Rev. Jesse Jackson, second from left, has joined transit workers’ unions in their Save Our Ride campaign.

"Unless the U.S. Senate passes" the transit operating legislation, the union’s Mike Hall wrote in a Friday blog post, "working families who count on public transportation systems in
communities across the country will face even more severe fare
increases and service cuts and transit workers are looking at further
layoffs."

The president of the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department, Ed Wytkind, also pushed for passage of the Senate bill in a National Journal guest blog post yesterday. The Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union, both AFL-CIO members, have aligned with Rev. Jesse Jackson, environmental groups, and civil-rights advocates for a campaign dubbed Save Our Ride that seeks to stave off sweeping transit cuts in major cities.

The unions have several hurdles to clear before the transit funding becomes available, however. The Senate legislation contains only authorizing language, meaning that lawmakers must quickly follow with "appropriating" language that technically disburses the operating money.

That two-step process would have been accomplished quickly by attaching the transit aid to a larger bill that is considered "must-pass" by Congress, such as the upcoming supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Republican senators vowed early on to oppose any attempt to add unrelated spending to that measure, and the Senate passed its version sans transit aid before adjourning for the Memorial Day recess.

That leaves room for the AFL-CIO to generate momentum for another vehicle to carry the transit funding — but given the resistance among both House and Senate Democrats to any new spending not offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget, the union may face an uphill battle this summer.

Chart: University of Vermont Transportation Research Center

The success of state-level plans to increase gas taxes is tied to the media’s portrayal of the proposals in question, with narratives tied to "crumbling infrastructure" and "economic progress" showing more success than those emphasizing long-term transportation budget gaps, according to a new report released by the University of Vermont’s Transportation Research Center (TRC).

The TRC report examined six states where lawmakers debated raising gas taxes to close infrastructure budget gaps between 2006 and 2009. Three of the states ultimately approved gas tax increases (Oregon, Minnesota, and Vermont) — two of them over the opposition of the governor, as seen in the third column of the above chart — and three of the state (Massachusetts, Idaho, and New Hampshire) nixed the proposed tax increases.

While acknowledging that "there are many possible explanations for the success and failure of gasoline tax increases at the state level," TRC researcher Richard Watts attempted to categorize the "frames" used to depict the proposals in local media as well as the Associated Press wire service.

Watts broke down the most popular media narratives by whether they emphasized arguments made by supporters or opponents of the proposed tax hikes. The most common so-called "pro frames" focused on each state’s decaying infrastructure, which would be in line for a boost thanks to new gas tax revenues; the economic upside of improving travel times and creating jobs by pursuing more gas tax-funded repair projects; and the long-term benefits of solving persistent budget crises by raising fuel fees.

Watts also marked off three frequently used "anti frames": broad opposition to tax increases of any kind; a perceived public preference for cutting other government spending before resorting to raising taxes; and the economic downside of raising fuel charges during a recession.

The report did not show an across-the-board correlation between positive portrayals of higher gas taxes and the ultimate passage of state-level proposals to that effect. As seen in the above chart, media coverage in five out of the six states studied featured a majority of "pro frames," yet two of those states failed to act on gas tax legislation.

But the nature of the media narratives used did appear to have an effect on the success of state-level tax increases. From Watts’ report:

In Vermont and Minnesota, crumbling infrastructure comprised the majority of the pro-gas tax frames. This is a powerful frame that carries images of collapsing bridges, aging and deteriorating roadways, threats to physical health and a system in dire jeopardy. …

In Massachusetts and Idaho the dominant pro-gas tax frame was long-term solution – displayed about 75 percent of total pro-gas tax frames. This frame emphasized funding and financial mechanisms and lacks the imagery of crumbling infrastructure. In both states the debate in the news discourse became about transportation system funding, not the deteriorating system.

Another wild card, according to Watts’ research, was the "media standing" of the public figures making pro- or anti-gas tax arguments. In Massachusetts, for example, he found insufficient data to explain the source of the media’s emphasis on the more wonkish "long-term solution" frame — whether it was also the dominant narrative of Gov. Deval Patrick (D), a tax-hike supporter, or whether it dominated the debate for other reasons.

Nonetheless, the report could provide food for thought for House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), as his party’s resistance to a federal gas tax increase continues to force a challenging search for alternative transport financing tactics.

Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT), left, Charles Schumer (D-NY), right, and Dick Durbin (D-IL), second from right, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). (Photo: AP)

The transit operating bill would authorize $2 billion in federal grants aimed at helping local transit agencies reverse already-imposed service cuts, fare increases, or worker layoffs — provided that those changes were forced by a shortfall in state or local transport budgets that took effect after January 1, 2009. Any agency planning future service cuts or fare hikes could use their grant money to stave off those moves until September 2011.

"While
families continue to struggle to make ends meet, the last thing we should do is
make it harder and more expensive for people to get to work," Dodd said in a statement. "This bill will
prevent disruptive service cuts and help put money back in the pockets of
families when they need it most."

