I asked the Cap’n what his questions would be. The reply:

Meanwhile, reader Ryan Richter sent in his revised list of questions too. They’re a little more specific, so I’ll start with Ryan’s. With any luck, the answers to Cap’n Transit’s questions will be woven into the answers below.

Thanks to both of you for keeping me focused on what really matters in this whole political hullabaloo.

Ryan’s first question:

1. How will public transportation fare after being practically decapitated in the last round?

Public transit came out a winner when members of the House GOP mounted their full-frontal assault against it. “The uprising was so immediate and so bipartisan [the Republicans] backed off,” said Deron Lovaas of NRDC. Democrats and some urban and suburban Republicans blew up at the idea that transit would no longer be eligible for its 20 percent of Highway Trust Fund dollars, which it’s gotten since the Fund’s Mass Transit Account was created under Ronald Reagan in 1983. Surviving an attempt against it makes transit that much stronger now – its opponents know that defunding transit is a losing issue for them.

The Senate bill keeps transit funding levels about the same as they’ve been but it makes some good changes to transit policy, like reducing delays in getting transit projects moving and prioritizing improvements to existing transit infrastructure. Perhaps most significantly, it allows transit agencies, under some limited circumstances, to use federal funds for operations instead of just capital. The restrictions on those funds have left some agencies with brand new buses and no way to pay drivers. Transit advocates have been asking for more flexibility in using these funds for years, and it’s reassuring to see that some relief could be coming.

The Senate’s MAP-21 also provides funding for TOD planning and would permanently restore parity between transit and parking commuter benefits.

Will all of these Senate provisions make it into whatever comes out of the conference? It’s impossible to know, but if I may turn back to inside-baseball Washington politics for a second, it’s worth remembering that the Senate is in a strong position to maintain many of its bill’s key elements. Technically, nothing should be introduced into a conference bill except for provisions in the two bills being conferenced, and there’s no real House bill to speak of. Plus, it’s very possible that the outcome of this conference will be no bill at all but another extension until the lame duck period after the election. But if there is a bill at the end of all this, Ryan also wants to know:

2. How do we handle the overwhelming state of good repair issues impacting all transportation infrastructure?

This is one place where the Senate bill shines. Transportation for America has a good write-up of the Senate bill’s State of Good Repair provisions, in which they applaud the new requirement that at least 60 percent of maintenance funds be used for actual maintenance, not new capacity. Allowing states to divert 40 percent of repair funds for new capacity still seems like too much, but they used to be allowed to squander up to 50 percent on non-maintenance projects.

Plus: “States are required to develop asset management plans,” wrote Steve Davis at T4America, “and as a part of these plans establish performance targets for the condition of roads and bridges and the performance of the system. In addition, the program includes provisions to hold states accountable for the repair of Interstate pavement and National Highway System bridges by requiring that they spend a certain amount of funding on the repair of those facilities if they fall below minimum standards established by USDOT.” And roads that fall under the National Highway System will go from about 160,000 to 220,000 miles. These maintenance requirements will help steer states away from building new highways that would only exacerbate sprawl.

The House bill (when there was a House bill) would have required better reporting and allowed for some penalties for deficient bridges but didn’t have the same restrictions on spending.

But Ryan, you asked about all transportation infrastructure, not just roads and bridges. As we referenced above, the Senate bill also includes the Core Capacity Improvement Project, which would expand funding eligibility to include improvements to the capacity and functionality of existing fixed guideway systems. And it directs U.S. DOT to “achieve a balance” between rail system development and improvement of the current system.

3. How does the bill recognize the long (and short) term societal trends towards transportation that does not include the automobile?

It doesn’t. Not really. It maintains the current four-to-one highway-to-transit funding ratio, it weakens programs to fund bicycling and pedestrian safety (even the Cardin-Cochran amendment is only a partial fix), and it doesn’t even contemplate land use. The Senate bill has some helpful provisions for rail (discussed more below) but nothing that will propel forward high-speed rail or even a substantially more robust and reliable non-bullet passenger rail network.

I hope you ask that question of elected officials, Ryan. It gets right to the heart of the problem. A future less dependent on cars (and road-building and oil) is where we’re headed. But even the Senate bill, which transportation reformers support (albeit not without reservations), only makes some thoughtful tweaks on the margins of the current system – it doesn’t substantially reform it.

Next question, Ryan?

4. What is the priority for high speed rail or any other long-term transportation infrastructure investments?

Strangely, the transportation bill isn’t the primary vehicle for rail issues – most of that is covered under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA). There is some movement to fold passenger rail into the transportation bill, but neither the House nor the Senate bills do that.

That’s not to say that these bills don’t address rail, but they’re not the place where a true high-speed rail network will be born. The Senate bill requires U.S. DOT to develop a long-range national rail plan, as well as regional rail plans that address implementation. If states want federal intercity passenger rail grants, they’ll have to follow suit. There are provisions to get next-gen equipment to more states and to make life a little easier for Amtrak (as opposed to the House, which has shown an interest only in killing Amtrak). The Senate, on the other hand, would expand the kinds of grants Amtrak can apply for (currently, Amtrak can only apply directly for high-speed projects), allow Amtrak to match grants with ticket sales, and create a 100 percent federal grant program for Amtrak and the states to improve or preserve long-distance service. It also allows Amtrak to take over responsibility for environmental reviews. The Senate bill also encourages on-time service by penalizing Amtrak’s host railroads when they are to blame for consistently late train service.

The House’s H.R. 7, on the other hand, would have cut Amtrak’s operating subsidies, limit its use of federal funds, and deny federal funds to “low-speed” projects under 125 mph.

So what will the conference bill do? It will probably be a compromise, with Senate language that requires new spending especially vulnerable. Amtrak is a lightning rod in this Congress, though, and there could be big disagreements over any of it.

5. How will the bill address critical operational funding shortfalls (not to mention capital) that transit agencies are facing?

I’ve addressed some of this above, but the biggest help is the Senate’s allowance of flexible spending for operations during periods of high unemployment. As for capital, the changes to New Starts I mentioned are positive, but it all comes back to Ryan’s third question: Don’t expect this bill to radically shift the balance from car travel to anything else.

6. How will the bill address the structural financial problems facing the Highway Trust Fund? 

Along with the answer to #3, this is probably the most pathetic part of this whole pathetic process. The bill doesn’t address the structural funding issues at all. It doesn’t raise revenues or put in place a more sensible or sustainable system. It doesn’t create a National Infrastructure Bank to help leverage private investments. The House tried to tackle the problem by slashing spending, but that plan was soundly rejected by everyone involved. Then they said they could keep spending levels the same but raise revenues through oil drilling, which would be hilarious if it wasn’t so scary.

The complete paralysis around reforming the funding for transportation is exactly why this bill has been such a headache, and it’s why the Senate bill has to end in September of next year – that’s when the Highway Trust Fund is scheduled to go insolvent, and someone in Washington is going to have to show some real conviction of character to actually change something. But no one wants to do that yet. Which brings me to your last question, Ryan:

7. Will there be a push towards alternative user fees to fund transportation infrastructure?

Now you’re just depressing me. No. No, there won’t.

5:41 Adjourned. Thanks for following our live-blog coverage — all 3,276 words of it.

5:40 Boxer: I heard no lines in the sand here today, I heard lots of passion. I’m going to do everything to improve the Senate bill. I’m going to work with you, but it does streamline dramatically. Sen. Inhofe wouldn’t vote for a bill that doesn’t. If necessary, we’ll be back here in 20-some days.

5:39 John Mica: Important that we blend our ideas and maintain our principles.

5:38 That was the last speaker! House just called a vote, Mica giving a one-minute wrap-up, then Boxer will, and then we’re done here.

5:36 Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN), T&I member and ouster of Rep. James Oberstar: Given current budget environment, we need to make better use of taxpayer dollars without adding to the debt. Technology can make “game-changing innovations” to make better transportation infrastructure.

5:35 Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI), sponsor of controversial amendment to “eviscerate” NEPA (in words of many opponents): We can have low-cost construction without eviscerating the environment.

5:34 Sen. Boxer puts into the record the GAO study that all states are actually getting back more than they put into the trust fund.

5:31 Rep. James Lankford (R-OK): Essential to take control out of this room and bring it to people who live with “that bad bridge,” so they can determine how to fix that bad bridge — not people who have never been to that bridge. “We have to honor every gallon of gas that every American purchases” to make sure it goes back to pay for those highways. No earmarks, no tax increases.

5:30 Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL): Americans want transportation bill that adds value. They want certainty.

5:28 Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY): I’m a former contractor, have employed hundreds of people, completed thousands of projects. Lots of people are wondering why they’re not back to work. These projects aren’t expenses, they’re investments in the future that pay for themselves. I’ve watched these extensions go on, knowing that prices have never been lower in this country. We’re past the time for extensions. This two-year bill will soon enough be a one-year bill. I’m tired of that.

5:25 Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN): Government doesn’t have enough money to meet infrastructure needs — we need private sector. Funding formulas need to be fair — Indiana is a “donor state.” [Untrue.]

