Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) (Photo: AAAS)

APTA president William Millar wrote on the National Journal's transport blog in June that the economic recession has heightened the need for extra federal operating assistance to keep local rail and bus networks running. "The decline in operational revenue is creating budget crises for many public transit systems – leading to fare increases and service cuts," he said.

But there is a crucial caveat to APTA's support for federal help with transit operating costs: the group does not want to see it come from the highway trust fund (HTF), which is facing a dire fiscal future as lawmakers struggle to raise money for a new long-term transport bill.

J. Barry Barker, APTA's vice chair of government affairs, outlined the group's nuanced stance in an op-ed this week (emphasis mine):

And finally, 2009 also brought a shift in APTA legislative policy with the adoption of new policies and an amendment to APTA’s Surface Transportation Authorization Recommendations. In addition to funding traditional transit priorities, the recommendations now include a policy supporting temporary operating subsidies from non-Highway Trust Fund monies, a result of the worsening economic situation and its impact on state and local transit aid.

APTA's resistance to letting HTF money go towards operating costs as well as transit capital projects, such as new rail-car purchases, is borne out by its dwindling coffers. Federal estimates show the HTF transit account, though not as cash-poor as the highways account, starting to run at a deficit in 2012.

Still, APTA's support for tapping non-HTF sources of federal operating aid could become a major sticking point going forward. Rep. Russ Carnahan's (D-MO) legislation on the issue -- which picked up a Senate counterpart this week as well as the endorsement of influential Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) -- would allow urban transit agencies to use federal formula grants on operating. Those formula grants come from the HTF, a detail that could well run afoul of APTA.

Fixing a disputed provision in the jobs bill that President Obama signed into law yesterday -- as Senate Democratic leaders promised House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) following complaints by several members of his panel -- would involve the redistribution of $932 million in funding for two major federal road and rail programs.

The end result of the transfers would leave California with $192 million less than it had in the Senate-passed version of the jobs measure, while Texas would gain the most with an influx of more than $76 million, according to data released by Oberstar's committee earlier this week.

The $932 million in grants became an issue last month after the jobs bill, which extends the 2005 transportation law until 2011, cleared the Senate with language that also extended 2009-level earmarks for the two programs, known as Projects of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) and the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement (NCIIP).

That extension of previous earmarks would result in 58 percent of the $932 million going to four states: Illinois, Louisiana, California, and Washington. After lawmakers from other states raised alarms about the distribution, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) vowed to Oberstar [PDF] that if the House would approve the jobs bill without changing the provision, the Senate would move as quickly as possible on a fix.

"Although my preference would be to amend this [jobs bill] to reflect these compromises today, any further delays in enacting a surface transportation extension are unacceptable," Oberstar said two weeks ago, urging colleagues to take the upper chamber at its word.

The House passed legislation earlier this week that would redirect the $932 million to all 50 states based on existing road-funding formulas. It is that shift that would take PRNS and NCIIP money from California, Illinois ($119 million), Louisiana ($43 million), and Washington ($39 million), as well as Oregon ($29 million) and Virginia ($12 million).

States that would gain under the fix include Texas, Ohio ($25 million), Florida ($47 million), Georgia ($31 million), and New York ($16 million). It remains unclear when the Senate will act on the change.

Inhofe's concerns, raised at the latest in the environment committee's series of hearings aimed at marshaling consensus for a new long-term transport bill, suggest that the increased transit, bike-ped, and urban policy investments envisioned by the House measure could face resistance from rural senators who fear less of a federal emphasis on roads.

"We cannot grow the program in urban areas while ignoring the rural component," Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) said, describing rail and bike usage as "geographically and climatically prohibitive" in his state, currently the nation's least-populated.

Environment committee chief Barbara Boxer (D-CA) assured Barrasso that "I don't look at writing this bill as rural versus urban." Yet the House legislation offered by transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) would direct significant funding to urban infrastructure needs through a new metropolitan mobility program, a prospect that appeared to unsettle rural lawmakers.

