America’s surface transportation program is long overdue for retooling. Our global competitors are lapping us when it comes to infrastructure investment. Europe spends twice the proportion of GDP on infrastructure as America - and China spends more than triple that. Our crumbling infrastructure needs significant investment if we expect to compete effectively in a 21st century global economy.

We laud Congress for rolling up their sleeves to make infrastructure a priority. Majority Leader Reid and his colleagues in the Senate are moving in the right direction with a pragmatic, fully funded (though short-term) transportation approach, which so far is attracting wide bipartisan support.

The proposal moving forward in the House, however, has many miles yet to go.

One of its biggest detractions is that it de-links transit funding from the Highway Trust Fund. Having transit investment compete with other discretionary priorities in the federal General Fund threatens its long-term viability, and may jeopardize the credit rating of many struggling transit agencies. Furthermore, it fails to allow flexibility to transit systems to use federal funds to maintain service and jobs during economic crisis.

The major argument for moving transit away from the Highway Trust Fund - a standard that has been in place since the Reagan administration - is that transit doesn’t ‘pay into the system.’ But there’s a strong argument that suggests savings from reduced traffic congestion, fuel use and pollution more than offset the dividend from the trust fund, and benefit the U.S. economy as a whole.

It’s not just transit that would suffer under the House approach. It cuts highway spending, slashes passenger rail (Amtrak) funding and continues loopholes that would send more transportation jobs and outsource more materials overseas.

The House approach is under attack across the political spectrum, with the progressive community in an uproar over alarming environmental rollbacks. Conservatives are (rightly) up in arms over funding approaches that move us away from the user-fee principle and dangerously links investment to energy revenues that may never even materialize.

We understand Congress can’t make everyone happy with its legislative approach. But our leadership should work harder to do what’s in constituents’ and the country’s best interests.

The House bill is problematic on a number of fronts. First of all, consider the titles that contain the program new funding would "buy," written by the Republicans on T & I (not a single Democrat voted for the bill reported out of committee). Title 3 is an extreme wish list undermining procedural protections due to the 40-year-old National Environmental Policy Act. I have long been appalled at the interest in legislating away project delays by targeting this part of the process. What little study has been done shows there are other reasons for delays. More study and informed policymaking is warranted if reducing project delays is truly the goal, although I suspect that this is mostly for the sake of simplistic rhetorical bashing of environmental reviews.

CMAQ is opened up to single-occupant-vehicle-carrying projects for the first time ever. Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian support is abolished, and to further stick a finger in the eye of those who bike and walk the paltry amount of funding for bicycle and pedestrian coordinators is eliminated. These are some of the provisions that head in the direction of increased public health and environmental damage and decrease in transportation options for travelers.

Ah, but the true recklessness was included in the bills that bookended last week's march of bills. First, for the first time very House Leadership decided to hijack the transportation bill by stapling bills mandating new drilling in the Arctic and offshore (as well as oil shale development, commercially unproven though it may be), claiming this would be the revenue source to make up the shortfall from user-fee/gas-tax revenue. These environmentally damaging proposals threaten to sever the user-pay principle (which is not sacred to me, but it is an important policy innovation), except that CBO just revealed they would provide a tiny fraction of what's needed with a lag time before new revenue.

Perhaps this was just a smoke screen, or perhaps House Republican Leaders are making this up as they go along, because on Friday Ways and Means revealed another extreme scheme for making ends meet: Upend the thirty-year-old consensus that public transportation deserves a dedicated share of revenue from the highway trust fund. Oh, and they one-upped T & I on treatment of CMAQ by kicking it out too.

Some noted that this created a $40-billion hole in the general fund. How to offset it? Chairman Camp said he was sure this could be dealt with on the floor somehow. And then we hear that federal pensions would be raided for this purpose (although I believe that money has been claimed for a number of purposes). Again, it seems like Leadership was making this up as they went along.

This is no way to legislate. The bill has many provisions that would harm public health and the environment. It would harm cities and suburbs by kicking public transportation to the curb. It undermines the user-pays principle with its new, controversial revenue sources. It slashes funding that benefits those of us who walk or bike.

Perhaps the most astounding thing is that it also makes little sense politically. Larding the bill up with lightning-rod provisions means it is unlikely to pass. Politics is about addition. But this bill is so partisan the starting point for passage is one caucus. And within that caucus there are Members who care about public health and the environment, who care about public transportation, and who should vote against it. On top of all that the fiscal recklessness of deviating from user-pays with these new revenue sources, and the overall price tag on a "jobs" bill (the approach is reminiscent of the President's stimulus bill in that sense), are provisions that drive conservatives away as well. This may well be the first time the Club for Growth and the League of Conservation Voters score a vote the same way, which is saying something.

