USDOT Request for Comments: Real-Time System Management Information Program (due December 23, 2010)

November 30, 2010 at 12:01 am

RITA strongly encourages comments on the Real-Time System Management Information Program Final Rule Request:

Rulehttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2010_register&docid=fr08no10-4 Commentshttp://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480b84022 BACKGROUND The concept for establishing a Real-Time System Management Information Program was included in federal transportation legislation in 2005 (specifically known as Section 1201 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU). The Real-Time System Management Information Program would provide the capability to monitor in real-time the traffic and travel conditions of the major highways across the U.S. and provide a means of sharing these data with state and local governments and with the traveling public. The SAFETEA-LU legislation required the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to establish a formal rule in order to define minimum parameters and requirements for states to make available and share traffic and travel conditions information via real-time information programs. The Federal Highway Administration has released the proposed rule, and is seeking comments from stakeholders across the public and private sectors. The Research and Innovative Technology Administration, which oversees the U.S. Intelligent Transportation Systems Program, is actively encouraging innovation in data collection, management, and dissemination across a wide array of communications platforms, and also encourages stakeholders to provide detailed comments regarding this rule. RITA is particularly interested in responses to questions below from the Notice:

  1. Given the research investment into wireless communications systems in the 5.9 GHz spectrum for Intelligent Transportation Systems applications, to what extent could systems in this spectrum also be used to fulfill the requirements of this rule and/or enable other applications?
  2. Given that there are legacy technologies in place now, and that there are new technologies on the horizon that are being adopted, how can we ensure that investments made today to comply with this rule are sustainable over the long term?

DATES:

This rule will be effective December 23, 2010. Establishment of the real-time information program for traffic and travel conditions reporting along the Interstate highway system will be completed no later than November 8, 2014. Establishment of the real-time information program for traffic and travel conditions reporting along the State-designated metropolitan area routes of significance will be completed no later than November 8, 2016. We request that comments be submitted via the link above no later than December 23, 2010.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ready for another round of “Legislative Chicken”? With only 8 days left in the life of SAFETEA-LU Legislation, Oberstar proposes a three month extension

September 22, 2009 at 11:06 pm

(Sources Contributing to this Hybrid Report:  Streetsblog; PBS -The Dig; Journal of Commerce)

Every six years the law authorizing national transportation policy and funding needs renewal. The current law expires Sept. 30 — in nine days.The House will consider a three-month extension of the current highway bill rather than the 18-month extension the administration and Senate want. The extension will avoid a collapse of highway spending on Oct. 1, according to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee press secretary James Berard.

Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is staunchly against an 18-month delay. As a result, it is likely he will propose a three-month extension later this week.

Without some kind of action, legislation to extend the current transportation law by 18 months — already in place in the Senate and endorsed by the Obama administration — would almost certainly have to pass in order ensure transportation funding past the end of the month.

The 18-month extension is favored by the Senate and White House. A Senate spokesman said that the four committees with jurisdiction over the highway bill have reported legislation to the floor, but the bills have not been up for debate before the full body.

The House’s decision to press onward with a three-month delay sets up a game of legislative chicken similar to the one that developed in late July, when Oberstar was still standing firm on his vow to produce a new transportation bill before September 30. That impasse ended with the Senate and White House prevailing and the nation’s highway trust fund receiving a $7 billion infusion to keep it solvent until the end of this month.

Will this month’s version end with the House again bowing to the Obama administration’s preference that a new transport bill not be considered until early 2011? Now, as in July, the deck is stacked against the lower chamber of Congress. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business interests are behindOberstar’s three-month plan, but their lobbying in favor of a gas tax increase has not yet succeeded in rousing a reluctant Congress.

Meanwhile, State highway officials warn that unless Congress acts, they will lose $8.7 billion in money allocated for projects ranging from interstate highway maintenance to safe routes for school buses on Oct. 1.

The Federal Highway Administration announced that it will rescind funds that have been budgeted but not obligated for highway contracts on Sept. 30. The action will not be affected by congressional legislation to extend the highway law known as SAFETEA-LU. Tony Dorsey, spokesman for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), said preventing the loss will require separate legislation.

An AASHTO press release on this subject notes that all 535 members of the House and Senate received an urgent letter from AASHTO yesterday, requesting that Congress repeal an $8.7 billion rescission of highway contract authority. The rescission was written into SAFETEA-LU, the highway and transit authorization bill passed by Congress in 2005.

