Scott Walker ran for governor with a no-train message. Photo: Scott Walker for Governor

In hard economic times, it’s difficult to believe that two states are together rejecting more than a billion dollars in federal money. Ohio and Wisconsin will not undertake high-speed rail projects that were in development as late as last November. New leadership in both states claimed the rail projects would forever burden their state budgets. In the morning light, however, their objections may face fresh scrutiny.

Last July, President Obama’s Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, stopped in Wisconsin touring the country with a plan he said was only rivaled by President Eisenhower’s interstate-highway system. “High-speed rail is coming to Wisconsin,” LaHood said. “There’s no stopping it!”

Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and Republican candidate for governor, didn’t agree. Walker became the “No Train” candidate as he campaigned across the state before Election Day in November. He put up a website, www.notrain.com. And, he had words for Washington: “It’s outrageous for Secretary La Hood to suggest that your administration can force Wisconsin to continue building a train it doesn’t want and cannot afford,” Walker wrote in a letter to the president. “Almost as outrageous as the fact that the decision to saddle Wisconsin taxpayers with untold millions in operating and maintenance costs, forever, was never debated or voted on by the Wisconsin legislature.”

Walker promised to turn down $810 million in stimulus dollars for a completely federally funded train line from Milwaukee to Madison that would eventually connect Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Walker went on to win the election with 54 percent of the vote; the first Republican governor in Wisconsin in eight years.

While his opponent argued throughout the campaign that the state would lose thousands of jobs without the multimillion dollar project, Walker said the money should be used for highways instead. “More than 60 years ago, the federal government had the foresight to recognize that the American people no longer wanted to be limited by fixed-track passenger rail,” he wrote in a second letter to Washington, this time to LaHood. “The massive investment in our federal interstate highway system spurred the greatest economic expansion in our nation’s history. For us to now go backwards on transportation makes little sense. I believe that continuing responsible investments in our road infrastructure is a key to growing our economy and creating jobs.”

LaHood wasn’t buying it. Plus, the money could only be used for high-speed rail. The transportation secretary took back nearly all the $810 million before the newly elected governor could even return the check. In Ohio, new Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, also ran against high-speed rail in favor of roads and bridges. Like in Wisconsin, the Obama administration, again, took back the money.

Contrary to what people think, roadwork isn’t inexpensive. Governors Walker and Kasich won, in part, talking only about the great expense of high-speed rail in contrast to the practicality of highway maintenance. USPIRG (the federation of state public interest groups), however, has a study that puts the cost of roads and bridges in perspective. For starters, the tax on what you pay at the pump doesn’t begin to cover the cost of the country’s transportation system. According to the report, “Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called ‘user fees’ by $600 billion.”

Deficit spending and borrowed tax dollars from the country’s general fund have made up the difference.

In Wisconsin, the state projected high-speed rail operating costs at $16.5 million a year. After fare and concession revenue, the taxpayers would be on the hook for about $7.5 million. Gov. Walker said the state could not pay the added money to keep the trains running year after year. But, a new estimate dropped the state obligation below $5 million. And of that money, the feds could pick up anywhere from 80 to 90 percent of the cost. Compare that to the cost of an average road construction project in northeast or southeast Wisconsin last year: While some are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the majority are in the millions and well exceed whatever it would cost to maintain the Milwaukee-to-Madison line for a year.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation does, in fact, project a $300 million budget shortfall over the next two years. Walker is right to worry. But it is a road and bridge problem – not a rail problem. Take a look at the chart below:

*The 2010 and 2011 amounts are budgeted figures. Credit: Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Even after Wisconsin stopped increasing the state gas tax in 2005, highway spending (blue line) has still increased and remained in the billions annually. Take note of the red line for state rail funding, though. In 2010, it jumps over $800 million. In 2011, as promised by Walker, it takes a considerable dive.

After the election shake-up, Rep. John Mica (R., Fla), will be the new House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair next year || Photo: Washington Post

On Capitol Hill, the new year will bring a new Congress and a change in leadership in the House after Republicans won big last month in the midterm elections. However, the new House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair, Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.), is something of an enigma when compared to his Republican counterparts as they prepare to take control. What no one can even guess about is the tone that Rep. Mica will set on transportation policy.

