We also asked him for his thoughts about some major themes in transportation today.

Chairman Jim Oberstar calls transportation enhancements "the point of transformation" for transportation. Photo courtesy of Oberstar's office.

On the “dissipation” of high-speed rail funds:

We reshaped Amtrak in the 2008 authorization, designating 11 corridors and creating a mechanism by which there could be competition from private sources and from state consortia, with Amtrak, to provide the passenger rail service in a particular corridor.

At first, I didn’t like that idea, but I spent a lot of time talking to Mr. Mica about it and as we talked, I said, “You know, that’s beginning to make more sense. We ought to challenge Amtrak. That’s a good idea; let’s put this into the bill.” And then we got consensus that high-speed should be defined as 110 mph, and that was in the bill. And we got a bill that George Bush signed!

So there was a structure against which to pit [the $8.5 billion in stimulus dollars for high-speed rail]. I thought that was going to happen. Instead, it was all put up for competition for various states to come forward and put a proposal on the table.

Wisconsin, for example: to Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago. That should have been done as part of the Midwest High-Speed Rail Initiative, with Chicago as the hub, south to St. Louis, east through Detroit to Cleveland and eventually to Cincinnati, and west to Minneapolis-St. Paul. That would have been one very defensible, manageable anchor.

The Northeast Corridor could have been another important anchor. The west coast, which is already underway: a third anchor to this system. And then some other amounts in the other corridors, depending on proposals that they would have and should have submitted to DOT.

Allowing pieces to be bid or requested by states dissipated the critical mass of investment. And I’m not saying that in hindsight – that was my concern at the time.

On the attack on Transportation Enhancements in Congress:

Transportation enhancements was the pivotal point of transformation at the end of the interstate era — an era in which travelers went where the road took them — to the era in which users of our system had a say in their quality of transportation and where that road should go in the future and how their transportation experience should be managed.

Enhancements is the breakthrough transformation of our surface transportation system in the post-interstate era. If it were eliminated, it would erode public trust and acceptance of our surface transportation programs.

On how he would pay for his 2009 bill if he were defending it in this fiscally conservative Congress:

I would still insist on a restructuring of the categorical programs, to reduce those categories from 108 to four formula programs and to require the intermodalism that is depicted in my plan. And by law, you can require that the modal administrators meet monthly. There is nothing to impede the secretary of transportation from doing that now, from convening a monthly meeting of FRA and Federal Transit Administration, Maritime Administration, and all the rest. But they haven’t done that, regardless of administration.

So do it by law! You will develop a safety plan. What can highways learn from aviation and safety? What can waterways learn? What can highways learn from waterways? All of these need to be done intermodally.

So you give the public a sense of accomplishment, of simplicity and clarity, transparency of the program. And then you have freight corridors to deal with the farm-to-market movement of goods and inter-city goods movement, which is a segment of that bill, and then the metropolitan mobility and access provision that addresses the fact that 50 percent of vehicle miles traveled in this country are in urban areas and we are wasting $110 billion a year just sitting in traffic.

And then requiring states to develop plans, and defend them, and be accountable to them. It’s doable; we did that. I had a hearing every month on the stimulus investments and made state DOTs and USDOT and the wastewater treatment agencies and the aviation authority all come and say, what did they do with their money, how did you invest it, what are the benefits from it? So you include that accountability, clarity, and performance.

And then project delivery – in the current law it’s not widely understood. But I crafted 42 pages of legislative language to expedite project delivery. The result: 47 projects – these are big ones, these are $100 million-and-above-sized projects – have had a 36 month reduction in permitting, which means you’re almost cutting in half the time it’s taking for permitting — without denigrating the environment, without denigrating historical preservation, without overriding local permitting interests and requirements.

So, you require better performance, better project delivery, and then you can ask the public. If I were still there, I’d be saying, now we go to the public and say, “We have funded our surface transportation system with the user fee, so you have a claim on the future investments, by which you pay at the pump and now you have something in which you can have confidence that it will be used effectively. There will be much greater accountability.

