Robert Puentes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program. Photo: Brookings

The goal is simple: Every week, a different person will weigh in on the same four queries about the future of the nation's built environment. The questions will remain the same, in order to provoke a thoughtful exchange of views on the biggest challenges facing transportation policymakers -- but the range of participants will be limitless.

Our guest for the inaugural Four Questions is Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program (MPP) and a prolific analyst of growth and development issues. (Check out more from the MPP at its blog, The Avenue.)

Any suggestions for future participants in The Four Questions? Let us know in the comments.

1. Transportation planning -- the evaluation and construction of transit, road, and bridge projects -- is often considered primarily a state and local issue. What specific type of role should the federal government should have in the mix?

We've actually proposed a three-pronged strategy for our national transportation program.

First, the federal government should lead in those areas where there are clear demands for national uniformity, or else to match the scale and geographic reach of certain problems. We must define, design, and embrace a new, unified vision for transportation policy. Its focus should be on infrastructure investments that support the competitiveness and environmental sustainability of the nation rather than on funding individual states or spending on singular needs.

The federal government should create a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) able to select and finance large, multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional infrastructure projects on a merit basis. The NIB would be the window through which states, groups of states, and metropolitan areas would request financing or grants for a range of infrastructure projects -- from road and rails to ports and pipes. The federal government would provide initial capital that NIB would use to issue bonds. The Treasury would pay the interest on the bonds and it would act as a lender of last resort for the principal of the NIB loans. The proceeds from the bonds would be used to finance major projects proposed by public entities (states, municipalities, agencies).

Yet while there are clearly areas of physical infrastructure development where the federal government needs to lead, Washington also needs to put itself squarely in the service of state, local, and business leaders whose knack for solving problems has always driven this country forward.

2. As the gas tax loses some of its value in an era of more fuel-efficient vehicles, should it be increased or abandoned in favor of a new system of transportation financing? Or should both options be in play?

Just as transportation is not an end in and of itself, neither is increasing funding the primary solution to the nation's transportation problems. However, because of the short term conundrum of the federal government obligating more federal money for transportation than it has to spend and the disdain for the annual rescissions, many are calling for the next Congress and the new President to increase the federal gas tax. This puts the cart before the horse.

Simply put: we should not continue to pour more money into a dysfunctional system before serious attempts at significant policy reform. In other words, the federal transportation program is not just broke; it is broken. The funding debate needs to shift from spending more and more taxpayer dollars on the same product to where, what, and how to spend that money better. So in addition to just focusing on increasing revenues for the existing program the nation deserves a real conversation about curbing the demand for transportation spending. It is impossible to start with a funding solution or what the optimal level of investment should be when there is no agreement about what the federal role should be, what problems we are trying to solve, or what questions we are trying to answer.

[Former deputy Transportation Secretary] Mort Downey has pointed out that no major federal transportation reform has ever occurred without a major increase in revenues. This should be another one of those times.

We need a clear articulation of the goals and objectives of the federal program, and the desired outcomes. The program should then be structured to get to those outcomes. At that time, all options toward reinvigorating transportation funding should be on the table to meet the transportation challenges of the future while also ensuring financial revenues will be available.

3. The lion's share of federal transportation funding is sent through state DOTs that then pass aid on to major cities. Do you think this approach allows urban, suburban, and rural needs to be fully met?

The intent established in the ISTEA legislation of 1991 to elevate the importance of metropolitan decision-making to better align with the geography of regional economies, commuting patterns, and social reality has largely been subverted. Federal transportation policy has only haltingly recognized metros' centrality to transportation outcomes, and continues to assign states the primary role in transportation planning and programming.

Left to their own devices, most states have not embraced the intent of federal law and have not devolved sufficient powers and responsibilities to their metropolitan areas. They remain the principal decision-makers on transportation projects, including those within metropolitan areas. Many state DOTs still wield considerable formal and informal power and retain authority over substantial state transportation funds.

One positive step to enhance metropolitan decision making was the sub-allocation of funds directly to the regional and local government structures initiated by ISTEA. This helped strengthen metropolitan areas by changing the decision-making body for a portion of the overall funding, giving local officials the ability to spend federal transportation funds based on the unique needs of their region. However, the reality is that these funds still make up only a very small share of the overall funding pie. Taken together, federal law only gives metropolitan areas direct control over a small share of road and bridge funding under SAFETEA-LU. This misalignment has led to a dramatic shift in the way funds are raised in major metropolitan areas as these places are increasingly turning to voter-approved “local option taxes” to pay for certain metropolitan-scale projects.

Funding analyses in several states show how these biases harm metropolitan areas. These areas contribute significantly more in tax receipts than they receive in allocations from their state’s highway fund or through direct local transfers. In other words, although the donor/donee debate is alive and well on the national level between states, that same rationale -- logical or otherwise -- does not appear to have had anywhere near the same impact on spatial funding allocation within states.