"I don't feel like transit is a great option in our rural areas," said Oklahoma state senator Bryce Marlatt, an invited witness. After Inhofe questioned the Oberstar framework's emphasis on bike-ped and transit spending, Marlatt warned that the House plan could prevent rural areas from joining "the global economy" by boosting road spending.

Alternative perspectives were offered by John Robert Smith, president of the transit advocacy group Reconnecting America, and Scott Haggerty, a supervisor in California's Alameda County who appeared on behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo).

Smith told senators that the green-transport and land-use grants offered by the Obama administration's multi-agency sustainability office should be open to cities with populations of 50,000 or below, giving rural areas more of an opportunity to compete for federal aid.

Haggerty, for his part, noted that the "overwhelming majority of congestion comes in metro areas" and advised that any project getting funding from Oberstar's proposed urban mobility program should be able to document its benefits for commuters.

Even as the rural-urban debate unfolded, senators sought to steer the hearing towards the fundamental issue stalling progress on a replacement for the 2005 federal transportation law: how to pay for it.

"In terms of infrastructure, our roads and bridges are not getting any better if we neglect them," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said. "We're going to have to address this problem one way or another; we might as well do it and create jobs."

Asked for their thoughts on transportation financing, Haggerty said NACo would back a gas-tax increase -- an option ruled out by the White House for the foreseeable future -- and Smith cited a poll commissioned by Transportation for America that found public support for more infrastructure spending, provided that it was approved in a transparent fashion.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) (Photo: William Woods)

McCaskill, known for fiscal hawkishness, asked LaHood to "work with me to put an end to this practice" of earmarking money in long-term federal transportation policy bills, which allot six years' worth of highway trust fund revenue to specific local projects.

McCaskill said the growth in congressional earmarking of transport funds "distorts the operation of the federal-aid highway and transit programs" because lawmaker-directed spending circumvents state and local "planning, review, and selection processes."

That broad characterization of transportation earmarks is true in a large number of cases, but many others benefit projects that have already met with approval from state and local planners.

Grants under the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts program, for example, are historically earmarked by lawmakers eager to see aid flow to local rail and bus systems, but each project has already made it through an extensive vetting process. In other instances, earmarks help cash-strapped transit agencies complete environmental and engineering studies that might not be possible without federal assistance -- such as the $6 million in planning funds that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) directed to Chicago's Circle Line proposal last year.

Earmark reforms adopted by the House transportation committee last year ask lawmakers to document the local benefits and other sources of funding for favored projects.

Check out excerpts from McCaskill's letter to LaHood after the jump.

Dear Mr. Secretary,

I am writing to express my concern about the continuing practice of earmarking in surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Over the last 20 years, we have seen this practice explode, spending billions of dollars on the priorities of individual members, resulting in a loss of funding for individual states and a waste of taxpayer dollars. As the Congress looks to consider a new transportation bill this year, I ask that you work with me to put an end to this practice so that we return to a more equitable and thoughtful distribution of funding transportation projects. ...

When the Congress passed the last transportation reauthorization bill in 2006, 11% of the bill, equaling $22 billion, was earmarked. In comparison, throughout the 1980s, only 1% of transportation funding was earmarked. This growth in member-requested projects is frustrating because earmarks bypass the planning, review, and selection processes of the state and local governments and agencies.

That is not to say that these projects are without merit. Many of them would be worthwhile initiatives; but earmarking distorts the operation of the federal-aid highway and transit programs. It reduces the allocations provided for states' core transportation programs and often funds low-priority, earmarked proposals over the higher-priority, publicly vetted proposals. ...

With our current budgetary situation and the escalating federal debt, we cannot allow the process of earmarking to continue. Determining how to prioritize transportation projects cannot be and should not be decided by individual members of Congress. Our state and local projects, working with federal agencies, are better equipped to know what the priorities should be for addressing our infrastructure needs.

