That’s the question that brought together five former U.S. Transportation Secretaries this week at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

Former DOT Chief James Burnley took a swipe at Transportation Enhancements and the stimulus.

James Burnley was deputy secretary and then secretary under President Reagan. He took the position that “75 percent” of the public “gives the thumbs down to paying more for transportation” because we’re giving them the wrong argument about why it matters. He took a jab at President Obama’s stimulus program:

We have to stop treating transportation infrastructure as a short-term jobs program. It didn’t work by any conventional definition of what “working” means. We all knew –those of us who have expertise in the field – it would not work in terms of short-term stimulus.

Because it takes time – it takes years for that money to actually be spent and people to be hired. We need to convince the American people that we need to invest in transportation infrastructure because we need to invest in transportation infrastructure. If we sell that idea – not as a jobs program, but because it affects the ability of our economy to grow over time, our international competitiveness and all the other things that we believe it affects, then we’ve got a fighting shot at convincing the American people that the resources that we believe ought to be devoted to transportation should be devoted to it.

That’s a legitimate point, and Streetsblog has made the same argument – that selling transportation as a jobs program undersells the true value of transportation. But there are a few problems with what Burnley is saying. First, when asked to tax themselves at the local or state level for transportation improvements, 75 percent of voters say yes. So maybe the case isn’t so hard to make after all.

And second, most Republicans – and many Democrats – fault the stimulus for not investing enough in infrastructure. Not quite seven percent of the package was devoted to infrastructure, and many critics say that’s why the stimulus didn’t do more to create jobs. Certainly, the president’s desire for “shovel-ready” projects may have been naïve, which Obama himself has publicly admitted. But Burnley may have been over-simplifying things with his statement.

Meanwhile, Sam Skinner, who served under President George H.W. Bush, argued that too many bridges to nowhere have eroded public confidence. And it’s not just transportation, he said – government mishandling of Medicare and pensions and everything else leads to overall distrust that the government can handle anything at all, despite the fact that the transportation department has proven that it “actually can complete projects under budget and on time.”

He said the reputation of the transportation program is “still suffering from the residue of a couple projects that got out of control” – most notably, Boston’s Big Dig, whose price tag grew from $3 billion to $19 billion. (The final price tag was actually $14.6 billion, or $22 billion if you account for interest.) Skinner said the government risks losing the public’s confidence again with high-speed rail: After all, the cost of California’s new rail line has gone from “$20 billion” (fact check: it was more like $43 billion) to “$90 billion” (actually $98.5 billion) – “without a single shovel being put in the ground.”

“You cannot have high-profile projects with runaway costs without undercutting American confidence in the ability of government to do it,” Skinner said.

Rodney Slater, DOT Chief under Clinton, said Enhancement projects are some of the most popular around.

Rodney Slater was President Clinton’s second-term transportation secretary. He said his job was made easier by the fact that he had “just wonderful legislation” to work with (ISTEA and TEA-21) “and the dollars as well.” But he also said it was a different time.

“I always had a wonderful time working with Republicans and Democrats,” Slater said. “I can’t think of a bad experience. Only recently that we’ve gotten to a point where that is not something that you can expect.” He did point out that the EPW committee did manage to turn around the recent trend of bitter, divided partisanship, “and you cannot have two more distinct titans than Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe.”

Still, he said, when he came in to office, “people were as skeptical about government as they are now.” He said getting the public sector to be a good partner to the private sector – and labor to be a good partner to management, as well as Republicans to be a good partner to Democrats – was key.

He also exhorted transportation officials to “hit the road” to explain to people in different localities how the federal transportation program can be a partner to them in realizing their projects. He said that although some people wanted to reverse some of ISTEA’s good policies when it came time to craft TEA-21, those policies had proven themselves. “Because of the good we could demonstrate, we were able to hold the line.”

And Slater put in a good word for an active transportation program the Republicans are currently determined to do away with:

During that period, not only did we raise the gasoline tax, but we also built upon ISTEA with TEA-21. We have some enhancements there – that’s a small amount of money. But I’ll tell you, if you go to see some of those projects dedicated, the crowd that’s there is the same as for those multibillion dollar projects. Those crowds are the same.

Burnley had taken a different line on these programs. “If you’re building trolley museums instead of repairing bridges, you should not be surprised if people become cynical over time,” he said.

Mary Peters, who served as USDOT chief for much of President George W. Bush’s second term, agreed with Burnley, not Slater.

What destroyed the confidence people had in the transportation system? If you ask Peters, it was a bunch of things like “bicycle trails and historic covered bridges” (read: Transportation Enhancements) that are “nice-to-do” things when you have the luxury. Right now, she said, during a time of tight budgets, we don’t have that luxury. “We have to now cut back to the very core highway and transit programs that these bills are supposed to fund,” she said. She added that she’d put high-speed passenger rail in the “nice-to-do” category.

She said there would have been no need for an urgent conversation about how to convince Americans of the need for transportation investment during the interstate era, “when there was a compelling national purpose.”

People didn’t mind “incremental raises in the gas tax” to pay for interstates, Peters said, “even though the money didn’t come from one state and go back to that state” – a common complaint among states that see themselves as “donor” states, paying more in gas taxes than they get back in federal funding.

Peters also noted the need to look at alternatives to the gas tax, which she said was being weakened more and more by improved fuel efficiency standards. “The gas tax is not sustainable, it is not reliable, and it is not going to get us into the future,” she said.

During her time in office, Peters was an advocate of privatizing transportation infrastructure, partly because of her prescient concern about the declining Highway Trust Fund.

Finally, Norm Mineta spoke. Mineta, like Ray LaHood, is a crossover, serving in an administration of the opposite party. (He was a Democrat serving in George W. Bush’s Cabinet.) His comment came less in the form of advice on how to frame the message, and more a lament about where things are.

