Photo: AP

Today saw a massive mobilization of opposition to House Speaker John Boehner’s five-year disaster of a transportation bill, even as he defended it at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. Meanwhile, the Senate voted 85-11 to move forward with Senator Barbara Boxer’s two-year reauthorization proposal.

“This is a good vote,” Boxer said after the votes were tallied. “Tell the House we have a bipartisan bill worthy of their consideration.”

It was the first real test for Boxer’s bill, sometimes called MAP-21, before the entire Senate. The bill is far from perfect, with bike/ped programs falling victim to program consolidation. It does give a small boost to transit operations and it does not rely on drilling for new revenue.

The pursuit of bipartisan support has been a hallmark of Boxer’s reauthorization efforts, even more than any specific policy goals. Before today’s vote was held, she expressed her hope for more than the 60 votes necessary to move forward, and in the end she received broad support from across the aisle.

The vote invokes cloture, which means the bill cannot be filibustered. No further amendments may be proposed to it, though Boxer acknowledged that a good number had been proposed already. One of those amendments, sponsored by Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin and Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran, would give local governments greater access to transportation funds — good news for the transit, bike and pedestrian projects that cities and towns like to build.

Subsequent votes will formally attach the titles passed by the Commerce, Banking, and Finance committees. A full vote in the Senate is expected some time next week.

The 11 Senators — including two Democrats — who voted “no” are after the jump. 

Mark Begich (D-AK)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Full yeas and nays are available here.

The House GOP bill would leave transit riders stranded. Photo: ifmuth/Flickr

Streetsblog Network members are on the case: Darla at Walk Bike Lee, in Lee County Florida, says the bill unfairly pillages the pittance given to sustainable transportation modes and urges her readers to voice their concerns to Rep. Connie Mack. Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic says the bill is the pinnacle of bad transportation policy. And Daniel Nairn at Discovering Urbanism writes that is tailored to the interests of oil companies, not your average citizen.

Opposition to the proposal is starting to emanate from editorial pages: The New York Times and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have called it “terrible” and “not worthy of passage.”

Meanwhile, Deron Lovaas at the NRDC’s Switchboard blog points out that House GOP bill doesn’t even pass the rudimentary test of fiscal discipline. Congressional Budget Office projections show that John Boehner’s plan to plug the transportation funding shortfall with $2 billion in oil drilling revenues only kicks the can down the road:

The bill is larded with extreme measures, including bills passed last week that would annihilate dedicated funding for public transportation (see a report on that here) for the first time in thirty years, slash public oversight required thanks to the 40-year-old National Environmental Policy Act and for the first time ever tie the federal transportation program to speculative drilling revenue.

These bills touted as the panacea for a revenue-starved transportation program don’t prop the program up at all! As Taxpayers for Common Sense has noted this is fiscally reckless. And as they, along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Reason Foundation and NRDC have noted, it violates the “user pays” funding principle that has underpinned transportation investments for at least the past half-century.

Fiscally reckless. Environmentally damaging. Attacks anyone who rides transit, walks, or bikes by swiping funding for those options. It’s time to kill this bill.

John Mica and John Boehner would have you believe their bill is a blessing for transit. It isn't.

Republicans are not anti-transit, but we do recognize that the Highway Trust Fund is paid for by highways users, and cities and local governments must look at developing a similar user fee system for transit users.

This bill gives more flexibility to states to fund their most critical transportation needs, and under this bill states can also use the funds authorized under the highway program for transit systems if they so choose.

Because of the struggling economy, changing driving patterns and more fuel efficient vehicles, the Highway Trust Fund is in repeated danger of running dry. The Republican bill stabilizes the Trust Fund for the next five years, ensures states have the ability to fund their most critical transportation needs, and also guarantees transit funding.

Transportation myths die hard, and here the House GOP is trotting out a bunch of them — plus a few new sadistic rhetorical flourishes — to justify what’s quickly becoming known as the worst transportation bill ever. A quick primer on how the Republican leadership is lying about their bill:

1. The House GOP is not guaranteeing transit funding. They’re eliminating guaranteed transit funding.

Ask anyone who works in public transit, and they’ll tell you this bill would wreak havoc as soon as it is passed. By ending the policy begun by Ronald Reagan of funding federal transit programs with gas tax revenue, House Republicans would cast a pall of uncertainty over just about every transit agency in America. The Republican “guarantee” is nothing but a guarantee of more haggling over limited dollars as transit programs go up against other spending priorities in the general fund. Without the certainty that gas tax revenues provide, transit agencies will immediately move to cut service and raise fares, exactly what Americans don’t need while gas prices are rising and jobs are still scarce.