5:22 Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY): Let’s not miss another construction season. There’s no perfect legislation, MAP-21 is good legislation. MAP-21 will save 1.8 million jobs and create another 1 million jobs [A-ha: hence the varying numbers.]

5:21 Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA): I laud merits of Senate bill but doesn’t neither bill provides long-term solution for how to pay for improvements to aging infrastructure.

5:17 Sen. Chuck Schumer has arrived. Says this bill is just what Americans want: jobs, infrastructure, and bipartisanship (with no fighting.) Hope example of Boxer and Inhofe will be the seam of this conference. Investing in infrastructure is a fundamental responsibility of government. Senate bill gives states tools and resources to provide “large legacy” for mass transit systems. Some of you don’t have a lot of transit in your districts. For us, mass transit is what highways are in other states. New York serves 2.6 billion trips a year on transit. We can’t do it without transit. We need help on mass transit. We will fight very, very hard for it. It’s as important to us as roads are to you.

5:16 Boswell: Let’s don’t have another bridge fall because we couldn’t do our work.

5:14 Rep. Leonard Boswell (R-IA): It’s time to fish or cut bait. Madame Chairman, could you bring an expert to tell us what Keystone really means? We all understand the jobs part. But what happens to finished product, gas at the pump? I don’t want something to happen in your district or mine – we all have a lot of deficient bridges. This country is built on compromise.

5:12 Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT): [Some comic relief:] I’m honored to address a few of my colleagues and so many Senate staffers today.

5:10 Rep Elijah Cummings (D-MD): We should begin by recommit ourselves to reinvesting in the value of our nation. I wish we in the House had been able to pass a bipartisan transportation bill. Senate’s MAP-21 must form basis of our discussion. I will oppose any provision that ask workers to be piggy bank when the rich haven’t been asked to contribute one penny.

5:06 Rep. Bill Schuster (R-PA), chair of Rail Subcommittee: Streamlining provisions are important, it takes average of 14-15 years to complete major construction project [anyone want to fact-check this?]. Unconscionable for me to tell people of my state we have to take this money and spend it on bike paths. It’s money that could save lives on roadways.

5:04 Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL): Nobody in this room, but lots of people in House talk about the Senate, but thank god for the Senate — they put forth a real bill. Chinese putting $350 billion into transit, House is trying to cut funding for transit for first time since Ronald Reagan put it in the Trust Fund. I support Amtrak 100 percent, we need to continue to invest in it.

5:00 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): We’re going to have to abandon some of the “poison pills” like Keystone and extreme streamlining measures that undercut NEPA. Go through normal process for Keystone review. Appears we’re “all on the same page again — at least I hope we are” that transit stays in the trust fund. I hope we get this done and don’t have to pass another extension at the end of June.

4:57 Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) notes that there are three West Virginians on this committee (out of 47 members) [that's pretty remarkable]. Transportation bill, Keystone pipeline means jobs.

4:55 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) arrived! We’re on cusp on giving states the certainty they need to make infrastructure investments. If we don’t pass a bill we risk bankrupting the trust fund. Given high stakes, no one in this room should put politics ahead of efforts to create 2-3 million jobs [fudging on those controversial numbers].

4:53 Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC): This bill feeds so many parts of U.S. economy. I have long list of most and least favorite parts of your bill, Sen. Boxer. But I’m not going to use few minutes I have to detail my druthers. I’m going to try practicing what I’ve been preaching: we simply must get a bill out of this conference committee. This is likely to be the only jobs bill to come out of the 112th Congress. This bill already incorporates a ton of compromises. There are going to have to be more.

4:49 Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), sponsor of GAS Act: We have opportunity to show Senate and House can come together to meet infrastructure needs of our great country. American people would be disappointed if this fell apart because of something like Keystone and coal ash. Only 60 miles of 1,700 mile pipeline have changed. No administration has ever treated coal ash as hazardous material. Both very popular.

4:49 Sens. Schumer, Menendez aren’t here — surprising, since they’re both big players on transportation.

4:46 Rep. John Duncan (R-TN), chair of House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit: This is most important jobs bill Congress deals with. In H.R. 7 we emphasized streamlining project delivery. We’ve talked about this for years but haven’t done much at all. A $500 million project that took 14 years to complete would see costs double because of delays. We must set hard deadlines for federal agencies to approve projects, delegate more authority to states.

4:43 Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL): People are hurting in the Gulf. Allow BP fine money — somewhere between $5-20 billion —  to go to oil spill trust fund and get doled out according to bipartisan formula.

4:41 Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR): Seven states will forgo 60,000 jobs this season because of temporary extensions. Can’t plan. If we successfully conclude this conference quickly, we can reinstate those jobs. Steel, manufacturing, transit jobs — not just construction.

4:40 Hoeven: In my state alone, pipeline would take 500 trucks a day off the road.

4:39 Hoeven: Keystone will reduce gas prices and dependence on foreign oil.

4:37 Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND): Supported House approach, five-year bill and expanded energy production. Hope that will happen in the future, but in the meantime this two-year bill is a good bill. Two important provisions: Keystone pipeline and provision for “recycling” coal ash. Both are integral to bipartisan bill.

4:35 Rep. Don Young (R-AK), former chair of T&I: Fifteen years’ delay in road construction is waste of money. Earmarks would have gotten this bill done. Transportation is something everyone should have an interest in. We’re neglecting our duty if we don’t establish a good transportation bill.

4:34 Johnson: “There is no Democrat or Republican bridge.” [Conference drinking game participants: Take a shot.]

4:31 Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX): Average Dallas commuter spent 45 hours stuck in traffic last year, costing them $924. A third of Texas transportation budget is spent on maintenance. Wants to make sure U.S. DOT has R&D funds they need. Need to invest in research for environmentally sustainable infrastructure.

4:28 Vitter: We can do it with no earmarks. His three priorities: 1) Keystone pipeline, 2) RESTORE Act, 3) keeping funding for maritime infrastructure (RAMP Act).

4:26 Sen. David Vitter (R-LA): During last recess, I bet all of us heard two themes from constituents: 1) big challenge is jobs, 2) please work together more effectively in Washington. Get beyond bitter partisanship. This conference committee is a test.

4:24: Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX): Supports RESTORE Act for Gulf Coast.

4:22 Durbin: This is the second Keystone pipeline. First goes through Illinois. They say if we pass this bill today, gas prices will go down tomorrow. Not true. Coal ash: We’ve got a ferry that drops 500 tons of coal ash in Lake Michigan every year. If you would like those 500 tons of coal ash in your state, please let us know what lake we can send them to.

4:22 Durbin: Groups that don’t even talk to each other — AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce — joined together to mobilize against House bill. “They hate your bill.”

4:20 Sen. Dick Durban (D-IL), Majority Whip: We eliminated Congressionally directed spending (earmarks) – 535 little engines that used to pull this bill across the finish line. We can’t even agree on what should come out of this conference committee. We have a bill. You have an extension of current law with a bunch of extra riders.

4:19 Boxer time-check: We have an hour and a half left if everybody sticks to the time. We’re doing well. (And have some coffee.) Down to three minutes per senator now that we’ve heard from the chairpeople.

4:17 Markey: House provision provides “sweeping environmental waivers on ALL transportation projects.” Arbitrary time limits and exemptions will make statute meaningless. NEPA process is not a barrier, it’s a shield protecting families from big government building roads without considering those living in the area.

4:14 Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Ranking Dem on Natural Resources Committee: Previous conferences succeeded by balancing transportation needs and quality of life considerations. Unfortunately, House provisions make achieving such balance more difficult. TransCanada re-applied last week for pipeline permit. State Department is committed to a thorough review of the permit. House provision would eliminate that review and all public input. Natural gas in pipeline would be exported out of U.S. anyway.

4:09 Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Commerce Committee Ranking Member: We’ve come to complete consensus on our committee on our part of this bill. Includes provisions for interstate motorcoach safety standards.

4:09 Hastings: Congress hasn’t done enough to expand drilling.

4:05 Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), chair of Natural Resources Committee: Reduce costly, overlapping environmental paperwork. It’s cheaper to build road if federal government stops requiring more miles of paperwork than asphalt. RESTORE Act would help Gulf states, create broad new spending programs. I’m sympathetic to impact of spill, but shouldn’t require ballooning federal bureaucracy with new permanent federal programs. Senate put in $1.4 billion in automatic spending for Land and Water Conservation Fund.

4:04 Rockefeller: Don’t mind going into conference without anything from the House, we’ll get to a better place.

4:02 Rockefeller: In amount of time it takes to text, if you’re driving on windy WV roads, you’ve gone “over a cliff or into a tree.” People die from that stuff.

4:00 Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Commerce Committee chair: We talk about safety as if it would happen naturally. You have to talk about it in legislation or else it won’t happen. Drunk driving, seat belt use. Did he just say “children are larger”?

3:59 Waxman: Hope GOP won’t hold nation’s transportation system hostage over these issues.

3:58 Waxman: Tennessee coal ash spill created $1.2 billion superfund cleanup site. Should not use “half-truths and scare tactics.” Also, “terrible” Ribble Act “eviscerating” NEPAmust be rejected.

