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.

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.

House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar's (D-MN) plan for a three-month extension of the 2005 federal infrastructure law, appears on track for a vote this afternoon, despite reports that GOP opposition unexpectedly derailed consideration of the bill.

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

Reports emerged this afternoon to suggest that the three-month extension had been pulled from from the House's "suspensions calendar," used to pass non-controversial bills that can obtain a two-thirds majority of the chamber.

"The Republican leadership is, for whatever reason, opposing our bill," Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said in an interview. "I don't understand why -- it's a clean extension, no diff from the 12 extensions we did when we were working on SAFETEA-LU [the existing federal transportation bill] five years ago when Republicans were in charge."

But a GOP source told Streetsblog Capitol Hill that the three-month extension would be taken up on the suspensions calendar later today, generating even more uncertainty over the bill's ultimate fate. Meanwhile, two new wrinkles in the story are emerging this morning.

First, the subscription-only BNA newsletter reports that Oberstar's three-month proposal does not include language preventing the cancellation of $8.7 billion in highway contract authority, which is set to take effect next week unless Congress acts. The road lobby is growing increasingly concerned that it could lose out on the money, which Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) promised to restore during floor debate over her proposed 18-month extension of transportation law.

Second, some doubt is beginning to emerge over whether Boxer's 18-month plan will pass this month. The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin (D-IL), said yesterday that his colleagues are mulling over whether to pass a short-term or long-term extension of the 2005 transport law.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) also told Streetsblog Capitol Hill today that he has "been hearing that there may be just a three-month bill" agreed upon by both chambers of Congress.

With the House also sending the Senate a three-month extension of the law governing federal aviation programs, the upper chamber could decide to bundle the transportation and aviation measures together. Still, a short-term extension is unlikely to sit well with the Obama administration, which continues to seek an 18-month delay.

Streetsblog Capitol Hill has requested comment from Boxer's office on how she plans to proceed following the House's vote today. We'll update you as more becomes available.

House transport committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) (Photo: Bike Portland via Flickr)

The House's decision to press onward with a three-month delay sets up a game of legislative chicken similar to the one that developed in late July, when Oberstar was still standing firm on his vow to produce a new transportation bill before September 30. That impasse ended with the Senate and White House prevailing and the nation's highway trust fund receiving a $7 billion infusion to keep it solvent until the end of this month.

Will this month's version end with the House again bowing to the Obama administration's preference that a new transport bill not be considered until early 2011? Now, as in July, the deck is stacked against the lower chamber of Congress. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business interests are behind Oberstar's three-month plan, but their lobbying in favor of a gas tax increase has not yet succeeded in rousing a reluctant Congress.

Meanwhile, the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, popularly known as the "road lobby," is concerned largely with averting a cancellation of $8.7 billion in federal funds that would automatically occur if the House and Senate do not reach an agreement by next week.

Stay tuned for more information on Oberstar's forthcoming extension plan.

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

"We're at a point where a decision has to be made: it's either to extend for a short time or have the
whole system collapse," Berard added. "Under those circumstances of two bad choices," Oberstar is prepared to back a short-term extension rather than letting the 2005 federal transport bill expire at the end of the month.

A three-month delay, endorsed last week by Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) would punt decision-making on transportation reform until just after New Year's. Even then, revenue-raisers on the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee are still likely to face considerable obstacles in paying for Oberstar's six-year, $500 billion legislation.

Berard acknowledged that the extension would have to be negotiated with House leaders as well as the White House and the Senate, both of which have already come out in favor of an 18-month delay. "We may, as early as next week, introduce a bill and start the process," he said.

That bill would be a "clean" extension," in Capitol parlance -- omitting data collection money and other small-scale reforms that the Obama administration has proposed.

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

Unfortunately, the administration and some in the Senate have suggested an 18-month extension of the existing surface transportation programs. This approach does little more than delay the critical reforms and difficult choices that must be made now.

