The new Senate health bill held onto a billion-dollar grant program to promote walking to school, among other practices. (Photo: Ctr. for Neighborhood Tech.)

Despite loud protestations from the GOP and conservative think tanks about the grants, dubbed "Community Transformation" aid, it has survived intact in the final health reform bill that Democratic leaders will call up for a crucial test vote tomorrow.

The final Senate legislation opens the Community Transformation awards to non-profit groups as well as state and local governments. Proposals to promote increased physical exercise and "the infrastructure to support active living" would be eligible for funding, and grant recipients would be required to measure the resulting local health benefits.

The amount of money set aside for the program is not specified in the Senate bill. The House health bill limited annual funding to $1.6 billion, while the upper chamber of Congress names Community Transformation grants as one eligible use for a "prevention and public health fund" that would receive $5 billion by the year 2015.

No matter how you slice it, however, the Senate has recognized the maxim that transportation reform is health reform.

The average carbon emissions of U.S. vehicles. (Image: EPA)

The narrative is tempting, especially for those who believe federal gas taxes need to rise in order to fairly price the environmental impact of driving. But if it were true, the record rise in U.S. fuel prices that began in 2007 and lasted through 2008 might be expected to spur a notable increase in production of cleaner cars.

And that didn't happen, as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported today in a new analysis [PDF] of carbon emissions and fuel economy trends in the U.S. auto fleet. The average fuel-efficiency of American cars went from 20.6 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2007 to 21.0 mpg in 2008, according to the EPA, and is poised to rise by just 0.1 for the 2009 model year.

In real pollution terms, that means the average American car will emit just 2 grams fewer CO2 per mile this year than it did in 2008. For Dan Becker, a longtime environmental advocate who directs the Safe Climate Campaign, that paltry progress is an argument for stronger, consistent increases in the nation's fuel-efficiency and emissions standards. Becker said in a statement:

Conventional wisdom -- and auto company lobbyists -- maintain that high-priced gasoline is enough to improve fuel economy. Both are wrong. Gas prices have risen each year from 2002 to 2008; industry has failed to keep pace by improving mileage. This report demonstrates that even when gas hit more than $4 a gallon, mileage barely improved.

High gasoline prices won’t be enough to put cleaner cars on our roads. They do not force industry to change its wasteful and polluting ways. Strict laws do. The Obama administration must repeatedly ratchet up mileage and tailpipe standards. 

The future of public-private partnerships? Hopefully not. (Photo: Time Out NY)

[T]he agreement ... will include putting Subway restaurants as well as Dunkin' Donuts locations in the centers, according to a Carlyle spokesman. Dunkin' Donuts is owned by Carlyle.

Meanwhile, the same Connecticut governor who called Carlyle's donut investment "an unprecedented commitment to ... meeting the needs of the traveling public" recently vetoed legislation that would have eliminated the need for significant transit fare hikes.

Is this what President Obama meant when he called for "more creative, new approaches" to fixing "infrastructure that is falling apart"? Let's hope not.

Given that government audits have found existing federal transit regulations riddled with obstacles to attracting successful PPPs, perhaps it's not surprising that Carlyle chose to go the donuts route rather than collaborating on Connecticut transit-oriented development projects in the vein of the New York MTA's Beacon Station revitalization.

But that's no reason for Carlyle to take a victory lap while plans for a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) remain frustratingly unclear. If the administration follows through on its NIB plans, information-sharing and incentives will be needed to prod private capital into genuinely beneficial projects rather than new fast food joints.

For a taste of how groundbreaking federal infrastructure PPPs could happen on the local level, this presentation [PDF] by the deputy general manager of the Boston area's Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is a good place to start.

• Nominee for Amtrak's board of directors says the train network needs better financial management (NorthJersey.com)
  

• Green transportation analyst: Let's redirect unused infrastructure stimulus money to transit (Det. News)

• Untapped demand leading to transit growth in unlikely places (Planetizen)

• When you hear members of Congress say that U.S. emissions limits can't come without China changing its ways ... well, we're a notable contributor to their higher pollution levels (WSJ Blog)

• Asphalt and concrete makers join the groups pushing for quick passage of a new long-term federal infrastructure bill (Dow Jones)
  

As budget cuts hit Florida's Tri-Rail line, shown here, the state legislature was using federal stimulus money to balance its budget. (Photo: Nat'l Corridors Initiative)

The mayors' verdict: Directing stimulus money through state capitals has left cities with the short end of the stick.

