White House Says Transportation System Overhaul Must Wait (Washington Post)

After rejecting criticism that it is taking on too much, the Obama administration has identified one area where ambitious reforms will have to wait: overhauling the nation’s aging, congested and carbon-emitting transportation system.

It became clear at a contentious Senate hearing yesterday that the half-trillion-dollar question is how to pay for the bill. The 18.4-cent federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and revenue from it falls increasingly short every year because of inflation and the shift to more fuel-efficient cars.

The White House and some of its Senate allies are letting it be known, though, that this is not a discussion they want to have now, in the middle of a recession and as Washington is consumed with battles over health care and energy. Also, polls show that Americans are growing anxious about government spending.

“President Obama does have a vision for transportation. It’s not something he’s going to ignore or turn a blind eye to at all,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told skeptical senators yesterday. “The timing is where we part company.”

Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) is proposing that if the White House and the Senate will not consider a higher gas tax, then the bill could be paid for with a new tax on oil speculators.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) said: “President Obama said to us during the campaign that we must have the fierce urgency of now. And that’s what Mr. Oberstar has done.”

Boxer agreed but said a gas tax increase now is not feasible. “I would tell you if you go out to the people of America and say that’s the solution, I don’t think they will buy it,” she said. “They’re struggling right now.”

Click here to read the entire article.

Boxer and Inhofe Agree: Transportation Policy Reform Can Wait (Streetsblog)

Green transportation advocates are pressing Congress to refuse any new spending that’s not tied to reform of the existing system — a call that influential senators in both parties ruled out today.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) joined Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK), the panel’s ranking GOPer, in endorsing another 18 months of the 2005 transportation bill.

The extension, Boxer said, should be “clean as it can be, clean as a whistle … not with these policy changes, because it will in fact jeopardize a quick passage of this extension.”

Boxer’s agreement to an extension free of policy reforms appears to be an acknowledgment that Inhofe and most other GOP senators would slow down approval of the short-term transportation measure. But she faced a lone critic today in Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), who challenged Boxer to back down from her opposition to raising the federal gas tax during an economic recession.

Voinovich reminded the Californian that she “is always talking about the environment; [drafting a new transportation bill] is going to have a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions.” He suggested that senators “look at” the House transportation bill offered by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and pitch the American public on an increase in the gas tax, which has remained static since 1993.

In fact, recent polling supports Voinovich’s argument, not Boxer’s. A survey released earlier this year by the advocacy group Building America’s Future found that 81 percent of Americans would pay more in federal taxes to support infrastructure investments.

But the alignment of Boxer and Inhofe, as well as Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) — whose Finance Committee must agree on a revenue source for the next transportation bill — in favor of a clean 18-month extension is enough to doom the House effort to pass a bill this year.

Click here to read the entire story.

Voinovich: Business Buy-in Can Get a New Transportation Bill Done (Streetsblog)

Getting business interests to work on methods for funding a long-term transportation bill can help shift the political climate, he told Streetsblog Capitol Hill today after Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) vowed to continue searching for revenue raisers that can pay for massive new legislation.

“Right now, the president is frankly worried about health care, climate change, a lot of other things [and may have said] ‘see, I don’t need another thing on my plate,'” Voinovich said.

But, he added, the White House would likely come around if the private sector — which has “been heretofore reluctant … to step up” — is willing to shoulder some of the extra tax burden needed to pay for increased infrastructure investment.

The senator suggested pushing for a transportation funding extension shorter than 18 months, “to put the pressure on to get this thing done by next year.” In response, Basso would say only that “we’re supportive of the Oberstar [House] bill moving forward.”

Click here to read the entire article.

Congressman Peter DeFazio: Make Wall Street A**holes Foot The Bill For Infrastructure (The Infrastructurist)

Politicians agree that we need to invest in our transportation infrastructure, but ask any of them how we should pay for it and you’re likely to endure an uncomfortable silence. The problem is so bad that it seems to have derailed the new transportation bill until 2011.

