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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do federal gas taxes really charge "users" of the highway? (Photo: CAP)

The Interstate Highway System accomplished all of this [construction of the system] without any subsidies. Federal highway user fees paid for 90 percent of the cost of the system, and state highway user fees covered virtually all of the remaining 10 percent.

This brings up an interesting question: What is a user fee? Common sense would suggest that a user fee is a fee paid by a user of something in order to use that something. A common example might be a train fare. When one wants to ride a train, one purchases a ticket. One doesn't purchase a ticket if one doesn't want to ride the train, and one doesn't ride the train without a ticket. A ticket is specifically meant to extract a fee from a potential user, that that user might then be allowed to use the train.

So do gas taxes count as highway user fees? Well, one might pay gas taxes even if one never uses highways. You pay the gas tax on gas used to drive down local roads or private driveways, or to power lawnmowers and tractors that never even see publicly-funded blacktop.

And one can use highways without ever paying gas taxes. Anyone able to obtain a vehicle powered by natural gas or electric batteries or canola oil can ride on the federal highway system for thousands of miles and never pay one cent to do so.

So gas taxes are not user fees. Indeed, the lack of actual user fees is one reason American highways suffer from severe congestion problems; when you give away something valuable for free -- like scarce highway space -- it ends up seriously over-consumed.

As a thought experiment, let's consider a world in which federal gas taxes functioned more like a user fee. That is, let's imagine that when drivers fill up, they pay a federal gas tax only on the gasoline consumed while driving on federal highways. That's still not really a user fee, but it's a little closer.

Light vehicles traveled a total of around 2.8 trillion miles in 2007, of which about 23 percent were driven on interstate highways, according to the Department of Energy. If we divide the total number of miles driven on interstates by the weighted average fuel economy of cars and light trucks, we find that about 31 billion gallons of gas were consumed on highways in 2007. That's a lot!

Next, we know that the Federal Highway Administration budget is around $39 billion. If we assume that truck and diesel revenues are unchanged, then we have about $24 billion in highway funding to be covered by a tax on those 31 billion gallons of gas, for an estimated gasoline tax of about 80 cents per gallon.

That's an extremely rough estimate. In fact, the nation's light vehicle mileage includes some diesel-burning engines. If we adjusted the calculations to reflect that, the estimated tax rate would be higher. Highway fuel economy is also higher than the average figures, which means that the calculations above probably overstate the gallons of gas burned on highways. This, too, means that the estimated gas tax rate is too low.

An appropriate gas tax rate to cover the annual highway budget -- which many argue is far too small -- would be on the order of about $1 per gallon.

All in all, this should illustrate that if you set aside all the O'Toole hand waving about trust fund revenues shifted to other modes, you still wind up in a world where federal roads come nowhere near paying for themselves.

One final point: We learned last year that it doesn't take much of an increase in the price of gas to generate reductions in VMT and increases in transit use. If we adjusted the current price of a gallon of gas to reflect an appropriate federal gas tax, gas would be selling for nearly $3.50 per gallon, on average.

With gas at that price, travelers would drive less and use transit more often. During the gas price spike last year, we saw a number of transit systems enjoy high demand during peak periods, to the extent that fares might easily have been raised to reduce system overcrowding.

In other words, what transit systems can charge riders depends upon what the government is (or isn't) charging drivers. This is exactly what we'd expect; if Coke began heavily subsidizing its sodas, Pepsi would have to find a way to cut its prices or face going out of business.

What we see then is that there are two funding equilibria. If drivers pay a fair price for the use of roads, then highway revenues rise and transit fares can rise until both modes are full but not congested. This is the high revenue equilibrium.

But if drivers don't have to pay a fair cost for the use of roads, then highway revenues will be low, roads will be congested, and transit systems will have too little ridership, such that transit systems will be unable to raise fares without losing riders to the already congested roads. This is the low revenue equilibrium, and it's a bad place to be -- inefficient use of all modes, costly road congestion, and a constant shortage of funding for needed infrastructure maintenance and investment.

That's where we are now.

When Congress finally gets around to crafting a transportation reauthorization, it would be nice if they recognized some of these dynamics. America needs smarter infrastructure investment rules, but it also needs smarter revenue-raising methods. If you get the money the right way, that makes it easier to spend the money the right way.

On transport funding, a question looms: Whither Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY)? (Photo: BusinessWeek)

Oberstar asked Ways and Means members to okay a $3 billion patch for the highway trust fund, which is expected to run dry next month.

That course would postpone until September the House's transportation-funding battle with the White House and the Senate, where 18 months of stopgap funding is almost certain to be approved within two weeks.

Ways and Means has dedicated most of its time and energy to health care reform this summer, leading to widespread speculation that transportation would fall by the wayside. But Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), chairman of Ways and Means' revenue panel, told Oberstar that he was on the transportation committee's side.

"I share your position that we should go forward" with a bill this year, Neal told Oberstar.

Yet the chairman of the full Ways and Means committee, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), has yet to throw his weight behind Oberstar's goals. Without Rangel's muscle, the thorny question of how to pay for a new transportation bill would be almost impossible to resolve by the end of September.