“Transportation is something everyone takes for granted until it’s denied them,” Mineta said. “And when it’s denied them, it has a shelf life of 45 days.” He was referring to the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis in 2007. Two days after the collapse, Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), then-chair of the House Transportation Committee, urged the passage of a five-cent emergency bridge tax. “The bridge went down Wednesday,” Mineta said. “He talked about that Friday. And by Tuesday, Jim was already backpedaling from the five-cent emergency gas tax idea, and 45 days later, USA Today had a survey about the five-cent emergency gas tax idea and 57 percent said ‘No, we don’t need it.’ So I figure the shelf life is a tragedy is 45 days.”

And yet, he said, transportation is something everything is dependent on, to move around and to get goods on the shelves.

There are a few messaging points I’d like to add that none of the five secretaries mentioned.

First, a superficial one: Surveys show that people don’t know that the gas tax has stayed the same since 1993, not indexed to inflation or the price of gas. They think the gas tax is going up every time the price of gas does. So, it could just be a matter of wording. Instead of asking about “raising” the gas tax, you could ask simply about indexing it to inflation or the price of gas. Or you could ask about ways to stop the decline of transportation funding. You could mention that it is no longer a winnable proposition to count on gas-guzzling to fund our infrastructure needs.

Second, it’s true that more money for transportation isn’t always a good thing. Skinner talked about the Big Dig and bridges to nowhere, but to that I’d add endless highway expansions with no plans for maintenance and no accommodations for alternate modes. I’d add a highway system built on sprawl and disconnected from smart land use planning. None of the secretaries mentioned that a well-functioning transportation system won’t be built on formula funding but on a strategic process of setting national and regional goals and actually building transportation infrastructure that meets those goals. Will that cost more money than we spend today? Less money? The same? It remains to be seen. But however much it costs, it might be easier to gather public support for raising that amount if the transportation spending decisions are based on projected benefits, and not just asphalt for asphalt’s sake.

Volunteers' meeting, Bici Libre. Photo: Jonny Green, LACBC Bike Wrangler

Bici Libre, as it’s called, got its start when the County Cycling Collaborative received a stimulus grant of $200,000 to spruce up “stray” bikes, with the help of volunteers gaining job skills. They rented the vacant grocery store to be just a warehouse to store the old bikes, but it quickly evolved into a hub of bicycle education, advocacy, and community.

But Bici Libre could disappear as quickly as it materialized. The stimulus grant that funds it runs out next March, and the CCC doesn’t know how – or if – it’ll be able to keep the new bike co-op alive.

Bici Libre is just one of many potential casualties of the boom-and-bust stimulus cycle. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act breathed life into countless worthy projects, including many planning and education programs that promote green transportation, but they can’t all last forever. Some, like Bici Libre, are now scrounging for future funding. Others may just close up shop.

In Portland, for example, the Bureau of Transportation expanded its Smart Trips program, where people can order information about transit that runs through their neighborhood, a bike kit, a walking kit, or information about carpooling. A customized packet of information is then delivered to them by bicycle, along with a calendar of events like group rides for seniors or women.

Eight hundred thousand dollars of stimulus money launched a Smart Trips program for new residents and helped augment the programs that worked with schools and businesses. But that money will be spent soon. “Smart Trips to School is probably going to disappear,” said Marni Glick of PBOT. “The New Resident Program will probably disappear. And we will try to find funding for the Smart Trips Business.”

A pot of stimulus money called CPPW (Communities Putting Prevention to Work), distributed through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, aims to reduce obesity through nutrition and physical activity. Another branch of its work focuses on smoking cessation. The money is granted to city and state public health departments, which then partner with local nonprofits to carry out the work.

Several active transportation projects got funded this way, including Philadelphia’s Safe Routes Philly program, which “promotes biking and walking as fun, healthy forms of transportation in Philadelphia Elementary Schools.” The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia joined forces with the school district, the health department and the Food Trust (a local nonprofit working on nutrition issues) to start a campaign for healthier schools, funded at $680,000 over two years, thanks to the stimulus.

Philly’s Safe Routes program had begun in November 2009 with a small Transportation Enhancements grant, but the stimulus money allowed them to expand it, training public school teachers in its newly developed curriculum around active transportation. Four full-time staff and two half-timers keep the program going.

Scene from a Safe Routes Philly video on bicycle safety.

Next March, the stimulus grant will end. “We knew what we were getting into,” said Breen Goodwin, education director at the Bicycle Coalition. “We always anticipated that there would be a huge period of growth, and then some contraction.”

Goodwin sees the stimulus funding as a major opportunity to build capacity, even if it is ephemeral. “In March of next year,” she said, “even if we lose all our funding, the teachers will still have everything they need to do the work.”

Of course, Goodwin is hoping they don’t end up at zero. She’s applying for funding through the CDC, the Philadelphia Public Health Department and the state Safe Routes to School program (though state rules make the latter a long shot.)

Those public programs will undoubtedly see a major uptick in grant applications next year as projects like Safe Routes Philly run out of stimulus money and look for a way to keep their work alive. After all, even if you knew going in that it was short-term, that doesn’t mean it feels good to abandon a worthwhile project.

The CDC is launching a new grant program just in time – its Community Transformation Grants were authorized last year by the health care reform law. The program is accepting its first cycle of applicants, with submissions due July 15 – just in time for some projects that are facing the expiration of stimulus funds. But the CTG grants will only total $102 million for 75 grants — far short of the $650 million offered by the CPPW program, and with very similar program priorities. Perhaps the Community Transformation grants will be able to keep some programs like Bici Libre alive — but not all of them.