3:55 Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), ranking Dem on Energy and Commerce: Senate transpo bill includes safety measures that will reduce risk of sudden acceleration, etc. Improves transparency. Requires child safety seat updates, motorcoach standards. House bill includes “extraneous and anti-environmental provisions” including “a legislative earmark” for Keystone pipeline. President has made clear he will not sign this. Coal ash provision also extraneous. Let EPA continue process of figuring out how to regulate coal ash.

3:53 Shelby supports RESTORE Act, included by House amendment, to help assist Gulf Coast states that were impacted by Deepwater Horizon oil spill. [This is popular legislation, a sweetener for Democrats among House amendments.]

3:50 Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), ranking Republican on Banking Committee [jurisdiction over transit]: We eliminated all earmarks that were in reauthorization bill, allowing us to increase guaranteed formula funding for transit. We must institute system of greater accountability, real investment in maintaining aging public transportation infrastructure. State of good repair important, Senate bill puts it front and center.

3:50 Sen. Boxer calling on members in order of seniority.

3:48 Upton: Keystone pipeline belongs in final agreement. After all, it’s the “ultimate jobs and infrastructure project” and this is a jobs and infrastructure bill.

3:45 Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), Energy and Commerce Committee Chair: This bill will get economy moving. Vehicle safety: make sure NHTSA has a clear focus, no diversion from existing priorities. Supports House measure ensuring that harbor maintenance money go toward dredging — important for Great Lakes. Also, expedited approval for Keystone pipeline is important, so is coal ash deregulation. These make “perfect sense” in transportation bill. Coal ash is related to concrete, reclassification as hazardous waste would make road-building more expensive.

3:44 Johnson: I hope this conference doesn’t get bogged down with controversial issues that don’t relate to transportation.

3:42 Sen. Tim Johnson, Banking Committee Chair [has jurisdiction over transit]: Americans make 35 million trips on public transportation every weekday. MAP-21 will help transit agencies make backlogged repairs, reforms safety oversight.

3:41 Blumenauer: Support transit parity for commuters.

3:40 Blumenauer: Keep fix-it-first measure. Keep Buy America provisions, keep American spending in America.

3:39 Blumenauer: Preserve Cardin-Cochran amendment to keep local control over ever-popular enhancement programs, biking and walking, safety. Also, keep imperfect Senate NEPA provisions. Protect public’s ability to participate. House language would allow projects to go forward without any coordination with locals.

3:37 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), bike champion, Ways and Means member: Every $1 billion spent on transportation –> 35,000 jobs. Let’s not get bogged down in “unrelated and divisive political projects” like Keystone. Senate bill is already a bipartisan compromise and we thank you for the work you’ve done. House bill was never even voted on.

3:36 Hatch notes support for Keystone XL pipeline, creates jobs, brings energy from a “friendly country.”

3:33 Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Finance Committee Ranking Member: Short-term extension reduces ability to think long-term. Concerned Senate finance title is not “sustainable and predictable” path. “Searching between the couch cushions for loose change.” Says HTF should maintain “user-pays” principle. Users shouldn’t have to pay for “other fashionable programs that they do not use.”

3:31 Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), House Ways and Means Committee Chair: Highway programs must be sustainable. 1) Must take fiscally responsible route to infrastructure improvements, 2) More, not fewer, opportunities for job creation. First mention of Keystone pipeline so far: “If administration refuses to act, then Congress must.”

3:30 Baucus says his plan reduces the deficit by $10 billion over 10 years. Replenishes general fund for any amount transfered into highway trust fund. “This shorter bill is what we could afford.” Significant reforms like program consolidation, safety funding, national freight network, performance measures are included.

3:28 Sen. Baucus’ turn. Montanans sent him back with one clear priority: “jobs.” Double digit unemployment in western Montana. [Note: Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee and the EPW's subcommittee on transportation. The $12 billion pay-for has his stamp on it. He's supposedly good friends with Republican Rep. Dave Camp, also on the conference, and they're expected to hammer out the pay-for together.]

3:27 Rahall quippy soundbite: We cannot let our hard heads get in the way of the hard hats.

3:26 Rahall notes there are only 22 legislative days before June 30 deadline. Construction season has already started. Time for hiring is almost up. Give them certainty, not 90 days at a time. Let them know they can hire workers.

3:25 Rahall: 2 million construction and manufacturing workers are waiting for jobs. [Lots of different jobs numbers floating around here.]

3:24 Rahall, top Democrat on T&I: Confident we will “not botch this opportunity.” Congratulates the eight freshmen on the committee — says it’s an honor. [Note: lots of people are worried that these freshmen are very ideological deficit hawks, won't compromise on spending.]

3:23 Inhofe said he was the only Republican who came to Norm Mineta’s fundraisers when he was in the House because they agreed on infrastructure.

3:21 Inhofe: Tell conservative House members that the conservative position is to pass this thing. The most meaningful reform to conservatives is on enhancements. Two percent of total funding falls into “highway beautification, museums.” [Note: most of it actually goes to active transportation.] “That’s not a good program.”

3:20 Inhofe’s turn: People said there’s no way you’re going to get a bill in an election year. We fooled ‘em — we did it.

3:19 Mica says “do more with less.” I think we should all take a shot every time someone says that.

3:18 Mica: We’re not going to raise taxes. Anyone who wants to raise taxes, you’re on the wrong conference committee. We’re not going to have earmarks. We’re not going to add red tape. “Shovel-ready” is a national joke. People say if the federal government gets involved, the project takes 2-3 times as long, costs 3-4 times as much. That’s not the way to go.

3:17 Mica: Focus on what’s in the transportation bill. Has to include serious reforms. “Can’t just throw money at problems — they tried that in the stimulus bill.” Only seven percent of stimulus was infrastructure.

3:16 Mica regrets that the administration opted to “cut Oberstar’s legs out from underneath him” when he tried to pass a six-year bill.

3:14 Boxer turns it over to Mica. Mica recalls starting listening sessions in Beckley, WV and hearing from stakeholders.

3:13 Boxer: we can do it because MAP-21 got 74 votes. Expanded TIFIA program leverages money 30 to 1. It’s a real reform bill, consolidates 90 highway programs to 30.

3:11 Boxer shows picture of Super Bowl stadium, says we have twelve times that many unemployed construction workers.

3:11 Boxer: uncertainty causes construction businesses to rent, not buy, equipment, placing further drag on economy.

3:10 Boxer directs her remarks to Sen. Chuck Schumer. Says we have opportunity to create or save 3 million jobs (the number usually quoted is 1.8 million).

3:08 Boxer nominated Mica as vice-chair. Lays out work of the committee, that it has to work without delay to get conference report passed in time.

3:06 Inhofe seconds Boxer’s nomination. Says that he’s one of the most conservative members of the Senate but is a “big spender” when it comes to national security and infrastructure.

3:06 House and Senate take turns chairing the conference. Last one chaired by Rep. Don Young. It’s the Senate’s turn. Mica is speaking now, nominating Barbara Boxer.

3:04 Hasn’t started yet. You can watch it online at http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/ or get the Cliff’s notes here.

2:48: Things will be getting underway shortly.

It’s unusual for conferences to meet in public, and leaders have indicated that this won’t be the only meeting they have in front of television cameras. Still, the sausage-making always happens behind closed doors. Here’s what we’ll be looking for as things get underway today:

Could the transportation bill be Rep. John Mica's downfall? Photo: Roll Call

Will anything come of it? “The first day will tell you exactly nothing,” Scott Slesinger, NRDC’s director of legislative affairs, told reporters last week. “You’ll walk out of there convinced that there’s no way they’re going to do a bill.”

In fact, the conventional wisdom right now is that this whole process will end in yet another extension, probably until the lame-duck session after the November election. But this conference committee could lay the groundwork for that bill. Both parties want to get a bill done, but Republican leaders are worried that their base will revolt at the sight of them negotiating with Democrats. So, in public they’ll be all hard-line rhetoric and uncompromising conservatism, and when the cameras are off they’ll horse-trade.

How strong is the Senate’s hand? The House has pretty limited leverage in this process because they didn’t pass a real transportation bill. The Senate is bringing to conference a bill that got a remarkable vote of confidence from senators across the political spectrum, and “the House sent over a beach ball,” according to NRDC’s David Goldston.

“The House can’t figure out how to get even its own members together so they send these partial things over to the Senate to cause trouble,” said Goldston, “while the Senate has a bill that’s been passed by about three-quarters of the members of the Senate and was written by [Senators Barbara] Boxer and [James] Inhofe. The fact that Boxer and Inhofe were able to write a bill together is one of the least-appreciated stories of this Congress. So, peace breaks out but people say, ‘We’d rather continue to have war.’ That’s unfortunate.”

How significant are the “tweaks” the House is trying to make to the Senate bill? The amendments the House has put forward don’t have much to do with transportation but they sure could hold up this bill. Amendments to eviscerate the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and de-regulate coal ash are controversial, but nothing will stir up as much trouble as the provision to force approval of the Keystone pipeline. The president has already vowed to veto any bill with such a provision, so the House knows that its insistence on this is just another way to kill the transportation reauthorization.