Despite the uncertainty over revenue, one conclusion was endorsed by liberals and conservatives alike: the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon "is basically dead," in the words of the transport committee's senior Republican, John Mica (FL).

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who proposed legislation today that would set up nationwide pilot programs on a future vehile miles traveled (VMT) tax, echoed that sentiment.

"We don't have enough money to even fund our current inadequate transportation system," Blumenauer said. "The highway trust fund is in a death spiral."

Mica suggested replacing the cents-per-gallon gas tax with a flat sales tax on gas purchases, while Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) proposed forcing Congress to act by timing the highway trust fund to expire outright in 30 months.

Several other lawmakers looked to freight rail to pay for and expand transportation capacity.

Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) touted his bill to provide tax credits for companies that build new freight tracks or terminals. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) suggested levying a freight fee of 0.075 percent per shipment, with a maximum of $500, on goods that arrive at the nation's ports.

"You can't find a greener transportation mode than rail," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), another freight fan.

The testimony from transportation committee members gave today's hearing a palpable sense of urgency, but that may not be enough to surmount opposition from the Obama administration and the upper chamber of Congress.

With the House set to depart next week for a month-long recess, the clock is running out -- and a decision is imminent on whether to pass Oberstar's $3 billion patch or move closer to the Senate's $26.8 billion highway trust fund rescue.

Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairman of the Senate environment committee (Photo: Politics Now)

"Everyone realizes the current law is inadequate to get the job done," said Voinovich, who has aligned with Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and his House transportation committee to fight the White House and Senate on the extension.

"We have a Senate and we have a House ... what I'm proposing here is something very reasonable."

Voinovich's compromise won support from three Democrats, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (MN), whose panel has the tricky task of approving $20 billion in spending cuts or offsets to keep the nation's highway trust fund flush until after the 2010 midterm elections.

But the 12-month proposal fell on an 8-11 vote, with environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offering Voinovich a contrite birthday consolation and a promise to tackle a "transformational" transportation bill -- once the thorny question of revenue is sorted out.

"There is way less of a chance that, if we go 18 months, we'll have to do another extension," Boxer said. Though "I respect, like, love" Oberstar, the chairman added, "in order to meet his six-year bill, you'd have to double the gas tax."

Boxer has said she is open to indexing the gas tax, which has gone untouched by Washington since 1993, to inflation. Any increases, however, face an uphill battle winning over re-election-minded lawmakers.

The 18-month extension must be merged with corresponding legislation from the Senate Commerce and Banking Committees before heading to the Finance panel for its revenue portion to be completed.

Yet the bill appears set to founder in the House, given Oberstar's fierce opposition, leaving Congress without a clear path on transportation policy and only three weeks to go to meet the U.S. DOT's deadline for bailing out the highway trust fund.

Can Virginia Democrat Creigh Deeds win on a transportation-centric platform? (Photo: Waldoj via Flickr)

And now that Deeds is moving on to an even more hotly contested general election, his handling of the transportation debate could become a bellwether on the national level.

Deeds has long vowed to make Virginia's epic congestion problems his top priority, and his support for increasing the state's gas tax -- currently low enough to rank 40th in the nation -- to fund transport improvements is already drawing fire from the GOP. The Republican Governors Association's first release criticizing Deeds begins:

Despite prevailing in tonight’s gubernatorial primary, even Democrats know Creigh Deeds’ record of hiking taxes makes him unelectable this fall.

Can the GOP successfully paint Deeds as a profligate for wanting to pay for transportation upgrades? President Obama survived a similar challenge during last year's campaign when his opponents began pressing for a federal gas tax holiday, but Virginia Republicans may have better luck peeling off rural voters with their knocks on Deeds.

Deeds could help his cause by getting more specific about the types of transportation projects he wants to pursue. His lack of detail thus far has caught the attention of the Washington Post, the newspaper that provided him a game-changing endorsement.

The newly minted Democratic star could begin by reviving three transportation bills he offered during last year's Virginia state Senate session. The three proposals would encourage less punishing commutes by giving tax credits to employers who provide flex-time scheduling and telecommuting, as well as a tax deduction to anyone who takes transit, walks or bikes to work.

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) (Photo: Macomb Daily)

The matching-funds deal requires states to pay 20 percent of the costs of most highway projects, with the federal government kicking in the 80 percent that remains. But thanks to lower gas-tax revenues brought on by diminished driving and the government's refusal to increase the tax, economically devastated Michigan is unable to kick in its share for more than 130 projects.

Transit fans are likely to wonder why this is such bad news, given that their preferred projects are forced to line up state and local support without the lucrative federal matching funds that highways receive. Yet many of Michigan's canceled transportation projects are not misguided Roads to Nowhere.

Three bridge repairs in the Detroit area have been called off, prompting one commuter to muse:

Provided the whole thing doesn't collapse, I guess it will be business as usual.

It's high time for the federal government to remedy the funding insanity that's resulting from Americans' welcome decision to drive less (and Congress' unwelcome decision to let the gas tax depreciate). For one thing, California could be next -- its budget meltdown has prompted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) to consider siphoning off local gas tax revenues, which would in turn endanger federal matching funds that were destined for local road and bridge repairs.