4. Transportation contributes 30 percent of America's total CO2 emissions. Do you think a national cap-and-trade system should proportionally address this problem? If not, how should it be addressed?

To improve the environment, several states as well as the federal government have already articulated a desire to reduce transportation-related mobile source emissions in order to confirm with the transportation provisions of the Clean Air Act. We should go further and in addition to a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions a reduced dependence on foreign oil is also critical (which is a clear benefit to the national economy). To that end, the federal program should support all three legs of the stool—vehicle efficiency, fuels standards and alternatives, as well as demand reduction strategies promoting efficient development patterns, telecommuting, and increasing travel options for people and goods. Related to the above question, a carbon tax is a good idea as an environmentally-motivated tax that could potentially generate revenues for a range of transportation choices such as transit.

Senate environment chairman Barbara Boxer. Photo: Politics Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Jim Oberstar. Photo: Capitol Chatter

As the subscription-only CQ reported today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: USGS.gov

And while the $8.7 billion cancellation is mostly imperiling road work, at least one state is cutting money for "enhancements," the catch-all term for bike paths, greenways, and other clean transport projects: 

Even though Congress has passed a one-month extension of the federal highway bill, Tennessee will still lose $190 million it had not yet contracted out. State transportation officials say $30 million will come out of money for enhancement grants.

Enhancement grants have been made for cities to restore old train stations and build bike lanes or sidewalks. They are typically unconventional transportation projects, and TDOT spokeswoman Julie Oakes says competition is stiff.

It's unclear how many states are following Tennessee's lead, but we've got feelers out to various state DOTs and will update this post as more information becomes available. If any readers know of clean transportation projects that have been put at risk by the $8.7 bilion cancellation, please tell us more in the comments section.

Even states that are slicing only highway projects, however, are grappling with the fiscal uncertainty caused by the cancellation. Colorado's two Democratic senators noted last week that their state's scheduled loss of $115 million amounts to one-quarter of the total transportation aid they received under the economic stimulus law.

Congress still has the power to replenish the cancelled spending authority, whether this month or next. But given  House budget rules that require most new funds to be offset, and conservative senators' insistence on using stimulus money for that offset, an agreement may be hard to come by this week.

Late Update: Here's another example of the $8.7 billion cancellation affecting more than just roads. The Nevada DOT says it's having to cut $8 million from transportation enhancements, as well as $4 million in funding for federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) projects and $4 million from the Safe Routes to School program.

The state typically uses CMAQ money on new transit buses for Las Vegas and Reno, as well as ride-share programs to reduce transportation demand and "channelization" work that aim to manage traffic more efficiently, according to Kent Cooper, the Nevada DOT's assistant director of engineering.

"It's a very difficult economic time, and there's a huge impact to the state of Nevada in terms of being able to get contracts out,"Cooper said in an interview . "We got the stimulus money about five or six months ago. This seems to be reversing the impact of providing that stimulus money."

Late Late Update: The North Carolina DOT says the $8.7 billion cancellation is also forcing it to cut money from clean transport -- $25.9 million in transportation enhancements, $55 million in CMAQ aid, and $700,384 from Safe Routes to School, to be specific.

Flanked by fellow Democrats, members of the military, and a crowd hoisting signs with buzzwords like "clean energy" and "green jobs," Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) today released the first draft of their legislation to curb U.S. emissions and combat climate change.

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), center, and John Kerry (D-MA), left, at a 2008 rally. Photo: NWF/Flickr

But environmental groups are already lamenting that scientific consensus has urged a 40 percent pollution reduction below 1990 emissions levels in order to effectively forestall the negative effects of climate change, making the Boxer-Kerry bill "woefully inadequate," in the words of Center for Biological Diversity executive director Kieran Suckling.

And the Senate bill's transportation provisions, as Streetsblog Capitol Hill reported yesterday, offer only a marginal improvement over the House version, which gave transit and other clean transport just 1 percent of the proceeds from any cap-and-trade carbon regulation system.

The Senate bill's section on allocations -- the amount of aid provided to state governments and various industries to help meet emissions-reduction goals -- is subject to change as the environment committee, which Boxer chairs, and other panels attempt to amend the legislation.

As it stands, however, the Senate would require states to use 10 percent of their allocations to reduce transportation-based emissions. The House climate bill, by contrast, allowed states to use up to 10 percent of allocations on transportation but did not make it mandatory.

Boxer and Kerry's draft also includes a "set-aside," in Washington parlance, for transit grants to help states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) meet national standards for cutting transport-based emissions.

Those transit grants, distributed according to existing federal formulas, would be funded by auctioning a still-undetermined amount of emissions allocations and depositing the proceeds in state Climate Change Response and Transportation Funds (CCRTFs). After 10 percent of CCRTF funds went to coastal states, to help cope with the risk of climate-induced floods, and 1 percent went to Indian tribes, 50 percent of the rest would go toward transit.

