In fact, my colleagues at the NY, SF, and LA sites will continue to syndicate relevant content on the Capitol Hill blog until a new reporter arrives on the full-time federal infrastructure beat.

Stay tuned to this space for more, and drop a line to tips@streetsblog.org if you are interested in the open position or in submitting freelance posts. Happy reading to all!

• Lawmakers offer bills providing subsidies, incentives for electric car expansion (Det. News)
  

• Vermont becomes latest state to criminalize texting and cell phone use by drivers (AP)

• Caterpillar boosts its rail business with $820m acquisition (Bloomberg)
  

• Alabama governor launches new efficiency initiative for state's auto industry (AP)

• Michigan officials plot a coming push for high-speed rail funding (Press & Guide)
  

• Rhode Island lawmakers approve study of future transition to vehicle mileage tax (ABC6.com)
  

• A look at South Africa's infrastructure preparations for this month's World Cup (VOA)
  

Rev. Jesse Jackson, second from left, has joined transit workers' unions in their Save Our Ride campaign. (Photo: Streetsblog NYC)

The president of the AFL-CIO's Transportation Trades Department, Ed Wytkind, also pushed for passage of the Senate bill in a National Journal guest blog post this morning. The Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union, both AFL-CIO members, have aligned with Rev. Jesse Jackson, environmental groups, and civil-rights advocates for a campaign dubbed Save Our Ride that seeks to stave off sweeping transit cuts in major cities.

The unions have several hurdles to clear before the transit funding becomes available, however. The Senate legislation contains only authorizing language, meaning that lawmakers must quickly follow with "appropriating" language that technically disburses the operating money.

That two-step process would have been accomplished quickly by attaching the transit aid to a larger bill that is considered "must-pass" by Congress, such as the upcoming supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Republican senators vowed early on to oppose any attempt to add unrelated spending to that measure, and the Senate passed its version sans transit aid before adjourning for the Memorial Day recess.

That leaves room for the AFL-CIO to generate momentum for another vehicle to carry the transit funding -- but given the resistance among both House and Senate Democrats to any new spending not offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget, the union may face an uphill battle this summer.

• ... and Washington D.C. city officials to hope for new bike-share funding ... (DC Biz Jrnl)

• ... and northwestern Tennessee officials to try again for their riverport proposal (NWTN Today)
  

• Transport expert Rob Puentes on the political momentum of "livability" (TNR's The Avenue)

• New York state officials ink high-speed rail pact with CSX (Buff. News)
  

• IBM CEO calls for a renewed focus on U.S. infrastructure policy (Chronicle)

• The tale of transit taxes collected with no benefit for travelers in Birmingham, Alabama (B'ham News)
  

• Adventure Cycling Association eyes Midwestern bicycle trail passing through Michigan (AP)
  

• Officials in Connecticut, other New England states plan local meetings on commuter rail (MassLive.com)
  

LaHood, at far right, during a tabletop speech at March's National Bike Summit. (Photo: Jonathan Maus)

In addition to hailing the health benefits of bike-ped -- LaHood said he has used the local Rock Island trail near his Peoria hometown "hundreds of times" -- he also thanked the assembled advocates for serving as a counterweight to the criticism directed his way by the trucking industry after a March policy statement that endorsed putting cyclists and pedestrians on equal footing with drivers.

"We need to be promoting biking," the Cabinet member said, but that effort "does not take away from other forms of transportation."

The letter presented to LaHood, accompanied by a signed poster that the Washington Area Bicyclist Association compiled during last week's Bike to Work Day events, praised the March policy statement on bike-ped but acknowledged its non-binding nature.

"We have a lot of work to do," wrote the letter's signatory groups, which included America Bikes, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Transportation for America, and the National Complete Streets Coalition. The advocates continued:

We should start by integrating policies that increase safety and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, including Complete Streets and Safe Routes to School, into federal law so that new projects receiving DOT funds accommodate all users of the road. We should also advocate funding for Active Transportation networks in our cities, towns and metropolitan areas. We look forward to working with you on a new surface transportation law that broadens transportation choices for all Americans ... and introduces new benchmarks for our federal dollars, including those that will support biking and walking as equal modes of transportation.