In his letter, AASHTO executive director John Horsley contends “…an additional $8.7 billion rescission will result in substantial, real program cuts, not merely a reduction of unused dollars on the books. Provisions in section 1132 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which require that the states apply the rescission proportionately across all programs, will exacerbate the problem by further reducing state discretion to make reductions according to priorities. The letter also states that the rescission must be repealed or “it will nullify the benefits from economic recovery efforts.”

NY Times outlines the difficulties facing re-authorization; Legislation for a 21st Century Transportation System Doesn’t Come Easy

September 17, 2009 at 12:53 pm

(Source: Greenwire @ New York Times)

According to a Center for Public Integrity report released yesterday, there are nearly 1,800 special interest groups lobbying Congress on the transportation bill, ranging from local officials and planning agencies to real estate companies, construction firms and universities. In the first half of this year, the groups employed more than 2,000 lobbyists and spent an estimated total of $45 million on their transportation lobbying.

The road to reforming the nation’s transportation systems looks to be a long and winding one.

Once lawmakers decide when to move forward with the sweeping overhauls they promise, they will need to find a way to pay for it. And once that difficult task is accomplished, the debate will only grow more complicated.

Many in the transportation community agree the next multi-year surface transportation bill needs to significantly boost federal funding for the nation’s roads, rails and bridges. But the consensus soon begins to crumble when the issue turns to how to pay for the overhaul — with lawmakers loath to tell Americans they will need to foot the bill and the rest of the transportation community agreeing that is the only option to pay for it (E&E Daily, Sept. 15).

But even off the Hill, where key players agree massive reform is needed to make the system more performance-based and effective, there is no consensus on exactly what that new system would look like and what those performance goals should be.

Many of the goals discussed at the invitation-only event are conflicting by nature. The usual suspects include the funding ratio for highways and transit systems, and the rate of return that individual states see from taxes they pay to finance the nation’s road and rail work.

Robert Atkinson, who chaired one of two congressionally created blue ribbon panels to examine transportation investment needs, said his panel, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, did not even broach the subject of where the increased investment should be spent in its report.

According to government estimates, the transportation sector accounts for roughly a third of U.S. carbon emissions, and Democrats have vowed to recast the nation’s roads and rails in a “greener” light.

But many state highway departments that had previously voiced support for the new environmental focus are now worrying that the emissions goals may grow overly ambitious and threaten to deliver another blow to both the economy and their efforts to repair and replace crumbling roads and bridges (Greenwire, Aug. 27)

Congress must also decide whether or not to welcome the private sector into the transportation field by giving firms long-term leases on public roads and bridges, effectively turning public infrastructure into a private product.

Click here to read the entire article.  For those wondering what is in the minds of our lawmakers drafting the reauthorization bill, here is congressman Oberstar’s handwritten scrap-paper version (pulled right from the House T&I Committee website, which has a lot of interesting materials to read on this subject).  Though it is not very detailed, it offers a general sensing of the direction he is taking (e.g., consolidating the existing behemoth (108 programs) into 4 categories to simplify the mgmt. structure, adding Office of Livability & Office of Expedited Project Delivery to the FHWA, etc.)

Transportation Reauthorization Updates for June 18, 2009: Bill Outline released; LaHood Blogs, Oberstar stays upset & moves press briefing to 2PM; etc., etc…

June 18, 2009 at 10:59 am

(Source: NY Times, USDOT Secretary’s FastLane Blog, AP via Google, Transportation for America)

Late-breaking: The full outline of Rep. Oberstar’s proposed bill is now available on Transportation for America’s website.  For those readers brave enough to wade into 90 pages of policy detail, please click here to download a copy of the PDF file.  Personally,  (after a super-quick glance) I was left scracting my head about the directions of cutting edge programs like Intelligent Transportation Systems. Absolutely no mention of it except under some transit discussion.  Also, I did not see any references to how this program will help spur the infrastructure development aspects of electric vehicles (like charging stations, etc)? Possibly dealt through CMAQ or other climate-friendly avenues in ths bill?  Would love to know what y’all found out after a careful reading of the outline.  Please leave your thoughts in the comments sections below.

With plans for a six-year, $450 billion transportation bill hung up over the question of how to pay for it, the Obama administration said Wednesday that it wanted to put off the thorniest questions for now. Instead, officials proposed essentially extending the existing law for 18 months and finding a short-term way to pay for highway and transit projects.