Electric vehicles, including electrified transit, fares better under the Senate bill. The Department of Energy would have full control over a still-undetermined share of allocation auction proceeds, with the dual mission of establishing reliable infrastructure to fuel electric vehicles and developing "a national transportation low-emissions energy plan."

Also noted yesterday: The Senate climate draft features a provision that allows states to set higher fuel-efficiency rules for taxicabs than the national standard, which will hit an average of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. The taxis language would allow New York City, represented by environment committee member Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, to press on with plans, derailed in federal court, to transition to an all-hybrid taxi fleet. Rep. Jerrold Nadler has introduced a companion taxi bill in the House.

Meanwhile, transportation reform groups are already strategizing about how to increase the bill's focus on their area -- which currently accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions but stands to receive far less than the 10 percent of total climate revenue that is mandated in the so-called "CLEAN TEA" legislation.

The fate of transit and other clean transport may rest with Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the upper chamber's lead sponsor of "CLEAN TEA." Carper, who was not present at today's Boxer-Kerry press conference, released a statement that notably withheld an endorsement of the current climate bill:

Senators Kerry and Boxer have worked hard to produce the bill they released today and I congratulate them for their efforts so far. It is now time for the Senate committees to get to work examining the bill's provisions and considering any changes necessary. ... I expect there wil be some important changes made as this effort advances and we build consensus around how to address this vitally important global energy and climate challenge.

Few on the Hill expect the Senate to be able to meet its initial goal of voting on a final climate bill before United Nations climate change talks begin in December in Copenhagen. Still, Senate passage next spring remains a distinct possibility -- which makes the Boxer-Kerry bill's relative alignment with the House version one of its biggest political selling points.

As one of the House climate bill's lead sponsors, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), put it: “Given the Senate draft’s structural similarity to the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill, a legislative solution that can pass both chambers of Congress is finally within sight."

The question is, how much of a solution will the final product turn out to be?

There are plenty of platitudes flying around about the obvious need for "awareness" of how dangerous it is to operate a multi-thousand pound projectile while reading or typing, but there are lots of of interesting tidbits too. This morning, for example, a AAA rep declined to say whether his group supports a national texting ban, while a Utah transit official suggested that those who want to text while commuting should consider public transportation.

You can follow the event through tomorrow afternoon via webcast or Secretary Ray LaHood's live-blog feed.

Image: Subsidyscope

But the subsidy debate often overlooks the government tax exemption for workers' parking expenses. And federal parking subsidies are skyrocketing, as Subsidyscope revealed yesterday in its data-packed report on U.S. transport spending: the value of tax-free parking will reach $3 billion this year, compared with $500 million in subsidies for transit use.

The imbalance might be corrected if the government had always treated parking and transit equally when it came to tax benefits. Until Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) added a provision to this year's economic stimulus law that set a monthly maximum of $230 for both transit and parking benefits, workers could write off a maximum of slightly more than $200 in parking, while the maximum tax-free value of transit passes was about $100 less.

Subsidyscope, a joint project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Sunlight Foundation, pored over federal records to produce a searchable database of transportation spending dating back to the year 2000. Their researchers' conclusions found that highways received $30 billion in federal support last year -- more than three times as much as transit, which got $9 billion.

How much of that $30 billion was a subsidy? It's tough to say, according to Subsidyscope, since state DOTs are not required to report the details of how federal road aid is distributed. Still, the overwhelming majority of federal transport programs contain subsidies (see the chart after the jump for more details).

A more classic example of federal subsidy is programs that transfer the risk of new projects onto the federal government. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which offers loans to states and localities at a low interest rate, is the transport sector's major source of credit subsidies from Washington -- and the majority of TIFIA loans go to highway projects.

Image: Subsidyscope

A 10 percent annual increase in U.S. transit ridership would reduce CO2 emissions by 180 million tons each year, taking the nation halfway to the target set by the House climate change bill within three years, according to a report [PDF] released today by Environment America and the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

The report, timed to coincide with the growing debate over transit's role in the final version of the congressional climate bill, includes a wealth of useful and surprising data about how last year's much-discussed rise in transit use translates into reduced driving and environmental benefits.

For example, that 10 percent increase in transit ridership is already happening in five states, all of which also saw a notable drop in vehicle miles traveled last year. And guess which five saw double-digit rises in ridership? Not New York or Massachusetts -- but Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, Delaware, and Maryland.

"A lot of [transit] growth that we're seeing isn't in typical big cities," Environment America transportation advocate Rob McCulloch, a co-author of today's report, said in an interview. "It's in suburbs and smaller communities where people are opting in. We think that's really where the opportunity is."

The report describes a 10 percent increase in transit ridership as a "high but realistic target," but it goes on to make a clear case for setting such a goal:

[I]n 15 years such an approach could reduce transportation oil consumption by 20 billion gallons per year — equivalent to what we currently import from the Persian Gulf. This would also result in an annual reduction of 180 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution — more than four times the current benefit conferred by public transportation.