In addition to Bici Libre, L.A. County also got $240,000 to create a regional bike plan for seven cities in the county, wealthy beach communities and poorer inland areas alike.

“We just have too many people in too many cars. So we like pitching it with the idea that everyone who chooses to bike, that’s one less car on the road,” said Jen Klausner, executive director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. “We want motorists to hear the message that cities that have a lot of people riding bikes in them are healthy, livable cities. And we want them to stop shaking their fists at us and running us over.”

The Bicycle Coalition and its partners were able to build strong relationships with the seven cities’ governments and they’re getting close to finalizing a plan. But then what? Like so many federal planning grants, the grant they got for the regional plan doesn’t help fund implementation.

It would have been great if the stimulus grant included even a tiny percentage for a pilot project, Klausner said, or if it lasted four or five years instead of two. That way, Bici Libre would have a greater shot at sticking around past March. If it survives, it’s because the community rallies around it. But in a low-income neighborhood, in a country still battling its way out of a deep recession, there just aren’t enough replacements out there for the infusion of stimulus funds that launched these programs.

Note: the first version of this post mistakenly stated the Community Transformation Grants as totaling $900 million. Thanks to reader Ann Whidden of the Prevention Institute for pointing out the error.

Secretary Ray LaHood indicates how many details he’s going to give Congress on how to fund the transportation budget proposal (Photo: AP)

On Valentine’s Day, the Obama administration released its budget proposal for next year. It included significant cuts to some programs, like heating assistance for the poor, and modest increases in others, like education and energy. But the president saved his biggest doozy for transportation – $556 billion over six years, about twice the current spending levels.

LaHood immediately grew impatient with the inevitable question – “How are you suggesting we pay for this?” Right away, he threw that hot potato back to Congress, saying it was up to the legislative branch to figure it out.

He could have started that process this morning, when he appeared before the Senate Budget Committee, but he again seemed impatient with the very question. (And this was the Budget Committee, after all – of course their primary concern is going to be the financial piece.)

The Senate, remember, is still controlled by Democrats, so he had an easier time there than he’ll have in the House. But everyone in Washington is focused on reining in deficit spending, although they may differ on how and how much.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said he was “flabbergasted” by the size of the president’s budget request – a 62 percent increase for the USDOT “at a time when all of us know we’ve got to contain spending and do something about the surging debt we’ve got.”

Indeed, LaHood’s persistent refusal to engage on the funding question – at a time when Congress is obsessively trying to cut spending – is beginning to sound tone-deaf. Every time anyone presses him for specifics on how to make this plan work, he returns to soundbites about how bold the plan is.

Well sure, Mr. Secretary, we like bold, but we like possible even more.

“We’re placing this country at risk,” Sessions said. “In all honesty, if you can’t tell us what kind of tax you think would fund this and are prepared to defend it, I think there’s zero chance of us passing such a tax as this.”

But Lahood and Obama haven’t proposed a tax. Experts on and off the Hill agree that the only credible way to fund the country’s current infrastructure program – much less an expanded one – is a gas tax increase or a shift to a vehicle-miles-traveled fee. The administration says these options are “off the table,” leading Sessions to deride the mystery funding source as the “new phantom tax; the not-gas-tax-tax.”

Committee Chair Kent Conrad – a Democrat and a big supporter of the secretary’s – also asked how LaHood proposed to close the ever-growing funding gap in the Highway Trust Fund. What are the options for closing this gap, and how realistic are they?

LaHood’s answer? “We want to work with Congress on our way forward.”

LaHood acknowledged that the Highway Trust Fund is deficient. “People driving less; they’re driving more fuel efficient automobiles,” he said. “As things stay stirred up in the Middle East, in countries that produce crude oil, we know that gasoline prices are going to continue to go up, and probably as a result people will be driving even less frequently than they are today, and that’s not going to help us in the collection of the gas tax.”

The secretary asserted that the transportation bill is a jobs bill, and that the effect on the economy would be positive.

Some senators proposed non-tax-related sources of revenue like Build America Bonds and tolling. LaHood mentioned the proposed infrastructure bank and the TIFIA loan program as possible funding sources (though the I-bank, especially, is not really a source as much as a destination of funding, at least at first).

Several Republicans – and some Democrats – also criticized the small percentage of the stimulus package that was devoted to infrastructure spending. They said that if we were worried about jobs and crumbling infrastructure, that was our big-spending moment to take care of it. And that moment, they say, has passed.

Portland, Oregon used $1.3 million of their stimulus funds to repair damaged roads and install new bus stop pads in downtown. Photo: flickr / Thomas Le Ngo

Doing it right, SGA says, consists of the following recipe:

• Preserve existing roads and bridges
• Build public transportation

In its report, “Recent Lessons from the Stimulus: Transportation Funding and Job Creation,” released Friday, SGA found that on average, road repair produced 16 percent more jobs per dollar than new road construction. And public transportation beat that handily, creating 31 percent more jobs per dollar than new road construction.

SGA also suggests building connections between existing transportation hubs and regional centers. And it says that focusing on areas hard hit by unemployment will create a bigger bang for your buck.

Looking at how different states invested the $26.6 billion in stimulus money for transportation, SGA picked some winners and losers in the game to use stimulus dollars most effectively:

• Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont used 100 percent of their stimulus allocations for roads on repair and maintenance, rather than new capacity.
• Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Arkansas, and Kansas went for new capacity instead of maintenance.
• D.C., Oregon, Massachusetts, and New York dedicated more than 20 percent of the funds to public transit.
• Nebraska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Nevada, and Arkansas gave the least.

SGA found that every billion dollars spent on road capacity resulted in 2.4 million work-hours, while every billion spent on transit resulted in 4.2 million work-hours.

Recommendations to states, Congress, and the U.S. DOT suggest that in order to fight unemployment and lay the foundation for long-term economic growth, they should reconsider their preference for road-building when investing future infrastructure dollars.

