Features » February 23, 2009

The Future of Transit (cont’d)

New approaches needed

But even funding for roads is hurting these days. In September 2008, the Federal Highway Trust Fund–which uses the gas tax to fund a majority of road repair projects–went broke, forcing Congress to spend $8 billion to ensure temporary solvency. Yet the fund is expected to run out again later this year, leading even the most conservative transit policymakers to talk about greener options.

Some in Congress are lobbying for a simple gas tax increase to fix the highway-funding problem. But that idea doesn’t take into account that gasoline-powered cars are becoming increasingly fuel-efficient, much less that battery, biofuel and plug-in hybrid technologies have begun to permeate the market.

Another idea is for a mileage tax. Several states are now considering it, and Portland, Ore., already tried it in 2006 and 2007. Cars were equipped with a mileage counter, and when they filled up at fuel stations, they were levied a tax for the number of miles they had traveled, rather than charged a gas tax at the pump. It was fairly popular with testers–91 percent of participants liked it more than the gas tax, according to survey by the Oregon Department of Transportation–but the program is not ready to scale nationally.

But to reshape policy, NRDC’s Lovaas says one method could be to specify that money meant for highway and bridge projects be used only for repair and maintenance. Another policy proposal would include language specifying that repair projects be giving priority over new road construction when funding is distributed.

Others are focusing on the percentages: While transit advocates would ideally like a 50-50 split between roads and mass transit funding, T4 is lobbying for a 60-40 split, which would still increase funding for mass transit from its current level.

Transit advocates will likely differ over just how far to go in advocating for a better apportionment. Friends of the Earth (FOE) launched a “no new roads” campaign around the stimulus plan, calling instead for cleaner alternatives.

But others, like the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), don’t necessarily oppose new roads. They only oppose roads and projects that don’t address congestion, sprawl and inaccessibility.

“In the past, the environmental movement and the smart growth movement have sort of just juxtaposed roads to mass transit,” says CNU President and former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist. He argues that road funding should instead be based on whether it creates a network of accessible, user-friendly streets for pedestrians, mass transit and cars.

A less-than-stimulating start

Meanwhile, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair James Oberstar (D-Minn.)–who will likely have plenty of say in what the House transit package looks like–has sent signals that he’ll fight for something tougher than previous transportation bills. His original stimulus proposal called for $85 billion for infrastructure investments, with more than half going to energy and environmental projects and at least $17 billion to mass transit. Of that, $12 billion would go to public transit, and $5 billion for rail. Another $30 billion would go to highways and bridges. Oberstar noted that his plan “creates green-collar jobs and invests in projects that decrease our dependence on foreign oil and address global climate change.”

However, when the stimulus proposal came out in mid-January, the road money stayed the same but the transportation portion had been reduced by 25 percent. As for rail–for which Oberstar wanted $5 billion–its funding was reduced to $1.1 billion. Transit advocates were able to tack $3 billion more onto the stimulus through an amendment, but the total was still short of what Oberstar originally called for.

“How those decisions were made, I don’t know,” says Jim Berard, communications director for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “It’s disappointing that our recommendation was not accepted on the whole, but at the same time we got a good deal for transportation infrastructure and we want to keep the momentum going for this bill.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee’s draft stimulus was even more meager than the House version, providing just $9.5 billion for transit. The chamber then rejected an amendment offered by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to increase transportation funding by $18 billion–$5 billion for mass transit and $13 billion for highways–by a mere two votes. Instead, lawmakers tacked on an additional $11.5 billion in tax rebates for car purchases, forcing struggling local transit agencies to shore up their riddled budgets in-house.

And as In These Times went to press, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, was reportedly co-sponsoring an amendment with notorious climate change skeptic Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) that would throw an additional $50 billion at roads and highways. As Boxer’s committee will be responsible for the reauthorization of the transporation bill, the amendment doesn’t bode well.

“It shows that there’s absolutely no new thinking coming out of that committee on the role that transportation needs to play in achieving global warming goals,” says FOE’s Transportaion Coordinator Colin Peppard. “We need better leadership from the committee that’s going to be drafting this bill.”

