Last Friday, House and Senate leaders announced an agreement on a long-awaited bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. Republicans withdrew a controversial labor provision that had drawn a veto threat from the White House in exchange for other changes to unionization rules. The deal paves the way for an FAA bill that has been years in the making. Lawmakers were facing a Jan. 31 deadline when the current FAA extension would expire. Lawmakers will pass one last extension this week, and they expect the final bill to be completed in February.

News of the breakthrough caused the aviation community to breathe a sigh of relief. But the deal also could impact future transportation negotiations; labor fights might now be fair game. Republicans backed off of their demand to rescind an administration rule that makes it easier for rail and aviation workers to unionize only after Democrats agreed to tweak how unionization elections are conducted and overseen. The biggest change is that the threshold to trigger a union election would be raised from 35 percent to 50 percent of covered workers. Labor officials say that change would have almost no practical impact on unionization because virtually all organizing campaigns are supported by more than half of the covered workforce.

Nonetheless, Republicans consider the Democrats' concessions a huge win because this is the first time that changes to union rules have been included in an FAA reauthorization bill. AFL-CIO Transportation and Trades Department President Edward Wytkind said the FAA bill is wrong place to be talking about complex union rules. "We don't believe amendments to the Railway Labor Act belong in an air-safety bill," he told me before the deal was finalized.

Did Democratic leaders do the right thing in granting unionization changes in order to jump-start an otherwise popular and noncontroversial transportation bill? Did Republicans do the right thing raising the union issue, knowing that the FAA bill would be the only place they would get any traction? Does this deal set a precedent for labor negotiations in future transportation bills? When is it appropriate to address union rules in transportation policy?

1 response: Peter J. Pantuso

Policymakers' appetite for high-speed rail seems to be dwindling to almost nothing. It is old news that congressional Republicans are not fans of President Obama's high-speed rail initiative. They view it as a waste of taxpayer dollars at a time when belt-tightening is of the highest order. The national conversation has not advanced much beyond that point, perhaps because the biggest fans of high-speed rail are distracted by other problems. Democrats in Congress raised only a faint protest when the fiscal 2012 appropriations bill cut funding for the Transportation Department's high-speed rail program. Republicans who ostensibly like high-speed rail said the cuts will allow rail enthusiasts to start over from scratch.

The problems continue at the state level, particularly in California. The California High Speed Rail Peer Review Group recently refused to recommend that bond money be devoted to the state's high-speed rail plan. The review group said the state's business plan lacked "credible sources of adequate funding" that posed "an immense financial risk" to California. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown proposed folding the California High-Speed Rail Authority into a broader transportation agency to save money. That move could potentially take some steam out of the state's high-speed rail initiatives as they get lumped in with other transportation priorities. Even so, more than $3.5 billion in federal funding could be at risk if the state Legislature doesn't approve funds for a high-speed rail line, according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

High-speed rail investments aren't like economic stimulus programs, which are intended to jump start shovel-ready projects that can immediately inject money into a local economy while delivering jobs and paved roads. The initial costs of developing high-speed rail lines are high, and the yield time is years or decades. Is the country ready for long-term investments like that? Or would it make sense to take a break and allow the economy to recover before proposing big new rail projects? What would make policymakers more receptive to high-speed rail? What critiques of high-speed rail are the most in need of a response?

11 responses: Steve Van Beek, Michael Melaniphy, Ken Orski, David Pickeral, Peter Gertler, Emil H. Frankel, Jack Kinstlinger, Patrick D. Jones, Gabriel Roth, John Horsley, Peter J. Pantuso

Like a drunk uncle at a family funeral, transportation projects in major cities tend to air out a community's normally hidden dirty laundry. In the abstract, it is hard to dispute the value of an efficient intercity mass transit system. But when a light rail or subway project threatens to change the landscape of long-inhabited neighborhoods, the impacts become more mixed. Gentrification, regional job opportunities, poverty, housing, and traffic all become part of the discussion.

Last week, the Pew Charitable Trusts released a report that illustrates the complexity of these questions. Pew and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded a study by a trio of community organizations--an in-depth health impact study of a light rail line being constructed in the Twin Cities, Minnesota.

The summary is here.
The technical report is here.

The Central Corridor Light Rail Line is an 11-mile transit system connecting downtown Minneapolis with downtown Saint Paul. It is a $1 billion investment that is expected to spur $6.8 billion in local development over the next 20 years.

It is difficult to summarize the results of the study except to say that the health outcomes of the rail project vary. There are health benefits associated with the increased access to grocery stores and doctors' offices that mass transit provides, not to mention easier job commutes. Economic development through increased customer flow and employment opportunities also boosts the health of residents. Yet there are health risks associated with the accompanying rise in housing costs as low-income residents struggle to meet rent and utility increases. Moreover, residents with lower educations might not qualify for the newly created jobs that will require at least some college-level skills.

The study concluded that a commitment to affordable housing would help mitigate the negative impacts of the new rail system. The Saint Paul City Council took that into account when it approved the proposal, creating an affordable housing working group and commissioning feasibility studies.

