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.

Senate environment chairman Barbara Boxer. Photo: Politics Now

In the letter, Sens. Jim Inhofe (OK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), and Richard Shelby (AL) joined Democrats in asking both parties' leaders to overcome the objections of a "small number of senators" who prevented quick passage of a six-month extension in September -- citing their opposition to using unspent financial bailout money to keep transportation programs running.

The senior Democrats signing onto the letter were: environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (CA), Commerce Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (WV), and Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd (CT). Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus also signed the letter, but the Finance panel's chief Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), did not attach his name.

A Grassley aide said the senator is concerned about the long-term financial health of the nation's highway trust fund and would prefer to address the issue in a multi-year bill rather than a months-long extension.

The political climate surrounding infrastructure investment, roiled in recent days by Democrats' new determination to pass job-creation legislation before the end of the year, remains highly uncertain. But the senators' letter signals that any new transportation spending is likely to be distributed using the same funding framework used in the 2005 bill, rather than through any revamped policy that might put roads and transit projects on a more equal footing.

The reason, simply put: If a six-month extension wins approval before the current stopgap transportation measure expires on December 18, a 2010 jobs bill could well be on its way to the president's desk by the time any broad reforms would reach the top of the congressional agenda.

However, the fate of any extra infrastructure spending was not mentioned in the senators' letter, which emphasized the importance of providing a steady funding stream that would "give states the certainty they need to plan and contract for" road as well as transit and bike infrastructure projects. A cancellation of contract authority triggered by the congressional inaction forced cuts to clean transportation budgets in more than 45 states.

Check out a complete copy of Tuesday's letter after the jump.

Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell:

One of the best ways to spur job creation and economic recovery is through infrastructure investment. That is why a longer term extension of the surface transportation program is so important to maintaining our nation's vital bridges, roads, public transportation and other related infrastructure, restoring our economy and creating good jobs for American workers.

In July, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs each reported an 18-month ex tension of the surface transportation program prior to the expiration of the 2005 surface transportation bill, the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), with bipartisan support.

We believe a multi-month extension of SAFETEA-LU is the best solution. It would give states the certainty they need to plan and contract for transportation infrastructure projects. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion spent on transportation and matched by the states supports approximately 35,000 jobs. It would also give the Department of Transportation's highway safety agencies the certainty they need to continue implementing safety-critical programs that keep motorists safe on our roads.

SAFETEA-LU expired at the end of September and, unfortunately, there was objection to floor consideration of the bipartisan legislation extending these important programs. This necessitated two short term extensions to the surface transportation program, attached to Continuing Resolutions. Short term extensions mean less money is available for states, and do not provide states the certainty they need to keep crucial transportation projects moving forward.

On a bipartisan basis, we have decided to move forward with a 6-month extension. Unfortunately, a small number of Senators continue to object and will not allow an extension to be considered by the Senate without a cloture vote.

We urge you to file cloture on the motion to proceed on the 6-month extension and dedicate the time necessary to complete this important legislation, so we can put Americans back to work and keep our economy moving.

The BikeStation in Washington D.C., which provides parking and services for bicyclists who use transit. (Photo: U.S. DOT)

The FTA's new rules, released for public comment on Friday, replace the previous definition of the so-called "structural envelope" surrounding a transit station.

In the past, regulators had tended to use 1,500 feet as the distance which "most people can be expected to safely and conveniently walk to use the transit service." But the Obama administration, stating plainly that the current radius is "too short," has proposed expanding it to a half-mile for pedestrian improvements and three miles for bicycle projects.

In its explanation of the new proposal, the FTA wrote:

The most successful and useful public transportation systems have safe and convenient pedestrian access and provide comfortable waiting areas, all of which encourage greater use.

Distances beyond the walkshed of public transportation stops and stations may in fact be within the range of a short bicycle trip. Providing secure parking and other amenities for bicycles and cyclists at public transportation stops or stations can be less expensive than providing parking for automobiles.

The proposed regulation also codifies a U.S. DOT definition of "livability" that Streetsblog Capitol Hill took note of when it was first mentioned by Transportation Secretary LaHood: "If people don't want an automobile, they don't have to have one."

Public comments on the FTA's proposal can be filed here.

The I-35 bridge collapse, above, killed 13 drivers. (Photo: America 2050)

Today's report, produced by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), contrasts the low amounts lawmakers set aside for bridge repair with the flood of campaign contributions sent their way by highway, development, automobile, and construction groups.

During the election cycle that reached its peak in 2008, the year that bridge repairs accounted for 74 of Congress' 704 transportation earmarks, U.S. PIRG found that road-building interests steered $80.3 million to federal campaigns.

The same highway-centric groups also lavished $53.5 million in campaign cash on state elections, in which the costs of securing a victory are often much lower, according to the report. Road-building interests split their federal donations more evenly, steering 47 percent to Democrats and 53 percent to Republicans, compared with a 61-39 split in favor of the GOP in state elections.

