The November election did more than change the Republican/Democrat balance in Congress. It also led to fairly dramatic changes in where key leaders come from—changes that, as Ken Orski points out, imply relatively more support for core highway programs and relatively less support for transit, high-speed rail, and the Administration’s “livability and sustainability” agenda. As demographer and economic geographer Joel Kotkin wrote last week on NewGeorgraphy.com, “Power is shifting within state delegations. Before the elections, California’s most influential House members hailed from coastal districts. In contrast, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the new majority whip, represents Bakersfield, an oil-rich, largely agricultural area known as “little Texas”—a far cry from the urbanity of Pelosi’s San Francisco.”

Jeff Davis, in Transportation Weekly (Nov. 18), pointed out that “The median Democratic district [in 2011] will have a population density eleven times larger than the median Republican district”—compared with only four times greater in the expiring Congress. That means House Republicans will have far fewer districts whose transportation needs are a good fit for mass transit. Transportation analyst Tom Rubin reviewed the membership list of the new House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee, to check for GOP members representing the 10 largest urbanized areas: there are none.

Last fall, before the elections, the conservative Republican Study Committee in the House released a plan that, among other things, would cut back all non-entitlement spending to 2008 (i.e., pre-stimulus) levels. Among its impacts would be to eliminate nearly all high-speed rail (HSR) funding and funding for many “livability” programs. New T& I chairman John Mica (R, FL) has said he will revisit all pending HSR grants and reallocate unspent money to “where it makes sense.” GOP House members from both California and Wisconsin have introduced bills to take back unspent HSR funds and redirect the money to deficit reduction.

Based on these and other factors, I think Ken Orski is correct in suggesting that two key themes of the new Congress will be to reduce the scope of federal programs and to cut discretionary federal spending. In addition to shifting the reauthorization bill’s emphasis back to core highway programs and limiting spending to whatever actually is raised each year from highway user taxes, I think it’s quite possible Congress will narrow the program’s highway focus to just the Interstates and National Highway System, leaving the rest of the highways as state responsibilities. That partial devolution would mean costly federal regulations such as Davis-Bacon and Buy American would apply only to the core federal programs, enabling states to build and maintain other highways at lower cost.

This is a profoundly different reinvention of the federal program than many were writing about several years ago. But it would be no less of a revolution.

There are real challenges in the new Congress for those of us who care about investing an equity-based national transportation system. The rule change in the House that could starve the Highway Trust Fund was an immediate cause for concern. And given the bigger economic picture, it’s tempting to look at the glass as being half-empty.

But at TEN, we tend to look at the glass as half-full. We need to focus on the opportunities for preserving and expanding vital transportation options wherever we can. The 112th Congress is not a wild beast free to rampage through the country—it’s our Congress, a body of elected representatives accountable to us.

When Rep. Mica says he’s received assurances from Reps. Eric Cantor and David Dreier that the rule changes won’t starve our national transportation system, we need to hold all three of them to that.

We need to remind all our elected representatives that last year, in the throes of economic crisis, voters approved 77 percent of public transportation ballot initiatives, for a total of more than $1 billion. Why? Because ordinary Americans—including millions who are not dependent on public transportation—understand that public transportation offers access to opportunity that is the lifeblood of our economy, and that’s more important than ever now. They also understand that households that do use public transportation can save nearly $10,000 a year over car-dependent households.

We need to remind Mica of his longtime advocacy for transit investments. As Mica told PBS, “even if you’re a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it’s so much more cost effective than building a highway. … Whether it’s high-speed rail or commuter rail or light rail, we got to have some alternatives helping people – even in the rural areas – to get around.”

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

Congressional action on transportation this year, including the shape of the next surface transportation bill, will be inevitably influenced by the changed political geography of the 112th Congress.

Not only will the level of funding for transportation be dictated by new, fiscally conservative House appropriators, but the program priorities will be influenced by a new House majority that largely hails from small-town and suburban America.

None of the new GOP majority on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee represent big city transit-oriented districts. A majority come from the heartland. The closest to a major urbanized areas that any of the Republican members come from, are Oklahoma City and Charleston SC. Thus, the Committee will likely focus on traditional concerns of keeping roads and bridges in a state of good repair — and try to stabilize the Highway Trust Fund by bringing expenditures in line with expected gas tax receipts. That means a budget of approximately $40-41 billion/year.

Within these budget limits, transit will maintain its customary standing — although it may receive somewhat less emphasis, given the changed composition of the T&I Committee. Also likely to be curtailed will be support for high-speed rail, given its cool reception in Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Florida and other Republican-dominated state legislatures. Discretionary "executive earmarks," such as the TIGER grants, will most likely be severely cut back if not entirely eliminated. They have not been popular with Republican lawmakers.

Legislation promoting "livability" (S. 1619 and HR 4690) died in the 111th Congress and is unlikely to be revived. Its main supporters, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) are no longer in Congress and the new Republican majority is generally skeptical of the Administration's fixation on "livability." Further economies could come by not pursuing the Administration’s proposal for a National Infrastructure Bank. In its place, and to compensate for the dwindling revenue-raising power of the gas tax, Congress will encourage expanded use of innovative financing techniques, such as public-private partnerships, tolling, TIFIA and state infrastructure banks.

Chairman Mica’s resolve to make passage of a multi-year authorization a top priority increases the likelihood that a transportation bill will be brought to the House floor and approved during the first session of the 112th Congress. The Senate is likely go along.

This, in essence, is how many observers, including this one, view the prospects for the federal transportation program in the 112th Congress. While the next authorization will almost surely be more modest in size and less "transformational" than many in the transportation community would like to see, it will at least restore the federal surface transportation program to a stable and predictable multi-year footing.