Are there accepted rules of thumb about how transportation impacts peoples' health? What are the most important health benefits of mass transit? What are the biggest health dangers of mass transit? Can we ask similar questions about road projects? Is it worthwhile to engage in detailed (and costly) health impact analyses? If so, when are such studies appropriate?

The countdown has begun to the Jan. 31 deadline when the current authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration expires. At the last check, lawmakers were no closer to a resolution on their disagreements than they were in September. The contentious dispute about how rail and aviation workers vote for unions has been kicked up to House and Senate leaders, who continue to be distracted by other issues. Shortly before the holidays, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., visibly winced when asked whether he was preparing another temporary extension for the FAA, saying only that House members "won't like it" if they have to push off the long-overdue measure yet again.

Then there is the surface transportation authorization, set to expire on March 31. Granted, Congress has a little more time to hammer out the details of that bill, which has the added political benefit of being a genuine job creator. Still there are problems. Text of the House bill has yet to materialize, and House leaders' plan to include new domestic oil drilling likely will not cover the full cost of maintaining the nation's roads and bridges. The drilling provision, opposed by most Democrats, will be a political distraction at the very least. It is not hard to imagine the drilling/highway debate mushrooming into a bitter shouting match just as the spring car-travel season approaches with its perennial increase in gas prices. The scenario doesn't bode well for hard-core compromises on transportation funding formulas.

Nobody wants more temporary extensions, but the congressional environment makes it difficult to envision a different outcome before the election. What will happen if there are more extensions of the aviation and surface transportation authorizations? Are there benefits, even small ones, to putting off the tough decisions until lawmakers are in a better mood? Would it make sense to punt and extend both authorizations until 2013? Or should Congress force the discussion by enacting shorter-term stopgaps? Will there be genuine political consequences (like members' seats at risk) if Congress fails to complete the transportation measures?

4 responses: Deron Lovaas, Emil H. Frankel, Greg Principato, Laura Barrett

Two Northeast lawmakers aren't too pleased with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for raising tolls to cross bridges into New York City. They are angry enough that they want the federal government to step in. The Port Authority announced in August that cash tolls for cars will go from $8.00 to $15.00 by 2015. Five-axle trucks that currently pay $40 dollars will have to pay up to $125.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, and Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican from New York, introduced legislation to restore the Transportation Department's authority to determine whether toll hikes are "just and reasonable." The toll-review authority was eliminated in 1987 under a deregulation law. Without going into detail, Lautenberg and Grimm cited "fiscal mismanagement" at the Port Authority as one reason their bill is needed. The measure would order a report from the Government Accountability Office on the transparency and accountability of tolling authority budgeting practices.

When it proposed the toll hike, the Port Authority cited a perfect storm of "unprecedented challenges" that included an economic recession, steep increases in security costs to avoid terrorist attacks, and a much-needed overhaul of the agency's facilities. After years of trying to control costs, the Port Authority said lack of action on toll prices "risks 240 critical infrastructure projects and thousands of jobs."

Should the federal government weigh in on tolling costs? What standards should determine the cost of tolls? How much sway should the feds have on toll prices? Would increased federal oversight on tolling hurt the development of public-private partnerships? How do higher tolls impact commuters' use of transit?

4 responses: Fawn Johnson, Robert L. Darbelnet, Emil H. Frankel, Patrick D. Jones

New Year's Eve could be a bad day for the Obama administration if Congress doesn't act to extend the payroll tax cut. But while that fight dominates year-end conversations on Capitol Hill, lawmakers have paid scant attention to another worker benefit that also is set to expire Dec. 31--the mass transit commuter benefit. Without congressional action, the $230 that transit commuters are now allowed to shield from taxation every month will be reduced to $125 per month. The American Public Transportation Association, Transportation for America, and the National Treasury Employees Union all have weighed in urging lawmakers to extend the current benefit as part of any final package that leaves Capitol Hill.

(My take: The chances of action are pretty slim. No one I talk to can tell me how much an extension of the current commuter benefits would cost, a bad sign for last-minute haggling. And lawmakers have their hands full trying to keep the government funded.)

Mass transit advocates are crying foul because the reduced benefit would put them in the all-too-familiar position of being at a disadvantage with respect to the formidable highway and automobile lobby. As it turns out, only transit riders will see their tax shelters reduced next year; drivers will still be eligible for a $230 per month pre-tax commuting benefit. "They'd like you to start driving to work, where you can get $230 for parking deducted from your paycheck tax free," Transportation for America's Deputy Communications Director Stephen Lee Davis ranted in a blog post.

How important is this transit benefit? Would it do any harm to extend it? Why has it gotten lost in the congressional shuffle? Is mass transit really at a disadvantage with respect to roads and automobiles? Aside from tax benefits, are there other ways to encourage mass-transit commuting?

8 responses: Ed Wytkind, Laura Barrett, Rich Sarles, Larry Hanley, Michael Melaniphy, Jon Martz, Gabriel Roth, Fawn Johnson

It's hard to find two better political push-buttons than American jobs and American-made products. It should come as no surprise, then, that House Democrats on the Transportation Committee last week made a big deal about their new proposal to tighten up and expand "Buy America" requirements for steel, iron, and manufactured products in all construction and infrastructure projects. The legislation was billed as "a major proposal to create American jobs."