Politically I don't see how this passes, and substantively I don't think it should.

Last week, I wrote Congressman Dave Camp, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives, regarding the provisions of H.R. 3864 that would end the use of a portion of the gas tax to fund public transportation and leave transit dependent on annual appropriations.

I conveyed my concern to him that, as conservatives, this may reflect a misunderstanding of the conservative position on public transportation. Well-known transit critics create confusion on this point by presenting themselves as conservatives when they are in fact libertarians. I pointed out that conservatives understand that public transportation serves some important conservative goals. It enables people who are too poor to afford a car to get to jobs instead of having to rely on welfare. When it is electrified rail transit such as light rail or streetcars, it can spur substantial economic development in the areas it serves, raising property values. Electric railways also reduce our dependence on overseas oil, which may be our single greatest national security vulnerability. If (or when) events in the Middle East bring more gasoline shortages like those in 1973 and 1979, Americans who have no transit service may find themselves unable to get to work, school or the grocery store (at present, only 50% of Americans have transit service of any kind).

Finally, I invoked the name of my late colleague, Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative in his day, who gave his unwavering support to public transportation, especially rail, all his adult life. Were he alive today, I have no doubt that he would have worked with House members to obtain a better outcome for transit. Paul would have pointed out, as I did, that the benefits of public transportation, especially rail transit, are just too compelling to ignore.

William S. Lind serves as Director of The American Conservative Center for Public Transportation

I have been generally pessimistic about the likelihood of enacting surface transportation authorization legislation in 2012, and I remain uncertain about how to evaluate these prospects, in light of significant activity in both Houses of Congress. In particular, I don't know whether I should regard HR 7 -- with all of the controversial elements added by various House committees to the original bill passed by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T & I) -- as a serious effort to enact legislation. Is the result, instead, merely a political statement about energy, jobs, and other issues in a Presidential election year?

Still, a very wise person, one far more experienced than I in such matters, reminds me that there can be no conference committee to "iron out" differences between House and Senate, unless both Houses of Congress pass bills..

However one might feel about the specifics, provisions added to the surface transportation bill, reported out by T & I, by the Energy, Natural Resources, and Ways and Means Committee seem inconsistent with the goal of passing a final bill. It is hard to believe that the Senate would accept the new drilling provisions in HR 7 or the provision to require the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. These provisions, alone, almost certainly assure a party-line vote on HR 7 in the House of Representatives and would appear most unlikely, to say the least, to survive a conference committee. How serious is the House Leadership about insisting that these provisions be in a final bill?

Equally puzzling to me is HR 7's plan to transfer transit and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) programs out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). Whatever one thinks about the merits of such a step, it can only make it more difficult to achieve final enactment of a surface transportation bill. Will the House of Representatives accept a conference committee report that leaves transit and CMAQ funding in HTF and still supported by a portion of the federal motor fuels tax? Certainly, that seems to be a likely outcome of House-Senate conference, if it is to avoid deadlock. But if transit and all existing highway funding is to remain within HTF at current program levels for the five years that HR 7 proposes, how are the federal surface transportation programs to be funded?

The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) has been consistent about supporting funding for the surface transportation programs from user charges, rather than by general fund transfers that add to deficits and to the national debt. A reformed federal surface transportation program, shaped around clearly articulated national goals, will enable us to make better and wiser decisions about the investment of constrained resources. This would seem to be a better course of action for Congress, than carving a single mode out of an integrated transportation system and by requiring that it alone should depend upon uncertain and non-user related funds. Hopefully, Congress will accept this course of action. Final enactment of this legislation may depend upon it.

According to the latest (January) CBO estimates, the Highway Account of the Trust Fund is projected to be credited with $168.4 billion in gas tax revenue and interest over the next five years (FY 2012-2016) and the Transit Account with $24.8 billion. Since the House Ways and Means Committee has proposed to transfer the transit program, along with the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program, to a new "Alternative Transportation Account" to be funded from the General Fund, the entire sum of $193.2 billion would become available to the highway program. This sum is only $4.9 billion short of the cost of the highway and safety portion of the House five-year program ($206.6 billion). In other words, the whole highway program, budgeted at current spending levels, could be funded with revenues from the Trust Fund plus a mere $4.9 billion in offsets. If this sounds surprising, recall that in this scenario the CMAQ program (assumed at $8.5 billion over five years) would no longer be a charge against the Trust Fund.