Overall, of the $26.6 billion the stimulus invested in transportation, 58.9 percent went to road preservation projects. One-third went to new road capacity. Less than four percent went to non-motorized projects like pedestrian and bike facilities or streetscape improvements. And just 1.7 percent went to public transportation.

Photo credit: M.V. Jantzen

A new report by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) challenges the country to envision a national transportation policy based on clear-cut, objective long-term criteria. With tight federal budgets and the end of stimulus money, NTPP says this is the perfect time to revisit the direction of transportation policy and spending.

Notably, the report is authored by Martin Wachs of the RAND Corporation and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top economist in the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under both Bushes and a policy advisor for the 2008 McCain-Palin campaign. It’s encouraging to see a Republican stalwart coming under an explicitly bipartisan umbrella to find common ground on infrastructure spending.

The report’s main recommendations are three-fold:

• Balance the selection of quick, easy “shovel ready” projects with those producing long-term economic benefits.
• Revise transportation policies to focus on economic growth and sustainable job creation.
• Stop borrowing money to finance transportation spending and short-term job creation.

The authors emphasize that just because a project is “shovel-ready” does not mean it will produce lasting economic benefits, and they reject the notion that infrastructure projects can be evaluated based on immediate job creation or “multiplier” effects.

Studies often tout the job-creating power of certain types of transportation investment — be it roads, transit, or bike infrastructure. And the USDOT, for instance, estimates that each $1 billion spent on the federal highway system supports, on average, 30,000 jobs. The authors contend that there’s no data supporting this number and say the greatest economic benefit of transportation investment may lie in lowering the costs of business transactions, not job creation.

The authors also advocate for a “mode-neutral” approach to judging which transportation projects create long-term economic impacts — in other words, they don’t favor highways or transit. And they suggest that federal transportation dollars are currently disbursed to states without regard to the effectiveness of that spending.

The authors do criticize current policies that prioritize new highway construction over operations and maintenance, noting that maintenance typically requires more spending on labor than materials and can create jobs that benefit the local economy.

California's high speed rail program could be especially at risk if Congress rescinds stimulus funds. Image: CA High Speed Rail Authority#

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) has introduced H.R. 6403, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Rescissions Act, a bill to rescind the stimulus dollars that haven’t been obligated yet. Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA), set to take the helm of the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Transportation and HUD, is a proud co-sponsor.

According to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, $16 billion of those unobligated funds are for infrastructure, including about $6.3 billion for transportation. In total, 16 percent of stimulus dollars remain unobligated, and 14 percent of transportation funds.

As Ken Orski of Innovation Briefs notes, the $1.2 billion of rail grants to Wisconsin and Ohio could be added to that sum if the governors-elect of those states move forward with their plans to kill rail projects there. Orski adds, “Some of the $24 billion in ARRA transportation dollars that have been obligated but not yet paid out, including some TIGER grants, could also be candidates for rescission.”

Only 67 percent of stimulus funds have been paid out so far – but that’s not by accident. It was supposed to be a three-year plan, and it hasn’t been quite two years since it was enacted. So they’re right on schedule.

No matter: 29 Republicans (so far) have signed on to Lewis’ bill, saying they want unspent stimulus dollars to go back into the Treasury. Where will that money come from? Speculation has centered on high-speed rail projects, already being targeted by Republicans as “wasteful spending.”

The San Jose Mercury News says that rail would be the disproportionate loser in the rescissions game. “About half the remaining stimulus money is set aside for planned high-speed rail projects,” writes Mercury reporter Mike Rosenberg. “The largest is in California, which has spent nearly $200 million of its $2.25 billion award on planning but is saving the rest for construction.” Without the stimulus funds it’s been promised, the whole project could fall apart.

Before we get too Chicken-Little about this possibility, let’s remember a few things about the legislative process. First, this bill is being introduced at the tail end of the session, and during a busy lame duck, meaning it likely won’t come up for a vote. Second, it’s been referred to three committees: Appropriations, Transportation & Infrastructure, and Oversight & Government Reform – and there’s no way those committees will make quick work of this. Third, it only has 29 co-sponsors – out of 435 members of the House, which still, until January 3, has a Democratic majority. Fourth, the Senate is still controlled by Democrats – even after January.

And finally, do you think President Obama will sign this into law and undermine one of his most dramatic achievements? Not likely.

However, infrastructure supporters should take note. If nothing else, the introduction of the bill is a sign of the anti-spending fever that’s taken hold of the Republican party – and spreading to the Democrats. Given that they all pay lip service to the need for more job creation, it’s troubling that they would even think of weakening the stimulus with unemployment still at 9.6 percent.

Bike-ped funding dropped off some after a bonanza year in 2009, but it still tops $1 billion. Bike League

The League of American Bicyclists says we’re already getting a sense of what could happen, as the drop from last year to this year reflects the push to spend stimulus money quickly, followed by a cooler period. The League’s response to this year’s figure:

The $1 billion spent on biking and walking projects is a great and welcome step. It is being used to create miles of bicycling facilities, countless bike parking spaces, hundreds of safer routes to schools for children, recreational trails, and other needed projects. However, it is still a drop in the overall transportation-bucket. Bicycling and walking make up 12 percent of all trips and yet receive less than two percent of federal transportation funding. To put the billion dollars in perspective, the amount of federal money spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects, nation-wide, in FY 2010 is equal to the cost of just one bridge in the Port of Long Beach.

You can also see the FHWA funding breakdown by year, by program, and by state.