This is the Democrats' answer to House Republicans proposal to pay for a six-year highway bill with new domestic gas and oil drilling. Republicans also have touted surface transportation and infrastructure legislation as their major job-creating proposal. Democrats are asking (somewhat cheekily), "Where will they create the jobs? In China?"

In truth, it's hard to imagine either the Democratic or the Republican proposals winning out in serious talks about a surface transportation bill. But they do preview the talking points for the floor debate when the Republican proposal finally hits the floor.

Is there a point to the Buy America requirements? Are there loopholes in the current law that could stand to be closed? How many jobs are actually at stake as a result of Buy America, given that much of the infrastructure work in the United States can't, by definition, be shipped overseas? Is it realistic to expect any Buy America provisions to survive in the next surface transportation bill?

2 responses: Thomas Gibson, Laura Barrett

The House Republicans are making infrastructure the backbone of their own jobs proposal, a foil to President Obama's jobs package. They are offering a long-term (and long overdue) highway bill that would be paid for by expanded domestic drilling. It's a blatant political move, designed to make Democrats squirm because they generally oppose drilling and support infrastructure.

The proposal departs from the traditional "user pays" model of funding transportation, which is best exemplified by the gas tax but also reflected in transit fares or even toll roads. The economic philosophy of user pays is a sound one--frequent commuters pay more for road and rail upkeep than occasional travelers. But the user pay model has broken down over the last ten years because highways and railroads cost more than the current user payment systems collect. When that happens, general treasury funds are added to the mix, muddying what was once a simple equation.

The politics are far behind the economic theories that underlie the user pay system. Increasing the gas tax is an unacceptable idea for all politicians. Implementing a sophisticated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) payment system is fraught with privacy and technical perils. We're left with off-the-wall proposals like the House Republican plan or less money for infrastructure, which is reflected in the bipartisan Senate highway bill.

Does the user pay model still hold up for transportation? Is there a better way to pay for infrastructure? Can users fully fund the roads, bridges, and railways they use? How much should users be on the hook for? What about taxpayers?

4 responses: David Pickeral, Gabriel Roth, Phineas Baxandall, Gabriel Roth

The Amalgamated Transit Union represents about 190,000 transit operators, most of them bus drivers. The union's members depend on a robust bus and transit system to keep their organization alive. But, as international president Larry Hanley will tell you, those transit systems also are essential to plenty of city dwellers, particularly those with lower incomes. Anyone who lives in a cheap suburb without a car probably depends on a government-funded bus service to get to work.

It drives Hanley crazy to hear lawmakers in Congress whine that it is impossible to raise taxes when local officials seem to have no problem raising transit fares. Hanley argues that increased transit fares make bus drivers de facto "curbside tax collectors." Commuters don't see fare increases as taxes, and they don't fight them as they might fight other local initiatives. ATU is trying to change that by launching a rider organizing campaign in each of its locals, asking commuters to petition city officials for transit systems (often buses) to get them from home to work and back easily without a car.

The campaigns are local, but they are driven by broad ideas about wealth distribution and workers and the role of transit in the economy. The union knows that without the riders, its own lobbying efforts aren't likely to go very far. After all, there are only so many bus and train drivers in the world.

Does it make sense to view transit fares as taxes? Are transit fares different from other "user fees" like gas taxes? If so, how? What should transit riders expect in return for their fares? Do transit riders shoulder a disproportionate burden of the cost of maintaining buses and railways? What is a fair price for an easy mass transit commute?

3 responses: Gabriel Roth, Bill Lind, Gabriel Roth

With so much attention focused on the sorry state of the nation's roads and bridges and lawmakers' attempts to pass a long-term highway bill, the impact of traffic collisions can get lost. AAA tried to rectify that problem last week when it released a new report finding that traffic crashes cost $299.5 billion in a single year. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among people ages 5-34 in the United States, according to the report. AAA used calculations from the Federal Highway Administration to put the cost of a single motor vehicle fatality at $6 million. A single injury costs about $126,000.

There are a number of ways to address this problem, among them making safety a "national priority," according to AAA. Seat belt laws, impaired driving countermeasures, and graduated driver licensing systems also would make a difference.

Politically, however, AAA President Robert Darbelnet found the critical button to push in Congress. "This report further underscores the importance of a long-term, multi-year federal transportation bill that will provide the necessary and sustained investments that lead to better and safer roads for all Americans," he said.

Last week, we saw a lot of politically-barbed bluster about infrastructure from both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The Senate rejected, in turn, the president's infrastructure jobs plan and then the Republican alternative because each bill contained provisions that the opposing party could not accept. It is a disservice to the citizens who bear the costs of traffic collisions and congestion.

Are safety concerns overlooked in transportation policy discussions? Would a long-term highway bill make a real difference in reducing traffic collisions? What policies would have the biggest impact on reducing car crashes? Is there the political will to enact those changes? Can a focus on safety help the broader effort to enact a long-term highway bill?

2 responses: Gabriel Roth, David Pickeral