That annual cut of 180 million tons of CO2 would amount to 3 percent reduction below 2005 emissions levels every year. The climate bill passed by the House in June aims to reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next 11 years, making a national transit-ridership target a key weapon in the arsenal of climate policy-makers.

McCulloch and his co-authors make several policy recommendations to lawmakers now working on transport and energy proposals, but their most powerful message comes in the framing department.

At this month's University of Virginia infrastructure conference, one popular lament was that transportation lacks a national "story," a coherent and catchy appeal to Americans from all walks of life. Bicycle and transit advocates may well disagree, as may state DOT officials who think of more roads as the be-all, end-all of infrastructure policy.

Yet it's easy to see a "story" emerging from today's transit report, one that's focused on flexibility -- for transit agencies to use federal money to keep operating and for officials to use funds on different modes of transport -- as well as a common goal of reducing the nation's expensive, crippling oil dependence. The more that lawmakers and environmental groups use those themes to make transportation a bigger part of the climate debate, the better.

Photo: Pufferfish

The Center's work directly answers a question asked by many attendees at last week's University of Virginia infrastructure conference: How can the public be awakened to the relevance and political importance of transportation as an issue?

Unfortunately for the elite industry players who attended the conference, the answer may be that the public isn't yet aware of just how much waste is built into state and federal transportation spending. From the Center's initial report:

The matter of how and from where the federal money is actually doled out is among the biggest headaches. The majority of federal dollars for these various transportation programs actually get distributed to state and local governments to be spent at their discretion. But that has caused problems.

For one thing, wrote the Government Accountability Office last year, “Rigorous economic analysis does not generally drive the investment decisions of state and local governments.” That was an understatement. Most state transportation agencies surveyed by the GAO in 2004 — 34 out of 43 — called political support and public opinion “very important” when investing federal dollars. Only eight states attributed the same importance to cost-benefit analyses.

With the debate in Congress currently focused not on how to reform the bloated, broken system but how long to delay reform, it's unclear whether the Center's findings can move the needle in the short term.

But that all-but-certain postponement of the next federal transportation bill makes today's report all the more shocking. Anyone who reads it will find no reason to support 12 or 18 more months of federal transportation funding distributed through an unaccountable system of state DOTs.

Data: IBM's CPI

When asked what value they would place on every 15 minutes sliced from their daily commute, 36.5 percent of CPI respondents said between $10 and $20. That's about five times the recent trading price of a ton of carbon emissions on the nation's climate-change exchanges.

And the price of a shorter commute was higher in more congested cities. In Los Angeles, 22 percent of residents said every 15 minutes not spent en route to work would be worth between $31 and $40 -- or more than $100 per hour.

What does the data mean? For one thing, those who fear that voters would revolt if asked to pay more for a more efficient, less congested transport network shouldn't let that stop policy-making. As every successful politician knows (and the president is re-learning on health care), messaging is the key to winning over the public.

In other words, Democrats who feign unwillingness to subject voters to higher gas taxes are ignoring their ability to control the message. When a greater contribution to transportation is pitched as a way to shorten commutes and give workers more free time, the prospect becomes more desirable.

And it's not that lawmakers don't know how to decrease congestion, particularly in the urban areas that were polled to produce the CPI. Reducing the number of car trips and lowering demand during peak travel times are proven to be a cheaper and more effective method of battling congestion than expanding highway capacity.

Is it time to nickname the White House's Sustainable Communities Initiative the "Shorter Commutes Initiative"?

Jane Jacobs (center, in light dress) demonstrates at New York City's old Penn Station. Photo: Metropolis

These efforts are interesting because they manage to earn a degree of sympathy from urbanists themselves, who have grown increasingly tired of the decades required to navigate a transit line from planning stages to operation.

There is something very attractive about an individual who can drive the stakes and get the project built -- damn the politicians, and damn the NIMBYs.

But this is dangerous territory. In rehabilitating Moses and reconsidering Jacobs, it's important to be clear about where each was right, and where each went wrong.

There are many ways to interpret the clash between Moses and Jacobs: development versus preservation, city versus suburb, design for people versus design for automobiles, power versus powerlessness, and so on. To acknowledge that the balance has swung too far in one direction in one of these conflicts does not at all suggest that the balances are similarly out of whack on others.

Take, for example, one of Glaeser's principal intellectual standbys: that resistance to development slows the growth of housing supply, increasing housing costs. Glaeser says:

Jacobs underestimated the value of new construction—of building up.

The Death and Life of Great American Cities argues that at least one hundred homes per acre are necessary to support exciting stores and restaurants, but that two hundred homes per acre is a “danger mark.” After that point of roughly six-story buildings, Jacobs thought that neighborhoods risked sterile standardization. (The one public housing project that Jacobs blessed, at least initially, had only five stories.) But keeping great cities low means that far too few people can enjoy the benefits of city life. Jacobs herself had the strange idea that preventing new construction would keep cities affordable, but a single course in economics would have taught her the fallacy of that view. If booming demand collides against restricted supply, then prices will rise.