Meanwhile, the differences between the unpassed House proposal and the Senate bill are stark. The Senate breaks the commitment to dedicated bike/ped funding but hands more power over air quality funds to localities (rather than states), meaning more of that money will probably go to bike/ped. The Senate includes more performance measures, including for state of good repair. The House sticks to old formulas. The Senate does enough damage to NEPA by doling out penalties for missed environmental review deadlines, but that’s nothing compared to the House’s position that a missed deadline triggers an automatic approval. The Senate, admittedly, funds its bill with some deficit spending, while the House proceeds with the fiction that its proposal can be paid for with oil drilling.

Technically, none of this is up for consideration in the conference, since it’s not included in the bill the House passed and sent to conference. But House Transportation Chair John Mica has told Politico he’ll push to include as much policy from the original five-year House bill as he can. “You can do anything in conference,” he said.

If this goes to the lame duck, is it even worth it to pass the Senate bill? People refer to the Senate’s legislation as a “two-year” bill because it would have been, if it had been passed last September. But the end date is fixed at September 2013, and isn’t being pushed back along with the start date. So, if it’s passed in December, it’ll only be a 10-month bill.

Still, advocates say the Senate bill includes some worthwhile policy changes that would be an important basis for the next round. Plus, success breeds success in Washington. Proving that you can pass a bill — even a short bill — improves your odds of passing the next one.

Even if you see a 10-month bill as nothing but a glorified extension, at least it’s a 10-month extension — longer than any that we’ve gotten in the (almost) three years since the last bill expired.

Will Senate Republicans stand by their bill? So far, they’ve been pretty quiet. Inhofe and top Banking Committee Republican Richard Shelby both say the Senate has passed a good bill and they plan to defend it. Still, they both support the Keystone pipeline, so it’s unclear how this will shake out.

Given the amount of difficult compromise that happened to get a consensus bill passed in the Senate, it seems everyone there is serious about passing this legislation, meaning they might not go along with the House’s provisions, even if they agree with them, because they know it could sink the whole enterprise. Last summer, when Senate Republicans kept trying to kill bike/ped, Inhofe consistently voted against their attempts because he was committed to using a correct process.

Will House Republicans finally unite behind the conference report? Once all is said and done, if the conference committee does manage to agree on a bill through September 2013, would the House agree to it? After all, conference isn’t the final stage — each chamber still needs to approve the work of the conference committee.

Politico notes that Senate Democrats named some heavyweights to the conference committee while House leadership is taking a backseat. Still, some members speculate that GOP leaders will need to get involved at some point to whip enough support for the bill.

Will Mica and Boehner survive this? While reports of Mica’s demise turned out to be “greatly exaggerated,” experts say the failure to pass a substantive bill will almost certainly cost him his committee chairmanship — if he’s even re-elected to Congress. And Mica might not be the only casualty of the transportation bill debacle. House Speaker John Boehner’s lieutenant, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, is rumored to be planning a coup d’etat. While the two have tried to make nice in public of late, the tension between the two of them has led to a less united party than usual. Cantor could use Boehner’s failures to get the transportation bill through his own party as a reason to topple him.

Here is the list of House conferees, with some information concerning committee and subcommittee leadership positions:

One environmental advocate was encouraged by the list of Democratic conferees, which includes noted transit defenders Nadler and Holmes Norton, as well as bicycle heroes DeFazio and Blumenauer.

House Republicans, meanwhile, will continue in their attempt to force an expedited approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline and weaken the environmental review process for highway construction.

Some more fun facts about the conferees:

• Steve Southerland is a co-author of the RESTORE Act, which as we mentioned yesterday will be a big chit in the negotiations next month.
• Ralph Hall has the distinction of being the only Democrat who voted against the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 still to be serving in the House (he changed party affiliations in 2004). That law raised the gas tax and for the first time directed a share of revenues to fund transit.
• Conferee Reid Ribble authored the amendment to the House’s shell bill containing “streamlining” measures recycled from H.R. 7 that would gut the environmental review process for many road projects. (While 18 Democrats voted for Ribble’s amendment, not one is a conferee.)
• Absent from the list of Republican conferees is Steve LaTourette, the Ohio moderate (by current standards) who attracted some attention by taking a stand against H.R. 7′s attack on transit funding.
• Shelley Moore Capito supports devolving to states the power to regulate coal ash, while her fellow West Virginian Nick Rahall proposed the first set of federal standards on coal ash ponds three years ago.

The full panel’s first meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 8 in the Hart Senate Office Building. Members will have an opportunity to make opening statements at this meeting. Individual members are sure to conduct meetings with their staffs in the meantime, in order to familiarize themselves with the other chamber’s bill (the Senate bill weighs in at over 1600 pages).

In a surprising shift, House Republicans declined an opportunity to try to axe bike/ped funding. Photo by Steven Faust

There are also amendments to deregulate coal ash and protect the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund from poaching to fund surface transportation. Probably the amendment that has reform-minded folks most riled up (aside from the Keystone provision) is the one to tack on H.R. 7’s “streamlining” provisions, which nine environmental groups have said “would eviscerate our nation’s bedrock environmental laws [NEPA] and stifle public participation in the environmental review process.” All Democratic amendments — and one Republican amendment to “devolve transportation authority back to the states” – were rejected.

Notably, no one even proposed language to strip out Transportation Enhancements or the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). TE, especially, with its “set-aside” funding for things like bike/ped safety, has been the target of a special brand of Republican loathing. The Senate bill makes changes to the programs that bike/ped advocates have fought hard against, but it doesn’t just eliminate TE, as H.R. 7 would have.

Senate conferees will try to strike down these amendments and force passage of S. 1813 without these add-ons. But the House has had its opportunity to pass the Senate bill without amendments and rejected it. So, the stage is set for more of the bitter gridlock we’ve come to expect. A recent (non-scientific) poll by our friends at Politico’s Morning Transportation found 46 percent believing that Congress will approve a transportation bill before the current extension expires June 30, with almost the same number – 42 percent – believing it’ll be nothing but extensions till 2013.

And remember, even if they do manage to pass a bill by June 30, it’ll only be a 15-month bill. We will have had 33 months of extensions by then.

In related news: the Senate Transportation and HUD Appropriations Committee passed a 2013 budget last week [PDF], allocating $53.4 billion, down from $57.3 billion this year. Don’t be alarmed, though: as David Burwell at the Carnegie Endowment points out, it “includes a $5.4 billion increase over 2012 in unscored, offsetting receipts from HUD housing programs which, when added to the $53.4 billion comes to $58.8 billion.” The Senate budget includes $50 million to the Partnership for Sustainable Communities Regional Planning and Challenge Grant programs, which many fear the Republicans want to dismantle altogether, and $100 million for non-high-speed inter-city rail improvements, mostly for track upgrading. The rail appropriation is still a pittance compared to the Obama administration’s big dreams of bringing high-speed rail to 80 percent of the country, but it’s better than the big fat zero being proposed by the House.

The Senate also continues the TIGER grant program at half a billion dollars – same as 2012. Highway and transit get the same dose they did this year too.

The budget goes to the full Appropriations Committee next, but a vote doesn’t seem to be scheduled yet. Just as well – Majority Leader Harry Reid has made it clear that he doesn’t plan to pass a 2013 budget before the election.

The bill, whose name (The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II) reads like the most boring action movie sequel of all time, passed by a vote of 293 to 127. Unlike the extension passed in March, which was a “clean” extension, this one is “dirty,” muddled by non-transportation-related language requiring, among other things, speedy approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

If signed into law, Part II would actually be the tenth extension of SAFETEA-LU since it first expired in 2009. But folding the pipeline back into the mix could make a needlessly drawn-out exercise in futility last even longer. President Obama had threatened to veto the House’s original transportation bill, H.R. 7, over its inclusion of the Keystone pipeline, and he has renewed the threat for the current piece of legislation.

This new extension is simply an excuse to start the conference process with the Senate, and all the bells and whistles attached to it are just bargaining chips for the conference table. The bill carries two popular programs — harbor maintenance and the RESTORE Act — and a few unpopular ones — Keystone XL, coal ash, and environmental streamlining  – into the conference room, while the Senate brings program consolidation and a longer timetable.

“The need for a transportation bill has been hijacked for political purposes,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) from the House floor.

The conditions under which the extension was written and amended were just as contentious as the policy changes it contains. Only three amendments (out of nine) were allowed a vote by yesterday’s Rules Committee hearing, all submitted by Republican congressmen, and all three were approved by the full House today.

A few of those amendments have significant environmental implications. Rep. Reed Ribble’s (R-WI) amendment, which carries over measures from HR 7 gutting environmental review rules, drew the ire of environmental groups and many House Democrats. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) pointed out that some language in Ribble’s amendment could be construed as allowing all highway projects to bypass federal environmental review altogether. Ribble’s amendment passed with only 18 Democratic votes; one solitary Republican, Justin Amash, voted against it. (Two other amendments, requiring ports to spend more money on dredging and preventing the federal government from regulating toxic coal ash, passed without a recorded vote.)