2. Highways are not “paid for by highway users.”

Gas taxes and tolls don’t cover the cost of highways, not by a longshot. In 2007, for example, user fees only covered 51 percent of highway costs, according to Subsidyscope. In other words, roads are subsidized — on a much larger scale than transit.

3. The House GOP bill does nothing to “stabilize” the Highway Trust Fund.

The bill relies on one-shot fees from gas and oil drilling to make up for the deficit in the Highway Trust Fund. While this would ensure that highways are subsidized even more than they are now, it’s a completely inadequate way to pay for transportation infrastructure, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

4. There’s already a “user fee system for transit users.”

It’s called the farebox.

5. “Changing driving patterns” are not endangering the Highway Trust Fund.

The truth is that even though Americans are driving less, the nation’s transportation funding system would be on solid footing if the federal gas tax kept pace with inflation. But since the gas tax is much lower in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was in 1993, the last year it was raised, the Highway Trust Fund is depleted. Congress and President Obama could solve the problem by taking another page from Reagan and adjusting the gas tax.

(The other Orwellian touch here is that the House bill doesn’t actually include any policies to adapt to “changing driving patterns.” In fact, it seems to have been drafted with 1950s-era driving patterns in mind. A bill that accounts for changing driving patterns would reflect the steadily increasing number of American transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians, and the decline of driving per capita. Instead, the House bill puts all its resources into infrastructure for driving.)

6. States already have the “flexibility” to spend their highway funds on transit — the problem is they don’t like to.

States have had the flexibility to spend their highway funds on transit for decades. But highways are what they know, so highways are what they build.

When the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act passed in 1991, it was supposed to mark the end of an era, says Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director for the Natural Resource Defense Council. The interstate highway system was finished, and federal transportation money would go to increasingly to other things — dedicated funding for bike/ped projects, an expanded transit program, a larger program for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement, all part of an enlarged Surface Transportation Program. States could “flex” STP funds however they wanted. “Unfortunately, the track record for flexing STP has been very poor,” said Lovaas. “State highway agencies focus on highways.”

If the House GOP really cared about local control of transportation funds, they could draft a bill that distributes federal funding to cities and towns. The problem for John Boehner and the oil companies who back this bill is that cities and towns spend transportation dollars on things like transit, biking, and walking.

Steven LaTourette, an Ohio Republican, said he opposes the House transportation bill as it is currently written. Photo: Cleveland.com

So there’s a chance that House leadership will fail to round up the 218 votes needed to pass this bill. Based on Streetsblog’s initial conversations with House GOP members, the bill could be too anti-transit and too hostile to street safety to pass, even in this extremely partisan political climate.

Streetsblog began reaching out to House GOP members this morning to see where they stand, and already we’re finding representatives who think the current bill is too extreme. One Republican with misgivings is Ohio Rep. Steven LaTourette, who represents rural and suburban areas in the northeast part of the state, east of Cleveland.

LaTourette has been a supporter of common-sense transportation reforms in the House, co-sponsoring national complete streets legislation as well as a bipartisan measure that would have increased flexibility with federal funds for struggling transit agencies.

Through his chief of staff, Dino DiSanto, LaTourette’s office had this to say about the bill:

In its current formation there are lots of things we don’t like about it. If it’s not changed drastically, we’re not going to support it.

What they’re doing to highway funding — removing [Transportation] Enhancements, not allowing more flexibility for transit agencies? There’s no reason [transit agencies] should be able to buy buses but not operate them.

Infrastructure used to be something that was widely popular among both parties, and for some reason over the last few Congresses, they’ve become highly polarized.

Meanwhile, Bob Turner (R-NY), whose district encompasses parts of Queens and Brooklyn, has reservations as well. In a statement, Rep. Turner indicated his disapproval, specifically for the portion of the bill that would eliminate dedicated funding for transit:

Now that the House bill is taking shape, I have concerns about how the funds will eventually be allocated. We cannot underestimate the importance of providing efficient, safe, mass transit, roads, bridges and tunnels to the people who live and commute in New York City. As this bill evolves, I will continue to work with my colleagues both in Congress and New York to find the best approach in meeting our infrastructure needs. However, I will not support any bill that does not allow New York City to sufficiently meet those needs.