The best way to keep cities affordable is to allow private developers to build up and deliver space. Jacobs was right that high-rise public housing is a problem, as street crime is much more prevalent in high-rise, high-poverty neighborhoods. But in more prosperous, privately managed buildings, height is not a problem. If you love cities, as Jacobs certainly did, then presumably you should want the master builders to make them accessible to more people.

In this, Glaeser has a point. The opportunities to live in walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods are extremely limited, and so safe, walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods tend to be quite expensive. When regulations or NIMBYs block new developments, they limit access to this already limited supply, in the process hurting the causes of affordable housing and environmental sustainability.

On the other hand, it's difficult to understand the ferocity of urban anti-development forces without reference to the battles that hardened their views.

In Washington D.C., where I live, urbanists are routinely frustrated by neighborhood groups opposing new infill developments around Metro stations. These individuals are often outraged by the encroachment upon their neighborhoods and reluctant to listen to the arguments in favor of new walkable, transit-oriented developments around what is a very valuable piece of transit infrastructure. This is occasionally maddening.

But these neighborhood groups were often forged in the highway battles of the 1970s, when planners sought to run freeways through Washington neighborhoods to downtown. Where the highway and public housing builders were successful, neighborhoods were irreparably damaged. The stubbornness is a reaction to the insensitivity of earlier cohorts of urban planners. Had Moses and his ilk been less Moses-like, Glaeser would not find himself so frustrated by construction limits today.

It's also worth asking whether Glaeser's ire is best directed at urban neighborhoods, rather than suburban ones. If you love cities, and if you love the things that cities do well, perhaps you should take aim at the heavily regulated, extremely low-rise metropolitan periphery.

Consider this: The Bronx is home to about 1.4 million people who live on 42 square miles -- a remarkably dense area by American standards. Next door in Westchester County, about 950,000 people live on 433 square miles -- dense for America but much less dense than the Bronx.

In 2004, the Bronx permitted the construction of nearly 5,000 new housing units to Westchester's 1,800. The following year, the numbers were again 5,000 for the Bronx, and only 1,300 for Westchester.

Tiny, dense Bronx County seems to be doing a much better job accommodating new housing units, regulations and all. And this is no outlier. Queens packs more people onto less land than neighboring Nassau County, and suffers from New York's burdensome zoning regulations, and yet Queens managed to approve far more housing in recent years than Nassau County.

Glaeser could use some perspective. New York City packs more than 8 million people into 300 square miles, while the New York metropolitan area has 19 million people spread across over 6,000 square miles. If you doubled the density of the metro area outside the city, you'd make room for an additional 11 million people, while still keeping the metro population density below the level of the least dense New York City borough.

In other words, supply restrictions bind most in the suburbs. Were the suburbs developed on the scale Jacobs favored -- think about those five-story buildings -- the New York metro area might easily contain three times the housing units it currently has. That's a lot of downward pressure on prices.

Glaeser also goes astray in confusing the importance of building infrastructure with the importance of building a certain kind of infrastructure. He says:

Jacobs was right that cities are built for people, but they are also built around transportation systems. New York was America’s premier harbor, and the city grew up around the port. The meandering streets of lower Manhattan were laid down in a pedestrian age. Washington Square was urban sprawl in the age of the omnibus. The Upper East Side and Upper West Side were built up in the age of rail, when my great-grandfather would take the long elevated train ride downtown from Washington Heights. It was inevitable that cars would also require urban change. Either older cities would have to adapt, or the population would move entirely to the new car-based cities of the Sunbelt.

When Henry Ford made the car affordable, millions of Americans understandably wanted to drive. After all, the average commute by car in the United States is twenty-four minutes, whereas the average commute by public transit is forty-eight minutes. The automobile certainly created great challenges for every older city that was built at highway-less higher densities. No matter what Jacobs thought, there simply was not a car-less option for New York. For the city to continue growing and changing and leading the world, it needed to be retrofitted for the automobile. And that enormous task was given to Moses. Perhaps he did too much for the car. I am certainly on Jacobs’s side on the Lomex issue, and cannot possibly approve of the destruction of Tremont; but New York’s fall would have been far more precipitous if it had ignored the automobile altogether.

It is hard today to accept the allegation that Moses was responsible for New York’s demise. The troubles that New York experienced in the 1970s were hardly unusual. Except for Los Angeles, every one of the ten largest American cities in 1950 lost at least 10 percent of its population over the next thirty years. New York is exceptional not in its decline but in its resilience, and perhaps Moses deserves some credit for that. New York and Los Angeles are the only two of those ten big mid-century cities that have gained population over the past sixty years.