Democrats on the House floor were clearly torn whether to support the bill. On one hand, finally appointing conferees would represent the first real sign of progress in a long time for this stop-and-go reauthorization fight. On the other hand, going to conference will almost certainly mean swallowing a poison pill planted by House leadership. In his remarks from the floor, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that his desire to go to conference is outweighed by the riders weighing down the House bill, and that he would be voting “no.”

President Obama, too, could be placed in an uncomfortable position if he is handed something that looks exactly like the Senate bill — which he supports — with the Keystone pipeline attached.

The Senate bill would expire at the end of September 2013, so House Democrats will want to go to conference as quickly as possible. (We wrote a little while ago about how every extension hurts the Senate bill.) “We’re ready to go to conference later today,” offered top transportation Democrat Nick Rahall.

The ball, for the first time since MAP-21 passed on March 14, is in the Senate’s court.

Photo: Familypedia

In another desperate attempt to push forward their fossil fuel agenda, House Republicans have indicated that even though they’ve been incapable of passing a transportation bill, they’re willing to go to conference committee and pass the Senate bill. All the Senate Democrats have to do in return is approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Our sources had predicted the House GOP would pull something like this. This is the “shell” bill that the House was expected to present as a sort of placeholder to conference with the Senate bill, just to get something moving.

The House doesn’t have a prayer of passing a real bill to conference with the Senate bill, so they’re bringing an extension. That’s right — they’re bringing a 90-day extension to the Senate and saying, now we have to reconcile the differences between these bills. One of those bills is real legislation that includes real policy changes, and one is just a shell. But Republicans still hope they can negotiate changes in conference, even though they don’t have a bill showing the will of the House.

The Transportation Committee is drafting the extension/pipeline bill now. Sources say it will come to the floor the week of April 23.

It’s a mix of the best case scenario — getting to conference, one way or another, with the Senate bill — and the worst case scenario – holding the transportation program as ransom to get the pipeline rammed through. It’s the sort of nasty politics this Congress is known for.

Clearly, the House GOP leadership now wishes this whole transportation thing would just go away. They have egg on their faces from repeated failures to get even their own caucus on board with their drilling-and-driving plan, and they still have no idea about how to deal with it.

The House hasn’t been able to pass anything dealing with infrastructure, but they have passed three — count ‘em, three — bills to expand oil drilling. If there’s one thing Republicans can come together on, it’s oil drilling. Those bills don’t actually say anything about transportation (even though they were supposedly the foundation of the GOP transportation agenda).

It’s somewhat surprising that the House wouldn’t conference those bills with the Senate bill, instead of an extension. From what I hear, there’s no rule stopping them; it’s just that the Senate likely wouldn’t tolerate it. Experts say the House wouldn’t want to go to conference with no position on the transportation policies laid out in the Senate bill — but that’s exactly what they’re doing now.

One way or another, the next move on transportation will be close to no move at all. It will be some form of extending current law, perhaps with a few adjustments, until after the election. With any luck Congress will figure out a way to deal with the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund, which will hit before the election, but it’s anyone’s guess whether or how they’ll do that.

Even though they just solemnly swore to attend to the transportation reauthorization in the next 90 days (and no more extensions!), the House is about to pretend to be way too busy with the budget to pass a real bill. It’s all for show, because really, if they had a game plan for transportation, they’d act on it. But there’s still too much infighting within the Republican Party to present a united front.

If the two houses do go to conference, it will still be a mess. With no House bill to work with, the two sides will have to negotiate everything from scratch. House Republicans won’t accept the bipartisan Senate bill without some face-saving policy changes. And even the Senate bill at this point is practically just an extension: If it becomes law June 30, it will only be in effect 15 months before a new law is necessary.

June 30 is the deadline, when the ninth extension expires. And with the two Houses wrangling in conference, it could easily go down to the wire again with both sides of the aisle accusing each other of jeopardizing 1.8 million jobs and strangling the transportation industry. It will seem as if there is no way to avoid such an outcome in the face of such monumental intransigence and political cat-fighting, but somehow they always figure out something.

And then there’s the budget Congress is so busy not passing. Sometimes Congress passes one, sometimes they don’t. The conventional wisdom is that this is going to be one of those years where they don’t. The Senate Budget Committee will pass one, against the wishes of Majority Leader Harry Reid, who won’t bring it up on the floor. They’ll just ignore House Budget Chair Paul Ryan’s budget, which would have cut transportation by 36 percent and would have almost certainly left nothing for high-speed rail, livability initiatives, or other reform priorities. Pretty much the only purpose the Ryan budget now serves is as an election-year talking point for Democrats to say what heartless monsters the deficit hawks on the other side of the aisle are.

In my conversations about the budget, speculation arose that the Supreme Court decision on the health care law could have some impact, as deficit projections would change if the law is struck down. It’s hard to say what that would mean for transportation, and it probably wouldn’t have much impact at all in 2013. But it’s a good reminder that in Washington, all things are connected.

Even if Congress never passes a real 2013 budget, they still need to decide on appropriations, which is essentially the same thing. The House will work on that for the next few months. The Senate probably won’t work very hard on it. No one expects spending to be decided until after Election Day.

See you next week.

The shift in driving habits has exposed the inadequacy of the federal gas tax to fund national transportation programs, and the need to shift away from road building. Graph adapted from the FHWA

It’s a new era for federal transportation policy, say the top New York City Department of Transportation officials tracking action on Capitol Hill. We just don’t know what kind of era it’s going to be.

“If this was 1996 or 1985 it would be pretty clear where we would go with federal transportation policy, with a few tweaks,” said DOT Director of Policy Jon Orcutt during a presentation at NYU’s Wagner School last night. “That’s not true today.”

Two changes are forcing a shift in transportation politics and policy at the federal level. The amount Americans drive has started to stall out. And earmarks have been transformed from political windfalls for powerful Congressmen to untouchable liabilities.

Linda Bailey, the federal programs advisor for NYC DOT, said that working for New York City has given her a new appreciation for the policy drawbacks of transportation earmarks for the localities receiving them. “You typically get $1 million for a $10 million project,” she said. “Somehow now you’re supposed to come up with $9 million to fund the rest of the project.” The city still has earmarked money from the last transportation bill, passed in 2005, sitting on the table, Bailey said.

But at the same time, the lack of a new transportation bill — Congress recently passed its ninth extension of that 2005 law, which expired in 2009 — is in part due to Congress members’ newfound opposition to directing federal dollars back to their districts.

“It’s thrown the whole formula out of the window, in terms of what you do politically,” said Orcutt. In particular, the end of earmarks has forced federal transportation policy to become more sharply ideological, whereas horse trading could paper over divides in the past. This year, for example, suburban Republicans helped kill the House of Representatives’ radical transportation bill, which would have eliminated dedicated funding for transit entirely. With earmarks, argued Orcutt, those same representatives might have been able to bring big projects to their districts even while cutting transit in the rest of their regions, and safely voted yes on the overall bill.

One in ten dollars in the last transportation bill was earmarked for specific projects, said Bailey. No earmarks at all were included in either the House or Senate proposals from this year.

Even as the elimination of earmarks complicates the path to passing a transportation bill, changes to the way Americans get around are challenging the very structure of federal transportation policy. Though federal transportation spending remains heavily focused on building highways, the growth in driving slowed considerably over the last decade, and actually declined in 2008 and 2009.

Adjusted for population growth, the trend is even more striking. According to a report from U.S.PIRG released today, the average American drove six percent less in 2011 than in 2004.

“Transportation is changing in this country,” said Orcutt. “Driving is leveling off. The federal program is really obsolete, in a way.”

The shift away from driving threatens the financial footing of the transportation system. The gas tax hasn’t been raised since 1993, but for many of those years, the continued rise in mileage masked the erosion of the gas tax by inflation. Without that growth, the plummeting value of the gas tax — in constant dollars, the gas tax has fallen from 18.4 cents a gallon to only 11 cents – can’t fund what it used to.

That, the DOT officials argued, is why no one in Washington seems able to pass a significant new transportation bill. The House Republicans, led by Transportation Committee Chair John Mica, tried to cope with declining revenues by ending the funding of transit out of gas tax receipts, as well as trimming road spending by a smaller amount. That plan has gone nowhere in the House; Bailey said she’d heard that the Republicans only managed to find 180 out of the 218 votes they needed for Mica’s bill.

The Senate’s bipartisan transportation bill, which passed 74-22, cobbled together enough unrelated revenues to keep funding levels exactly where they were under the previous law. Those funds were only enough to last 18 months; a more fundamental rewrite of the law would be necessary almost immediately.

Though the Senate bill consolidates a number of federal programs, the DOT officials said the only truly significant change in it is the expansion of TIFIA, a federal loan program. TIFIA loans have been used to great effect in cities like Los Angeles, which are looking to stretch local revenues further, said Orcutt, but financing isn’t a replacement for funding. “At some point, you have to decide to spend more,” said Bailey. Similarly, Orcutt argued that public-private partnerships, sometimes touted as a new paradigm for transportation funding, “don’t really do anything if there’s not real money attached.”

Unfortunately, the political will to raise the gas tax is scarce. Bailey said she doesn’t see the current House Republicans approving an increase in the near future. The Obama administration, added Orcutt, hasn’t been any more receptive to increasing the gas tax, arguing in bad times that it would harm the economy and during the recovery that oil prices are rising too quickly.