Instead, we should [direct] our efforts towards funding for formula and competitive grant programs as was originally intended by the Congress. This will result in better and more equitable distribution of funding, better use of taxpayer money, and transportation projects that work for everyone. ...

(Photo: TreeHugger)

"Automakers agree with the fundamental premise that Congress should determine how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers president Dave McCurdy wrote in a letter to congressional leaders of both parties. "However, if these resolutions are enacted into law, the historic agreement creating [a higher national fuel standard] would collapse."

The congressional proposals at issue are sponsored by Republicans and Democrats alike. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has won Democratic support for her resolution of disapproval aimed at the EPA's ability to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act, though she has stopped short of seeking a vote as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) pursues a separate plan to force a two-year delay in EPA activity on the issue.

The Obama administration, which has used the specter of EPA action as a means to spur congressional movement on climate change, argues that any bid to remove the agency's clean-air authority would nullify its deal with automakers to raise fuel-efficiency (CAFE) standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

In his letter, McCurdy echoes the White House's concern and counters assertions made by auto dealers and other business groups that the Murkowski and Rockefeller resolutions would not imperil any CAFE deal. Automakers view the anti-EPA resolutions as "express[ing a] legitimate concern," McCurdy wrote, but would prefer lawmakers focus on crafting a national fuel-efficiency policy that ranges beyond 2016.

An excerpt from McCurdy's letter follows after the jump.

The Alliance believes that the [national CAFE deal] fostered by the Obama administration is critical to the efficient regulation of motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and related fuel economy in the United States, not only for the 2012-2016 model years, but also for the 2017 model year and beyond. ...

However, given what appears to be the inevitable consequence of the proposed resolutions of disapproval, we do not believe they are the proper vehicles for members of Congress to express their legitimate concern that Congress, not EPA or the states, design the national response to climate change. Instead, we urge Congress to move quickly to ensure that the national program does not end in 2016, and we stand ready to work with members to develop a federally-led process to achieve a permanent national program.

Late Update: Murkowski fired back at the automakers' letter, describing it as a response to reported political pressure from Democratic leaders. "Statutory authority to improve fuel economy has existed for 35 years at the Transportation Department, and it still exists today," she said in a statement. 

Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) also weighed in, offering an equally political context for the auto industry's letter. His office noted in a statement that carmakers' opposition to anti-EPA resolutions comes after considerable federal investment in their industry: "We should take news of auto manufacturer support for EPA carbon regulations with a grain of salt after the auto bailout."

Geithner (l.) said that there is "a very good economic case" for infrastructure spending. (Photo: WaPo)

Spending on the built environment is "good policy for the long run and it's very good policy for the short run, because it's one of the most employment-intensive forms of government investments that we can make," Geithner told the House Appropriations Committee yesterday during broader testimony on the state of the economy.

"We've got to do it, though, in a way that's fiscally responsible," Geithner added, describing the White House's 2011 budget request as a step in that direction.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the lead House sponsor of NIB legislation, has previously resisted the lack of independence for the White House I-Fund and reiterated that skepticism yesterday. DeLauro told presidential budget chief Peter Orszag and Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Christina Romer:

With all due respect, $4 billion in the Department of Transportation is not a national infrastructure development bank under the Treasury Department that has the ability to borrow in the capital markets and so that we can leverage private funds. We are not going to get serious investment for the long-term future of this country until we do what the Europeans have done in setting up a European investment bank.

Orszag defended the administration's approach, describing the full-scale European-style approach as "something that we continue to explore" and the I-Fund concept as "a first step in that direction."

But DeLauro, a longtime ally of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, aired specific qualms with the notion of an I-Fund located at U.S. DOT when pressing needs exist in the areas of "water systems, energy, environment, broadband and telecommunications." She is not alone in stressing the value of an NIB separate from the federal government; pro-transport reform thinkers have raised similar concerns.

