Kirk T. Steudle, Director of the Michigan Department of Transportation, at a news conference held to release the report. “Rough roads lead to diminished safety, higher vehicle operating costs and more expensive road repairs. It costs $1 to keep a road in good shape for every $7 you would have to spend on reconstruction. It’s another drag on the economy.”  

 The report uses the latest government statistics to show pavement conditions in all 50 states and vehicle operating costs by state and urban areas. The report also finds that:

  • 30 to 60 percent of the roads in the nation’s largest urban areas are in poor condition.
  • 36 percent of the roads in the Detroit urban area are in poor condition compared to the Los Angeles area and surrounding communities, which have 64 percent of their roads in poor condition.   
  • 61 percent of rural roads are in good condition.
  • 72 percent of the Interstate Highway System is in good condition, but age, weather conditions and burgeoning traffic are eroding ride quality.

 “Our nation has invested $1.75 trillion in our public highway system over the past 50 years,” said John Horsley, AASHTO Executive Director.  “We hope Congress will make it possible for the federal government to sustain its share of the increased investment needed to keep America’s roads in good condition.  If not, it will cost the American people billions more later.”

 The report points out that traffic growth has far outpaced highway construction, particularly in major metropolitan areas.  The number of miles driven in this country jumped more than 41 percent from 1990 to 2007 — from 2.1 trillion miles in 1990 to 3 trillion in 2007. In some parts of the country, dramatic population growth has occurred without a corresponding increase in road capacity, placing enormous pressure on roads that, in many cases, were built 50 years ago.  

“The federal stimulus program is providing a helpful down payment towards repairing some of the nation’s rough roads,” said Frank Moretti, TRIP’s Director of Policy and Research. “But it will take a significant long-term boost in investment by all levels of government to provide Americans with a smooth ride.”

 The full report is available at http://roughroads.transportation.org, along with examples from states working to improve their highway systems, charts and photographs.  Rough Roads is part of Are We There Yet?  We Can Be!, AASHTO’s effort to build awareness and support for the nation’s transportation system. 

Americans Driving Less- Temporary, or Permanent? – Statistics whiz Nate Silver wonders if we are near the end of car culture

May 6, 2009 at 7:25 pm

(Source: Esquire via Planetizen)

Nate Silver, the baseball stats guy turned election predictor, takes a look at the statistics showing that Americans are driving less.

This is surely one of the signs of the apocalypse: Americans aren’t driving as much as they used to.

Graphic: Bryan Christie Design/ We are driving a lot less in this country, even less than one would have expected in a bad economy with fluctuating gas prices. The graph above charts 1) actual miles driven per capita in America during each January for the last thirty years and 2) how many miles per capita we could have been expected to drive based on my model, which accounts for changes in population, gas prices, unemployment rates, and other factors. The downward trend last year was stark. Indeed, Americans have rarely cut back on their driving so consistently for so long.

In January, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, Americans drove a collective 222 billion miles. That’s a lot of time spent behind the wheel — enough to make roughly eight hundred round-trips to Mars. It translates to about 727 miles traveled for every man, woman, and child in the country. But that figure was down about 4 percent from January 2008, when Americans averaged 757 miles of car travel per person. And this was no aberration: January 2009 was the fifteenth consecutive month in which the average American drove less than he had a year earlier.

The one thing that has sometimes caused Americans to put on the brakes is higher gas prices. Although driving is a relatively inelastic activity — a doubling of gas prices reduces miles traveled by only a small fraction — it has nevertheless been somewhat sensitive to changes in fuel costs. Vehicle miles traveled fell between 1981 and 1982, for instance, when the price of gas was the equivalent of three dollars in today’s prices, and between 1990 and 1991, when the Persian Gulf war triggered a temporary spike in the price at the pump.

Gas prices, of course, were exceedingly high last summer, peaking at $4.06 a gallon in July 2008; it isn’t surprising that Americans were driving less then. But prices have since fallen by more than half, and Americans have yet to pick up the pace on the roads.