Here’s why: When current Transportation Chair Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn.) steps down (it is worth noting that the 36-year member of Congress also lost his reelection bid), he gives way to not just any Republican but one of his closest political allies in Mica. Last year, the Florida Republican even went before Congress defending the Minnesota Democrat’s stalled transportation bill, which would have doubled government spending to over $500 billion and lessened the importance of highways in favor of mass-transit. To say the least, Mica showed another side of Republican thinking on transportation.

Below is an interview Blueprint America had with Mica back in 2009 when he was the minority leader of the Transportation Committee. What’s interesting is the fact that ideologically — at least on transportation issues — the incoming Chair aligned more often with liberals than conservatives. “If you’re on the Transportation Committee long enough,” said Rep. Mica, “even if you’re a fiscal conservative… you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment.”

That was then, however, when Mica was in the minority. See if you can read between the lines — will the new Chair continue to champion Oberstar’s stalled bill or will the Republican align with his party and cut spending now that he is calling the shots?

FROM JUNE 2009:

Last week, 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.

Rep. Oberstar had been counting on a September 30 deadline — when the current law authorizing federal highway and transit programs expires — to bring lawmakers together to not only renew federal transportation funding but to also rethink how it is funded.

The proposed transportation bill calls for $450 billion in federal funding, which is a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005.

The following is an interview with Rep. John Mica (R., Fla.), ranking minority member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, about the recent developments of the transportation bill:

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The current highway authorization expires at the end of September. So what exactly is expiring?

REP. JOHN MICA: Every six years Congress adopts a federal authorization for highways, which outlines transportation policy, projects, and funding distributions for the whole country.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Right now, however, the Obama Administration wants to delay authorization.

REP. MICA: We’re on the verge of a transportation meltdown. The Administration has proposed an 18-month extension of both the highway authorization bill and the highway trust fund. That will require, depending on how long it is extended, between $8 and $15 billion.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, typically, the transportation bill is not authorized every six years – it’s generally extended.

REP. MICA: Right. I think the last time we tried to authorize it we had 13 extensions.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Are you opposed to this 18-month extension by the Obama Administration?

REP. MICA: Well, I think that it would be better to go ahead with the transportation bill Rep. (Jim) Oberstar has introduced. We have been working on the bill for some time.

Still, I think we take that bill as the starter. The problem you’ve got with an 18-month extension is that it puts many of the major infrastructure projects on hold. The 18-month extension is a job killer. It gives you a temporary relief with the highway trust fund, but because you don’t have projects approved and policy and funding mechanisms in place for the future, it ends up killing jobs and delaying decisions on projects across the country. For example, there are 6, 800 project requests in the House bill alone – all of these would go on hold.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: How will the extension be funded – this $8 to $15 billion?

REP. MICA: They would take it out of general revenue, which would basically be deficit spending – and fund it. They have talked about some offsets, but I haven’t seen any specifics. Last year, however, we did allocate $8 billion to keep the highway trust fund solvent. That said, it was with no offsets.

When we’ve spent $3 trillion so far this year with no offsets – $8 to $15 billion seems like a very small amount.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: In the meantime, what is to be done about the highway trust fund?

REP. MICA: The highway trust fund will continue to lose money – for several reasons – as federal funding is based on an 18.4 cents a gallon national gas tax that hasn’t been increased in years. One, because of the economy, there’s not as much motor vehicle traffic. And two, every day the fleet is becoming more efficient, so people are driving further and paying less.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Why, then, is the Obama Administration wanting to delay authorization?

REP. MICA: A political reason – because they don’t want to promote another tax increase, which sure puts them in a bind as most of the Democrats in Congress favor a tax increase. Also, I think that they’ve got themselves overextended with taking on many controversial measures.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What do you favor in terms of funding transportation?

REP. MICA: There are two things we need to do. We need to leverage the funds we have coming in through a host of creative financing mechanisms. One, would be a dramatic increase in public-private partnerships. Two, would be leveraging some of the funds that we have coming in using bonds, full faith, and credit of the United States. And, guarantee programs toward financing infrastructure projects. Three, the national infrastructure bank and other financing or assistance programs.

That’s the first part.

The second part is speeding up the process. Most projects that the federal government is involved with take an inordinate amount of time for approvals, and they cost much more because there are so many delays and hoops that people have to go through.

