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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As this recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report reminds us, the answer is "very regressive."

Even in lean economic times, the average rent in San Francisco (above) is close to $2,000/mo. (Photo: BinBin.net)

The disparity between the federal government’s support for homeowners and renters is stark. In fiscal year 2009, according to CBO, Washington spent almost four times as much money ($230 billion) to support homeownership as it did to improve rental affordability ($60 billion).

That spending on homeowners included $80 billion for the tax deduction for  mortgage interest, $16 billion for the state and local property-tax deduction and $16 billion for the capital-gains exclusion.

But it also included temporary commitments, such as the Obama administration's mortgage modification program ($75 billion) and the first-time home buyer tax credit ($14 billion). And let's not forget the continuing federal outlays to subsidize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s credit activities ($43 billion). 

By contrast, Washington devoted just $60 billion to improving rental affordability, mainly through a combination of low-income housing tax credits, Section 8 rental assistance, and public housing.   

Most people, I think, will acknowledge a general uneasiness with this disparity. It seems unfair for the government to spend 80 percent of its housing budget on the 67 percent of its households who own property.

What's more, these federal subsidies flow disproportionately to the most affluent of those households. Homeowners see no benefit from the mortgage interest, property tax or capital-gains deductions unless they itemize -- which means that many homeowners get little or no actual subsidy. The subsidy rises with the value of the home and the tax bracket of the buyer.

In other words, the federal government handsomely rewards the affluent for buying expensive homes and leaves renters (as well as low-income home owners) relatively worse off in the process.

But Washington's housing subsidies, which have continued under both Democratic and Republican administrations, have an even more insidious impact in the nation's most expensive markets. There, they make renters worse off in absolute terms by raising the overall cost of housing.

How does this happen? While federal homeowner subsidies nominally flow to home buyers, the actual beneficiaries depend on the particular housing market.

In markets where it is easy to add new housing -- those with an elastic supply -- rising demand spurs more new housing rather than higher prices. Home buyers do indeed receive the subsidies’ benefits (though they often take an environmental hit from new, often sprawled construction patterns). The federal programs reduce their cost of housing without raising the cost of housing for renters. 

But the story is different in markets with high demand and tight supply, such as the expensive markets on the coasts -- highly desirable, highly productive metropolitan areas constrained both by geography and restrictions on new construction. In these markets, sellers possess a scarce good in high demand and can force buyers to bid away their federal subsidies. The federal subsidies are bundled into the sales price; in the end, home buyers are neither better off nor worse off than without the subsidies.

Renters, however, are unequivocally worse off. Inflating the price of owner-occupied housing squeezes up the price of rentals, too, as higher home prices force would-be buyers to look elsewhere for housing. The federal price premium trickles down to all market segments, causing higher prices across the board.

But unlike buyers, renters do not enjoy large offsetting subsidies from Washington. They are stuck with higher real prices ... until they decide to flee for a city with cheaper housing. The relative pittance the government spends on rental housing cannot begin to remedy the imbalance (and might actually make things worse, to the extent the government merely creates more demand for housing without stimulating new supply).

The federal homeowner subsidies are thus doubly regressive in our most expensive cities. These cities have the richest residents living in the priciest homes that command the largest subsidies. And these cities have the tightest housing markets most vulnerable to distortions in demand. These places would undoubtedly be expensive to rent in anyway -- I can’t imagine center-city San Francisco being affordable to a young, working-class household -- but are decidedly less egalitarian, thanks to our federal government's housing programs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More lanes, or more housing and parks? (Image of proposed Deegan Expressway widening: NYSDOT. Image of the community's plan for a de-commissioned Sheridan Expressway: SBRWA)

The dubious Deegan project sucks up $266 million in the state DOT's new five-year capital plan, while more promising initiatives -- like the potential removal of the Sheridan Expressway-- languish without much money at all.

The DOT is considering tearing down the little-used Sheridan, a decision that would clear trucks off local streets and make room for housing, shops, and parks by the Bronx River.

But the capital plan sets aside just $2 million for the project. As advocates said in testimony today, that's only enough cash to muddle through the studies already underway.

To repeat: New York state's capital plan includes $266 million to widen a highway in an asthma-choked area of the Bronx, and $2 million for a project that could dramatically improve neighborhoods pummeled by truck traffic. Addressing a State Senate committee yesterday, advocates made the case for a different approach.

"We call on the NYS DOT to reinstate funding for the Sheridan project by reducing the size and scope of the Major Deegan Expressway project," the South Bronx River Watershed Alliance said in a statement. "With scarce resources, the agency must do a better job of prioritizing transportation investments that promote the safety, health and well-being of New York City residents."

The Tri-State Transportation Campaign submitted detailed commentary on the full capital plan, which you can read here. Here Tri-State explains why the New York DOT, which doesn't expand highways to the same degree as other state DOTs, still has a weakness for widening certain types of roads.

NYS DOT often plans large or over built rehabilitation projects under the guise of "bringing the roadway up to modern design standards." While certain modern design changes can help improve safety, spending millions of dollars, in some cases hundreds of millions, to simply widen interchanges, intersections, or build additional lanes does not make sense. Such projects often do little to solve congestion in the long-run, and come with very high price tags at a time when we have no money to waste.