• A separate, wide-ranging interview with LaHood, on everything from bike funding to fuel-efficiency rules (NPR)

• U.S. metro areas scratch the feds' back, the feds scratch theirs? How one Arizona pitch could set the stage for a new federal transportation financing framework (TNR's The Avenue)

• Oberstar strikes a compromise with Illinois lawmakers over fixing the transportation funding disparity in February's jobs bill (Crain's)
  

• EPA warns Arizona that its federal transport funds could be at risk if statewide air quality isn't improved (PHX Biz Jrnl)
  

• U.S. DOT sends about $80 million in high-speed rail grants to FL, CA, NY, WI, NM (FRA Press)

• On-the-scene coverage of the EXPO transit convention, where rail was high on the agenda (Streetsblog LA)

• Michigan transportation advocacy groups protest state's move to cut road repair funds as a tactic to avoid losing federal construction dollars (Citizen-Patriot)
  

• Wisconsin state rep seeks to ban bike boxes, which he chalks up to "liberal extremists" (WI St. Jrnl)
  

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) (Photo: 2.bp.blogspot.com)

Offered by Reps. Ed Towns (D-NY) and Cliff Stearns (R-FL), the amendment would require makers of hybrid and electric cars, which often produce little to no sound when traveling at low speeds, to include an alert noise as a precaution for nearby pedestrians and cyclists.

The silent-cars amendment tracks with conclusions reached this month by automakers and advocates for the blind, many of whom were long concerned about already-impaired pedestrians' ability to guard against the presence of a semi-silent oncoming vehicle.

A September study [PDF] conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that the crash risk to pedestrians from cars traveling at low speeds was twice as high for hybrids as for combustion-engine models. The study also concluded that the likelihood of crashes at road intersections involving cyclists were "significantly higher" for hybrids than for conventionally powered cars.

“As the popularity of hybrid and green cars continues to grow, the audibility of these vehicles at low speeds poses serious safety concerns,” Towns said in a statement on his and Stearns' proposal. The broader auto-safety bill is expected to come to a vote in the full House later this year.

• Transit unions to run ads urging GOP senators' support for Dem bill approving $2B in transit aid (WSJ)
  

• Washington D.C. city council initially scraps streetcar funding to close budget gaps ... (WaPo Blogs)

• ... before local advocacy efforts push most of the funding back on the table (GGW)
  

• Oberstar talks about the ongoing Gulf oil spill crisis (MPR)

• PA Gov. Rendell (D) to disband unit of state DOT that focused entirely on fulfilling auto-paperwork requests for state legislators (Inquirer)

• Louisiana mayors vow to pursue inter-city rail link, despite resistance from Jindal (Advocate)
  

• Dem challenger accuses incumbent Gov. Perry (R-TX) of transport mismanagement (AP)

• Seattle metro-area planners envision tolls on all local highways within 20 years (S. Times)
  

(Chart: University of Vermont Transportation Research Center)

The TRC report examined six states where lawmakers debated raising gas taxes to close infrastructure budget gaps between 2006 and 2009. Three of the states ultimately approved gas tax increases (Oregon, Minnesota, and Vermont) -- two of them over the opposition of the governor, as seen in the third column of the above chart -- and three of the state (Massachusetts, Idaho, and New Hampshire) nixed the proposed tax increases.

While acknowledging that "there are many possible explanations for the success and failure of gasoline tax increases at the state level," TRC researcher Richard Watts attempted to categorize the "frames" used to depict the proposals in local media as well as the Associated Press wire service.

Watts broke down the most popular media narratives by whether they emphasized arguments made by supporters or opponents of the proposed tax hikes. The most common so-called "pro frames" focused on each state's decaying infrastructure, which would be in line for a boost thanks to new gas tax revenues; the economic upside of improving travel times and creating jobs by pursuing more gas tax-funded repair projects; and the long-term benefits of solving persistent budget crises by raising fuel fees.

Watts also marked off three frequently used "anti frames": broad opposition to tax increases of any kind; a perceived public preference for cutting other government spending before resorting to raising taxes; and the economic downside of raising fuel charges during a recession.

The report did not show an across-the-board correlation between positive portrayals of higher gas taxes and the ultimate passage of state-level proposals to that effect. As seen in the above chart, media coverage in five out of the six states studied featured a majority of "pro frames," yet two of those states failed to act on gas tax legislation.