"Cities are not getting their proportional share" of stimulus money, said Scott Smith, the GOP mayor of Mesa, Arizona.

Federal recovery aid has helped "on the fringes" of Mesa's budget, Smith explained, but most funding hasn't been able to blunt the near-term effects of the local budget crunch.

In other words, he said, Washington aid could help build a new firehouse but was less likely to hire any workers to fill it.

Despite a push from urban mayors to send direct stimulus money to cities, the states ended up controlling the distribution of the federal recovery funds. That allowed state legislatures to "take a lot of" Obama administration money to fulfill their legal mandates for balanced budgets, according to Elaine Walker, the Democratic mayor of Bowling Green, Kentucky.

State officials "siphon off a portion" of federal stimulus money to pay for their administration costs, Walker lamented today, even as they "don't want to allow [city leaders] the option of increasing our revenue streams because that may be construed as raising taxes."

The perils of directing federal aid through state capitals are especially palpable on the transportation front, where state DOTs are apt to push projects that have no local support and take a negative approach to safety. But the mayors' observations went beyond infrastructure and spoke to the overall effectiveness of the massive recovery law, which may well determine the legacy of President Obama's first years in office.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said his city has received only $14 million of its $157 million in "awarded" stimulus money. Nutter told the Brookings audience that he suspects, "quietly, some of the federal officials would admit that running the bulk of the [stimulus] money through the states" was a bad call.

"You want to put people to work? Build something in cities," he added, sneaking in a Palin-themed jab: "Every bridge in the state of Pennsylvania goes somewhere."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Photo: MoniqueMonicat)

As House Democrats weigh their options for a new job-creation plan, slated for a vote before year's end, infrastructure spending is attracting new support from party leaders. But the question of how much to spend, and whether a new six-year transportation measure could be presented as a jobs bill, is tied up in ongoing uncertainty over where the necessary funding would come from.

DeFazio's recommendation to impose a small per-trade tax on the Wall Street oil futures market has picked up endorsements from progressive economists and writers as well as 29 of his fellow Democrats. Pelosi, however, was cautious in addressing its prospects today during her weekly press briefing.

"One of the concerns that some of us have about it," the Speaker said, "is what it [might do] to us in terms of transactions going offshore."

Emphasizing that the idea "is just something that is on the table," Pelosi added that passing a tax proposal such as DeFazio's would require consultation with and buy-in from other nations: "It would have to be an international rule, not just a U.S. rule."

Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is among those who have expressed concerns that a Wall Street transaction tax, unless properly structured, would drive financial activity onto foreign commodity exchanges, thus generating lower-than-expected revenues.

Imposing a transaction tax "country by country ... would be a problem," Frank told the Wall Street Journal last month.

Pelosi's response today does not signal a decline in House-side momentum for DeFazio's proposal; she noted that financial regulators in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have spoken favorably of transaction taxes (also known as "Tobin" taxes).

But even if House Democrats ultimately embrace the idea as a revenue-raiser for their jobs bill, the proposed tax is guaranteed to face an uphill battle in the Senate -- where Wall Street has no shortage of powerful allies.

As Streetsblog Capitol Hill readers may know, there is no love lost between lawmakers on the House transportation committee and President Obama's economic advisers.

When the Obama administration first pushed to delay the next federal long-term infrastructure bill by 18 months, transport panel chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) quipped that "folks in the economic gang at the White House" -- think economic adviser Larry Summers -- "never had a shovel in their hands or a callus on their fingers. And Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR), who said in January that Summers "hates infrastructure," offered another no-holds-barred take last night.

In an interview with MSNBC's Ed Schultz (viewable above), DeFazio confirmed that House Democrats are discussing plans to spend unused money from Washington's $750 billion Wall Street bailout on job-creation programs, including infrastructure. But Summers and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are set against the idea, DeFazio added.

"Unfortunately, the president has an adviser from Wall Street, Larry Summers, and an adviser from Wall Street, Timmy Geithner, who don't like that idea," the Oregonian lawmaker told Schultz.

"They want to keep the money [because] there may be more needs on Wall Street, or maybe we should use it to pay down the deficit."

DeFazio went on to hint that progressive Democrats in the House are discussing a formal suggestion that Geithner and Summers be removed from their posts: "We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans."

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (Photo: PennLive)

That was the message delivered today by two economists and a bipartisan quartet of U.S. mayors at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Michael Nutter, Philadelphia's Democratic mayor, seemed to sum up the mood as he mused aloud that the federal government had seen fit to deliver no-strings-attached cash to financial and auto companies deemed "too big to fail."