In fact, both the Senate and House bills would mark the end of the transportation funding paradigm that has prevailed ever since the interstate system was created. Neither relied exclusively on the gas tax, meaning both abandoned the traditional “user-pays” philosophy that has guided federal transportation spending. It’s clear that the current era of federal transportation policy is coming to a close, but the next era can’t emerge until Washington is willing to find the money for the level of spending it demands.

General Contractors Association Managing Director Denise Richardson. Photo: GCA

Transportation infrastructure is big business. With tens of billions of dollars at stake, nobody tracks the financial health of the nation’s transit and road systems more closely than the construction industry. And right now, the future of transportation funding nationwide is hazy indeed.

To get some perspective on the state of transportation funding, we sat down with Denise Richardson, the managing director of the General Contractors Association. Representing the New York region’s heavy construction contractors, Richardson is a major voice for transportation investments. With experience in city and state government, she’s a leading authority on the ins and outs of infrastructure. Below is an edited transcript of our conversation. [Click here for a fuller version of the interview, with a greater focus on New York.]

“All this short-term thinking plays into what ultimately becomes a series of bad planning decisions, because everything is left until it’s a crisis.”

When asked if she was worried that some version of the House GOP transportation proposal “coming back to life,” Richardson said:

DR: I think that the House never expected the amount of pushback nationwide, and from cities that you would not think of as being heavily transit dependent.

NK: It was something to watch.

DR: It was. I enjoyed it for a couple of reasons. First of all, I enjoyed it because the GCA was among the first to jump on the issue and talk to congressmen around the country. A lot of our members are national and international firms.

And you saw other places around the country that have primarily bus networks look at this and say, “Wait a minute, if we want to build a new depot and we want to apply for federal funding, we’re not going to get it.” So you saw this real grassroots movement.

From a democracy perspective, the House leadership, wrapping themselves in their Tea Party flag, said, “This is not what we want the federal government to stand for.” To see another group of people from all around the country say, “Well wait a minute, yes we do,” was a really effective use of government, because you had two very different views of what government is. And in the end, the House was forced to withdraw their proposal.

The fact that they have not been able to put forward a new version of a transportation bill is a tremendous disservice to everybody. I don’t know if by the time November comes that’s going to be a big election issue. But I would certainly think that people around the country would sit back and say, “This House that we elected two years ago, because we wanted a different philosophy of government, what have they really accomplished?” And I think it will be interesting to see that assessment.

NK: Can you explain, in concrete terms, why the short-term extensions pose a challenge to getting projects going efficiently?

DR: On a series of short-term extensions, you’re always making short-term business decisions. Because we don’t know where we’re going to stand over the next three to five years in terms of a portfolio of work, we’re not going to make the decisions to invest in new equipment, buy a new building, to expand our space, hire 30 or 40 more people in anticipation of work coming down the road. We don’t know what’s going to be there. Short-term decisions aren’t good for the economy.

For an agency, look at DOT’s decision to stop the environmental review process for the cantilever section of the BQE. It’s an important project, but in the scheme of all the priorities, it wasn’t at the top of the list. So they had to make the very difficult decision to stop the work and basically say, “Let’s wait until the project becomes more critical.” Which is not the way you make infrastructure decisions. All this short-term thinking plays into what ultimately becomes a series of bad planning decisions, because everything is left until it’s a crisis.

After a long night’s wrangling over the budget, the House convened early (for them) at 9 this morning to tackle a 90-day 60-day 90-day extension of the transportation bill. Despite some fierce opposition from House Democrats who wanted to vote on the bipartisan Senate bill instead of another extension, the measure passed. We’re brought you the fireworks as they happened. See below for the gory details.

11:54 Final vote is 266-158.

11:48 90-day extension passed. They’re still voting, but they got their 218 votes. They have 245 yeas now, actually, including 26 Democrats. Now it goes to the Senate.

11:46: Time’s up but they’re still voting. Vote count so far: 205 yeas, 123 nays.

11:31: Reminder: this vote only requires a simple majority, not a 2/3 majority as the previous vote would have needed. That vote was canceled because they couldn’t get it. There’s a vote on a 60-day extension still scheduled for today in case this doesn’t pass.

11:27: Speaker John Boehner is talking to reporters now. Called the Senate bill’s pay-fors a “gimmick that will run down the Highway Trust Fund.” Says the pay-fors “don’t pass the straight-face test.”

11:26: Third reading of the bill, voice vote done. “In the opinion of the chair, the no’s have it.” Moving to a 15-minute recorded vote.

11:22 Mica says they need to call the House physician to the floor of the house because there’s a “mass case of loss of memory on the other side.” Reminds them that President Obama “cut the knees right out from under the Democrats” when Oberstar tried to pass a long-term bill. “The other side would have been the majority and I would be the ranking member if they had done what they should have done.”

11:18: Rahall makes fun of Mica for holding his 23 minutes, says his position doesn’t seem very popular, not many Republicans are coming to speak for this extension. Says he’ll take some of the time if Mica will yield to him. Mica yields him 30 seconds. Rahall: “Thirty seconds, that’s about all we’re getting from this extension too.”

11:16: Pelosi says the Republican budget would cut transportation by almost half “and, by the way, give a tax break to the wealthiest people.”

11:15: Pelosi: The Republicans’ own transportation bill is not a good bill but it would at least take us to conference. But they have a bill that even they can’t support.

11:12: Nancy Pelosi (Minority Leader, D-CA): Senate bill is bipartisan, it creates jobs, and it should have our support… The American people have a right to know why the Republicans in the Senate, the Democrats in the Senate, the president of the United States all support this bill while the House Republicans are the odd man out. Like the payroll tax cuts in December. This initiative is kick-the-can-down-the-road, “my way or no highway” bill.

11:11 Gerry Connolly (D-VA): Transportation vote today is nothing more than a 3-month band-aid… America needs a real transportation plan. Luckily there is such a plan. The Senate passed it.

11:08: DeFazio says the 90-day extension would mean the states go to 40 or 50 percent reduction in their projects this summer, according to 80-percent-Republican contractors’ association. “They’re not on our side.”

11:07: The Republicans have more than 20 minutes left to speak but Mica keeps holding, wanting to close the session. The Democrats have about seven minutes left and are burning through them. DeFazio is speaking again.

11:04: Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC): The American people will hope we’re not on the road to the 30-plus FAA extensions. We don’t have to do it this time. The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill… Which is the party which does not believe in compromise?… We should be speeding the recovery instead of clinging to a bill that would kill half a million jobs.

11:02: Bishop: They’ll vote for a Republican budget that slashes investment in transportation infrastructure by 46 percent. They talk about certainty? How can we believe they’ll give us certainty when they say give us 90 more days and we’ll craft a five-year bill, and meanwhile we’re going to vote to cut transportation by 46 percent… They’re asking for 90 more days but they’re going on recess the first two weeks of those 90 days, while construction workers wonder where their next paycheck is coming from.

11:01: Shuster says he disagrees with Rahall’s job numbers, says yes we’ll spend less but we have to live within our means and it’ll create more jobs. Rahall says, “Well bring it up then! Bring up HR7!”

10:57: Russ Carnahan (D-MO) calls on colleagues to reject the extension.

10:57: Rahall reads off to Shuster how many Pennsylvania jobs would be destroyed by HR7.

10:55: Bill Shuster (R-PA): A two-year bill won’t create certainty. Or rather, it will create certainty that it will bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund.

10:53: Chair gavels repeatedly, Miller won’t stop talking. Miller says, “you should stop gaveling, this is a critical issue for American families.” They yell over each other for a while. Shuster: “I wish the gentleman from California had shown that kind of passion two years ago and said the stimulus bill should have been an infrastructure bill.”

10:51: George Miller (D-CA) makes a push for the Senate bill to create and maintain jobs. Says losing jobs would be a victory for Republicans in the House, a disaster for working families. Calls it “political cannon fodder to defeat the Obama administration.”

10:50: Mica and DeFazio are arguing over who’s “playing politics” and who’s holding up the bill.

10:48: Mica: I don’t think it’s appropriate that members of my conference be referred to as “bozos.” [DeFazio referred to Republicans who don't believe in federal transportation investment as bozos.]

10:46: DeFazio: The Secretary called the House bill the worst transportation bill in history — and by the way, the Secretary is a Republican… We have the opportunity to take up a two-year bill and provide certainty and create construction jobs… And they’re so dyspeptic on their side they’re still debating whether the federal government should be involved in transportation. We settled that debate with Dwight David Eisenhower.

10:42: John Duncan (R-TN): This extension will allow work to go forward as the spring construction season begins. If it doesn’t, it’ll cost the Highway Trust Fund $1 billion.

10:41: John Mica, Chair (R-FL): The fact is the Democrats had six amendments. When they controlled the House, the Senate, the White House — they couldn’t even get it to committee.

10:32: The rule passed.

10:20: Time’s up but they’re still voting.

10:07: House is still voting. It’s a 15-minute vote.

10:03: The ayes have it in a voice vote, McGovern asked for a recorded vote. This is just a vote on the rule.