But the nature of the media narratives used did appear to have an effect on the success of state-level tax increases. From Watts' report:

In Vermont and Minnesota, crumbling infrastructure comprised the majority of the pro-gas tax frames. This is a powerful frame that carries images of collapsing bridges, aging and deteriorating roadways, threats to physical health and a system in dire jeopardy. ...

In Massachusetts and Idaho the dominant pro-gas tax frame was long-term solution – displayed about 75 percent of total pro-gas tax frames. This frame emphasized funding and financial mechanisms and lacks the imagery of crumbling infrastructure. In both states the debate in the news discourse became about transportation system funding, not the deteriorating system.

Another wild card, according to Watts' research, was the "media standing" of the public figures making pro- or anti-gas tax arguments. In Massachusetts, for example, he found insufficient data to explain the source of the media's emphasis on the more wonkish "long-term solution" frame -- whether it was also the dominant narrative of Gov. Deval Patrick (D), a tax-hike supporter, or whether it dominated the debate for other reasons.

Nonetheless, the report could provide food for thought for House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), as his party's resistance to a federal gas tax increase continues to force a challenging search for alternative transport financing tactics.

• Feds release new guide to bike commuting implementation (LAB Blog)
  

• Voinovich lobbies his local regional planning organization for a gas tax hike to fund new federal transport bill (Biz Courier)
  

• Felix Salmon profiles transport wonk and Streetsblog NYC contributor Charles Komanoff (Wired)
  

• Austin, Texas, sees its federal payment under the infrastructure-centric Build America Bonds program temporarily withheld by the IRS (Bloomberg)
  

• How Portland, Oregon, sold local banks on walkable development (Streetsblog NYC)
  

• San Jose airport planners consider personal rapid transit "pods" for local airport (Merc News)

• 50 years later, Wisconsin state DOT apologizes to Indian tribe for demolishing one of their cemeteries (AP)
  

• Memphis city council scraps funding for proposed light rail link between downtown, airport (Comm. Appeal)

• In South Africa, a transportation strike is hobbling small-scale agriculture (WSJ)
  

Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT), left, Charles Schumer (D-NY), right, and Dick Durbin (D-IL), second from right, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). (Photo: AP)

The transit operating bill would authorize $2 billion in federal grants aimed at helping local transit agencies reverse already-imposed service cuts, fare increases, or worker layoffs -- provided that those changes were forced by a shortfall in state or local transport budgets that took effect after January 1, 2009. Any agency planning future service cuts or fare hikes could use their grant money to stave off those moves until September 2011.

"While families continue to struggle to make ends meet, the last thing we should do is make it harder and more expensive for people to get to work," Dodd said in a statement. "This bill will prevent disruptive service cuts and help put money back in the pockets of families when they need it most."

Those transit agencies not pursuing service cuts, fare hikes, or layoffs would be allowed to use the extra federal money for maintenance or repair of existing infrastructure. The transit operating funds would be distributed according to existing formulas, but the authorizing nature of the bill means that the money will also need to be appropriated in a separate piece of legislation.

Notably, the bill's authorization remains in effect until September 2011, giving lawmakers more than a year to find suitable appropriations vehicles to which the operating aid bill can be attached.

In addition, the legislation's short-term nature meets the conditions set by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), which had endorsed extra operating aid with the proviso that it not become a permanent fixture of the federal transit program.

Transportation for America (T4A), an infrastructure policy reform group that counts APTA as a member, hailed the bill's release.

“With demand for public transportation service at its highest level in over 50 years, Congress must act to protect Americans who rely on transit from service cuts and fare hikes that threaten their ability to reach jobs and daily necessities," T4A director James Corless said in a statement. "This act will help to preserve an economically essential service with a one-time, emergency infusion that will help to save jobs and access to jobs."

A private firm recently signed a deal with New Orleans officials to help run the city's streetcars, seen above. (Photo: NYT)

Few definitive answers to those questions were on offer today at a transit panel sponsored by the Mobility Choice coalition, which allies members of conservative-leaning think tanks with a handful of environmental advocates and urbanists -- but the discussion yielded some provocative evidence of the fault lines between public and private operators.

Principally sponsored by the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS), the group describes itself as adopting "a fiscally responsible, free market oriented approach to expanding competition among transportation modes for the purpose of reducing oil's strategic value."

