Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood made a surprise visit to the closing reception of the National Bike Summit last night, speaking to a record crowd of bicycle advocates and industry representatives, many of whom spent the day swarming the halls of the Capitol as part of the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) annual lobby day.

"People get it. People want to live in livable communities," LaHood told the crowd, after hoisting himself atop a table in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room so the large gathering could see him. "People want streetcars that are made in Portland, Oregon. People want walking paths, biking paths, and opportunities for families to really do the things they do best, which is to hang together and have fun. You all created an opportunity for America with all of your hard work."

"I’ve been all over America, and where I’ve been in America I’ve been very proud to talk about the fact that people do want alternatives. They want out of their cars, they want out of congestion, they want to live in livable neighborhoods and livable communities." He added, to thunderous applause, "you've got a partner in Ray LaHood."

"Ray, we've got your back," said Congressman Earl Blumenaur, the founder of the Congressional Bike Caucus, who told attendees that they have made a difference but there are "a lot of people who don't get the big picture yet."

The reception ended the league's 10th annual summit, which saw a record number of attendees: more than 700 advocates from all over the country took part.

"From my perspective what has changed most dramatically is not just the numbers over the years, but our own belief in the ability we have to convince others this stuff actually works," said Andy Clarke, President of the LAB. "We've got examples in the field now in San Francisco, in Portland, in Chicago, New York City, where you can document a real change in behavior, and we've got mode shift going on and we can see why it's happened." 

The underlying theme, as it has been in years past, was the reauthorization of federal transportation law. Bike advocates also asked lawmakers to expand programs like Safe Routes to School and adopt new legislation to improve conditions for walking and biking.

"It's a challenging time to be asking for more funding," said Clarke. "But this isn't new money, first and foremost. There's money in the system that can be used that isn't being used on safety programs or bridges or congestion relief programs that can very legitimately be used for biking and walking."

That message, said Clarke, is what advocates were urged to tell their representatives.

"I was rather impressed with some of the speeches our people made," said bicycling pioneer Gary Fisher, who attended the summit for the first time. "We keep coming and coming and coming and it keeps getting bigger and bigger."

For more on the National Bike Summit, visit Bike Portland. Jonathan Maus cranked out some excellent coverage.

We've also got video of most of LaHood's speech to the bike summit, but a warning that the quality isn't the best:

Congressman Earl Blumenaur. Photo: Jeffrey Martin, courtesy of the League of American Bicyclists. 

A large crowd of advocates packed a room for the National Bike Summit closing reception in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Photo: Bryan Goebel.

Cycling pioneer Gary Fisher meets Transportation Secretary LaHood. Photo: Bryan Goebel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), at right, with ranking Republican Jim Inhofe (OK). (Photo: Politico)

Such willingness to consider a new infrastructure bill before the Obama administration's preferred timeframe of next spring could help thaw the frosty relations between Boxer's panel and the House transportation committee, where chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) has raged against upper-chamber inaction for months.

But lawmakers and industry lobbies have a long way to go before they can sing from the same hymnal on the next transportation bill. Boxer asked representatives of the four lobbies appearing today -- the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), the National Construction Alliance (NCA) and the Associated General Contractors (AGC) -- to parse Oberstar's bill "literally, with a pen" and let senators know which provisions they favored or disliked.

"We're going to take their bill and work from it," Boxer said of the House, which has proposed a $500 billion plan that streamlines 108 categories of formula-based federal transportation spending into four and includes dedicated funding for metropolitan area priorities.

Neither the transit industry nor transportation reform advocacy groups had a representative at the hearing. The four witnesses largely limited their comments to the economic need for a new long-term federal bill, with former AASHTO president Pete Rahn endorsing the price tag of the House bill but suggesting that he viewed it as overly solicitous to transit.

"We need a balanced bill that increases funding for both highways and transit," said Rahn, who leads the Missouri state DOT.

