Obama announcing the American Jobs Act. Photo: SHRM

Specifically, they lay out the numbers:

• $27 billion for rebuilding roads and bridges
• $9 billion for repairing bus and rail transit systems
• $5 billion for projects selected through a competitive grant program
• $4 billion for construction of the high-speed rail network
• $2 billion to improve airport facilities
• $1 billion for a NextGen air traffic control system

It’s encouraging to see the words “upgrading” and “rebuilding” when it comes to roads, indicating that the administration might be adhering to a fix-it-first approach to transportation spending. But, as we mentioned last week, the bridge Obama highlighted recently as a prime target for jobs-bill money isn’t actually in need of repair — transportation officials just want to widen it to allow more traffic to go through faster.

Certainly, the administration has shown a desire to attack the maintenance backlog in the country, but that doesn’t guarantee that highway expansions and sprawl projects won’t get a slice of the “rebuilding” pie.

That said, it’s good to see the plan includes $5 billion for projects funded through a competitive grant program (think TIGER). And it also hits a somewhat more equitable balance between rail/transit and roads than Congressional transportation bills generally do.

The president’s plan also includes an infrastructure bank, funded with $10 billion seed money. The administration says projects will be evaluated on the basis of how badly they’re needed and how much they would help the economy.

Some have said over the last couple of weeks that the I-bank concept is in trouble after the GOP pounced on the Solyndra loan story, in which a solar company filed for bankruptcy soon after receiving half a billion dollars in government-backed loans. Experts say the infrastructure bank proposal would vet projects well and protect taxpayers from risk.

And to make sure the money is properly spent, we’re building on reforms we’ve already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more Bridges to Nowhere. We’re cutting the red tape that prevents some of these projects from getting started as quickly as possible. And we’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it will do for the economy.

And without ever saying the words “infrastructure bank,” he made his push for one:

This idea came from a bill written by a Texas Republican [Kay Bailey Hutchison] and a Massachusetts Democrat [John Kerry]. The idea for a big boost in construction is supported by America’s largest business organization and America’s largest labor organization. It’s the kind of proposal that’s been supported in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike. You should pass it right away.

He would capitalize the bank with an initial $10 billion, just as Sens. Kerry and Hutchison had proposed. Obama’s own earlier proposal called for a $30 billion investment.

Obama’s written plan also pledges investments in TIGER and TIFIA – good news, since the 2012 transportation budget passed by a House subcommittee yesterday zeroed out TIGER entirely. It also builds on his instruction to agency heads to identify projects that deserve federal help – if not funds – for streamlining the process.

Transportation reform advocates praised the bill, with James Corless of Transportation for America calling it “both ambitious and pragmatic.”

House Transportation Committee ranking Democrat Nick Rahall sat next to Chair John Mica during the speech, and afterward, Rahall said, “We may have walked out of the chamber with different views on the President’s proposals, but I remain committed to working together in a bipartisan fashion.”

We’ll see if they can find anything they both agree to work on. The statement Mica issued after the speech was a quick repudiation of everything the president had asked for:

While the President reconfirmed that our highways are clogged and our skies are congested, his well delivered address provided only one specific recommendation for building our nation’s infrastructure.

Unfortunately, a National Infrastructure Bank run by Washington bureaucrats requiring Washington approval and Washington red tape is moving in the wrong direction. A better plan to improve infrastructure is to empower our states, 33 of which already have state infrastructure banks.

Key interests who have supported the general notion of infrastructure investment in the past won’t necessarily fight for Obama’s specific proposal. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement saying that infrastructure spending – even paired with all the tax cuts Obama proposed – wasn’t enough if it didn’t include de-regulation or a commitment to free enterprise instead of bigger government.

Democrats lined up in Obama’s defense. EPW Committee Chair Barbara Boxer called the president’s plan “both inspirational and specific” and pledged to work “on a bipartisan basis to pass the American Jobs Act.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, called on all House Committee ranking members to urge their chairmen to schedule immediate hearings and action on the legislation proposed by the president.

One of the first things Obama said in his speech is that “everything in this bill will be paid for; everything.” But again he’s leaving the details to Congress.

When the President unveiled his ambitious $556 billion transportation agenda last February, he let his Transportation Secretary twist in the wind as Congress demanded to know how the thing was going to be paid for. All LaHood would say, for months, was that he looked forward to working with Congress on it.

This time, Obama’s leaving the funding question to the bipartisan “super committee” formed as part of the debt ceiling/deficit reduction deal this summer, which just started work and is already beginning to fracture. That committee is already tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in cuts, which was a tall order for a group that can’t seem to agree on what to order for lunch. Now Obama’s asking them to find more.

Volunteers' meeting, Bici Libre. Photo: Jonny Green, LACBC Bike Wrangler

Bici Libre, as it’s called, got its start when the County Cycling Collaborative received a stimulus grant of $200,000 to spruce up “stray” bikes, with the help of volunteers gaining job skills. They rented the vacant grocery store to be just a warehouse to store the old bikes, but it quickly evolved into a hub of bicycle education, advocacy, and community.

But Bici Libre could disappear as quickly as it materialized. The stimulus grant that funds it runs out next March, and the CCC doesn’t know how – or if – it’ll be able to keep the new bike co-op alive.

Bici Libre is just one of many potential casualties of the boom-and-bust stimulus cycle. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act breathed life into countless worthy projects, including many planning and education programs that promote green transportation, but they can’t all last forever. Some, like Bici Libre, are now scrounging for future funding. Others may just close up shop.

In Portland, for example, the Bureau of Transportation expanded its Smart Trips program, where people can order information about transit that runs through their neighborhood, a bike kit, a walking kit, or information about carpooling. A customized packet of information is then delivered to them by bicycle, along with a calendar of events like group rides for seniors or women.

Eight hundred thousand dollars of stimulus money launched a Smart Trips program for new residents and helped augment the programs that worked with schools and businesses. But that money will be spent soon. “Smart Trips to School is probably going to disappear,” said Marni Glick of PBOT. “The New Resident Program will probably disappear. And we will try to find funding for the Smart Trips Business.”