The report (available here) separates donations from "transportation" versus "construction" groups but does not name which lobbying entities U.S. PIRG singled out for analysis, making it difficult to directly connect specific donations to specific earmarks.

But the authors' conclusion "that elected officials often overlook preventative maintenance projects, especially when new capacity projects are encouraged by campaign contributions" was bolstered by an Associated Press investigation one year after the Minnesota collapse. That AP probe found that just 12 percent of the deficient bridges getting the most state-level traffic had received any attention other than regular maintenance.

"The greatest need, for almost every place, is investing in existing infrastructure," said Mark Stout, who spent 25 years working on policy at the New Jersey DOT before helping put together U.S. PIRG's report.

"Each earmark and each project has its own story," he added, "but by and large, I think it's safe to say that a structurally deficient bridge is not going to rally around it a lot of local elected officials and business interests that are lobbying to make [repairs] happen. They sort of think that's someone else's job or that someone else is going to take care of it."

In the U.S. PIRG report, several states stand out as facing a high number of aging bridges that got scant attention from members of Congress. Oklahoma lawmakers set aside just one earmark of $316,000 in 2008 for their state's 5,793 structurally deficient bridges, while Iowa lawmakers got three earmarks worth $1.8 million for their state's 5,153 deficient bridges.

Missouri, by contrast, was a relative success story, with lawmakers winning four earmarks worth $5.4 million for their state's 4,433 deficient bridges. California, where the closure of San Francisco's Bay Bridge has sparked a fresh debate over bridge safety, got six earmarks worth $3.5 million for its 3,140 structurally deficient spans.

Meanwhile, lawmakers from New York -- where a capitol rally for bridge safety was held this week after the sudden shutdown of a span over Lake Champlain -- did comparatively worse. The state had 2,128 structurally deficient bridges in 2008 but got just one earmark, worth $294,000, to address the problems.

This year's American Society of Civil Engineers infrastructure report card found that 26 percent of the nation's bridges are structurally deficient and projected a $6.5 billion annual shortfall between actual bridge repair spending and the amount needed to achieve significant safety improvements.

The U.S. PIRG report does not include the emergency aid that Congress rushed to appropriate for the Twin Cities' bridge disaster. But it's worth noting that Minnesota Rep. Jim Oberstar (D), chairman of the House transport committee, initially proposed to take a step further by raising the federal gas tax by five cents to shore up creaking bridges. His plan quickly died for lack of support.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (Photo: AP)

The environment panel's chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had offered Republicans several days to abandon their walkout, promising time to consider GOP amendments and a complete Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modeling of the bill before it comes to the Senate floor.

But environment committee Republicans were unmoved, insisting on an immediate five-week delay for EPA analysis despite testimony from the EPA that such work would produce little new information. Boxer's GOP counterpart on the panel, Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK), seemed to delight in forcing the chairman's hand as he labeled the no-amendments move the "nuclear option."

The question now becomes whether the specific proposals added by Boxer's panel -- including grant programs for transit and clean transportation that nearly triple the funding approved by the House -- can survive a long slog through as many as five other committees.

Boxer insisted this morning that "many things in this bill ... are going to be part of that comprehensive bill" that ultimately reaches a full Senate vote. But others on the committee acknowledged that the bill's one-party approval would not bode well for its political prospects.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the chief sponsor of efforts to boost the climate bill's clean transportation provisions, described himself as "very, very, very disappointed," particularly given the loss of a chance to amend the legislation.

Carper submitted an amendment that would have added more than $400 million to the bill's annual set-aside of climate money for transit, inter-city rail, local land use planning and other projects.  "I don't like this process," Carper said this morning. "I don't think any of us do."

The question now becomes whether Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), the lone Republican who has shown willingness to work with Democrats on the climate bill, can provide the momentum needed to overcome the Senate's molasses-slow pace.

Even if Graham's work produces an end result that can win over liberals and centrists, the billions of dollars that the environment committee devotes to transportation is not guaranteed to survive that process.

The lone vote against the environment committee's climate bill came from Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Finance Committee -- which has asserted jurisdiction over the apportionment of valuable climate "allowances" to various sectors of the economy, including transportation.

Update: While the environment panel was finishing up its work on the bill, Inhofe was giving an interview to Fox News (which mistakenly labeled it the "energy committee"). Inhofe called Baucus' no vote a sign that the bill is "dead" and claimed that this summer's conservative protests at town-hall meetings were driven as much by concern over the climate bill as over the health care bill. Check out the video below:

Photo: US Department of Agriculture

Just how much will the tax credit mushroom thanks to the deal reached in the Senate? As the New York Times explains, it's time to take the "new" off of the credit's name:

The homebuyers’ credit ... would be extended to cover homes under contract by April 30. Also, it no longer would be limited to first-time buyers; people who have owned a home for at least five years could get a $6,500 credit on a new residence. Income limits for eligibility would be raised, making many more people qualify.

Extending and expanding the credit would cost an estimated $11 billion, on top of the $10 billion spent so far.