Under this approach, come March 31, 2011, we would find ourselves faced with the same decisions, the same outdated and inefficient programs and even more costly investment needs in all modes of our transportation system. Moreover, given that the new deadline would come at the outset of a new Congress, additional extensions are inevitable.

Worst of all, failure to pass a long-term surface transportation authorization on time would bring significant uncertainty to states and MPOs that must plan critical projects years in advance. They require long-term funding assurances and stability from their federal partners to proceed in this process.

Oberstar's commentary is strongly worded, but it stops short of vowing to stand in the way of a shorter-term delay in taking up a new federal transportation bill -- an outcome that appears all but certain given the nine legislative days remaining until current law expires on September 30.

"Delay for the sake of delay is unacceptable," Oberstar concludes in the op-ed. That framing opens the door, if slightly, to a compromise on a delay that would give Congress' revenue-raising committees (Senate Finance and House Ways and Means) more time to devise a stable funding source for the bill.

Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR), Oberstar's chief subcommittee chairman, told The Hill on Friday that he hoped to see a three-month extension, which would put off work on a new bill until just after New Year's. Others in the capital believe a 12-month extension, as proposed by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), would have a stronger chance of success.

But DeFazio reiterated that Oberstar has yet to weigh in with his preferred timeframe. In the meantime, the chairman is getting backup from a broad array of transportation interest groups that operate under the aegis of the Freight Stakeholders Coalition.

The coalition held a press conference this morning to reiterate its support for passage of a new long-term infrastructure bill this year. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) was absent from the lineup, but representatives of the highway, rail, trucking, and port lobbies were in attendance, as was the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

FTA's Peter Rogoff (in hard hat) heard strong words from Rep. Oberstar today. (Photo: WP)

"They need to ... catch up with the House" on transportation policy-making, Oberstar said of Porcari and Rogoff, who were sitting within spitting distance of the chairman.

"If you don't pass our bill, you're not going to get a head start on these strategies" for reducing the carbon footprint of the transportation sector, Oberstar told the White House aides.

He added: "The president gets it -- the crowd around him doesn't."

The White House continues to press for an 18-month postponement of the next long-term transportation bill, which Oberstar asserts could drag reform past the two-year mark and continue an inequitable system that favors new highway construction over transit. 

"When highway planners sit down to build a roadway," Oberstar said today, "they don't go through the gymnastics of a cost-effectiveness index," as transit planners are currently required to do. "They sit down, get the money, and build a road."

Expanding transit, the House chairman concluded, is difficult "if you've got a millstone around your neck."

Yet the House bill has a millstone of its own obstructing movement: the lack of revenue to fund a doubling in new transit investment and other Oberstar priorities. As Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) acknowledged this morning, hiking the federal gas tax -- which has remained at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993 -- will not be feasible until the recession dissipates.

"We are going to raise gas and diesel taxes sometime in the next decade," Blumenauer said, but "not while the economy is in freefall."

A decisive week lies ahead for House transport chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN). (Photo: Capitol Chatter)

Oberstar has claimed a powerful ally in Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who reiterated her support for a six-year transportation bill during her weekly press briefing on Thursday. But Pelosi sought to downplay any hint of a rift with the Senate, which has already acted on the Obama administration's 18-month stopgap plan.

"Oh, eventually we will have a transportation bill," Pelosi said. "It is just a question if we take it in a smaller dose or a bigger dose."

The question is a huge one to both transportation reform advocates, who are hoping for a new bill that boosts transit funding and state-level accountability, and business groups that are counting on long-term legislation to help boost their fiscal health during an economic recession.

And it's a question that may be answered within days. The House is set to leave for its month-long August recess by the weekend, making the fate of the highway trust fund a suddenly high priority.

The Senate plans to remain in Washington until around August 7, but its transportation funding plan is moving forward quickly. On Thursday afternoon, the Banking Committee became the last panel in the upper chamber of Congress to sign off on the White House's 18-month postponement.

