Conservatives dislike this program (OK, they hate it) because the projects do not "improve infrastructure condition or meaningfully reduce congestion," according to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla. By contrast, the transportation enhancement program is important to Democrats like Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who insist that preserving alternative traveling options is a core part of the highway program.

The Senate bill would give states the option to use transportation enhancement money for other activities like saving endangered species or preserving wetlands. Beyond that, the contours of the compromise are so complicated that I frankly can't tell what states would be allowed to do or who came out on top in the negotiations. Suffice it to say that the transportation enhancement funding is still in the bill, but states would be given more options about how to use it if that language remains unchanged in the House/Senate conference committee.

Chances are that this kind of carefully crafted deal won't be unraveled by the negotiators who are trying to hammer out a much larger highway bill before the year runs out. But it isn't law yet, which means everyone who cares about alternative transportation, or about options for states, needs to keep an eye on the talks.

What is the value of the transportation enhancement program, if any? Is it really such a big deal? Are there common misconceptions about it? Is it too simplistic to call it the "bike path" money? Is the Senate compromise on satisfactory? What should we know about it that hasn't already been said? Should the program be eliminated? Should it be strengthened?

We all know there will be a showdown over the Keystone XL pipeline. Let's not worry about that because there are no negotiations. Instead, let's look at another area that can and should be negotiated--the intersection between environmental backstops on transportation and the need to speed up infrastructure projects.

That was previewed, in part, on the House floor in mid-April as representatives debated the shell bill that paved the way to conference. House Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member Nick Rahall, D-W.V.,  and Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Ranking Member Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, took to the floor then to protest an amendment that copied over a set of environmental streamlining provisions from Mica's abandoned House GOP bill.

Proponents of the provisions say they would eliminate unnecessary delays, getting people to work faster on transportation projects. Opponents say they circumvent important environmental regulations. ("Congress is threatening to take a butcher knife to [the National Environmental Policy Act] in its transportation bill," Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council wrote in a blog post last week.)

We had a chance to speak with DeFazio, a conferee, about the provisions and he suggested that, while the streamlining provisions went too far in ceding regulatory power to states, there was some room to negotiate.

"There is basic agreement over some degree of streamlining," DeFazio said. "All of us are impatient with the amount of time it takes to move a project through all the hoops."

Are regulations really tripping up projects that badly? If so, what's a reasonable way to speed things along? Should there be categorical exclusions for certain types of projects? If so, what kinds? (DeFazio suggested, for example, excluding projects where streetcar tracks are put into paved roads, saying "that means we're going to have fewer cars on that road. Why would we have to spend a lot of time and money studying it?") What constitutes smart environmental streamlining? What's a step too far? How can conferees find a happy compromise?

Streamline the Transportation Department's funding silos? Members in both parties are all for it. Speed up infrastructure projects? Damn right. The concepts have support, but the details also matter. That's the beauty of a conference committee--it focuses on details. And when the political leaders decide they need to act to extend the highway program, as they always do, those details will be ready to go. Other members will talk on the floor about gas prices and energy production. But who cares? In the end, lawmakers aren't going to turn their backs on a longer-term highway bill if all the major players have signed off on it.

Now, if they could just get to that point. Negotiators have about two months to make enough progress to show that they're serious about finishing a bill this year. After that, members will be looking forward to an August break and the fall elections, and they will be more than willing to push off the talks until next year. The fact that they haven't punted yet indicates that they intend to make a go of it. They have an advantage in that the big problems already have solutions, even if they aren't great. A funding mechanism already exists in the form of the Senate bill. And it's clear the new law can't go longer than two years unless someone pulls a budget rabbit out of a hat.

What are the chances that lawmakers succeed on negotiating a smaller bill? How far apart are Republicans and Democrats on the structure of the revamped highway program? Do the Keystone and gas price talking points add to or detract from that conversation, if they have an impact at all? Will the policy conversations that take place over the next few months benefit future highway bills?