As Ryan pointed out earlier this week, the higher rate of home ownership in suburbs tilts the credit's benefits notably away from urban areas. But that's nothing new for the federal government, which has lavished subsidies on home buyers while paying much scanter attention to improving rental affordability.

In the fiscal year that ended October 1, Washington's support for home ownership totaled $230 billion, while parallel support for home renters was $60 billion, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported yesterday. That nearly four-fold gap is visible in the below chart:

Image: CBO

Even as federal lawmakers keep promoting home ownership as the "American dream," rental rates rose to one-third of the country in 2008, in part due to low-income and minority residents who were forced into default on risky mortgages. For many of those residents, as well as city dwellers in general, rentals tend to be the only housing option that offers access to affordable transportation -- but help from Washington has been perilously slow in coming.

And it may not come for a while yet. Legislation updating the Section 8 voucher program for rental housing was approved over the summer by the House Financial Services Committee but has yet to see floor time in the full chamber, let alone the Senate.

Meanwhile, the larger home buyers' credit is currently attached to a long-sought extension of unemployment benefits, making its approval a political fait accompli (though one much-delayed by partisan bickering).

Warren Buffett (Photo: Redfin)

BNSF last year... moved a ton of goods 470 miles on one gallon of diesel. It releases far fewer pollutants into the atmosphere. It saves enormously on energy consumption and... it diminishes highway congestion. Rails last year moved 40 percent, more than 40 percent, over the country. They moved more than all those trucks, just the four big railroads. It's a very effective way of moving goods. I basically believe this country will prosper and you'll have more people moving more goods 10 and 20 and 30 years from now, and the rails should benefit.

That environmental rationale for Buffett's deal struck some in Washington as dubious. Frank O'Donnell, president of the green group Clean Air Watch, wrote on his website that the BNSF deal was "the biggest climate story of the day," bigger even than the political maneuverings of the Senate environment committee:

This is a $34 billion dollar bet that coal will remain the centerpiece of American energy policy in the future. Buffett clearly believes that coal use will remain strong -- and possibly grow. So he is putting his money on a vision of America with no effective climate policy at all -- or at least one that doesn’t slow coal growth.

BNSF's reliance on coal is indisputable; the black stuff has accounted for nearly half of its tonnage this year, and MarketWatch estimates that 10 percent of U.S. electricity comes from coal hauled by the railroad.

As coal-hauling railroads go, however, BNSF has made an attempt to distinguish itself on the energy efficiency end. The railroad is developing an emissions-free hydrogen-powered locomotive, and in May started to test-run a group of GE locomotives that cuts emissions by 40 percent over previous, dirtier models.

BNSF also has gotten on board the California High Speed Rail Authority's plans for an initial route connecting Merced to Fresno, and its CEO has advocated for a national focus on one initial high-speed project, rather than spreading around the Obama administration's $8 billion investment "like peanut butter."

When putting Buffett's bet into context, however, the corporate identity of BNSF may matter less than the impact of one powerful investor's foray into transportation.

At a time when the job-creation potential of infrastructure spending is increasingly propelling the political debate, Buffett's interest in the transport sector could be a harbinger of greater private-sector involvement to come -- thus bolstering Democratic lawmakers as they make the case for more transit, bridge, and road repair money to hasten the nation's economic recovery.

President Obama (Photo: AP)

"I think my team will testify when we got several trillion dollars worth of infrastructure that is falling apart, we need to put people to work, doing the work that America needs done," Obama told reporters. "But we're also in an era of fiscal constraint, which means that we've got to start finding more creative, new approaches to financing these projects."

The economic recovery meeting comes as the White House and congressional Democrats weigh the need for stronger efforts to help stem the rising unemployment rate.

Last week's surprising announcement of 3.5 percent growth in the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) prompted a cautiously positive response from the Obama administration, reflecting concern that job losses could continue into next year.

Transportation spending is playing a central role in that economic recovery debate, with several senior members of Congress touting its job creation potential. The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin (IL), on Thursday suggested that lawmakers begin working on proposals to boost infrastructure investments, including a possible "front-loading" of the House's stalled six-year transport bill.

But with the deficit at its highest level since World War II and a gas tax increase already ruled out by the White House, what kind of "more creative, new approaches" would the president's team be prepared to support? During unrelated testimony at the House infrastructure committee on Thursday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood indicated that lack of funding continues to keep the issue in limbo:

The president wants a very strong, comprehensive, robust transportation bill... We believe it can make a difference; we believe it'll put people to work.

But we also believe we've got to find 4[00] or 500 billion dollars to pay for it, because that's probably what it takes to have the kind of bill that we all want -- that you want and that we want. We need some time to do that, to put together a good bill and to find the money to do it.

Put simply, the same revenue gap that has surrounded the transport bill since June continues to puzzle the executive and legislative branches. The House infrastructure committee's chairman, Jim Oberstar (D-MN), has projected that his legislation would require $140 billion in extra funds over its six-year lifetime, excepting money earned from the federal gas tax.