Even as that was occurring, however, Banking chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) said he would prefer a six-month extension of the existing transportation law.

As the subscription-only CQ publication first reported, Dodd declared, "I'm not ready to concede we cannot move ahead on a transportation bill early next year." He also vowed to start working on new legislation "if the opportunity presents itself," echoing a statement recently made by Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

So what will the outcome be after this make-or-break week for transportation policy? Many scenarios could play out, but three are most likely:

a) The Senate and White House muscle their way to victory, persuading Pelosi and other House leaders to push through an 18-month extension over the objections of Oberstar and his allies.

b) Oberstar and the House somehow win the day, forcing the Senate's hand by refusing to budge on the $3 billion patch. The fight then moves to September, giving the House chairman little time to solve the tricky problem of generating revenue for a broad new transportation bill.

c) A larger fix for the trust fund passes through both chambers of Congress -- likely in the neighborhood of $7 billion, which the U.S. DOT projects is necessary to keep road projects funded until the end of September.

The fight over long-term transportation would still keep going until after Labor Day, but Oberstar's failure to secure a smaller patch would deny him sorely needed urgency.

Streetsblog Capitol Hill's money is on c), but anything can happen this week. Keep watching closely.

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.

You can download the 775-page legislative text right here, thanks to Transportation for America. Streetsblog Capitol Hill is thumbing through it now to provide highlights later today.

How often does Larry Summers hold a shovel? Photo: World Economic Forum/Flickr

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), the transportation panel's chairman, described a delay in long-term funding as a risk to jobs and growth opportunities that were created by the recent stimulus law.

And Oberstar made no attempt to hide his disdain for the Obama economic advisers who helped trim transit's share of that stimulus plan. Holding up a red shovel for a phalanx of photographers, Oberstar quipped: "There are folks in the economic gang at the White House who never had a shovel in their hands or a callus on their fingers."

His GOP counterpart on the committee, Rep. John Mica (FL), vowed to join Oberstar in amassing House support for a transportation bill that could clear the lower chamber of Congress by the end of September -- though even their allies concede that Senate passage is a long shot.

"I view this as the most critical jobs bill before Congress ... we're going to do it together, one way or another, come hell or high water," Mica said, adding flourish as he advised critics not to "underestimate Oberstar and Mica."

Several advocacy and interest groups are joining the committee's effort to push a six-year transportation bill across the finish line. The Laborers' International Union of North America released a statement that plainly said, "We agree with Chairman Oberstar that the surface transportation bill should not be delayed."

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA), which represents the nation's transit agencies, also lent its voice in support. "Our members need this bill to pass as soon as it possibly can," APTA President William Millar told Streetsblog.

Yet the key for Oberstar and Mica may be how many senators endorse their call for a long-term transportation re-write this year. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood already has admitted that the "reform" he called for as part of his 18-month extension would have a slim chance of passing, given the contentious debate that's likely to erupt simply over averting bankruptcy for the nation's highway trust fund.

"I believe we can have discussions," LaHood told Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), chairwoman of the panel with jurisdiction over DOT spending, earlier this morning. "Whether we get to the point where we can include these as part of the fix of the the Highway Trust Fund, we'll have to see."

Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR), chairman of Oberstar's subcommittee on highways and transit, told Streetsblog that he hopes senators will "have second thoughts" about the administration's 18-month extension. "When we met with the Senate, we agreed to their principles. We told them we'd give them a product," he said.

Before the assembled media, DeFazio was cutting in his criticism of the White House's transportation strategy. "The Obama administration has lifted a play out of the Bush White House book," he said, predicting that the extensions would last longer than LaHood's proposed 18 months.

"Now the administration of change has come and said, 'We think the status quo is just fine' ... it's at least two years, more likely three or four," DeFazio said.

The House Ways and Means Committee will have a joint hearing next week on funding sources for Oberstar's bill, and DeFazio's subcommittee plans to hold a markup Wednesday.