For a New Yorker, Glaeser has an odd sense of the attractive qualities of his home city. The people aren't there for the highway bridges. New York City in particular -- and Manhattan specifically -- are the least auto-friendly parts of the entire country, Moses or no. And yet, as Glaeser admits, they continue to grow. Maybe Moses saved New York, or maybe he risked its future unnecessarily by threatening to destroy the density that makes it so vibrant.

And meanwhile, we have counterexamples. London opted not to build any motorways through the heart of the city, and yet it has managed to remain one of only a handful of global financial and cultural capitals.

Glaeser fails to entertain the obvious hypothetical: What might have happened to New York if Moses had focused instead on transit and rail construction, rather than accommodation of the automobile?

Robert Moses. Photo: Cup of Cha

The difficult question, then, is not whether to make some accommodations for the automobile but how to do so. And it's not at all clear that Moses' approach was the right one, or indeed, even a very good one.

We have good evidence that Glaeser, and Moses, are wrong. To cite just one example, a 2006 paper by Nathaniel Baum-Snow reads (emphasis mine):

Between 1950 and 1990, the aggregate population of central cities in the United States declined by 17 percent despite population growth of 72 percent in metropolitan areas as a whole. This paper assesses the extent to which the construction of new limited access highways has contributed to central city population decline. Using planned portions of the interstate highway system as a source of exogenous variation, empirical estimates indicate that one new highway passing through a central city reduces its population by about 18 percent. Estimates imply that aggregate central city population would have grown by about 8 percent had the interstate highway system not been built.

What New Yorkers were after wasn't the car, specifically; it was the promise of mobility offered by the car. But the job of city planners is to understand how to improve mobility across the entire city and region.

Given the density of New York, the space occupied by automobiles and parking structures, and the sheer cost of land in the city, construction of expensive, low capacity roadways seems like a poor decision.

Ed Glaeser is right when he says: "Successful cities need both the human interactions of Jane Jacobs and the enabling infrastructure of Robert Moses." But he seems unable to grasp that successful cities need city-oriented infrastructure, which actively facilitates those human interactions.

Most of the people who work in New York don't get there by driving, on Moses' highways or any other streets. They take transit, and many others can bike or walk thanks to the density that transit facilitates.

Moses didn't just get the means wrong, he also messed up the ends. And if present and future master builders don't learn better than he -- and Glaeser -- how infrastructure serves a city, they'll likely end up as loathed as Moses himself.

A poll released today by the engineering firm HNTB suggests that higher gas taxes could continue to face political headwinds from both sides of the aisle, even after the recession begins to ease.

A 10-cent gas tax increase that would be imposed only after two straight quarters of economic growth faced opposition from 64 percent of respondents, and just 16 percent said gas taxes should be raised to pay for "roads and bridges."

But the poll found strikingly strong support for tolling, particularly congestion tolling through HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes. One-third of respondents said HOT lanes should be used for future transportation revenue, with 35 percent supporting the use of public tolling and 20 percent backing private tolls.

As with any poll, wording is everything; the above graphic depicts another poll question that referenced high-speed rail in addition to road investments. When the phrasing was changed, support for gas taxes climbed by 8 percent.

And when respondents were asked about "adding" HOT lanes with higher tolls "during rush hour," 68 percent were willing to support the move. As my colleague Ryan Avent has pointed out, however, new HOT lanes can be added without building more highway capacity by simply converting existing lanes.

If lawmakers are looking for data to jumpstart a discussion of broader toll use -- particularly on the interstates, which would deliver a blow to the road lobby -- today's poll might be a good place to start.

(The source of polls can often be as noteworthy as their phrasing. Given that, one quick note on HNTB: The firm is currently embroiled in a debate over streetcars versus light rail in Kansas City, according to local media reports.)

One of the more intriguing races is shaping up in the 39th Council District, which includes parts of Carroll Gardens, Park Slope, Kensington, and Borough Park. This is the seat being vacated by Bill de Blasio -- who opposed congestion pricing last year and came out in favor of bridge tolls late in the game during the MTA funding debate this spring. The district is heavily transit-dependent, mostly car-free [PDF], and situated in prime New York City "bike belt" territory. This election should put a strong, smart voice for progressive transportation policy in City Hall.

If you live in the 39th and care about green transportation and livable streets, you'll want to come out tomorrow night for the candidate debate Transportation Alternatives has put together. TA director Paul White will moderate the event, featuring the seven council candidates, who will discuss their views on "the bike network, congestion pricing, pedestrian safety, the MTA and livable streets issues of all stripes."

The more people attend, the more the candidates will appreciate that these issues matter to their potential constituents. Here are the details:

• When: Tuesday, August 18, 7:00 - 8:30pm
• Where: PS 321, 180 7th Avenue (between 1st and 2nd Street)
• Who: City Council candidates for District 39 (John Heyer, Brad Lander, Joe Nardiello, David Pechefsky, Gary Reilly, Josh Skaller, Bob Zuckerman)

Robert Bertini. Photo: Oregonian

Bertini's hiring is an uber-wonky personnel move, to be sure. But it also signals the ascent of a reason-based approach to transportation policy, with a focus on increasing efficiency by helping communities shift a greater share of trips onto transit.