Those transit agencies not pursuing service cuts, fare hikes, or layoffs would be allowed to use the extra federal money for maintenance or repair of existing infrastructure. The transit operating funds would be distributed according to existing formulas, but the authorizing nature of the bill means that the money will also need to be appropriated in a separate piece of legislation.

Notably, the bill’s authorization remains in effect until September 2011, giving lawmakers more than a year to find suitable appropriations vehicles to which the operating aid bill can be attached.

In addition, the legislation’s short-term nature meets the conditions set by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), which had endorsed extra operating aid with the proviso that it not become a permanent fixture of the federal transit program.

Transportation for America (T4A), an infrastructure policy reform group that counts APTA as a member, hailed the bill’s release.

“With demand for public
transportation service at its highest level in over 50 years, Congress must act
to protect Americans who rely on transit from service cuts and fare hikes that
threaten their ability to reach jobs and daily necessities," T4A director James Corless said in a statement. "This act will help
to preserve an economically essential service with a one-time,
emergency infusion that will help to save jobs and access to jobs."

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, right, with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) at left and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed at center. (Photo: White House Press)

Donovan's announcement came during an address to the Congress for the New Urbanism's (CNU) annual meeting in Atlanta. During his visit, the former New York City housing commissioner also toured the BeltLine project, an ambitious local effort to convert former rail track into new light rail and trails.

In his remarks to the CNU, Donovan depicted the integration of "location efficiency" measures as a way to encourage housing developers to pursue more mixed-use, denser construction.

"[I]t’s time that federal dollars stopped encouraging sprawl and started lowering the barriers to the kind of sustainable development our country needs and our communities want," Donovan said. "And with $3.25 billion at stake in these competitions, that’s exactly what they will start to do."

Evaluating the range of transport options available for prospective residents of urban and suburban areas was among the central recommendations of a foreclosures report released in January by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That study was aimed at mortgage lenders rather than the government, but Democratic lawmakers last year began pushing for HUD to insure more mortgages based on the properties' "location efficiency."

Donovan said that HUD would use the new LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) system, created by the CNU, the NRDC, and the U.S. Green Buildings Council, to measure the transportation potential of grant proposals. LEED certification has become an increasingly popular method of tracking the environmental sustainability of new buildings, although skepticism about the range of energy consumption of buildings with the LEED imprimatur prompted some revisions to the format last year.

FTA chief Peter Rogoff addressing cyclists at this morning's Bike to Work Day events. (Photo: U.S. DOT)

The U.S. DOT sent several senior officials to this morning's capital-area bike events, using the day to finalize a new expansion of eligibility for federal funding of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure connected to transit.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) chief Peter Rogoff, who suited up for a morning ride into downtown D.C., told fellow cyclists that "the Obama Administration will keep supporting cycle-friendly policies because they help connect communities in ways that are beneficial to everyone at very little cost," according to a statement released by the U.S. DOT.

First proposed in November, the FTA's new policy for boosting federal bike-ped spending sets radius surrounding a transit station in which bike infrastructure projects would be eligible for aid at three miles. Pedestrian projects within a half-mile of transit stations would be eligible for federal assistance. The previous regulatory radius was 1,500 feet, in most cases.

Meanwhile, nine national cycling and pedestrian advocacy groups released a letter in advance of Bike to Work Day seeking extra clean transport funding from the new Senate climate bill. The groups studiously avoided the critical tone that the transit industry and state DOTs used on Wednesday to seek a greater share of the revenue from the climate measure; nonetheless, the bike-ped backers urged sponsors Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to lift their legislation's limit on transport spending.

The letter's signatories -- including America Bikes and the League of American Bicyclists -- began by lauding Kerry and Lieberman for requiring that any revenue from their bill's proposed new fuel fees be spent on emissions-cutting transport projects.

Noting that infrastructure investments from the bill's new fuel fees would operate under a ceiling of slightly more than $6 billion per year, the groups added:

While we appreciate that this level of funding is greater than prior climate bills, it still limits the ability of states, counties, cities and transit systems to invest in sustainable transportation. The market needs a stronger signal regarding the importance of shifting our transportation modes to low- and no-carbon alternatives.

The bike-ped advocates proposed an increase in climate revenue set aside for transportation that would be commensurate with the estimated U.S. emissions generated by the movement of people and goods -- about 30 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-VA), left, in the "congressional ride" during March’s National Bike Summit. (Photo: bikeleague via Flickr)

GOP Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA), Michael McCaul (TX), Jack Kingston (VA), and Steven LaTourette (OH) signed on to the letter, which was sent to LaHood late yesterday in advance of today’s Bike to Work Day events in the capital.

Referencing LaHood’s March policy statement urging state and local transportation planners to put cyclists and pedestrians on the same footing as drivers in designing new infrastructure, the lawmakers wrote:

We recognize, and appreciate, that your statement was not about
providing equal amounts of funding to all forms of transportation, or
prioritizing bicycling and walking over other transportation modes such
as trucking, freight or public transit. Instead, your commitment to
consider all modes clarified that to give citizens a choice, rather
than forcing them into their car, we must make sure that bicycling and
walking are as safe and convenient as other modes.