"Cities and metro areas are too important to fail," Nutter said, adding that successful urban government is "equally or, I'd suggest, more important than anything that's going on in industries."

Unfortunately, economic data suggests that cities are only just beginning to bear the brunt of what some have christened "The Great Recession." Steve Cochrane, managing director of Moody's Analytics, showed today's Brookings audience a map of the nation with states where employment could be expected to rebound the quickest.

A dozen states, including urban-dominant economic powerhouses such as New York, California, and Illinois, were colored bright red -- meaning that their employment recovery could be expected after 2013, or even later. A city-by-city map of housing price declines had more bad news for northeastern and West coast cities, showing that the foreclosure crisis has yet to hit bottom in those areas.

What does this mean for urban priorities, particularly transportation and infrastructure? The percentage of city officials reporting to the National League of Cities (NLC) that they are "less able" to meet financial needs jumped from 3 percent in 2007 to 88 percent in 2009, the highest number in the 26 years the NLC has measured metro fiscal health.

When the NLC asked urban officials to describe where they were cutting spending, 62 percent said capital infrastructure projects were being delayed or canceled. That high number suggests sustained, intense cuts in cities' ability to work on their built environments, NLC research director Chris Hoene said today. "[Cities] are going to be in trouble for years," he predicted.

How is the economic downturn affecting city services? Transit riders in many areas are sadly familiar with service cuts caused by budget austerity, but other aspects of urban community maintenance are dying out.

Nutter was forced to cut residential street cleaning and shutter nearly half of Philadelphia's public pools to help close his billion-dollar fiscal shortfall. Elaine Walker, mayor of Bowling Green, Kentucky, noted that "we were building sidewalks to the tune of $1 million a year. We're not doing that anymore."

The mayors had much more to say about how federal and state governments could begin repairing relations with local leaders that have been "irreparably damaged," as Scott Smith, mayor of Mesa, Arizona, put it. (Stay tuned for more coverage.)

But Walker suggested that the solution to the nation's urban budget crisis would have to begin with a fundamental shift in what Americans expect from -- and how they think about -- their elected government. Bolstering her theory, David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal (who led the mayors' debate) quoted a recent observation from Congress' chief budget adviser:

The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services.

• Texas Republican gubernatorial foes Hutchison and Perry trade jabs over transportation funding (News Messenger)
  

• A new poll with an eye-rolling setup: 6 in 10 people think transit and carpooling are good for the environment, but 4 in 10 aren't likely to take advantage of the options. But 3 in 10 respondents live in rural areas where "transit is generally not readily available" (AP)

• Ah, Maryland: the Montgomery County Council wants state transportation authorities to lower their planned tolling charges on the massive new Intercounty Connector road (Balt. Sun)

• Ah, Virginia: Dwindling revenues will hit the state to the tune of $851 million over the next six years (Times-Dispatch)
  

• Inspired by Transportation for America's pedestrian safety report, one Florida performance artist is aiming to cross the state's dozen most dangerous intersections (Sentinel via T4A)

• NIMBYism constrains California solar power projects (WSJ Blog)
  

Deputy U.S. Transportation Secretary John Porcari (Photo: DayLife.com)

Roy Kienitz, U.S. DOT's undersecretary for policy, told Boxer that the cancellation of $8.7 billion in contracting authority -- which took effect when Congress passed the first of two stopgap federal transport law extensions in September -- is forcing a 30 percent cut in local spending power, although each state will feel the effects at a different pace.

"It's pretty important when we see that we're giving the states 30 percent less than they should be getting," Boxer replied, asking the administration for help in marshaling support for a six-month extension of the 2005 transport law.

She added that senators would appreciate White House assistance in ending "the standoff" with the House, where transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) continues to call for passage of his new six-year transport bill.

Boxer described the House approach as: "Let's just bring it to a crisis point, then we'll go double the gas tax and solve the whole problem." She noted that Democrats lack the votes for that strategy in the Senate (and likely the House as well).

But the administration gave a fairly lukewarm answer to Boxer's urging. Deputy Transportation Secretary John Porcari restated the White House's endorsement of an 18-month extension before conceding that a six-month window is "better than a 30-day."

In a startling tonal contrast, Porcari acknowledged minutes later that America is dangerously "behind the curve" on infrastructure investment.

"We're clearly not doing right by the next generation with what we're doing now," he said.