Rather than face a series of three-month extensions of the law, which has happened in the past, Mr. LaHood said it would be less disruptive for everyone to plan for an year-and-a-half extension now. “We think this is the most realistic approach,” he said.  In an interview with Bloomberg, LaHood describes his decision as one to “face reality” instead of “stringing Congress along with three-month or six-month extensions.”

The media reports indicate there is a serious fight happening in the Hill between the Secretary and the folks who spent months working on this bill.  The AP report states that at LaHood’s request, Oberstar and key members of the committee met with the transportation secretary Wednesday morning, a half hour before the congressman was scheduled to brief reporters on his bill. LaHood laid out for the surprised lawmakers a plan that seeks to approve money for transportation for another 18 months, eliminating the likelihood that highway and other transportation projects would come to a halt for lack of dollars. The plan would require Congress to approve an estimated $13 billion to $18 billion in stopgap cash.

Rep. John Mica, the senior Republican on the transportation committee, likened LaHood’s presentation of the finance plan to a bomb being dropped on committee members.

“That’s a real slap in the face to a lot of hard work … earth-shattering,” Mica said. “I would have been mortified if this had been done to me under Bush.”

LaHood asked to meet with Oberstar as soon as the administration worked out the details of its plan and went straight to Capitol Hill, said Jill Zuckman, a Transportation Department spokeswoman.

For his part, the Secrtary used his blog to convince the public that he did what he and the Obama administration think is the best approach rather than  rushing for a reuathorization bill.

Here are his words: ” Yesterday and today, I briefed members of Congress on the Highway Trust Fund situation and proposed an immediate 18-month highway reauthorization that will replenish the Fund. This is an unusual step, I know. But, with the Fund likely to run out of money by late August, it’s a little too late to worry about business as usual.

Beyond keeping the Highway Trust Fund solvent, an immediate 18-month reauthorization provides Congress the time it needs to fully deliberate the direction of America’s transportation priorities. That’s the kind of thoughtful decision-making America deserves.”

Making a case for his proposal, Sec. LaHood first brought up why we are in this mess and how the Highway Trust Fund went south over the years and months past.

Image Courtesy:USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood's Blog - Fast Lane

As the chart below shows, even in years of relative economic security and gas-price stability, the Highway Trust Fund ended the fiscal year with less money than it started. He pointed to the change in the consumption patterns of the US consumer who was losing sleep over the economic concerns that rocked the country (as well as the entire planet).   The prolonged economic insecurity and gas-price volatility, like the one we experienced in 2008, when people bought less gas and Fund’s revenue source dropped off  (evident from the chart above). Congress had to kick in an extra $8 billion to the Fund. He warned that the Fund is likely to run out of money once again, and soon. Expenditures will stop; states will be in danger of losing the vital transportation funding they need and expect; projects will shut down; jobs will be lost.  That’s the road we’re on right now. Once again, the Highway Trust Fund will need a massive cash infusion.

Can we really go through this every year? Is that really the best this Nation can do?.  With that question, he brought the hammer down on Oberstar’s plans. saying “I don’t think so. That’s why I went to the Hill yesterday and why I’ll be there today.”  He strengthened his argument for his delayed reuathorization proposal, saying “Time is running out, and the Highway Trust Fund must be made solvent. Then, and only then, can this country get the kind of thorough transportation discussion needed to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused way, a way that best meets the real demands of the country.”

Representative James L. Oberstar, who is chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, still plans to introduce a new bill’s outline today at 2PM (The House T & I Committee Twitter note annoucned that the 11AM briefing is now moved to 2PM), but Democrats said they had not determined how to pay for it.  Oberstar had been counting on a looming Oct. 1 deadline — that’s when the current law authorizing federal highway and transit programs expires — to force lawmakers to make tough decisions on how to pay for transportation programs over the next six years.But Oberstar’s spokesman Jim Berard conveyed the Chairman’s displeasure:  “The chairman is not too pleased with the administration’s proposal.”

All is not bad for the Secretary.  He enjoyed the support of some of his powerful allies in the Senate.  Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a key player in the federal transportation re-write, expressed her support for the delayed reauthorization proposal put forward by the Secretary.  “I am very pleased that the White House is being proactive in working with the Congress to address the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund.  As we work our way out of this recession, the last thing we want to do is to drastically cut back on necessary transportation priorities.  The White House proposal to replenish the Trust Fund until 2011 will keep the recovery and job creation moving forward and give us the necessary time to pass a more comprehensive multi-year transportation authorization bill with stable and reliable funding sources.”