Florida GOP representative John Mica supported a long-term transportation bill in 2009, but quickly came out against the President's infrastructure plan this week. Photo: PBS/Blueprint America

While that may look like a lot of road spending compared to rail, transportation reformers see cause for optimism in the use of the word “rebuild” — which implies that the emphasis will be on fixing existing roads instead of constructing sprawl-inducing new highways. The outline also calls for “significant new funding” for the creation of new transit projects, and for ramping up investment in “safety, environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and livability.” Those criteria have all been hallmarks of the US DOT’s TIGER program, which distributes competitive grants to local transportation agencies from what has been a relatively small pot of money.

Congress typically authorizes a major transportation spending bill every six years, but political gridlock over raising the gas tax or securing other funding streams has stalled the reauthorization of the bill since it expired in 2009. In the interim, lawmakers have passed a series of stopgap spending measures to keep the transportation system functioning, even as Jim Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has lobbied hard for Congress to take up the full bill.

Monday’s proposal represents the first serious effort from the President to tackle America’s transportation policy inertia, which is preventing any significant progress from the highway-oriented status quo. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are undoubtedly eager to pass a bill that will show voters they’re doing as much as possible to address high unemployment, which is making a Republican rout in the mid-term elections look increasingly likely.

Predictably, the GOP does not look willing to lend a hand. Republicans have already lined up against Obama’s proposal, and another protracted and nasty fight over a major White House initiative looks likely. Immediately after the announcement, House Minority Leader John Boehner released a statement opposing the plan, and on Tuesday he released another one calling the plan an “exercise in futility.”

Meanwhile, House GOP Whip Eric Cantor called the White House effort “another play called from the same failed Keynesian playbook.”

For a sign of how lockstep the opposition has quickly become, the real bellwether is John Mica, an influential Florida Republican who has supported infrastructure spending in the past. Mica has also heaped scorn on the President’s plan. “I don’t know what planet these people have been living on for the last 18 months,” he told The Hill. “They hijacked the $862 billion so-called stimulus, leaving less than 7 percent in the bill for infrastructure, and they failed to ensure that even this small percentage of funds would be spent expeditiously.”

The contorted argument seems to be that because the stimulus bill didn’t devote enough spending to transportation, or get it out the door fast enough, a bill devoted entirely to transportation spending and focused on a quick jolt of $50 billion doesn’t deserve support.

In the likely event that Republicans take control of the House in the mid-terms, Mica is the GOP representative who would replace Oberstar as chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Federal funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects reached a new high last year, according to a report released yesterday by the Federal Highway Administration. In terms of dollars, federal investment in walking and biking more than doubled compared to the previous high, set in 2007, thanks largely to an infusion of $400 million in stimulus funds.

The share of all federal transportation spending devoted to bike-ped projects also rose to an unprecedented level — all of two percent. Advocates for walking and biking applauded the trend while pointing out the potential for much greater federal commitment to active transportation.

"It continues to be an improvement, and it continues to be a tiny
fraction of the money that’s available to potentially be spent on
biking and walking," said Andy Clarke of the League of American
Bicyclists.

Subtracting the $400 million one-shot in stimulus funding, Clarke noted, yields a less impressive year-on-year increase. And part of the increase in reported bike-ped spending might also simply reflect better record keeping by state DOTs, as agencies document the construction of sidewalks and bike lanes as part of larger projects, according to Barbara McCann of the National Complete Streets Coalition.

The spending figures come from an update on the state of walking and biking that the feds release every five years. The original National Bicycling and Walking Study, released in 1994, set two major targets: to double walk and bike mode-share, from 7.9 percent of all trips to 15.8 percent; and to reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities by 10 percent.

Today, walking and biking account for 11.9 percent of all trips in the country, according to data from the National Household Travel Survey cited in the FHWA report. The safety target, meanwhile, has already been met, with pedestrian deaths down 22 percent and cycling deaths down 13 percent between 1994 and 2008.

In a post on the U.S. DOT Secretary’s blog, Ray LaHood implied that the targets have to get more ambitious:

But, we are still talking about 4,378 pedestrians and 716 bicyclists
killed in 2008. No matter how we look at the data, that is just too
many.

One way to strengthen national goals for walking and biking, Clarke suggested, is to make them less open-ended and attach specific timeframes for achieving them. "That performance metric is essential," he said, noting that the original 1994 targets were weakened by the lack of a deadline. "One could argue that we could have achieved [the mode-share target] years ago. We would say, let’s recalibrate, so that by 2020 we need to reach 20 percent mode share for bike-walk."

The progress cited in today’s report, said Clarke, highlights the need for a robust federal commitment to walking and biking in the next federal transportation bill. "States wouldn’t have done this if left to their own devices," he said. "Without the federal leadership, without the funding and targets, we would not have seen movement voluntarily. We need that continued federal leadership in the next transportation bill moving forward. The states have not embraced it sufficiently for it to be left to chance."

But two projects getting underway in the U.S. capital provide evidence that, slowly but surely, federal funding is making its way to the type of dense urban developments that are becoming more in-demand as the suburbs languish.

A rendering of the future Sheridan Terrace apartment complex in D.C.'s economically struggling Ward 8. (Photo: ANC 8C01)

The Washington City Paper's Lydia DePillis first flagged the two housing efforts on Friday afternoon:

Last October, the Obama administration announced that it would be helping out state housing finance agencies with their liquidity problems ... Last month, D.C. became the first housing finance agency in the country to close a multi-deal transaction using the federal dollars, patching together $55.8 million in construction costs for three rental buildings in the district.

The 52-unit Webster Gardens, which was built in 1921 as the first garden-style apartment building in the city, will now be the first building in the city — and therefore the country! — to move forward using money that started with legislation all the way back in 2008.

DePillis also highlighted the Sheridan Station housing development, where D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty was slated to participate in a groundbreaking ceremony this morning.