And though the biggest stumbling block facing the next federal transport bill -- namely, the lack of sufficient gas tax revenue to pay for it -- was lamented widely, few offered concrete solutions that would help Congress move forward more quickly.

"The problem we have in infrastructure is not ways to borrow more money," Rahn replied to a question about Build America Bonds, a successful if occasionally controversial infrastructure financing tool established in last year's stimulus law. "We need to find a way to pay for improvements ... We've now topped out the credit card."

Rahn urged lawmakers to address the declining utility of the gas tax, pointing to a "conflict" between its continued role as Washington's transportation revenue-raiser and the growing acknowledgment that oil consumption needs to decrease for environmental and national security reasons.

Griffith Company president Tom Foss, speaking for the AGC, said that industry groups are open to other options, such as increased tolling or an eventual transition to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax. Still, he added, "the gas tax is still best way to fund" federal transportation law because "we can advertise [it] to the general population."

The hearing took place as the House prepares to vote as soon as tomorrow on a $15 billion jobs bill, already cleared by the Senate, that would extend the 2005 transport law until year's end. Boxer and fellow senators asked the witnesses to underscore the importance of that 10-month extension in conversations with the House, where some Democrats remain reluctant to embrace the upper chamber's jobs package.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) was heard quipping "tough s---t" as he began blocking an extension of transportation law. (Photo: CNN)

The shutdown of federal reimbursement for road, bridge, bike-ped, and transit spending is costing states and localities $183 million per day, according to House transportation committee estimates.

Bunning's action has the effect of a classic filibuster, but his official gambit has been ongoing objection to a vote on extending infrastructure, unemployment, and several other programs. That one-month stopgap would cost $10 billion, which Bunning wants to see paid for by taking money from the White House's stimulus law.

Yet he has refused Senate leaders' offer to vote on his proposal to use stimulus money, acknowledging that it lacks the votes to pass. In the meantime, thousands more U.S. DOT employees, including Federal Transit Administration workers, are facing forced furloughs today.

"The timing could not be worse for a lot of reasons," Nevada state DOT director Susan Martinovich said in a statement released by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). "States need every dollar they can get to improve our aging roads and bridges and put people to work. ... We should be awarding contracts for spring construction right now, but instead many states are forced to delay, and in some cases cancel, projects."

Democrats openly branded Bunning as the face of Senate GOP obstructionism, with several majority-party lawmakers sending him direct cease-and-desist appeals.

"This is completely unacceptable," Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wrote in a letter to Bunning. "We can’t have an economic recovery if people can’t make ends meet and if transportation projects grind to a halt."

But when Senate Democrats released a new $150 billion jobs plan yesterday that would retroactively extend unemployment benefits until 2011, an extension of federal transportation funding was not part of the package.

The reason for the omission: a re-up of the 2005 transportation law until the end of the year is part of the $15 billion Senate jobs bill that is still awaiting action in the House, where fiscally hawkish Blue Dogs and members of the Congressional Black Caucus remain reluctant to sign off on the legislation.

If the House can muster up the votes to pass the $15 billion Senate measure this week, the U.S. DOT would be able to end its furloughs and spending freezes without the need for Bunning to relent.

Rep. James Clyburn (SC), the House Democrats' No. 3 leader, told reporters yesterday that "no one's got any problem with ... what the [Senate jobs] bill is intended to do." House Democrats are hesitant to endorse the Senate jobs bill, Clyburn said, because of its greater emphasis on tax cuts than on "direct investments." Still, he predicted that House-side questions about the jobs bill could be resolved by today or tomorrow.

In the interim, however, uncertainty reigns for federal transportation rules.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) (Photo: CNN)

But one GOP senator, the notoriously irascible Jim Bunning (KY), objected to the 30-day extension, which also would ensure continued payment of federal unemployment benefits. When Democrats pleaded with Bunning to drop his one-man filibuster effort, Politico heard the retiring Kentuckian offer a terse response: "Tough s--t."