Then you can appeal for an increase in the user fee or a combination of funding mechanisms, which we provided for in the metropolitan access and mobility provisions.

Photo: MPR

He said the history of the committee – and his service to it – has been “the movement of people safely, efficiently, and effectively, for the betterment of the nation.”

He also imparted some final nuggets of wisdom for those who will follow him on the committee:

• Earmarks. Oberstar said a bill “devoid of the 27,000 earmarks like we had in 2006” would be a good thing. “That’s excess,” he said. But, he said, it was too simplistic to shut legislators out of the allocation process. “If you believe that, then the executive branch – at the national or state level – will make all those decisions.” He pointed to his own achievements in making the process more accountable and transparent.
• The reauthorization. He acknowledged that it was a “big hole in the legislative agenda.” He blamed the White House and the Senate for failing to come up with an agreement on a financing mechanism.
• An extension. He said that an answer on the length of the extension of the current authorization could come as early as tomorrow, when the newly elected House and Senate leadership meets. He even threw out the possibility that “if they come to some agreement, we could maybe even be doing a new authorization in the balance of this session. We’d be prepared to do that.” Assuming that won’t happen, however, he spoke strongly against doing short, month-to-month extensions as a forcing mechanism to “hold somebody’s feet to the fire.” He said that was not reasonable. He said if it wasn’t going to be a six-year bill, they should extend it for a year.
• John Mica. Oberstar spoke with fondness of the “close working relationship” he had with his ranking member and the accomplishments they’ve shared. “That’s a record, I submit, of cooperation, conciliation, that is taking the best of Mr. Mica’s ideas, the best of my ideas, what we can sell to our respective caucuses, and putting it together in a bill.” He says he hopes Mica can rebuild those structural relationships in the next Congress.
• The new class. He acknowledged the conservatism of the new freshmen and their inexperience with policy issues. “You’ll see, coming in, a lack of institutional understanding and also, it appears, a lack of willingness to follow seasoned leaders,” he said. He worries that the new members “little appetite or appreciation for the broader policy questions the nation faces on transportation.”
• High speed rail. He cheered Ray LaHood’s decision that states have to “use it or lose it” when it comes to high speed rail dollars. “If the new governor of Wisconsin wants to build highways instead of high speed rail, increase your gas tax in Wisconsin,” he said. “Stop complaining and whining about wanting to build highways with rail dollars. Build highways with highway dollars.”
• A glass of rosé. He spoke at length – and in French! – about his recent experience riding the trains in France. He was impressed that you could travel the distance between Boston and Washington in 2 ½ hours, and that “you could put a glass of rosé on the table and it didn’t flutter. You could write notes and your pen didn’t quaver. It was interesting to come back to a third world country.”
• Gas tax. Financing is the “Gordian knot” of the surface transportation authorization, Oberstar said. He wishes the president would have taken his advice – and that of two national commissions – and increased the gas tax or user fees. “We’d have had a bill; it’d be law; we’d be moving ahead.” Recalling Europe again, he says high gas taxes are paying for a $1.3 trillion, 20 year infrastructure investment program. “We’re just sitting on the sidelines while they’re eating our lunch.”
• The looming highway trust fund crisis. Oberstar rejected the idea of passing a “barebones” reauthorization that didn’t adequately inject more money into the highway trust fund. He said it’s “on course to being $16 billion to $18 billion short of the authorization level” because of raiding to pay for disaster relief. He said states are now drawing down revenues more slowly than during stimulus because they’re now working on longer-term projects with a longer “spend-out time.” By his calculation, the chickens will come home to roost “sometime in July.”
• His successor. He wouldn’t speculate or opine on whether Nick Rahall or Peter DeFazio would – or should – be the next ranking member.
• His plans for the future. “You will not see my name on any lobbying firm,” he pledged. He said he remains committed to working on transportation policy, especially safety, as well as “the new rural view of America and the new urbanism.”

Oberstar gives his farewell speech. Photo: MPR

He said he wouldn’t change or take back any of his votes for transportation, especially improvements in his own district. He refused to apologize for the stimulus, saying the infrastructure it paid for will be there for a hundred years.

