Aaron Naparstek, Editor-in-Chief of the Online transportation news source Streetsblog, in an interview with Blueprint America about the way transportation is looked at in New York City and the rest of the country.

Streetsblog is a daily transportation blog that also acts as an umbrella to similar online publications throughout the country. Politically supportive of alternative modes of transportation, they are working to transform cities by reducing dependence on private automobiles and improving conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.

Originally aired: May 29, 2009

President Barack Obama with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood || photo: White House / streetsblog.org

UPDATE

Late Wednesday, the Senate, in conjunction with a House vote last week, passed a one-month extension of the 2005 transportation law, which would have expired at midnight.

*  *  *

At midnight Wednesday, the federal transportation law funding national highway and transit programs will expire. Amid a lack of consensus in Congress on what to do—as the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has been at odds with both the Senate and the Obama Administration—the current law will almost certainly be extended for one-month. However, it is a short-term fix — an even shorter-term fix than the three-month extension passed in the House last week or the proposed 18-month extension in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The federal transportation law is supposed to be re-authorized every six years, although extensions have become commonplace in this process.

House and Senate appropriations committees agreed to the one-month reprieve as a legislative failsafe in order to keep federal transportation funding mechanisms going at 2009 levels, including the Highway Trust Fund, until lawmakers can complete the new budget. The House approved the resolution on Sept. 25. The Senate is expected to pass it sometime before the Wednesday deadline.

That said, there is nothing to suggest that the Congressional impasse that led to the one-month extension will be solved in just a month’s time. The current transportation law, which was finally passed in 2005, had a dozen similar extensions. Simply, Oct. 31 could look a lot like Sept. 30.

Still, more important than Congress and the Administration agreeing on a three-month or 18-month extension is a consensus on a new transportation law. Already, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D., Minn.) has introduced a $450 billion dollar bill that not only increases current federal transportation funding but also restructures some funding practices and reorganizes the Department of Transportation. But, as Congress remains in similar gridlock over healthcare, the Administration has opposed any action on Rep. Oberstar’s legislation. As a result, the majority of the Senate, led by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has sided with the President. Moreover, neither the Senate nor the Administration has put forth their own bills to reauthorize federal transportation funding. Though Rep. Oberstar’s bill was introduced in June, nothing guarantees it will be the legislation that passes one-month, three-months or 18-months from now.

More to lose down the road

Even if the one-month extension is approved in the Senate Wednesday, a measure to dissolve $8.7 billion in un-obligated federal highway assistance will be triggered Thursday unless lawmakers act to correct the matter. But, as the one-month resolution is a conference report, both houses must pass it without amendments.

The 18-month extension proposed by Sen. Boxer would repeal the measure, but action on her bill is unlikely to happen before the deadline. There is no companion language in the House extension.

The loss of the $8.7 billion could lead to project cancellations nationwide. Some states can draw on their own reserves to continue work. Overall, states could lose some $3 billion.

With Congress back after a summer recess, President Barack Obama, in an address before both the House and Senate on Wednesday, again made clear that the government’s business at this moment is health care reform.

As a result, major climate legislation has been delayed twice in the Senate by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At the same time, similar legislation in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee — a $450 billion bill to overhaul transportation funding and policy nationally — has not been put off, at least by Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.).

But the Senate, led by Sen. Boxer, has legislation in place — and much farther along than the House transportation bill — to authorize just under $30 billion to extend the current transportation law by another 18 months. This would effectively delay Rep. Oberstar’s legislation with or without his support.

One way or another, action on federal transportation policy needs to come by the end of the month as the current law, which funds transportation projects and programs from mass transit upgrades to road and bridge repair to high speed rail development, expires Sept. 30.

Last month, while on the steps of the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul, Rep. Oberstar said:

It is disappointing that after eight years of a Bush administration that said no to robust investment in transportation now the Democratic administration says ‘well not now … 18 months’. The nation doesn’t have 18 months… People need jobs now.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman continued:

We’ve reported our six-year bill out of subcommittee and the week when we come back after Labor Day we’ll report it from full committee… I expect to have it on the floor by the third week of September; $450 billion over the next six years and the administration’s either going to come along or we’re going to roll them over.