There is certainly no shortage of creative proposals on the table; Democratic lawmakers and the White House have both urged the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank to leverage private-sector contributions, while Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), co-chairman of the advocacy group Building America's Future, last week floated the idea of more open tolling on existing interstate highways.

Still, it's difficult to see how infrastructure spending can gain the necessary political momentum without the administration throwing its weight behind the near-term passage of a specific idea or suite of ideas -- "[putting] together a good bill and [finding] the money to do it," in LaHood's words. And if the U.S. DOT's support for an 18-month extension of existing law is any guide, that kind of specific, urgent endorsement is unlikely to come until 2011.

Rep. Jim Oberstar. Photo: Capitol Chatter

As the subscription-only CQ reported today:

Efforts in the Senate to take up a six-month extension of surface transportation law this week appear dead, over objections by a few Republicans to passing it without a full debate, said James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

... Inhofe said Tuesday that at least two Republicans objected and that there is not enough floor time to finish a bill this week under normal procedure. 

The Senate's lack of progress means that officials working on the nation's transit, roads, bridges, and bike paths will likely have to continue operating under a second short-term extension of the 2005 transportation law, this time lasting until December 18.

Despite the prospects of continuing uncertainty on the local level, House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) remained upbeat and focused on a singular goal: getting his colleagues to elevate infrastructure to the top-of-mind status currently occupied by health care (followed by financial regulation and climate change).

"Encircle the White House," Oberstar advised the organizers of today's rally, who parked heavy-duty construction equipment along the sidewalk to symbolize their plea for more transportation spending. "Encircle the Senate!"

The economic stimulus law's $48 billion in transport aid, $8.4 billion of which went to transit, "will dry up" by spring of next year, Oberstar added. He threw in a jab at Obama administration officials who insisted on cutting stimulus transit spending to pay for tax cuts: "I don't know of anybody who's thanked me for their $250 tax credit ... God only knows what's happened to it."

Speaking to reporters after the rally, Oberstar said that extending the 2005 transportation law until the holidays "will give us time between now and Christmas to agree on a six-year bill."

But the Minnesotan's push for taking up his $450 billion proposal by year's end has yet to be met with any enthusiasm from the White House and senior Senate Democrats, who until recently had aligned with Obama aides in favor of an 18-month delay.

And even if the Senate had won passage of its six-month extension, Oberstar said he would have raised concerns about the measure in the House, citing several "serious problems." One example, according to Oberstar: the Senate's plan would have shifted the current grant program for significant projects -- which helps fund some transit work -- back to the states, potentially jeopardizing the money.

For the moment, long-term transportation policy appears to have become the proverbial tree falling in the forest, with few in the capital taking note as the federal bill languishes and climate legislation climbs higher on the agenda.

A sample image of Philadelphia's proposed "green corridors." (Image: Lomo Civic Assn.)

Testifying on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Nutter singled out his city's "complete streets" policy as a key element of the local revitalization that has attracted more private investment and new residents to Philadelphia:

Over the past five decades, Philadelphia lost jobs and residents. The pulls that caused people to leave our city and others like it were driven in part by government policies that valued highways over transit and new tract housing over older row homes. But, in recent years, Philadelphia has begun to witness a rebirth... people and jobs are moving in and private investments are being made. People again view our walkable neighborhoods and public transportation systems as assets to value and nurture.

Nutter also described a series of sustainable infrastructure projects that his city is prepared to launch once long-term funding is secured. The Senate climate bill sets up a new block grant program that would provide that long-term funding, directing money to metro areas for energy efficiency and conservation projects.

Among the Philadelphia proposals mentioned by Nutter were the city's "green corridors" program -- now in line for a $6 million pilot phase -- that would install landscaped sidewalks to collect storm water as well as new energy-efficient streetlights and traffic signals. A parallel effort, known as "green streets," would increase tree cover and install curb bump-outs with sidewalk planters to decrease heat-trapping.

"Our experience... is characteristic of so many cities that are moving forward with these investments," Nutter told the Senate environment committee, which will hear from more than two dozen witnesses today alone.

Republican witnesses offered a counterpoint to the urban experience, focusing almost exclusively on the high cost that regulating emissions would impose on traditional fossil fuel-burning industries.

"We are in favor of green jobs but not at the expense of the heartland, of red, white, and blue jobs," Bill Klesse, CEO of oil company Valero, told the environment panel.

Today's hearing can be followed live here, courtesy of the committee.

Photo: USGS.gov

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) confirmed yesterday that the upper chamber would scale back its original plan to delay the next federal transportation law by 18 months, as was originally proposed by the Obama administration.

A six-month extension is "expect[ed] to pass," Reid said on the Senate floor last night. That leaves the ball in Oberstar's court, with time running out before the expiration of the one-month reprieve under which state transportation officials are now operating.

If the Senate can keep its six-month extension within the budgetary boundaries set by the House "pay-as-you-go" rule, which requires any new spending to be offset by cuts elsewhere, that may force the hand of Democrats in the lower chamber.

An early answer from the House side may well come tomorrow, when Oberstar is scheduled to appear at a rally sponsored by the construction equipment industry aimed at drumming up support for passage of a new infrastructure bill before the end of the year.

