“What” asks Fawn “would happen if there never was another 5-year bill?” Does this not depend on the circumstances?

A continuing series of federal short-term extensions would be harmful, as infrastructure providers cannot plan in the absence of medium-term assurances of funding availability. Long-term assurances would be much better, but not possible under existing five-year congressional horizons.

How about an orderly switch from federal to state financing, as was envisaged in the 1956 legislation that set up the federal financing of the now-completed Interstate Highway System? This would eliminate federal fuel taxes in stages, so as to leave sufficient in the Highway Trust Fund to complete projects already in the pipeline. But new expenditures would then be taken up by the states, which could raise road-use charges to the extent desired by their voters, most of whom are road users who are prepared to pay for what they use and expect to get what they are prepared to pay for. States short of road money could toll their facilities or contract out road services to private providers.

Road users would benefit from lower road costs ; and from their payments no longer being spent for non-road purposes ; and from states no longer being able to fund low-priority projects at the expense of road users in other states.

Transit projects would then no longer be paid for by road users or by a federal government that has run out of money. In "user pays" societies, local projects are financed by those who use them, or by subsidies from appropriate state or local authorities.

It is difficult to justify farmers in Ohio being forced to pay for transit projects in Honolulu or Northern Virginia.

With every passing day the likelihood of yet another temporary extension becomes greater. Although the Senate stands a good chance of approving the needed offsets ("pay-fors") and passing its $109 billion two-year bill before the March 31 deadline, the House has a much tougher row to hoe.

Having abandoned its earlier proposal for a $240 billion five-year bill for lack of sufficient support, Speaker Boehner and John Mica must now overcome internal disagreements and craft a new bill acceptable to a majority of House members. This may mean a shorter-term bill (perhaps as short as 18 months) at a reduced level of $37 billion/year, according to congressional sources.

But with only 13 legislative days in March (the House will be in recess from March 9 to 18), chances of placing the bill on the President’s desk by March 31 seem remote. Another temporary extension, probably until Memorial Day, is inevitable.

What if this still does not leave enough time for the House to pass a bill or for the two Houses to reach agreement on a final version of the bill? Would it make sense to extend the present law into 2013 in the hope that the next Congress, unencumbered by election-year politics, will be freer to craft genuine fully-funded multi-year transportation legislation?

The implications of a temporary extension beyond 2012 are more serious than meet the eye. Assuming that spending under a further extension would continue at current level, the Highway Account of the Trust Fund Trust Fund would be left with only $6.3 billion by the end of FY 2012 according to the latest CBO projections. Once the projected balance in the Highway Account fell below $2 billion (which would occur sometime toward the end of this year or early in 2013), obligation limitation (and contract authority) would need to be adjusted so that the balance in the Trust Fund would not fall below that level. CBO estimates that U.S. DOT would have to rescind $27 billion of FY 2013 obligation limitation, leaving only about $12-13 billion in spending authority for the rest of FY 2013. (CBO Analysis of S. 1813, February 7, 2012).

Such action would have grave consequences for all transportation stakeholders. It’s not surprising therefore that the transportation community is united in its insistence that Congress pass reauthorization legislation this year — even if this simply gains a short respite of 18 months before the law has to be revisited again.

U.S. investment in transportation infrastructure falls far behind that of China, Brazil, Russia and European nations. According to a 2010, bipartisan panel of experts co-chaired by former U.S. Secretaries of Transportation, Norman Mineta and Samuel Skinner, the panel's report, “Well Within Reach: America’s New Transportation Agency,” stated that failure to adequately maintain and invest in our transportation systems means not only gridlocked roads and deteriorating bridges in the near term, but a steady erosion of the social and economic foundations for American prosperity in the long run.

China spends 9 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure. Europe and India invest 5 percent. In the United States, we spend less than 3 percent of our GDP on infrastructure when transportation is estimated to be as much as 18 percent of the economy. Does that make sense to anyone?

A dedicated, reliable funding stream is needed to allow states to plan for large multi-year projects. States are required by the federal government to develop long-term transportation plans, yet we are potentially looking at much shorter duration reauthorization bills.

If Congress is going to act on a shorter bill, we cannot lose sight of the need to also increase investment. Without sufficient resources a two-year (or less) bill would, in effect, be asking states to support short-term, less costly projects.

Projects that improve throughput, enhance economic stability, and reduce congestion all take time and money. As such, the bills are not just about duration, but about outcomes.

For our country's sake and our children's sake, Congress must do its job—and its constitutional duty under interstate commerce—and pass a long-term, adequately funded bill that enhances and supports a rebirth of U.S. manufacturing. And, one that puts Americans to work, supports our global competitiveness, contributes to our resiliency against manmade and natural disasters, and preserves our quality of life. We should never need to ask if it’s impossible to do something so important.

Read more about investing in America's future: http://www.hntb.com/news-room/viewpoints/changing-the-conversation

Paul Yarossi is the 2011-12 chairman of The American Road and Transportation Builders Association. www.artba.org

First of all, just to inject some context into this discussion: These bills are rarely passed on time. TEA-21 took almost a year, and SAFETEA-LU took almost two. And those were debated when the revenue pie was expanding as opposed to the chronic shortfalls now afflicting the program.

Aviation law was extended 23 times over five years, and it's a much smaller bill than surface transportation.

Building majorities in both chambers and assuring a Presidential signature takes perseverence, negotiation and time.

I hope those in the transportation industry will explain the consequences of not passing a long-term law. The main one that concerns me is that we're missing a chance to enact a new national transportation investment strategy at a time when other national governments aren't sitting on the sidelines. We need more investment, and more importantly we need smart, targeted investment that's a downpayment on a 21st century infrastructure that can undergird more economic development.

I long for the President to use his bully pulpit to push for a bold new program that helps us compete. I long for a Congress that works across party lines, and with the President, to enact something sooner rather than later.

Yes, a renewed bill should consolidate programs and cut wasteful ones. It should also be tied to performance criteria that matter to the nation. And if such a framework is in place, one that ensures greater transparency and accountability for spending scarce taxpayer dollars, then the program would also deserve more money (at this point, though, it would take a sustained campaign by policymakers and supporters alike to move it).

But right now this seems like a pipe dream. The Senate has put together a two-year compromise bill that makes some useful changes to current law, although the performance-management requirements are at best "evolutionary, not revolutionary" as former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters might say.

The House Leadership, meanwhile, signaled as far back as November of last year that their approach to this bill would be political by fabricating a linkage to modest royalties from new, mandated oil drilling. Their bill has attracted a veto threat based on a litany of concerns the White House has.

The House's unilateral extremism dramatically lowers the odds that we get a bill this year.

More importantly, the drumbeat to "get to conference" with a partisan, terrible House bill shows a lack of commitment to good policy. And that's what we need, for sake of our country and our future -- a good transportation bill.

The consequences for industry, labor, states and most importantly the nation aren't good. However, this mess isn't exactly shocking since we're in a contentious election year. And it seems like evidence that Congress is earning its record-low approval ratings (realclearpolitics average shows 11.3% approval vs. 82.5% approval; that probably means only family and friends are in the former column at this point).

This may take some more time, and for the sake of good policy it's worth it.