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) plans to introduce legislation on Capitol Hill that would give a Michigan a short-term exemption from the rules that govern transportation matching funds. Still, it's tough to envision her effort succeeding, for one principal reason: If Michigan gets help, 48 other states -- minus Alaska, which rakes in the revenue from Washington -- will be lining up with the same request.

It's great to hear a legislator in Boxer's position voice support for an inflation-adjusted gas tax. Someone filling up, say, a 10-gallon tank contributes the same amount in gas taxes today as in 1993, when everyone was paying $1.20 per gallon at the pump. Too bad that unmooring the gas tax from its peg seems anathema to team Obama.

It's also unfortunate that, when it comes to the mileage tax, Boxer's support doesn't appear to run very deep:

The bill's authors, though, have rejected attaching a small device to cars to measure Vehicle Miles Traveled, Boxer said.

"We're looking at options. Are there ways for people to -- an honor system, when they register their vehicles -- just say, 'This is the miles I had last year, this is the miles I have this year,'?" she said.

Many, including Rep. James Oberstar, the Minnesota Democrat who will manage the transportation bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, have suggested attaching a machine smaller than a typical cell phone to vehicles to record mileage.

An honor system... Maybe that works for roadside fruit stands, but funding a desperately needed overhaul of America's transportation network? I wouldn't bank on tamper-proof odometers.

DOT Secretary Ray LaHood testifying in the Senate yesterday.

Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing about the future of national surface transportation. This much isn't in doubt: Current policies need a major overhaul. What to change and, especially, how to pay for it are very much in question.

Several panelists spoke about the need to reform the nation's transportation priorities and set firm goals, like reducing car dependence and traffic deaths. Shifting away from policies that emphasize highway capacity and reward gas consumption didn't sit that well with senators from states like South Dakota and Texas, but there was a broad sense that the next surface transportation bill must reverse years of underinvestment in the nation's infrastructure. Nevertheless, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood reiterated the Obama administration's opposition to a promising funding solution -- raising the gas tax -- and obeyed the directive from up top to never again mention a tax on vehicle miles (VMT).

At around the same time, a very different story was unfolding in the House, where James Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, pushed for his preferred funding solution, a VMT tax. Asserting that the technology to implement this solution is already available, he asked his committee to rapidly advance the timetable: "Why do we need a pilot program? Why don't we just phase it in?" Since Oberstar has taken a leading role in shaping the next transportation bill, this may mean that a VMT tax will be included in the first draft.

Back at the Senate hearing, several panelists called attention to the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund, which uses money raised by the gas tax to pay for transit and roads projects. Steve Heminger, director of the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission, estimated that the U.S. needs to invest at least $225 billion annually in its transportation infrastructure. We're only spending about 40 percent of that today, and the downward trend in driving means the fund is drying up. Few options will suffice to raise the needed revenue, he said, other than increasing the gas tax or imposing a VMT fee.

LaHood skirted the funding issue and focused on rethinking existing transportation priorities. "Our initial focus will be on expanding the transportation choices available to American families," he said. LaHood repeatedly described his intention to help communities become more transit-friendly, walkable and bikeable. He cited the administration's desire to get Americans out of their cars, but never made the link that higher gas prices create powerful incentives to reduce car dependence. His prepared testimony instead asked for "innovative" ideas from Congress to address the transportation funding dilemma, leaving aside any specifics.

For Streetsblog, Freemark will break down the legislation, explain its progress through Congress, and fill us in on some of the people working to shape it. His first post looks back at the current transportation funding bill, called the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" (SAFETEA-LU), which was approved in late July 2005 after a year of infighting in a sharply divided Congress.

* * * * * * *

Ultimately, SAFETEA-LU’s greatest failing may have been its failure to articulate a truly multi-modal vision for the nation's surface transportation network. Essentially a continuation of 1950s-era policies, it repeated the same-old same-old about a need to complete the Interstate highway program, directing billions of dollars to state DOTs to pour asphalt and expand roadways. Nowhere did the legislation suggest a need to adapt to a future in which American dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels must be dramatically reduced. That's the challenge faced by Congress today.

Less of this, please... (Photo: SkilliShots/Flickr)

The $10 billion in public transportation funds is distributed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a variety of uses. The FTA administers the urban areas program, which allocates money to metropolitan areas for transit system capital expenses, as well as a rural areas program that helps states pay for rural transit. SAFETEA-LU also included a fixed-guideways formula, aimed at keeping mostly older rail transit systems like those in Chicago or Boston in working condition. Finally, the New Starts/Small Starts program allowed the FTA to fund competitive grants for major capacity expansion such as new subway or bus rapid transit lines.

...more of this... (Photo: Paul Purser/Flickr.)

SAFETEA-LU provided for $40 billion in annual funding from the highway account, the traditional federal source for financing Interstate highways. But under the law, money from the account could actually be spent on more than just roads. Roughly $6.5 billion per year was allocated to the "Surface Transportation Program." States were allowed to use this money to fund transit and "bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways." The "Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program" -- about $1.7 billion a year -- went to projects likely to reduce pollution, and specifically forbade funding "a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles."

