U.S. Senate

Note: See follow-up post, "Boxer: Transpo Funding Will Rise in Senate Bill, Bike/Ped Will Be Preserved" for updates, including clarification that the new bill will fund transportation at current levels plus inflation and an expanded TIFIA program.

Today’s Senate Banking Committee hearing held some good news for transit riders. Unintuitive though it may be, Banking has jurisdiction over public transportation in the Senate. While in the House, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee handles every aspect of the reauthorization, in the Senate the bill gets carved up. Environment and Public Works is taking the lead, with the specifics on transit left to Banking. Luckily, there are some transit champions on Banking: Jack Reed (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) to name a few.

As the House and Senate get closer to unveiling their respective transportation proposals, it’s crunch time for figuring out how to pay for infrastructure investment moving forward. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who has let slip that he’s in favor of a two-year reauthorization because of current funding constraints, chaired a hearing in the Finance Committee today to examine options for financing. No one panacea emerged, and conservatives on the committee and among the witnesses quickly countered most of the suggestions raised.

According to Congressional insiders, members of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works are meeting today and tomorrow to hash out the details of their proposal for a multi-year transportation reauthorization bill. Hanging in the balance of these negotiations may be the federal government's only programs dedicated to funding infrastructure for biking and walking.

In February, President Obama released his transportation plan, which included the launch of a national infrastructure bank. The next month, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced a bill to create a similar bank, but with some key distinctions. And yesterday, Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), leaders on the Commerce Committee, announced that they’re sponsoring legislation that would do nearly the same thing. So what’s the difference between all these different proposals?

Yesterday, anti-rail curmudgeon Ken Orski of Innovation Briefs quoted me in his latest diatribe against the administration’s transportation proposal, in which he explains why the Obama plan is unrealistic. Indeed, I think it’s safe to say the dollar amount of the administration’s bill is a non-starter in today’s political and economic climate, given that it’s about double what’s expected to come from the Highway Trust Fund over the next six years.

Connecticut state senators just voted to increase the state gas tax by three cents. The New Hampshire House Speaker has proposed cutting theirs by five cents – but only for two months, to help drivers bear the pain of high gas prices. In Georgia, the gas tax jumps every time gas prices go up by 25 cents. And at least one U.S. Senator is suggesting that more states start taking transportation funding into their own hands.

Like everyone else, Safe Routes to School advocates are scaling back. Last year, a bill introduced in the Senate asked for $600 million to enhance pedestrian and bike safety near schools. “We were working in a pretty different environment,” said Margo Pedroso, deputy director of the Safe Routes to School National Partnership. “Everybody was talking about a $500 billion transportation bill. So we figured, we don’t know what the full bill will be in the end, but let’s go for the funding we feel like we need.”

Congressional committees charged with drafting the new transportation bill have been holding hearings to seek input from stakeholders around the country. In today’s installment, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee heard from five state DOT chiefs, one city official, and the chair of FedEx. Those witnesses’ pleas to the committee ranged from bike trails and transit to highways and deregulation.