Sen. Schumer had made restoring the pre-tax commuter transit benefit a priority in 2012. Photo: AP

• $3.7 billion transferred from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, already funded by a slice of the federal gas tax
• $2.8 billion from reducing a tax credit on certain biofuels
• $2.5 billion from taxes on imported cars, redirected from the general fund to the HTF
• $0.7 billion from the “gas guzzler tax,” also redirected from the general fund
• $0.7 in back taxes collected after revoking passports of serious offenders, assuming offenders would rather pay the feds than lose their passport

Furthermore, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has sponsored an amendment that would restore parity between the pre-tax commuter benefits for transit and parking. There had been parity between transit and parking pre-tax benefits since the Stimulus Act was passed in 2009, but the transit benefit was slashed in half — from $230 a month to $125 — when the measure expired on January 1st. Schumer’s amendment would make the parity permanent.

Live updates will be available tomorrow on twitter (#TranspoMarkup).

Commuters in New York's Hudson Valley could lose out on $1400 in annual pre-tax benefits if the transit tax break stays at its current level. Photo: railpictures.net

Transit advocates across America were disheartened when Congress failed to maintain parity between the transit and parking pre-tax commuting benefits last month. On New Year’s Day, the maximum monthly pretax benefit fell from $230 to $125 for transit commuters, while motorists actually saw a slight increase in their parking benefits, from $230 to $240. (As The Sierra Club pointed out today, things used to be even more lopsided.) But members of the House and Senate have now indicated that a restoration is more than just possible, it could even be probable.

Rep. Richard Neal told Politico on Tuesday that a retroactive extension of 2011 tax policies is “likely,” and a staffer said today that “Nearly as often as extenders have been taken up in a calendar year, they have also been taken up retroactively.”

They won’t have to wait long for their first opportunity to prove it. In 54 days, the payroll tax cut extension expires, and Senator Charles Schumer and others intend to reinsert the commuter tax break at its 2011 level once it is reopened for debate. Speaking today in Staten Island, Sen. Schumer said he hoped to make the tax break permanent, and defended its inclusion in a tax cut extender bill, saying “it fits in the theme of a middle-class tax break.”

Schumer also said he hoped to make the tax break retroactive to January 1, but that could be difficult. It is true that precedents exist for retroactive tax cuts — there were plenty of retroactive cuts passed in 2010, including extensions of the Bush cuts to biofuel, payroll, and estate taxes – but it’s hard to un-buy a transit pass you’ve already purchased for January and started using.

“You can’t make it retroactive, but you can make it proactive,” explains Cathy Connor, Manager of Government Relations at Parsons Brinckerhoff. “January’s gone, and unless Congress passes the extender the day they come back, they can’t do February either. But it could still be good for March through December,” if not longer.

As for the benefit’s odds of being pro-rated for 2012 at all, Connor told Streetsblog, that depends on whether or not it becomes a “victim of the vehicle,” as it was in December. “There seems to be a lot of support in congress for it. If they decide to do a tax extender bill with just the payroll tax and unemployment, then that’s that. But if they open it up and start making it a more robust bill, this is a very meritorious provision that there’s a lot of support for.”

The gun amendment, proposed by GOP Sen. John Thune (SD) would have let residents of states that permit concealed weapons to carry those guns across state lines, effectively neutralizing stronger laws passed by states that use firearm restrictions to combat urban crime.

The Thune amendment fell short by two votes, losing 58-39 as New York Sen. Charles Schumer (D) and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin (D) led a successful filibuster. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also led a group of urban mayors in lobbying against the proposal.

Late Update: Politico gets New York reaction to Thune's claim that concealed weapons would make Central Park safer, including a cutting quip from Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer: "I can't believe someone this ignorant gets elected to the United States Senate."

Photo: bondidwhat/Flickr

According to the Times, the Schumer-Israel bill -- the Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act (ARIVA) -- is superior to an alternative proposal from Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio, whose Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act (CARS) would authorize up to $5,000 in vouchers to drivers who swap their old cars for "new ones that are assembled in the United States and carry a minimum fuel-efficiency rating of 27 m.p.g." Beginning in 2010, Sutton's bill would offer $7,500 toward domestic hybrid models averaging 100 mpg or more.

The Obama administration likes the "cash for clunkers" concept. CARS has the backing of the UAW and, not surprisingly, is favored by Detroit. "But because more than half the cars in showrooms today already meet the 27 m.p.g. standard set by the bill," write the editors of the Times, "the measure would provide fewer environmental benefits than the more ambitious Schumer-Israel proposal." ARIVA, on the other hand, would "guarantee considerable oil savings and significant reductions in carbon dioxide."

Or not. In a recent New Yorker article, David Owen sums up the argument against a CAFE-based cure-all.

If doubling the cost of gas gives drivers an environmentally valuable incentive to drive less -- the recent oil-price spike pushed down consumption and vehicle miles travelled, stimulated investment in renewable energy, increased public transit ridership, and killed the Hummer -- then doubling the efficiency of cars makes that incentive disappear. Getting more miles to the gallon is of no benefit to the environment if it leads to an increase in driving -- and the response of drivers to decreases in the cost of driving is to drive more. Increases in fuel efficiency could be bad for the environment unless they’re accompanied by powerful disincentives that force drivers to find alternatives to hundred-mile commutes.