Meanwhile, John Mica, the top Republican on the Transportation Committee – and its presumptive next chair – said in a statement:

If selected by my peers to chair the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the next Congress, my primary focus will be improving employment and expanding economic opportunities, doing more with less, cutting red tape and removing impediments to creating jobs, speeding up the process by which infrastructure projects are approved, and freeing up any infrastructure funding that’s been sitting idle.

Among my top legislative priorities will be passing a long-term federal highways and transit reauthorization… I will also focus on major initiatives to find ways within the Committee’s jurisdiction to save taxpayer dollars. That includes better management and utilization of federal assets, including real property, and more efficient, cost effective passenger rail transportation, including a better directed high-speed rail program.

Some reformers saw visions of high speed rail go down the toilet with the flip in Congressional power. Mica seems to indicate otherwise. Certainly, he’ll be under pressure from his party – which reads yesterday’s victory as a mandate for smaller government – to cut spending. But Mica supported Oberstar’s $500 billion transportation bill, and he recognizes the benefits of transit. He’ll need solid backup from advocates — speaking with a fiscal-conservative message — to convince his colleagues that infrastructure investment makes economic sense.

It looks like he’s prepared to try.

The current governors map, before yesterday's winners are seated. Several blue states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, will turn red. California will flip from red to blue.

The biggest news from last night, of course, is that the GOP won control of the House of Representatives. That means Republicans now control all the House committees, and Ohio’s John Boehner — a believer in wider highways — will wield the Speaker’s gavel. The Democrats hung on to the Senate, though, and pundits are forecasting two years of gridlock.

Streetsblog has mainly been profiling races for governor where transportation issues had a high profile. Here are some results with big implications for smart growth and sustainable transportation.

Governor Results

California: Jerry Brown (D) 54 percent – Meg Whitman (R) 41 percent
Whitman would have said no to high speed rail, Brown has a record of curbing sprawl and fighting highway expansion.

Colorado: John Hickenlooper (D) 50 percent – Tom Tancredo (AMC) 37 percent – Dan Maes (R) 11 percent
The GOP hangs on to major party status by a hair after bike-paranoid Maes costs them the election. Hickenlooper is a bike and transit advocate who really gets it.

Florida: Rick Scott (R) 49 percent – Alex Sink (D) 48 percent
Scott has said he’ll kill high speed rail, giving back federal dollars. Sink is a transit supporter who said bike infrastructure could improve street safety.

Georgia: Nathan Deal (R) 53 percent – Roy Barnes (D) 43 percent
Barnes has environmental concerns about a highway expansion project Deal supports. Barnes wanted to “unclog Atlanta” through transit.

Maryland: Martin O’Malley (D) 56 percent – Bob Ehrlich (R) 42 percent
Incumbent O’Malley will move forward with building a light-rail Purple Line expansion of the D.C. Metro. Ehrlich said he favored bus rapid transit but some thought he was just trying to cause delays.

Ohio: John Kasich (R) 49 percent – Ted Strickland (D) 47 percent
The winner says high speed rail is the dumbest idea he’s ever heard. Incumbent Strickland has tried to green the industrial state.

Tennessee: Bill Haslam (R) 65 percent – Mike McWherter (D) 33 percent
Haslam has gained some praise for his bike policy but he’s not friendly to transit, which McWherter supports.

Texas: Rick Perry (R) 55 percent – Bill White (D) 42 percent
Will the Trans-Texas Corridor mega-project go through? It’s likely, now that Perry won an unprecedented third term.

Wisconsin: Rick Scott (R) 52 percent – Tom Barrett (D) 47 percent
Another race where the Republican pledged to kill high speed rail projects underway. Barrett promoted transit as a way to reduce wear and tear on highways.

House Races

Minnesota: Chip Cravaack (R) 48 percent – Jim Oberstar 47 percent
This is a huge blow to shifting away from the transportation status quo. Oberstar, the chair of the Transportation Committee and architect of the reauthorization bill, was a strong ally of transportation reformers.