The Sheridan project received $5.8 million in stimulus money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) last year, which will go towards constructing an energy-efficient replacement for torn-down public housing units in the city's economically struggling Ward 8. More than one-third of residents in the ward are living below the poverty line, according to the most recent available Census data.

(Photo: DMI Blog)

The new data, unveiled today by SGA state policy director Will Schroeer at a green jobs conference in Washington, brings a measure of good news to clean transport advocates who had viewed the stimulus as somewhat of a disappointment for its failure to fund roads and transit on a more equal footing.

The SGA analysis does not include the law's $8.4 billion in transit aid, looking solely at the formula funding that is often depicted as dedicated to highways and bridges.

In fact, states were allowed to redirect some of that larger pot to transit, though not all took advantage of that flexibility. "Some states were really, I have to say, dishonest with the public about what the money could be spent on," Schroeer said today.

Here's how SGA's one-year analysis of the $27 billion in stimulus money shook out:

59% spent on road system repair/preservation
33% spent on new road capacity
3.9% spent on non-motorized transport (e.g. bike-ped)
1.7% spent on transit and related projects
2% spent on other uses

Several other speakers at the green jobs conference emphasized rules that allowed only 10 percent of federal transit stimulus aid to go towards operating budgets that ensure trains and buses can keep running. The lion's share of the transit spending went to capital projects, such as extending rail lines or purchasing new equipment.

Brian Turner, director of the Transportation Learning Center, a transit-training group, lamented that federal spending is weighted towards "physical capital ... Any economist who went to class knows that there is another class [of investment] that's equally important: That's human capital."

The debate over how to free up more federal transit funds for operating has split the transit industry, with its biggest lobbying force viewing the change as a short-term response to the recession while unions and other transit agencies push for a permanent shift.

Nonetheless, SGA's past work on the job-creation performance of transit relative to roads has appeared to make some headway with Democratic lawmakers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told conference attendees today that her colleagues “have stood strong in the drive for good, green jobs. ... We’ve said all along that clean energy is about four things: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs."

Amtrak's Empire Builder line currently provides rail service to Milwaukee. (Photo: Nat'l Corridors Initiative)

But that arrangement is about to change, as the stimulus era runs its course and the next rounds of high-speed rail and TIGER-style competitive grants are given out by the U.S. DOT.

In Wisconsin, where an advertising war already has started between conservative critics and industry supporters of the state's $822 million bullet-train grant, local media reports that finding a local match for future rail grants could prove a significant stumbling block:

Unlike the first high-speed rail grants Wisconsin received, future federal payouts will require the state put up its own money.

But the state already has problems maintaining its roads and should not shell out money from the transportation budget to get federal rail grants, said Wisconsin state Rep. Mark Gottlieb, the Wisconsin Assembly’s appointee to the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission.

“Irrespective of the amount of federal money that is on the table right now,” Gottlieb said, “moving forward even faster with intercity rail is something I just don’t think we can afford right now.”

It remains to be seen whether Wisconsin's resistance to budgeting for a state contribution to high-speed rail -- which is not affecting its enthusiasm for other federal road and transit programs that require a local match -- will become a trend in the coming months. The $600 million in competitive TIGER-style grants that Congress approved last fall will require localities to find matching funds, but the U.S. DOT has yet to formally solicit applications for that funding.

Still, as a growing number of states face budget crises in the wake of the global financial crisis, available funding for all modes of transportation is evaporating. The latest state to feel the pinch is Maryland, where officials have announced plans to delay for two years a $28 million capital contribution to the D.C. area's Metro transit system.

(Photo: DMI Blog)

The success rate of transit stimulus spending was slightly topped by that of road projects funded by the economic recovery law. About $20.3 billion of highway stimulus funding, or 77 percent, was under contract in the 50 states and D.C.

Today's data release breaks down transportation stimulus spending by state, allowing a closer look at which areas are making more progress on getting road projects out to bid than transit, and vice versa.

For instance, Georgia -- where Atlanta's MARTA transit system, the ninth-largest in the nation, is confronting a deficit that could force massive service cuts -- has put less than one-half of its $127 million in transit stimulus funding under contract. Georgia has moved nearly 90 percent of its highway stimulus money into the contracting stage.

California, by contrast, has put 69 percent of its $860 million in transit stimulus funds under contract. Of its $2.5 billion highway stimulus allocation, 59 percent was associated with signed contracts last month.

Not all of the road stimulus funding sent to states was restricted entirely to highway projects. States were permitted in some cases to "flex" money from their road pots to transit, and 10 percent of highway formula allocations is historically set aside for bicycling, pedestrian, and safety work under the Transportation Enhancements program.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (Photo: Getty Images)

"If we didn't have a lousy economy, a lot of these issues would bubble up more quickly," LaHood told transit planners who lamented the lack of progress on new federal legislation and the tough budget choices brought on by the recession.

"Part of the solution," LaHood added, "will be when the economy comes back" and the White House is more open to discussing tax increases as part of the financing mix for long-term transport funding.

But in the meantime, LaHood's remarks served as a friendly warning to the transit industry that, given the capital's current political reality, its $8.4 billion haul from the stimulus should be considered a victory.

One exchange in particular epitomized the state of play between the administration and transit agencies: When an APTA conference attendee from Grand Rapids, Michigan, asked the packed audience of local officials to raise their hands if they had raised fares or cut service during the past year, a sizable number of hands rose into the air. Minutes later, Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff leapt up to ask how many officials would be cutting more or laying off more workers if not for the stimulus.

Even more hands went up in response to Rogoff's query.

"The big sticking point of all of this is money," LaHood said. "That money [to pay for a new federal bill] just doesn't exist right now."