If an extension cannot be passed before the 2005 transportation law officially expires at midnight on Sunday, the result would be a quasi-shutdown of operations at U.S. DOT. A source at the agency told Streetsblog Capitol Hill that all employees of the Federal Highway Administration, save for its chief, would be sent home and states would stop getting reimbursed for their spending on all road projects.

The Federal Transit Administration would see a similar freeze, the U.S. DOT source said, with contract authority to fund local projects sitting in limbo until Congress acts. Perhaps the most untimely delay would occur at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), where regulators are ramping up their oversight efforts after the Toyota recall debacle.

"[I]t is simply unfair for one senator to attempt to hold the Senate hostage,” Dick Durbin (D-IL), the upper chamber's No. 2 leader, said last night in a statement.

Where does that leave Democrats? Working furiously to break through Bunning's roadblock, even as more House members join transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) in raising objections to the Senate jobs bill that would keep existing federal programs intact until 2011.

Oberstar and about two dozen members of his panel take issue with the Senate jobs bill's treatment of $932 million in grants that would be spent this year as part of a 10-month extension of existing transport law. Giving that money to states using the template of 2009 earmarks -- as the Senate jobs bill proposes -- would direct the majority of the money to four states, leaving 22 states with nothing.

A letter sent earlier this week by 23 members of the transportation committee asks for the grant money to be given out on a "discretionary, competitive" basis. However, Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said in an interview that the chairman has offered a compromise that would allocate the funding based on existing federal transportation formulas.

Berard said that Oberstar would prefer to see the $932 million allocated competitively to projects rather than distributed by formula. But he acknowledged the reasoning behind the Senate's argument that applying for the funding would not facilitate quick job creation. "If we're not going to make it competitive," Berard said, "at least let's make it equitable."

At the moment, the House appears unlikely to act on the jobs legislation until at least next week, giving Oberstar and his panel more time to reach agreement with senators -- and heightening the drama of Bunning's Senate floor show.

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) (Photo: UPI)

Voinovich joined four other GOP senators, including newly elected Scott Brown (R-MA), in voting with Democrats to end debate on a $15 billion jobs bill that transfers $20 billion to the nation's highway trust fund, keeping it solvent until the end of 2010.

But in a statement released just after his vote, Voinovich explained that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made a commitment in exchange for the Ohioan's support:

I spoke to Majority Leader Reid prior to this vote and he assured me that he understands the importance of a surface transportation reauthorization bill. I reiterated that it is the best way to create jobs, provide an immediate stimulus to the economy, rebuild our nation’s infrastructure and reduce our carbon footprint.

Leader Reid gave me his commitment that he will bring the reauthorization of a multi-year surface transportation bill to the floor for a vote this year. I look forward to working with Senator Reid, [Senate environment committee chairman Barbara] Boxer [D-CA] and others to do so as soon as possible so we can put Americans back to work.

Voinovich's statement -- which he passed out paper copies of to reporters after last night's vote, according to the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim -- tracks with Boxer's comments at a Los Angeles town meeting on Friday, when she vowed to advance her version of a new long-term federal transport bill before the end of the year.

Setting the end of 2010 as the new timetable for a Senate vote on transportation policy would effectively commit Democrats to agreeing on a source of funding that would offset new six-year legislation in the range of $450 billion to $500 billion.

House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) has estimated that about $140 billion in new revenue would be needed to close the gap between anticipated federal gas-tax revenue and the price tag of replacing the 2005 transport law with a new bill.

Could the answer to the Democrats' transportation financing conundrum be a post-election session (often dubbed a "lame-duck") after this November's midterms?

"We will bring Republicans to the table," Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) said last week. (Photo: Cleveland.com)

Republicans in the House mounted a surprisingly vocal opposition to the first short-term extension in September, suggesting more resistance to come when Democrats in both chambers attempt to agree -- sometime before February 28 -- on legislation giving another planning reprieve to local transportation officials.