The lack of sustainable funding remains the biggest obstacle to taking up a new long-term transportation bill, and Boxer nodded to that fact by asking the administration to begin working on alternatives to the federal gas tax -- which has remained at 18.3 cents per gallon since 1993 and lost value as fuel-efficient cars become more popular.

"[A]t the end of the day, we need to think outside of the old ways," she said. "So far, there hasn't been a lot of ideas forthcoming [from the White House], because there are a few other things on the plate -- and I get it. But this needs attention."

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), a member of the environment panel, asked Kienitz whether the administration was planning for a new transportation funding mechanism. "We're working hard to prepare internally," Kienitz replied, before adding that "none of that" is close to the form of an official proposal. 

When Carper asked if Congress should do more to press Obama aides into action, Kienitz's response was palpably deliberate. "We ... always appreciate your wise direction," the U.S. DOT official said.

The White House's rationale for its proposed 18-month delay has long been that officials need time and space to craft a sweeping, reform-minded transportation bill. Kienitz gave a hint as to what such legislation might look like when he told Carper that it would be appropriate for Washington to set national performance targets for roads, transit, and ports -- an issue that remains controversial for some industries but has support in the Senate.

Of course, progress on the next bill will be difficult to achieve without putting an end to the recent run of stopgap extensions of the 2005 transportation law, which was heavily tilted in favor of new highway projects and has lost purchasing power as the cost of construction materials swells along with inflation.

No matter what happens, the Obama administration has a limited window to begin pressing for a deal between the House and Senate. The current extension of transport law is set to expire one month from today.

Robert Puentes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program (Photo: Brookings)

The goal is simple: Every week, a different person will weigh in on the same four queries about the future of the nation's built environment. The questions will remain the same, in order to provoke a thoughtful exchange of views on the biggest challenges facing transportation policymakers -- but the range of participants will be limitless.

Our guest for the inaugural Four Questions is Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program (MPP) and a prolific analyst of growth and development issues. (Check out more from the MPP at its blog, The Avenue.)

Any suggestions for future participants in The Four Questions? Let us know in the comments.

1. Transportation planning -- the evaluation and construction of transit, road, and bridge projects -- is often considered primarily a state and local issue. What specific type of role should the federal government should have in the mix?

We've actually proposed a three-pronged strategy for our national transportation program.

First, the federal government should lead in those areas where there are clear demands for national uniformity, or else to match the scale and geographic reach of certain problems. We must define, design, and embrace a new, unified vision for transportation policy. Its focus should be on infrastructure investments that support the competitiveness and environmental sustainability of the nation rather than on funding individual states or spending on singular needs.

The federal government should create a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) able to select and finance large, multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional infrastructure projects on a merit basis. The NIB would be the window through which states, groups of states, and metropolitan areas would request financing or grants for a range of infrastructure projects -- from road and rails to ports and pipes. The federal government would provide initial capital that NIB would use to issue bonds. The Treasury would pay the interest on the bonds and it would act as a lender of last resort for the principal of the NIB loans. The proceeds from the bonds would be used to finance major projects proposed by public entities (states, municipalities, agencies).

Yet while there are clearly areas of physical infrastructure development where the federal government needs to lead, Washington also needs to put itself squarely in the service of state, local, and business leaders whose knack for solving problems has always driven this country forward.

2. As the gas tax loses some of its value in an era of more fuel-efficient vehicles, should it be increased or abandoned in favor of a new system of transportation financing? Or should both options be in play?

Just as transportation is not an end in and of itself, neither is increasing funding the primary solution to the nation's transportation problems. However, because of the short term conundrum of the federal government obligating more federal money for transportation than it has to spend and the disdain for the annual rescissions, many are calling for the next Congress and the new President to increase the federal gas tax. This puts the cart before the horse.

Simply put: we should not continue to pour more money into a dysfunctional system before serious attempts at significant policy reform. In other words, the federal transportation program is not just broke; it is broken. The funding debate needs to shift from spending more and more taxpayer dollars on the same product to where, what, and how to spend that money better. So in addition to just focusing on increasing revenues for the existing program the nation deserves a real conversation about curbing the demand for transportation spending. It is impossible to start with a funding solution or what the optimal level of investment should be when there is no agreement about what the federal role should be, what problems we are trying to solve, or what questions we are trying to answer.

[Former deputy Transportation Secretary] Mort Downey has pointed out that no major federal transportation reform has ever occurred without a major increase in revenues. This should be another one of those times.

We need a clear articulation of the goals and objectives of the federal program, and the desired outcomes. The program should then be structured to get to those outcomes. At that time, all options toward reinvigorating transportation funding should be on the table to meet the transportation challenges of the future while also ensuring financial revenues will be available.