Despite that grim news and the long line of transit planners who shared their fiscal woes with LaHood during a question-and-answer session, one opening emerged for the industry to make headway on its Washington agenda. The U.S. DOT chief signaled openness to expanding urban transit agencies' ability to use federal capital grants to cover operating costs.

That capital-to-operating flexibility now sits at 10 percent, a level set soon after the stimulus law's passage. "Maybe that's not the right percentage," LaHood said. "Maybe we need to work with Congress to allow you to do more when the economy is bad." He floated the idea of a "sliding scale" for federal operating aid that would vary based on economic growth.

On two other big-ticket federal transit issues, however, the federal outlook appeared hazy following LaHood's appearance.

Asked about the so-called "CLEAN TEA" plan to give transit a dedicated share of the revenue from climate change legislation, LaHood touted his work in the president's Green Cabinet before admitting, "I can't say [CLEAN TEA] has been part of our discussions. But it possibly could be in the future."

Another questioner brought up the stimulus law's provision increasing the monthly pre-tax transit benefit for commuters to $230 -- equalizing the tax-free funding for transit and parking -- which is set to expire at the end of 2010. LaHood replied that he had not the "slightest idea" of the issue's status, though Rogoff explained that the tax question is under the Treasury Department's purview.

"We intend to talk to our partners at Treasury" about the value of keeping the pre-tax transit benefit equal to that for employee parking, Rogoff said.

The existing Innerbelt Bridge is in line for a $450 million replacement. (Photo: Cleveland.com)

The Plain Dealer newspaper reported earlier this week that Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) has asked the state DOT to reevaluate its decision against adding a bike-ped lane to the new bridge. State transport officials had previously contended that the new bridge could lose $85 million in already-allocated federal stimulus money if the planning process were reopened to consider bike-ped access.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who represents Cleveland, had previously come out in favor of the new lane, but Strickland's move came following a letter he received from the state's junior senator, Sherrod Brown (D). Yesterday the governor edged closer to an endorsement of bike-ped access to the new bridge, as his spokeswoman told the Cleveland Scene: "It is the governor’s preference that a lane be included if possible."

A copy of the letter from Brown that appears to be driving the new momentum is available after the jump.

Dear Gov. Strickland:

I have followed with great interest the Ohio Department of Transportation's (ODOT) efforts to build a replacement for the Innerbelt Bridge in downtown Cleveland. Sadly this bridge -- critical both locally and nationally -- has become a symbol of our nation's aging and crumbling infrastructure. As evidence regarding safety concerns has emerged, it has become clear that replacing this critical artery is one of Ohio's most urgent transportation needs. Yet with a recent spate of positive news on the Innerbelt, it now seems that a new, safer bridge appears closer than ever.

This new bridge will be more than just a way over the Cuyahoga; it represents an opportunity to increase the livability of the city and will serve as a gateway to Cleveland. During your administration, the Ohio Department of Transportation -- more than at any other time in its history -- has pursued a multimodal approach to transportation and increased investment in rail, bike, and pedestrian friendly projects. There is ample reason to do this: moving freight and cargo to rail alleviates overdue burden on our roads, improves safety for pedestrians, and helps promote our state as a leader in sustainable modes of transportation.

Yet I have recently heard from our constituents about perceived resistance from ODOT to including a multi-purpose bike and pedestrian path on the "new" Innerbelt. With a strong and growing bicycling community in Cleveland, a sizeable carless population, and new development in nearby neighborhoods, it would be penny wise and pound foolish to build this bridge with only cars and trucks in mind.

I understand there is some concern that to re-examine this issue could jeopardize American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds the state has dedicated to this project. Yet it is my understanding that, by working closely with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), it would be possible to undertake the proper environmental and logistical studies without losing ARRA funding. If this is in fact the case, ODOT must quickly act to begin this process.

Rebuilding the Innerbelt Bridge is a top prioriy for the tens of thousands of Ohioans who drive I-90 every day and I appreciate the urgency, dedication, and countless hours the employees of ODOT have spent on this project. But we can only do this project once and it is critical that we do it right. It is imperative that when construction begins on the new Innerbelt, a bike and pedestrian path is included. I strongly encourage ODOT to revisit this issue with FHWA and make sure this is a bridge that works for all Clevelanders.

Antonio Villaraigosa is seeking a bridge loan from Washington to speed up L.A.'s 30/10 initiative. (Photo: LAist)

The star witness at the Senate environment committee's hearing was Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who sought congressional support for federal loans to expedite his city's ambitious 30/10 transit expansion project.

Environment panel chief Barbara Boxer (D-CA) threw her weight behind the 30/10 plan as the mayor pitched his approach -- reliant on voters' approval of higher sales taxes to pay for new infrastructure -- as a model for the rest of the nation.

"This is the third time the Los Angeles electorate has voted to tax itself for a better tomorrow," Villaraigosa said. "As a result, Los Angeles has been been able to make massive investments in public transit and our highway system."

But Villaraigosa's secondary message exposed the ongoing lack of Hill consensus on the way to pay for new investments that both Democrats and Republicans support. "Making sure that large metro areas get the majority of [federal transport] money makes a lot of sense," the mayor said, lamenting language in last year's stimulus law that routed most transportation aid through state capitals.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) echoed Villaraigosa, remarking that he could not "see a governmental apparatus" in place to effectively divert transportation funding to pressing local needs.

Whitehouse asked the Angeleno, who currently serves as vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, to work with his colleagues on "a truly transparent local mechanism to say, 'these are the projects we really need,' to get around the concern that this is earmarking, special dealing, but also get around the bureaucracy."

Before the mayor's testimony, U.S. DOT undersecretary Roy Kienitz admitted to senators that he is "not sure" if the Obama administration's planned list of principles for a new long-term transportation bill will include ideas for filling the  nation's massive funding gap. Congress envisions new legislation with a price tag of at least $450 billion over six years, but the federal gas tax is estimated to fall short of that mark by upwards of $200 billion.