Oregon: Peter DeFazio (D) 54 percent – Art Robinson (R) 45 percent
After a closer-than-expected contest, transit supporter DeFazio stays to fight another day.

Senate Races

California: Barbara Boxer (D) 52 percent – Carly Fiorina (R) 42 percent
The Environment and Public Works Committee chair had the fight of her political life against the Hewlett Packard exec, but she’ll stick around. And with the Democrats keeping control of the Senate, EPW will remain under her leadership.

Stay tuned… later today we’ll be taking a look at how the 29 transportation-related ballot initiatives fared.

Oberstar, right, and DeFazio share a ride in a pedi-cab. Willamette River Bridge Project

As committee chair, Oberstar has been a strong advocate for transit investment and livability reforms. He’s also the architect and chief proponent of the six-year $500 billion transportation bill that’s been stalled in the House since last summer.

Oberstar has easily won 17 consecutive elections, but the 18th is proving to be a little sticky. The LA Times reports:

[R]ecently, American Crossroads, an independent group affiliated with GOP strategist Karl Rove, started running spots on the Duluth stations that blanket the area. A group formed by Democrat-turned-Republican Dick Morris also launched a spot against Oberstar.

Then a third group called 60 Plus, which bills itself as a conservative alternative to AARP, began broadcasting $100,000 worth of ads saying it was time for the 76-year-old incumbent to retire.

Now, Oberstar’s seat is in play.

According to polling by SurveyUSA, he’s currently just one point ahead of challenger Chip Cravaack, within the margin of error. And he’s not the only champion having to fight harder than usual to retain his seat.

It’s being portrayed as a testament to the power of anti-incumbent sentiment this year that Peter DeFazio (D-OR) finds himself in a surprisingly close race against Republican Art Robinson. DeFazio, as chair of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, has strongly advocated for including livability measures in the transportation bill.

He won his last race with 82 percent, and no independent polls were even commissioned this time around — his chances were considered that good. Conservative money has helped Robinson close the funding gap, though. And the only poll that’s been conducted — admittedly, by a Republican polling firm — shows DeFazio just six points ahead. That’s a lot closer than he expected this race to be.

Congressmen Oberstar and Blumenauer, here speaking together at the 2007 Bike Summit, were on opposite sides of a dispute about increased funding for livability programs yesterday. Photo: Bike Portland

First, a refresher on the difference between authorizations and appropriations. Roughly speaking, authorizations set policy while appropriations spend money based on those policies. Congress passes a transportation appropriations bill, like the House did yesterday, every year, while the transportation authorization is renewed less frequently. The most recent authorization, SAFETEA-LU, passed in 2005 and was set to expire in 2009. It has been temporarily extended since then while Congress dithers over a new bill. 

According to The Hill, the House's $67.4 billion appropriations bill reduces spending overall by $500 million from last year, and is $1.3 billion less than what the Obama administration requested. Because major priorities are mainly set in the federal transportation bill, the appropriations bill rarely includes large shifts in policy.

On the biggest ticket transportation items, spending increased in this appropriation. The $45.2 billion set for highways is $4.1 billion more than last year's bill provided for, according to The Hill, and $3.9 billion more than the administration asked for. Similarly the $11.3 billion in transit spending would be $500 million more than last year and $575 million more than requested.

One squabble that broke out pitted some of Congress's most prominent proponents of sustainable transportation against each other and ended with $200 million less for livability initiatives -- money that would have been used to help states coordinate transportation, land use, and conservation policy. That funding was proposed by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Portland Congressman Earl Blumenauer. Fighting fiercely against it were Congressmen Peter DeFazio and James Oberstar. As chronicled by the League of American Bicyclists' Andy Clarke, this wasn't a fight about substance -- all four have been champions for livability, overall -- but about process and turf.

Oberstar chairs the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, while DeFazio chairs its Highways and Transit Subcommittee. That makes them authorizers, in charge of writing policy. While the line between authorizing and appropriating can be fuzzy, DeFazio and Oberstar don't want federal transportation policy to be written through the appropriations process, so they were willing to kill the livability funding, even if they may have supported it on the merits, in order to prevent a precedent from being set.