What remains to be seen is whether senators will join the push -- and whether advocates will give full-throated support to the House members in their clash with the administration.

When a reporter described as "not much," the new bill's minor shift in the long-standing 80-20 funding distribution between highways and transit, a Democratic committee source conceded the point.

The short answer is, not really. While road programs got a hair less than 80 percent of highway trust fund money under the 2005 transportation bill, they will get about 75 percent of trust fund money under Oberstar's plan, according to an analysis by the subscription-only Transportation Weekly newsletter.

Transit programs, by contrast, got 18.3 percent of total funding under the 2005 bill and would receive 22.2 percent under Oberstar's proposal, Transportation Weekly found.

But the long answer is that this marginal improvement amounts to real progress. Among Oberstar's four consolidated categories of highway funding, only one focuses on building new capacity -- and that pot of money also gives states the flexibility to spend on new transit rather than new roads.

The other three highway funding categories Oberstar proposes would focus on repair of existing roads and bridges, air quality and public health improvement, and safety improvements. In addition, the House chairman also would create a dedicated program for metropolitan areas' concerns and reform the New Starts program to ensure a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of new transit proposals.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers and advocates are constantly confronting the tension between what's ideal and what's realistically possible. The question for some transit boosters may be whether to support Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's push for an 18-month extension of existing law, welcoming the chance for more time to promote their priorities, or whether to align with Oberstar's plan and try to challenge the administration.

House Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) has a brewing battle with the administration on his hands. Photo: Jonathan Maus

But Oberstar's early outline of the bill, which could get a vote in the committee as soon as next week, is already available. And it suggests that the Minnesota Democrat and Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) have made good on their promises for a sweeping re-organization of the often debilitating federal transportation bureaucracy. Here are the highlights:

• The $450 billion price tag, which represents a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005, includes $87 billion in highway trust fund money for transit and $12 billion in transit cash from the Treasury's general fund. The 2005 bill gave transit less than $44 billion in highway trust fund money and $9 billion from the general fund.

• Oberstar isn't about to quietly accept Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's admonition that the 18-month extension is necessary to "face reality." In fact, the committee's outline of its bill warns that an extension could be devastating to state DOTs that have "been unwilling to invest in large, long-term projects until enactment of the reauthorization act."

• Highway funding would be consolidated into four funding categories, as would transit -- effectively eliminating 75 funding categories from the current system.
  

• Oberstar's bill would establish the National Infrastructure Bank proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and other senior lawmakers, making the bank part of a broader metropolitan access program that would support urban areas in achieving "improved transit operations, congestion pricing, and expanded highway and transit capacity."

And that's not all. More details of the forthcoming House bill follow after the jump.

Oberstar also appears poised to support "complete streets" principles in his bill, although his outline uses the phrase "comprehensive street design principles." The forthcoming House bill would also ask the Environmental Protection Agency to set national emissions reductions targets for the transportation sector, thus requiring state and local official to keep climate change in mind when planning future projects.

Oberstar's outline also attaches a number to the transportation funding gap that would result if existing law were relied on. Extending the 2005 federal bill for the next six years would result in $326 billion in funding, according to the House transportation committee -- about $125 billion less than the new bill Oberstar wants.

Of course, the missing piece is how to pay for that increased infrastructure investment. The revenue puzzle falls under the jurisdiction of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, however, meaning that Oberstar's will to fight LaHood on an extension may come down to how many allies the transportation chairman can find outside of his own committee.

Stay tuned.

Photo: AP

LaHood's request comes at an awkward time for Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee. Oberstar had planned to release an outline of his priorities for a new transportation bill tomorrow and vowed to oppose any short-term extensions of the Bush-era legislation -- exactly what LaHood is now seeking.

LaHood urged Congress to couple its extension with "critical reforms" to existing federal transportation policy that streamline cost-benefit analyses and help to promote more livable communities. But it's far from clear that such changes could pass Congress by the end of next month, when lawmakers are slated to leave Washington and must come to a decision on shoring up the highway trust fund.