There is at least one guy willing to offer a serious proposal though. Instead of taxing drivers more at the pump, says Peter DeFazio, why not make those finance guys that we all hate so much pay for it?

Specifically, the Democratic congressman from Oregon wants to impose a small tax–0.02%–on oil futures contracts.

From his office: “A transaction tax on crude oil securities will close the gap in funding a twenty-first century transportation system while lowering the price of oil. This is a win/win,” DeFazio said. “If we put off this transportation authorization, we will push off needed reform. Every day we wait people will sit in traffic instead of spending time with their families, every day people are not as safe as they could be because of our crumbling infrastructure, every day our economy suffers when our products sit in traffic jams. My proposal will not cost consumers one cent but will substantially increase our investment in our transportation infrastructure.”

The only trick will be selling it. That shouldn’t be hard with the right name. “The Oil Speculator Tax,” perhaps?

*We’re using “Wall Street” generically here, btw — a lot of oil trading occurs on Chicago Mercantile

Click here to read the entire article.

Senator Boxer is Right: There is No Consensus in Congress on Funding (The Transport Politic)

Today at a hearing on the reauthorization of the transportation bill, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) made it quite clear that Congressman James Oberstar’s (D-MN) proposed legislation won’t make it through the Senate over the next few months. Ms. Boxer’s testimony indicated that she’d push for a no-changes “clean” extension of SAFETEA-LU over the next 18 months, as proposed by Secretary of Transportation of Ray LaHood. More serious reforms will have to wait. This means fewer than hoped for funds for transit and high-speed rail, as well as no substantive improvements in the manner in which federal dollars are distributed.

Congress’ problems are two fold: it has too many other projects on the near horizon and it has no consensus, even along partisan lines, on how to fund a major expansion in transportation funding. Today’s fuel tax, which provides the primary source of revenue for the Trust Fund, is out of cash and cannot fund the nation’s transportation needs alone. A relatively simple extension of SAFETEA-LU, bolstered by an infusion of general fund dollars into the Highway Trust Fund, is the easiest answer.

Mr. Oberstar has been adamant in his desire to push forward the next transportation bill now, but this hearing made clear that the Senate is not going to play along. Ms. Boxer is chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and her position will effectively block Mr. Oberstar’s bill even if that legislation passes in the House. Without the support of the White House, Mr. Oberstar is loosing ground. His inability to pinpoint a stable funding source is similarly problematic.

What hasn’t been suggested, but that which I will continue to bring up, is a simple abandonment of the idea that transportation must be sponsored by its “users.” We are all beneficiaries of a strong transportation network, and filling the Trust Fund mostly with general fund sources is a viable and long-term solution that would require none of the shenanigans that currently deteriorate efforts to raise the gas tax or impose a VMT. Whether now or in 18 months, we’re going to need something better than today’s non-proposals from Ms. Boxer.

Click here to read the entire article.

Transportation Bill Is Dead As A Doornail For 2009 Because Nobody Can Figure Out How To Pay For It (The Infrastructurist)

Over the past week or so, there has been a pretend drama in Washington about whether we’ll be getting a giant new transportation bill in 2009. The prospect is exiciting, of course, because in addition to $500 billion in loot that would be handed out, the bill would offers tantalizing opportunities for bureaucratic and policy reform.

On Monday, perhaps the most active and powerful Congressional player in these matters, Jim Oberstar, released his long-awaited draft version of the bill and, along with his committee-mates, vowed to push forward and get it passed into law by the end of September.

Oddly, that came on the heels of the Secretary of Transportation–a man who speaks for the president–requesting that it be kicked back to 2011 and that Congress craft an 18 month extension of the present legislation to cover the country’s needs in the meantime. Clash of the titans?

Now, at a hearing today in the Senate, Barbara Boxer pretty much closed the door on the idea the bill might happen this year. As chair of the Environment and Public Works committee, she would play a leading role in sheparding the bill through the upper house. And she’s saying unequivocally that the new bill will have to wait for 2011.