Some critics charge that shifting the transit program out of the Trust Fund would subject transit agencies "to the whims of the congressional appropriations process." Others contend that under this change it would be difficult for transit agencies to enter into contracts and make long-term investment decisions. They forget that the transit capital program and its Full Funding Grant Agreements ("New Starts") has always been funded from the General Fund, and that most federal programs are funded through annual appropriations. This includes defense, health, housing, environment and welfare. To continue sheltering transit from the discipline and scrutiny of an annual appropriations process simply because "we’ve been doing this for the past 30 years" is to imply that even now, after three decades of protection, transit cannot fend for itself. It is to ignore the fact that during those 30 years transit has firmly secured its place in the federal budget and has acquired a large and vocal constituency in Congress which can be counted upon to defend its interests..

Restoring the Highway Trust Fund to its original mission of being a source of funds solely for the federal-aid highway program would accomplish several things. First, the program would no longer need to rely on speculative royalties from future oil and gas leases, as currently proposed in the House bill. Second, the Trust Fund would not need to be periodically propped up with contributions from the General Fund. Third, the principle of the highway program paid for with user fees would be maintained. Lastly, the House bill would return the federal-aid highway program to its original roots. It would restore the program’s lost sense of purpose and focus Trust Fund resources on what they always were meant to do— preserve and renew the nation’s prized asset, its interstate highway system.

While admiring Laura Barrett’s efforts to ensure that the new transportation bill includes “operating assistance” for transit services, I’d like to ask her how she justifies forcing federal taxpayers to pay any part of these costs.

Since my quote found its way into this week’s question I will offer a few additional thoughts. The fact that we are heading for an impending “brawl” doesn’t mean the effort won’t be worthwhile. Rarely in politics these days is anything viewed as less than a “fight” which requires the use of “bare knuckles” while dodging treachery at every turn, such as “poison pills,” “killer” amendments, and the eternal hope that the term “gate” is not attached to your good name.

None of this should diminish our efforts to actively engage in a fight for what is truly a national priority: reforming, modernizing and funding our nation’s transportation network to improve safety, global competitiveness, quality of life, and provide for a sustainable future. America’s transportation system is at the heart of this challenge.

Will it ultimately lead to a finished product, let alone one that achieves widespread support? No one can say for sure, but the process that is before us – warts and all – is the only path forward to where we want to go at the present time. It may be unpleasant. It can be discouraging. But we can’t let any opportunity go without our best shot right up until the clock runs out. If we get a final bill, without question, some are probably going to be more pleased than others with what it contains, but that is also part of the process. A record 113 million people watched the Super Bowl this past Sunday. I would submit that every single one of them stayed to the very final play to watch Tom Brady throw that “Hail Mary” pass and see just what might happen.

The following is a comment from Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research:

It’s about time that Congress considered a transportation bill. The last one expired in September, 2009. The new draft, which authorizes $260 billion in spending over the next five years, in some ways looks like progress over its predecessors.

The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act is expected to be joined with two other House bills, voted out of the House of Representatives, and reconciled with its Senate counterpart in conference.

The bill streamlines the federal bureaucracy and eliminates or combines 70 different programs, enabling transportation projects to be approved faster. “Shovel-ready” projects might actually be shovel-ready if this bill were passed. Plus, it contains no earmarks (extraneous spending) and it frees states to spend their transportation budgets as they choose, for the first time in many years.

But, in other respects, the bill does not go far enough, and there is room for improvement in conference.

The new bill allows states to toll non-interstate highways, but it would represent a far more restrictive legal environment for tolls on interstates than in current law—the first time that Congress has reduced instead of expanded state flexibility.

The bill wipes the slate clean of all existing pilot programs to toll interstate highways and replaces it with narrow exceptions. For example, under current law, up to 15 states can utilize congestion pricing on any highway if they have congestion. Mr. Mica's proposal would not allow that unless it is converting an HOV lane.

Why not also permit the tolling by the states of interstate highways, if only just for maintenance? Over the life of a road, the amount spent on maintenance exceeds the cost of construction.

If the bill allowed states to toll interstate highways, states would have a source of revenue for what is often described as “the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.”