DeFazio's amendment to strip the $200 million from the appropriations bill passed, suggesting that even relatively inexpensive changes to federal transportation policy will have to wait for the next reauthorization bill.

Other attempts to change established policy by slashing funding were denied. Congressman Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican, unsuccessfully tried to forbid any funding at all to go to bike paths, according to Clarke. An amendment from GOP rep Michelle Bachmann to eliminate Amtrak also went nowhere.

Four junior Democrats, Gary Peters, Jim Himes, Peter Welch, and John Adler, prepared an amendment to cut the bill by over $1 billion -- including a chunk of funding for high-speed rail -- but ultimately did not put it forward after a sustained push by the House leadership made its passage unlikely, according to Politico. A similar set of spending cuts proposed by Iowa Republican Tom Latham failed by 30 votes.

(Photo: Pop and Politics)

In order to repay the Treasury for its up-front bond issue, Congress would ultimately need to raise the gas tax -- a step lawmakers have been unwilling to take since 1993, and one that the White House has ruled out for the time being.

"The idea of waiting three or four years for the economy to recover would be an appealing part of" the idea, Iowa state DOT chief Nancy Richardson told Oberstar when he sought her reaction to the plan at a Friday House hearing. "[That] would allow it to appeal to some of the dissenters in terms of increasing funding."

Delaying for three or four years, however, also would assume that future Congresses would be more open to voting on a gas-tax hike that few lawmakers are eager to debate, even in rosy economic times. The evidence of success for such kick-the-can-down-the-road moves is few and far between: both parties, for example, have habitually voted to postpone previously scheduled cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors rather than fix the long-term formula.

In addition, the growing production boom in semi- and fully electric cars casts doubt on the gas tax's ability to raise sustainable revenue for transportation going forward. Depending on how popular highly fuel-efficient cars become by the time Congress considers a future gas tax change, the cents-per-gallon increase needed to repay the Treasury may be much higher than any current predictions.

The gas-tax bonding plan has a third potential hiccup. Oberstar suggested that $130 billion in Treasury bonds would be sufficient to close the gap between the cost of his six-year transport bill and anticipated gas-tax revenue. Yet that total would not appear to cover the estimated $50 billion that Oberstar's legislation would set aside for high-speed rail.

Securing sufficient votes from fiscally conservative Democrats and Senate Republicans for deficit spending on high-speed rail would be difficult on its own, and adding the bonding proposal could add complications.

Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard cautioned that the bonding idea is among several "proposals that have been floating around" for financing a new transport bill, adding: "There isn't a magic bullet out there that seems to have captured everybody's imagination. So we don't want to get too far out in front of this thing because we don't want to give the impression that we've found the answer."

Oberstar (center) joined New York City transport chief Janette Sadik-Khan (right) at today's event. (Photo: B.Clements, Finance & Commerce)

Oberstar appeared at an event marking Minneapolis' move to join the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), founded 14 years ago by then-New York City Transportation Commissioner Elliot Sander to counterbalance the influence of state DOTs' voice in D.C., the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Oberstar's specific remarks on transit operating aid were unavailable as of press time. But transport committee spokesman Jim Berard said the Minnesotan supported "in principle" the concept of allowing transit agencies from areas with populations greater than 200,000 to use their federal transportation formula grants on operating expenses.

Under current law, urban transit agencies are restricted to spending federal formula money on capital expenses, such as purchasing new rail cars or laying track for an expanded line.

Congress agreed last year to give transit officials the freedom to redirect 10 percent of their federal stimulus aid to operating budgets, underscoring that the change was a temporary response to the recession.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the transit industry's chief lobbying group for more than a century, has opposed the use of formula grants for transit operating, preferring that already-scarce highway trust fund dollars be reserved for capital spending on rail and buses. APTA did not return a request for comment by press time on the growing support for changing the existing rules governing transit operating funds.