A pot of stimulus money called CPPW (Communities Putting Prevention to Work), distributed through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, aims to reduce obesity through nutrition and physical activity. Another branch of its work focuses on smoking cessation. The money is granted to city and state public health departments, which then partner with local nonprofits to carry out the work.

Several active transportation projects got funded this way, including Philadelphia’s Safe Routes Philly program, which “promotes biking and walking as fun, healthy forms of transportation in Philadelphia Elementary Schools.” The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia joined forces with the school district, the health department and the Food Trust (a local nonprofit working on nutrition issues) to start a campaign for healthier schools, funded at $680,000 over two years, thanks to the stimulus.

Philly’s Safe Routes program had begun in November 2009 with a small Transportation Enhancements grant, but the stimulus money allowed them to expand it, training public school teachers in its newly developed curriculum around active transportation. Four full-time staff and two half-timers keep the program going.

Scene from a Safe Routes Philly video on bicycle safety.

Next March, the stimulus grant will end. “We knew what we were getting into,” said Breen Goodwin, education director at the Bicycle Coalition. “We always anticipated that there would be a huge period of growth, and then some contraction.”

Goodwin sees the stimulus funding as a major opportunity to build capacity, even if it is ephemeral. “In March of next year,” she said, “even if we lose all our funding, the teachers will still have everything they need to do the work.”

Of course, Goodwin is hoping they don’t end up at zero. She’s applying for funding through the CDC, the Philadelphia Public Health Department and the state Safe Routes to School program (though state rules make the latter a long shot.)

Those public programs will undoubtedly see a major uptick in grant applications next year as projects like Safe Routes Philly run out of stimulus money and look for a way to keep their work alive. After all, even if you knew going in that it was short-term, that doesn’t mean it feels good to abandon a worthwhile project.

The CDC is launching a new grant program just in time – its Community Transformation Grants were authorized last year by the health care reform law. The program is accepting its first cycle of applicants, with submissions due July 15 – just in time for some projects that are facing the expiration of stimulus funds. And with $900 million at its disposal, it could be even more powerful than the CPPW grants, which totaled $650 million with very similar program priorities. Maybe the Community Transformation grants will be able to keep programs like Bici Libre alive.

In addition to Bici Libre, L.A. County also got $240,000 to create a regional bike plan for seven cities in the county, wealthy beach communities and poorer inland areas alike.

“We just have too many people in too many cars. So we like pitching it with the idea that everyone who chooses to bike, that’s one less car on the road,” said Jen Klausner, executive director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. “We want motorists to hear the message that cities that have a lot of people riding bikes in them are healthy, livable cities. And we want them to stop shaking their fists at us and running us over.”

The Bicycle Coalition and its partners were able to build strong relationships with the seven cities’ governments and they’re getting close to finalizing a plan. But then what? Like so many federal planning grants, the grant they got for the regional plan doesn’t help fund implementation.

It would have been great if the stimulus grant included even a tiny percentage for a pilot project, Klausner said, or if it lasted four or five years instead of two. That way, Bici Libre would have a greater shot at sticking around past March. If it survives, it’s because the community rallies around it. But in a low-income neighborhood, in a country still battling its way out of a deep recession, there just aren’t enough replacements out there for the infusion of stimulus funds that launched these programs.

California's high speed rail program could be especially at risk if Congress rescinds stimulus funds. Image: CA High Speed Rail Authority

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) has introduced H.R. 6403, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Rescissions Act, a bill to rescind the stimulus dollars that haven’t been obligated yet. Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA), set to take the helm of the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Transportation and HUD, is a proud co-sponsor.

According to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, $16 billion of those unobligated funds are for infrastructure, including about $6.3 billion for transportation. In total, 16 percent of stimulus dollars remain unobligated, and 14 percent of transportation funds.

As Ken Orski of Innovation Briefs notes, the $1.2 billion of rail grants to Wisconsin and Ohio could be added to that sum if the governors-elect of those states move forward with their plans to kill rail projects there. Orski adds, “Some of the $24 billion in ARRA transportation dollars that have been obligated but not yet paid out, including some TIGER grants, could also be candidates for rescission.”

Only 67 percent of stimulus funds have been paid out so far – but that’s not by accident. It was supposed to be a three-year plan, and it hasn’t been quite two years since it was enacted. So they’re right on schedule.

No matter: 29 Republicans (so far) have signed on to Lewis’ bill, saying they want unspent stimulus dollars to go back into the Treasury. Where will that money come from? Speculation has centered on high-speed rail projects, already being targeted by Republicans as “wasteful spending.”

The San Jose Mercury News says that rail would be the disproportionate loser in the rescissions game. “About half the remaining stimulus money is set aside for planned high-speed rail projects,” writes Mercury reporter Mike Rosenberg. “The largest is in California, which has spent nearly $200 million of its $2.25 billion award on planning but is saving the rest for construction.” Without the stimulus funds it’s been promised, the whole project could fall apart.

Before we get too Chicken-Little about this possibility, let’s remember a few things about the legislative process. First, this bill is being introduced at the tail end of the session, and during a busy lame duck, meaning it likely won’t come up for a vote. Second, it’s been referred to three committees: Appropriations, Transportation & Infrastructure, and Oversight & Government Reform – and there’s no way those committees will make quick work of this. Third, it only has 29 co-sponsors – out of 435 members of the House, which still, until January 3, has a Democratic majority. Fourth, the Senate is still controlled by Democrats – even after January.

And finally, do you think President Obama will sign this into law and undermine one of his most dramatic achievements? Not likely.

However, infrastructure supporters should take note. If nothing else, the introduction of the bill is a sign of the anti-spending fever that’s taken hold of the Republican party – and spreading to the Democrats. Given that they all pay lip service to the need for more job creation, it’s troubling that they would even think of weakening the stimulus with unemployment still at 9.6 percent.