Villaraigosa, at left, flanked by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). (Photo: Life)

Immigration topped the agenda for the McCain meeting, according to Southern California Public Radio, and the L.A. Business Journal reported that the Southern California group visited with White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. But Villaraigosa's meeting with Boxer focused on the potential for speedier progress on the dozen transit extensions and expansions that make up the "30/10" list.

In his Senate testimony last week, Villaraigosa indicated that existing federal funding programs such as Build America Bonds and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) could prove helpful for his transit push. However, he also issued a highly relevant challenge to federal officials struggling for new ways to close the revenue gap for the next long-term federal transportation bill:

[T]he federal government can and should do more, especially for cities and regions that are coming to the table with money in hand to create a true federal-local partnership. We have begun conversations with leaders in the Senate and House, the White House, and key federal agencies to strategize about how we can partner together to leverage local voter-approved funding in a way that will create jobs and improve sustainability.

Because we plan to finance much of the 30/10 construction, we believe a combination of multi-year direct loans, loan guarantees, interest rate subsidies, and innovative repayment terms would enable us to fund construction of all 12 of our transit projects over the next decade. This could become the model for a new paradigm in federal transportation funding, or - at a minimum - an innovative partnership model.

The key words in the mayor's remarks were "leverage local voter-approved funding," which L.A. did in 2008 under Measure R, a sales tax increase approved to pay for new transportation projects. If Villaraigosa can use voters' willingness to pay new taxes -- and the $4 billion-plus that he estimates would be saved by building the transit projects in 10 years rather than 30 -- to win extra federal commitment, it would be a major victory for his city.

To create a template for other cities to replicate, however, Villaraigosa's allies must hope to avoid the scenario facing Denver, where regional leaders are seeking another sales-tax hike after revenue from their initial increase failed to keep pace with cost estimates for the Fastracks transit plan. The fiscal woes facing Fastracks reportedly stem from land costs that exceeded expectations, rising construction inflation, and too-rosy estimates of sales tax revenue; all are pitfalls that could arise for any city planning major transit investments.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) (Photo: Partnership for Success)

Brown's plan aligns with a House bill sponsored by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) and endorsed by 95 other Democrats. At a press event today announcing the Senate bill, the duo was joined by transit-boosting Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) and members of the Transportation Equity Network (TEN), Transportation for America (T4A), and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU).

The Brown-Carnahan measure would allow urban areas -- now barred from spending federal money on operating, save for 10 percent of their stimulus allocations -- to use between 30 percent and one-half of their federal transit grants to defray the cost of keeping trains and buses running.

The bill also would free up more funding for urban transit agencies that have demonstrated cuts in carbon emissions after getting anti-pollution stimulus grants and those agencies that can increase the amount of money raised for transit operating using sources other than the farebox.

ATU legislative director Jeff Rosenberg said in an interview that transit groups believe Brown's seat on the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over rail and bus networks, will put the bill in a good position as senators prepare to take up their version of long-term federal transport legislation.

Given the current uncertainty surrounding the timing of that bill, Rosenberg added that extra transit operating aid could also move through Congress if the Senate decides to act on the infrastructure-heavy jobs bill that the House passed in December.

"There is a role to play for the federal government to invest in transit systems to keep service going," Rosenberg said.

The ATU and the Community Transportation Association of America, which represents an array local transit agencies, have formed a new coalition aimed at marshaling grassroots support for federal operating aid.

Freight rail in Chicago, home of the stimulus-funded CREATE freight project. (Photo: NSTPRSC)

The EDF report, aimed at lawmakers crafting the nation's next long-term transportation bill, uses freight's growing share of U.S. carbon emissions as a jumping-off point to call for broad reforms.

Freight currently accounts for 25 percent of the transport sector's annual greenhouse gas production, according to EDF, but the government has reported that freight's share of total emissions is growing twice as fast as that of passenger transport -- thanks principally to the rise of truck freight movement.