How much of it is just a result of the bad economy? The unemployment rate has soared significantly since last summer; perhaps the only good thing about losing your job is that you no longer have to endure the drive to work.

Thus, the continued decrease in driving today reflects, in part, a delayed reaction to hundred-dollar-a-barrel oil. Maybe our commuter finally did get fed up and move his family to the city, but it took him until now to do so. The real test will come as the summer unfolds and Americans have had time to get “used to” lower gas prices.

Still, there is some evidence that more Americans are at least entertaining the idea of leading a more car-free existence. Between October 2004, when gas prices first hit two dollars a gallon, and December 2008, when they fell below this threshold, three cities with among the largest declines in housing prices were Las Vegas (-37 percent), Detroit (-34 percent), and Phoenix (-15 percent), each highly car-dependent cities. Conversely, the two markets with the largest gains in housing prices were Portland, Oregon (+19 percent), and Seattle (+18 percent), communities that are more friendly to alternate modes of transportation.

Click here to read the entire article.

Rethinking Infrastructure – ULI’s new report says the US Infrastructure is outmoded and reiterates need for upgrade

May 6, 2009 at 7:09 pm

(Source: Architect Online’s Federal Weekly Report,  Urban Land Institute  via, Planetizen)

IT’S NOT JUST U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE THAT’S OUTMODED, SAYS A NEW REPORT BY THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE. THE WAY CITIZENS AND POLITICIANS THINK ABOUT IT NEEDS AN UPGRADE, TOO.

Even as the U.S. government pumps billions of stimulus dollars into rebuilding aging infrastructure, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) has issued its third annual infrastructure report, which takes the nation to task for not having a comprehensive infrastructure development plan and for not wisely planning the use of stimulus money. The report, “Pivot Point,” highlights how China, India, and Europe have invested heavily in modern infrastructure over recent decades, while the U.S. has coasted on its own prosperity, content with patching and repairing its outdated bridges, roads, and other transit and water projects.

“We will not continue to be a major world power if we can’t get goods in and out of the country in an efficient, productive way,” ULI executive vice president for initiatives, Maureen McAvey, tells ARCHITECT. “And the more we waste time in congestion on our roads, in having inadequate ports and inadequate delivery systems, and having congested airports—that’s all loss of productivity.”

The ULI’s hope is for transit systems to be linked across jurisdictions and for transportation and land use to be integrated. Often, “there’s no easy way of getting from A to B, and those are all trips on the road,” McAvey says, which, in addition to causing congestion, means more carbon released into the air. “It’s a stupid way to run a country.”

Running throughout the report is the notion that the U.S. is at a tipping point, a moment when the country either shakes off the system it has been functioning under for decades and chooses to look at infrastructure, transportation, land use, and many other issues in a holistic and future-leaning way, or we continue to patch old problems, push solutions to the future, and hope to hold ourselves together. The latter, says the ULI, means the country will slide backward.

Click here to read the entire article.  Here is the ULI report.

Tallying the toll of transportation privatization

May 6, 2009 at 6:37 pm

(Source: MSNBC)

Image: Indiana Toll Road

Photo: Joe Raymond / AP file. In 2006, the 157-mile-long Indiana Toll Road was leased to a private operator for 75 years for $3.8 billion. Novel approaches to funding offer insights on how the U.S. will fund, build and manage its transportation infrastructure for years to come.

Call it a tale of two airports.

In Missouri, a plan to open the nation’s first privately developed and operated commercial airport will come to fruition when the built-from-scratch Branson Airport opens on May 11.

In Illinois, a plan to lease Chicago’s Midway Airport that was seen as a model for privatization has collapsed in the face of the global credit crunch.

Two airports, two unique approaches and two completely different outcomes. Yet each in its own way may offer insights on how the U.S. funds, builds and manage its transportation infrastructure for years to come.

Crumbling infrastructure, creative financing
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the nation’s infrastructure is in such dire shape that it would take $2.2 trillion over the next five years to reverse decades of underfunding and neglect. The shortfall for transportation infrastructure alone is pegged at more than $800 billion.