Even calls for a new extension by the road and business lobbies, reliable campaign donors to Democrats and Republicans alike, have fallen on deaf ears as lawmakers brace for a midterm election season dominated by anti-incumbent sentiment. Politico noted today that the GOP is preparing to oppose a $20 billion-plus infusion of taxpayer money to the highway trust fund, citing "concern about rising deficits."

That politically motivated foot-dragging is in some ways a nod to the extent and complexity of Washington's transportation financing problem. Rescuing the highway trust fund again may be a bitter pill to swallow, but with congressional leaders unwilling to look at a gas tax increase -- and no certainty that such a hike would even get the job done as Americans drive less in more fuel-efficient cars -- lawmakers have little to lose by extending the highway-centric 2005 transportation bill again this month, effectively hitting the snooze button on infrastructure policy.

Still, not every Republican is opposed to making the hard choices necessary to raise revenue for a new transportation bill. That was the message that Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) delivered to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood during a recent House Appropriations Committee hearing. As LaTourette told his former GOP colleague (emphasis mine):

[E]ven though I have the greatest respect for you and the president ... kicking this can down the road to March 2011 is irresponsible. This has to be worked out. This isn't a problem that you're all of a sudden some light bulb's going to go on after listening for 18 months. We knew it when we passed [the 2005 federal transport law], we knew we were going to have this problem [with financing].

And I'm telling you, as I told Mr. Oberstar, we will bring Republicans to the table. I get that the Democrats are scared because of some of the election results, they don't want to have a tax increase on top of the other things that are going on around here. But the fact of the matter is, it's time for leadership on this issue, and it is irresponsible, in my opinion, to not deal with this.

LaTourette added that LaHood may be under pressure of his own not to put the White House on record in favor of a new tax increase -- even one that might help break the transportation financing logjam. "Early in your tenure," LaTourette told LaHood, "[you] made some observations about [the prospects for a] vehicle miles traveled [tax]. I got the feeling you were summoned down to the White House pretty quickly after that, and you stopped talking about things like that. But it's got to be done."

Could LaTourette's confidence translate into GOP support for new taxes to help pay for the next long-term transportation bill? A tax increase of some kind is likely the only chance Congress will have to close the $140 billion-plus gap between estimated gas tax revenues and the six-year legislation envisioned by the House transportation committee.

But Republicans won't have to consider coming "to the table," in LaTourette's words, if Democrats stay silent on the issue before the midterm elections. And LaHood's preferred extension timetable of spring 2011 still may be too early for gun-shy lawmakers to sit down and solve the government's transportation funding problem.

"March of 2011 will be a new Congress," Rep. Tom Latham (IA), the senior Republican among House transportation appropriators, told LaHood . "Lord knows what's going to happen. That really kicks it, probably, another year down the road."

White House budget chief Peter Orszag challenged employees to boost their walking last fall. (Photo: CSM)

The budget also proposes a $4 billion National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund, a rechristened National Infrastructure Bank that would use federal money to leverage private capital for large-scale projects improving the nation's built environment.

The $530 million request for the three-agency sustainable communities partnership, which got $150 million from Congress for the current fiscal year, would go directly to the U.S. DOT for "comprehensive regional and community planning efforts that integrate transportation, housing, and other critical investments," according to the White House budget office.

The administration requested $160 million in total for the two other agencies involved in the partnership, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

As promised to Congress in December, the White House also set aside funding for the implementation of its plans for a new federal role overseeing rail transit safety. The U.S. DOT would receive $30 million in today's budget to train new inspectors and help cities such as Washington D.C. come into compliance with minimum safety standards.

On the controversial question of the cash-strapped highway trust fund -- which is expected to run out of money this spring, not long after the expiration of the latest short-term extension to the 2005 federal transportation law -- the presidential budget maintains its insistence on waiting until 2011 to fix the nation's transport funding crisis.