Two congressionally mandated transportation commissions — one in 2008 and one earlier this year — have recommended raising gas taxes as the most practical solution for making up projected declines in revenue over the next several years. The most recent commission also recommended moving to a system that would use GPS technology to tax motorists based on the number of miles they drive as the best long-term revenue solution.

Either step is expected to be politically difficult.

DeFazio said the administration’s plan risks tens of thousand of jobs because contractors need cash commitments beyond 18 months for major, multiyear construction projects.

LaHood acknowledged his plan will be unpopular with some lawmakers and transportation interest groups.

“With the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused approach, we should not rush legislation,” LaHood said in a statement. “We should work together on a full reauthorization (bill) that best meets the demands of the country. The first step is making sure that the Highway Trust Fund is solvent. The next step is addressing our transportation priorities over the long term.”

Late Breaking Update: Transportation for America(T4America), the ever popular website that has been a great source for reauthorization updates just made available a summary of  Rep. Obsertar’s proposed bill (shown below, courtesy of T4America)and a 10 page breakdown of the consolidated/terminated programs. A quick analysis by T4America reveals Oberstar proposal terminates or consolidates 75 federal programs from the program and recommends a consolidation into a “performance based framework”.  Read the 17p summary and the 10p breakdown of consolidated/terminated programs now on the T4America blog.

GAO explores Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts Program; Testimony outlines challenges and preliminary observations on expediting project development

June 4, 2009 at 5:46 pm

(Source: Government Accontability Office)

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony

The New Starts program is an important source of new capital investment in mass transportation. As required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) must prioritize transit projects for funding by evaluating, rating, and recommending projects on the basis of specific financial commitment and project justification criteria, such as cost-effectiveness, economic development effects, land use, and environmental benefits. To be eligible for federal funding, a project must advance through the different project development phases of the New Starts program, including alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. Using the statutorily identified criteria, FTA evaluates projects as a condition for advancement into each project development phase of the program.

This testimony discusses the:

(1) key challenges associated with the New Starts program and

(2) options that could help expedite project development in the New Starts program.

This testimony is based on GAO’s extensive body of work on the New Starts program and ongoing work–as directed by Congress. For this work, GAO reviewed FTA documents and interviewed FTA officials, sponsors of New Starts projects, and representatives from industry associations. The FTA reviewed the information in this testimony and provided technical comments.

Previous GAO work has identified three key challenges associated with the New Starts program. First, frequent changes to the New Starts program have sometimes led to confusion and delays. Numerous changes have been made to the New Starts Program over the last decade, such as revising and adding new evaluation criteria and requiring project sponsors to collect new data and complete new analyses. Although FTA officials told GAO that changes were generally intended to make the process more rigorous, systematic, and transparent, project sponsors said the frequent changes sometimes caused confusion and rework, resulting in delays in advancing projects.

Second, the current New Starts evaluation process measures do not capture all project benefits. For example, FTA’s cost-effectiveness measure does not account for highway travel time savings and may not capture all economic development benefits. FTA officials have acknowledged these limitations, but noted that improvements in local travel models are needed to resolve some of these issues. FTA is also conducting research on ways to improve certain evaluation measures.

Third, striking the appropriate balance between maintaining a robust evaluation and minimizing a complex process is challenging. Experts and some project sponsors GAO spoke with generally support FTA’s quantitatively rigorous process for evaluating proposed transit projects but are concerned that the process has become too burdensome and complex.

In response to such concerns, FTA has tried to simplify the evaluation process in several ways, including hiring a consulting firm to identify opportunities to streamline or simplify the process. As part of ongoing work, GAO has preliminarily identified options to help expedite project development within the New Starts program. These options include tailoring the New Starts evaluation process to risks posed by the projects, using letters of intent more frequently, and applying regulatory and administrative changes only to future projects.

While each option could help expedite project development in the New Starts process, each option has advantages and disadvantages to consider. For example, by signaling early federal support of projects, letters of intent and early systems work agreements could help project sponsors use potentially less costly and time-consuming alternative project delivery methods, such as design-build. However, such early support poses some risk, as projects may stumble in later project development phases. Furthermore, some options, like combining one or more statutorily required project development phases, would require legislative action.

Click here to download the entire report.