I offer what I call the Mica 437-day process plan, which is the number of days it took to replace the bridge that collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. Rather than the seven or eight years it takes complete any other bridge, which would be the normal time frame.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: And why did it just take 437-days to complete?

MICA: It was done on an expedited approval basis, which I think you could do with most projects that don’t change the basic footprint of the infrastructure that you’re rebuilding.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Is an expedited approval process included in the transportation bill? That said, are you supportive of the highway authorization?

REP. MICA: I’m supportive with reservations. First, I’m trying to move the process forward, but there are things, if I were writing it, that I would write quite differently. If the process continues to be open and participatory, then I can be supportive. It does need some clean-up, and it needs some revision. I’d like to see much more of the ideas that I have advocated on, such as speeding up the approval process and increasing the revenues that are available without raising taxes. Those are my two big ones.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What is the likelihood of the transportation bill passing?

REP. MICA: It’s 50-50. It’s hard to say if we can get support. I think that with rolling the bill out this week, we will have an option of our bill versus the 18-month extension. Then you just have to work it, and see if you can bring a coalition of people who are interested in building and solving the problem of infrastructure now, rather than putting it off until later.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: And, what would you say of the support right now for the transportation bill?

REP. MICA: Well, I think it could pass in the House.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What about the Senate?

REP. MICA: A little bit more dicey.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: You were quoted as saying, referring to the Obama Administration wanting to delay authorization, “That’s a real slap in the face to a lot of hard work … I would have been mortified if this had been done to me under Bush.”

REP. MICA: I’m not Rep. Oberstar, but for his administration, after working as hard as he has to move the bill forward, to have the rug pulled out from under him, with this just out of the blue proposal, is a hard pill to swallow.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: In terms of your role as a Representative from Florida, and getting funding for your state and your district, what needs to happen to that process?

REP. MICA: Well, I’m more interested in the country at large in terms of infrastructure. If we can provide adequate funds for improvements across the country, then it benefits every district – not just my own. Simply, I’m not taking a parochial viewpoint for my own district or for my own state.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: You are a Republican – and you support transportation and infrastructure spending?

REP. MICA: Well, I tell you though, if you’re on the Transportation Committee long enough, even if you’re a fiscal conservative, which I consider myself to be, you quickly see the benefits of transportation investment. Simply, I became a mass transit fan because it’s so much more cost effective than building a highway. Also, it’s good for energy, it’s good for the environment – and that’s why I like it.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: If anything, you’d say that your time in Congress and on the Transportation Committee has brought you around to these ideas?

REP. MICA: Yes. And, seeing the cost of one person in one car. The cost for construction. The cost for the environment. The cost for energy. You can pretty quickly be convinced that there’s got to be a more cost effective way. It’s going to take a little time, but we have to have good projects, they have to make sense – whether it’s high-speed rail or commuter rail or light rail. We got to have some alternatives helping people – even in the rural areas – to get around.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced on Wednesday the winning projects to be funded under their Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program, which was created to oversee the dispersal of $1.5 billion included in the stimulus plan a year ago. In other words, a bureaucracy within a bureaucracy. While the DOT’s function is to oversee the flow of transportation dollars from Washington, the TIGER program’s function is to do it better (as it relates to stimulus funding and as it relates to finally using an acronym that is also Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s nickname).

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

The TIGER program put in place specific criteria designed to reward states and cities that came up with “great projects” that, under normal transportation funding laws and requirements, would otherwise have been overlooked. “TIGER grants will tackle the kind of major transportation projects that have been difficult to build under other funding programs,” said Sec. LaHood. “This will help us meet the 21st century challenges of improving the environment, making our communities more livable and enhancing safety, all while creating jobs and growing the economy.”

Outside of an earmark by a member of Congress, a typical transportation project is funded and selected according to formulas based on, among other things, population of an area, whether it is rural, urban or in-between, whether it is for highways (projects benefiting personal automobile transportation) or mass-transit (everything else), if there are matching local funds, if it is “shovel-ready,” and so on. In most cases, the merit of the project has nothing to do with it — it is a numbers game. And the number transportation advocates, be it for the open road or the fixed-rail, most often call on is 80/20 — 80 percent of federal transportation funding goes to highways while 20 percent goes to mass-transit. The DOT has in recent years tried to shift the focus of roads over rail through programs such as “New Starts” and “Small Starts,” which favor small, mass-transit oriented projects. While the TIGER program will still fund highway building, it continues a growing trend in Washington to find ways to award new-transit, especially if it is “green.”