Bike-ped funding dropped off some after a bonanza year in 2009, but it still tops $1 billion. Image: Bike League

The League of American Bicyclists says we’re already getting a sense of what could happen, as the drop from last year to this year reflects the push to spend stimulus money quickly, followed by a cooler period. The League’s response to this year’s figure:

The $1 billion spent on biking and walking projects is a great and welcome step. It is being used to create miles of bicycling facilities, countless bike parking spaces, hundreds of safer routes to schools for children, recreational trails, and other needed projects. However, it is still a drop in the overall transportation-bucket. Bicycling and walking make up 12 percent of all trips and yet receive less than two percent of federal transportation funding. To put the billion dollars in perspective, the amount of federal money spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects, nation-wide, in FY 2010 is equal to the cost of just one bridge in the Port of Long Beach.

You can also see the FHWA funding breakdown by year, by program, and by state.

Florida GOP representative John Mica supported a long-term transportation bill in 2009, but quickly came out against the President's infrastructure plan this week. Photo: PBS/Blueprint America

While that may look like a lot of road spending compared to rail, transportation reformers see cause for optimism in the use of the word “rebuild” — which implies that the emphasis will be on fixing existing roads instead of constructing sprawl-inducing new highways. The outline also calls for “significant new funding” for the creation of new transit projects, and for ramping up investment in “safety, environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and livability.” Those criteria have all been hallmarks of the US DOT’s TIGER program, which distributes competitive grants to local transportation agencies from what has been a relatively small pot of money.

Congress typically authorizes a major transportation spending bill every six years, but political gridlock over raising the gas tax or securing other funding streams has stalled the reauthorization of the bill since it expired in 2009. In the interim, lawmakers have passed a series of stopgap spending measures to keep the transportation system functioning, even as Jim Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has lobbied hard for Congress to take up the full bill.

Monday’s proposal represents the first serious effort from the President to tackle America’s transportation policy inertia, which is preventing any significant progress from the highway-oriented status quo. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are undoubtedly eager to pass a bill that will show voters they’re doing as much as possible to address high unemployment, which is making a Republican rout in the mid-term elections look increasingly likely.

Predictably, the GOP does not look willing to lend a hand. Republicans have already lined up against Obama’s proposal, and another protracted and nasty fight over a major White House initiative looks likely. Immediately after the announcement, House Minority Leader John Boehner released a statement opposing the plan, and on Tuesday he released another one calling the plan an “exercise in futility.”

Meanwhile, House GOP Whip Eric Cantor called the White House effort “another play called from the same failed Keynesian playbook.”

For a sign of how lockstep the opposition has quickly become, the real bellwether is John Mica (R-Fl), an influential Republican who has supported infrastructure spending in the past. Mica has also heaped scorn on the President’s plan. “I don’t know what planet these people have been living on for the last 18 months,” he told The Hill. “They hijacked the $862 billion so-called stimulus, leaving less than 7 percent in the bill for infrastructure, and they failed to ensure that even this small percentage of funds would be spent expeditiously.”

The contorted argument seems to be that because the stimulus bill didn’t devote enough spending to transportation, or get it out the door fast enough, a bill devoted entirely to transportation spending and focused on a quick jolt of $50 billion doesn’t deserve support.

In the likely event that Republicans take control of the House in the mid-terms, Mica is the GOP representative who would replace Oberstar as chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

From left to right, TWU Local 100 president John Samuelson, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Congressman Charlie Rangel, and Congressman Greg Meeks. Photo: Noah Kazis.

The star of the rally was Jackson, introduced by Congressman Charlie Rangel as someone who "not only brings a political stimulus, but answers to a higher power." Calling the budgetary woes of the nation's transit agencies part of "the heart of the urban crisis," Jackson told the crowd that "we must now bail out from the bottom-up," beginning with urban transit. 

Jackson added that the coalition's fight "may end in a massive March on Washington," linking the coalition to the history of the civil rights movement.

Keep America Moving increasing operating funds for the nation's transit systems. Nationally, the coalition is pushing to pass Missouri Congressman Russ Carnahan's bill to allow cities with more than 200,000 residents to use federal dollars on transit service, not just capital projects. Transit systems across the nation are facing huge budget deficits as a result of the recession. Multiple speakers at the rally questioned the wisdom of buying new buses if you can't pay anyone to drive them, a situation that gained widespread attention when the 2009 stimulus bill emphasized funding capital projects instead of maintaining service.

Members of the Keep America Moving coalition are not just looking to the feds. Streetsblog asked John Samuelson, the new head of New York's Transport Workers Union Local 100, whether the coalition would also target state and local governments. "In a word, yes," Samuelson answered. "We have a full-scale lobbying effort in Albany." Samuelson didn't specify what the TWU is asking for in Albany, but he did refer to his union's support for shifting flexible stimulus dollars from the MTA's capital budget to pay for operations.

The two founding partners of the coalition are the major transit unions, the Amalgamated Transit Union and the TWU. Some of New York's most powerful labor groups, including the SEIU, DC 37, and RWDSU also came to show their support. The rallying cry of the afternoon was "jobs, jobs, jobs," repeated by the heads of union locals and elected officials, including Rangel and Congressman Greg Meeks.

The coalition also includes environmental organizations: Cecil Corbin-Mark of the West Harlem-based WE ACT for Environmental Justice and Dan Miner of the New York City Sierra Club connected the need for more transit funding with the imperative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. Other speakers included Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign and Kate Slevin of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.

Yesterday's event was the second rally by Moving America Forward, following a Chicago event last Saturday. 

Russianoff saw the formation of the coalition -- and the participation of a public figure with Jackson's stature -- as a major step forward for transportation advocacy. "The momentum has been growing," he said after the rally, adding that the coalition is just getting started. 

"You're going to see a lot more of us," promised Warren George, the president of the ATU.

A rail car from New York City’s transit authority, one of APTA’s biggest members. (Photo: TreeHugger)

Paul Dean, APTA’s government relations director, told Streetsblog Capitol Hill yesterday that legislation permanently opening the cash-strapped highway trust fund to transit operating budgets is "really not consistent with our position."

APTA, which has advocated for the transit industry on the Hill for more than a century, wants to see the highway trust fund remain a dedicated source of transit capital aid — purchasing new equipment or maintaining existing infrastructure, for example.