One of the report's first examples of local freight reform is the CREATE project, a federally funded effort to better align freight and passenger train movement in the Chicago area. But the EDF's policy agenda is not limited to rail; efforts to retrofit and clean up diesel vehicles, such as California's Carl Moyer program, get their due.

Two more auto-centric recommendations from EDF are increased use of tolling, which the group believes could be a tool for reducing emissions, and electrifying truck stops. How do idling truckers contribute to freight's greenhouse gas production? From the report:

Federally mandated safety rest periods for truck drivers often lead to idling to maintain heating, air­conditioning and other cab comforts. The average sleeper cab tractor idles for 1,500 to 3,000 hours per year, consuming an average of one gallon of diesel per hour. With each gallon of conventional diesel emitting 22 pounds of carbon dioxide, EPA estimates that long­duration idling generates more than 11 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Truck stop electrification eliminates this idling and fuel consumption by allowing truck drivers to connect to an electric power system. Truck stop electrification provides truckers with the same creature comforts and work needs, but keeps the surrounding air and cab free of toxic pollution and greenhouse gases.

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) opposes the White House safety plan, but he also wants to see it debated as part of broader transport legislation. (Photo: Orlando Sentinel)

Speaking to the American Public Transportation Association's (APTA) annual conference, aides to both House infrastructure committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. John Mica (FL), the panel's top Republican, said they aim to make the White House's proposed transit safety legislation part of the broader debate over restructuring federal transport programs -- an issue that may not come before Congress until next year.

But an adviser to the Senate Banking Committee's senior Republican, Richard Shelby (AL), said he wants the transit safety bill to be "a free-standing piece of legislation and not wait until" lawmakers can agree on a long-term federal transport bill.

In remarks that touched on the continuing impasse over that six-year transport bill, Oberstar aide Amy Scarton asked APTA members to provide input on the White House transit safety proposal, which has gotten mixed reviews from transit officials. The safety legislation is set to move through the House "as part of the long-term surface transportation bill," she said.

Meanwhile, Mica remains opposed to the Obama team's strategy of asking state transit overseers (known as SSOs) to submit to federal supervision if their programs are deemed out of compliance with minimal safety standards, according to aide Joyce Rose. The Floridian would prefer to bolster individual SSOs with grant money to avoid "creating a new federal bureaucracy," she said.

But Rose agreed with Scarton that transit safety should move as part of the broader transport bill, a perspective that runs counter to the administration's hopes for quick passage of its proposed legislation.

After the House aides spoke, Shannon Hines -- who served as Shelby's chief of staff before moving to the Banking panel in 2007 -- expressed her boss' differing view on the transit safety debate.

It remains to be seen whether other senators share his view on the timing for safety legislation. An adviser to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) did not mention the retiring Banking chairman's preferred approach yesterday, and a spokeswoman for Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), a leading voice on transit safety, told Streetsblog Capitol Hill that the Maryland senator is "looking at all the options" in order to approve the administration's safety plan "as quickly as possible."

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.

State leaders are already estimating a $470 million profit from still-unapproved tolls on Pennsylvania's I-80. (Photo: PennLive.com)

Specter has declined to take a position on the prospect of tolling I-80, reasoning that the issue is up to state leaders and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

But with I-80 becoming a possible test case for the possibility of tolling existing interstates to help close Washington's yawning infrastructure budget gap, Specter's spot on the sidelines is starting to draw negative attention.

The Philadelphia Inquirer found Pennsylvania transit and labor groups particularly eager for the former Republican to take a stand on I-80:

"I would like to see Specter go see the president and get this done," said Patrick J. Eiding, president of the Philadelphia Council of the AFL-CIO. "It's that important. And he's in a position where he can do that."

Pasquale "Pat" Deon Sr., the Bucks County Republican who is chairman of the SEPTA board and a commissioner of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, said, "Arlen needs to be pushing for it and not dancing around it. He's like a ballerina."