She gave a very clear reason: “It’s not because we [in the Senate] have a full plate”–dealing with healthcare, climate, and financial reforms–”it’s because we have no consensus on how to fund the new bill.”

“Oberstar wants to raise the gas tax,” she said, then noted it would have to go up by a dime just meet the current shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. She took a spin through the math of how much it would have to go up to cover the new investment he proposed in the bill. And while she neither she or her witnesses stated an exact figure, it would probably be 25 cents or so more. (The tax now stands at 18 cents per gallon.)

Click here to read the entire article.

U.S. must boost gas tax, transportation expert says (Baltimore Sun)

The executive director of an influential group representing top transportation officials from around the country told a Greater Baltimore Committee summit Thursday that it is time for the United States to “grow up” and increase the federal tax on gasoline and other motor fuels.

John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, warned that without new revenue, the U.S. transportation infrastructure faces a grim future.

“We’re in the soup,” Horsley warned the gathering of Baltimore business leaders, transportation officials and civic activists.

Horsley, whose organization represents state transportation secretaries and other top officials, noted that the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax has remained level since the early 1990s and that the national highway trust fund is heading for depletion in August.

Horsley noted that two recent bipartisan commissions created by Congress concluded that federal fuel taxes must increase. One backed a rise of 25 to 40 cents; the other urged an increase of 10 cents a gallon on gasoline and 15 cents on diesel.

Those recommendations were opposed by the Bush administration, and President Barack Obama has ruled out any increase in gas taxes during the recession.

But Horsley said Thursday that a 10-cent increase in the gas tax amounts to “less than 60 bucks” a year for the typical driver.

Without new revenue, Horsley said, Congress must transfer $5 billion to $7 billion to replenish the highway trust fund during the current fiscal year or watch as road projects grind to a halt. He said $8 billion to $10 billion would be needed for the fiscal year that begins in October.

Obama and others have called for passage of an 18-month stopgap funding measure, saying that Congress has its plate full with health care, energy and other issues.

Click here to read the entire article.

Rep. John Mica on the transportation bill (PBS Blueprint America)

The proposed transportation bill calls for $450 billion in federal funding, which is a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005.

The following is an interview with Rep. John Mica (R., FL), ranking minority member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, about the recent developments of the transportation bill:

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The current highway authorization expires at the end of September. So what exactly is expiring?

REP. JOHN MICA: Every six years Congress adopts a federal authorization for highways, which outlines transportation policy, projects, and funding distributions for the whole country.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Right now, however, the Obama Administration wants to delay authorization.

REP. MICA: We’re on the verge of a transportation meltdown. The Administration has proposed an 18-month extension of both the highway authorization bill and the highway trust fund. That will require, depending on how long it is extended, between $8 and $15 billion.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, typically, the transportation bill is not authorized every six years – it’s generally extended.

REP. MICA: Right. I think the last time we tried to authorize it we had 13 extensions.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Are you opposed to this 18-month extension by the Obama Administration?

REP. MICA: Well, I think that it would be better to go ahead with the transportation bill Rep. (Jim) Oberstar has introduced. We have been working on the bill for some time.

Still, I think we take that bill as the starter. The problem you’ve got with an 18-month extension is that it puts many of the major infrastructure projects on hold. The 18-month extension is a job killer. It gives you a temporary relief with the highway trust fund, but because you don’t have projects approved and policy and funding mechanisms in place for the future, it ends up killing jobs and delaying decisions on projects across the country. For example, there are 6, 800 project requests in the House bill alone – all of these would go on hold.

Click here to read the entire interview.

(Source:  Minnesota Public Radio, The Hill, The Trucker, Detroit Free Press, Transportation for America)

Image Courtesy:USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood's Blog - Fast Lane

Legislative Journey Begins:

Congressman Jim Oberstar’s transportation bill starts its legislative journey today with a draft session scheduled in a House of Representatives subcommittee.