The group continues to support temporary federal operating aid during the recession, which has forced many local rail and bus systems into layoffs, service cuts, and fare hikes. Still, APTA’s skepticism could be a major obstacle to passage of the legislation setting up permanent operating assistance from Washington, which is sponsored by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

Dean noted that congressional budget scoring treats a transit-capital dollar, which has a long-term impact on the value of equipment, more favorably than a transit-operating dollar, which tends to be spent immediately on employee salaries. Congressional aides and lawmakers have told APTA that "they can give us a bigger, better bill if funds are used primarily for capital," he said.

Dean also highlighted the importance of ensuring dedicated financial support for transit from outside the federal sphere.  "A lot of folks look at it as a zero-sum
game," he added, "that if you add a federal subsidy, that’s going to lead to state and local governments decreasing
their contribution, and you’re going to be back in the same place you were — with less money
available to meet your capital needs."

APTA’s stance leaves the transit industry split on the operating-aid issue. A new lobbying coalition, the Alliance for Transit Operating Assistance, reflects a collaboration between the Amalgamated Transit Union and the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), where rural transit agencies have a strong voice.

CTAA spokesman Scott Bogren told Streetsblog Capitol Hill that his group continues to talk with APTA about finding common ground on operating aid, adding that concerns about transit capital budgets are shared across the board.

But Bogren described existing law, which allows cities with fewer than 200,000 residents to spend federal money on transit operating, as oftentimes incompatible with the daily reality of many growing urban areas.

"There’s got to be balance," he said. "That 200,000 population is just a cliff that a system falls off." As the economy continues to flag, he said the CTAA is making sure that lawmakers hear from "enough of the mid-sized and smaller urban operators that are feeling some pain."

Conversely, Dean said that it is APTA’s biggest members, the transit networks with "dedicated
operating budgets and considerable state-of-good-repair needs," that are most vocally opposed to permanent operating aid from the highway trust fund. That description tracks with a statement that New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) provided to Streetsblog New York during debate on last year’s federal stimulus law.

In its response last year, the MTA said its top priority was seeking reliable funding from the state, not the federal government, and pointed out that its annual capital aid "from Washington has gone up from about $200 million
to about $1.5 billion today."

Fixing a disputed provision in the jobs bill that President Obama signed into law yesterday -- as Senate Democratic leaders promised House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) following complaints by several members of his panel -- would involve the redistribution of $932 million in funding for two major federal road and rail programs.

The end result of the transfers would leave California with $192 million less than it had in the Senate-passed version of the jobs measure, while Texas would gain the most with an influx of more than $76 million, according to data released by Oberstar's committee earlier this week.

The $932 million in grants became an issue last month after the jobs bill, which extends the 2005 transportation law until 2011, cleared the Senate with language that also extended 2009-level earmarks for the two programs, known as Projects of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) and the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement (NCIIP).

That extension of previous earmarks would result in 58 percent of the $932 million going to four states: Illinois, Louisiana, California, and Washington. After lawmakers from other states raised alarms about the distribution, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) vowed to Oberstar [PDF] that if the House would approve the jobs bill without changing the provision, the Senate would move as quickly as possible on a fix.

"Although my preference would be to amend this [jobs bill] to reflect these compromises today, any further delays in enacting a surface transportation extension are unacceptable," Oberstar said two weeks ago, urging colleagues to take the upper chamber at its word.

The House passed legislation earlier this week that would redirect the $932 million to all 50 states based on existing road-funding formulas. It is that shift that would take PRNS and NCIIP money from California, Illinois ($119 million), Louisiana ($43 million), and Washington ($39 million), as well as Oregon ($29 million) and Virginia ($12 million).

States that would gain under the fix include Texas, Ohio ($25 million), Florida ($47 million), Georgia ($31 million), and New York ($16 million). It remains unclear when the Senate will act on the change.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) (Photo: Partnership for Success)

Brown's plan aligns with a House bill sponsored by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) and endorsed by 95 other Democrats. At a press event today announcing the Senate bill, the duo was joined by transit-boosting Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) and members of the Transportation Equity Network (TEN), Transportation for America (T4A), and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU).

The Brown-Carnahan measure would allow urban areas -- now barred from spending federal money on operating, save for 10 percent of their stimulus allocations -- to use between 30 percent and one-half of their federal transit grants to defray the cost of keeping trains and buses running.

The bill also would free up more funding for urban transit agencies that have demonstrated cuts in carbon emissions after getting anti-pollution stimulus grants and those agencies that can increase the amount of money raised for transit operating using sources other than the farebox.

ATU legislative director Jeff Rosenberg said in an interview that transit groups believe Brown's seat on the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over rail and bus networks, will put the bill in a good position as senators prepare to take up their version of long-term federal transport legislation.

Given the current uncertainty surrounding the timing of that bill, Rosenberg added that extra transit operating aid could also move through Congress if the Senate decides to act on the infrastructure-heavy jobs bill that the House passed in December.

"There is a role to play for the federal government to invest in transit systems to keep service going," Rosenberg said.

The ATU and the Community Transportation Association of America, which represents an array local transit agencies, have formed a new coalition aimed at marshaling grassroots support for federal operating aid.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (Photo: Getty Images)

"If we didn't have a lousy economy, a lot of these issues would bubble up more quickly," LaHood told transit planners who lamented the lack of progress on new federal legislation and the tough budget choices brought on by the recession.

"Part of the solution," LaHood added, "will be when the economy comes back" and the White House is more open to discussing tax increases as part of the financing mix for long-term transport funding.

But in the meantime, LaHood's remarks served as a friendly warning to the transit industry that, given the capital's current political reality, its $8.4 billion haul from the stimulus should be considered a victory.

One exchange in particular epitomized the state of play between the administration and transit agencies: When an APTA conference attendee from Grand Rapids, Michigan, asked the packed audience of local officials to raise their hands if they had raised fares or cut service during the past year, a sizable number of hands rose into the air. Minutes later, Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff leapt up to ask how many officials would be cutting more or laying off more workers if not for the stimulus.