Another GOP representative from New York, Peter King, told Crain’s via his spokesperson that he “has serious concerns about this legislation and the impact it will have on mass transit both on Long Island and New York City.”

The House and Senate transportation bill proposals are both expected to go up for votes next week. Streetsblog will be tracking the positions of key House Republicans throughout the week.

The Green Lane Project will provide financial and technical assistance for cities to develop physically protected cycling infrastructure. The six to-be-determined cities will then serve as models for other American cities looking to incorporate street designs that make cycling appealing to residents of all ages.

A few major cities including New York and Washington DC have implemented protected bike lanes, but the designs are still “When a city is out on the front like this and they have a problem, it’s not always clear where they go. We’re trying to help those cities figure it out,” said Green Lane Project Director Martha Roskowski. “So they don’t have to go to Copenhagen to see how these things work.”

Bikes Belong is looking for cities that have political support for creating world-class bike infrastructure, as well as a plan in place. The organization also wants to include three “emerging cities” outside the superstars like New York and Portland, Roskowski said.

“We’re looking for six cities where they have elected officials that are on board with this,” said said. “They’ve gone through some type of a planning process. They get it. They want to do these things.”

Bike Belong sent out invitations to 33 cities that have fairly developed cycling transportation programs. Those include Houston, Memphis, Los Angeles and Columbus, Ohio, as well as San Francisco, according to Roskowski. But any city can apply, whether it was invited or not.

One city that has already been chosen is Chicago. The city’s DOT chief, Gabe Klein, is serving as an adviser on the project, as is New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. Roskowski said Bikes Belong has not determined what New York City’s role in the program will be, whether strictly as an adviser or as a participant.

The Green Lane Project will build on the work done by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to create a design guide for a new generation of cycling infrastructure. The Bikes Belong Foundation will be focusing most of its resources on the six chosen cities over the next two years, Roskowski said. They hope the results will be instructive to cities everywhere.

“We’re focusing on putting resources into six cities,” said Roskowski, “the other half is trying to capture what’s happening and share it with all the other cities.”

Applications for the program are due by March 9.

This intersection, Chicago's North Avenue at Kedzie Avenue, would be eligible for automated speeding enforcement under new legislation in Illinois. Between 2005 and 2010, 22 pedestrians and cyclists were injured by auto collisions at this intersection. Photo: Grid Chicago

Speeding Cameras Coming to Chicago: New legislation has cleared the way for automated speeding enforcement — speeding cameras — in Chicago. The cameras will be used only in “safety zones,” or areas around schools and parks. Fines will be $50 – $100 depending on the magnitude of the violation.

Steven Vance at Network blog Grid Chicago is dispelling some common misconceptions about speed cameras, pointing out that they will save lives. “Speed correlates with the survival rate of a pedestrian involved in an automobile crash. If a pedestrian is hit by a person driving a car at 30 MPH, there is an 80% survival rate. If a pedestrian is hit by a person driving a car at 40 MPH, there is a 30% survival rate.”

Will the cameras be effective? Vance summarizes three studies that looked at the efficacy of speeding cameras in preventing traffic collisions. The studies found that speeding cameras were indeed useful in motivating drivers to reduce their speed, improving safety. “There have been reductions in the number of people speeding, and the number of injuries and fatalities, in locations where speed cameras are installed and operated,” Vance writes. “In my assessment of multiple studies, it seems that speed cameras are a main cause of these reductions.”

Why Subway Construction Has Gotten to Be So Expensive: Building new subway lines is more expensive than ever — even when adjusted for inflation. Yesterday Benjamin Kabak at Second Avenue Sagas reviewed a recent Salon article by Will Doig, who identified seven issues that contribute to skyrocketing costs and ballooning construction time tables. Some of the culprits: the slow wheels of bureaucracy, the difficulty of assembling funding for large transit projects in an environment that marginalizes public transportation in favor of auto travel, and NIMBYism. Salon also identifies some progressive reforms, including environmental impact statements, ADA compliance and union rules, as hurdles that aren’t impeding China’s ability to lay down tracks for metros seemingly overnight.

Kabak looks at the issue through the lens of the Second Avenue subway New York City has been planning for decades. “The MTA issued its notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Second Ave. Subway in March of 2001,” he says. “The FEIS saw the light of day 38 months later in May of 2004, and the authority had to further revise its assessment in 2009 to find no material impact when it had to redesign station configurations at 72nd and 86th St.”