It’s the one of the first steps toward a vote for the bill, which would nearly double current spending. The Obama administration has proposed postponing reform, but Oberstar says waiting dooms the country to years of delay on transportation projects.

Oberstar’s Surface Transportation Authorization Act would provide $337 billion in funding for highway construction, $100 billion for public transit and $50 billion to build a nationwide high-speed rail system–a grand total of nearly $500 billion over six years.

Funding for the bill remains sketchy, though Oberstar promises details as it progresses. There’s been no talk of increasing the federal gasoline tax which hasn’t been raised for 16 years.

Oberstar rails against the Obama administration position, saying an 18-month delay, given how Congress does its work, translates into a four-year wait for federal money from a new federal transportation bill. Oberstar’s timeline for finishing work on a new federal transportation bill is ambitious. He wants a vote no later than just after Labor Day.

LaHood told a Senate Appropriations transportation panel last week that he wants to work in the 18-month extension for the kinds of program changes that lawmakers seek.

“Our number one priority is to fix the Highway Trust Fund, to pay for it, to find money, and along the way here if we can have the discussions about these other things, I think we should,” LaHood said.

But Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and the committee’s chairman, said: “Conversations are great; passing legislation is hard.” She said she was “concerned about some of the lack of details … You’re offering a general framework for us, but we can’t wait very long for a proposal.”

Unlikely Ally – K Street:

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) has a powerful ally in his battle with the White House over the highway bill: K Street.

Trade associations, unions and business coalitions are getting behind the House Transportation Committee chairman in his push to complete the $450 billion measure before the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. The Obama administration has argued the transportation reauthorization bill is a bridge too far for an already jam-packed legislative agenda and wants to extend the current law at least 18 months before Capitol Hill can take on new reforms.

But lobbyists are arguing that the debate over how best to pay the increased transportation funding Oberstar is proposing — whether it is through raising the tax on gasoline or taxing vehicle mileage — cannot wait any longer.

But the administration has opposed lawmakers who wish to raise the gas tax to pay for the new transportation bill. LaHood and others argue the new tax hike would be overly burdensome on the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans during the recession.

Lobbyists believe the legislation, which will help fund repairs not only to highways but to transit systems and railroads, will provide a boost to the nation’s economy, much like the stimulus package was designed to do.

For his push to finish the bill before the end of the fiscal year, Oberstar can expect to find support among many of the trade associations that have been lobbying the transportation reauthorization this year. Like AAPA and LIUNA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the Associated General Contractors of America are also supportive of the Minnesota Democrat’s desire to complete the bill in 2009, according to statements they released last week.

Many praised several reforms that were included in Oberstar’s blueprint released last week, including creating a Transportation Department Office of Intermodalism to better organize the nation’s transportation system and a national infrastructure bank to fund transportation projects.

Strong provisions for monitoring drug and alcohol abuse by truckers

The draft of the new highway reauthorization bill authored primarily by Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee contains strong language requiring the Secretary of Transportation to establish a clearinghouse for records relating to alcohol and controlled substances testing of commercial motor vehicle operators.

It’s a clearinghouse long desired by federal officials and trucking executives and would be designed to keep repeat substance abuse offenders from jumping from company to company.

The clearinghouse would be a repository of records relating to violations of the testing program by individuals submitted to the DOT.

The bill requires the clearinghouse to be in operation not later than one year after the enactment of the new highway bill.

Under the present system, a CDL holder can fail a drug test and be fired from his or her present employer, but is not required to tell a prospective new employer about the failed test.

D.C. Metro Crash Spurs Transit Funding Debate

Public transit advocates seized on Monday’s commuter rail crash in Washington to make the case for overhauling the country’s transportation system.  Authorities were still searching the wreckage Tuesday when Transportation for America, a coalition of interest groups and local officials, cited the deadliest crash in the Metro’s 33-year history to make the case for advancing a new transit authorization bill on Capitol Hill this year.