Even more hands went up in response to Rogoff's query.

"The big sticking point of all of this is money," LaHood said. "That money [to pay for a new federal bill] just doesn't exist right now."

Despite that grim news and the long line of transit planners who shared their fiscal woes with LaHood during a question-and-answer session, one opening emerged for the industry to make headway on its Washington agenda. The U.S. DOT chief signaled openness to expanding urban transit agencies' ability to use federal capital grants to cover operating costs.

That capital-to-operating flexibility now sits at 10 percent, a level set soon after the stimulus law's passage. "Maybe that's not the right percentage," LaHood said. "Maybe we need to work with Congress to allow you to do more when the economy is bad." He floated the idea of a "sliding scale" for federal operating aid that would vary based on economic growth.

On two other big-ticket federal transit issues, however, the federal outlook appeared hazy following LaHood's appearance.

Asked about the so-called "CLEAN TEA" plan to give transit a dedicated share of the revenue from climate change legislation, LaHood touted his work in the president's Green Cabinet before admitting, "I can't say [CLEAN TEA] has been part of our discussions. But it possibly could be in the future."

Another questioner brought up the stimulus law's provision increasing the monthly pre-tax transit benefit for commuters to $230 -- equalizing the tax-free funding for transit and parking -- which is set to expire at the end of 2010. LaHood replied that he had not the "slightest idea" of the issue's status, though Rogoff explained that the tax question is under the Treasury Department's purview.

"We intend to talk to our partners at Treasury" about the value of keeping the pre-tax transit benefit equal to that for employee parking, Rogoff said.

The House proposal also lacks specific infrastructure funding, but its structure reflects a shift that could hearten urban planners and other advocates for a more city-centric approach to federal transportation funding. Three-quarters of the bill’s estimated $100 billion in aid would go directly to cities and counties to help avert layoffs of firefighters, police, and other workers.

Mayors had pressed for more transportation stimulus spending to go directly to cities but lost the political battle, as the lion’s share of the $48 billion in road and transit aid in last year’s recovery package was diverted through state DOTs. Many urban governments anticipate budget shortfalls in 2010 that could exceed those at the height of the financial crisis, with transit cuts and delays in infrastructure projects looming as consequences of the cash crunch.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the education and labor panel’s chairman, told Roll Call yesterday that he hopes mayors will use their political leverage to help the bill move forward in the Senate.

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

The extension passed on a 78-19 vote. Four members of Republican leadership voted with Bunning: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY), GOP Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (TN), Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (SD), and campaign committee chief John Cornyn (TX).

"This week we saw the shutdown of many important highway and bridge projects, which caused great concern in many of our states," Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said in a statement after the vote. "Now I look forward to a longer-term transportation extension with the legislation that has already passed the Senate, and which I believe will pass the House this week."

The legislation Boxer referred to, a $15 billion bill that would keep the nation's highway trust fund solvent until 2011, could get a vote in the House this week. But much depends on how Democratic leaders act to ease the objections of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who want to see more infrastructure spending added to the Senate package, and the Blue Dogs, who have called for more revenue offsets to the bill.

House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) (Photo: Capitol Chatter)

The Senate language in question would extend two grant programs created by the 2005 federal transport law, often referred to by its acronym of SAFETEA-LU.

Those programs were the Projects of Regional and National Significance (PRNS), which allowed lawmakers to steer funds to multi-year proposals that often had a transit or freight component, and the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program (NCIIP), which focused largely on earmarks for massive road projects (including Alaska's infamous Bridge to Nowhere).

Extending the PRNS and NCIIP grants through the end of 2010 would result in an estimated $932 million of new funding. The House-passed jobs bill would free up that money for a merit-based process, with all 50 states eligible to submit their transport plans, but the Senate-passed jobs bill would keep that money flowing to its 2009 beneficiaries, according to Oberstar's office.

What does that mean in practice? Of the $932 million, 58 percent would automatically go to four states: California, Washington, Louisiana, and Illinois. Nine other states would get between $20 million and $50 million in 2010, and 22 states would "not receiv[e] a penny," as 23 members of Oberstar's committee wrote yesterday in a letter to House Democratic leaders.

Here's a longer excerpt from that 23-lawmaker letter:

This transportation funding proposal [in the Senate jobs bill] is unfair to the taxpayers of 46 states, unresponsive to the whole nation's infrastructure and job creation needs, and unacceptable to the House of Representatives. We request that you work to ensure that any extension of surface transportation programs maintains the discretionary, competitive nature of the [two grant] programs, rather than distributing funds based on fiscal year 2009 earmarks. This is not a new concept...

We believe the Department of Transportation is prepared to quickly distribute these funds to needed projects across the nation, either by funding worthy applications to the oversubscribed TIGER program or through existing mechanisms... Such an approach would ensure broad investment in worthy projects rather than directing large amounts of funding on a non-competitive basis to a few lucky states.

Eight House members from the North Carolina delegation sent a similar, bipartisan letter to both House GOP and Democratic leaders, urging them to make sure that "funds from the two [grant] programs are allocated equitably and that projects of national significance in all parts of the country are given a fair opportunity for funding."

The entire Massachusetts delegation, including Sens. Scott Brown (R) and John Kerry (D), sent a similarly worded letter of their own to Democratic leaders in the House and Senate on Monday.

Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said in an interview that while the transportation panel chairman has "consistently been for shorter extensions" of the 2005 law "rather than longer ones" -- the House jobs bill has one that lasts until September 30 -- the Senate version's treatment of the PRNS and NCIIP grant programs is a more significant obstacle to winning his support.

A rendering of Atlanta's streetcar proposal, which got shut out of the race for stimulus money. (Photo: GA Transit Connector)

Local officials acknowledged to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that other cities' successful streetcar pitches, such as Tucson's and Portland's, would contribute a greater share of costs on the local level, but Georgia's TIGER shutout is still bound to sting.

Its southern neighbor, Florida, also saw no TIGER grant winners despite submitting 120 applications, totaling an estimated $4.3 billion, for a major intermodal transit hub and a port expansion.