There's one problem, though. The federal government may allow such funds to be spent on non-auto uses, but that's rarely the case.

That's because, while each metropolitan area has a federally-mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) whose role is to establish priorities for transportation investments, state departments of transportation have ultimate discretion over how national highway funds are used. The inevitable consequence? Asphalt-happy DOTs usually choose to invest highway funds in roads, even when MPOs advocate for improved transit or bikeways. According to Transportation for America, only five states -- California, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- have taken advantage of the flexibility of these funds. The rest have spent the vast majority on auto infrastructure.

What’s more, SAFETEA-LU made it easy for states to build roads and hard for them to build transit projects. While funds for new roads were simply distributed to states based on a formula, new transit lines had to undergo the rigorous New Starts process -- competing with other projects from all over the country -- before winning a share of federal dollars. There was no such required audit for road projects.

...and this. (Photo: Richard Masoner/Flickr).

The source of all this money is another problem. Funds for surface transportation come primarily from the national gas tax, 18.4¢ per gallon of gas (24.4¢ for diesel). Until last year, the gas tax was a reliable source of funds, but the recent decrease in miles driven by Americans and an increase in fuel economy forced the Congress to authorize $8 billion in emergency funds for roads from the general budget for fiscal year 2009. The same scenario is likely to occur in the coming year.

SAFETEA-LU provided no alternatives to the gas tax, but the next transportation bill may well do so. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood proposed using a mileage tax as a new source of revenue last month, but his initiative was quickly shot down by the White House press secretary, who said that the tax is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration. A recent U.S. Government Accounting Office study suggested that additional monies could come from increasing the gas tax, encouraging tolls or moving funding from dedicated revenues to the general budget. Congress has yet to grapple with a long-term solution to this crisis.

Intercity rail development also fared badly under SAFETEA-LU, receiving only $100 million yearly through the legislation. Until last year, Amtrak was forced to plead to Congress every year for separate operations funding from the general fund; now, thanks to five-year guaranteed funding legislation pushed through by huge majorities in both houses of Congress, it receives $2.5 billion a year. President Obama's stimulus bill also turned things around for rail corridor construction, with $8 billion set aside and $1.3 billion dedicated to Amtrak. This money came from general tax revenues, not the Highway Trust Fund.

Then we have the much-maligned earmark system. Under SAFETEA-LU, thousands of appropriations worth more than $24 billion were earmarked by congressmen for projects in their local districts. One example: Congressman Jerrold Nadler's $100 million for the New York Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel, a project for which funds weren't even requested by the agency that was supposed to be sponsoring it, the Port Authority. SAFETEA-LU also famously appropriated $250 million to a Ted Stevens special: a certain "Bridge to Nowhere."

But many of the earmarks were for much smaller projects that helped communities provide citizens with more transportation options, such as bike lanes or pedestrian bridges. Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez earmarked more than $6 million for the Brooklyn Waterfront Greenway, a project driven by grassroots commitment. Such infrastructure would be almost impossible to fund in any other way, given the way the law is written and state DOT reluctance to transfer highway funds to non-auto uses.

With Congress preoccupied by important health care, immigration and economic legislation, the transportation reauthorization bill isn't grabbing headlines for the moment. But a diverse coalition of groups that see the benefits of transit use and improved bike and pedestrian infrastructure -- including public health advocates, developers, senior citizens, real estate agents and chambers of commerce -- is demanding a place at the table along with the traditionally more influential highway lobby. Over the next few months, that coalition will be fighting for a federal transportation program that provides a stable source of revenue for a balanced selection of mobility options.

Biggest Setback: After being approved by an unprecedented civic coalition, the mayor and New York City Council, congestion pricing -- the one policy measure that simultaneously reduces traffic congestion while raising money for mass transit and livable streets -- died in an Albany backroom without even a vote.

Lobbyists of the Year: Walter McCaffrey and the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free (below). It turns out New York City government is controlled by a handful of Queens Democrats, suburban state legislators and the Automobile Club of New York.

How Not to Lobby a State Legislator: Brooklyn State Senator Martin Malave Dilan's car is towed during a congestion pricing meeting with city officials.

Most Sociopathic Elected Official: Bronx State Senator Jeff Klein nearly crushes a cyclist with his black Mercedes and then tells him, "Get your hands off my car, you f*#king a55hole." Unfortunately for Sen. Klein, this particular cyclist happens to run a pretty robust media operation.

Most Disappointing Elected Officials: During the congestion pricing debate, three State Assemblymembers stood out for their enormous potential to exert leadership and their utter inability or unwillingness to do so. Deborah Glick, Joan Millman and Hakeem Jeffries all represent districts that would have overwhelmingly benefited from New York City's congestion pricing plan. Yet, Glick could only find reasons to oppose it. Millman decided she supported it -- two hours after the proposal was killed by her Democratic Assembly colleagues. And Jeffries had the gall to demand increased subway service on the G line three weeks after helping to eliminate the revenue source that might have paid for it. If only New York City were represented in the state Assembly by an aggressive, attentive, self-aggrandizing politician like...