LaTourette’s endorsement of that federal embrace of bicycling and pedestrian access is particularly notable. He initially echoed the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Trucking Association in chiding LaHood for the non-binding bike-ped statement, wondering "what job is going to be created" by bike lanes before later walking back his remarks.

The House GOP quartet’s show of force for non-motorized transport projects also separates them from a recent Senate Republican report that criticized bike-ped stimulus spending as a waste of taxpayer funds.

A complete copy of the letter, also signed by House transport committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), is available after the jump.

Dear Secretary LaHood:

We would like to thank you for the Department of Transportation’s release of the “Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation, Regulations, and Recommendations” announced on March 15. We support the policy statement’s declaration that bicycling and walking are efficient modes of transportation that have an important positive impact on our communities.

We were pleased to see the policy statement’s acknowledgment of bicycling and walking as an important part of the transportation system. Bicycling and walking serve as cost-effective solutions to many of the serious issues facing our transportation system, including traffic congestion, funding concerns and air pollution. Moreover, as 40 percent of trips taken in our country are two miles or less, bicycling and walking should play an important role in providing transportation options in our small towns, suburbs and cities.

We recognize, and appreciate, that your statement was not about providing equal amounts of funding to all forms of transportation, or prioritizing bicycling and walking over other transportation modes such as trucking, freight or public transit. Instead, your commitment to consider all modes clarified that to give citizens a choice, rather than forcing them into their car, we must make sure that bicycling and walking are as safe and convenient as other modes.

We also appreciate the recognition of bicycling and walking as useful tools to address many other issues facing our nation such as increased oil consumption, air pollution, and our growing national debt. Investments in bicycling and walking have been shown to bring significant economic development to communities across the country, and to help families lower their own transportation costs. We believe that communities should be able to move forward with projects they feel are most advantageous to them, including bicycle facilities and pedestrian infrastructure.

We hope to continue to see bicycling and walking as a central part of your livability initiative. Thank you for all of your hard work on this issue. We look forward to working with you in the future.

Traffic brings with it billions of dollars in "hidden health costs," according to the APTA. (Photo: NYT)

But APHA, a trade association representing public health workers, went further than the government by adding up the estimated costs imposed by the absence of any mandatory evaluation of the health consequences of transportation decisions.

Citing U.S. DOT and American Automobile Association studies, respectively, the APHA pegged the annual price of congested roads at between $50 billion and $80 billion, with the health toll of traffic crashes -- including the treatment of fatalities, the resulting court costs, and lost wages -- reaching $180 billion per year.

The majority of those bills are paid indirectly by the transportation system users they affect, not factored in advance into local planning, as the APHA writes:

The federal government does not require a consistent methodology for environmental impact analysis, transportation modeling, or cost-benefit analysis for agencies seeking federal highway funding -- and while this approach allows agencies to tailor analyses to fit their needs, it makes it impossible to compare potential project effectiveness at a national level. It also means that health impacts, costs and benefits are often left off the table when projects are being considered.

What can be done to build those health risks into the calculus that determines where roads get built, bridges fixed, and crosswalks painted? The APHA offers San Francisco, where health officials used economic modeling to weigh the likely pedestrian injury rates caused by five alternative development plans, as an example of effective local analysis of transportation's effect on public health.

But the APHA report underscores the difficulty of achieving a broader shift without Congress requiring a stronger emphasis on transport policies that tangibly improve Americans' health. In addition to endorsing the concept of national transportation objectives -- which has won some Democratic support but sparked resistance from state DOTs -- the group's new report urges that those new federal standards "allocate more funds to projects and efforts that support healthy communities and active transportation."

Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), center, and John Kerry (D-MA), right, with onetime climate bill cosponsor Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at left. (Photo: CSM)

"This is one of those cases where we really can't even talk about the merits of any portion of the bill because the fundamental position is flawed," Millar said.

Referring to the legislation's promise of funding for the clean transport and land-use grants known as "CLEAN TEA" and TIGER, he added, "Many of those are very good ideas … but you can't make those ideas work if there's no significant funding to make them work, and this bill would aggravate the funding situation for public transit."

John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), was more direct in outlining where state DOTs want to see the Senate climate bill's fuel revenues directed. "Channel[ing] every dollar through the highway trust fund," he said, would help the industry break through a congressional stalemate and win passage of a new six-year federal transport bill.

Stephen Sandherr, CEO of the Associated General Contractors, and Pete Ruane, president of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, echoed Horsley's interpretation of the new fuel fees in the climate bill -- which are imposed on oil companies and refiners but are likely to be passed along through higher gas prices -- as a de facto "user fee" on drivers.

The climate proposal, Ruane said, does "nothing more than finance a lot of goals, which are enviable in part, on the backs of transportation users."

It remains to be seen whether the transportation industry's combative stance against the partial diversion of the bill's transportation revenue, billed as a "call for a rewrite" of the climate legislation, will help force senators into restructuring the measure. Ruane said he "like[s] the odds" facing the four groups.