Still, a report Thursday by The Wall Street Journal suggests that Rep. Oberstar sees passage of his bill unlikely this fall and that an extension of the current transportation law is likely.

Rep. Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

In mid-June, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, on behalf of the Obama administration, offered a temporary finance plan that, if implemented, could put off legislation to overhaul federal highway and transportation programs. It would also delay a possible vote to raise the national gas tax past the 2010 congressional midterm elections. The proposal came just a day before Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, released an outline of the legislation – THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 – aimed at reforming transportation nationally.

The current transportation authorization law is set to expire at the end of September. While only an extension is supported by the Administration and the majority of the Senate, Rep. Oberstar’s bill is gaining moment from members of the House — Republicans and Democrats — and special interest groups, including the Chamber of Commerce.

But, the new transportation legislation must be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee first — and Healthcare reform, not transportation, is their mandate for the moment. Still, the Minnesotan politician is not backing down.

In April, before the House transportation bill was introduced, Rep. Oberstar talked with Blueprint America about the legislation:

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What needs to happen with the national transportation system?

Handwritten transportation bill outline by Rep. Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee || Photo: MinnPost.com

REP. JIM OBERSTAR: The end of the interstate era and the beginning of a new period of transit — to give people in America something more than where the road goes, but where the people (want) to go.

We need to transform the entire Department of Transportation to make it work.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: How did America get to this point?

REP. OBERSTAR: Let me tell you how it all started. In 1894, a group of bicyclists upset with the ruts being caused in their bicycle trails by the newfangled horseless carriages got 150,000 names on a continuous petition, wrapped it on one of those telephone cable devices, put it on a flatcar, hauled it to Washington, rolled the cable device to the U.S. capitol from Union Station, presented it to the Appropriations Committee and asked for $10,000 for a study of paved roadways for the horseless carriages.

The Congress complied. The funds were appropriated. The study completed. It resulted in the establishment of the Bureau of Road Inquiry in the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1896. A few years later, that became the Bureau of Public Roads.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: That was how it all started, why do we now have to transform the entire Department of Transportation to make the national transportation system work?

REP. OBERSTAR: We have to have a larger goal. What we have after the interstate era, is if there is a roadway here, we build and expand on that road. Because you have an 80–20 funding formula for highways — 80 percent federal funds, 20 percent state funds — and, on the other side, a transit funding program that is project-oriented — some projects might get 50 percent federal funds, some might get 60 percent, some might get only 40 percent — if you are a state department of transportation managing funds, you look at the formula and you say, “Well, we get 80 percent of the money if we build the road. We only get 50 percent or less if we invest in the transit system.”

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Why was the system built this way — to favor highways over transit?

REP. OBERSTAR: Funding is skewed away from transit and into highways because transit grew up in a different environment. It was a spin-off of railroads. It was during the 1960s, just before the creation of Amtrak. The railroads wanted to get rid of their passenger service. And they wanted to pass it off as a transit program. And secondly, transit was considered something to help the elderly and the disabled and the poor — it was a social program instead of a transportation program.

For example, Los Angeles had one of the most extensive streetcar systems in the country. But, they tore up the tracks, put in highways, roadways, streets and paved to accommodate the car. We have suburbs because we have the car. We have exurbs because of the car. Now, we have to transform our thinking in America.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, who made this choice — the government or the people?

REP. OBERSTAR: Those were conscious decisions by the American public who wanted the freedom, the mobility of the automobile to go where they wanted, to travel where they wanted and so roads were built to accommodate public interest. People made choices to move away from the public transportation system to a private, personalized transportation. And that resulted in sprawl.

We have to now transform our thinking — to link land use and development to transportation. And not require transportation to go where the land use went.

In an urban setting, a mile of freeway may cost in the range of $46 to $50 million. The same mile of urban light rail will cost $26 million and move twice as many people — or three times as many people. And that is what we need to impress.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What then will your transportation bill change?