The Wilmington, Delaware, GM plant that Fisker plans to reopen. Photo: NYT

Fisker's investment in the Delaware plant was made possible by a $528 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy, which has offered $8.5 billion since June to producers of plug-in hybrids.

When that $8.5 billion is combined with the DoE's $2.4 billion in stimulus grants to car battery producers, Bloomberg notes that the Obama administration's total investment in low-emissions autos has topped $11 billion in six months -- about $500 million more than the annual budget of the Federal Transit Administration.

The DoE loan to Fisker has attracted its share of media scrutiny, with the Wall Street Journal suggesting that former Vice President Al Gore's backing helped the company win government support.

Henrik Fisker, CEO of his namesake company, responded that the loan was conditional and "will be repaid, with interest, to the American taxpayer," telling critics of the NINA cars' $40,000 price tag that "any new technology is expensive."

Fisker also noted that this year's $11 billion haul is just the beginning of Washington's investment in hybrid electric cars -- the market for which remains unproven. During the hectic days of last fall's financial bailout, Michigan lawmakers secured enough funding to guarantee $25 billion in loans for makers of more fuel-efficient cars. (By way of comparison, the U.S. DOT estimates that the nation's transit networks need $50 billion to get their equipment into a state of good repair.)

The loans to Fisker and Tesla, which got $465 million from the DoE in June, come from that $25 billion pot. And the government gave the hybrid automakers an undeniably good deal -- interest rates as low as 5 percent, compared with up to 20 percent on the private market, and a repayment window of 25 years.

Will the government's growing subsidies to automakers dissuade conservatives from claiming that transit is the nation's only subsidized mode of transportation? The chances aren't good.

Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the climate bill's authors. Photo: Intercon.

And the release brought good news for clean transportation: The Senate has largely tripled the share of allowances set aside by the House for transit, inter-city rail, and other efforts to trim transport-based emissions.

While the lower chamber of Congress gave states the option of using 1 percent of climate revenue on transit, the Senate measure would set aside more than 3 percent of allowances in the first two years of the cap-and-trade system for limiting pollution from the transportation sector.

The Senate's beefed-up transportation language comes after a strong push by sponsors of the so-called "CLEAN TEA" bill, which set a high-water mark of a 10-percent climate set-aside for transit, local land-use planning, and other sustainable development projects. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), a chief author of the "CLEAN TEA" measure, hailed the Senate's move in a weekend statement.

My CLEAN TEA bill is a common-sense solution to the problem that we use a gas tax to fund our nation's transportation system. My language in the [Senate climate bill] directs cities and states to determine how much they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their transportation systems by investing in driving alternatives, public transit, intercity passenger rail, transit-oriented development, sidewalks and more. States and cities with more ambitious plans will receive more federal funds -- finally rewarding local governments for doing the right thing.

According to the environment committee's weekend release, the share of Senate climate allowances reserved for clean transportation would total 3.21 percent in 2012 and 2013, before dipping to 2.35 percent in the two subsequent years and returning to a share that ranges between 1.9 percent and 3.5 percent in future years.

But not all emissions allowances are created equal; 1 percent of the total amount going to clean transportation would be reserved in the early stages of the program, thus increasing the value of those allowances relative to the ones distributed later on. These early set-aside allowances would also go towards reducing the federal deficit and supplementing other high-priority programs.

Though it falls short of the "CLEAN TEA" mark, the 3-percent set-aside represents a victory for clean transportation advocates as well as the nation's cities. The allowances would be split between grants to states for reducing transport-based emissions and transit grants -- with 80 percent of the latter going to urban areas, 10 percent going to rural areas, and 10 percent to growing states.

However, it's important to note that the transportation section of the Senate climate bill is not written in stone. The environment committee, chaired by climate bill co-author Barbara Boxer (D-MA), will begin holding a series of high-profile hearings on the legislation tomorrow, and months of intense horse-trading are sure to follow.

A final vote on the bill could come as soon as the winter, particularly with global climate talks in Copenhagen drawing near, but is likely to be pushed until next spring. In the interim, look for industries to lobby fiercely to protect their share of the climate pot -- and to try to siphon off the allowances set aside for other industries.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) (Photo: GOP Lounge)

How did Hutchison and Bond get to their $3.6 trillion total, which their report calls "relatively simple and straightforward to calculate"? They simply multiplied their estimate of how much fuel the U.S. would consume between now and 2050 by their estimate of the per-gallon gas price increase that would result from an economy-wide emissions cap.

Hutchison and Bond got their numbers from the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), a business group that released projections on the cost of the House climate legislation at around the same time it joined the official astro-turf lobbying campaign against the bill. The NBCC's analysis, produced by consulting firm CRA International, is one of many competing cost estimates for the climate bill, each of them relying on different assumptions and models that claim to predict the future price of carbon under the pending legislation.