“In the big picture, what we can say is that we have underinvested in taking care of our infrastructure, roads, bridges and public transportation,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America.

Lawmakers from around the Washington area also spoke of the need to pay for rail projects in the wake of the crash, which killed nine people and injured 76, although some cautioned not to draw conclusions before investigators determine what led the two trains on the red line to collide.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called for a congressional hearing Tuesday to help determine how the crash occurred.

Norton, after meeting with officials of the National Transportation Safety Board, expressed outrage that the older car in the crash wasn’t retired, as those officials had recommended years ago. She noted that Congress once heard safety officials testify for more funding to maintain the Metrorail system, and that appropriators have failed to fully fund their request.

“Congress had the ultimate wake-up call yesterday,” she said. “The only appropriate response is to begin to eliminate the crash-unworthy cars with this year’s appropriations.”

(Source: Wall Street Journal, T4America@twitter)

Sec. LaHood proposes 18-month extension for SAFEAT-LU  and shortly thereafter Rep. Oberstar says delay is unacceptable (via T4America@Twitter & WSJ)

Image Courtesy: Apture - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood

USDOT published a news release this afternoon offering Sec. Ray LaHood’s proposed extension:

“This morning, I went to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress on the situation with the Highway Trust Fund. I am proposing an immediate 18-month highway reauthorization that will replenish the Highway Trust Fund. If this step is not taken the trust fund will run out of money as soon as late August and states will be in danger of losing the vital transportation funding they need and expect.

“As part of this, I am proposing that we enact critical reforms to help us make better investment decisions with cost-benefit analysis, focus on more investments in metropolitan areas and promote the concept of livability to more closely link home and work. The Administration opposes a gas tax increase during this challenging, recessionary period, which has hit consumers and businesses hard across our country.

“I recognize that there will be concerns raised about this approach. However, with the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused approach, we should not rush legislation. We should work together on a full reauthorization that best meets the demands of the country. The first step is making sure that the Highway Trust Fund is solvent. The next step is addressing our transportation priorities over the long term.”

Shortwhile ago, WSJ published an article covering today’s development, which featured Secrtary’s proposal to delay the reauthorization.  This aricle also captured an interesting response from Rep. Oberstar, delivered his press conference Wednesday.  It notes that Rep. Oberstar was adamant that Congress must pass a new law before the current one expires.

“Extension of current law is unacceptable,” Mr. Oberstar said. “Now is the time to move.”

Bill in the Works at Congress (via WSJ)

House Democrats are busy crafting a transportation spending bill that would cost roughly $450 billion over six years, but no consensus has emerged on how to fund it, reports WSJ citing familiar sources.

The bill for the first time would establish standards — like reducing oil consumption and spurring economic growth — that would influence which highway and transit projects get federal funding. It would also consolidate to six or fewer the number of Transportation Department programs used to channel money to states, giving local officials more flexibility to combat their transportation challenges.

Image Courtesy: Apture

The legislation is being drafted by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D., Minn.), who plans to release a blueprint of his bill tomorrow at a press conference starting at 11:00AM.  Since this is the internet age, there will be a live webcast of the news conference (an invitation-only press conference). Transportation for America informs that Chairman Oberstar is releasing a 12-page paper and a 100-page outline of the bill and it’s likely that at least one of those — probably the shorter white paper — will be released the first press conference.

The current system relies heavily on taxes from gasoline and vehicle purchases. Revenue from these sources is dropping as Americans drive less and opt for more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. Meanwhile, states are encountering similar funding problems due to declines in tax revenue. The result is a growing gap between the nation’s infrastructure needs and what is being spent to maintain and upgrade it.

The Obama administration has opposed any gas-tax increase. The White House also opposes any quick transition to a new system, which has been tested in Oregon, where drivers are taxed based on the miles they drive rather than the number of gallons they pump into their gas tanks.