Red Lights to Be Optional for Paris Cyclists: Systemic Failure points us to a story in the London Times about an experiment in Paris that will allow cyclists in one district to “turn right or to go straight at a T-junction even when the lights are red.” The news come after a contentious campaign by cycling advocacy groups which claimed it was “idiotic for them to stop at traffic lights.” Proponents of the measure argued it would reduce the risk of traffic collision — a sharp departure from American sensibility on the topic. It will be interesting to observe the safety outcomes of this one.

The Senate Finance Committee discusses how to fund their two-year transportation bill. Image: U.S. Senate

Today (very early in the morning, as his Republican colleagues pointed out), Baucus released an updated version of the bill, which incorporates several proposed amendments — including Senator Chuck Schumer’s transit benefits amendment, which would raise the maximum tax benefit for commuters who take transit so that it’s equal to the benefit for commuters who drive.

Baucus also revealed additional sources of funds and how they’d be used:

• $2.618 billion transferred from import tariff revenue (essentially a transfer from the general fund) would ensure the Highway Trust Fund would be fully-funded over the life of the bill
• $6.505 billion added to the general fund over ten years by closing various tax loopholes
• $0.710 billion in new spending over ten years, mostly in new tax breaks, including parity between the pre-tax commuter parking and transit benefits

The addition of transit commuter benefits is good but frustrating news for transit. While the Senate continues include a few forward thinking reforms on transit policy, the House bill’s extremist slant poses a threat to the entire reauthorization effort.

In remarks before the markup votes began, Republicans voiced their concerns about budget offsets that “do not have anything to do with transportation,” in the words of Richard Burr (R-NC). Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Burr even expressed measured interest in indexing the federal gas tax to inflation.

On the Democrats’ side,  John Kerry (D-MA) reiterated his support for a national infrastructure bank capitalized by a $10 billion in federal investment. But Kerry indicated he would not attempt to insert the infrastructure bank into this bill.

The bill is expected to pass the Democrat-controlled committee; the big remaining question is whether it will pass with the same bipartisan support that the EPW and Banking segments of the transportation bill received.

A live webcast of the markup is available here.

Would you use a rototiller to get rid of weeds in a flowerbed? Of course not. You might solve your immediate goal of uprooting the weeds — but oh, my, the collateral damage that you would do.

Yet when we try to eliminate congestion from our urban areas by using decades-old traffic engineering measures and models, we are essentially using a rototiller in a flowerbed. And it’s time to acknowledge that the collateral damage has been too great.

Image: Andy Singer

Image: Andy Singer

First, an explanation of what I call the “deadly duo”: travel projection models and Levels of Service (LOS) performance metrics.Travel projection models are computer programs that use assumptions about future growth in population, employment, and recreation to estimate how many new cars will be on roads 20 or 30 years into the future.

Models range from quite simplistic to incredibly complex and expensive. Simple models deal primarily with coarse movements of vehicles between cities, while complex models deal with the intricacies of what happens on the fine grid of urban areas. To be truly accurate, growth projection modeling can be expensive. Therefore, absent compelling reason to do otherwise, most growth projections tend to be done using less expensive techniques, which usually lead to overestimates.

Levels of Service (LOS) is a performance metric which flourished during the interstate- and freeway-building era that went from the 1950s to the 1990s. Using a scale of A to F, LOS attempts to create an objective formula to answer a subjective question: How much congestion are we willing to tolerate? As in grade school, “F” is a failing grade and “A” is perfect.

Engineers decided that LOS “C” was a good balance between overinvestment in perfection and underinvestment leading to congestion. In urban areas, a concession was made to accept LOS D, representing slightly more restricted but still free-flowing traffic. LOS is commonly (actually, almost always) calculated using travel projections for 20 to 30 years into the future.

Using basic traffic models and LOS C/D to plan and design the interstate system was a no-brainer in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. When deciding how many lanes to build on a freeway connecting major cities, a sensitivity of plus or minus 10,000 trips a day could be tolerated, and the incremental difference in cost to plow through undeveloped land was relatively insignificant.

Good approach, wrong setting

I’m not going to look back and quibble with the general philosophy of how the interstates and the associated high-speed freeways were planned and designed. On many levels, the approach made sense.

But it became increasingly less persuasive when applied to the rest of our road network. Unlike interstates and freeways, most roads exist not just to move traffic through the area, but also to serve the homes, businesses, and people along them. Yet in search of high LOS rankings, transportation professionals have widened streets, added lanes, removed on-street parking, limited crosswalks, and deployed other inappropriate strategies. In ridding our communities of the weeds of congestion, we have also pulled out the very plants that made our “gardens” worthwhile in the first place.