Elected Official of the Year: You've got to hand it to Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky -- he works hard for his constituents and supporters. Unfortunately for New York City's traffic-choked neighborhoods, beleaguered transit riders and asthmatic kids, his constituents are the metropolitan region's wealthiest car commuters and his supporters own a bunch of parking garages in Manhattan. While New York City's legislators rolled over and played dead, Richard Brodsky worked his butt off to make sure that New York City's congestion pricing plan -- a plan approved by the Mayor, City Council and a state commission -- died a quiet death in the Assemly's Democratic conference. Brodsky did incredible damage to New York City in 2008 but he also showed us what effective representation in Albany might look like.

Worst Elected Official: Rochester Assemblyman and transportation committee chairman David Gantt continued his decade-long effort to deny New York City the ability to deploy automated traffic enforcement systems on its streets. He loosened up a little bit though. This year he introduced legislation that would allow counties outside of New York City to use red light cameras -- as long as they purchased the technology from a Swedish firm represented by one of his cronies. Shocking? Not really. Just another day in Albany.

Most Opinions Fewest Solutions Award: From now on, this will be called the Anthony Weiner Award.

Most Moronic Idea From Albany: State Senators Jeff Klein and Eric Adams put on their serious, fighting-for-the-people faces and proposed suspending tolls on New York City bridges and tunnels and giving drivers a $200 gas tax rebate ahead of Memorial Day weekend. Not planning to burn lots of gasoline for your summer holiday? These two have nothing for you.

The National Infrastructure Bank will assemble a portfolio of projects for investment by the public and private sector. I will follow the formula developed by the renowned economist Felix Rohatyn so that any project seeking over $75 million in federal support would be required to submit a proposal to the bank. The submission would include the contribution to be made by the state and local governments, user fees and a plan for maintenance. The bank would then decide to fund the project outright, or through credit guarantees for state bonds or loans against future revenues from user fees and other sound financial strategies.

The federal government will favor cities that introduce congestion pricing. A recent study by the Brookings Institute found that more than $100 billion could be raised annually by road pricing in the 98 largest metropolitan areas. We will adopt the previous administration’s call for a dedicated Metro Mobility (MM) Program (pdf) for metropolitan areas with populations greater than 500,000. These are the battle grounds for congestion, fuel inefficiencies and production of greenhouse gases.

The gas tax is a dinosaur (pun intended). As long as it remains a flat tax at 18.4 cents per gallon and gas consumption decreases (a goal of my administration) it will be a dwindling source of revenue. I propose that the tax, like most other taxes, be indexed against the sale price. This way, when foreign influences raise the price of gas, some revenue will be returned to the taxpayers in public works projects. I propose a 5 cent/gallon increase over present levels, the first increase since 1993, to generate about $10 billion annually. But, if the price of gas goes down, and I hope it does, the tax will go down accordingly.

Gasoline tax revenue is falling so fast that the federal government may not be able to meet its commitments to states for road projects already under way, the secretary of transportation said Monday.

The secretary, Mary E. Peters, said the short-term solution would be for the Highway Trust Fund’s highway account to borrow money from the fund’s mass transit account, a step that would balance the accounts as highway travel declines and use of mass transit increases.

Meanwhile, America's historically underfunded transit systems are also struggling with rising fuel prices and record demand. No word yet on how taking money away from transit to pay for highways fits in to George W. Bush's plan to end America's oil addiction but maybe time for Americans to take a good, hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves what kind of nation do we want to be?

Tired of hearing about gas tax holidays, bridge toll suspensions, and rebates for drivers? Here's a policy proposal that will actually improve commutes, not just encourage trips by car: subsidizing fuel for transit systems.

As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week, rising diesel prices are hitting transit agencies hard (preview only), leading to fare hikes and service cuts even as ridership balloons. Now, the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents transit workers in the U.S. and Canada, is calling on Congress to help agencies purchase fuel. The ATU made their case in a statement released this Wednesday: 

Americans took 2.6 billion trips on public transportation in the first three months of 2008, nearly 85 million more trips than last year for the same time period.

Yet, ironically, while high gas prices are encouraging more people to ride transit, rising diesel prices are also causing mass transit systems nationwide to raise fares, cut service, lay off staff, and delay capital spending. Like other consumers, the agencies are also paying more for fuel -- 44% more this year than last. "So, at a time when demand for buses and trains is at one of its highest points in history, we have transit agencies cutting back. This makes no sense," said ATU International President Warren S. George. "Transit needs to be part of the solution -- not the victim -- of high gas prices."

This is one fuel subsidy that makes sense from an emissions perspective. According to the American Public Transit Association, the average transit user consumes half as much oil as the average car commuter.

Photo of NJTransit's Southern New Jersey Light Rail: DMJM Harris

Thank you for contacting me regarding high oil and gasoline prices. I fully share your concerns; and I am working to alleviate the pain at the pump on several fronts through a number of legislative measures that are intended to ease gas prices, increase oversight of energy markets, prevent price gouging, increase fuel efficiency and vehicle fuel economy standards, reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil, and increase tax benefits for renewable energy and conservation.