Many policy analysts agree that a "vehicle-miles traveled" fee, a literal tax for actual road use, is an effective replacement for the current gas tax to pay for our roads and bridges. A penny-per-mile tax would raise enough to match the existing 18.4 cent-per-gallon fuel tax, while two cents-per-mile would raise enough to maintain infrastructure investment in the long run, according to the oft-cited report from a Miller Center conference co-chaired by former Transportation Secretaries Norman Mineta and Samuel Skinner. As the report makes brutally clear, a lot still stands in the way.

The most obvious hurdle to overcome is privacy: How can the government assure citizens that it won't abuse the power to track individuals? How will that data be protected? Should vehicles be taxed differently based on their footprint or when they are used (i.e., peak v. non-peak hours)? How will the fees collected be divvied up fairly? And, critically, how can such a major change be packed into a pill the American public can swallow?

This is the time of year when the price of gas rises, and with it the political rhetoric. House Speaker John Boehner is determined to make gas prices a core political critique aimed at President Obama and Democrats leading up to the election. In Congress, it is also a time when policymakers are facing difficult questions about how to thread a very thin needle of a highway bill. If they don't act in the next few months, they will be forced to extend the current surface transportation program for another year at a political cost to both parties and the great disappointment of the transportation community.

Perhaps we have a touch of Pollyanna in us, but we think now would be a good time to talk about whether the VMT ever will be a viable option for funding infrastructure. We may live in partisan times. But we are not backward technologically. Will the driving tax ever happen? If so, how do we get there? Is the technology ready? Is the public ready? Are lawmakers ready? Give us your scenarios.

With gas prices rising, the economy plodding toward a recovery and tax day nearly upon us, the handful of available transportation-related tax deductions may be looking increasingly appealing to Americans seeking an alternative to the expensive drive to work, as the experts at H&R Block point out.

"For taxpayers whose employers provide transportation fringe benefits, using a van pool, transit pass, qualified parking and biking to work can be ways to save money," Kathy Pickering, executive director of the H&R Block Tax Institute, said in a recent release.

The deductions may be small, but they can add up. The most common pre-tax benefits offered by employers, according to H&R Block, include:

• A maximum of $125 per month for commuter highway transportation, such as a van pool;
• A maximum of $125 per month for mass transit passes and tokens;
• Up to $240 per month for parking in a workplace-provided lot, or a mass-transit parking lot;
• And up to $20 per month for bicycle-related expenses.

More people using different modes of transportation like bicycles or public transit means more voters exposed to the effects of tightened budgets, good or bad. Do these deductions help to raise awareness by encouraging Americans to seek out new ways of getting around? Do they have any other indirect effects? Are transportation-related deductions useful or useless? Should they be expanded, scrapped, reformed?

They still haven't answered the $300 billion question: How do you pay for a long-term reauthorization of the surface transportation program? Isn't it ironic that the parts of the bill that the congressional transportation czars have the least control over are also the ones causing the most problems? House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Md., actually aren't too far apart on some of the wonkier aspects of their highway bill proposals. They both agree on streamlining federal programs, for example, and on speeding up project financing.

How to pay for highway legislation is a decision well above Boxer and Mica's pay grades. It is a question for House and Senate leaders to hammer out. (Or, in the case of last week, to put off until later.) And let's be clear. The House and Senate leaders don't care about a highway bill nearly as much as Boxer and Mica. They certainly aren't going to spend the same time and effort that went into writing the policy proposals coming up with an accompanying revenue plan.

Where does this leave us? We have a policy without a pay-for. Have the revenues used to finance highways always been disassociated with the policy? How can the money and the policy be more closely matched? Are "user fees" like the gas tax the only way to link money and surface transportation? Should the transportation experts be more involved in the money-raising side of the debate, or vice versa?

In practical terms, the delays simply mean more uncertainty for state and city transportation departments and the construction and contracting industries. "The short-term extensions just don't permit us at the federal, state or local level to do any kind of the effective planning for construction that we really need to do," Ashley Swearengin, the Republican Mayor of Fresno, California. "Any kind of short-term extension would really doom our chances for a longer agreement this year."