In addition, LaHood's call to effectively postpone debate on long-term transportation policy reform may not sit well with the small but vocal group of lawmakers who would prefer to start a broader discussion this year.

Extending the existing law also puts off a discussion over whether to keep relying on the gas tax to fund transportation improvements or move to a new revenue source -- a politically volatile issue for the Obama team, but one that lawmakers from both parties increasingly say is necessary.

Oberstar plans to stick to his schedule for moving forward on a new transportation bill, his spokesman told Streetsblog. During an invitation-only briefing with reporters earlier today, he called extending the existing law "unacceptable."

LaHood's full statement follows the jump.

This morning, I went to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress on the situation with the Highway Trust Fund. I am proposing an immediate 18-month highway reauthorization that will replenish the Highway Trust Fund. If this step is not taken the trust fund will run out of money as soon as late August and states will be in danger of losing the vital transportation funding they need and expect. 

As part of this, I am proposing that we enact critical reforms to help us make better investment decisions with cost-benefit analysis, focus on more investments in metropolitan areas and promote the concept of livability to more closely link home and work. The Administration opposes a gas tax increase during this challenging, recessionary period, which has hit consumers and businesses hard across our country. 

I recognize that there will be concerns raised about this approach. However, with the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused approach, we should not rush legislation. We should work together on a full reauthorization that best meets the demands of the country. The first step is making sure that the Highway Trust Fund is solvent. The next step is addressing our transportation priorities over the long term.

Update: In an interview with Bloomberg, LaHood describes his decision as one to "face reality" instead of "stringing Congress along with three-month or six-month extensions."

It's important to note that the paper will serve as an outline -- legislative language is expected to emerge later. (Streetsblog Capitol Hill's bet is still on the final days before the July Fourth recess.)

Here's how Oberstar's office put it in an official release:

The authorization bill is currently being drafted and will replace the current authorization, SAFETEA-LU, which is due to expire on September 30. Oberstar has promised that the new authorization will transform the way the federal government invests highway, safety, and transit funds.

House transportation chief Jim Oberstar (D-MN) is pushing for a full vote on his bill before September 30. Photo: StreetsWiki

The uncertainty over Oberstar's time frame is making for quite the guessing game among transportation advocates, lawmakers and journalists. The latest bit of insider chatter, mentioned by van-pool lobbyist Chris Simmons on Twitter, has Oberstar releasing a "white paper" -- or briefing paper, in D.C. parlance -- on his plans later this month before the complete federal bill emerges sometime in July.

Simmons has even suggested a betting line on when the House bill would finally see the light of day.

Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard confirmed to Streetsblog that the chairman's current goal remains to release his bill by the final week of June, although the constantly shifting congressional schedule ensures that nothing is set in stone.

Perhaps the most crucial question, then, is whether the timing of Oberstar's bill will have any effect on the Senate's willingness to take up the critical issue of transportation before the 2005 federal bill expires on September 30.

At yesterday's Bipartisan Policy Center transportation forum, few if any of the lawmakers and policy experts on hand believed the Senate could take up and pass its federal bill by the October deadline. Former GOP Sen. Slade Gorton (WA) quipped that "to believe the entire Congress is going to finish this transportation bill by September 30 .. is truly a triumph of hope over experience," while current Democratic Sen. Mark Warner (VA) was equally skeptical about his chamber's chances.

Warner, who sits on both committees with major jurisdiction over the Senate's transportation bill -- Banking and Environment and Public Works -- said only that the latter panel is "very, very focused on climate change first ... I'm not sure I can give you an exact time."

The slowdown of progress on the federal reauthorization bill could be a blessing in disguise for transit and environmental advocates who want to see a wholesale re-examination of the irrational structure that has long governed Washington transportation policy.

But it also underscores the need to find a sustainable new revenue source for transportation funding, one that can stave off the looming bankruptcy of the highway trust fund while guaranteeing that money will be available to pursue much-needed reforms on the federal level.