It’s worth remembering, too, that not all congestion is bad. John Norquist, former Mayor of Milwaukee and current CEO and President of the Congress for New Urbanism, suggests that congestion is like cholesterol: there is a good kind and a bad kind.

What makes the prevailing situation even more troubling is that there are no comprehensive requirements dictating the use of either LOS or travel modeling in transportation planning and project design. The “Green Book” from the Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (more formally known as “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”) clearly states that these are guidelines to be applied with judgment — not mandates. So does the Federal Highway Administration’s “Highway Capacity Manual.”

The idea that we must rid our roads of  any and all traffic congestion is, in fact, a self-imposed requirement. As Eric Jaffe wrote in an article for Atlantic Cities in December, 2011:

Although cities aren’t required to abide LOS measures by law, over the years the measure hardened into convention. By the time cities recognized the need for balanced transportation systems, LOS was entrenched in the street engineering canon.

Worse yet, many designers size a road or intersection to be free-flowing for the worst hour of the day. Sized to accommodate cars during the highest peak hour, such streets will be “overdesigned” for the other 23 hours of the day and will always function poorly for the surrounding community.

If that isn’t troubling enough, LOS is often calculated using traffic predicted 20 years into the future, even in urban settings. Until the forecasted growth materializes, the roadway will be overdesigned, even during the peak hour. Overdesigned roadways encourage motorists to drive at higher speeds, making them difficult to cross and unpleasant to walk along. This degrades public spaces between the edges of the road and the adjacent buildings, encourages people to drive short distances, and generally unravels a community’s social fabric.

Let me repeat: Contrary to what you may hear, there is no national requirement or mandate to apply LOS standards and targets 20 years into the future for urban streets. This thinking is a remnant from 1960s era  policy for the interstate system, and has erroneously been passed down from generation to generation.

Image: Andy Singer

So what are the right approaches?

Asking the simple question, “Do you want congestion reduced at a particular location?” is a question out of context. It’s like asking you whether you want to never be stung by a bee again. Of course, the answer will be yes. But what if I told you that to in order to never suffer a sting again, every plant within a several mile radius would have to be destroyed — and that you could never leave the area of destruction?

You would have a completely different answer, I’m sure.

The question that needs to be asked in urban settings is not whether you ever want to sit in congestion again. Who does? The question is whether you want to eliminate congestion on your Main Street 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year — knowing that the consequence would be a community with decimated economic and social value, increased reliance on car use, increased crashes, and, ultimately, more congestion.

Recognizing the need for balance, a number of entities are beginning to promote approaches sensitive to the context.

I was the New Jersey Department of Transportation’ s project manager for  the “Smart Transportation Guide” (STG), adopted jointly by the state DOTs in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.   The STG directs DOT designers to consider the tradeoffs between vehicular LOS and “local service.” It goes on to say that if the street in question is not critical to regional movement, that LOS E or F could be acceptable — and that designers may actually need to design to slow down cars.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers, an “international association of transportation professionals responsible for meeting mobility and safety needs” also promoted this concept in its landmark “Context Sensitive Solutions Guidelines for Urban Thoroughfares.” Florida DOT has adopted multimodal LOS standards, and cities like Charlotte, N.C., have elevated pedestrian and bicycle LOS to the level of that for automobiles. We have a long way to go, but the door is opening.

Creating balanced standards for roadway design will benefit transportation as well. In the Netherlands, the “Livable Streets” policy led to a remarkable improvement in safety on their roadways. They started in the 1970s with a crash rate 15 percent higher than in the U.S., and now have a crash rate 60 percent lower.

Design with the community in mind

It’s time for communities and transportation professionals alike to accept that we have been using the wrong tools for the wrong job. LOS and travel modeling may be effective when sizing and locating high-speed freeways, but are totally inappropriate in every other setting. If travel modeling with high rates of growth is used to make street decisions, your community may be doomed to a series of roadway widenings or intersection expansions. If vehicular LOS C or D performance measures are adopted as non-negotiable targets, major road construction will be heading your way.

Village, suburban and city streets need to be designed with the community in mind using the PPS principle of Streets as Places to  create a vision for a great community and then plan your streets to support that vision.