It's worth noting that the change Oberstar and LaHood have endorsed would not come until lawmakers take up a new long-term federal transportation bill, which may not occur until next year. Also left undetermined is the share of formula funds that would be made available for transit operating costs if the proposal becomes law; legislation offered by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) would okay the use of between 30 percent and one-half of federal formula grants.

(ed. note: The post above has been edited to clarify the distinction between capital and operating expenses.)

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

The Minnesotan, who clashed openly with the White House this year over its preference to delay new transport legislation until 2011, said he was "encouraged that we will be able to complete the bill in this session of Congress."

One unspoken source of urgency for Oberstar and fellow House members: waiting until next year to take up a new transport bill would mean starting from scratch after the midterm elections, which could significantly shrink the size of the Democrats' majority. A more conservative transport committee would complicate the path to passage for the new transit spending envisioned in Oberstar's current bill.

Oberstar was the dominant force at the stimulus hearing, scheduled for a Friday afternoon when many members were in the process of returning home for Congress' Easter recess. The chairman took the opportunity to press witnesses on unresolved policy controversies, including the debate over allowing transit agencies to spend federal aid on operating -- a representative for the transit industry's lobbying group called for extending the 10-percent flexibility approved last year -- and the need for Senate movement on the "second stimulus" that cleared the House in December.

"We have to sustain those existing jobs and investments so the private sector can catch up -- one more summer of stimulus will set the stage and move the country forward," Oberstar said, deeming the Senate's progress on infrastructure job creation "not sufficient."

During a discussion on the massive financing gap that is bogging down the next transport bill, Oberstar also pooh-poohed the prospects of tolling interstate highways built during the road program's postwar heyday. Pennsylvania is currently pushing for federal approval to add tolls to an existing interstate.

"We're not going to allow tolling of the interstate highway system," Oberstar said. "It's already been built and paid for."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oberstar "strongly supports" the new House legislation, however, according to a committee e-mail sent this afternoon which notes that infrastructure makes up half of the House's $75 billion jobs bill.

The bill's $37.3 billion in spending breaks down along the following lines:

Highways:        $27.5 billion

Transit:            $8.4 billion

Amtrak:           $800 million

Airports:          $500 million

Ship Const.:     $100 million

Total               $37.3 billion

The $8.4 billion number for transit is less than the $9.7 billion in "ready-to-go" projects identified by state DOTs, and slightly more than half the size of the $15 billion in shovel-ready transit spending tallied by the American Public Transportation Association.

Can transit advocates successfully boost the bill's spending levels? The legislation is moving at lightning speed through the House, where a two-month extension of the 2005 federal transportation bill is also expected to pass before the chamber adjourns for the holidays.

But the process may slow in the Senate, where Democrats are still working to finish a health care deal before January. Only after the health bill passes are senators scheduled to turn to jobs legislation of their own.

Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said in an interview that the new jobs bill's funding allocation is set "to be very similar to the stimulus passed earlier this year. Highways and transit money will be handled through formula grants like we always do, like we did in the Recovery Act."

That likely means that mayors' hopes of getting more local urban input into transportation spending will be put off until another day, with state DOTs disbursing the lion's share of job-creation money. Additionally, talk of more merit-based infrastructure investment through an expansion of the stimulus law's competitive TIGER grant program appears to have fallen by the wayside as Congress hustles towards adjournment.

Oberstar commented on the new transportation spending during a Capitol press conference yesterday afternoon:

Without this investment, the Highway Trust Fund will decline, states will not be able to provide their 20 percent match, and we’ll have a regression.  The House acting on this now assures that states programs will be fully funded, Highway Trust Fund revenues will be invested, the sustainability of job creation will go forward, and we will be gaining jobs rather than losing jobs because of what the House will do in this recovery program.

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)

"It’s obvious that we’re running out of September," Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard told Streetsblog Capitol Hill, noting that lawmakers have become caught up by legislative battles over health care and climate change.

"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)

When we last left House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), he was calling for a $3 billion fix for the nation’s highway trust fund. That low number is intended to keep the pressure on the White House to reconsider its push for upwards of $20 billion to postpone an overhaul of national transport policy until early 2011.

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.