People familiar with the matter say Mr. Oberstar hasn’t come up with a funding solution, and the task of writing the bill’s funding component will fall to the Ways and Means Committee. Things may proceed even slower in the Senate. That makes it unlikely Congress will pass a new bill by the time the old one expires at the end of September.

Meanwhile, states may be forced to further curb their transportation spending if Congress doesn’t come up with more money soon. Last year, Congress opted to transfer $8 billion from the Treasury’s general fund into the Highway Trust Fund to prevent last-minute cutbacks.   Click here to read the entire article.

Grading the Transportation Bill (via T4America)

To help us all judge whether the bill delivers the promised transformation, Transportation for America has developed this scorecard (see below) laying out the changes that must be included to clear the bar. When the bill is released, we can begin using this as our measuring stick. Click here to download the PDF version of this awesome scorecard.

(Source: ENR.com & Wall Street Journal)

The Obama administration said as much as $17 billion in additional federal money is needed to maintain roads and bridges over the next two years, underscoring the challenges policy makers face as driving habits change.

Image Courtesy; Stateline.org via Gmanet.com

The recession and gas-price increases over the past two years have caused many consumers to drive less and switch to more fuel-efficient cars. The result has been a fall in revenue from taxes on gasoline and vehicle purchases, which are used to fund state and local transportation projects.

Officials from the  Obama administration and U.S. Dept. of Transportation have said that the trust fund will not have enough cash to cover commitments to states for highway projects, according to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the panel’s top Republican, James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

According to administration and DOT officials, $5 billion to $7 billion will be needed by August to avert having to slow down Federal Highway Administration reimbursements to state DOTs, Boxer and Inhofe said on June 2. The lawmakers added that a further $8 billion to to $10 billion will be needed in fiscal year 2010 to maintain the highway program at its current level. Congress has set the 2009 federal highway program obligation limit at $40.7 billion.

Boxer and Inhofe discussed the trust fund’s problem at a June 2 committee hearing on the nomination of former Arizona DOT Director Victor Mendez to be the new head of the Federal Highway Administration.

Inhofe raised the possibility of tapping the interest on the Highway Trust Fund balance as one solution. That interest goes to the general Treasury, not the trust fund.

The administration has resisted calls to increase the 18.4-cent federal tax on a gallon of gas; the tax hasn’t been raised since 1993.

Last year, Congress transferred $8 billion from the government’s general fund to the highway trust fund in response to a similar shortfall, allowing states to move ahead with hundreds of job-creating transportation projects. Congress may do that again this year.

Lawmakers could also consider tweaking the economic-stimulus law so states could use some of their stimulus money to compensate for other budget shortfalls. In most cases, states can’t use stimulus funds to compensate for budget deficits in their transportation-spending plans.

Congress and the administration are crafting legislation that would determine how the federal government funds transportation projects over the next several years. With the White House opposed to a gas-tax increase, lawmakers are trying to identify new money sources to maintain the nation’s infrastructure.

One hint of their approach could come later this month when Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is slated to unveil his blueprint for transportation spending.

(Source: Greenwire via New York Times)

A temporary hike to the federal gas tax and a controversial plan to charge Americans for every mile they drive will be part of the funding mix for future roadwork, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee said today.

Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), whose committee is drafting the House bill that will finance the bulk of the nation’s surface transportation for the next six years, said because federal revenues from fuel taxes have fallen, his committee has no choice but to use new financing mechanisms to make up the difference.

“We will have multiple revenue sources as we go into the authorization period,” Oberstar told reporters today. “Vehicle miles traveled will be one.”

 Charging drivers a small fee for every mile they travel is “a more efficient, more effective, more beneficial way to generate revenues into the Highway Trust Fund because it will more accurately measure the effect on the roadways of congestion, of wear and tear on our road and bridge surfaces than a simple gas tax,” he added.

Click here to read the entire article.