Lieberman then goes on and on about record oil company profits, "exploitative pricing" and reducing dependence on foreign oil, and also proclaims his support for diverting from the national reserve. As for transportation, it's all about CAFE standards, alternative fuels and the gas tax "holiday" -- measures which somehow dovetail with his efforts to mitigate climate change. There's even a link for tracking gas prices. Non-automotive means of transport are never mentioned.

Guess with all the energy he's devoting to making it easier to drive, Lieberman hasn't found time to crank out a constituent letter that at least pays lip service to passenger rail.

Follow the jump for the full text.

Thank you for contacting me regarding high oil and gasoline prices. I fully share your concerns; and I am working to alleviate the pain at the pump on several fronts through a number of legislative measures that are intended to ease gas prices, increase oversight of energy markets, prevent price gouging, increase fuel efficiency and vehicle fuel economy standards, reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil, and increase tax benefits for renewable energy and conservation.

As you well know, America's drivers are paying exorbitant prices to fill their tanks; and the U.S. economy is beginning to suffer along with the country's consumers. In the spring of 2007, gasoline prices surged over $3.00 per gallon, stayed near that level during the summer driving season, and, after a brief retreat, returned there at the beginning of 2008 and have been steadily climbing ever since then. The price of oil accounts for at least half the price that consumers pay for gasoline at the pump. Unfortunately, oil prices are volatile and rising over the long term. At the same time, consumption of gasoline has continued to rise above nine million barrels per day (mbd), setting a record high summer peak of over 9.7 mbd during 2007.

Meanwhile, oil companies are enjoying record profits, thanks, in no small part, to a conscious strategy on their part to reduce our country's refining capacity. Overall, a large number of factors have combined to put pressure on gasoline prices, the fundamental reason being the shrinking margin between global oil demand and global oil supply. The increased world demand for crude oil and limited U.S. refinery capacity to supply gasoline to a growing national economy, combined with the war and continued violence in Iraq, has added to the atmosphere of uncertainty. Threats of supply disruption have also added pressure, particularly to the commodity futures markets.

Over the years, industry insiders have advised U.S. oil companies to reduce spare refining capacity as a way to boost profits. As one Chevron memo paraphrased the advice, "if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins." The oil companies heeded the advice with a vengeance; by 2004, idle refining capacity in the United States was a third of what it had been ten years earlier. In May 2007, along with other members of the Connecticut delegation, I requested an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) into the possible role of refinery outages, planned and unplanned, on gasoline prices and refinery company profits.

Between 1999 and 2004, the profit margin of U.S. refiners increased 80 percent. The widening profit margin would stimulate new competitors to enter the domestic refining market, if only the market were competitive. Unfortunately, the federal government's antitrust enforcers have stood by as oil companies have merged and merged again. Now the remaining behemoths are powerful enough to block new entrants. According to GAO, the increased market concentration caused by the mergers had led to higher wholesale gasoline prices.

In view of the important concerns you raised, I welcome this opportunity to bring you up to date on the many actions I have taken, both past and present, to address high oil and gas prices as outlined below:

• Continued high gasoline prices have placed the energy issue at the forefront of legislative debate and led to a broad spectrum of proposed new legislation during this 110th Congress. For instance, after much debate, the Energy Independence and Security Act (CLEAN Energy Act; H.R. 6), which was passed by Congress, with my support, and signed into law by President Bush in December 2007 (P.L. 110-140), includes several forward-looking policies that I played a key role in advancing and which promise to enhance economic and national security and help end America's crippling oil dependence. These include substantially reducing our reliance on a global oil market that is dominated by volatile, and even hostile, foreign governments; an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for automobiles and light trucks; and an increase in the requirement for the use of renewable fuel sources that have lower net greenhouse gas emissions, such as the use and development of cellulosic biofuels, electric vehicles, hybrid or plug-in electric cars, fuel cell powered cars, and advanced diesel, starting in 2016. 
• On October 18, 2007, Senator John Warner (R-VA) and I introduced the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191), a new, bipartisan, economy-wide, cap-and-trade bill which contains a number of provisions also aimed at reducing dependence on foreign oil. In addition to addressing the problem of climate change, the bill also works to bring other, domestically produced fuels and technologies that do not use gasoline at all into the market to compete with gasoline and drive prices down.
• We must reintroduce competition and crack down on exploitative pricing throughout the oil industry. To that end, Congress should pass legislation along the lines of Senator Maria Cantwell's (D-WA) Clean Energy Development for a Growing Economy (Clean EDGE) Act, which I proudly cosponsored during the 109th Congress, in order to go after the oil industry's anti-competitive practices. Provisions in the Clean EDGE Act would give the Federal Trade Commission new authority to prohibit anti-consumer practices in the oil industry; direct GAO to investigate the federal government's response to consolidation in the oil industry; prohibit oil companies from withholding sales or diverting supplies with the intent of inflating prices; and outlaw excessive increases in the prices of petroleum products.