3. The lion's share of federal transportation funding is sent through state DOTs that then pass aid on to major cities. Do you think this approach allows urban, suburban, and rural needs to be fully met?

The intent established in the ISTEA legislation of 1991 to elevate the importance of metropolitan decision-making to better align with the geography of regional economies, commuting patterns, and social reality has largely been subverted. Federal transportation policy has only haltingly recognized metros' centrality to transportation outcomes, and continues to assign states the primary role in transportation planning and programming.

Left to their own devices, most states have not embraced the intent of federal law and have not devolved sufficient powers and responsibilities to their metropolitan areas. They remain the principal decision-makers on transportation projects, including those within metropolitan areas. Many state DOTs still wield considerable formal and informal power and retain authority over substantial state transportation funds.

One positive step to enhance metropolitan decision making was the sub-allocation of funds directly to the regional and local government structures initiated by ISTEA. This helped strengthen metropolitan areas by changing the decision-making body for a portion of the overall funding, giving local officials the ability to spend federal transportation funds based on the unique needs of their region. However, the reality is that these funds still make up only a very small share of the overall funding pie. Taken together, federal law only gives metropolitan areas direct control over a small share of road and bridge funding under SAFETEA-LU. This misalignment has led to a dramatic shift in the way funds are raised in major metropolitan areas as these places are increasingly turning to voter-approved “local option taxes” to pay for certain metropolitan-scale projects.

Funding analyses in several states show how these biases harm metropolitan areas. These areas contribute significantly more in tax receipts than they receive in allocations from their state’s highway fund or through direct local transfers. In other words, although the donor/donee debate is alive and well on the national level between states, that same rationale -- logical or otherwise -- does not appear to have had anywhere near the same impact on spatial funding allocation within states.

4. Transportation contributes 30 percent of America's total CO2 emissions. Do you think a national cap-and-trade system should proportionally address this problem? If not, how should it be addressed?

To improve the environment, several states as well as the federal government have already articulated a desire to reduce transportation-related mobile source emissions in order to confirm with the transportation provisions of the Clean Air Act. We should go further and in addition to a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions a reduced dependence on foreign oil is also critical (which is a clear benefit to the national economy). To that end, the federal program should support all three legs of the stool—vehicle efficiency, fuels standards and alternatives, as well as demand reduction strategies promoting efficient development patterns, telecommuting, and increasing travel options for people and goods. Related to the above question, a carbon tax is a good idea as an environmentally-motivated tax that could potentially generate revenues for a range of transportation choices such as transit.

One of Houston's new charging stations for plug-in hybrid vehicles. (Photo: Chronicle)

The city's latest attempt to break from its oil-centric culture: charging stations for plug-in hybrid vehicles. Houston Mayor Bill White yesterday announced a partnership with utility Reliant Energy to convert 10 Toyota Priuses from the city's vehicle fleet into plug-in hybrids, while installing 10 electric charging stations that would be open to the public at a small cost.

“We're committed to making Houston the nation's green energy capital,” White said in a statement on the Reliant deal. “That commitment begins at City Hall and these clean-running electric cars and the charging stations that will be available to all Houstonians will get us farther down that road.”

The Wall Street Journal was elated by the city's small-scale move, writing:

Unlike in green urbs like San Francisco or Seattle, it’s all but impossible to live here without wheels -- so they might as well be electric. It will probably be cheaper and easier to electrify urban sprawl than rein it in altogether.

Houston's electrified light rail got no mention in the piece, though the Journal did call the city's power network "fairly clean." Indeed, Texas has seen some growth in wind and other clean energy sources -- the federal government recently ranked it No. 5 for state renewable power generation -- but Reliant's record is hardly spotless.

In 2007, the same year that Texas got its No. 5 ranking, the state of New Jersey filed a lawsuit against Reliant's mid-Atlantic division, charging the company with violating the Clean Air Act by modifying a coal-fired power plant in Pennsylvania to increase its pollution levels.

“It seems that we cannot rely on Reliant, except to put the public in harm’s way," Lisa Jackson, then New Jersey's environmental protection chief, said at the time of the lawsuit. Jackson has since become the chief of the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency.

One of China's high-speed rail cars. (Photo: TreeHugger)

The deal involves a net gain for both parties. GE plans to share its low-emissions Evolution Series technology with CSR Qishuyan, China's biggest diesel locomotives company, while China's Ministry of Railways will license high-speed rail technology to GE.