10:02: Daniel Webster (R-FL): This brief extension gives us the opportunity to one again bring both sides to the table to work out a collaborative solution. And this is our last chance to do that before the previous authorization expires Saturday night.

9:58: McGovern: I propose that immediately after voting on this extension we vote on HR14… Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe, two polar opposites, came together. And we can’t come together. We’re bringing the most inconsequential piece of legislation to the House floor… This Congress that claims to be open won’t even allow a vote on HR14.

9:55: Rahall: The extension the majority is bringing is too long and will do nothing but continue the uncertainty states and businesses have faced for the last two and a half years.

9:53 Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX): This party won’t allow us to vote for a bill that has already passed the Senate… Buy America, do I love it… in Houston, Texas, we need those monies [for transit].

9:49: Peter DeFazio (D-OR): There is a substantial portion of the Republican caucus that believes there is no federal interest — we should not have a national transportation policy. It should be devolved to states. Well that’s what this looks like when you devolve to the states. Kansas turf fight, 1956. Oklahoma says they’d build their section, they didn’t. They were launching cars into Amos Schweitzer’s cornfield for the next eight years.

9:48: McGovern: The Senate bill sustains 1.9 million jobs, the House bill kills 550,000 jobs. The bill you brought to the floor and then yanked is a jobs killer.

9:46: Nick Rahall, Democratic Ranking Member (WV): Even if it’s a resolution that says “I Love Mother” it’s hard to get 60 votes in the Senate for anything — and they got 74 votes!

9:44: Tim Bishop (D-NY) [who introduced the Senate bill in the House]: Here we are taking up the third version of the Republican “kick-the-can” infrastructure plan in a week. The third in a week! If that’s not a failure of leadership I don’t know what is.

9:37: McGovern: I’d like to thank my colleague for making a very strong case for why we should reject a 90-day extension and pass a two-year extension… Let’s get real here, as reflected in the budget you’re all going to vote for later this afternoon, which decimates highway and bridge funding, you’re not here trying to argue for a better bill. You’re here trying to give states less, to give cities and towns less… That’s what this is all about, about trying to come up with something even lousier than the transportation bill you brought to the House floor.

9:35: Rich Nugent (R-FL): For [the industry] to spend money to hire new workers, they need to have some certainty to build upon — not a six-month fix, not an 18-month fix, not a two-year fix…

9:29: Earl Blumenauer (D-OR): We don’t have to play this infrastructure “chicken”… The Republicans are afraid that dozens of their members will join us in a bipartisan vote [on the Senate bill]… The House bill was so bad they wouldn’t even have a hearing on it… This is embarrassing that the process is not working… The best approach is to vote on the Senate bill today, which I’m convinced will pass, and that’s why they don’t want to vote on it.

9:27: James McGovern (D-MA): You have this battle within the Republican party. The right wing is battling the extreme right wing… You have people who don’t believe in a public sector.

John Mica and John Boehner have repeatedly stumbled this week in their efforts to pass a stopgap measure . Photo: Zimbio

Yesterday’s postponed vote on a 60-day extension had initially been rescheduled for tonight, but that too will be scrapped, making it the third time the House has punted a vote on an extension in as many days. House transportation committee chairman John Mica told reporters today that he was still planning to bring a two-month stopgap to a vote, but then changed his tune according to Transportation Nation:

Minutes later, Mica returned to say he was “recalculating,” and that he would also file a 90-day straight extension to the existing highway bill. Mica had talked it over with GOP leaders and said the 90-day extension is what he “was told to do.” Republican aides said part of the issue was that a 60-day extension would likely expire while Congress was out of town on the Memorial Day recess, complicating efforts to get a House-Senate agreement on a final Highway bill.

The House Rules Committee will meet today at 5:30 to set rules for tomorrow’s debate and vote, which in all likelihood will only require 218 votes to pass. It would then go to the Senate, whose members are understandably bitter that their own two-year bill, which passed 74-22 in bipartisan fashion, will not be voted on in the House — but not so bitter as to close the door on an extension.

Transportation funding, as well as the federal gas tax, are due to expire at the stroke of midnight Sunday if no agreement can be reached on an extension. The House leaves for Easter recess on Friday, making tomorrow the last chance to vote on anything.

In the Senate, many swing states and some solid GOP strongholds produced votes in favor of a two-year transportation bill. The House GOP leadership hasn't budged. Image: T4A

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Congressional Democrats, some Congressional Republicans, unions, politicians from New Jersey, Chicago and Louisiana — they all have one message for the House of Representatives: Pass the Senate transportation bill.

President Obama made it a key part of his weekly address this Sunday, pointing out that the economy would “take a hit” without a full reauthorization. The Transportation Trades Department, a coalition of 32 labor unions, said it is “an outrage” that the House is delaying taking up the Senate’s bipartisan two-year bill. The National League of Cities urged the House to act in time for the spring construction season.

It’s widely considered a longshot that the House will pass the Senate bill, but if the momentum is shifting at all, it seems to be moving in that direction. On Monday three House Republicans — Reps. Charlie Bass (NH), Judy Biggert (IL), and Robert Dold (IL) — joined Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) in a letter to Speaker Boehner [PDF], pleading with the House to pass the Senate bill.

Meanwhile, the House GOP leadership appears to be floundering. With movement conservatives taking cues from groups like the Heritage Foundation, which is firmly opposed the Senate bill, the Republican base hasn’t budged. But the stubborn refusal to go in a bipartisan direction is starting to call to mind fights — the debt ceiling fiasco, the payroll tax brinkmanship — that damaged the House GOP’s standing. Earlier this month Politico called the House’s inability to move a reauthorization proposal out of its own chamber “Exhibit A” in “Republican Dysfunction.”

Since then, the chamber hasn’t looked much more functional. Boehner pulled a 60-day extension off the table yesterday when he failed to get the necessary votes. House Democrats were trying to force a vote on the Senate bill, but observers predict the House will cobble together a majority along partisan lines before the buzzer at week’s end. After that, it’s anyone’s guess how the end game will play out.

Yesterday’s vote on a 90-day extension of federal transportation funding was pulled at the last second, then replaced by a vote today on a 60-day extension. That extension even made it to the floor for debate (though out of sequence with the Majority Leader’s schedule) before it, too, was postponed.

House debated 60-day extension this afternoon but did not vote on it. They’re postponing until later in the week.

— Transport. 4 America (@T4America) March 27, 2012

Remember, Republicans first failed to get 218 out of 244 Republicans to vote for their five-year transportation bill in the six weeks since it was approved in committee. Then, they tried to get 290 votes for a short-term stopgap, but they couldn’t. So today, they thought they could hit 290 votes with an even shorter-term stopgap.

“What do they expect to achieve over the next eight weeks that they were unable to do in the last six weeks?” asked Rep. Nick Rahall, top Democrat on the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, during floor debate. Democrats invoked Eisenhower and Jefferson in their attacks on the stopgap, instead urging a vote on the two-year Senate bill that passed with bipartisan support, but that is currently collecting dust on the House clerk’s desk.

With the House GOP seemingly unwilling to take up the Senate bill, they will likely wait until they only need a simple majority to pass an extension, and in all probability they will pass it along party lines. But the Senate still has to pass an extension of their own to keep transportation funding from expiring at 12:01 a.m. on Sunday.

“There may be more twists and turns,” Larry Ehl writes at Transportation Issues Daily, “but it’s safe to assume an extension of some length WILL be enacted by the end of the week.”

House Republicans delay Monday’s vote on short-term highway bill t.co/re597esi

— The Hill (@hilltransport) March 26, 2012

Route on highway bill still unclear. Boehner spox says a “vote on an extension will occur later this week rather than tonight.”

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) March 26, 2012

It looks like some dealmaking may still be in the works. Like we said, on a dime.

Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could use endless extensions to whittle away the value of the Senate transportation bill. Photo: Bloomberg

Just to remind everyone where things stand, the Senate has passed, in a 74-22 vote, a two-year transportation bill that the House GOP doesn’t like. Meanwhile, the House has offered up a 90-day extension of current funding that Senate Democrats don’t like. House Republicans are expected to use their extension to buy time for their five-year bill that almost nobody likes.

The House leadership will make its first attempt to pass the 90-day extension today. Technically, since the bill isn’t on the schedule yet, the vote would be “under suspension of the rules,” and require a two-thirds majority to pass, or 290 votes. The Republicans only control 244 seats, so for the bill to pass today, at least 46 Democrats would have to support it.

Why wouldn’t the Democrats support it? Because they don’t want to be seen as withdrawing their support for the Senate bill. But if the extension doesn’t pass today, House Republicans will try to paint the Democrats as supporting a government shutdown, and the House would still bring the bill up later in the week.

But that creates a new wrinkle, because, according to Politico, the Senate is working on a shorter extension, maybe as short as 45 days, to protect its larger bill. If the House’s extension doesn’t pass today, that means there would be very little time to reconcile two extensions of different lengths, after all the Senate’s procedural votes are done with.