The DOT, not surprisingly, was flooded with more than 1,400 applications from all 50 states, territories and the District of Columbia requesting funding for almost $60 billion worth of projects — 40 times the amount available through the TIGER program.

In the end, 51 projects were selected:

· Modern streetcar construction to support vibrant urban corridors in Tucson, Dallas, Portland and New Orleans and light rail in Detroit;

· Bridge replacements in Oklahoma, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kentucky and Indiana that can support multiple modes of travel;

· Port and freight-rail projects to spur economic growth in Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Hawaii, Pennsylvania and Ohio;

· Innovative highway funding and operations in Texas, North Carolina, Colorado, South Carolina and Arkansas;

· Bicycle and pedestrian networks in Philadelphia, Indianapolis, and a complete streets project in Dubuque, IA;

· The long-awaited rebirth of New York’s former Penn Station as Moynihan Station.

:::TIGER GRANTS (part one):::

:::TIGER Grants (part two):::

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.

President Barack Obama with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood || photo: White House

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.

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.’”

[CLICK TO DOWNLOAD BILL HERE]

________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Expiring on October 1, the law authorizing federal highway and transit programs was expected to be renewed sometime this legislative session. This past Wednesday, however, Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood, under instruction from the Obama Administration, asked for an 18 month extension of the now four year old transportation law that would delay the planned reauthorization past the 2010 congressional midterm elections.

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

Still, Sec. LaHood’s request came just one day before Rep. Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat and Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, planned to announce the outline of the Transportation Reauthorization Bill.

Rep. Oberstar’s bill, released on Thursday, would not only replenish the nation’s highway trust fund – expected to become insolvent sometime in August – but would also overhaul all federal transportation programs – from funding to practices.

[CLICK FOR AN OUTLINE OF THE BILL]

[CLICK FOR VIDEO OF REP. OBERSTAR INTRODUCING THE BILL]

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

Regardless, the proposed Transportation Bill calls for $450 billion in federal funding, which is a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005.

• $87 billion in highway trust fund money for transit; and an additional $12 billion in transit cash from the Treasury’s general fund. The 2005 bill gave transit less than $44 billion in highway trust fund money and $9 billion from the general fund.
• 75 funding categories from the current system for highway programs would be consolidated into four categories – only one focuses on building new capacity and that money, once allotted to individual states, has the flexibility to be spent on new transit rather than new roads.
• The National Infrastructure Bank, called for by President Obama and proposed by Sens. Chris Dodd (D., Connecticut) and Chuck Hagel (R., Nebraska – retired) and Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D., Connecticut) and Keith Ellison (D., Minnesota), would be established – putting in place a new public works funding structure that could leverage current spending to create more capital for more projects.

Extending the 2005 federal bill for the next six years, according to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which the Obama Administration only wants to do for 18 months, would result in $326 billion in funding – about $125 billion less than the proposed bill.

Rep. Oberstar has said he will challenge the Obama Administration. A vote on the bill could happen as early as next week. Still, the funding and revenue mechanisms of the bill will be left up to the House Ways and Means Committee – where the Transportation Bill could be stalled without the President’s support.

This is our year. Infrastructure is no longer just a word thrown about by policy wonks and engineers. The public, and more importantly politicians, have made public works, especially transportation, a front and center issue. The White House brings a fresh outlook on transportation policy and land use decisions – US Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently announced his “2-foot NM” rule which would require all business trips by US DOT workers of less than two miles to be made on two feet. Already, President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (known to most as the Stimulus Package) provided approximately $46 billion directly to transportation and much of that to green transportation. And, just as we’re beginning to put that money to use, we’re also beginning to launch into high gear on the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill. The reauthorization will provide a longer-term strategy for building up an innovative, sustainable transportation policy.

The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETY-LU), the current authorization of federal transportation policy included $287 billion in approved funding and expires on September 30, 2009. We strongly urge legislators to act quickly on reauthorization to avoid further injuring our financially-strapped transportation system. They must also “think big” (say $500+ million big) and think wisely and efficiently.