And given American policymakers' concerns that U.S. "high-speed" trains will be too slow to compete with overseas models, it's worth underscoring that the GE-China deal has a target speed of 350 kilometers per hour, or about 220 mph.

The deal, which GE says could provide up to 3,500 U.S. jobs, requires 80 percent of the materials for high-speed rail construction and 100 percent of the assembly to come from American sources. From the statement issued by Tim Schweikert, president of GE Transportation China:

High-speed Rail in the U.S. and in markets worldwide is a significant opportunity for infrastructure and business growth. With the signing of today's framework agreement, GE and China’s Ministry of Railways have provided the basis for a cooperation-focused framework that will enhance economic development, create new jobs and promote research and development for high-speed railway technology.

While GE currently is the world leader in locomotive diesel-electric and electronic control systems technology, China currently is a leader in high-speed rail technology for speeds of 220 miles per hour. Working together, both parties could develop the best solutions faster to serve America’s high-speed rail needs for many years to come.

Mid-Morning Update: Obama administration officials, conducting their daily press briefing from China, emphasized the U.S. president's interest in exploring how Beijing is handling the infrastructure and transportation needs of its growing urban population.

"[P]articularly as it pertains to issues around clean energy and infrastructure ... these are similar challenges that the United States and China face both nationally and within our cities," deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said, according to a transcript of the Beijing press briefing.

Jon Huntsman Jr., the U.S. ambassador to China, added that transportation and infrastructure were high on the list of questions Obama asked during a Monday luncheon with Shanghai Mayor Han Zheng.

• In addition to its transit safety push, the administration has also issued safety rules for motorcoach buses (Bloomberg)
  

• Even conservative Dems such as Sen. Ben Nelson (NE) are open to new transportation spending to help boost employment (HuffPost)

• Meanwhile, Perlmutter joins the ranks of House Dems backing DeFazio's Wall Street transpo tax (The Hill)
  

• Better infrastructure is an important legacy to leave to the next generation -- but we're falling behind (NYT)
  

• New study finds 1 in 3 teens confessing to a "frightening" habit of texting while driving (WashPost)

• The nation's senior transportation safety official decries the media's focus on salacious, context-free details of crashes (CBS News)
  

Senate environment chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (Photo: Politics Now)

In the letter, Sens. Jim Inhofe (OK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), and Richard Shelby (AL) joined Democrats in asking both parties' leaders to overcome the objections of a "small number of senators" who prevented quick passage of a six-month extension in September -- citing their opposition to using unspent financial bailout money to keep transportation programs running.

The senior Democrats signing onto the letter were: environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (CA), Commerce Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (WV), and Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd (CT). Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus also signed the letter, but the Finance panel's chief Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), did not attach his name.

A Grassley aide said the senator is concerned about the long-term financial health of the nation's highway trust fund and would prefer to address the issue in a multi-year bill rather than a months-long extension.

The political climate surrounding infrastructure investment, roiled in recent days by Democrats' new determination to pass job-creation legislation before the end of the year, remains highly uncertain. But the senators' letter signals that any new transportation spending is likely to be distributed using the same funding framework used in the 2005 bill, rather than through any revamped policy that might put roads and transit projects on a more equal footing.

The reason, simply put: If a six-month extension wins approval before the current stopgap transportation measure expires on December 18, a 2010 jobs bill could well be on its way to the president's desk by the time any broad reforms would reach the top of the congressional agenda.

However, the fate of any extra infrastructure spending was not mentioned in the senators' letter, which emphasized the importance of providing a steady funding stream that would "give states the certainty they need to plan and contract for" road as well as transit and bike infrastructure projects. A cancellation of contract authority triggered by the congressional inaction forced cuts to clean transportation budgets in more than 45 states.

Check out a complete copy of today's letter after the jump.

Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell:

One of the best ways to spur job creation and economic recovery is through infrastructure investment. That is why a longer term extension of the surface transportation program is so important to maintaining our nation's vital bridges, roads, public transportation and other related infrastructure, restoring our economy and creating good jobs for American workers.

In July, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs each reported an 18-month ex tension of the surface transportation program prior to the expiration of the 2005 surface transportation bill, the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), with bipartisan support.

We believe a multi-month extension of SAFETEA-LU is the best solution. It would give states the certainty they need to plan and contract for transportation infrastructure projects. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion spent on transportation and matched by the states supports approximately 35,000 jobs. It would also give the Department of Transportation's highway safety agencies the certainty they need to continue implementing safety-critical programs that keep motorists safe on our roads.