REP. OBERSTAR: (This) has to be a transformational chapter in transportation — we need to restructure the way we deliver transportation. We have to take all these years of cumulative programs and adding to the responsibilities of states, and restructure it to transform the way transportation is delivered in America — to deliver projects faster and to assure that livability is high on the agenda.

So, take the 108 categories through which Federal Highway Trust Fund dollars are funneled out to the states and condense those into four great program areas. And give the states responsibility to set objectives over a six-year period and interim six-year goals to achieve their long term objectives that are national as well as state objectives. And report annually on their progress and show how they are achieving those goals. And we’ll measure them on that performance.

Also, we need to insist on intermodalism — to have an Assistant Secretary for Intermodalism who will bring together, at least once a month, all of the modal administrators: Aviation Administration, Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Transit Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Bring them all together and talk about safety, mobility, livability and how they can all work together for the benefit of this country.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, this will require an investment from the American people — an increase in taxes even while the country is in recession. How do you get public support?

REP. OBERSTAR: In 1956 Congress enacted the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways with a three cent gas tax, or user fee as it was called. Three cents on a gasoline price of 30 cents. That was 10 percent of the cost of fuel. Passed the House readily. The following year it was clear that more funding was needed for the system. And the Bureau of Public Rolls proposed an additional penny. It passed the House on a voice vote.

There was a sense of greater vision, of a greater need in America for safety, for mobility, to move people and goods and our economy more efficiently, more effectively. And the public understood that that penny was going for those roadway improvements. We need to rekindle that same spirit and understanding in America and show that an additional user fee will make life better.

If we show the American public we are going to move goods more efficiently in the urban and interurban environment, we’re going to move people more efficiently — less congestion and a better road surface — they will understand. They will accept it. We have an intelligent public. We have to show them that this is going to be a better way to move goods and people in our society.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The Obama Administration is not willing to raise the gas tax to fund your transportation bill — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said as much. What do you do without the Administration’s support?

REP. OBERSTAR: In the end, the Congress decides, not the Administration.

As the House version of a new transportation bill to reauthorize and reform the current federal transportation law, which expires at the end of September, remains in the House, the Senate has made two significant moves in the past week to postpone the debate for a new law.

When Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced the new legislation last June, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood proposed, as an alternative, an 18-month extension of the current law, which funds highways, roads and mass-transit nationally. Simply, the Obama Administration, as it works to manage the recent economic stimulus, which has struggled to have the effect that was intended, and overhaul the country’s healthcare system, sees a transportation reform bill — that would increase federal funding some 60 percent from the current law and potentially raise taxes during a recession in order to do so — as one cause too many.

Last week, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed the Administration’s endorsed 18-month extension of the existing transportation law. On Monday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) introduced legislation to replenish the nation’s Highway Trust Fund — $26.8 Billion of, essentially, deficit spending. It would allot $22 billion for highways and $4.8 billion for mass-transit.

While the Highway Trust Fund, which is the revenue source for transportation and infrastructure projects, will become insolvent sometime in late August or early September, it is only an aspect of transportation law. But, teamed with the 18-month extension approved last week, it would solidify that legislation’s funding.

Still, the Senate Highway Trust Fund plan, also endorsed by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D., W.V.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), would reform how the fund functions by restoring its ability to keep the interest it earns.

In the late 1960s, backed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Highway Trust Fund was made available to the government’s unified budget, making the money not exclusive to transportation projects — it has even been used in the years since to balance the federal budget.

In 1998, then Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R., Penn.) pushed through legislation that closed off the Highway Trust Fund. Still, in order to do so, the interest accrued by money in the Fund had to be forgone for transportation projects — that money could still be used in the federal government’s general fund.

At the same time, Rep. Oberstar recently suggested that the U.S. Treasury owes the Highway Trust Fund $21 billion, including interest, as a result of that agreement in the late 1990s.

While the current Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman would be likely to endorse the provision to protect the Fund’s interest, the overall legislation is at odds with his transportation bill.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), pictured in the front, second from right, at the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Project in Los Angeles last February. Sen. Boxer is also the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee || photo: The Los Angeles Times

On Wednesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed an 18-month extension of the existing federal transportation law as the new transportation bill remains waiting in the House. Though the new bill has already had some debate and mark-up in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.) introduced the legislation last month, the bill also needs to be heard before the House Ways and Means Committee so the funding portion of it can be determined.