It isn't mentioned in the Times editorial, but each "cash for clunkers" bill does in fact offer incentives for drivers to leave their cars behind -- sort of. Both CARS and ARIVA would give drivers the option of trading their personal wheels for transit vouchers, but the payout is limited to $3,000.

While such measures could conceivably entice urbanites in transit-rich environments, despite being shortchanged, to give up their cars altogether, what impact might a popular federal "cash for clunkers" program have on the rest of the country? And if the goal is to reduce fossil fuel consumption, why on earth would the transit benefit be $2,000 less than that granted to the new car buyer?

Chuck, what about keeping transit affordable?

Now it's up to the Senate to get this provision into the stimulus bill. Bus and subway riders all over the country need Chuck Schumer and rookie Kirsten Gillibrand to earn their keep on this one. New York's Senate delegation has to come out strong for transit operations if American cities are going to stave off a wave of fare hikes and service cuts.

And wouldn't it be nice to see MTA chief Lee Sander ride the train down to Washington and make the case for transit operations? This seems like a golden opportunity for the MTA CEO to campaign on behalf of straphangers and save the fare.

Meanwhile, as Sarah mentioned last night, the focus in the House now shifts to Jerrold Nadler's proposal to add $3 billion for transit capital investments. The people to call today are Nancy Pelosi (202-225-0100) and Appropriations Chair David Obey (202-225-3365). The Speaker, especially, should be trying as hard as she can to make more room for transit investment if she wants to do right by her San Francisco district.

A tipster sends these photos of more storefront bike-ped advocacy, this time at Paragon Sports on Broadway, north of Union Square.

Meanwhile, further uptown, Patagonia on Columbus Ave. has a Bike Month display encouraging customers to sign a letter to New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary CIinton in support of S.858, the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act, which would give a federal tax break to those who bike to work, similar to that which motorists receive.



Streetsbloggers may remember North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry ridiculing the cyclist benefit during debate over an energy bill last summer. Maybe Senators Schumer and Clinton can differentiate themselves on this issue, provided they can take time away from shilling for additional tax cuts for driving.

Patagonia photo: Brad Aaron

Desperate to look as if they're responding to motorists complaints and prayers, state and federal electeds continue to scramble for a quick fix to ever-rising gas prices.

In Albany, Senate Republicans have adopted the state gas tax "holiday" as their issue of the moment. Since the largely-ridiculed measure is going nowhere in the Assembly, Joe Bruno and colleagues can circulate petitions and distribute mailers like the one above with impunity, scoring cheap political points while accomplishing nothing.

But the diddling in Albany seems innocuous when compared to doings in D.C. Yesterday, with George W. Bush enroute to the Middle East, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to divert oil supplies from the national reserve, even as many lawmakers acknowledged that doing so would at best result in a small, short-term drop in prices at the pump.

Democrats basically portrayed the vote as a stall tactic offered in lieu of an actual energy policy. Here's a preview from New York's senior senator, as quoted in the Times:

A group of Democratic senators ... sought to put pressure on Saudi Arabia, where Mr. Bush will be visiting this week, as they called on the Saudis to increase their oil production or face the possibility of Congress blocking a pending arms deal.

"We are saying to the Saudis that if you don't help us, why should we be helping you?" said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. "We are saying that the relationship has to be a two-way street. We are saying that we need real relief and we need it quickly."

Image via Albany Times Union

This week's New Yorker has a Jeffrey Goldberg Talk of the Town piece about Senator Charles Schumer's new book, Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class Majority One Family at a Time. Schumer's protagonist is an imaginary, average middle-class American family called "The Baileys" who accompany the Senator wherever he goes and advise him "on all manner of middle-class concerns."

Schumer tells Goldberg that his imaginary constituents live in Massapequa, Long Island and are both forty-five years old. Joe works for an insurance company, Eileen is a part-time employee at a doctor's office. The Bailey's wouldn't be the types to order chicken and steamed vegetables at Hunan Delight, Schumer says. They'd get the kung pao chicken.

And how would the Bailey's get to Hunan Delight? Not in a Toyota Prius, that's for sure...

Liberal élitism, [Schumer] said, as he stirred Sweet 'N Low into his tea with a chopstick, alienates middle-income families from the Party. "Middle-class people don't think everybody should have to drive a tiny little car to achieve improvement in global warming," he said. Invoking opponents of expanding the tuition tax credit to the middle class, he went on, "If we listened to the New York Times editorial board, we'd have twenty-one votes in the Senate."

Photo: New York Social Diary

Newsday reports:

A high-voltage transmission line running through Central New York could spur the creation of environmentally friendly wind farms across the state, according to Bill May, project manager for the Albany-based New York Regional Interconnect Inc., who hopes to build the line.

However, there is intense opposition coming from many upstate residents. Perhaps that is why Sen. Charles Schumer and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have expressed doubts about the project:

Schumer has criticized NYRI for having what he calls a "my way or the highway" approach, while Clinton has criticized the proposed route. May warned that "without making some decisions now we will begin to see, you know, significant reliability shortfalls" in New York's supply of electricity.