In the private sector, Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad lost its bid for federal help with a new Kansas City rail facility even as competing freight companies CSX and Norfolk Southern scored big under the TIGER program. Still, the company -- recently bought by Warren Buffett -- is considered likely to move ahead with the project using its own funds.

Another state that saw its TIGER hopes dashed was Connecticut, where the state DOT endorsed about a dozen proposals, half of them dedicated to the freight sector.

Overall, the U.S. DOT looks to have focused its attention on TIGER money for transit and other clean transport projects while giving highways somewhat of a second-fiddle status. Roads accounted for 57 percent of total TIGER applications, but road-only proposals got less than $185 million, or about one-eighth of the total pot of grants.

That trend sparked palpable excitement among many transportation reformers, but some expressed concern that state DOT officials could turn the TIGER program into a rationale for postponing the transition to a fully merit-based system of infrastructure spending.

"An innovation grant is no excuse for not doing a good job with the rest of your money," one clean-transport advocate said in an interview. "The fact that it takes TIGER to get bridges replaced when state DOTs are spending much of their money building new roads is wrong ... but the fact that it does means that we need reform."

A rendering of the proposed Moynihan Station. (Photo: The Real Deal)

The grant makes the intended successor to the current Penn Station, a longstanding priority for New York's congressional delegation, the first winner in a highly competitive chase for $1.5 billion in federal transport funding aimed at moving the U.S. DOT towards a more merit-based decision-making process.

The TIGER funding will allow the project to begin its Phase I of construction, which includes building vertical access points from the street to the new transit hub. Work should begin by the end of the year, according to Friends of Moynihan Station, a private-sector advocacy group founded by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's (D-NY) daughter.

"Moynihan Station is the poster child for the best way to use federal funding -- it creates jobs, upgrades aging transportation infrastructure, and leaves behind an economic engine for the entire region," Schumer said in a statement.

Manhattan borough president Scott Stringer also hailed the federal grant through his spokeswoman: "For too long, Moynihan Station has been stopped dead in its tracks. Now that our congressional delegation has been able to secure a down payment, we can begin moving forward on this project, which will create jobs, ease congestion, boost tourism, and right the wrongs of half a century ago" -- a reference to the destruction of the original, above-ground Penn Station, which urbanist pioneer Jane Jacobs fought to preserve.

The rest of the Obama administration's TIGER grants are expected to reach public view starting tomorrow, with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood slated to visit Tuscon (hoping for streetcar aid) and Kansas City (home to the ambitious Green Impact Zone).

Top White House economic adviser Christina Romer, at right, holds up yesterday’s report. (Photo: WSJ)

In a section entitled Rescuing the Economy From the Great Recession, for example, the president’s economic aides name-check a series of "Responsible Policies to Spur Job Creation."

One of those policies — which neither the House nor the Senate has chosen to add to their jobs bills this winter — is an expansion of the stimulus law’s merit-based TIGER grant program, which many transport reformers view as a step towards a leveling of the playing field between transit and roads. Here’s the relevant section of the White House report:

The experience of the Recovery Act suggests that spending on infrastructure is an effective way to put people back to work while creating lasting investments that raise future productivity. For this reason, the Administration is supporting an additional investment of up to $50 billion in roads, bridges, airports, transit, rail, and water projects. Funneling some of these funds through programs such as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program at the Department of Transportation, which is a competitive grant program, could offer a way to ensure that the projects with the highest returns receive top priority.

The economic report also touts the value of clean transport spending in its section on energy policies to aid adaptation to climate change.

"Investments in high-speed rail and public transit will increase energy efficiency by improving both access and reliability, thus making it possible for more people to switch to rail or public transit from autos or other less energy-efficient forms of transportation," the president’s advisers wrote.

Will this White House support, however buried it might be, help persuade congressional leaders to add more transit and rail aid to any jobs bill that comes down the pike?

The prospects appear dim for now in the Senate, where a measure outlined yesterday by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) focused solely on keeping the highway trust fund afloat until the end of the year, but Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has suggested that more infrastructure spending could emerge as part of a second small-scale jobs plan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), for her part, indicated in a statement today that she was not prepared to abandon the transportation provisions of her chamber’s jobs bill, which included $27.5 billion for highways and $8.4 billion for transit but no TIGER money.

"We will work to ensure that critical pieces of the [House jobs bill] are enacted into law – including investments
in our roads, bridges, and public transit systems," Pelosi said.

The biggest question mark, then, may be how long it takes the House and Senate to achieve a workable deal — and whether cash-strapped cities and local transit agencies can wait that long before imposing more service cuts and fare hikes.

Senate Finance Committee chief Max Baucus, at left, with GOP ally Chuck Grassley at right. (Photo: Baucus Press)

The bill also would reverse last year's cancellation of $8.7 billion in contract authority for road programs, including bike-ped-centric Transportation Enhancements funding.

No official budgetary impact would be tallied from the trust fund rescue, because the transfer would be counted as a restoration of interest that the Treasury has held onto for 12 years. (For more on that historical footnote, check out this post.)

Notably absent from the Baucus-Grassley measure is any new infrastructure spending, such as the $37.3 billion plan approved by the House in December. Senate Democrats have suggested such funding might come up as part of a forthcoming jobs package, but without offsets elsewhere in the budget for such an idea, GOP opposition is almost assured.

An expansion of the merit-based grants known as TIGER (short for Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery) was also left out of the Finance Committee's proposal, despite strong support from the White House for extra funding for the popular program.

Baucus and Grassley did make room in their bill, with a total price tag estimated at $84 billion, for a provision allowing the conversion of tax-credit bonds for school construction and energy projects to Build America Bonds (BABs), which offer government-subsidized interest. BABs have become a favorite tool for local and state government seeking to finance new transit and road projects, but the jobs bill's conversion language does not appear to apply to transportation.

A full summary of the Finance Committee's plan follows after the jump.

Job Creation Provisions

Schumer-Hatch Jobs Payroll Tax Exemption. This provision would offer an exemption from social security payroll taxes for every worker hired in 2010 that has been unemployed for at least 60 days. The maximum value would be equal to 6.2% of wages up to the FICA wage cap ($106,800). There would also be an additional $1,000 income tax credit for every new employee retained for 52 weeks to be taken on the employer's 2011 income tax return. This proposal is estimated to cost $13 billion over ten years.