Specter's fellow senator, Bob Casey (D), has taken a similar hands-off approach to I-80 tolls. But it is Specter who must face state voters in less than two months in a hotly contested primary race against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) -- who generally takes on the incumbent from the left but has called for a tax on oil drilling instead of I-80 tolls.

SEPTA, the transit authority that runs the Philadelphia metro area's rail, trolley, and buses, hopes to use the revenue from I-80 driving fees to adopt a "smart card" fare system and start work on several new projects. Even if the U.S. DOT signs off on I-80 tolls, which are opposed by several of Specter and Casey's House Democratic colleagues, SEPTA would still have to hike fares next year.

When will the final word come down from the Obama administration? Perhaps as soon as this month; the Inquirer reports that Rendell and other state transport officials are preparing for a final meeting with LaHood on March 23.

The Las Vegas monorail on a test runs before its 2004 opening. (Photo: LVRJ)

From the Las Vegas Sun's report:

Since the monorail is a private company, it would need support from the commission to get federal transit funds, RTC General Manager Jacob Snow told the commission’s board at its monthly meeting Thursday.

But supporting the monorail could create competition for funds the RTC uses for its own transit system, Snow said.

The board didn’t take any formal action, but Snow said the RTC staff recommends the two organizations stay separate. Board members said they agreed and would look into taking formal action if necessary.

The monorail project initially enjoyed support from both sides of the aisle in Nevada's congressional delegation, including now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Its real death knell, however, may have come not in bankruptcy court but in the fine print of a December deal struck by lawmakers to apportion federal transport funds for 2010.

That bill included language asking the U.S. DOT to redirect unspent earmark money for the monorail, as well as for Las Vegas' proposed CATrail transit line and a potential transit hub in North Las Vegas, to the RTC's bus projects. In total, $10.3 million in unused earmarks were in line to shift to Las Vegas buses, according to a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) estimate compiled last fall.

That amount of freed-up funding for buses is nothing to sniff at -- but how big was the original monorail earmark? It's tough to say. The December bill that reprogrammed Las Vegas earmarks referred to "funds made available" for the monorail under one section of a large 2002 spending bill that added an extra $144 million in federal transportation grants, with no specific apportionment included.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), founder of the Congressional Bike Caucus. (Photo: NYT)

Laughlin's phrasing was aimed at stoking cyclists' appetite for lobbying Congress in favor of pro-bike legislation, such as Rep. Earl Blumenauer's Active Community Transportation Act. But his caution also reflected the ongoing uncertainty surrounding how lawmakers plan to pay for a new long-term infrastructure bill expected to cost at least $450 billion.

Even if bipartisan support can bring the White House on board for a new bill this year, it remains to be seen whether bike advocates can secure the $2 billion in competitive federal grants that Blumenauer has proposed.

Tyler Frisbee, an aide to the Portland lawmaker who spoke to the Summit on her personal time, was careful to praise House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) as a friend of bicyclists. But Oberstar's transport legislation, Frisbee said, is "not the bill we want for another eight years ... cycling will be light years behind Europe [if it passes]."

Frisbee warned fellow bike advocates that Oberstar views the Blumenauer bill as an expansion of the Non-Motorized Pilot Program that directed $25 million to four trail projects in the 2005 transportation law. Describing her boss' legislation as separate from that spending, Frisbee said a Senate version would be introduced soon by Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley.

Despite the hazy outlook for congressional action on transportation reform, Rails-to-Trails is continuing to push ahead with its long-term agenda. Laughlin said the group's 10-year goal is to help pay for bike trails within three miles of 90 percent of American residences, while doubling existing federal bike spending to $9 billion over six years.

"If the bill comes up for a vote, we have a fighting chance, but to win" requires sustained and increased focus on grassroots lobbying of lawmakers, he said.

In the debate over how -- and whether -- to set measurable performance standards for determining where federal transportation money gets spent, real estate developers are a quiet but powerful player. In a report released today, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) tracked the broad reach of land-use interests and found more than 100 groups spending $5.5 million on transport lobbying last year.