In testimony before Congress last year, Bertini outlined the dizzying array of projects his Oregon research consortium, known as OTREC, has embarked upon after its founding in 2005 (with a grant from the federal DOT). Here's just a sampling of what OTREC has studied:

• The socio-economic impacts of imposing a new vehicle miles traveled tax
• The relationship between transportation planning and land use, assuming "a certain set of goals are determined and pursued by politicians and planners," as Bertini put it
• How to shift suburban multi-family housing developments to a broader mix of transport modes
• Using technology to encourage more neighborhood pedestrian activity
• How community safety affects public health for lower-income children

Current spending levels, to say nothing of the increases proposed in the bill, will be impossible to sustain in the absence of a new source of revenue. This is a huge obstacle to passage.

As currently written, STAA would significantly strengthen the Office of Intermodalism and work toward making DOT planning "mode neutral" -- that is, not operating under the assumption that highways will always get first priority in planning and funding.

It would create an Office of Livability, focused entirely on seeking balance in mode choice by boosting transit ridership, bicycling, and walking. The bill seeks to streamline the process by which new transit projects apply for funding, and it allows federal officials to consider likely changes in land-use from transit construction in considering whether a project deserves funding.

STAA aims to empower metropolitan planning organizations. It seeks to depoliticize funding decisions and support private investment in infrastructure by creating national and metropolitan infrastructure development banks. It lays the groundwork for significant new investments in high-speed rail in America (though it cuts the definition of high-speed to 110 miles per hour or higher).

The bill includes a push to support "complete streets" and a national bike route network. It establishes increased transit ridership and reduced carbon emissions as explicit goals. And of course, the bill is targeted to allocate a lot more money than in previous reauthorizations, with a lot more money for transit (though transit's share increases only modestly).

But as Elana noted yesterday, what's missing from the bill is as telling as what's included. The 775-page length may suggest excessive comprehensiveness, but in fact much of the bill is little more than placeholders. "[To be supplied]" is in ample supply, as is "[$]." Ideally, actual numbers would follow immediately after the dollar sign.

These blanks hint at the challenge chairman Oberstar and fellow committee members John Mica (R-FL), Pete DeFazio (D-OR), and John Duncan (R-TN) will have in getting their bill through the legislative process any time soon. Time is scarce; Congress already has some substantial legislative challenges on its hands, and it may have to address the looming shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund before the August recess.

Political capital is also wanting. With most legislative eyes on health care and the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill, there may not be enough chits available to strike the necessary deals on this transportation bill.

This is especially true given the money issue. STAA, as written, simply does not address the fact that current spending levels, to say nothing of the increases proposed in the bill, will be impossible to sustain in the absence of a new source of revenue. This is a huge obstacle to passage, and a major reason for the administration's requested 18-month delay for the bill.

With the economy still in recession, the federal deficit approaching $2 trillion, a $1 trillion or so health bill in the works, and GOP legislators going all out to attack the climate bill under consideration as representing a major new energy tax, this is not a convenient time to be discussing transportation tax increases. If the funding issue cannot be resolved, and there is every indication that neither the administration nor a number of high priority legislators are anxious to solve it, then the reauthorization bill will probably not pass.

All hope for this particular bill is not yet lost, but a number of very difficult questions will have to be answered to turn this blueprint into a bold new transportation law.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (Photo: HillBuzz)

The circumstances behind the trust fund's financial troubles are well-known: a nationwide decline in driving coupled with political resistance to raising the gas tax -- which has remained static since 1993 -- forced the Bush administration to push $8 billion into the federal transportation coffers last summer. But that infusion was not offset by corresponding spending cuts, which LaHood says the Obama team is committed to this time around.

"We believe very strongly that any trust fund fix must be paid for," LaHood told members of the House Appropriations Committee's transportation panel. "We also believe that any trust fund fix must be tied to reform of the current highway program to make it more performance-based and accountable, such as improving safety or improving the livability of our communities -- two priorities for me."

Urbanites and transit riders may be cheered by LaHood's call to tie new highway funding to livability. Yet the administration's quest to offset its trust fund fix, which will cost as much as $7 billion, could prove fruitless.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA), chairman of the panel that greeted LaHood today, put it simply when asked if the necessary spending cuts could be found. "That'd be very tough," he said, noting that his own annual transportation spending is unlikely to become law before the highway trust fund runs out of cash.

Livable streets advocates may wonder why the highway trust fund is relevant to their cause, particularly since the mass transit account of the fund isn't projected to go bust until 2012.

The answer is pragmatic and incremental -- but unfortunately, so is Congress. Replenishing the trust fund with a cost offset, as LaHood suggests, requires a serious conversation about finding new long-term revenue sources for not just highways but all modes of transportation.