In the budget's U.S. DOT section, the White House writes:

The current framework for financing and allocating surface transportation investments is not financially sustainable, nor does it effectively allocate resources to meet our critical national needs. The Administration recommends extending the current [federal bill] through March 2011, during which time it will work with the Congress to reform surface transportation programs and put the system on a viable financing path...

[T]he Administration seeks to integrate economic analysis and performance measurement in transportation planning to ensure that taxpayer dollars are better targeted and spent.

In a separate section of the budget dedicated to long-term fiscal analysis, the White House describes its $43 billion estimate for highway spending in 2011 as a placeholder, not intended to reflect the funding strategy "that the Administration and Congress necessarily should or will adopt for the long-term reauthorization" legislation.

"Rather," the budget adds, "its purpose is to accurately reflect the condition of the [highway trust fund] and recognize that, under current law, maintaining baseline spending" on highways will require more transfers of cash from the general Treasury.

Would logical transportation policies have allowed New York's Champlain Bridge to deteriorate so badly it had to be demolished? Image: TSTC

They were on hand to discuss Performance Driven, the report released last summer by the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project. The main thrust of the report is that America's transportation policy needs national objectives. We can't just divide the spoils of the gas tax between states and call it a day. With a more Vulcan approach to our decisions, the report suggests, we can build a safer, greener, more efficient transportation network.

Yesterday's panelists, including NYCDOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, RPA President Bob Yaro, and Tri-State Transportation Campaign Executive Director Kate Slevin, generally agreed that Performance Driven lays out the right goals for reform: economic growth, national connectivity, metropolitan access, energy security/environmental sustainability, and safety. As more than one participant noted, however, the devil is in the details.

Sadik-Khan praised the report but noted that, in general, national goals can be stymied if legislators and officials don't choose the right way to evaluate performance. "Are we going to measure the effectiveness of the highway two months after it opens," she asked, "or five years after it opens?" The answer could mean the difference between continuing to build business-as-usual sprawl or shifting to a more transit-oriented America.

When asked if well-defined national objectives would constrict her options at the local level, Sadik-Khan replied that cities are actually in the best position to deliver goals like increased safety and accessibility. "I don't think they're opposed," she said, noting that the feds can achieve certain objectives faster through "direct aid to cities, without parking that aid for a year at the state." (One of the NTPP recommendations is the creation of a federal grant pipeline directly to metro areas.)

The strongest notes of caution yesterday were sounded by Tri-State's Slevin, who returned to the theme that crafting, implementing and enforcing objectives for transportation projects is exceedingly complex and fraught with the potential for missteps. "Performance measures are imperfect," she said. "We'd heard that in California, performance measures were recommending highway expansion."

The RPA's Yaro took a more sanguine perspective, arguing that a relatively small dose of incentives can go a long way. "We've seen politicians perform unnatural acts to position themselves" for USDOT's high-speed rail funding, he said. "In Florida, Governor Crist did a 180 degree turnaround, from abolishing the HSR commission to embracing it."

Even if a highly logical policy vision can be crafted -- and many panelists credited Jim Oberstar's House transportation bill for incorporating several ideas in the report -- there's still the small matter of getting it approved by the Klingon High Command. Er, the U.S. Congress.

As USDOT's move to incorporate livability criteria into its transit funding decisions just demonstrated, however, not every reform needs to survive the Capitol Hill gauntlet before it can take effect. "Maybe the best way to do this," said Yaro, "is to do as much as possible without waiting for 60 Senators to wrap their arms around it."

Still, no matter how enlightened policy at the federal level may become, Slevin cautioned, local livable streets advocates will always need to stay on their toes. "My concern is that a lot of the decisions are left up to the states," she said, "and unless that completely changes, even if we get a complete overhaul of federal policy, we'll still have a lot of battles at the state level over how it's implemented."

(Photo: UVA)

But how will Washington measure progress on transportation metrics such as safety, pollution reduction, and efficiency in states that are, as Paniatti put it gently, "starting from different places"?