SAFETEA-LU expired at the end of September and, unfortunately, there was objection to floor consideration of the bipartisan legislation extending these important programs. This necessitated two short term extensions to the surface transportation program, attached to Continuing Resolutions. Short term extensions mean less money is available for states, and do not provide states the certainty they need to keep crucial transportation projects moving forward.

On a bipartisan basis, we have decided to move forward with a 6-month extension. Unfortunately, a small number of Senators continue to object and will not allow an extension to be considered by the Senate without a cloture vote.

We urge you to file cloture on the motion to proceed on the 6-month extension and dedicate the time necessary to complete this important legislation, so we can put Americans back to work and keep our economy moving.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) (Photo: Politics Daily)

Carper, speaking at a National Journal policy conference, said the prospects for short-term transport legislation still depend on finding a workable funding source. He mentioned an idea first floated last year by economist and Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson: increase the fuel tax by one penny every month.

Such a gradual increase, Samuelson wrote, would send a price signal in favor of fuel efficiency. Carper acknowledged that his colleagues didn't immediately warm to Samuelson's revenue-raising idea, but he also hinted that another economic stimulus measure paid for by deficit spending could be a non-starter in the Senate.

"Are we going to have another stimulus bill? I sure hope not, because it means we're in the tank again," Carper said, pointing to recent signs of an economic turnaround.

Carper, the lead sponsor of a proposal to give clean transportation 10 percent of money generated by a future climate change bill, also addressed rising pessimism about Congress' ability to pass carbon emissions limits before next year's midterm elections.

Passing a health care reform bill that's fully paid for, Carper said, would go a long way towards bolstering the prospects for climate legislation by demonstrating lawmakers' commitment to fiscal rectitude.

Carper's remarks were followed by a panel discussion that featured Polly Trottenberg, assistant U.S. transportation secretary for policy, and James Corless, director of Transportation for America.

Both Trottenberg and Corless emphasized the importance of messaging in encouraging public acceptance of infrastructure policy reforms. Asked about decreasing the nation's total vehicle miles traveled by telling Americans to "drive less," Corless re-framed the question as one of providing more transport options.

"If we want [to ask] people to drive less, that's not going to work ... [let's] provide people with more choice," he said.

Trottenberg sounded a similar note: "I don't like the question, 'how do we get people to drive less.' Before we impose anything on people that they don't like, let's meet the demand that's out there" for access to transit, biking, walking, and other cleaner forms of transport, she said.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (Photo: Politics Daily)

Trumka, speaking at an employment conference co-sponsored with the Economic Policy Institute (viewable here), made infrastructure No. 2 in his five-point jobs plan. Pointing to estimates that the nation's unmet physical repair needs are nearing $3 billion, he said:

Every dollar spent on infrastructure employs workers all down the supply chain in construction, manufacturing, design and engineering – and we need to be sure these dollars create U.S. jobs and develop badly needed U.S. industrial capacity. And we need to invest in good green jobs – green technology, energy-efficient retrofits of public buildings and the smart power grid.

Before making his remarks this morning, Trumka talked job creation with House Democrats, who are still debating the timetable for a new federal transportation bill. The major sticking points, however, remain how to pay for the $500 billion legislation and whether infrastructure spending should be "front-loaded" into a shorter window than the usual six years.

Roll Call offers a map of the landscape today, which may sound familiar to transportation policy wonks:

The question for Congressional leaders has been whether the spending in such a plan could enter the economy quickly enough and how to pay for it. Some Democrats, led by Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.), are pushing for a new transaction tax on Wall Street to help rebuild Main Street, believing it would put Republicans opposing any tax increases in the position of backing Wall Street traders over middle-class Americans.

But there also have been concerns that such a bill could be lampooned as pork-laden, given that it will be packed with earmarks. The last transportation bill, crafted when the GOP was still in charge, included the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska that became a symbol of wasteful spending.

Leaders kept traditional earmarks out of the stimulus package earlier this year exactly because of that fear — although that didn’t stop Republicans, who voted en masse against the plan, from blasting it as an unnecessary spending spree.

The next stimulus plan could go far beyond new roads and bridges, however. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has already held her own meeting with economists who universally recommended additional spending, has noted that Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has presented an array of potential items behind the scenes. Publicly, Pelosi — who has eschewed the word stimulus — has mentioned such items as more aid to cash-strapped states and a tax credit for hiring new workers.

