February 2012 Archives

Things aren't looking so good for a comprehensive or long-term surface transportation bill this year. After news broke last week that House Republicans were backing off of a five-year $260 billion highway/energy bill, the best case scenario for legislation lies with the Senate's two-year, $109 billion proposal. That's what the Senate proponents have been saying all along, but there is no guarantee they will get what they want.

The Senate eventually will pass its bill, but senators first must slog through negotiations about which amendments, some completely unrelated to transportation, will be allowed floor votes. In the House, Republicans acknowledge that they are kicking some of the policy decisions for transportation into the next Congress. No one knows precisely what that means, but it sure sounds like a dressed-up extension. If the House and Senate can't agree on a path forward, lawmakers will be looking at a simple extension. Current highway authority expires on March 31.

What happened to the original idea that surface transportation legislation was revamped every five to six years? Is it impossible now to pass a long-term highway bill? What is the rationale for a longer-term bill? Can the transportation community subsist on shorter-term bills like the Senate proposal? What would happen if there never was another five-year bill?

4 responses: Gabriel Roth, Ken Orski, Paul Yarossi, Deron Lovaas

If you want proof that President Obama is distancing himself as far from Congress as he can, look no further than his proposed infrastructure budget. The White House proposed $476 billion over six years for surface transportation in the fiscal 2013 budget, which is at least $200 billion more than House Republicans are proposing. It's also at least $150 billion more than current infrastructure spending levels. Obama is aiming high, even though he knows he'll probably get much less. Infrastructure means jobs, and "jobs" are the name of the game for his reelection.

It's an added bonus that infrastructure has been in the news, which gives politicians of all stripes the opportunity to exploit it for reelection purposes. Both the House and the Senate are attempting (and so far not succeeding) to pass surface transportation bills. Obama ideally wants to increase federal infrastructure investment, but he has also praised the Senate for its more modest bill that simply maintains the current spending levels over two years. Leaders say it could take a few weeks to get that measure completed.

Just in case it wasn't clear which side of the U.S. Capitol the president favors, the White House issued a veto threat against the House GOP proposal last week. That was before House leaders announced that they would have to put off a vote on their five-year highway bill until after the President's Day break. There are questions among the Republican rank-and-file about spending: Is it too much? Too little? Most importantly, to which districts does the money go?

With lawmakers in a tangle, why shouldn't Obama propose what he really wants for transportation, even if it's a pipe dream? Does the White House infrastructure budget proposal give any hope to the transportation community that they might soon get some certainty on funding? Will it make a difference to the average American in deciding how to vote? Does infrastructure make a good campaign topic? Or is the recent infrastructure furor really just an inflated version of the same transportation conversations that have always taken place among same policymakers and lobbyists?

4 responses: Gabriel Roth, Emil H. Frankel, Jack Schenendorf, Laura Barrett

Transit groups, along with pedestrian and cycling advocates, are hopping mad about a portion of the House surface transportation bill that removes mass transit funding from the highway trust fund and eliminates dedicated funding for cycling and walking programs. The proposal also cuts one of the most popular parts of the current surface transportation scheme--the $200 million Safe Routes to School program that accommodates children who get to school by walking or biking. The funding proposal, approved earlier this month by the House Ways and Means Committee, will be combined with a larger highway bill on the House floor this week.

House Speaker John Boehner is proud that the bill is streamlined, noting that it eliminates or consolidates 70 government programs. It also has no earmarks, which has soured Boehner on transportation bills in the past. The fiscal conservative thinking in Boehner's reasoning can't help but put at risk federal funding for the bike paths and walking safety programs. There just isn't room for those things in the federal budget when you're trying to shrink government. (Policymakers bearing this viewpoint are quick to point out that states and local governments are welcome to sponsor such programs on their own.)

How important are mass transit and other non-car traveling modes in the debate over the highway bill? Is it appropriate to ask states and cities to take care of their own subways, trains, bike paths, and pedestrian safety programs? How should policymakers treat transit? How should they treat alternate transportation modes like bicycles? Where does safety factor in to this conversation?

4 responses: Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Laura Barrett, Gabriel Roth, Jack Kinstlinger

The generally bipartisan, if wonky, surface transportation issue got a major dose of political (and partisan) medicine last week when House Republicans unveiled their American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act. The measure combines elements of a highway bill constructed by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., with several hot-button energy proposals that are sure to raise the hackles of Democrats and environmentalists alike--new offshore drilling, opening parts of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, and possibly approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Yikes. It's not like Mica was making too many friends with Democrats when it was just a highway bill. Committee ranking member Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., complained as recently as last month that he still hadn't seen text of the proposal. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican, said it was the worst transportation bill he had ever seen. And conservative Republicans are none too pleased either. The Club for Growth will consider a vote for the measure a black mark against any Republican who wants prove his or her conservative chops.

Still, members of the transportation community dutifully praised the lawmakers for actually, well, paying attention to them. "We are pleased that the House and Senate are moving ahead on a long-term surface transportation authorization," said American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Executive Director John Horsley. "We are encouraged that House Republican leadership has finally allowed the Chairman to proceed with this important national priority," said AAA President Bob Darbelnet.

Is it worth it? Does the forthcoming political brawl offer enough attention to a long-neglected infrastructure bill to make up for the twists of logic that surely will accompany the fight? When the finger-pointing dies down, will the surface transportation measure have made any progress?

9 responses: Rob McCulloch, Deron Lovaas, Bill Lind, Emil H. Frankel, Ken Orski, Gabriel Roth, Robert L. Darbelnet, Fawn Johnson, Laura Barrett