Are any readers prepared to take Simmons' challenge and place a bet on the House bill's release date? I'll put the over-under at June 30...

Rep. Jim Oberstar at the 2007 National Bike Summit. Photo by Bike Portland via Flickr.

Oberstar has recently been circulating a “two-page handwritten outline” around the Hill, according to the BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, which obtained a copy of the document. They report the following tidbits:

> The outline calls for “transit equity.” Right now the feds pay 80 percent of highway projects and 50 percent of transit projects. That would change.

> It would create DOT agencies focused on a “national strategic plan” and on “mega-projects.”

> “DOT’s 108 programs [will be consolidated] into four “major formula programs”: critical asset preservation, highway safety improvement, surface transportation program, and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement.”

> The document seems to call for more transparency with transportation data.

Leaves you wanting more, doesn't it?

Photo: Jonathan Maus

At the outset of his remarks, he said, “I want all of you to know you have a full partner at the US DOT in working toward livable communities”. A key theme of LaHood’s remarks was that he and President Obama will work hard help make communities nicer places to walk and bike. LaHood said that he and Obama, “Will work toward an America where bikes are recognized to coexist with other modes and to safely share our roads and bridges.”

One bright spot that did not go unnoticed by the crowd is that LaHood said he and other transportation officials plan to study European models of bike and walk-friendly facilities this spring (something Portland, New York City, and others have already been doing).

We'll see how LaHood's words translate into policy, but it sure beats some of the rhetoric we heard from prior DOT Sec Mary Peters.

In another encouraging development, Maus reports that representative James Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is meeting with prominent bike lawyers to discuss national traffic justice legislation.

Oberstar's office says the cuts were the product of the House speaker's office, the Senate majority leader, and the Obama transition team. "How those decisions were made, I don't know," Jim Berard, communications director for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told Grist. "It's disappointing that our recommendation was not accepted on the whole, but at the same time we got a good deal for transportation infrastructure and we want to keep the momentum going for this bill."

Opinion varies on what constitutes "a good deal for transportation infrastructure" at this moment in our nation's history. (Grist notes that there is some $50 billion in "shovel-ready" transit projects currently in the queue.) But why would a self-professed pro-urban, pro-transit, anti-oil dependence admin pull the plug on the progressive portion of this transportation spending proposal? Why would a speaker who represents downtown San Francisco go along with it?

There is speculation that Obama economic adviser Larry Summers opposed the Oberstar plan, while others think the new admin wants to reevaluate spending formulas in this year's TEA authorization, allowing an increase in transit funding that could be invested in a more deliberate, effective way -- and over a sustained period of time.

Of course, the same care could also be taken before throwing $30 billion at nebulous highway projects. 

Earl Blumenauer. Photo: New York Times

With an eye on the potential stimulus package, cycling advocates "have compiled a list of $2 billion of projects that can be under construction in 90 days," Mr. Oberstar said, adding that prospects are "bright."

We're putting calls in to congressional offices to find out more about how this potential funding would get distributed and what needs to happen to include it in the recovery package. The list Oberstar mentions may refer to the $3.4 billion in ready-to-go bike and pedestrian projects identified by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (click through for their petition).

Meanwhile, the House Republican leadership is making its transportation priorities clear. Here's Minority Leader John Boehner, quoted in the Hill:

"I think there's a place for infrastructure, but what kind of infrastructure? Infrastructure to widen highways, to ease congestion for American families? Is it to build some buildings that are necessary?" He stated. "But if we're talking about beautification projects, or we're talking about bike paths, Americans are not going to look very kindly on this."

Isn't this the same GOP that wants to re-establish its fiscally responsible bona fides? That will be a tall order as long as it's still the party of Patrick McHenry -- mocking a cost-effective transportation solution that will help Americans save money, while supporting exorbitant highway expansions that commit us to more spending on gas and huge maintenance obligations down the road.