Lets not be fooled by the appearance of science behind Levels of Service and Traffic Modeling. As I pointed out in an interview with Wayne Senville that was published in the November 2010 “Planning Commissioner’s Journal,” LOS standards are easy to understand — and that’s exactly what makes them so dangerous.

Denver's plan to add 122 miles of passenger rail is boosting the local economy. Photo: The Fast Lane

The secretary’s blog, The Fast Lane, discusses how this project promises to be, on many levels, a winner for the Mile-High City:

The enthusiasm in yesterday’s crowd was electric. It’s not hard to see why. The West Rail Line is 85% complete, and the mock-ups and progress to date indicate a beautiful, state-of-the-art transit system.  The new line will allow tourists and commuters to spend less time in traffic and less money on gas. That’s something everyone can appreciate.

Not only will the FasTracks program provide an efficient and cost-effective way to get to and from work, school or the airport; but it is also creating jobs right now.  There are more than 500 men and women working on the West Rail Line alone. FasTracks estimates that its plan will eventually provide work for 4,200 others.

But we can’t be content to see this progress in just one city.  All across America, there is work to be done on projects like the West Rail Line.  More and more Americans are looking for greater choices in transportation today, and it’s important we provide the funding to ensure transit remains one of the available choices.  Now is the time to connect people who need work with the work we need to do improving our nation’s transit centers, highways, railways, airports and ports.

This is exactly the type of investment in the future that other cities would miss out under the House GOP proposal to strip transit projects of dedicated federal funding stream.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Mobilizing the Region reports that political leaders in the New York-New Jersey region are united in their opposition to the House transit proposal. Streets.mn asks if traffic engineers’ roadway classification system is an outdated way of understanding transportation dynamics. And Suburban Assault introduces Dallas’s first bike café.

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

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

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

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

Reps. Joe Crowley, Charlie Rangel, Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney joined MTA chief Joe Lhota to decry the House Republicans' attempt to end dedicated federal funding for transit. Photo: Noah Kazis

Under the House’s plan, instead of receiving a roughly 20 percent cut of the federal gas tax, transit would receive a one-time transfer from the general fund. In theory, at least. In practice, there would be no guarantees that transit would receive any funding.

Noah Kazis, from our sister blog in New York, has more from today’s presser:

Charlie Rangel, former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, which passed the anti-transit provision, said he asked influential House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan where the money to pay for transit would come from in the general fund. “The answer was they did not know at that time,” said Rangel.

Other new rules that the speakers found objectionable would no longer require states to set aside an extra 1 percent of funds for transit in cities of over 200,000 residents, and would prohibit transit authorities that operate bus and rail services from receiving grants from the “bus and bus facilities fund.”

New Orleans' Claibourne Overpass is this year's Congress for New Urbanism choice for "Freeway without a Future." Photo: CNU.org

Latest week the Congress for New Urbanism released its updated list of “Freeways Without Futures” — 12 transportation anachronisms that are increasingly likely to meet the wrecking ball.

This year’s top finisher was New Orleans’ Claiboure Overpass — a 1960s-era eyesore that replaced a thriving, tree-lined commercial street at the center of the city’s oldest, most culturally vibrant black neighborhood. The teardown for this highway has some real traction; a master plan to remove the elevated portion is expected to be endorsed by City Council shortly, according to CNU.

The Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx is runner up, the same position it held in CNU’s 2008 Freeways Without Futures list. This riverfront disaster was bestowed by the master highway builder himself, Robert Moses. Residents of the Bronx have successfully fought off two separate proposals to expand the Sheridan, which runs right along the Bronx River. A coalition of community groups and advocates called the Southern Bronx River Watershed Alliance has led the charge to replace the freeway with housing and parks, and a group of cities agencies are now examining teardown scenarios with the help of a federal TIGER grant.

The third-place finisher is New Haven’s Route 34 (the Oak Street Connector), which is slated for demolition. New Haven received TIGER funds to convert the road into a pedestrian-friendly boulevard and local officials are currently haggling over the design details — there’s a chance they’ll opt to replace a highway with a road that feels like a highway.

Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct fell 11 spots in the list from last year, due to the fact that while the elevated highway will be demolished, the city is moving ahead with an underground replacement, the so-called deep bore tunnel that has sustainable transportation advocates up in arms.

There’s more: Buffalo, Miami, St. Louis, Cleveland, Rochester, Syracuse, Toronto and Hartford all have urban freeways that CNU has identified as endangered. Kudos to the state of New York, by the way, for leading on sheer volume. Streetsblog reported on efforts to remove the elevated portion of Interstate 81 in Syracuse and West Shoreway in Cleveland last year.