The piece, by Haya el Nasser, starts out talking about how population is falling in many of the suburbs that grew most quickly over the last few decades -- places like Bellevue, Washington. These communities have become known as "boomburbs." But their boom days are past -- for now. Some have begun losing population.

The most interesting angle in the article, however, isn't the decline of suburban fortunes and the real estate market that fueled them. It's what municipal leaders and researchers are saying will be necessary to make those places economically viable in the future. Which is this: they'll have to become more like cities. Denser. More walkable. Not bedroom communities, but self-contained communities.

Robert Lang, a professor of sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas who coined the term "boomburbs," put it this way: "The irony is that if they want to keep growing, they must grow as cities, which is diametrically opposite of how they got so big in the first place."

And transit will be key to that transformation:

Will light rail pave the way to a different future in Irving, Texas? (Photo: pinecone via Flickr)

Population has declined since 2006 in Irving, Texas, but the city is prepared for healthy growth as soon as a light-rail line to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport is completed. "Eventually, you have to shift your focus to not just booming growth but redevelopment," Mayor Herbert Gears says. "That (rail) line is what's given us the opportunity to create an urban center."

Condominiums, apartments and retail are planned along the transit line. The city projects a 240,000 population by 2015, an 11% jump.

Growth in Henderson, Nev., near Las Vegas, has slowed but not stopped. "With the slowdown we've seen, it gives us an opportunity to take a breath," says city spokesman Bud Cranor. Henderson is focused on creating "green" jobs and a more sustainable urban environment, he says.

The article highlights what is emerging as a powerful unifying argument for smarter development: economics. It's an approach that could bring conservatives and liberals together. And it will certainly be part of Transportation for America's upcoming discussion on conservatives and public transportation.

More from the network: Bike Portland on results from an ad campaign that asked, "Should cyclists pay road tax?" Dotage St. Louis on an attractive replacement for a parking lot. And Rights of Way in Portland, Maine, on what a difference a four-foot narrowing of a street can make.

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo: Richard Masoner of Cyclelicious)

Send your JPEGs to sarah [@] streetsblog [dot] org, or tag them with "kidbikes" and "streetsblog" in Flickr. Your deadline is next Tuesday, November 24.

Our past slide shows have been on bike traffic, space hogs, work bikes and crummy transit conditions. Check them out if you haven't already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Photo: MoniqueMonicat)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (Photo: PennLive)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: hebedesign via Flickr

While researching a recent pedestrian death in Savannah, I ran across this television news report, which I think deserves to be examined on its own. If I’m hearing him correctly, this is the message delivered by a Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police officer:

"Someone could be looking down at their cellphone. Next thing they know they look up and there’s a kid in the road or a person in the road where they are not supposed to be at. And they don’t have time to stop. And like I said, pedestrians will lose that battle every time."

Perhaps this short comment from the officer was taken from a longer segment in which he railed against distracted driving. I hope that’s the case and if so, I commend him for it. But if not, it suggests a terribly casual attitude toward an awfully dangerous practice.

Sustainable Savannah links to Tom Vanderbilt's recent excellent essay on Slate, "In Defense of Jaywalking." Read it if you haven't already. It is a concise and well-researched examination of the biases against pedestrians -- biases that are reflected in media coverage and law enforcement, but most importantly, in street design.

More from around the network: Transportation for America will be hosting an online discussion December 7 on conservatives and public transportation. Biker Chicks of West Chester decries the push to register bikes in Philadelphia. And Mobilizing the Region talks about how transit operating aid is the best route to job creation.

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

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

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

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

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

• NIMBYism constrains California solar power projects (WSJ Blog)
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, Steve Davis at Transportation for America reports on the meeting T4A and several of its partners had with US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood on Monday. The meeting was to deliver a petition with more than 4,100 signatures gathered after last week's release of the "Dangerous by Design" report on pedestrian fatalities:

US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood with James Corless of Transportation for America and Barbara McCann of the National Complete Streets Coalition

With the petition and a copy of Dangerous by Design in front of him, LaHood listened intently as T4 America’s James Corless and others talked about the epidemic of preventable deaths -- and what we can do to turn the tide and keep pedestrians safe.

Secretary LaHood was hopeful that federal transportation policy can better accommodate all users and keep them safe, and that now is the right time to make that change.

“I think this Congress gets it now,” Secretary LaHood told us. “Certainly in part because of advocates like you.” He acknowledged that making the streets in our communities safe and accommodating for everyone dovetails well with the Obama administration’s focus on livability.

He stressed that safety is the top consideration for everything they do at USDOT and urged T4 America to take the report directly to Congress as they continue discussions on the full six-year transportation bill. He also asked for more copies of Dangerous by Design (on their way, Mr. Secretary!).

We'll be keeping an eye on developments.

More from our members: Network Musings beings news of a proposed vehicle-miles-traveled tax in the Netherlands. The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia reports on a proposed bike registration and ban on brakeless bikes in that city. And Hub and Spokes has a video about the impact of mandatory parking minimums.

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

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

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

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

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

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