Public and Private Sector Leaders Call for Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems and Smart Technologies

May 20, 2009 at 11:09 am

(Source: National Transportation Operations Coalition)

A coalition of transportation and technology leaders – including state and local officials, industry and academic leaders and prominent stakeholder organizations – is calling on Congress to focus federal funding in the surface transportation authorization bill on the deployment of smart technologies and innovative solutions in order to create a performance-driven, intermodal transportation system that is safer, cleaner, more efficient and more financially sustainable for communities, businesses and the traveling public.

America’s transportation system is facing significant challenges that must be addressed in the next surface transportation authorization bill, from financing our transportation system and reducing traffic fatalities to combating congestion and CO2 emissions. Solving these challenges will require transportation agencies and private sector partners to use all of the tools at their disposal, including intelligent transportation systems (ITS), related technologies, and multimodal operational strategies that can help prevent accidents before they happen, reduce traffic congestion and freight bottlenecks, provide more effective incident and emergency response, reduce energy use and emissions, and enable innovative 21st century financing options.

“As a result of successful research initiatives and private sector innovation, technologies are here today which can help increase safety, reduce congestion and emissions, boost competitiveness, improve system performance, and create more livable and sustainable communities,” the coalition wrote today to House transportation leaders. “While a continued and strengthened research role is still needed, it is critical that state and local agencies and private sector partners make better use of technology to modernize today’s infrastructure and optimize existing capacity, while building smart and efficient roads, bridges, transit systems, and multimodal transportation options for tomorrow’s transportation users.” 

Congress Takes a First Step Towards Reshaping Transportation Policy; Senate Bill Steers Away From the Car

May 16, 2009 at 10:04 pm

As stimulus spending on highways and bridges ramps up, Senate Democrats submitted legislation Thursday that suggests the nation’s transportation policy is headed for a major overhaul, with a strong emphasis on reducing automobile use and carbon emissions and boosting public transit, inter-city rail and rail freight service.

 Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced legislation that they say lays out the guidelines of what they expect the next five-year federal transportation spending plan to accomplish. Their goal is to influence the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which is responsible for drafting the spending plan. The House plan is expected in early June, and the bill is due for reauthorization this fall.  The Rockefeller-Lautenberg marker, which got some early love from the Washington Post, states that the next federal transportation bill should accomplish the following:

  • Reduce national per-capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis;
  • Cut national motor vehicle-related fatalities in half by 2030;
  • Cut national surface transportation-generated carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030;
  • Reduce surface transportation delays per capita on an annual basis; 
  • Get 20 percent more critical surface-transportation assets into a state of good repair by 2030;
  • Increase the total usage of public transit, intercity passenger rail and non-motorized transport on an annual basis.

The focus for those trying to ascertain the administration’s transportation agenda has since turned to the five-year bill, which is expected to cost at least $400 billion. One big question is how the government plans to fund transportation spending, with revenue from the gas tax increasingly falling short. The new Senate bill does not address that problem.

Another big question is how much the bill will provide for public transportation. As it now stands, 80 percent of federal transportation money goes to highways. But David Goldberg, an official with the advocacy group Transportation for America, said Congress and the White House are sending signs that the new plan could represent a major break. The White House has already said it hopes to spend $1 billion per year on high-speed rail.

Click here to read the entire article. 

Horrible Commute? Now you have a way to tell your lawmakers about it

May 15, 2009 at 1:20 pm

(Source: Wheels Blog – New York Times)

There are bad work commutes. Then there are blood-boiling commutes that need to be vividly rehashed to unwitting co-workers, friends, anyone. Now there’s another option: The Washington-based nonprofit groupTransportation for America has launchedthis Web site as a home base for people who want (or need) to vent about their miserable trips to and from work.

“Sitting in a metal box on a sea of asphalt surrounded by the toxic gases that are cooking our planet sounds like a lousy way to start and end your day,” says the site. “It’s time to stop silently seething and muttering curses under your breath — we’re inviting you to let it all out!”

James Corless, the group’s director, says his own commute isn’t really so bad right now — he takes the Metro into Washington — but he does complain that there are too many cars, which break down frequently.

“We’ve been doing town hall meetings around the country, and there’s a lot of general frustration not only with high gas prices, but with road congestion, poor maintenance and the lack of transit options,” Mr. Corless said. “Americans can finally turn their frustration and rage into real action,” the group says, urging mad-as-hell straphangers and highway crawlers to tell their members of Congress about their awful commutes: “Stop pouring billions into a broken system. Fix it, clean it, make it work!”