• This Congress, I supported additional legislative efforts to increase oversight of energy markets by signing on as an original cosponsor of the Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act (S. 577), bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to increase transparency and accountability for the electronic over-the-counter trading of energy commodities, such as oil, natural gas, coal, and electricity. Furthermore, I am a cosponsor of the Oil Industry Merger Antitrust Enforcement Act (S. 878), sponsored by Senators Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), to help restore competitive conditions to the oil refining industry. I also have sponsored past legislation that would impose a 50-percent tax on windfall profits from oil produced by integrated oil companies. The revenue generated by the tax would help low- and middle-income consumers who just came through a winter of soaring home heating costs and are now facing a summer of record-high gasoline prices. 
• Moreover, I supported legislation, along with several of my Senate colleagues, that would immediately reduce upward pressure on the price of gasoline by suspending purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2598), introduced by Senator Bryon Dorgan (D-ND),  authorizes a one-year suspension from filling the SPR through royalty-in-kind transfers, direct purchase, or any other acquisition measure. At a time of historic high oil prices, a time-out from government oil purchase will ease pressures on the market and offer reduced prices to consumers.  This legislation provides the necessary signal to the market by not diverting oil to fill the SPR. Now is not the time to divert oil from the market when we are experiencing record oil prices, rising consumer energy costs and other economic burdens, an economic downturn, and a tightening of global oil supplies. 
• Most recently, on April 17, 2008, I cosponsored legislation (S. 2890), introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), to provide for a highway fuel tax holiday.  I am also supporting an amendment offered by Senators McCain and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) for a gas tax holiday that would waive the federal gasoline tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. 
• Ultimately, the only permanent solution to high fuel prices and to free ourselves from recurring fuel price spikes at the whim of volatile and even hostile oil-producing nations is to end our oil addiction. That means sharply decreasing the amount of oil that our vehicles use. The United States simply cannot drill its way out of this bind; and any amount of oil produced from new wells in the United States would just be a trickle in the global oil market. Thus, any domestic drilling would not have any appreciable effect on the price Americans pay on that market. To this end, I, along with Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Norm Coleman (R-MN), and others, introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at breaking America's dependence on oil. Through a variety of steps, our Dependence Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy (DRIVE Act; S. 339) would reduce U.S. oil use by seven million barrels per day in 20 years - more than twice what we import from the Middle East today.  To implement these savings, the DRIVE Act would set rising targets for manufacturers to produce flexible fuel, alternative fuel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles; institute loan guarantees, grants, and tax credits to promote sales of those vehicles; mandate the development of fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles; eliminate the current tax break for purchases of heavy sport utility vehicles (SUVs); require the federal government to improve the fuel efficiency of its vehicle fleets; institute a program for increasing the use of fuel-saving tires; and institute a series of other critical measures for increasing domestic production of ethanol fuel.

For more information on S. 339 and other energy security efforts I have authored and championed, please click on this link on my web site outlining my work on energy independence at: http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/energyindependence.cfm.  To keep track of future actions on S. 339 and the other legislation referenced in this letter, you can go to the "Bill Tracking" service at http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/resources.

Please be assured that I am committed to seeing these strong, common-sense measures passed into law during this 110th Congress. Also, to find what gasoline stations are charging in your area, please go to my home page at http://lieberman.senate.gov and click on the "Rising Gas Prices" link under "Connecticut Corner" on the left-hand side of the page.

Thank you again for sharing your views, concerns, and suggestions with me. I hope you will continue to visit my web site at http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.

By a 49 - 41 percent margin, American voters say eliminating the federal gas tax for the summer is a bad idea... Republicans split 45 - 46 percent on the gas tax 'holiday,' while Democrats say 49 - 42 percent it's a bad idea and independent voter turn thumbs down 56 -38 percent.

The proposed gas tax cut is a loser in red states, 48 - 42 percent, blue states, 49 - 43 percent and purple - or swing - states, 51 - 39 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh- pe-ack) University poll finds.

"Rising gas prices are more than just an abstract worry. Americans say they've cut back on their household spending and on how much they drive," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"But the political quick fix - a gasoline tax holiday for the summer - has more opposition than support. Imagine that: American voters opposed to a tax cut."

Sounds encouraging, except that those polled apparently don't see their own consumption as part of the problem: 

"Who's to blame? Oil companies and President Bush get more blame even than the oil producing countries. And almost nobody is blaming gas guzzlers," Carroll said.

On that point, the Q-polled public and its Congress agree.

Desperate to look as if they're responding to motorists complaints and prayers, state and federal electeds continue to scramble for a quick fix to ever-rising gas prices.

In Albany, Senate Republicans have adopted the state gas tax "holiday" as their issue of the moment. Since the largely-ridiculed measure is going nowhere in the Assembly, Joe Bruno and colleagues can circulate petitions and distribute mailers like the one above with impunity, scoring cheap political points while accomplishing nothing.