That said, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures will hear the argument for the new transportation legislation on Thursday, July 23, next week. While testifying witnesses have not been named, seemingly the case will be made for the Ways and Means Committee to take a break from the revenue portion of the Healthcare bill, which, according to Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D., NY), is the Committee’s only focus.

Overall, Congress’ concentration on Healthcare has come from the top — President Barack Obama, who also wants the extension of the current transportation law. Still, only the transportation legislation has been able to make significant progress against the Obama Administration’s agenda.

Rep. Oberstar has had no problem being at odds with the President, though both are of the same party. The Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman has gained the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif) and some ranking Republican members in both the House and Senate. Most recently, Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio) was the lone dissenting vote as 18-month extension passed in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Sen. Voinovich said, “Everyone realizes the current law is inadequate to get the job done.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has been outspoken in her support for the delay of the new transportation bill as she has even set-back her own climate reform bill until at least September.

Even now, as Rep. Oberstar tries to push his new transportation bill through Congress, he is up against an 18-month extension of the current law that has already passed a Senate Committee.

President Barack Obama with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood || photo: White House / streetsblog.org

In mid-June, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, on behalf of the Obama administration, offered a temporary finance plan that, if implemented, could put off legislation to overhaul federal highway and transportation programs. It would also delay a possible vote to raise the national gas tax past the 2010 congressional midterm elections. The proposal came just a day before Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., MN), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, released an outline of the legislation – THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 – aimed at reforming transportation nationally.

The current transportation authorization law is set to expire at the end of September. While only an extension is supported by the Administration and the majority of the Senate, the new bill is gaining moment from members of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — and special interest groups, including the Chamber of Commerce.

But, Rep. Oberstar’s transportation bill must be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee first — and Healthcare reform, not transportation, is their mandate for the moment. Still, the Minnesotan politician is not backing down.

In May, the Secretary of Transportation talked with Blueprint America for the Road to the Future documentary on PBS. Sec. LaHood’s comments illustrate that the Administration wants transportation reform, but just not now — especially if it means raising the gas tax in these economic times.

RAY LaHOOD || on the national plan

United States Secretary of Transportation, 2009 –
Member of the United States House of Representatives (Illinois), 1995 – 2009

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: When people say infrastructure – first of all ‘infrastructure’ their eyes kind of glaze over a little bit. But this is a very important thing – it’s like decisions on whether to put a roof on your house. When you survey the infrastructure in this country, whether it’s roads or bridges – we saw what happened in Minnesota – are we in bad shape? Are we crumbling right now, right as we speak?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Well, on a positive note, we are the model for the world for the interstate system. When people want to build interstate standard roads, they come to the United States. Now, some of these interstates need a lot of fixing up. And some of that’s going to take place here very quickly as a result of the Recovery Plan that Congress passed. So, we have some issues we have to deal with.

We know there’s a lot of bridges around the country that need to be repaired and fixed up. They meet the standards, but they still need to be fixed up. To put it bluntly, currently, America is one big pothole. And everybody knows it. It’s not just in the big cities; it’s all over the countryside. We think the Stimulus Bill and our portion of it – $40 billion – will go a long way to help fixing potholes, fixing roads, fixing bridges and building some new ones, too.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: To what extent when you talk about fixing infrastructure – to what extent are we talking about fixing what we have and to what extent is it time, perhaps, to think about rethinking things?

Ray LaHood

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Well, it is time to rethink things because moving through Congress is a bill to provide the money for infrastructure and for new ideas for the next five years. It’s called the Authorization Bill, the Highway Bill, traditionally. This is our opportunity right now in the history of building infrastructure to think outside of the box on how we’re going to fund things, how we’re going to move people around communities, how we’re going to move people between communities and whether it’s going to be light rail in communities, buses in communities, bike paths in communities, people walking and opportunities for people to get out of their cars, get out of the congestion and really have opportunities for more livable communities.