But one congressional source was befuddled by APTA's move to "bit[e] the hand that feeds them" by criticizing a climate bill that stands to give broad, lasting benefits to rail and bus systems.

“Perhaps these groups are confused about the purpose of the climate bill: It’s to reduce emissions, not increase them," the source told Streetsblog Capitol Hill. "The Kerry-Lieberman bill invests more money in transportation than any of the previous climate bills. Instead of working constructively to increase that investment, they are biting the hand that feeds them. Why is APTA advocating for a strategy that will decrease the amount of climate money going to transit? Transit makes out like a bandit in the Kerry-Lieberman bill.”

APTA's alignment with AASHTO and the construction industry groups marks a split of sorts from the Transportation for America (T4A) infrastructure reform coalition, which has praised the upper-chamber climate bill's focus on investing in clean transport projects while taking no official position on the legislation as a whole.

The Senate climate plan provides "a new source of revenue" for transportation, T4A spokesman David Goldberg said in an interview. "This is not a gas tax, and it's not conceived of as a supplement to the highway trust fund, for whatever the business-as-usual, run-of-the-mill highway trust fund projects are."

How big would that new source of transportation revenue be, relative to the total amount raised by the Senate climate bill's new fuel fees? APTA, AASHTO, and 25 other industry groups shared their estimates in a letter sent today to the legislation's chief sponsors, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT):

In 2013, fees from on-road fuel consumption [under the climate proposal] would generate at least $19.5 billion.  Instead of returning revenue from these fees to improving the transportation system, the bill diverts at least 77 percent of the funds away from transportation infrastructure investment.  As carbon prices increase, the bill diverts as much as 91 percent of fuel revenues.  Of particular concern, the bill limits new investment in the Highway Trust Fund to $2.5 billion per year, far below the amount the bill raises from system users. 

In a release previewing its joint press conference with AASHTO, scheduled for tomorrow morning, APTA said the Senate bill’s use of new fuel fees for purposes beyond infrastructure, such as paying down the federal deficit, "would harm efforts to pass
a new surface transportation bill and would also greatly impair the ability of
states, counties, cities and transit systems to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil and reduce transportation-related emissions."

Does the Senate climate bill include a user fee? That depends on how the term is defined. (Photo: Pop and Politics)

"Congress can ill-afford to consider any legislation that" siphons off money from the trust fund, which has required more than $30 billion in replenishment from the general Treasury over the past 18 months, Horsley said.

Stephen Sandherr, chief of the Associated General Contractors -- a backer of the Senate effort to bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of congressional action -- echoed that sentiment in his own statement on the upper-chamber climate proposal.

"[B]y taking funds raised through the proposal’s new transportation fees and committing all but a small percentage to unrelated spending, the legislation leaves our aging and inefficient roads, airways and transit systems vastly underfunded," Sandherr said.

But does the Senate climate bill impose a user fee on transportation fuel consumers? The text of the measure specifically requires "each refined [fuel] product provider" to purchase emissions permits from the EPA on a quarterly basis at a fixed price, with no permit trading allowed. Horsley's depiction of those charges as a "user fee" relies on the considerable likelihood that oil companies and refiners would pass on the cost of those emissions permits to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.

In the meantime, how much of the revenue raised by the bill's new fuel permits would infrastructure receive?

The American Road and Transportation Builders Association estimated last week that the Senate plan would raise $20 billion from the new charges on oil producers and refiners, with about $6.25 billion of that divided into equal parts -- one-third for the highway trust fund, one-third for competitive federal grants similar to the TIGER program, and one-third for local land use projects, in the style of the so-called "CLEAN TEA" proposal.

Villaraigosa (r.) with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, another co-chief of Building America's Future. (Photo: Getty)

Rendell and Villaraigosa came to the Capitol for a visit to the House Ways and Means Committee's revenue panel, which faces the challenging task of finding a workable financing mechanism for long-term federal transportation legislation.

Villaraigosa used his high-profile push for federal assistance with his city's "30/10" transit plan, which would expedite construction of 13 rail and rapid bus projects using proceeds from a voter-approved sales tax, to urge lawmakers' support for an NIB.

"We're not only arguing for infrastructure investment on the federal level," he said. "We're saying ... at a time of spiraling deficits, we've got to encourage local governments to put up their own money. We have done that [in L.A.]."

Rendell, who has used his role as co-chairman of the advocacy group Building America's Future to amass support for an NIB, quoted GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe's (OK) support for federal transport spending in a bid to depict infrastructure as a uniquely bipartisan issue.

"The American people are way ahead of us," Rendell told Ways and Means members. "Infrastructure is something they can touch, they can see, they can experience ... This is easier, in terms of public perception, than anybody thinks."

But even as the duo focused on the NIB -- which Rendell and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) agreed should be placed outside the U.S. DOT, counter to the White House's proposal -- the specter of the federal gas tax hung over the room. One day after conservatives began using anti-gas tax arguments in a bid to derail the new Senate climate bill, lawmakers prodded Rendell and Villaraigosa to share their views on the subject.