CNU’s 2012 Top Tear-down Prospects:

1.  I-10/Claiborne Overpass, New Orleans
2.  I-895/Sheridan Expressway, New York City (Bronx)
3.  Route 34/Oak Street Connector, New Haven
4.  Route 5/Skyway, Buffalo
5.  I-395/Overtown Expressway, Miami
6.  I-70, St. Louis
7.  West Shoreway, Cleveland
8.  I-490/Inner Loop, Rochester
9.  I-81, Syracuse
10.  Gardiner Expressway, Toronto
11.  Aetna Viaduct, Hartford
12.  Route 99/Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle

CNU attributes the rising popularity of highway teardowns and highway-to-boulevard projects to declining DOT budgets and greater local understanding of the benefits of a connected, urban street grid. CNU’s “Highways to Boulevards” program helps educate communities about the benefits of freeway removal and offers technical assistance.

The House transportation bill passed committee on solidly partisan lines. It would reverse decades of reforms that promote safer streets, sustainable transportation, and urbanism. Photo: The National Journal

The Senate managed to put together bipartisan support for legislation that weakens biking and walking programs while including a few progressive reforms to transit policy. House Republicans, meanwhile, have lined up behind a draconian vision for highways-only transportation policy that would reverse decades of pragmatic reforms.

Crystallized in the House bill is a strident position that seeks to undermine any form of transportation beside the private automobile, one that rejects cost-saving reforms while cloaking itself in the pretense of fiscal rectitude.

This position — clearly a favorite of industries that profit from highways and sprawl — has even become a talking point among Republican presidential contenders this primary season, reports Yonah Freemark at the Transport Politic. Advocates for green transportation and urbanism have no choice but to fight, says Freemark:

As I have documented, density of population correlates strongly and positively with the Democratic Party vote share in Congressional elections; the result has been that the House Republicans have few electoral reasons to articulate policies that benefit cities. Those who believe in the importance of a sane transportation policy need to make more of an effort to advance a sane transportation politics to residents of suburban and rural areas, who also benefit from efforts to improve environmental quality, mobility alternatives, and congestion relief, but perhaps are not yet convinced of that fact. Doing so would encourage politicians hoping for votes outside of the city core — Democratic or Republican — to promote alternatives to the all-highways meme that currently rules the GOP in the House.

In the face of such actions, it becomes imperative in the short term not only to ramp up citizen opposition to the defunding of transit and associated programs, but also to full-throatily endorse those leaders who will stand up to fight. Not working for their election in the fall risks policies like those being advanced in the House being passed by an acquiescent Senate and signed by a future president. Such actions would put in question the potential improvement of existing programs and turn back on the policy strides that must be made to contest the vision some have of an all-automobile America.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Second Avenue Sagas explains that the House GOP’s proposal to eliminate dedicated funding for transit would be catastrophic for New York City. iWatch News reports that industry groups are working hard to discredit a government study that is expected to link diesel exhaust to lung cancer. And BLDGBlog shares tips for making planning popular in the community.

Spoiler alert. Photo: TruckinWeb

The centerpiece was yesterday’s/last night’s/this morning’s Transportation & Infrastructure committee markup, where members debated more than 80 amendments for over 18 hours before finally approving Chairman Mica’s bill, 29-24, at about 3:00 a.m. Not one Democrat voted for it, and only one Republican — Tom Petri of Wisconsin — voted against it. Energy and Financing titles were also approved by their respective committees.

Streetsblog has already pointed out that there’s plenty to dislike in the bill, especially for pedestrians, cyclists, city-dwellers, transit riders, and the environmentally-conscious. But believe it or not, there are a few groups out there who still like this bill a whole lot. In fact, at today’s markup in the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Dave Camp submitted for the record a letter of support from over 50 organizations.

It’s worth noting that the list of supporters is getting smaller. The T&I bill may have enjoyed the support of AASHTO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but both have now opposed the Ways & Means committee’s financing title. In fact, over 600 organizations have voiced their opposition to that particular bill. However, there are still some hold-outs.

For starters, there’s trucking. Bill Graves, the American Trucking Associations’ CEO, called the bill “a major step forward, not just for trucking, but for all users of our transportation system.” Graves was disappointed when new rules allowing longer, heavier trucks were put off pending further study, saying, “We hope that Congress will see that wasting taxpayer money on further study is not necessary and as this legislation moves forward, enacts these long overdue reforms.”