We’re at a very critical moment in the history of our infrastructure needs in America… And people are thinking about that now.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Do you really think so? Do you really think Americans are ready to get out of their cars?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Absolutely. I really do because I think people are fed up in getting stuck in traffic – whether it’s in Washington, DC, or Peoria, Illinois. It’s true everywhere. Because everybody has two or three cars. Everybody has been accustomed to driving two or three cars. And now people are thinking, ‘You know, maybe I could ride my bike to work. Maybe I could get on a bus and ride it.’ People have found that when gasoline prices went up, they got on a bus or they got on a light rail line. They found it comfortable, efficient and cost effective. And, even when gasoline prices went down, people are still getting on buses, trains, light rail and riding their bikes to work.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: To what do you attribute this sea change? Was it the gas price spike we saw and, in my sense at least, is that Americans have a short memory when it comes to gas prices. We did, after all, go through a terrible convulsion in the 70s and we forgot that pretty quickly, didn’t we?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: I think people don’t have short memories to this extent – I think when gasoline prices went up, people did start finding other alternatives and even when gas prices have come down, they’ve stayed with some of those alternatives. And I think they will because of what I said earlier. I think it’s a big headache for most people to get to work, to get to their doctors’ appointment, to get their children to school. It’s a pain.
BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Yeah, but you can’t do that on a bicycle…

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: You can’t do it on a bicycle, but you could do it on a bus. And, obviously, you could do it…

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Come on, are the soccer moms really going to trade their minivans for a bus?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: I think there are a lot of people that are thinking about different ways of doing these things. I really do.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: We are really good road builders, aren’t we?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: We are… state of the art. We’re the model for the interstate system. We’re not the model for high speed trains because we haven’t done it. And we’re not the model for other modes. Even though Amtrak ridership went up when gasoline prices went up, it stayed up and Amtrak ridership is still very high – efficient, comfortable and pretty reasonable.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Yeah. I took the Acela down today. Love it. Love the service. But it’s a very small piece of the very big pie. And a lot of people would say, ‘You know what? This is a big continental country. It’s not really ideally suited for that kind of transportation.

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: It’s not bigger than Europe… and look what’s going on in Europe – high speed rail. People get on trains and they can be in one part of Europe to another part of Europe in 90 minutes – going over 200 miles an hour. We’ve never made those investments, but we’re about ready to make those investments. And you go to other cities that still have their streetcars, that still have their buses and you go to some Asian cities and you see people on little motorbikes or riding bicycles. And it works.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: To what extent have your predecessors and the administrations they represented incentivized this car culture that we’re all about, and, in a sense, created the sprawl which is all around us?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Well, look, if Eisenhower decided to invest all of this money or set the bar very high for developing the interstate system or developing a high speed rail, we’d have high speed rail. They went the other way. They decided we were going to have an interstate system. For whatever reasons. There’s a lot of different reasons for that. And because of that, every subsequent administration, every subsequent Congress, every subsequent DOT secretary has put all their eggs in one basket. This administration is thinking outside the box. The president personally made sure there was $8 billion in the Recovery Plan for high speed rail. More money than we have every had in the history of the department for high speed rail.