Rendell, specifying that he was "not speaking for" his advocacy group, endorsed a gas tax increase. Villaraigosa followed, confidently: "I unequivocally support an increase in the gas tax ... if America is going to continue to maintain its highways and infrastructure, it's crucial."

Few Democrats on the Ways and Means panel, however, were prepared to echo their colleagues from the state and local levels.

"I think we'd have a hard time passing a gas tax increase in the Democratic delegation [and] a hard time passing it in the Pennsylvania delegation," Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) told Rendell after the governor cited surveys that show the majority of the public incorrectly believes the tax is already indexed for inflation. "I just think these polls may not be as telling as we'd like to think."

A middle-ground approach was offered by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who reminded fellow House members that "there is no reason we have to raise a gas tax, this year or next year," to pay for sustained new federal transport investment. "As long as we establish a revenue path going forward within a 10-year budget score, we can leverage it."

Still, in a political climate dominated by incumbents in both parties running scared ahead of the November midterm elections, the prospects for any significant commitment from Washington appeared bleak.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), left, Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), center, and John Kerry (D-MA), right, began their climate talks in December. (Photo: Getty)

That money for infrastructure would be divided into three equal parts, according to the legislation. One-third would go into the nation's cash-strapped highway trust fund – with a mandate to set aside the funding for projects that decrease greenhouse gas emissions – while another third would go towards competitive federal grants in the style of the stimulus law's Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. 

A final third would go towards local land-use planning, as envisioned in the so-called “CLEAN TEA” bill championed by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE).

“We want to make this the Senate where we finish the job and cast the decisive vote for the future,” Kerry told reporters at a packed Capitol Hill press conference where veterans' groups and industry representatives lent their support to the legislation.

The climate bill also takes a step towards requiring a set of national transport objectives – a longtime goal of reform groups – by giving the U.S. DOT and Environmental Protection Agency one year to propose “national transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions goals” as well as unified strategies for states and metro areas to measure their compliance with those goals.

State and local transportation planners would then have two more years to draft plans for emissions reduction, using a variety of strategies named in the bill, including transit-oriented development, high-speed rail, zoning changes, and promotion of biking and walking. Any areas that do not propose plans for reducing transport emissions would be declared ineligible for the proposed “CLEAN TEA” grants.

The bill states that emissions allowances set aside for the highway trust fund “shall be used to promote the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of transportation,” specifying that the money should be used in accordance with the principles of the “CLEAN TEA” package. But the legislation did not specify how such a firewall surrounding highway trust fund money would be enforced within the U.S. DOT.

Nonetheless, transportation reformers hailed the bill as a step forward. "The authord deserve high praise for ensuring that revenues generated from the transportation sector go in part toward meeting the growing demand for more, better and cleaner travel options," Geoff Anderson, co-chairman of the advocacy group Transportation for America, said in a statement.

Even as lawmakers, aides, and advocates picked through the substance of the nearly 1000-page bill, its political future remained very much in doubt.

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) warned recently that the measure may not reach the upper-chamber floor this year unless Democratic leaders see a path to reaching the 60-vote threshold necessary to break a certain GOP filibuster. The onetime Republican cosponsor of Kerry and Lieberman's effort, Lindsey Graham (SC), did not appear at today's unveiling, though he vowed in a statement to consider the legislation.

We should move forward in a reasoned, thoughtful manner and in a political climate which gives us the best chance at success,” Graham said, reiterating his previous conclusions that the Gulf oil spill and simmering immigration debate “have made it extremely difficult for transformational legislation in the area of energy and climate to garner bipartisan support at this time."

Answering the perception among many Hill observers that the climate bill's odds of passage are slim at best, Kerry decried what he described as an attitude inside the Beltway that assumes a broad climate bill would be “dead on arrival, replaced by a watered-down energy bill or nothing at all.”

Nonetheless, Reid indicated earlier this week in an interview with Univision that he would be open to moving forward with a smaller energy bill this year that did not include broad emissions cuts.

The two senators replaced their initial plan for a linked fee on carbon-based motor fuels, which became politically toxic for the White House and Graham after critics branded it a new gas tax, with a fixed price for emissions permits that oil producers and refiners would have to purchase at the end of each quarter. Those permits could not be traded among businesses or “banked” for later use, and any over- or under-supply would count against the next quarter's allocation.

We took refiners and fuel providers out of the market,” Kerry and Lieberman's offices said in a summary of the bill's transport section. “Instead of having them participate in the market for allowances, we made sure the price of carbon was constant across the industry.”

(Chart: LetsMove.gov)

During the February launch of the task force, Mrs. Obama noted the public health benefits of promoting biking and walking among U.S. kids, but today's report goes into far more detail about the link between non-motorized transportation, local land use, and children's rate of physical exercise. Among the task force's recommendations are an addition of "complete streets" design rules to the next long-term federal transportation bill and expanding the Safe Routes to School (SRtS) program to include high schools.

"Children’s ability to be physically active in their community depends on whether the community is safe and walkable, with good sidewalks and reasonable distances between destinations," the report states in a section entitled 'The Built Environment' that got an early plug from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

A chart featured in the White House report, viewable above, mirrors the assessment of a recent SRtS release that found ample opportunities for families to transition their children from school commutes via auto to trips by foot or bicycle.