Pete Rahn, the chief of Missouri's state DOT and past president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), had a simple answer: States should be in charge of the process.

"We believe there should be a state-driven performance management approach," Rahn told TRB attendees, in which "states establish targets which they can deliver given their unique circumstances."

At AASHTO, he added, "we don't envision a process in which the Secretary of the U.S. DOT will dole out a share of a target to each state ... U.S. DOT would establish targets and we'd certainly hope that the total cumulative balance of state targets would equal the national [goal]."

And if state-written targets don't meet national performance standards? "[T]hat means the national target is not realistic," Rahn said.

AASHTO's lack of interest in meeting transportation goals that are not written within their ranks could create a major headache for the Obama administration, should it pursue broader infrastructure reform that would hold state DOTs accountable for their spending.

Letting states craft performance measures internally would risk rigging the system to ensure that DOTs always meet their targets -- but if the federal government wanted to effect broader change on a state or regional level, such as lower emissions or fewer pedestrian deaths, where would it get leverage?

Both Paniatti and Rahn ruled out any attempt to threaten a loss of federal transportation funding if goals were not met, a tactic successfully used in the 1980s to set the national speed limit at 55 miles per hour.

In fact, Rahn fondly recalled his past work at a state DOT that successfully gamed the speed-limit system. "We chose to put our speed sensors in really sharp corners," he told the TRB audience, drawing sporadic chuckles. "That's why [the push for national transportation targets] has to be a project we work on together."

While state DOTs work to shape the Obama administration's progress on national transportation goals, it's unclear whether any advocacy or lobbying group exists to counter their influence.

Jay-Etta Hecker, an infrastructure specialist at the Bipartisan Policy Center's transportation project, countered the suggestion from one state DOT official that performance metrics ought to remain secret -- the data "has got to be available to the public," she said. But she also emphasized that "the states should be the ones to interpret [national performance goals] in a locally relevant way."

Paniatti noted in his TRB remarks that the U.S. DOT is currently working on two major research projects intended to guide the writing and implementation of nationwide transportation targets.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (Photo: mlive.com)

Well, there certainly has been advocacy for such a position. It does not, certainly, have a majority in the Congress of the United States at this time. So we want to approach this in a way that is comprehensive, that certainly keeps in mind of concerns of the consumer, the concerns of the industry, and of the environment. This is not to say one idea is better than another -- it’s just to say that at the present time, there are other initiatives that we have.

Pelosi added that she had met earlier in the day with Debbie Stabenow, one of Michigan's two Democratic senators, to discuss the climate bill pending in the upper chamber of Congress. Stabenow is a vigilant protector of her state's auto industry and last year signaled that she ultimately would have voted no on cap-and-trade legislation.

"[W]e’re hopeful that some of the initiatives that are in that [climate] legislation -- when it passes and is signed into law -- will address some of the same concerns that a gas tax would," Pelosi said.

But for now, her answer should be considered equally relevant to the stalemate over the next long-term transportation bill. Without congressional willingness to pay for the legislation, through a gas tax increase or similar new charge, it's unlikely to come up until next year.

U.S. DOT chief Ray LaHood's team is working on a six-year transport proposal of its own. (Photo: Getty)

"A lot of it [is] the disjointed federal programs that often discourage and certainly do not incentivize the coordination of housing policy and transportation policy, water infrastructure policy, economic development policy," she said.

"In fact, within the transportation program, we really disincentivize this," she said. A state that improves traffic flow and transit use will burn less gasoline, meaning it will lose revenue from its main source of transport funding -- the gas tax. "That state that creates greater efficiency can see their own budget get slashed as a reward."

This tension between the desire to cut transportation emissions and the nation's reliance on the gas tax for the majority of its transport funding is a familiar one for Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and other urban members of Congress.