Why the desire for a shorter extension? Because every extension eats away at the Senate bill’s value as a long-term reauthorization measure. The Senate’s two-year bill would go into effect retroactively to September 30, 2011, meaning that even if it were to be signed into law tomorrow, it will only be in effect for 18 months. Tack on a 90-day extension, and what is nominally a two-year bill would in reality be a 15-month bill. Another 90 day extension to the August recess would reduce the Senate bill to little more than a one-year deal, and any extensions beyond that would effectively kill the Senate bill altogether.

So, to recap: The fight between the House and Senate right now has likely boiled down to a fight between a 90-day extension and a 45-or-60-day extension. Five days remain on the clock and anything can change on a dime, minute to minute. Stay tuned.

House foot-dragging on passing a transportation bill is getting repetitive. Photo: The|G|uk/flickr

The 90-day extension would be the ninth passed since the last long-term transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, expired in September 2009. The House passed the eighth extension of SAFETEA-LU in September 2011 by an unrecorded voice vote. No date has been set for debate or floor votes, but the extension does get a mention in Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s schedule for next week.

Mica’s proposal was introduced just one day after his Democratic counterpart on the Tranpsortation & Infrastructure Committee, Nick Rahall, introduced the Senate’s two-year bill in the House as H.R. 14. House Republicans have justified their opposition to the Senate bill by claiming they still prefer a five-year reauthorization, but the have not yet found a way to pay for it — the gas tax alone will not be able to cover five years of transportation funding at current levels.

In fact, Politico reported this morning that the Congressional Budget Office predicts the Highway Trust Fund’s balance will hit zero sometime in the summer of 2013 — which is even before the Senate bill expires. The Senate does not need to change their bill to accommodate the new estimate (they knew this would happen and built a cushion into the bill for just that purpose), but further extensions will only make it harder to stretch the trust fund to cover costs.

With both houses needing to raise new money for underfunded transportation programs, the question arises: What would Reagan do?

Tomorrow, I will introduce a short-term extension through June 30^th to ensure continuity of current programs while I and House Republicans continue to work toward a responsible transportation bill that provides long-term certainty, reduces the size of government, eliminates earmarks, and is fully paid for. We continue to believe that linking energy and infrastructure is the responsible thing to do in order to meet our long-term needs

The extension is expected to be a “clean” one, without any funding or policy changes from current law.

Simultaneously, House Democrats have introduced the Senate bill, now christened H.R. 14:

“With more than 2.7 million construction and manufacturing workers out of work, enough with the political games. With tens of millions more seeking a better life, it is far past the time to stop the brinkmanship,” said U.S. Representative Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), top Democrat on the Committee and cosponsor of the bill. “If Congress does not act, the highway, transit, and safety programs will shut down a week from Saturday, on March 31. Let us seize the moment to move forward, without procedural gimmicks, without partisan political posturing, and do what is right for America. Let us do our jobs so that the American people can go back to theirs.  Let us send the Senate bill to the President.”

The two announcements mark the first flurry of activity on a House transportation bill since February, when H.R. 7 seemed to fizzle out somewhere between the committee room and the House floor. As Republican Congressman Tom Petri said at the National Bike Summit this morning, it is still likely that the House will pass an extension before any other bill.

Chairman John Mica is still trying to write a five-year transportation bill, and the House is on course to buy time for him to do it. Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland

As expected, the House will not vote on the Senate’s transportation bill before the current transportation law expires on March 31, opting instead to buy more time with a stopgap measure. They will likely use that time to try whip up support for a five-year bill that funnels money toward highways and away from city streets and transit systems.

John Mica, chairman of the House transportation committee, told reporters after today’s Rally for Roads that “a decision will be made on the length of an extension hopefully in the next 24 hours and it will be up next week,” according to The Hill.

Politico caught up with a few members and heard much the same:

Bill Shuster, a top House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee member, thought it likely the House first goes for a clean extension of perhaps 45-60 days. “I think we’d get Democratic votes for it,” he said, adding, it “will give us some time to continue working toward a five-year bill, which we think is the key to passing it in the House.”

The move is not particularly surprising, given how the House has ground to a halt over the last few weeks.

Almost this exact same situation unfolded last summer with the federal aviation bill — then, too, the Senate approved a bill long before the House, who opted for a short-term extension rather than a long-term bill. At that point, however, the Senate refused to play ball, and federal aviation programs went into shutdown.

So far, all parties have voiced their unwillingness to see another shutdown. But the Senate may still try to write some of their reforms into any extension the House brings forward, and then it would be the House’s turn to play ball.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is just waiting to pounce on Speaker Boehner for taking up Democratic legislation like the Senate transportation bill. Photo: Plain Dealer

Even though his efforts to whip his party into passing a five-year transportation bill that attacks transit, biking, and walking have been fruitless, House Speaker John Boehner isn’t about to follow through on his threat to take up the Senate’s two-year bill. That bill passed with 22 GOP ayes (and 22 nays) in the Senate earlier this week.

Politico reported this morning that the House Transportation Committee still plans to take up something resembling Boehner’s disastrous HR 7, but not before the eighth extension of SAFETEA-LU expires at the end of this month. The earliest the House plans to take up their bill is April 16, after the Easter recess – and it could be long after that.

While a Boehner spokesperson said no final decision had been reached, Joshua Schank of the Eno Center for Transportation said the speaker’s threat to take up the Senate bill was always an empty one. “The Republican caucus would have revolted against it and Boehner would have lost this job,” Schank said. “If [the Senate bill] passed [in the House], it would have passed because Democrats had voted for it. [House Majority Leader Eric] Cantor is breathing down his neck. If that happens, he’ll just say, ‘Look, you passed a bill that was a Democratic bill; it wasn’t a Republican bill. So he should be out; what kind of Republican leader is that?’”

Politico says the House will introduce a measure to extend SAFETEA-LU yet again the week of March 26, to give them time to pass their own bill. But there are several ways this plan could fail.

First, the Senate could very well obstruct the extension. Everyone involved has been pledging for many months now that there would be no more extensions. The Senate has done its job. Rather than enable the House to take up more and more time pushing its unpopular five-year bill, the Senate could play hardball and force the House’s hand. At that point, the House would either have to take up the Senate bill or let the nation’s transportation program lapse – at the cost of an estimated 847,294 jobs.

The second problem with the plan to take up the House bill yet again is the simple fact that that bill has not garnered enough support to pass it. The budget hawks are as vocal and powerful as ever, and they just won’t take up a bill as big as the House’s five-year bill. And although keeping dedicated funding for transit probably attracts more votes than it loses, some conservatives are dead-set against voting for a bill that continues the policy begun by Ronald Reagan of paying for transit with gas tax revenue.

The third problem is that the longer Congress waits to take up a bill the more meaningless it becomes. “What, are they going to work and kill themselves in conference to pass a bill that’s really only going to last one year?” said Schank. “So it pushes us closer and closer to an extension that kicks this through past the election.”

Making this situation even more volatile is the fact that the expiration of the gas tax is now mixed in with the reauthorization. The timelines for the two measures used to be separate, but they coincided September 30 and were extended together, so now they both expire March 31.

Though the transportation bill gets far more airtime than the gas tax, the gas tax is the bedrock issue. After all, the bill can make all the funding commitments legislators want, but that funding has to come out of gas tax receipts. If those receipts don’t come in, there’s no funding. While gas tax extensions usually pass quietly and without fanfare, there’s always fear that the hyper-conservative House will suddenly rebel against anything called a “tax” and refuse to extend it.

The next two weeks sure will be interesting.

The T4A analysis breaks down each bill, policy by policy, and lays out any pending amendments to the House bill that could potentially change it for the better.

Here’s an excerpt from their detailed comparison:

Public transportation & transit-oriented development

Senate: Continues dedicated funding for public transportation at traditional 20 percent share. Creates some new flexibility to spend federal funds on operations, i.e., keeping buses and trains running, not just buying new equipment. A new transit-oriented development planning program was incorporated into the bill via the Banking title.

House: Original bill ends 30 years of dedicated funding for public transit (read the letter we organized by more than 600 groups and individuals opposing this). Allows loans for transit-oriented development as an eligible expense under the TIFIA loan program. It doesn’t provide large transit operators with any flexibility to spend federal money on operating their transit systems.

Possible House amendment fix:  LaTourette/Carnahan 16 would allow all transit agencies to use a portion of their federal transit funding for operating expenses during times of economic crisis. (This amendment is similar to this bill the two representatives offered back in 2011.)

Walking and bicycling, local control of funds

Senate: Due in part to this amendment offered by Senators Cardin and Cochran and incorporated into the bill, MAP-21 consolidates programs for making biking and walking safer (as well as for other small local projects) and gives 50 percent of this consolidated program directly to metro areas. States and metro areas must create a competitive grant process to distribute that funding to local communities that apply. The Commerce Committee title also includes a new Complete Streets provision.

House: Eliminates most dedicated funding for bicycling & walking. Those uses remain “eligible” but without any dedicated funding for them. The bill also deletes numerous references throughout the bill that encourage multimodal projects. The bill retains the Recreational Trails program.

Possible House amendment fix: Petri-Blumenauer 103 creates consolidated program for bike/ped and other local projects and provides local governments access to new consolidated pot of funding.

Read the rest here.