CPI's research, collected in the interactive map pictured above, serves as a case study of the muddled system that currently exists for funding worthy transportation projects on both the state and local levels. Reporter Matthew Lewis begins with a look at one road earmark added to the 2005 transport law by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY):

The relatively small earmark came after the developer, Concord Associates’ Louis Cappelli, and his team opened their wallets and donated a combined $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, then headed by Schumer. None had ever contributed to that political action committee (PAC) before. Some of the same executives gave an additional $64,000 to the committee over the next few years, after the bill with the earmark was signed into law.

But the New York Department of Transportation did not claim this specific million-dollar earmark. Its intended purpose — to study widening Route 17 from two to three lanes in each direction over a 43 mile stretch — did not appear to be a priority for the state. The stretch of road in question starts near the village of Harriman and extends northwest to Sullivan County, where Cappelli envisions a huge “Entertainment City” to restore the Catskills to its former fame as a vacation destination and generator of much-needed local jobs.

Of course, Schumer is far from the only member of Congress using the legislative process to leapfrog home-state bureaucracy and win dedicated funding for a favored project. CPI goes on to identify an array of other lawmakers targeted for campaign contributions by real-estate executives with a stake in local infrastructure decision-making.

The report illustrates a transportation earmarking process that is ripe for misuse, but it also takes a risk by using state priority lists as an impartial standard to judge the usefulness of individual projects. In the case of New York, the widening of Route 17 was not on the state's radar, but widening the Bronx's Major Deegan expressway was -- until local opposition killed the proposal.

CPI takes an admirably even-handed approach, however, to the executives who have joined Chris Leinberger's push to make real estate companies more active partners in financing walkable development. Among the members of Leinberger's LOCUS coalition is Forest City Enterprises, the company behind the controversial Brooklyn mega-complex known as Atlantic Yards. Lewis writes:

Forest City pays multiple federal lobbyists for nationwide projects from Washington, D.C., to Hawaii, and between individual donations and its political action committee, Forest City has showered federal candidates and parties with more than a million dollars since 2005.

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.  

The House proposal also lacks specific infrastructure funding, but its structure reflects a shift that could hearten urban planners and other advocates for a more city-centric approach to federal transportation funding. Three-quarters of the bill's estimated $100 billion in aid would go directly to cities and counties to help avert layoffs of firefighters, police, and other workers.

Mayors had pressed for more transportation stimulus spending to go directly to cities but lost the political battle, as the lion's share of the $48 billion in road and transit aid in last year's recovery package was diverted through state DOTs. Many urban governments anticipate budget shortfalls in 2010 that could exceed those at the height of the financial crisis, with transit cuts and delays in infrastructure projects looming as consequences of the cash crunch.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the education and labor panel's chairman, told Roll Call yesterday that he hopes mayors will use their political leverage to help the bill move forward in the Senate.

(Chart: WSJ)

Blankfein estimated underwriting profits for tax-exempt municipal bonds, or "munis" -- which cities and states have relied on for the bulk of past infrastructure projects -- at between 0.5 percent and 0.6 percent of the borrowed amount.

Goldman's response comes on the heels of a Wall Street Journal report that revealed underwriting fees for BABs issued to fund Washington D.C.'s Silver Line transit extension and San Francisco's Bay Bridge repair work.

A transportation official working on the latter project told the Journal that underwriting fees for the Bay Bridge BABs were significantly higher than those for tax-exempt munis.

Blankfein defended the higher fees in a letter to Grassley, noting that BABs are a relatively new program created by last year's economic stimulus law. "As BABs have become better known to investors, underwriting fees have come down," the controversial CEO wrote.

Grassley was unmoved by the firm's response and issued a statement warning Democrats about the BAB expansions included in a transportation-centric jobs bill that is set for final passage this week.

“Build America Bonds are portrayed as an easy way to help school kids and green energy," the senator said. "What’s left out is that this is a spending program disguised as a tax cut, getting bigger each year, and Wall Street takes a healthy share."