The task force also encourages local governments to conduct "Health Impact Assessments," or HIAs, before building new developments. The HIA concept, similar to environmental reviews of federally funded transport projects that are currently mandated by law, would evaluate the effect of construction and land-use decisions on the physical activity of community residents.

The first lady's group also took a notably holistic approach to the effect of neighborhood quality on children's health. In a lengthy section on the findings of a recent socioeconomic study published in the journal Health Affairs, today's report states:

• Children living in unsafe neighborhoods or those characterized by poor housing and the presence of garbage and litter on streets had an approximately 30-60% higher chance of being obese or overweight than children living in better conditions;
• Children with low neighborhood amenities or those lacking neighborhood access to sidewalks or walking paths, parks or playgrounds, or recreation or community centers had 20-45% higher odds of becoming obese or overweight compared to children who had access to these amenities;
• The impact of the built environment was particularly strong for younger children (ages 10-11) and for girls. Girls ages 10-11 living in neighborhoods with the fewest amenities had 121-276% higher adjusted odds of being obese or overweight than those living in neighborhoods with the most amenities
  

As a standard to measure the success of its proposed policy shifts, the task force suggested aiming for a 50 percent increase in the share of children walking or biking to school over the next five years.

"We don't need new discoveries or new inventions to reverse this trend" of obesity that has manifested in an estimated one out of every three American children, Mrs. Obama told reporters today. "Again, we have the tools at our disposal to reverse it. All we need is the motivation, the opportunity and the willpower to do what needs to be done."

Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA) (Photo: LAT)

"After a careful review of the Commonwealth [of Virginia]'s transportation needs, I believe the ability to toll Interstate 95 at the border will quickly enable the Commonwealth to begin addressing some of our greatest areas of concern," McDonnell said in a statement on his move.

"Such user fees will help the Commonwealth generate the revenue necessary to make much needed infrastructure and safety improvements in the I-95 corridor to better serve the traveling public and increase economic productivity." 

The state DOT has estimated that setting I-95 toll rates between $1 and $2 per vehicle axle would yield between $30 million and $60 million annually. All of the revenue would be used for roadway improvements, McDonnell's office said today, with safety and pavement upgrades taking first priority.

Eventually, according to the governor's statement, toll revenues could be used to add roadway capacity along the I-95 corridor.

McDonnell began his first year in office by declining to seek an immediate solution to Virginia's transportation budget shortfall, which has swelled even as residents of the state's denser, northern region grapple with intense road congestion. Last month, however, his administration took steps to raise money for a new transit line by selling about $500 million in transportation bonds.

President Obama, shown biking with his daughters — one of the CDC’s recommendations to enhance public health. (Photo: AP via Politico)

The CDC brief, quietly released late last month, offers seven recommendations aimed at making public health a greater priority for transportation policymakers:

• Pass road safety laws, such as those requiring child safety harnesses and prohibiting texting behind the wheel;
• Increase funding for air quality improvement projects and clean diesel projects that limit vehicle emissions;
• Encourage more transit-oriented development and transit expansion;
• Require streetscapes to be designed for bicyclists and pedestrians as well as drivers, the principle known as "complete streets";
• Support local planning and zoning rules that promote mixed-use construction in denser neighborhoods;
• Revamp road design practices to minimize auto speeds and increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety;
• Increase data collection and research about the transportation-health relationship

In addition, the CDC outlines the grim consequences that can be expected from the nation’s transportation status quo:

• Physical activity and active transportation have declined
  compared to previous generations.  The lack of physical activity is a
  major contributor to the steady rise in rates of obesity, diabetes,
  heart disease, stroke and other chronic health conditions in the United
  States.
• Motor vehicle crashes continue to be the leading
  cause of injury-related death for many age groups.  Pedestrians and
  bicyclists are at an even greater risk of death from crashes than those
  who travel by motor vehicles.
• Many Americans view walking
  and bicycling within their communities as unsafe because of traffic and
  the lack of sidewalks, crosswalks, and bicycle facilities.
• Although
  using public transportation has historically been safer than highway
  travel in light duty vehicles, highway travel has grown more quickly
  than other modes of travel. 
• A lack of efficient
  alternatives to automobile travel disproportionately affects vulnerable
  populations such as the poor, the elderly, people who have disabilities
  and children by limiting access to jobs, health care, social
  interaction, and healthy foods.
• Although motor vehicle
  emissions have decreased significantly over the past three decades, air
  pollution from motor vehicles continues to contribute to the
  degradation of our environment and adverse respiratory and
  cardiovascular health effects.
• Transportation accounts for approximately one-third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change.

If they build it, will people come? An early rendering of California's planned high-speed rail line. (Photo: Inhabitat)

"Absent a strong government partnership, we're not going to have high-speed rail in this country," said Kevin Brubaker, deputy director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

Brubaker added that the biggest challenge facing high-speed rail is not the danger that ridership would not meet expectations -- although the lack of local transit connections in Florida's proposed Orlando-Tampa line has fueled those questions -- but the appetite of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to make the bold leaps necessary to finish the job.