Nadler lamented back in June that many states were insisting on a guaranteed rate of return from their gas-tax revenue based on a nonsensical "equity argument" that says: "The more energy-efficient you are, the less gas you use, the less [federal] funding you should get."

One key ingredient in the Obama administration's effort to carve out a stronger federal role in local planning, of course, is the still-stalled six-year federal transportation bill. And Osborne -- seemingly aware of the value of that legislation in removing longstanding obstacles to coordination -- told the TRB meeting that "Capitol Hill has asked DOT to craft its own version of a transportation reauthorization bill," according to ClimateWire.

A legislative outline from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who spent much of 2009 urging lawmakers to put off discussion of the next six-year bill until 2011, would be an undeniable boost to Democrats who have long urged the administration to play a more active part in solving the puzzle of long-term financing.

But the political hurdles to enacting a new federal transport bill this year remain steep, as ITS America President Scott Belcher remarked in one of today's TRB conference sessions.

"Everybody wants to get past the elections" before passing new long-term legislation," Belcher said, "and they want to get past the election because they don't want to raise taxes."

Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) (Photo: Post-Gazette)

Rendell, who co-chairs the infrastructure advocacy group Building America's Future with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), has proposed seeding a new NIB using part of a short-term loan from the federal Treasury to the nation's highway trust fund -- the meat of the "front-loading" concept.

"The original stimulus bill had decent infrastructure spending," Rendell said in an interview. "It probably should have had more."

The Pennsylvanian, who is bidding for his state to become only the third in America to add tolls to an existing interstate highway, described a "front-loaded" transport spending bill as a means to create jobs quickly while giving Congress time to reach an agreement on long-term infrastructure reform after the 2010 midterms.

Approving a loan from the federal government's general fund to the highway trust fund would ensure that "the tough political decisions involved in" debating a new six-year transportation bill don't slow the pace of job creation, Rendell said.

His pitch would involve postponing the "guts of reform" -- for example, progress on national performance targets for transport and more flexibility for states to spend highway money on transit -- for 12 months, at which point lawmakers would be called upon to resolve the nation's transportation funding gap in order to pass a new bill that repays the Treasury's loan.

The design of a new NIB, which the Obama administration strongly supports, is a key issue for Rendell. The bill introduced in June by House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) would make an NIB part of the U.S. DOT and set up an Office of Public Benefit within the Federal Highway Administration to monitor the terms of any public-private partnerships.

Rendell expressed concerns that such a setup would limit the NIB's independence and subject it to excessive political scrutiny. His preferred method would be setting up an independent board to manage the NIB, as envisioned in legislation offered by Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D).

Rendell said he has talked up his plan in recent days with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and President Obama, who stopped in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on Friday for a speech on the struggling economy. The governor described Obama's eyes widening as he heard statistics on the manufacturing growth sparked by transportation stimulus spending in Pennsylvania: 4,300 more tons of steel bought in the first 10 months of this year than in all of 2008, a 43 percent increase; a similar increase in concrete production, with 95 percent of it coming from Pennsylvania factories.

Rendell told Streetsblog Capitol Hill that he would support efforts to increase the transportation accountability language in the new jobs bill, including sending some aid directly to urban metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and setting stronger "use it or lose it" guidelines to cut through possible delays at state DOTs.

But the governor's ideal jobs bill would involve using "ready-to-go" project lists generated by state DOTs, which environmental advocates tend to consider to be little more than "vague 'wish lists'," as John Krieger of the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG) put it today.

"Is any of this perfect? No," Rendell acknowledged, vowing to keep "banging the drum" for long-term infrastructure investments after the current jobs bill is finished. "If I were the king of the world," he said earlier in the interview, "we would go on a 10-year infrastructure repair push, we'd build out the passenger rail system."

For now, however, Rendell is focused on amassing support for a "front-loaded" transportation bill that emphasizes economic recovery. "My message to fellow reformers is, we are with you," he said. "But understand that there are priorities, and right now No. 1 is to get Americans back to work."