We are sending out the door $8 billion so people can buy new buses, build bus opportunities for people in communities that have never had them before. So, we’re thinking about transit, we’re thinking about high speed rail more than has ever been thought about before.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Why do you think we’ve put so many eggs in the car basket, if you will?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Convenience. People like cars. I think the convenience, the independence that it provides. You don’t have to go by a certain schedule or wait a certain amount of time to do it. But, I think bus companies and transit districts and train operators have learned a lesson from that in terms of really providing convenience and comfort. It’s the convenience and comfort that is the reason that people get in their automobiles. But, there’s a lot of frustration to date with that, too. And all you have to do is drive around Washington or New York or Chicago or even smaller communities and get very frustrated being behind the wheel.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: It’s broken… The infrastructure that we have here – the roads, the system – is it broken?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: There are way too many people in automobiles and there are way too many automobiles. And so it has caused the kind of headaches and heartaches and backaches and every other kind of ache that you can think of for people who are driving around these cities today. And we’re going to change that. This administration is going to change that. Because this is the kind of change that people want.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Should we pave our way out of this mess? Is it past the time to be thinking about building roads on any sort of grand scale?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: We need to continue to maintain the roads we have, but we need to put a lot of our resources into other alternatives. Like buses, like light rail, like Amtrak, like streetcars, like bike paths. And give people some other options and some other alternatives.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The thing that impresses me about the car is that the car is the perfect extension of everything that Americans hold dear. We talked about it – independence and freedom and being able to do what you want to do when you want to do it. There’s no substitute for that is there?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Well, we can create those substitutes, I think. I think we can create them in communities the size of Washington. We can create them in the communities the size of Chicago or New York and we’re about ready to do that. And it’s not just us here in Washington. There are people out in these communities who believe that there should be other modes of transportation other than getting in your car. And the other thing that we should note here is gasoline prices are going to go up. When the economy starts to surge again, a price of a barrel of oil is going to go up and the price of a gallon of gasoline is going to go up. And it’s going to happen. We know these things are cyclical.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Do you ever listen to Car Talk on the weekends – Click and Clack?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: I don’t.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Well, when the prices went down, they got on a real rant about, ‘This is the time to raise the tax, because we won’t notice it so much.’ Their point is , we do have – historically – very low gas taxes compared to what they pay in Europe. Is it appropriate to be thinking about raising the gas tax to have it properly pay its due for what it does to the environment, the roads and everything else, and also to fund some of these things you’re talking about?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Well, we’re not in a mode to raise gasoline taxes. America’s hurting. There’s a lot of people out of work. There’s a lot of people who can’t make their house payment or buy groceries, and raising the gas tax is not an option for us, really. There are other ways that we can do the things we want to do. We can toll roads. You can toll bridges. You can have some private money invested in some of these infrastructure things that we want to do. We’re talking about creating an infrastructure bank that allows you to raise a lot of money without raising taxes. But we’re not going to raise taxes.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Not going to happen?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Not going to happen.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: That’s a third rail item…

I assume you’re thinking about a lot of fancy fast trains, connecting big cities. What else do you see if you were to paint your vision for a transportation future for this country? What would it look like?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Well, I’ll use as an illustration a couple of things. In Miami, they built a lane along 95 and they paid for it by the tolls that are collected for that lane. And that gives them extra capacity on that road. In Houston, they have a light rail that goes from downtown where people – who can’t afford a car, poor people, people that are maybe living paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford to get to the huge medical complex that they have at the other end of town – can get on a light rail system. It’s very efficient, it’s very cost effective.

So, what we’re saying is that even if you don’t have an automobile, we ought to develop other options for people to be able to get to the hospital, to get to the doctor, to get to the grocery store. And those options are there. And there’s a way to pay for them. The Infrastructure Bank that I talked about – where you set aside money, it earns interest and that money is dedicated to certain kinds of projects. Public-private partnerships… We need some private investment. There are people out there that are willing to make the price. So, public-private partnerships are another thing that has worked in certain parts of the country. We need to think outside the box other than just the Highway Trust Fund and we simply cannot raise taxes.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Now, you mentioned Amtrak – how is it different now?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Amtrak is doing very well.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But historically, it’s struggled…

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: But the path forward is very bright for Amtrak. It really is. Their ridership is up. They purchased new equipment. They’re efficient. They’re on time. And they’re pretty cost effective. You can get on an Amtrak train – particularly on the Northeast Corridor and go to any of these cities and it’s pretty cost effective. Amtrak lines in Illinois run from Chicago and deliver students from the suburbs to Western Illinois University, Southern Illinois University – which is a six-hour drive, by the way – to Galesburg, Illinois, where Knox College is. So, these Amtrak lines have really improved. And, they’ve done it because, as ridership has increased, they’ve been able to put money back in to infrastructure, to new cars, to a more comfortable ride for people. Amtrak’s well on its way to becoming, I think, a very, very efficient, comfortable, cost-effective way for people to travel.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Would you concede, though, that over the years it’s been under-funded and under-supported by the government?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Congress has really tried to hold Amtrak’s feet to the fire and they’ve gotten the message. And, I congratulate them – for stepping up, improving service, improving efficiency, and really trying to provide the kind of ridership that people now have become accustomed to and that they’re using it.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: So, are you convinced then, that with the right kind of partnership and the right mix, the private sector would jump at the opportunity to get involved in rail projects in this country?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: There’s no question about it. I just met with a group from the West Coast that’s willing to raise 80 percent of the money if we will leverage part of our money to build a high speed rail line from Nevada all the way over to California. They have a plan put together. They know they have to meet all the environmental standards. There is money out there in the private sector – particularly on high speed rail – because the investors know that if you build a good high speed rail, you can make money at it and people will use it. Just the way they’ve done in Europe and in Asia.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, they’re so expensive to build. I mean, can you really make a buck doing this?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: You absolutely can. And I think that when you look at the European model and you look at the Asian model, they’ve proven that you can have high speed rail – you can do it in a way where the government pays part and the private sector pays part, and you can make money at it.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: That would potentially change the landscape, if there’s money to be made.