Commuters can post a comment, photo or video at the site, send an e-mail or express themselves via Twitter. Here are two of the earliest tweets: “You know what would make this day end perfectly? A 90-minute commute through dense traffic…” and “The more I have this commute the more I vote to develop teleport capabilities.”

The site is being launched today, which is Bike to Work Day (also celebrated in some places on May 14, and part of Bike Month). And Congress is preparing to debate the transportation bill, which appropriates billions of dollars for both highway infrastructure and public transportation (usually much more of the former, which is why it’s also called “the highway bill”). The current legislation expires September 30.

Transportation for America unveils its Blueprint for Reform on Capitol Hill

May 12, 2009 at 4:40 pm

(Source: Transportation for America)

With Congress preparing to write the bill that will determine the next six years of transportation spending, Transportation for America yesterday released a detailed plan to restructure the nation’s transportation program in order to build a smart, safe and clean transportation system that provides real choices to all Americans.

Image Courtesy: Transportation for America @Flickr

If our platform, released in February, lays out the vision and goals for America’s transportation system, then the Transportation for AmericaBlueprint contains the detailed directions for getting there.

The Route to Reform: Blueprint for a 21st Century Federal Transportation Program will serve as T4 America’s proposal for the policies and financing structures necessary to achieve real transformational change in America’s transportation system. (We’ll be highlighting and explaining pieces of the Blueprint here over the coming weeks — it’s a lot to digest at once.)

In the blueprint, Transportation for America recommends Congress include four critical reforms in the upcoming transportation authorization bill:

  1. Articulate a National Vision, Objectives, and Performance Targets for the national transportation program and hold state and local transportation agencies accountable for demonstrable progress toward goals including safety, efficiency, environment, health and equity.
  2. Restructure and consolidate federal programs for greater modal integration, with a focus on completing the second half of the national transportation system, providing more transportation options for all Americans and creating seamless transportation systems that meet the unique needs and connect metropolitan regions, small towns, and rural areas.
  3. Empower states, regions, and cities with direct transportation funding and greater flexibility to select projects, using carrots and sticks to incentivize wise transportation investments and in return require demonstrated performance on meeting national objectives.
  4. Reform how we pay for the transportation system and create a Unified Transportation Trust Fund that would achieve balanced allocations of federal funds in a portfolio of rail, freight, highway, public transportation, and non-motorized transportation investment

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell — a co-chair of the Build America’s Future campaign and one of the leading voices calling for a renewed transportation system – gave the event’s keynote speech in the same committee where the transportation bill will be written and considered first by Chairman Oberstar’s House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Gov. Rendell was followed by a panel that included James Corless, director of the Transportation for America Campaign; Elaine Clegg, Co-Executive Director of Idaho Smart Growth and and city council member in Boise; Astrid Glynn, former Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation; Andrew Cotugno, the director of planning for Metro in Portland, Oregon; andRonald Kilcoyne, the General Manager/CEO of Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.

“This report couldn’t be more correct when it says this is a once in a lifetime opportunity,” Gov. Rendell said.

“If we don’t take advantage of this opportunity…nothing will change, and we’ll just bump along, funding some good projects almost by accident, some mediocre projects and some terrible projects. We won’t have national policy, we won’t move the ball forward, and we won’t do something that will improve our economic competitiveness – we’ll just keep moving along the way we’ve been moving along, and not solving any problems.”

Will The Transportation Bill Be Pushed Back To 2010? At Least One Senator Thinks So

May 12, 2009 at 1:15 pm

(Source: The Infrastructurist)

Many of you heard through the grapevine (from Congress), particularly, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar — that the new transportation bill would be passed this year. Oberstar even offered September 30 as a target date. Sen Mark Warner (D, Va.) is now saying he’s “not sure” that the estimated $500 billion authorization will happen until next year. According to a story by Terry Kivlan in CongressDaily, Warner thinks that “Congress might have too many big-ticket items on its agenda this year to take on a transportation package.” Speaking at an infrastructure-focused conference hosted by the Departments of Transportation and the Department of Commerce, the senator remarked: “I’m not sure you are going to see a full transportation bill put out this year.”

He’s specifically worried about funding availability in light the fact that revenue from the gas tax, which pays for highway and transit programs, is no longer sufficient to cover outlays.  He called this the “elephant in the room” with respect to infrastructure funding.