"There is a great deal of reluctance at FRA in terms of moving too quickly," Brubaker said, depicting his comments as pragmatism rather than a knock at the agency. "There is nothing worse, as a bureaucrat, than having your name on a bad program."

FRA chief Joseph Szabo took heat from senior senators last week over how his agency has coordinated with Amtrak and other inter-city rail players, suggesting that the $2.5 billion Congress approved last fall for high-speed rail might not be replicated this year unless a more muscular strategy is employed within the administration.

Indeed, at a congressional field hearing on bullet train service late last month, Szabo downplayed the significance of the "high-speed" aspect of inter-city rail. The federal rail program should be understood "in the context of the transportation markets served and the needs of the passengers rather than as a race to see how fast a piece of equipment can move," Szabo said.

That assessment is in line with the White House's first round of grant winners, only two of which -- California and Florida -- plan to create rail systems that meet international standards for high-speed trains by topping 150 miles-per-hour speeds. But private-sector planner Bruce Horowitz warned yesterday that even in the case of Europe and Asia's successful rail lines, consistent government spending was needed to help balance capital and operating budgets.

"There was a misunderstanding, largely here [in America], that those systems covered their costs," noted Horowitz, who works for the firm ESH Consult.

Petra Todorovich, director of the urban-planning group America 2050, offered a high-speed rail caveat of her own: the need to pair viable bullet trains with denser, transit-oriented land use strategies. "You can't just build high-speed rail and expect a business district to spring up around it," she said.

Florida officials have shown signs of heeding Todorovich's concerns, vowing this week to extend its high-speed service south to Miami and pursuing an ambitious commuter rail network in the Orlando area.

APTA vice president Art Guzzetti acknowledged the need to temper expectations for the high-speed rail program by raising a rhetorical question to other attendees at yesterday's briefing: "Did we jump into high-speed rail before we were ready?"

Guzzetti quickly answered his own question, asserting that "the administration did the right thing." He called the $8 billion the late-in-the-game addition to the stimulus "bold" and "abrupt," but also pivotal in terms of the governmental and media interest that it generated.

Yet not all rail advocates are as optimistic as the federal program's $10.5 billion budget would suggest. Eric Peterson, a former deputy administrator of the U.S. DOT's research arm who now leads the American High-Speed Rail Alliance (AHSRA), lamented yesterday that "so far ... the nation is basically unprepared to deal with" the work necessary to build true high-speed rail.

Citing projections that American bullet train service could require as much four decades to complete, Peterson said: "By the time we get [our systems] built, the level of technology for high-speed rail service in the world will be at a whole different plane. That leaves us with an $8 billion expenditure for a [low] margin of rail investments."

After Sen. Scott Brown's (R-MA) January upset in the race for the congressional seat long held by the late Ted Kennedy, his win was chalked up to several factors: voter reluctance to embrace health care reform, campaign-trail gaffes by the Democratic candidate -- and a hyper-folksy ad campaign that featured Brown cruising around the state meeting voters in his "old truck."

Now the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza catches an interesting new take on that ubiquitous truck ad (at which even President Obama took aim). Republican Dan Winslow, a candidate for the Massachusetts state legislature who has worked for Brown and erstwhile GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, has cut a version of the commercial featuring him touring his prospective district by bicycle.

Could Winslow's ad signal a growing Republican transition away from bashing bike infrastructure projects as pork-barrel spending?

Were "clunker" trade-ins a good thing for the stalled economy? (Photo: NYT)

The GAO report casts doubt on several of the Obama administration’s claims about the success of the "clunkers" plan, including the extent of its economic benefits and the emissions savings achieved by replacing older autos with more gas-sipping vehicles.

While the GAO’s nonpartisan auditors concluded that "clunkers" program achieved its overall goal of promoting economic growth, they could reach no consensus on how to measure that stimulative effect. A laudatory "clunkers" report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers reached similar conclusions concluded that 64 percent of "clunkers" sales were "incremental," meaning that the trade-ins would have occurred regardless of whether government subsidies were on offer.

The U.S. DOT, using its own surveys, concluded that 88 percent of trade-ins under the program were effectively pushed forward in time; however, the GAO questioned the reliability of that data because the department "did not follow some generally accepted survey design and implementation practices." (ed. note. Streetsblog Capitol Hill contributor Ryan Avent made similar observations in August.)

Apart from its effect on vehicle sales, the trade-in program was also credited by the administration with increasing the U.S. gross domestic product. But the GAO found that assertion equally difficult to prove, citing interviews with auto executives who confirmed only that "clunkers" sales decreased their inventory. "[I]t is not clear how much of the reduction in inventory led to increased automobile manufacturing and, therefore, a positive impact on Gross Domestic Product," the auditors wrote.

The GAO found more holes in the administration’s assertions about pollution savings achieved by the $3 billion "clunkers" plan.