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Twenty years from now, you’re going to see at least three or four corridors of high speed rail in America that does not exist today – thanks to the vision of the President and thanks to the vision of people in the country who are willing to make the investments. But, we are right on the cutting edge of having high speed rail in America.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Where are those corridors?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: The West Coast, the central part of the country, the Midwest, the Northeast Corridor and the South. There’s at least five corridors right now that are in different phases of opportunities to begin. California’s way ahead of the curve. They’ve been planning high speed rail for 20 years. They’ve passed a referendum. They have money sitting in a bank to help leverage some private dollars and to help some of our dollars. And, so, they’re pretty far ahead. The Midwest has got a pretty good plan… So, there are some opportunities in America.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What about those who say, ‘But wait a minute. We have built a suburban sprawl car-based society here and you’re inserting rail into this picture? And rail is ideally suited for the old cities in the Northeast with the population clusters and centers.’ Does rail really work when you lay that on top of the landscape of sprawl?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Well, as I said, I was in Houston recently. They have a whole plan for connecting the suburban area with the inner city of Houston, where people can use light rail to come from 10 miles out into the city.

There are plans in some of the big cities that enable people to use these light rails. Washington, DC, is a classic example. The Metro system here could not exist if it hadn’t been for the foresight of people who said, ‘We got to get people out of automobiles and into the city to get to work and back to the places where they want to live.’ And this is a pretty classic example of something that has worked pretty well. And other cities are really looking at it.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: We had a nice conversation with the mayor of Portland – obviously, they’re big on streetcars and trolleys there. And those were built very much in spite of the Federal government. I’m not talking about your tenure, of course. We’re talking about your predecessors here. They almost had to fight the government to make this happen. Because the money came just absolutely greased for roads. And basically, they had to build it themselves. What are your comments on that, first of all? Should Washington be dictating – one way or another, whether it’s roads or rail – what localities do?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Portland’s way ahead of the curve. They are the example of a livable community. They’re the example, and we want to replicate that in other communities around the country. The streetcar system that they’ve developed – we’re going to put some dollars into it. We’re going to be making some announcements. We’re going to be going out there with the folks that have been way futuristic with this. And so, what we’re trying to do is look forward. We’re looking through the windshield, we’re not looking in the rear view mirror.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Yeah, they’re actually building streetcars there.

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: Exactly.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But philosophically, should Washington one way or another be telling localities how to spend their money on transportation? How should that work?

SEC. RAY LaHOOD: That’s the old way of doing it. I mean, we do provide a lot of the resources here in Washington. But we know now that we don’t have all the resources and we don’t have all the smart people here. People are going to decide in their communities how they want to get around their communities and we ought to be able to supplement their good ideas and their dreams and their ideas for how they want their communities to look. And I think that is the way forward – I really do.

Handwritten transportation bill outline by Rep. Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee || Photo: MinnPost.com

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., MN), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has been at odds with the Obama Administration on when to take up his recently introduced transportation bill: THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009. Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood has called for an 18-month extension of the current law instead of approving a new law. Rep. Oberstar, however, has other ideas.

“We completely transformed the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration in this legislation,” said the Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman about the bill on The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC public radio in New York, “We can’t ask people to continue paying for a program that doesn’t work.”