Extension of Section 179 Expensing. This provision would extend 2008 and 2009 section 179 expensing thresholds so that taxpayers may elect to write-off up to $250,000 of certain capital expenditures (subject to a phase-out once expenditures exceed $800,000) in 2010 in lieu of depreciating those costs over time. This proposal is estimated to cost $35 million over ten years.

Election to Convert Tax Credit Bonds to Build America Bonds. Under current law, Congress provided tax credit bonds to qualifying issuers for certain school and energy projects. Tax credit bonds provide the bond holder a federal tax credit in lieu of interest. Build America Bonds provide qualifying issuers a direct payment from the Treasury for a portion of the interest paid on the bond for government works projects. This provision would allow qualifying issuers of tax credit bonds the option of issuing tax credit bonds under current law, or utilizing the direct subsidy Build America Bond structure for bonds issued after the date of enactment. The federal subsidy would equal 45 percent of the borrowing cost (65 percent for qualifying small issuers). The proposal is estimated to cost approximately $2 billion over ten years.

Highway Trust Fund. This provision would extend highway and transit programs through calendar year 2010, and transfers from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund $19.5 billion in interest foregone since 1998. It would also halt annual payments the Highway Trust Fund makes to the General Fund as reimbursement for tax-exempt users of the highway program (e.g. state/local fleets and transit providers). This provision also repeals an $8.7 billion rescission of unobligated balances of contract authority, a provision which passed in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU legislation. This proposal has no revenue effect.

Extension of Expiring Tax Provisions

The draft HIRE Act would also extend several tax provisions that expired at the end of 2009, providing much needed tax relief for individuals and businesses. These provisions include the research and development credit, the 15-year recovery period for leasehold, restaurant, and retail improvements, the new markets tax credit, the active finance exception under Subpart F, and the CFC look-through rules. The draft HIRE Act would also extend several energy tax provisions, including credits for home efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles, as well as for biodiesel, renewable diesel and other alternative fuels. The draft bill also includes several disaster relief provisions. The total cost of the extenders provisions is about $31 billion over ten years.

Pension Funding Relief

The provision would provide temporary, targeted funding relief for single employer and multiemployer pension plans that suffered significant losses in asset value due to the steep market slide in 2008. The pension funding provisions raise about $6 billion over ten years.

Economic Safety Net Provisions

Unemployment Insurance Extension. This provision would extend current law, including increased unemployment benefits, through May 31, 2010. Under current law, an unemployed worker may receive up to 26 weeks of unemployment benefits provided by the state in which they were employed. After the state-provided benefits are exhausted, the worker may qualify for 34 more weeks of benefits provided by the federal government. If that person is unemployed in a state with an unemployment rate above 6 percent, they qualify for an additional 13 weeks of benefits also provided by the federal government. Unemployed workers in states with an unemployment level over 8.5 percent qualify for an additional six weeks of benefits also provided by the federal government. In addition, the Federal government pays 100 percent of the cost of state Extended Benefits programs which provide up to 13 additional weeks of benefits for unemployed workers who have exhausted regular state benefits or Emergency Unemployment Compensation. Last year's economic recovery bill increased weekly unemployment benefits by an additional $25 per week. Without extension, these provisions will expire on February 28, 2010. This proposal is estimated to cost $22 billion over ten years.

Extension of COBRA Premium Assistance. This provision would extend the 65-percent COBRA premium subsidy for terminated workers through May 31, 2010. This provision also includes technical clarifications to the program. The proposal is estimated to cost $3 billion over ten years.

Extension of Expiring Health Care Provisions.

The draft HIRE Act also extends health provisions, a number of which expired at the end of 2009. These provisions include a seven-month extension of the sustainable growth rate update formula. Without this fix, physicians participating in Medicare face a 21 percent reduction in payments. The bill also extends the exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps and extends payment provisions for mental health providers, ambulance services, physicians in areas where the work geographic practice cost index (GPCI) is below 1.0, certain physician pathology services, the rural hospital flexibility (Flex) program, improved payments for outpatient services in hospitals in rural areas, direct billing for Indian health service providers, Medicare hospital wage index reclassifications under the section 508 program, provisions concerning long-term acute care hospital services, and certain Medicare Advantage plans, including special needs plans, cost plans and senior housing programs. The draft bill would also provide an accreditation exemption for certain pharmacies that furnish durable medical equipment and would clarify eligibility for physician health information technology incentive payments. And finally, the draft bill would keep the 2009 federal poverty guidelines to protect people in means-tested programs from losing benefits and includes a provision to disregard refundable tax credits and refunds as income for twelve months from receipt. The total cost of the health extenders provisions is about $10 billion over ten years.

Other Provisions

The draft bill contains five provisions outside the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. These include short-term extensions of two expiring authorities under the Patriot Act, the national flood insurance program, and certain SBA loan provisions. In addition, the draft bill includes an estimated $1.5 billion in agriculture disaster assistance and a five-year reauthorization of satellite home viewer legislation. These provisions are estimated to cost $3 billion over ten years.

Offsets

Foreign Account Tax Compliance. These provisions include a comprehensive set of measures to reduce offshore noncompliance by giving the IRS new administrative tools to detect, deter and discourage offshore tax abuses. The proposals include 30% withholding on U.S. source payments to foreign financial institutions, foreign trusts, and foreign corporations that do not agree to disclose their U.S. account holders and owners to the IRS; requiring taxpayers to disclose their foreign accounts on their U.S. tax returns; increasing the statute of limitations to 6 years for failure to report certain offshore transactions and income; clarifying when a foreign trust is considered to have a U.S. beneficiary; and treating substitute dividend and dividend equivalent payments to foreign persons as dividends for purposes of U.S. withholding. This proposal is estimated to raise $9 billion over ten years.