Those who favor spending on roads argue that they provide a more immediate stimulus because they’re “shovel-ready.” But at least $50 billion worth of backlogged repairs are needed for public transit systems, compared to $8.5 billion needed to maintain current road. Yet the stimulus draft gave billions more to roads–meaning much would likely be spent on expanding or building new roads.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that Amtrak’s northeast corridor alone needs more than $10 billion in repairs, the draft allocated only $1.1 billion for improving all of Amtrak. Yet even this pittance was deemed too generous by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), who, as In These Times went to press, had proposed slashing it by $850 million.

Berard, however, remains bullish about the coming congressional session. “There will be other times down the road to advocate for more transit funding,” he says. “We will be taking a very close look at how to get more for transit in that as well.”

Though unable to give a sense of dollar figures or percentages, Berard says the preliminary work on the legislation is underway, and legislators plan to move a bill through the House by the end of June.

Up in LaHood

One of the biggest wild cards on transportation policy is going to be Obama’s pick to head the Department of Transportation, the former representative from Illinois, Ray LaHood. The seven-term Republican, who retired this year, served on the House Transportation Committee, though never in a leadership position.

In the past few years, he broke from his party when it came to Amtrak. In 2005, he noted in the Peoria Journal-Star that “we’ve got a good Amtrak system in Illinois and I don’t think we want to destroy it by talking about privatization.” Last June, he voted for the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, which aimed to promote increased public transportation use. LaHood was also a member of the Congressional Bike Caucus, a group of representatives who work to improve bike infrastructure.

But many believe LaHood’s nomination was based more on politics than expertise. The Department of Transportation was also the cabinet post where Bush made his token appointment of a Democrat in 2001, and Obama had promised a bipartisan administration.

Environmental groups are giving LaHood the benefit of the doubt.

“While his overall record on energy and environment issues is poor,” says FOE President Brent Blackwelder, “there are reasons to hope he may be open to the visionary transportation policy that is needed to move our country forward.”

Another major factor will be Carol Browner. Her role as Obama’s chief energy and climate adviser–a new position that didn’t require Senate confirmation–will likely take some time to flesh out. It seems likely that, given Obama’s emphasis on a comprehensive climate plan and Browner’s experience as the Environmental Protection Agency administrator during the Clinton administration, she’ll also play a key role in transportation policy.

Similarly, the White House’s focus on climate policy may mean that Obama himself weighs in more on this year’s transit bill than did previous presidents. And Vice President Joe Biden, who as a senator famously commuted to and from the Capitol via Amtrak, is no shrinking violet on public transit issues, either.

Whether mass transit receives the attention it deserves is a question of political will. In regions across the country, legislators are adjusting to the new demands of commuters. Even in Baltimore, where foot dragging has kept the Red Line shelved for years, progress is being made.

In September, the Maryland Transportation Agency released its preliminary Environmental Impact Statement, the first significant step toward applying for federal funding. And new Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon is making sure the city is a key partner in any state negotiations.

Federal lawmakers must now find a way to support more projects like Baltimore’s and, in doing so, devise a new vision for America’s transit system. This year is the perfect opportunity to start.

* * * * *

Authors’ post-stimulus addendum: Transit advocates pushed hard to improve the grim first draft of the stimulus proposal–and their effort paid off. About $17 billion dollars were devoted to mass transit in the $787 billion bill President Obama signed in mid-February, roughly the same number Rep. Oberstar called for in his initial committee recommendations. Not only did Sen. Boxer’s road amendment die in committee and Sen. Nelson’s proposed cuts lose out in the face of intense opposition, but local transit agencies will get a boost through an $8.4 billion increase in transit capital assistance grants. The package also includes a hefty $8 billion for high-speed rail, funding that Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly added in the final bargaining sessions.

While the resources won’t begin to address the enormous investment needs and came at the expense of other stimulative programs–school construction funds and aid to state governments, most notably–it’s a reassuring sign that Democrats understand the need to chart a new path during this summer’s transportation negotiations.