As Sec. LaHood told senior lawmakers on June 17 of the Obama Administration’s request, Rep. Oberstar called extending the existing law, passed under President George W. Bush, “unacceptable.”

Rep. John Mica (R., FL), ranking minority member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee || Photo: Washington Post

The transportation bill even has some bipartisan support – at least within the Committee – as ranking minority member Rep. John Mica (R., FL), among others, has endorsed the bill.

Still, the Senate is mostly opposed to the new legislation – following the lead of the Obama Administration. After the bill’s introduction, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., OK), ranking minority member, endorsed the 18-month extension.

Sen. Boxer said the extension should be “clean as it can be, clean as a whistle … not with these policy changes, because it will in fact jeopardize a quick passage of this extension.”

The delay of new legislation would also postpone a vote by Democrats in Congress to raise taxes – most likely the national gas tax – to cover the almost 60 percent increase in federal transportation funding the bill calls for past the 2010 midterm elections. The Environment and Public Works Chairman said, “I will tell you that if you go out to the people of America and say (a gas tax hike) is the solution, they’re not going to buy it.”

THE NEXT STIMULUS

The stimulus package passed in February has come under debate as to its actual effect in creating new jobs and saving existing ones given June’s 9.5 percent unemployment rate. With some $120 billion of the $787 billion bill going to infrastructure – $27 billion for highway and bridge construction and repair; $8.4 billion for mass transit; $8 billion for high-speed rail; and $1.3 billion for Amtrak – areas with low unemployment rates are getting a disproportionate amount of stimulus funding, according to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

Also quoted in The New York Times report on Transportation Stimulus Spending so far, Owen Gutfreund (pictured), author of 20th Century Sprawl, was interviewed in Blueprint America: Road to the Future || [watch now]

In terms of federal dollars for transportation, the decision on how to spend most of it was left to the states, which have a long history, The New York Times said, “of giving short shrift to major metropolitan areas when it comes to dividing federal transportation money.”

Two-thirds of the country lives in large metropolitan areas, which are not only the locations of rundown roads and bridges and public transit systems in need maintenance and expansion, but are also the nation’s economic centers and places of highest unemployment. But, according to The New York Times, far less than two-thirds of federal transportation stimulus money has gone to these cities and their surrounding regions.

Also quoted in The New York Times report on Transportation Stimulus Spending so far, Pat McCrory (pictured), mayor of Charlotte, N.C., was interviewed in Blueprint America: Stimulus Roadblock? || [watch now]

Still, President Obama has said the stimulus plan needs more time.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., CA) agrees with the President in seeing through the first stimulus package. At the same time, however, the Speaker said last week, “I am a proponent for bringing up a full transportation bill, which is a great jobs bill… right now I think that we have big issues with health care and how we fund that, and if we do go someplace, I’d like to see us do the transportation bill.”

If the new transportation bill were put into law, according to the House Transportation and Infrastructure

Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Current and Planned Uses of Funds While Facing Fiscal Stresses || U.S. Government Accountability Office

Chairman, then the formulas and mechanisms allowing states to potentially mis-fund transportation would be streamlined or done away with as the legislation consolidates 75 funding categories from the current system into just four categories.

The Obama Administration certainly agrees with Rep. Oberstar that the system needs reform. Simply, it may be another fight for another time.

THE HEALTHCARE ROADBLOCK

The fight right now: healthcare reform – the President’s top legislative priority. That is at least the signal from the House Ways and Means Committee, which is preoccupied with how to reform and fund the national healthcare system. As Rep. Charles Rangel (D., NY), the Committee Chairman, told The Hill, “You have to believe me. Everything I am doing is health, health and health.”

Any bills with taxes, such the proposed healthcare and transportation legislation, must go through the Ways and Means Committee. If healthcare has predominance over transportation, as Rep. Rangel has suggested, then the transportation bill is likely to not even be heard this year by the Committee. The Ways and Means Chairman went on to tell The Hill, “he can’t yet talk about how to fund the highway bill, but added that ‘it is very important and it’s on the front burner.’”