Cellulosic Biofuels Loophole. The provision would modify the $1.01 per gallon cellulosic biofuel producer credit to exclude fuels with significant water, sediment, or ash content, such as black liquor. The provision would exclude from the definition of cellulosic biofuel any fuels that (1) are more than four percent (according to weight) water and sediment in any combination, or (2) have an ash content of more than one percent (according to weight). The provision would be effective for fuel sold or used after date of enactment. This proposal is estimated to raise $24 billion over ten years.

Clarification of the Economic Substance Doctrine and Penalty for Underpayments Attributable to Transactions Lacking Economic Substance. This provision would clarify the application of the economic substance doctrine which has been used by courts to deny tax benefits for transactions lacking economic substance. The provision would also impose a 40% strict liability penalty on underpayments attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance (unless the transaction was disclosed, in which case the penalty is 20%). The proposal is estimated to raise $5 billion over ten years.

Reduction in the Medicare Improvement Fund. The Medicare Improvement Fund (MIF) contains funds that are available to the Secretary to make improvements to the original fee-for-service program under Parts A and B of Medicare. Under current law, approximately $20 billion is available for services furnished during FY2014. This provision would reduce the funding available in the MIF by $8 billion. This proposal is estimated to save $8 billion over ten years.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) (Photo: LV City Life)

Harry Reid (D-NV), the upper chamber’s majority leader, told reporters that he was "hopeful" a bipartisan jobs bill could be ready for public view within the next day or two, followed by a first vote on Monday. "If not," he added, "[Democrats] will lay one down ourselves."

The Obama administration has called for the Senate to add more funding for TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery), the stimulus law’s $1.5 billion merit-based grant program, to its jobs plan. Reid indicated on Tuesday that his party was receptive to more TIGER aid.

Another infrastructure-centric provision attracting broad interest is an extension of Build America Bonds (BABs), which allow local governments to finance transportation projects more easily by offering a 35 percent federal subsidy. New York City’s transit authority is one of many local agencies turning to BABs to make debt offerings more attractive to private investors.

Finally, the politically tricky status of the highway trust fund remains on Congress’ plate, with the House and Senate still at odds over how to keep it funded nearly five months after the first expiration of the nation’s 2005 federal transportation law.

Reid said earlier this week that a one-year extension of the trust fund likely would be added to the Senate’s jobs bill. But with Senate Democrats aiming to coax Republicans on board by breaking up their economic-recovery agenda into smaller pieces, it remains to be seen whether the trust fund, BABs, or TIGER will make it into the legislation set for votes on Monday.

Also left unanswered is how much, if any, spending the Senate would direct at ready-to-go transportation projects. An initial jobs-bill outline circulated last week suggested that $14 billion for roads and $7.5 billion for transit could make it into the legislation, but Democrats offered no hint of whether those numbers were still in the mix.

The office of Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who has taken the lead on the infrastructure elements of her party’s jobs program, did not immediately return a request for clarification of the timing for transportation spending.

If Senate Democrats were sure of anything this morning, however, it was the need for speedy consideration of the yet-to-emerge jobs provisions. "Let’s put these on the floor and move on them with a sense of urgency," Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said.

Illustrating the pitfalls of the Democratic hopefulness that the still-to-come jobs plan could win GOP support is the following quote, which Politico attributes to a spokesman for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):

I watched the Democrat leadership’s press conference just now and what
I learned is that there will be a vote Monday on ‘a bill.’ But that
they don’t know what’s in the bill or how many jobs they expect it to ‘save or create,’ or when anyone beyond the Beltway will see it, or how
much it will cost. They did have a nice sign,
though, and a pretty handout, so they obviously gave this some
thought.

Lee Gaddies of Detroit speaks at today's event. Photo: TEN

Today's event, organized by the Transportation Equity Network (TEN), brought local community advocates to the House's Longworth building for roundtable sessions with aides to several members of Congress.

Federal Transit Administration executive director Matthew Welbes briefed the group on his agency's new shift away from a solely cost-effectiveness-based standard for approving new funding plans, and TEN co-chair Sarah Mullins hailed a victory for transit equity in Minneapolis, where light rail planners have added three new stops in lower-income areas.

But as the grassroots lobbyists prepared to make the case for more transit operating aid in the coming Senate jobs bill -- the House version allowed cities to spend 10 percent of their Washington funds on keeping trains and buses running -- Jim Kolb, staff director for House transport committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), was on hand with a candid assessment of the battle facing transit riders.

Kolb began by outlining an impasse that will be familiar to Streetsblog readers: Oberstar's $500 billion, six-year transportation bill, which aims to fundamentally shift federal policymaking away from a road-centric perspective, is languishing as Democrats decline to find a way to pay for it.

Meanwhile, the uncertain flurry of short-term extensions to the current law and the decision to route stimulus transport funding through state DOTs has given defenders of the status quo time to dig in their heels.

"A lot of folks who work for state DOTs have real concerns about the bill we put out," Kolb told the groups. "They don't want to have a conversation about accountability -- we have a different vision with our bill."

But with more than 10 percent for transit operating proving a hard sell in itself, getting a spending-shy Congress on board for that new vision is likely to be even more difficult. As Kolb put it:

The biggest problem we're facing is an inability to fund the program. Frankly, we need an increase in the gas tax, or some alternative funding source, which nobody has been able to coalesce around in this current environment. ... A renewed focus on deficits [and] a complete aversion to taxes [has] made our jobs pretty tough.

That wasn't deterring local advocates like Illinoisan Shelly Heideman, a Springfield area resident who planned to visit with aides to local Rep. Aaron Schock (R) today. Heideman said her message to Schock, who holds the GOP seat once occupied by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, would emphasize the importance of local job creation through increased transit funding and federal high-speed rail aid.

House Republicans have lately resisted most attempts at bipartisan consensus, even on bread-and-butter issues such as transportation, but "we've been working very hard to develop a relationship with [Schock]", Heideman said. When meeting with any lawmaker, she added, "we just hope they have a compassionate heart."

On the Senate side, transit advocates planned to press for $16 billion in the upper chamber's coming jobs bill, with the flexibility for $9 billion of that money to be used on transit operating budgets.