American Bus Association (ABA) Chairman James Jalbert, whose group represents private bus and motorcoach companies, lamented that the U.S. DOT's implementation of its $10.5 billion high-speed rail program -- which is expected to receive billions more in federal funding in the coming years -- did not envision a role for private-sector firms that already provide inter-city service.

"A good-quality system that could be included in a rail project is now going to be run over by that rail project," said Jalbert, also the president New Hampshire-based bus company C&J. "We want to be part of the solution, but we need to be invited to the party."

Integrating private bus operators into proposed passenger rail projects has to start at the state level, where officials make the call on whether and how to pursue federal bullet-train money, Jalbert added. He described a potentially successful partnership between public inter-city rail and private bus companies as a shared scheduling system, where passengers could purchase tickets for rail during peak hours but an equivalent bus journey during off-peak times, when operating a motorcoach could be more efficient.

Tom JeBran, ABA vice chairman and president of Trans-Bridge Lines in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, went further than his private-sector cohort in suggesting that public transit agencies receive an unfair advantage, thanks to their operating subsidies and exemption from the federal gas tax.

"The only way I'd support" raising fuel taxes and adding new interstate tolls to pay for nationwide transport improvements, JeBran said, would be if both private and public transit operators got an exemption from those new charges.

Robert Padgette of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the transit industry's leading D.C. trade group, fired back at JeBran's depiction of government subsidies that go only to public operators. The U.S. DOT's Section 5311 grants, Padgette noted, do make taxpayer funds available to smaller, private inter-city bus companies.

While Jalbert distanced himself from JeBran's push for a tax and toll exemption for private operators, he could not help but answer Padgette. The public subsidies for private inter-city bus companies average about 8 cents per passenger, Jalbert told the panel attendees. "With all due respect," he quipped, "it's bug dust."

(ed. note. This post was edited from an earlier version.)

• Philly area transit authority, a shareholder of BP, sues over its role in the spill (Bloomberg)
  

• Shortage of durable road paint could curtail the spring-summer repair season (NYT)
  

• Pennsylvania's roads and transit both get a D from the American Society of Civil Engineers (Pitt. Biz Times)
  

• N.C. governor, mayors lobbying for new dedicated state transportation fund (AP)

• Proposed rail expansion sparks livability, NIMBY debates in Madison, Wisconsin (WI St. Jrnl)
  

• About 45 millions don't use their seat belts, says the U.S. DOT, with Wyoming faring worst on rates of regular use (AP)

• Ohio cyclists lament plans for statewide roadway rumble strips (Plain Dealer)
  

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, right, with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) at left and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed at center. (Photo: White House Press)

Donovan's announcement came during an address to the Congress for the New Urbanism's (CNU) annual meeting in Atlanta. During his visit, the former New York City housing commissioner also toured the BeltLine project, an ambitious local effort to convert former rail track into new light rail and trails.

In his remarks to the CNU, Donovan depicted the integration of "location efficiency" measures as a way to encourage housing developers to pursue more mixed-use, denser construction.

"[I]t’s time that federal dollars stopped encouraging sprawl and started lowering the barriers to the kind of sustainable development our country needs and our communities want," Donovan said. "And with $3.25 billion at stake in these competitions, that’s exactly what they will start to do."

Evaluating the range of transport options available for prospective residents of urban and suburban areas was among the central recommendations of a foreclosures report released in January by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That study was aimed at mortgage lenders rather than the government, but Democratic lawmakers last year began pushing for HUD to insure more mortgages based on the properties' "location efficiency."

Donovan said that HUD would use the new LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) system, created by the CNU, the NRDC, and the U.S. Green Buildings Council, to measure the transportation potential of grant proposals. LEED certification has become an increasingly popular method of tracking the environmental sustainability of new buildings, although skepticism about the range of energy consumption of buildings with the LEED imprimatur prompted some revisions to the format last year.