But the diddling in Albany seems innocuous when compared to doings in D.C. Yesterday, with George W. Bush enroute to the Middle East, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to divert oil supplies from the national reserve, even as many lawmakers acknowledged that doing so would at best result in a small, short-term drop in prices at the pump.

Democrats basically portrayed the vote as a stall tactic offered in lieu of an actual energy policy. Here's a preview from New York's senior senator, as quoted in the Times:

A group of Democratic senators ... sought to put pressure on Saudi Arabia, where Mr. Bush will be visiting this week, as they called on the Saudis to increase their oil production or face the possibility of Congress blocking a pending arms deal.

"We are saying to the Saudis that if you don't help us, why should we be helping you?" said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. "We are saying that the relationship has to be a two-way street. We are saying that we need real relief and we need it quickly."

Image via Albany Times Union

Senator Liz Krueger, a Democrat from Manhattan, immediately issued a statement condemning the measure:

S.7594-B, introduced by Senator Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island), would exempt gasoline and diesel from the State's excise tax, Sales Tax, and Petroleum Business Tax, from May 23, 2008 to September 2, 2008.  These taxes are currently used to provide funds for highways, roads, bridges, and mass transit.  By suspending the taxes the Senate Republicans will create an estimated $600 million budget gap for these necessary services.

"This bill is obviously meant to prey on the desperate need for relief of New York's suffering drivers," said Senator Liz Krueger.  "In reality this bill will only worsen the economic crisis in New York, and at best result in little to none of the intended aid.  Increased demand will lead to higher prices and negate any positive effect the gas tax holiday was meant to have."

So far so good, but then Krueger serves up a cocktail of alternative policies meant to ease the burden on drivers. Even in relatively rail-rich New York, transit doesn't enter the picture.

Among the ideas she floats, which were all proposed by Senate Democrats and rejected by Republicans:

Initiating a middle income gas and diesel fuel tax rebate program, which will give a $100 tax rebate to all New Yorkers, who earn $75,000 or less, that live in and have a vehicle registered in New York.

Instituting criminal penalties for price gouging and increasing fines of offenders to $25,000. 

But if the goal is to lower people's transportation costs, why reward only car owners? How about packaging that relief in the form of incentives to take transit instead of driving? And why promote the idea that gas prices will go down if only those "price gougers" along the supply chain would stop taking advantage of innocent consumers?

While Krueger does mention conservation and reducing the gas consumption of the state's vehicle fleet, encouraging non-government workers to drive less is noticeably absent from her proposals. As the summer driving season gets underway, will any politician outside the second smallest state in the union have the guts to talk about mode switch?

Clinton advisers also said that the candidates and her team would discuss her political message going forward and whether her signature issue over the last two weeks - a suspension of the federal gas tax this summer - was worth extending to the upcoming primary states of West Virginia and Kentucky.

While some advisers said that the message helped make Mrs. Clinton more popular with working class and financially struggling voters, some analysts said that it angered Democrats in Washington who dislike the gas tax idea, and that it was too small an issue to run on credibly. (Mr. Obama opposes the gas tax relief, calling it a gimmick.)

"In 1976 Ronald Reagan had a big principled argument to continue against Gerald Ford, built around détente and economic policy, and in '80 Kennedy had a big principled argument about health care and economic policy," said Mr. Shrum, who worked on the Kennedy campaign. "What is her big principled argument against Obama? The gas tax holiday?"

Though polls showed Americans didn't see the cut as a solution to high gas prices, Clinton upped the ante heading into Tuesday's primaries by challenging Congress to take an up-or-down vote on the issue. And though some of her advisers may see it as a loser, another Times story from today indicates that the candidate, for the moment at least, might disagree. Speaking to supporters last night in Indiana:

Mrs. Clinton again promoted her plan to lift the federal gasoline tax for the summer and impose a windfall-profits tax on the oil companies.

CONFIDENTIAL/URGENT POLITICAL PROPOSAL

Dear Sir

First we must solicit your confidence in this issue. This is by virtue as being utterly confidential and "top secret".

We are SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON, the wife of the former United States head of state, PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, and also SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, friend and associate of current head of state PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH. We got your contact through business inquiries as we were searching for contacts of a citizen who can help save our and our family's political careers since our country has been frustrating us.

We are top officials of the United States Senate Government who are interested in importation of oil into our country with funds that are presently trapped in the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND dedicated to improving transportation. We wish to send this money to overseas accounts in the MIDDLE EAST but cannot due to restrictions in Congress Transportation Equity Act requiring that this money must be spent to build roads, bridges and high speed trains.

If you accept we will deliver to your a sum of 30 DOLLARS in the summer 2008 in form of a "GAS TAX HOLIDAY". You will then deliver this money to accounts of our friends in Middle East by taking it to your nearby gasoline station where they have information to forward the money. Please supply your bank account, social security number, address and your vote in DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION.

But bear in mind that this transaction requires absolute confidentiality. Do not visit WWW.GASTAXSCAM.COM where there is information about dangers of our proposal and a petition to stop us from this diversion of funds.

PLEASE NOTIFY US URGENTLY OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROPOSAL

Awaiting your rapid response

Yours truly

SENATORS HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN MCCAIN