The new administration clearly talks a good game when it comes to sustainable transport; reauthorization is the perfect opportunity to “walk the talk.” But, it’s not just a matter of money – transportation investments can be constructive, or destructive, to our nation’s resources. Poor funding decisions can also increase our dependence on foreign oil which affects, in turn, foreign policy. Where and how we spend is key to a sagacious program. In short, we must rely less on cars and trucks and more on rail and bus. We must live closer to where we work and be able to walk, bike or take transit there. We must end our culture of “consuming a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk.”

We were pleasantly surprised to find $8 billion in the stimulus bill for high-speed rail. Reauthorization should quintuple that number to spark at least five and maybe 10 high-speed rail corridors. It should be noted that China is spending over $1 trillion on high-speed rail, the largest public works project in the world next to President Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. Our goal is to make rail between large cities competitive with air travel for short-haul trips of less than 500 miles. This would reduce our carbon footprint and increase efficiency at overloaded airports. The United States rail system should also be strengthened to accommodate a much larger share of freight traffic. Rail is more energy-efficient than trucks and one freight train can potentially remove 200 trucks from the highway system.

Current transportation policy allocates much of its funding to Departments of Transportation (DOTs). But as most DOTs are run at the state, rather than at the city level, the objective of the DOT is generally to efficiently move people between cities. And besides the rail initiatives discussed above, this typically means investment in highway infrastructure. Very few cities actually have their own DOTs. However, approximately 80 percent of Americans currently live in metropolitan areas. Therefore, there should be a much greater emphasis on providing funding for efficiently moving people within cities. But even the city DOTs that do exist are bound within the physical city limits. The new transportation bill should establish funding and authority at the regional level to ensure that all metropolitan areas modernize across city borders to incorporate the full range of transportation modes. Further, each regional transportation planning entity should be required to establish a clear statement of objectives and be accountable.

Building highways in cities should be the option of last resort. Cities should be offered “highway diet” subsidies to not invest in new roads but rather reduce car use through approaches like congestion pricing and improved transit. Instead of just a few hundred million being offered nation-wide for congestion pricing as done in the recent past, we suggest $10 billion that would be used to incentivize cities to make major modal shifts away from highways. We suggest this be cost-neutral by reducing highway investment by $10 billion. (Frankly, as long as it’s cost neutral the cap could be way higher).

In terms of public transportation, the reauthorized federal transportation bill should encourage more competition in mode selection. For example, BRT is now competitive with light rail in terms of environmental impacts, speed and capacity at a third the cost. A new “New Starts” program (the federal funding vehicle for many light rail projects) needs to be revamped to reflect the reality of 2010 technologies.

Finally, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, have already been in discussions over possible linkages between transportation and housing policies. This could include locating affordable housing near public transportation, connecting existing housing communities with transit services, or building shorter street blocks to facilitate walking. We believe that there should be provisions in the new bill to encourage such links.

The 2009 reauthorization of the existing transportation bill should recognize the importance of sustainable transportation both within and between the country’s metropolitan areas. It should provide funding and authority to regional transportation planning entities with a focus on changing existing modal splits. Our reliance on the interstate highway system for short-haul passenger or freight trips needs to change. We should shift our mid-haul trips from air to rail. Within urban areas we need to expand the use of BRT for high-quality mass transit. We must understand both that transportation affects where we live and work and that where we live and work affects transportation. Overall, we must reduce driver-only travel, curtail our reliance on foreign oil, and change our day-to-day behavior. Only a multi-agency approach can achieve a multi-modal society.

Here are some of infrastructure-related things that caught my attention over the past week:

Americans are fond of infrastructure. Even politicians get it.

Matt Yglesias kept up an ongoing thread on urban planning and parking with a post on a proposal to change regulations in Ithaca, NY. Atrios looks at related issues in Philly.

Matt also had good links to analysis of Ray LaHood’s confirmation hearing as Transportation Secretary.

Streetsblog was chockablock with great posts, as usual: An analysis of how the scaled-back transit provisions in the stimulus package could actually increase unemployment; how the package won’t do anything to change the way that state Departments of Transportation plan; and a link to a cool, nerdy-in-a-good-way piece on urban design’s relationship to transit, infrastructure, stimulus, and quality of life.

Finally, railcar manufacturer Bombardier has announced a trolley car that doesn’t need overhead wires. I propose that we dub these cars Teslas, not to be confused with the Tesla.