"We've already lost the construction season. The dithering has led to states delaying decisions," said American Road and Transportation Builders Association President Pete Ruane.

The agitation is understandable, but it's nothing new. This has been the story of the federal highway authority for three years now, with states and cities limping along under temporary extensions. They sound a little bit like the teenager who sat behind me at a Washington Nationals baseball game, who repeatedly said, "This sucks." (To be fair, the kid was right. They played badly.)

Now is your chance to tell us your sob stories. What projects are being put on hold while lawmakers dither? How is the uncertainty affecting business, private investment, or even traffic? How many jobs are on the line? How much longer can you hold out with things as they are? Give us details, anecdotes, data, or just plain rants.

And yet...there are still some people who don't like it, and many of them are in the House. A GOP aide told me that Republican members see the Senate bill as "a crap sandwich that they're going to have eat" if they can't come up with an alternative. (That's proving to be something of a problem. House Speaker John Boehner has tried multiple options without getting his caucus to coalesce around one.) Outside the Capitol, Heritage Action for America, a right-wing grassroots group, considered a "no" vote on the Senate bill a "key vote" in determining whether a legislator is sticking to conservative principles.

Conservatives are worried about a "spending boondoggle," which reflects their general anxiety about federal investment. They are also worried that the Senate bill preserves too much of the previous highway bill, which was loaded with earmarks. Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., claims there is even an earmark in the Senate bill for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid hasn't commented.

All this is to say that there is a wing of the conservative party that is gung ho about killing the Senate bill. For them, the legislation involves broader questions about federal spending and how Congress acted in previous years using earmarks and other special favors.

That's a lot of ideology for a wonky policy bill to handle. Will it survive? Is it a spending boondoggle? Is it too much like the previous highway bill? Is this the appropriate legislation for conservatives to use in waging their battle on big government? How much impact do these arguments have?

Villaraigosa is championing a specific provision in the Senate bill that would give the Transportation Department expanded abilities to extend credit to local municipalities for "mega public transportation projects." It is part of Villaraigosa's America Fast Forward plan, which he says would create one million jobs in the construction and technical industries and generate $158 billion in total economic output.

Villaraigosa has some great ideas on project acceleration that have been echoed by the likes of President Obama and House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla. It is one of the major benefits to come if Congress actually passes a transportation bill this year. America Fast Forward focuses on public transit, which is not always at the top of rural lawmakers' priority list. But other than that, it's an idea most people like.

Is Villaraigosa right that simple financing fixes could speed up so many transit projects? Would the credit extensions in the Senate bill help other localities besides Los Angeles, including rural ones? Is it appropriate to focus so much attention on public transportation? What is holding up most transportation projects?

It's a good question, but the premise is a tad misleading. It is true that everyone agrees with the top-level sentiment that infrastructure investment makes sense for the economy. Digging down deeper, it is not true that everyone agrees on how that investment should work. Some scholars, like our own prolific National Journal expert blogger Gabriel Roth, have floated the idea that the states should do all of the financing and the current federal role should be phased out. Others, like the Obama administration, want a heavy federal role that directs competitive grant money at projects they deem worthy.

A large portion of the dispute over surface transportation in Congress involves unrelated issues. Senate debate last week was dominated by birth control, for example. But there are still some fundamental transportation disagreements among lawmakers. There are disputes over Amtrak, mass transit funding, Transportation Department TIGER grants, and the link between the highway trust fund and road construction. The differences of opinion on these factors alone illustrate that the highway bill is no different than any other legislation: Coming to agreement is hard. Passing the measure is even harder.

What are the most radical transportation ideas that have been floated in the current debate? (Tying highway funding to domestic drilling? Eliminating mass transit from the highway trust fund? Something else?) What are the most tired arguments? How do these ideas relate to past highway bill debates? Is it really so different this time? And if so, how?

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?

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?

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?

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?