• Next stop on LaHood's transportation listening tour: Bismarck, North Dakota ... (GF Herald)

• ... while Jesse Jackson takes his campaign for more urban transit aid to Cleveland (Plain Dealer)

• Northeastern states call for in-depth federal study of rail improvements in their region (AP)
  

• AASHTO president coins a new word to describe the value of infrastructure: "transeconomy" (N. Democrat)
  

• Auto dealers working to keep their carve-out from consumer rules alive in the final version of the financial reform bill (Globe)
  

• Dallas mulls an expansion of its local bike plan to encourage more cycling (Morn News)
  

• New data shows Olympics gave a lasting boost to Vancouver's transit system (Province)
  

FTA chief Peter Rogoff addressing cyclists at this morning's Bike to Work Day events. (Photo: U.S. DOT)

The U.S. DOT sent several senior officials to this morning's capital-area bike events, using the day to finalize a new expansion of eligibility for federal funding of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure connected to transit.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) chief Peter Rogoff, who suited up for a morning ride into downtown D.C., told fellow cyclists that "the Obama Administration will keep supporting cycle-friendly policies because they help connect communities in ways that are beneficial to everyone at very little cost," according to a statement released by the U.S. DOT.

First proposed in November, the FTA's new policy for boosting federal bike-ped spending sets radius surrounding a transit station in which bike infrastructure projects would be eligible for aid at three miles. Pedestrian projects within a half-mile of transit stations would be eligible for federal assistance. The previous regulatory radius was 1,500 feet, in most cases.

Meanwhile, nine national cycling and pedestrian advocacy groups released a letter in advance of Bike to Work Day seeking extra clean transport funding from the new Senate climate bill. The groups studiously avoided the critical tone that the transit industry and state DOTs used on Wednesday to seek a greater share of the revenue from the climate measure; nonetheless, the bike-ped backers urged sponsors Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to lift their legislation's limit on transport spending.

The letter's signatories -- including America Bikes and the League of American Bicyclists -- began by lauding Kerry and Lieberman for requiring that any revenue from their bill's proposed new fuel fees be spent on emissions-cutting transport projects.

Noting that infrastructure investments from the bill's new fuel fees would operate under a ceiling of slightly more than $6 billion per year, the groups added:

While we appreciate that this level of funding is greater than prior climate bills, it still limits the ability of states, counties, cities and transit systems to invest in sustainable transportation. The market needs a stronger signal regarding the importance of shifting our transportation modes to low- and no-carbon alternatives.

The bike-ped advocates proposed an increase in climate revenue set aside for transportation that would be commensurate with the estimated U.S. emissions generated by the movement of people and goods -- about 30 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), left, in the "congressional ride" during March's National Bike Summit. (Photo: bikeleague via Flickr)

GOP Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Michael McCaul (TX), Jack Kingston (GA), and Steven LaTourette (OH) signed on to the letter, which was sent to LaHood late yesterday in advance of today's Bike to Work Day events in the capital.

Referencing LaHood's March policy statement urging state and local transportation planners to put cyclists and pedestrians on the same footing as drivers in designing new infrastructure, the lawmakers wrote:

We recognize, and appreciate, that your statement was not about providing equal amounts of funding to all forms of transportation, or prioritizing bicycling and walking over other transportation modes such as trucking, freight or public transit. Instead, your commitment to consider all modes clarified that to give citizens a choice, rather than forcing them into their car, we must make sure that bicycling and walking are as safe and convenient as other modes.

LaTourette's endorsement of that federal embrace of bicycling and pedestrian access is particularly notable. He initially echoed the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Trucking Association in chiding LaHood for the non-binding bike-ped statement, wondering "what job is going to be created" by bike lanes before later walking back his remarks.

A complete copy of the letter, also signed by House transport committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), is available after the jump.

Dear Secretary LaHood:

We would like to thank you for the Department of Transportation’s release of the “Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation, Regulations, and Recommendations” announced on March 15. We support the policy statement’s declaration that bicycling and walking are efficient modes of transportation that have an important positive impact on our communities.

We were pleased to see the policy statement’s acknowledgment of bicycling and walking as an important part of the transportation system. Bicycling and walking serve as cost-effective solutions to many of the serious issues facing our transportation system, including traffic congestion, funding concerns and air pollution. Moreover, as 40 percent of trips taken in our country are two miles or less, bicycling and walking should play an important role in providing transportation options in our small towns, suburbs and cities.

We recognize, and appreciate, that your statement was not about providing equal amounts of funding to all forms of transportation, or prioritizing bicycling and walking over other transportation modes such as trucking, freight or public transit. Instead, your commitment to consider all modes clarified that to give citizens a choice, rather than forcing them into their car, we must make sure that bicycling and walking are as safe and convenient as other modes.