The U.S. DOT concluded that the average beneficiary would consume 10 percent less fuel as a result of trading in their older autos, but that figure was estimated using the same flawed methodology that resulted in the 88-percent "incremental sales" figure.

In addition, the U.S. DOT did not attempt to measure the emissions generated by scrapping the traded-in "clunkers" and manufacturing the new vehicles purchased, which "may offset some of the program’s effect on emission reductions," according to the GAO.

Interestingly, the congressional Democrats who helped pass two rounds of "clunkers" spending depicted the GAO audit as a vindication of their efforts. Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) issued a statement calling the program “an overwhelming success," suggesting that the environmental effects of the auto trade-ins were ancillary:

The ["clunkers"] program was about more than just cars. It was about people. It was about our friends and neighbors who depend on auto-related jobs to support their families. And,
it was about our communities that depend on auto-related jobs for their
tax base to support our schools, police, fire and other city services.

The state of repair for America's urban roads, according to federal maintenance data. In rural areas, 61 percent are rated "good." (Chart: U.S. PIRG)

That little-known provision is one of many "perverse incentives" highlighted in a report on road and bridge maintenance released yesterday by the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups' (PIRG) education fund.

The rules governing federal aid for interstate maintenance, according to the U.S. PIRG, are equally skewed to ensure older roads keep crumbling. Take the cases of New York, where 567 miles of road were rated in less than "good" condition by the U.S. DOT (see categories in the above pie chart), and Florida, where 13 miles were in the same aging state.

One might think that New York would receive more maintenance money from Washington. But as the report points out:

[B]ecause of New York and Florida’s similar number of Interstate lane miles, both states received about the same amount of Interstate Maintenance Program funding over the last five years — $182 million for New York and $193 million for Florida, annually.

Transportation policymakers tend to be inundated by reports, but the U.S. PIRG hopes to aim its research beyond a simple call for extra repair funding in the next long-term federal infrastructure bill.

"We're hoping the report will be a call to look hard at the actual politics behind these problems," U.S. PIRG senior analyst Phineas Baxandall, one of the document's three primary co-authors, said in an interview. "This is not simply a problem [solved by] pouring more money into the system."

Baxandall and his colleagues also attempted to tally the real-world costs of inattention to road and bridge repair needs. Their report notes that car maintenance bills incurred by travelers on older roads is significantly higher in major cities: Drivers in Los Angeles, San Jose, and San Francisco all pay more than $700 extra per year, according to the most recent data released by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

And given that the political climate suggests Congress will be hard-pressed to pass a new six-year infrastructure bill before 2011 -- depriving pro-repair advocates of their principal vehicle for broad "fix-it-first" reform -- the U.S. PIRG report also maps the route to progress on the state level in the meantime.

The report's authors highlight laws on the books in Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland that "requir[e] state DOTs to focus on the rehabilitation of existing facilities before building new highways."

Baxandall said he was particularly heartened by Maryland officials' move to set up clear metrics for determining their progress on bringing the local built environment into a state of good repair. "If it can happen in the states," he said, "it will [happen on] the federal level."

"CONGRE$$ PLEASE HELP." 

"HANDS OFF OUR BUS OPERATORS."

The messages were stark on Capitol Hill today as hundreds of transit workers gathered to protest the wave of local budget shortfalls that are threatening many of their jobs and called on Congress to approve an increase in federal operating aid.

The rail and bus workers came from New York, Boston, and Atlanta, toting signs to the doorstep of the Senate for a rally sponsored by the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union, an arm of the AFL-CIO. Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has put urban transit cuts near the top of his personal agenda in recent months, also addressed the workers.

One after another, the presidents of local union chapters took to the microphones with the same warning to Democrats in Congress: Transit workers are not inclined to help save the jobs of lawmakers who do not try to return the favor.

"It's amazing how the people that built the systems are the first ones who want to cut the systems," said Robert Kelly, chief of Chicago's ATU Local 308 chapter. "If Washington doesn't hear us, let's get rid of 'em."

Other union leaders sounded similar notes, vowing to limit their campaign contributions unless urban areas are permitted to spend more federal money on transit operating. Current law allows major cities to use 10 percent of their federal transit stimulus grants to keep buses and trains running, but that provision will have a limited effect as the next fiscal year approaches and recovery aid from Washington dwindles.

"We won't win this fight in the cities, we won't win it in the states," said Angelo Tanzi, president of Staten Island's local ATU chapter, finishing with a cry for permanent, "dedicated" federal transit operating funds.

The unions' efforts have the support of House transport committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) as well as Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, but their chances of success this summer remain slim.

That's because the most likely vehicle for a permanent change in the transit operating rules is the next six-year federal transportation legislation, which remains stalled amid an ongoing dispute over how to finance it in the absence of a gas tax increase.

Despite their potentially long odds, the transit workers remained focused on projecting a unified front. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), cosponsor of a House jobs bill that would route economic recovery aid directly to urban governments, was met with cheers after he promised to let fellow lawmakers know "transportation jobs are where it's at."

By boosting transit operating aid to stave off local layoffs, Ellison told the union members, "we not only save your jobs, we help you get other people to their jobs."