It should be noted that Grassley, the senior Republican on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, endorsed an expansion of BABs in an early version of the current jobs bill that he drafted with Finance chief Max Baucus (D-MT). However, the House has since expanded the bill's level of taxpayer subsidy for clean-energy and school-construction BABs to more than double the level proposed in President Obama's latest budget.

One issue that went unaddressed in Grassley's inquiry was the level of negotiated yield for BAB offerings, which determines how much money transit agencies and state DOTs can raise from their debt sales. A Bloomberg investigation last spring found that New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority could have raised $9 million more to plug its budget gap by lowering the yield for its BAB sale by 0.1 percent.

Reps. Tom Latham (R-IA), at right, and Steven LaTourette (R-OH). (Photo: AP)

During a hearing today on the White House sustainability effort, which aims to combine federal transport, housing, and environmental resources in support of walkable, transit-oriented local development, Reps. Tom Latham (R-IA) and Steven LaTourette (R-OH) questioned the wisdom of spending money and attention on new programs when the nation's infrastructure funding shortfall remains unresolved.

"Unless you change the tax incentives from where they've been since the Second World War, [encouraging Americans] to live in single-family homes, you're not going to be successful," LaTourette said. The giant mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he noted, effectively require the continued popularity of suburban sprawl in order to keep the government's investment in them viable.

If the White House would tackle the problem of the highway trust fund's insolvency -- which affects bike-ped and road repair projects -- "I would not have a problem with" spending new money on sustainable development, added LaTourette. The Ohioan has vowed to "bring Republicans to the table" if the administration decides to pursue a new federal transport bill this year.

Latham, the senior GOP member of the House's transportation appropriations panel, was more cutting in his criticism of federal involvement in local land-use practices.

Referring to a "crisis" in federal transportation financing, Latham marveled at the administration's decision to focus on a "new boutique program" rather than crafting a replacement for the increasingly obsolete gas tax.

Roy Kienitz, the U.S. DOT's undersecretary for policy, did not dispute the two Republicans' assessment of a financing vacuum. "It was a great run for 45, 50 years, when you had a system whereby the amount of driving and gas people used grew along with the economy," Kienitz told the lawmakers. Now that relationship has unraveled, he explained, making the gas tax a poor revenue-raiser for transport projects.

But Kienitz had no answer for how the White House should solve the problem.

"The elephant in the room here is tax increases," he said. "I don't see the politics for that right now." Instead, the former adviser to Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) suggested that Congress should see the economic recession as a reason to "innovate" its transportation and housing policies.

Criticism from minority-party members such as Latham and LaTourette ultimately could have little effect on the White House' 2011 budget request of nearly $530 million for its sustainability work. The appropriations panel's chairman, Rep. John Olver (D-MA), is a longtime champion of walkable development who secured $150 million for the effort last year.

"We've had a whole generation when we've spent to subsidize sprawl into the suburbs," Olver said today. "The time has long since passed for sustainability."

Still, coming on the heels of bipartisan rural skepticism of the White House's move toward more competitive transport funding, the Republicans' comments could portend more political blowback for the idea of a yearlong delay in drafting new long-term infrastructure legislation.

Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) one-man filibuster kept U.S. DOT workers off the job for two days. (Photo: CNN)

"When you are taking home $900 over a two-week period, a $300 cut can be devastating," House transport committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), the bill's sponsor, said in a speech before its approval. "These cuts would be difficult enough in good economic times. Amidst the current economic downturn, they would be particularly painful."

Bunning argued that the extension of existing transportation law, which came coupled with five weeks of stopgap funding for unemployment benefits, should be fully paid for -- despite his past support for similar unpaid extension measures. He ultimately relented after a tumult of media coverage began to give Democrats political momentum in their campaign against frequent Republican use of the filibuster.

The U.S. DOT compensation bill is fully paid for, Oberstar's office said in a statement, thanks to a shift in already-approved spending authority for the agency.