We also appreciate the recognition of bicycling and walking as useful tools to address many other issues facing our nation such as increased oil consumption, air pollution, and our growing national debt. Investments in bicycling and walking have been shown to bring significant economic development to communities across the country, and to help families lower their own transportation costs. We believe that communities should be able to move forward with projects they feel are most advantageous to them, including bicycle facilities and pedestrian infrastructure.

We hope to continue to see bicycling and walking as a central part of your livability initiative. Thank you for all of your hard work on this issue. We look forward to working with you in the future.

• ... as the U.S. DOT chief kicks off a campaign to get more women involved in transport careers (Prog. RR'ing)
  

• Obama to order the start of work on a post-2017 round of auto fuel efficiency standards (Free Press)
  

• House GOP's earmark moratorium could affect Minnesota's transport projects over the long term (MinnPost)
  

• High-speed rail advocates focus on a possible L.A.-Vegas-Phoenix link (Phoenix Biz Jrnl)
  

• Chicago transit agencies spending nearly $1m per year on lobbying state government (Trib Blogs)

• D.C. Metro transit officials warn that even with their $150m annual aid from Congress, they will be forced to limit capital spending to critical maintenance (DC Biz Jrnl)

• Tampa navigates the tricky path of sustaining local support for new light rail (Creative Loafing)
  

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) commutes to the Capitol by bike. (Photo: SFGate.com)

Blumenauer has long pushed for dedicated pedaling lanes on Washington's most iconic thoroughfare, most recently at the launch of the new advocacy group Cities for Cycling. His victory remains intact, as WTOP Radio reported, with the D.C. DOT planning a possible re-striping or the addition of a buffer between bikes and cars before the lane's official inauguration.

The Bike to Work event is slated to begin in the 8am hour tomorrow at the capital's Freedom Plaza on Pennsylvania Ave. and 14th St. NW. Among the D.C. politico-cyclists slated to join Blumenauer there are Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff, U.S. DOT undersecretary for policy Roy Kienitz, and deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman, according to a schedule released by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG).

For commuters biking into the city, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association and its co-sponsors at the MWCOG have planned dozens of "pit stops" where local officials will pop up to pedal.

"It is inspiring that our nation’s best known Main Street will welcome not just drivers, but cyclists," Blumenauer said through a spokesman. "These new bike lanes are symbolic of changes happening around the country. By creating a space for cyclists – who cause no wear and tear to the roads and burn calories rather than dirty fossil fuels – we are creating healthier, cleaner, and more livable communities.”

Blumenauer, who represents the Portland area, is not the only member of Congress to take his morning trip to work on two wheels. As Roll Call noted today in a story on the new bike lane, GOP Reps. Jack Kingston (GA) and Pete Hoekstra (MI) are also cycling aficionados.

Traffic brings with it billions of dollars in "hidden health costs," according to the APTA. (Photo: NYT)

But the APHA, a trade association representing public health workers, went further than the government by adding up the estimated costs imposed by the absence of any mandatory evaluation of the health consequences of transportation decisions.

Citing U.S. DOT and American Automobile Association studies, respectively, the APHA pegged the annual price of congested roads at between $50 billion and $80 billion, with the health toll of traffic crashes -- including the treatment of fatalities, the resulting court costs, and lost wages -- reaching $180 billion per year.

The majority of those bills are paid indirectly by the transportation system users they affect, not factored in advance into local planning, as the APHA writes:

The federal government does not require a consistent methodology for environmental impact analysis, transportation modeling, or cost-benefit analysis for agencies seeking federal highway funding — and while this approach allows agencies to tailor analyses to fit their needs, itmakes it impossible to compare potential project effectiveness at a national level. It also  means that health impacts, costs and benefits are often left off the table when projects are being considered.

What can be done to build those health risks into the calculus that determines where roads get built, bridges fixed, and crosswalks painted? The APHA offers San Francisco, where health officials used economic modeling to weigh the likely pedestrian injury rates caused by five alternative development plans, as an example of effective local analysis of transportation's effect on public health.

But the APHA report underscores the difficulty of achieving a broader shift without Congress requiring a stronger emphasis on transport policies that tangibly improve Americans' health. In addition to endorsing the concept of national transportation objectives -- which has won some Democratic support but sparked resistance from state DOTs -- the group's new report urges that those new federal standards "allocate more funds to projects and efforts that support healthy communities and active transportation."