In fact, the NBCC analysis states (in Appendix C) that it has assumed higher CO2 allowance prices than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis of the same House climate bill, thus resulting in higher estimates for the plan's impact on real-world carbon prices.

What does the EPA say about the House climate bill's likely effect on fuel prices? Its analysis found a 25-cent per-gallon increase by 2030, or less than three pennies per gallon per year -- small potatoes compared to the oil price swings of recent years, as the Pew Center on Global Climate Change pointed out.

Center for American Progress senior fellow Joe Romm has delved further into the claim, promoted by the oil industry, that a cap on carbon emissions would increase gas prices. Using the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's estimate of allowance prices, Romm found a per-gallon gas price increase similar to the EPA's.

Still, it's unlikely that Hutchison and Bond would be fazed by economic models that discredit their case. Although they told reporters at today's event that they support cutting carbon emissions, the first page of their report makes clear that they dislike the very idea of more moderate energy consumption:

Advocates of climate change legislation want to increase the price of traditional forms of carbon-based energy, such as coal and oil, so that consumers are forced to respond by using less of those forms of energy. Policy-makers call this putting a price on carbon. Economists call this sending a price signal. The bottom line is that the price of energy will go up.

More expensive energy from climate legislation can be seen as a new national energy tax on American consumers and workers.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), the lead sponsor of the upper chamber's climate bill, came out swinging in response to Hutchison and Bond's report.

"Let’s actually have a debate based on reality,” he said in a statement that accompanied a rebuttal from his office:

Gas tax? More like a $700 rebate…
-          Let’s get one thing clear: There is no tax increase anywhere in the bill. Plain and simple.
-          To get these astronomical numbers, the rightwing assumes there will be no innovation or progress in the next 20 years — now that’s simply un-American. Our most efficient cars today are 20 to 70% more efficient than the most efficient 20 years ago.
-          If you assume that progress continues as our fuel standards improve, every American household actually gets more than $250 in savings from this bill.
-          And if you combine that with the programs this bill creates to improve energy efficiency in our homes, every American household will receive over on average $700 in savings, every year.   

A bike trail in New Jersey, which canceled extra clean transport funds. Photo: NJManasquan.com

But some states had already obligated all of their available funding in certain transport programs, and so DOTs were given flexibility to cancel more than a proportional share of money for TE, CMAQ, and Recreational Trails, another federal outdoors program.

How many states took the opportunity to cancel a bigger slice of TE, CMAQ, and Trails money? The folks at advocacy group America Bikes have crunched the numbers, and here's what they found:

• 46 states, in addition to Washington D.C., canceled more than a proportional share of transportation enhancements money: AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY.
• 34 states, in addition to Washington D.C., canceled more than a proportional share of CMAQ money: AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MO, MN, MT, NH, NC, NM, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, WA, WV, WI, and WY.
• 31 states, in addition to Washington D.C., canceled more than a proportional share of Trails money: AZ, AR, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, KY, ME, MA, MD, MI, MS, MO, MT, NY, NJ, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, UT, VT, WV, and WI.
• 4 states opted to send less than a proportional amount of transportation enhancements money back to the U.S. DOT, making extra cuts elsewhere: AL, AK, MA, and UT.
• 14 states opted to send less than a proportional amount of CMAQ money back to the U.S. DOT, making extra cuts elsewhere: AL, FL, ID, MA, MI, MS, NE, ND, NV, PA, SD, VT, and VA.
• 16 states opted to send less than a proportional amount of Trails money back to the U.S. DOT, making extra cuts elsewhere: AL, AK, CT, ID, KS, MN, NE, NV, NM, NC, ND, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WY.

No matter how you slice it, however, the rescission took a serious toll on clean transportation funds as well as those for roads. Meanwhile, Congress has yet to come to decision on how to approach the Oct. 30 deadline for extending the 2005 infrastructure bill one more time.

Editor's note: The above data has been updated to reflect current reporting as of Tuesday, Oct. 20.

Photo: MetroDCLiving.com

In its report on the "unpriced consequences of energy production and use," the NRC was acting under a congressional mandate to map the health impacts of various energy sources. Climate change was not factored into the NRC's conclusions, but the report nonetheless had a grim tale to tell about transportation fuel consumption.

The NRC found that the manufacture and burning of fuel for U.S. cars and trucks produced $56 billion in external costs in 2005, the year that the report was requested. That hidden cost averaged between 1.2 and 1.7 cents per vehicle mile traveled, depending on the type of fuel used.

In discussing the relatively small difference between the external costs of conventional gas-burning autos and the costs of hybrids or electric vehicles, the NRC wrote:

Although operation of the [electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles] produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates.

In other words, hybrids and electric vehicles are still likely to consume serious amounts of coal -- at least until the nation adopts an effective renewable electricity standard. The NRC notes that "further legislative and economic initiatives to reduce emissions from the electricity grid could be expected to improve the relative damages from electric vehicles substantially."

Given that cleaner electricity is a significant priority for transit and freight rail as well, perhaps it's worth mentioning: transportation reform is also electricity and energy reform.