State and local governments are simply unable (or unwilling) to fill the gap. The proposed solution: sell or lease public assets to private companies that would provide money upfront in return for the right to run the operation and keep most of the revenue.

In aviation, the Midway proposal — a 99-year lease in exchange for an upfront payment of $2.5 billion — would have constituted the first privatization of a public airport in the U.S. under an FAA pilot program announced in 1996. “It was going to be the grand demonstration of the viability of privatization,” says Joseph Schwieterman, a professor at DePaul University and proponent of public-private partnerships (P3). “But the consortium overbid, got cold feet and the thing unraveled.”

Which is not to suggest that airport privatization is dead (although there are currently no active projects in the FAA program). Instead, say proponents, future deals will likely revolve around smaller, lower-profile projects that are structured to ensure that public assets aren’t being sold off for one-time cash payments. “You have to give the public some value for their dollars,” says Steve Steckler, chairman of Infrastructure Management Group, a P3 advisory firm, “and not just take it from future users.”

Meanwhile, Branson Airport is getting ready to receive its first commercial flights next week. As a brand-new project built without government funding, it presents a completely different proposition, yet it also presents an intriguing option as the nation confronts its transportation needs. “Branson is unique,” says Schwieterman, “but the model is one that will surely be tried in other places.”

Turnpikes, tollways and the road ahead

In the interim, most travelers’ experience with privatized transportation systems will continue to come via the tolls charged on various highways and turnpikes. According to a recent report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), 15 roads in the U.S. had undergone some form of privatization by the end of 2008, with another 79 projects currently under consideration.

Four years ago, Chicago once again proved to be a leader in the field when it leased the eight-mile Chicago Skyway to a private operator for 99 years in exchange for $1.8 billion. A year later, the 157-mile-long Indiana Toll Road was leased to the same group for 75 years for $3.8 billion. (Conversely, a proposal to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike for 75 years for $12.8 billion fell apart last fall.)

Whether such deals are good for consumers remains controversial. According to proponents, privatization leads to more efficient operations and better maintenance. It also “provides cover” for local governments unwilling or unable to raise tolls on their own. (Historically, toll increases have lagged the cost of living, one reason most tollway deals allow operators to raise fees in step with inflation or GDP.)

Click here to read the entire article.

Reauthorization and Reorganization in the works for USDOT – House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar wants to reorganize the U.S. DOT to streamline infrastructure spending programs

May 6, 2009 at 1:55 pm

 (Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON- The U.S. government would overhaul how it plans and manages big-ticket highway and transit projects in an ambitious proposal being drafted by a senior Democratic lawmaker who oversees transportation.

 House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar told the Reuters Infrastructure Summit on Tuesday that his plan would reorganize the U.S. Transportation Department in order to streamline infrastructure spending programs.

“It’s a complete restructuring of the thought process, the delivery system, the delivery mechanism, and the funding for it,” Oberstar, from Minnesota, said in his Capitol Hill office.

Oberstar’s proposal would be the centerpiece of a six-year highway and transit construction bill Congress will consider this year.

He estimates funding at $450 billion, but the figure has not been finalized. Oberstar, who will manage the highway bill in the House, hopes to propose his plan in the coming weeks.

The Senate is working on its own version.

The Oberstar measure would retain current federal funding sources as well as give more spending discretion to states. In addition, it would make room for private investment in infrastructure programs.

Lawmakers face a September 30 deadline to pass a long-term spending blueprint for new U.S. highway construction, road and bridge repair, and public transit.

That legislation, known as the highway bill, would be separate from the economic stimulus bill passed in February that provides $48.1 billion for transportation.

The current highway/transit construction law was approved in July 2005 with a price tag of $286.4 billion. That amount was considered by many in Congress and industry as inadequate to upgrade the country’s aging transportation infrastructure.

Industry leaders are pressing for the next bill to exceed $500 billion.