Then there’s the retail sector. David French, the National Retail Federation’s VP for Government Relations, has said, “Our neglected transportation system has created bottlenecks and inefficiencies in the supply chain that stifle U.S. companies’ ability to grow.” Those “inefficencies” could refer to the same regulations the trucking industry is excited about. But bigger trucks (and longer driver hours, another pet issue of the trucking industry) would mainly benefit the largest shippers — the WalMarts, Home Depots and Best Buys.

And then there is oil industry, who would be able to drill far more freely in Alaska and off the American coast. Speaker Boehner’s inclusion of the Keystone XL pipeline makes the bill even more appealing to the petroleum industry. American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard believes that most Americans “know America will need more oil. They see the benefits of importing more from Canada while also producing more at home… [Keystone XL] is essential to our nation’s energy future.”

So, more drilling (oil companies make money) and lax regulations (trucking industry makes money) mean slightly lower shipping costs (mega-retailers make money). Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box — whose business models each depend on wider highways and sprawl — are the major beneficiaries of this bill.

House Ways & Means' Dave Camp (R-MI) and Sander Levin (D-MI) do not see eye to eye on funding transit. Photo: Zimbio

The attack on transit has drawn opposition from an unprecedentedly broad coalition of over 600 groups, including many that do not often find themselves on the same side of an issue. Opponents of the bill include noted transit advocates APTA and T4America, and traditionally pro-highway groups such as AASHTO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The conservative Club for Growth has even gone so far as to make the entire House transportation package a key vote, meaning members will be rewarded for opposing the bill. Rep. John Campbell has already said he has changed his position on the package, and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) laughed at the prospect of getting a positive rating from Club for Growth for “the first time in a while.”

An amendment proposed by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, which would have removed the provision altering transit’s revenue source, was defeated along party lines during mark up this morning. However, two Republicans — Erik Paulsen of Minnesota and Vern Buchanan of Florida — broke ranks with their party and voted against the underlying bill. The bill passed anyway by a vote of 20-17.

Despite repeated attempts by Republicans to present the bill as placing transit funding on surer footing, the bill drew vocal opposition from Democrats such as ranking member Sander Levin, who said it “undermines the very structure of the Highway Trust Fund.” Blumenauer said the bill relied on “fantasy accounting” to justify a $40 billion transfer from the general fund to cover transit, and McDermott bemoaned the lack of long-term thinking behind the bill.

Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York even asked Chairman Dave Camp if there was a precedent for the Ways and Means committee to demand a complete restart of transportation authorization efforts. When informed that there was not, Rangel responded, “Well, you can be a leader, then.”

The letter from coalition members opposing the Ways and Means bill is after the jump.

Makes me happy just looking at it. Photo: NRDC Switchboard

According to a new study published in Urban Affairs Review, urban design can have a measurable effect on how people feel. Researchers at the University of West Virginia and the University of South Carolina Upstate examined levels of self-reported happiness in 10 major cities. They found that quality urban environments do indeed contribute to happiness among residents.

“People are often connected to quality places that are cultural and distinctive,” the authors wrote. “Not all neighborhoods are the same. Some are designed and built to foster or enable connections. Other are built to discourage them (e.g., a gated model) or devolve to become places that are antisocial because of crime or other negative behaviors.”

Kaid Benfield at the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Switchboard blog expanded on the findings:

The study examined a number of questions directly related to the built environment, including the convenience of public transportation, the ease of access to shops, the presence of parks and sports facilities, the ease of access to cultural and entertainment facilities, and the presence of libraries. All were found to correlate significantly with happiness, with convenient public transportation and easy access to cultural and leisure facilities showing the strongest correlation.

The statistical analysis also included questions related to urban environmental quality apart from cities’ built form, and produced additional significant correlations. Among these, the perception of living in a beautiful city had the strongest correlation with happiness.

So I guess that wouldn’t include the ubiquitous big box retail centers that haunt my dreams …

Elsewhere on the Network today: Greater Greater Washington reports that Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has called to end the state’s six percent sales tax exemption for gasoline. The Austin Contrarian explains why the region’s plan to add two congestion-priced lanes to a local freeway is a win from an equity perspective. And the Active Transporation Alliance says congressional leaders have “declared war on transit” with HR 3854, a bill that would eliminate dedicated funding for public transportation.