• Federal government strikes down Boston's attempt to reroute hazardous trucking cargo around the center city (Globe)
  

• General Electric looks forward to riding the infrastructure stimulus gravy train -- though some analysts say GE's optimism may be misguided (WSJ)

• General Motors sees the upside in a $1.1 billion third-quarter loss (NYT)
  

• Prospects for a gas tax increase to fund Virginia transportation projects appears dead in the wake of GOP Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell's recent victory (WTOP)

• With friends like these...? Sen. Byrd (D-WV), who has earmarked more than $350 million for an Appalachian highway to be named after himself, urges the White House to pass a new long-term transport bill (Byrd Press)
  

• Minnesotans christen their second rail transit line, the Northstar (MinnPost)
  

Transit buses, such as this Miami model, are expected to be part of the new federal safety plan. (Photo: IgoUgo.com)

The new transit safety plan, including a request for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) authority to regulate buses, will be sent to Congress in the coming weeks for translation into legislative form. The plan will also receive a House hearing on December 8.

"The administration expects its early efforts, however, to be focused on addressing rail transit safety," the DOT wrote in a statement on the proposed legislation, tentatively titled the Public Transportation Safety Program Act.

The DOT's statement depicted the motivation for its move as broader than the fatal June collision of two trains on Washington D.C.'s Metrorail network. A transit safety task force headed by deputy Transportation Secretary John Porcari also reviewed the July crash on San Francisco's Muni system, a crash on Boston's light rail in May, and a 2006 derailment on a below-ground stretch of Chicago's transit network.

"DOT is also seeing some warning signs regarding increased collision rates, derailment rates, and worker fatalities that give us cause for concern," the agency stated.

Citing past criticism of the federal approach to regulating inter-city passenger rail, transit advocates have raised concerns that local transit authorities' already tight budgets could be strained even further by the cost of complying with new FTA rules -- prompting service cuts and fare increases.

One detail that may answer some questions about the federal process: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood plans to appoint an advisory committee -- with local transit agencies likely represented -- to counsel Washington on the ins and outs of crafting new transit safety rules, according to the DOT.

Washington's love affair with electric vehicles continued today with the launch of the Electrification Coalition, an alliance of 13 companies hailing from the auto, shipping, and utility industries that have endorsed a $130 billion pitch for a region-by-region transition to battery-powered cars.

The Coalition's proposal was developed by consulting firm PRTM and Securing America's Future Energy, a group with ties to Obama administration national intelligence director Dennis Blair that was formed to highlight the national security risks of oil dependence. It calls for 75 percent of the nation's vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be replaced by electric cars by the year 2040 -- while assuming that U.S. VMT will climb.

In order to encourage more charging infrastructure and consumer demand for electric vehicles, the Coalition wants to see government incentives targeted at a group of six to eight regional "ecosystems." These areas would be competitively selected, based on local enthusiasm and private-sector support for electrifying vehicles.

The 13 CEOs who lead the Coalition share a business interest in promoting the widespread use of electric vehicles, which emit less than conventional gas-powered autos but often rely on the burning of coal as their primary power source. Nissan chief Carlos Ghosn has made a significant bet on the U.S. market with his electric Leaf model; A123, another Coalition member, won $249 million from the Obama administration earlier this year to accelerate the development of its electric vehicle batteries.

Asked about the environmental questions raised by relying on dirty power sources for electric vehicles, Coalition policy director Sam Ori told Streetsblog Capitol Hill in an interview that "even if you're charging an EV entirely with coal-fired [power], it still reduces emissions. These vehicles are in an environmentally friendly position regardless of where the ecosystems would be."

As for the Coalition's estimate of no slowdown in U.S. VMT growth, a possibility that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said would be a significant setback to nationwide pollution reduction, Ori said the group "wanted to be conservative" by assuming that the status quo would hold.

The Coalition takes a similar status-quo approach to the gas tax, which likely would lose value at a greater rate if electric cars take off. From its proposal (plugged in the TV ad featured at the top of the page):

A higher, equitable, and sustained gas tax is arguably the most transparent and direct policy path to assist [EV] market penetration ... However, the substantial likelihood of a rapid repeal of such taxes in the early years after enactment for political reasons, as well as the political difficulties of enacting a gas tax increase at a level that would have a dramatic impact, argue for a [EV] deployment plan that assumes gas taxes at the current level.

Underestimating lawmakers' will to sustainably price gasoline consumption, while it accurately reflects the current state of play, casts some doubt on Congress' appetite to press on with a complex electric-vehicle pitch. Especially when the Coalition's report includes handy charts like this one:

(Chart: Electrification Coalition)