If lawmakers take the easy way out by not paying for the trust fund fix, it doesn't bode well for their chances of writing a new federal transportation bill that dedicates more money to streetcars, buses and rail, not to mention more responsible spending on roads.

Already there is a broad acknowledgment in Congress that the six-year federal bill will likely be put off until 2010. Rep. Tom Latham (IA), the senior Republican in charge of transportation spending, even predicted that the federal bill would not pass until 2011; next year is an election year, after all, which never inspires courage in the Capitol.

The ball is now in the court of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over the trust fund and would be tasked with finding spending cuts to offset any upcoming transfer of transportation money. Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) has influence and moxie to rival any of his fellow lawmakers, but he has been silent on transportation funding issues as health care and climate change legislation take center stage for now.

Is this spaghetti bowl turning a profit? Photo: Infrastructurist

The source of his blindness on the issue seems to be due to his belief that roads pay for themselves, and that congestion exists only because governments shift gas tax revenue to pay for transit and other smart growth projects. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In the first place, gas tax revenue comes nowhere near paying for roads. Federal gasoline tax revenues cover barely half of the annual budget of the Federal Highway Administration. Add in diesel tax revenues and you’re still short. And that’s just the federal budget picture.

Taking into account all gas tax revenues and road spending generates an even starker picture. The Texas Department of Transportation recently developed an asset value index, intended to gauge the cost-effectiveness of a road over the whole of its life cycle. They discovered that most roads don’t come close to paying for themselves. In one typical road analysis, it was determined that a real gas tax rate of $2.22 per gallon would be necessary, simply to break even. No stretch of road in the whole of the state covered its costs.

But that’s not all we should consider. On top of the cost of the actual road, drivers impose costs on other motorists, pedestrians, and society as a whole. Carbon emissions from driving impose an annual cost of about $20 billion on society. Costs from congestion total nearly $80 billion per year in lost time and wasted fuel. And the annual cost of automobile crashes (which claim nearly 40,000 lives per year) is around $220 billion. In the absence of driving alternatives, all of those numbers would be higher still.

But of course, O’Toole thinks that the reason we suffer from so much congestion is because we are diverting money to transit rather than building more roads. This is completely incorrect, and a basic failure to grasp economic analysis. Road space is scarce -- that is, not unlimited. It therefore has a positive value, which should be reflected in a market price. If it isn’t -- if prices are fixed at zero (as is the case with most roads) -- then a shortage will result. This is well understood; if the president attempted to fix the price of any other good at a below market rate, libertarians would cry foul and immediately argue that shortages would result. Yet when free roads produce congestion, they conclude that the best solution is to spend taxpayer money on more roads.

O’Toole makes a great show of the fact that transit ridership is low, but the implication of this factoid is not what O’Toole would have you believe. For decades, roads have received massive government subsidies, and drivers have not been forced to pay the true cost of their driving. In the meantime, backdoor subsidies to driving have been rampant. An example -- most communities have rules establishing minimum parking requirements for new construction. Cheap and plentiful parking is a significant subsidy to driving, and such parking requirements make it difficult or impossible to build more compact and walkable streetscapes.

Transit use has lately been on the rise as congestion and fuel costs have exploded. Cities with transit systems have benefited enormously from the availability of a substitute to driving, and those without have suffered from their inelastic dependence on cars in an environment of increasing costs. The simple truth is that government has intervened heavily to create the road network so beloved by libertarians, and the country continues to bear heavy costs as a result. Any clear-eyed examination of costs and benefits will indicate that the time to rebalance investments away from highways and toward transit is long overdue.

• PBS's Blueprint America series will be airing "Road to the Future" tonight at 8pm in New York City. Check your local PBS station for times. Part of a PBS series on the country’s aging and changing infrastructure, the documentary examines the choices we can make as the country invests in its infrastructure, and how they can affect the way we live. Focusing in on three cities, New York, Denver and Portland, it features interviews with a whole host of interesting subjects including NYC DOT commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, Portland Mayor Sam Adams, BikePortland blog maestro Jonathan Maus and Columbia University's Owen Gutfreund, author of "20th Century Sprawl." It should be a good one. Check their web site for a preview.
  
• I've also been told that the 11 pm10 pm local news on Fox channel 5 is going to run a report tonight on a Brooklyn resident named Miguel Padro who was arrested the other day for bicycling on the sidewalk on his way to work at the Prospect Park Tennis Center. I haven't spoken with Padro yet to get the story for myself, but word has it the NYPD held him in jail for 24 hours without a phone call despite the fact that he had no oustanding summonses or any problems with his record. Padro's wife and employer were really shaken up by the arrest and worried that he'd been kidnapped or killed. It sounds like a completely insane story but given the NYPD's increasingly random, senseless crackdowns on bicyclists it is entirely believable. I'm looking forward to seeing the Fox News piece and talking to Padro for myself before getting too worked up about this.