If representatives are concerned that some strategically-placed states will charge too much for tolls, they could insert a clause, similar to the bill’s Section 1204 for non-interstate tolls, to limit tolling to levels consistent with road maintenance.

The fundamental question is the role of the federal government in financing roads. In all other areas, except perhaps national defense, consumers can purchase more of a product if they want to do so, provided they have enough money. They want cell phones—they can buy them. They want water service—they can buy it.

The same should be true of congested highways and roads. If road users want more road space, they should be able to pay for it.

Supposedly, motorists and trucks pay now with the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel. But the revenue from these taxes is insufficient to cover the cost of roads that drivers want to use. And as cars become more fuel efficient, and President Obama achieves his goal of a million electric cars on the road, fuel tax revenue will continue to decline.

The new bill assumes that all new road construction comes from the federal purse. Since revenues in the Highway Trust Fund, which come from the gas tax, are deemed insufficient, companion bills raise additional funds from energy production.

More exactly, companion bills will divert to highways the revenue from the federal sale of oil and gas leases that now goes into the government’s general revenues. It’s a good idea to raise revenue by selling these leases, and it will help to reduce the deficit. But these revenues should not subsidize drivers.

Rather, customers should pay for their roads, not through federal fuel taxes but on the basis of use, just as they pay for their electricity and water bills. Heavily-travelled roads could cost more than lightly-used roads, and driving at peak hours could be more expensive than driving at 2:00 am.

The new infrastructure bill no longer obligates states to spend highway funding on non-highway activities, such as museums or landscaping. But spending for mass transit appears to continue, even though there are better uses for the funds. States now spend 20 percent of their Highway Trust Fund allocation on mass transit, yet only two percent of passenger miles are used by mass transit.

Just as users of roads should pay all of their costs, such as construction and maintenance, so should users of mass transit. If individual states want to subsidize mass transit, they should do it out of their own revenues. With Uncle Sam broke, the Federal government should not be subsidizing expensive mass transit systems.

In the Washington D.C. suburbs, for instance, Maryland wants help in replacing a 16-mile jogging and bike trail with an above-ground railroad that would join different points on the capital’s subway system—a system that is encountering increasingly large problems of maintenance. Called the Purple Line, the cost would be $2 billion. Maryland has so far budgeted $69 million, less than four percent of the cost.

Maryland expects the federal government will pick up the vast majority of the tab. Uncle Sam will pay for anything, even a railroad that many do not want, particularly bicyclists and pedestrians. If Marylanders had to pay the entire cost, the Purple Line would not get built. Instead, Marylanders might put in a dedicated busway at far lower cost.

Mass transit does not have to be expensive, nor subsidized. Atlantic City, New Jersey, has an inexpensive unsubsidized system of vans that runs along Pacific and Atlantic Avenues. New York City has low-cost high-frequency “dollar vans” that the City is trying to shut down to remove competition with the subsidized and unionized city subways and buses.

With the deficit exceeding $1 trillion for a fourth year in a row, taxpayers are tired of paying for services that ordinary Americans or local governments should pay for themselves. The new infrastructure bill is an improvement on the past, but it could be even better.

When the House version of the 5-year Surface Transportation Authorization Act was released last week, it immediately provoked an uproar from Transportation Equity Network (TEN) and Gamaliel leaders. This reaction from Rev. James Hunt of Chicago, IL was typical: “Many of our communities’ public transit crises won’t be addressed through this bill. Ultimately we need operating assistance if we’re going to get out of this mess.”

TEN and Gamaliel support flexibility in transit operating funds. It is an easy, temporary and cost-free approach to fixing the transit crisis. Rep. Russ Carnahan has been a leader in Congress on the issue - he was motivated by the service cuts to 2,000 bus stops in St. Louis several years ago.

TEN and Gamaliel leaders decided to take their concerns to Congress. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, dozens of faith leaders from across the country pounded the halls. It was a racially and geographically diverse team that featured 5 pastors, 2 twenty-something service corps members, a grandmother from Detroit as well as workers who took a day off to advocate for transit riders.
“We wanted to tell our leaders that they need to step up and lead,” said Rev Hunt. “We’re very proud of Republicans like Representatives LoBiondo and Meehan, who supported Carnahan’s proposal for flexibility in operating funds – but I wish I could have said the same about others.” In the end on Thursday night, Committee leadership pushed through a watered-down version of local control which won’t help many communities because the triggers are too low. Our economy depends on our ability to get to work, and our ability to get to work depends on public transportation. It's bad news for an already suffering economy.