The transportation secretary and the president have a stalemate on their hands. Photo: NYT

In one corner: House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), who has enlisted most of his colleagues in the lower chamber in a push to pass new legislation replacing the outmoded 2005 infrastructure bill -- "a paean to the individual motorist," as Wired put it today.

But Oberstar's enthusiasm has not yet been met with action by the panel he needs most, the Ways and Means Committee.

Why is Ways and Means so important? The panel controls the funding source for transportation legislation, and chairman Charles Rangel has yet to see enthusiasm for his colleagues for making tough choices about raising revenue for infrastructure. Rangel told CQ this week:

Everyone is excited about a robust transportation bill. The enthusiasm is out there. We have not concluded that everyone is willing to pay for it and call it an emergency. 

Oberstar has done his part to rally the troops, publishing an op-ed in The Hill today that laments the "lack of political will" to tend to the nation's aging infrastructure, but little progress can be made until Ways and Means shows an appetite for diving into the funding question.

How much needs to be raised to pay for a new bill? There is an estimated $140 billion gap between expected grosses for the nation's highway trust fund, which pays for federal spending on transit as well as roads, and the investments envisioned in Oberstar's $450 billion measure.

That gap could be closed by a 10-cent per-gallon increase in the gas tax or by other means, though the former has pitfalls both political (Democrats have not worked on a counter-message to GOP pummeling on the issue) and practical (as Americans drive less in more efficient cars, the tax's value is waning).

In response to the dilemma, both parties have gotten creative. Rep. John Larson (CT), a Ways and Means member who also chairs the House Democratic caucus, has proposed taking unused money from the government's financial bailout for transportation. Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) spoke for a sizable group in his party today by suggesting that unused cash from the stimulus law go to infrastructure.

But both of those concepts would be little more than Band-Aids, given that congressional budget writers must rely on a steady source of funding when setting the "baseline" that governs the price tag of future federal transport bills. If the bailout or the stimulus were tapped this year, when the next long-term bill rolls around, the baseline would likely be low enough to cause serious havoc.

On the whole, the gas tax remains the only funding source that has attracted serious consideration, most recently from the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. The Obama administration, however, remains flatly opposed to an increase during the current recession. Speaking of the administration ...

In the other corner: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who back in June called for an 18-month delay in taking up a new infrastructure plan. The rationale for such a postponement is twofold; it would provide time for the economy to recover, possibly creating political space for a gas tax increase, and it would allow the new Obama team to get its sea legs in anticipation of a policy reform fight that's likely to be intense.

LaHood has key Senate Democrats on his side, including environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), but not every member of the upper chamber of Congress is convinced of the wisdom of an 18-month delay. Still, LaHood continues to state that while he and the president share Oberstar's goals, there is no possibility of the administration budging on its 18-month extension.

Where does Washington, not to mention a nation full of roads, transit, and trail users, go from here? As talk of a possible "second stimulus" heats up on the Hill, some lawmakers are urging an extra shot of infrastructure spending to help boost flagging employment.

Oberstar has long contended that his transportation bill would effectively act as that "second stimulus," but he told CQ this week that he would be disinclined to accept an 18-month extension of the 2005 legislation that included more money but kept the same U.S. DOT policies in place.

Yet Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said in an interview that the chairman would be opposed to a transportation-centric stimulus only if it were treated as a substitute or placeholder for a long-term bill, thus leaving the door open for infrastructure to remain in the mix as Congress weighs new economic recovery plans.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin (D), at right of President Obama, who was then the state's junior senator. (Photo: Brittanica)

Durbin's remarks came at the Tri-State Development Summit, a gathering of midwestern business and political leaders. The Herald Whig of Quincy, Illinois, had the story -- and took note of Durbin's candor on the need for a gas tax increase to fund the upcoming legislation:

We have to pay for it, and paying for it may mean an increase in the federal gas tax. Nobody wants to say those words. I've said them to you because unless we're honest about this, we're not going to see an (adequate) federal highway bill," Durbin said ...

Durbin told reporters that a consensus must be reached between business, labor and community leaders to support a fuel tax increase "to stimulate new job creation in America."

The transportation plan was set to expire Oct. 1, but it has gotten a one-month extension at the current funding level. House Transportation Chairman U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., wants to nearly double the size to $500 billion to catch up on crumbling infrastructure, but White House officials have suggested they want to delay work on the bill for 18 months.

Durbin said he wants to see Congress pass the bill by early next year.

Could Durbin's acknowledgment of the tough choices ahead help push the administration to accept a shorter postponement of the next transportation bill -- say, 6 months or a year, as Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) has suggested? The answer may well depend on how the White House responds to pressure from Republicans, as well as some Democrats, to enact more economic recovery legislation in response to continued job losses.

If a second shot of stimulus finds favor, it's more likely to come in the form of extra infrastructure spending than as another large, stand-alone bill. Of course, there's no guarantee that such extra spending would be balanced between transit and highways, especially considering the lopsided affair that was the first stimulus.