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (Photo: Getty Images)

In his remarks at a Fort Worth transportation meeting, first reported by the local Star-Telegram, LaHood stopped far short of reversing the White House's stated opposition to raising the federal gas tax, which has remained at 18.3 cents per gallon since 1993.

But LaHood appeared to edge the door open to a solution to the nation's transportation funding crisis -- provided that lawmakers swallow their re-election concerns and acknowledge that the current gas tax is no longer raising enough money to run an effective system.

Here's what LaHood said today (emphasis mine):

To index the federal fuel tax [to inflation], that's something Congress is going to have to decide. As we get into the reauthorization bill, the debate will be how we fund all the things we want to do. You can raise a lot of money with tolling. Another means of funding can be the infrastructural bank. You can sell bonds and set aside money for big projects, multi-billion-dollar projects. Another way is [charging motorists for] vehicle miles traveled. The idea of indexing the taxes that are collected at the gas pump is something I believe Congress will debate. When the gas tax was raised in 1992 or 1993, in the Clinton administration, there was a big debate whether it should be indexed. At that time, they thought there'd be a sufficient amount of money collected. Now we know that isn't the case. That is one way to keep up with the decline in driving, and more fuel-efficient cars.

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.

Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer is one of Capitol Hill's strongest voices for walking, biking and transit. Soon after arriving in Congress in 1996, he started the Congressional Bike Caucus, now more than 160 members strong, and he's the founding chairman of the House's new "Livable Communities Task Force," which he announced two weeks ago here on Streetsblog.

Blumenauer's bike commute to the Capitol has become as much a personal hallmark as his predilection for bowties. So when he came to New York this weekend to stump for a progressive federal transportation bill, the congressman didn't pass up the chance to tour our city's evolving bike infrastructure with Paul Steely White and Noah Budnick of Transportation Alternatives. Clarence Eckerson and his camera were there too, of course.

Watch this Streetfilm to hear Blumenauer's thoughts on the big federal transportation bill, the emergence of a national movement for safe biking and walking, and the difference between protected bike lanes and regular old Class 2 facilities. Then ask yourself: When will we get to see a rep from New York City walk, bike, or ride the bus with Clarence?

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.

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.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer. Photo: Airdye.com

With much excitement, today we are launching the Livable Communities Task Force -- an official initiative of the House Democratic Caucus that will work to improve community livability and Americans’ quality of life.

This means reducing the nation’s dependence on oil, protecting the environment, improving public health and investing in housing and transportation projects that create jobs and give people more commuting choices.

As Chairman of the Livable Communities Task Force, this is an exciting moment for me. When I first came to Congress 13 years ago, people sometimes looked at me funny when I used the term “livability.” They had no idea what I was talking about. Today, not only are blogs like yours dedicated to transportation, infrastructure, and livability, but other leaders in Washington are talking about how to make our communities more livable.

The Obama administration is leading on this issue, having recently established the Partnership for Sustainable Communities with six “livability principles” for coordinating policy across the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

What a difference a year makes.

The Task Force is made up of 20 members from around the nation who are leaders on everything from transportation and building efficiency to renewable energy and community gardening. In the coming months, we will work with members of the administration to hold briefings and strategy sessions on everything from the livability provisions in the energy and climate legislation that passed the House to the pending transportation re-authorization.

After spending a lifetime in public service working to make our nation’s communities more livable, it feels like the pieces are coming together. America was ready for change when President Obama came into office. It is exciting that in 10 months we have moved legislation that will rein in global warming pollution. With the leadership of Secretary LaHood and Chairman Oberstar, we are gearing up for a transportation bill that will make smart investments in low-carbon transportation, give people more commuting choices, and reduce America's dependence on oil.

It is an honor to lead this unique Task Force and, and I am eager to work with Congressional leaders and members of the administration who are committed to protecting our environment and making our communities safer, healthier, and more economically secure.