Sen. George Voinovich urged Kienitz and fellow White House aides to reconsider their opposition to raising the gas tax during an economic downturn, warning that no amount of innovative new financing mechanisms would be enough to fund a new bill.

Chief among those new financing ideas is the National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund (dubbed the "I-Fund"), which the Obama team believes can use federal funding to attract private investment in new transport projects.

Other options for extending credit to local planners include the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which guarantees loans for new projects.

Another witness at today's hearing, Max Inman, a 33-year veteran financing specialist at the Federal Highway Administration, lauded the institutional support provided for local planners who use traditional U.S. DOT-directed programs such as TIFIA. He questioned whether the White House's proposed I-Fund would be able to provide that level of guidance for local sponsors, given that its structure has yet to be fully envisioned.

But Inman also advocated several changes long sought by infrastructure reformers, calling for relaxed limits on tolling interstate highways and a consolidation of the 100-plus categories that currently exist for federal transport spending.  

Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) (Photo: UPI)

House leaders did not fix the provision contested by the House transport committee that would award nearly 60 percent of $932 million in grants to four states while excluding 22 other states. The transport panel's chairman, Jim Oberstar (D-MN), has secured written support from Senate leaders to unwind that language in a future bill.

Practically speaking, the House's changes mean that the Senate would need to hold another vote before the jobs bill can become law.

Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR), Oberstar's top lieutenant, made the case for the bill on the House floor. In addition to extending the 2005 transportation law until the end of the year, DeFazio observed, the jobs bill would allow the highway trust fund to begin collecting interest payments after 10 years of forgoing them to the Treasury.

"We're now going to reclaim that money ... it's going to be a billion dollars a month," he said.

Republicans, led by Rep. Steven LaTourette (OH), countered that the jobs bill's $13 billion in tax credits for new hires would be better used to pay for more infrastructure investment.

Late Update: The House cleared the bill on a 217-201 vote.

Credit-rating agencies -- particularly Moody's and S&P, the nation's two premier shops -- wield significant influence over the financial health of private companies. But state and local officials are often equally dependent on good credit ratings to borrow money for transportation and infrastructure improvements.

Even the federal government monitors its credit outlook to a degree that might surprise the average voter. When Moody's suggested last month that the mounting deficit might imperil America's AAA rating (the highest available), Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner leapt to the defense of Washington's fiscal health.

So which states do credit raters believe are weathering the recession, and which will continue to struggle with yawning deficits that jeopardize their ability to invest in transportation and infrastructure? Bob Kurtter, manager of Moody's state ratings team, addressed the question last month during a speech at New York University's Institute of Public Knowledge.

Only two states, California and Illinois, have seen their credit downgraded in recent months, Kurtter said. Negative credit outlooks have been issued for 15 more states, and two are benefiting from positive credit outlooks: West Virginia and Louisiana.

Why are things looking rosy for those two governments?

"They got buffered on the early part of this downturn" thanks to their reliance on coal and oil production, Kurtter said. The two states "both have very conservative administrations that have managed pretty aggressively."

When states can reap credit gains by doubling down on fossil fuels, it's easy to see why coal- and oil-state lawmakers are resisting legislative action on climate change. Take West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D), a longtime supporter of transportation reform who today proposed to block the Environmental Protection Agency from reining in emissions for two years -- a delay twice as long as what many Republicans had endorsed.

As more media outlets note the phenomenon of GOP lawmakers who voted against the Obama administration's economic stimulus law before seeking -- and taking credit for winning -- a share of its infrastructure money, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is seizing an opening to tag its opponents as two-faced.

But the system is flawed: those who provide address information to the DNC are only told whether their member of Congress voted for or against the stimulus, not whether they opposed it before returning home and stumping for transportation recovery money.

The names of the Republicans who played both ends of the stimulus debate are available in a research report released last month by bloggers at Think Progress, an affiliate of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), at right, came under fire for profiting from a land deal along the proposed Prairie Parkway. (Image: ABC)

But it's worth delving more deeply into the earmarking that dominated the two disputed grant programs, the Projects of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) and the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (NCIIP).

The watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), which first coined the term "Bridge to Nowhere" for Alaska's infamous infrastructure earmark, released a helpful spreadsheet yesterday that shows which state projects claimed the lion's share of the PRNS and NCIIP money in the 2005 federal transport law. TCS also calculated each state's share of the grant programs, levels that would continue this year if the Senate jobs bill passed without future corrections.

TCS' research sheds further light on the objections of Oberstar and other lawmakers who complained that the Senate jobs bill would send more than half the $932 million to four states -- California, Louisiana, Illinois, and Washington. But it also answers the question of why those four states.

From the TCS report:

As one looks at the states that benefited most from these earmarks in the 2005 bill, it’s easy to see the political influence that was at play. These earmarks were distributed based less on the importance of the projects proposed and more on the political influence of the members who were fighting for the earmarks. It is interesting to note that two of the projects ... are not even active, and their funding has been or may be “reprogrammed” for other uses; and that three of the members involved are no longer serving in Congress.

Among the biggest recipients of PRNS and NCIIP earmarks were the so-called Prairie Parkway, a favored project of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) that was abandoned after an investigation found that he profited personally from land deals along the proposed highway; Louisiana's I-49, a priority Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) that still lacks sufficient funding for completion; and the sprawling Bakersfield Beltway road proposal, championed by now-retired Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA).

The House-Senate deal to open PRNS and NCIIP grants to all states does not mean that projects will be able to compete for the 2010 money, as was originally envisioned in the House jobs bill. Instead, states are set to receive a share of the two grant programs that is in line with existing road funding formulas.