But Durbin's talk of a gas tax increase obscures an even more uncomfortable truth: a simple hike in the per-gallon levy is probably not enough to sufficiently fund the next transport bill, given that Americans are driving less in more fuel-efficient vehicles.

A study by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [PDF] found that a 10-cent increase in the gas tax, coupled with indexing it to inflation, could be expected to raise $90.5 billion over the next five years. Coupled with an estimated $255 billion that is expected to come from the existing gas tax, that leaves a gap of $105.5 billion between available financing and House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar's (D-MN) new proposal.

Photo: NYT

A Times investigation revealed that LIRR workers -- even white-collar managers who had little active role in running trains -- had won approval for approximately $250 million in taxpayer-funded disability payments since 2000.

In fact, the GAO found that LIRR employees have filed Retirement Board claims at a rate 12 times higher than the other seven railroads covered by the agency (a list is available after the jump). Meanwhile, LIRR riders are facing yet more fare increases amid a massive budget gap at New York's transit authority.

How could the Retirement Board get away with sending disability payments to rail workers who the Times found well enough to spend most days golfing? By setting the bar for claims much lower than the Social Security system, which administers disability requests for most American employees.

The Retirement Board requires rail workers claiming a disability to have 20 years of work experience at any age level or 10 years, for those who have already turned 60. Social Security, by contrast, requires 20 quarters of participation in the system during the 10 years prior to the claim.

Once that standard is met, the Retirement Board asks workers to prove that they are prevented from working in their regular railroad position due to a permanent mental or physical condition. Most LIRR claimants provided their medical evidence of disability from one of three doctors, which the GAO deemed "an indicator of fraud or abuse."

Social Security, on the other hand, asks workers to prove that a permanent ailment prevents them from taking on any gainful employment in the national economy. While 99.6 percent of LIRR employees won Retirement Board payments, only 39.1 percent were approved for Social Security disability checks. Employees of other commuter railroads, who won 100 percent approval from the Retirement Board, were cleared by Social Security at a 79.4 rate.

After the Times story prompted New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo to open a formal probe of the LIRR disability system, the Retirement Board implemented a five-point reform plan to apply greater scrutiny to rail workers' claims. But the GAO audit cast doubt on the plan's effectiveness, noting that a nearly universal rate of claims approvals has remained the norm. The Retirement Board defended the five-point plan and reiterated its commitment to better quality control.

Rep. John Mica (FL), the senior Republican on the House transportation committee, said in a statement that he had taken over supervision of the GAO request after an initial inquiry by Sen. Charles Schumer was withdrawn. "We should not assume that there is widespread abuse of the program by railroad workers, but we need to determine whether improvements to the system are necessary," Mica said in a statement.

In addition to the LIRR, the following railroads are covered by the federal Retirement Board: the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad, Metro-North Railroad, New Jersey Transit, Northeast Illinois Commuter Railroad, Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.

Former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who served for eight years in George W. Bush's DOT, sat down with Streetsblog Capitol Hill this week to urge that Congress add a dedicated funding stream of $1 billion each year for transportation technology to the next long-term infrastructure bill.

Since leaving office, Peters has transitioned to private consulting work in her home state of Arizona and joined the board of directors at Aldis, a Tennessee-based traffic management company.

Alids' GridSmart program, a panoramic camera that captures vehicles and pedestrians at intersections and helps "smartly" synchronize traffic signals accordingly (see the above video), would stand to gain if Congress heeds Peters' advice and directly funds transportation technology.

Peters acknowledged that her proposal for the next infrastructure bill would help Aldis, but she described the billion-dollar dedicated funding as an opportunity for states and cities to choose their own high-tech solutions for traffic management. "This is a great application," Peters said of the GridSmart, "but there are others out there."

The House's original version of the 2005 transportation bill, which was recently extended for another month amid political wrangling, included $3 billion over five years for technological upgrades, also known as "intelligent transportation." But that money was removed from the legislation during conference talks with the Senate, Peters noted, leaving states without federal help with modernizing their congestion management.

The annual $1 billion fund Peters is backing would be distributed to states by formula, but state DOTs would have to report back to Washington on how effectively their technological investments were meeting specific performance targets. (For more on Peters' support of a federal role in setting transportation standards, see Part I of the Streetsblog interview.)

What standards does Peters think should be used to judge state DOTs' technological upgrades? Decreased delay time, but also safety for drivers as well as pedestrians. On that issue, the GridSmart program would also get a leg up -- Aldis' cameras have the ability not just to lengthen green lights for a row of trucks, but also to extend red lights so a large volume of pedestrians could cross a street without being trapped on the sidewalk.

Peters said she could also see states being asked to use their transportation technology money on better road pricing systems, such as the traffic management cameras that were installed as part of Miami's federally funded I-95 HOT lanes.

The House's current draft of a new long-term infrastructure bill does not include dedicated money for transport technology, but "intelligent transportation" is not without its congressional allies; Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) has founded a caucus that focuses on the issue. And the likely delay in taking up the next long-term bill could end up giving Peters and Aldis more time to press their case.