Highway spending is funded through a federal trust which draws from taxes on motor fuels. But recent shortages in gas tax receipts due to higher pump prices that have reduced driving and more fuel-efficient vehicles have prompted calls to find alternatives.

Oberstar’s plan would keep the Highway Trust fund, but would allow states to determine their spending priorities.

“They’ve had these responsibilities. They’ve just been straight-jacketed,” Oberstar said about the states. “We’re going to give the states broad discretion.”

Click here to read the entire article.

Raging Debate on Vehicle Mileage Tax – A Media Roundup – April 30, 2009

April 30, 2009 at 12:36 pm

Mileage-based tax expensive idea – HaroldNet ..I see that a congressional committee wants to put a mileage-based tax on cars and trucks. This would involve installation of expensive GPS devices in every 

Our view: Leave miles-traveled tax at the roadsideDuluth News Tribune – ‎Late last week in Washington, US Rep. Jim Oberstar touted spending half a trillion dollars to solve the nation’s transportation woes. 

Mileage Tax Discussion in Congress Helicopter Association International – ‎House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar said he will push for a mileage-based tax on cars and trucks to pay for highway programs. 

Mileage-Based Tax Not the Answer to Our Nation’s Infrastructure Needs Americans for Tax Reform – ‎By the Numbers: WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) issued the following response to Rep. James Oberstar’s (D-Minn) call for a 

More Congress Critters Want To Track And Tax Your Driving Habits Techdirt – ‎For years, various state politicians have pushed the idea of a “mileage tax” for driving, and it’s never made much sense at all. Yet, just a few months ago, 

US Transportation Secretary LaHood cites stimulus money success

April 29, 2009 at 7:07 pm

The federal government has already committed nearly $11 billion in stimulus money to help get road, bridge and environmental projects off the ground, administration officials told Congress on Wednesday.

“I believe we have already achieved enormous success,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told the House Transportation Committee, giving a progress report on infrastructure money allotted under the $787 billion economic stimulus bill passed in February.

Lahood, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, told the panel his department had made decisions on $9 billion dollars in projects around the country out of Transportation’s $48 billion share of the stimulus package.  However, he was less specific about the jobs directly resulting from stimulus spending.

It was originally estimated that the $64 billion in the stimulus for infrastructure — for transit, high speed rail, aviation, federal buildings and Army Corps of Engineers projects as well as roads and bridges — would create or sustain 1.8 million jobs.

But so far, reports on new jobs were mostly anecdotal. The Transportation Committee said its survey of state and local transportation officials revealed that work had begun on 263 highway and transit projects in 30 states, putting about 1,250 workers back on the job.

D.J. Stadtler, Jr., chief financial officer for Amtrak, said it expected to produce about 4,600 jobs in the first year of the stimulus with investment of $1.3 billion.

Unemployment in the construction industry soared to nearly 2 million in March, about 21.1 percent compared with 13 percent a year ago.

Rep. John Mica of Florida, top Republican on the committee, questioned the job-creation effectiveness of the program, saying some projects might take three to four years to get off the ground. But he said he would withhold judgment, saying, “We have to give folks a pass at this juncture.”

The Government Accountability Office, in a report prepared for the hearing, also raised questions about the ability of states and Washington to track how the money is being spent. But it gave some states high marks for moving the money quickly.

The Transportation Committee said that, as of April 17, states had received approval for 2,163 projects, about 25 percent of the $27.5 billion.

Also:

_The Federal Transit Administration has awarded five projects totaling $48.6 million and has another 109 grants totaling $1.47 billion pending review.

_The Federal Railroad Administration has approved 52 Amtrak capitol improvement projects worth $938 million.

_The administration is to announce plans by this summer on awarding projects for $8 billion in high speed rail development.

_The Federal Aviation Administration has announced more than $1 billion in tentative spending for runways, aprons and terminal improvements.

_The General Services Administration has a plan for investing $5.55 billion, including $4.3 billion for a green building program.

(Source: AP)