Andrea Bernstein

(Photo by Fringehog/Flickr)

Using private companies to enforce "red-light" laws often gives those companies an incentive to raise money, rather than improve safety.

That's the conclusion of a new study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

The study found the regular use of disincentives for things like lengthening the yellow light lights, which it says would improve safety but reduce revenue.

However, the report doesn't take a position on whether red light cameras overall are a good idea -- just on whether it's right to hand over enforcement to private companies.

Most studies show that red light cameras reduce the most deadly collisions, but those studies have been criticized for being pro-red light camera.

As for motorists, almost everyone hates 'em.

A draft study done for the city has found an extension of the number 7 subway to Secaucus, New Jersey, would cost far less than the NJ Transit tunnel Governor Chris Christie killed last fall — but would lose only about 5,000 of an expected 130,000 riders per day.

Mitt Romney (Romney Campaign photo)

Mitt Romney is making the Obama administration's support for two high-end green car companies a campaign issue.

"The Obama administration has shoveled $1 billion out the door to two California-based electric car manufacturers. Fisker Automotive got a $529 million loan from the Department of Energy; Tesla got $465 million," Romney penned in an op-ed in the Orange County Register.

Romney's op-ed follows a Center for Public Integrity/ABC News investigation into the loans.  That investigation found production problems at the politically-connected high-end "green" car companies, Tesla and Fisker.

The facts present an opening for Romney, who writes:

"Fisker investors, including Al Gore himself, have donated more than $1 million to political campaigns – primarily Democrats. Tesla, for its part, has financial backing from a fundraiser who bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for the President's campaign; Tesla's CEO is also a major Democratic donor who has poured money into Obama's campaign coffers."

But perhaps the most searing for the administration: "Tesla's next vehicle is expected to list for $57,400. Fisker's car, already a year behind schedule, will cost $97,000."

Ouch.

The Obama administration is defending the loans, saying they'll be used to create jobs in Delaware and California, not Finland, and that the funds are for mass-market sedans -- not high-end cars.

But the optics are bad.   President Obama is busy on the trail promoting his image as a populist fighter for blue-collar auto workers.  The last thing his administration wants is to be defending loans to well-connected European companies that produce high-end cars.  Ouch, ouch, and ouch.

You can bet Romney keeps his rapier sharpened on this one.

Obama stumping for jobs act in Millers Creek, NC

President Obama continues to barnstorm the country for the American Jobs Act.  He'll stop in Nevada today -- Harry Reid's home state -- and Denver on Wednesday to push portions of the American Jobs Act, which includes $60 billion infrastructure proposal -- $50 billion in straight-up spending, and another $10 billion for an infrastructure bank.

Most of the $50 billion in spending is targeted for repair work, which can get money out the door much more quickly than the new "shovel ready" projects in his earlier stimulus.

But handicappers give the bill almost no chance of passing.  So you can read the President's trip to key swing states -- Nevada and Colorado, both of which he won in 2008, and both of which held on to Democratic Senate seats in 2010 while states all around were going red -- for what it is: a chance to shore up support where support will be needed in 2012.

Here's an excerpt of the President's Remarks at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada:

And three years later, it's clear that a big chunk of Washington has not gotten the message yet.  Just look at what's been going on since I introduced my jobs bill in September.  Now, this is a bill that is filled with proposals that, traditionally, Democrats and Republicans have supported in the past:  tax cuts for workers and small businesses; funding to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our airports, our infrastructure, our transportation system; putting construction workers back on the job; hiring back teachers and cops, firefighters; giving incentives so that veterans are able to find work when they come home -- because, I promise you, if you've laid down your life or risked your life for this country, you should not have to fight for a job when you come home.  (Applause.)

So those are the proposals contained in this bill.  It's a bill that's fully paid for -- by asking those of us who make more than $1 million to pay a little more in taxes.  Independent economists, people who look at this stuff for a living, say that it's the only plan out there right now that would create jobs in the short term as well as lay a foundation for economic growth in the long term.  One economist said it would create nearly 2 million jobs next year -- 2 million.  And by the way, that economist did not work for me.  And polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans support the proposals that are in this bill -- Democrats, independents and Republicans.

So we've got huge challenges in places like Nevada.  We've got a jobs bill out there that is paid for and addresses those challenges.  The question is, why, despite all the support -- despite all the experts who say this jobs bill couldn't come at a more important time, when so many people are hurting -- why the Republicans in Washington have said no?  They keep voting against it.  Now, maybe it's just because I am the one sponsoring it.  I don't know.  But last week, we had a separate vote on a part of the jobs bill that would put 400,000 teachers, firefighters and police officers back on the job, paid for by asking people who make more than $1 million to pay one-half of 1 percent in additional taxes.  For somebody making $1.1 million a year, that's an extra $500.  Five hundred bucks.  And with that, we could have saved $400,000 jobs.

Most people making more than $1 million, if you talk to them, they'll say, I'm willing to pay $500 extra to help the country.  They’re patriots.  They believe we’re all in this thing together.  But all the Republicans in the Senate said no.  Their leader, Mitch McConnell, said that -- and I’m going to make sure I quote this properly -- saving the jobs of teachers and cops and firefighters was just -- I quote -- “a bailout.”  A bailout.  These aren’t bad actors who somehow screwed up the economy.  They didn’t act irresponsibly.  These are the men and women who teach our children, who patrol our streets, who run into burning buildings and save people.  They deserve our support.

This is the fight that we’re going to have right now, and I suspect this is the fight that we’re going to have to have over the next year.  The Republicans in Congress and the Republican candidates for President have made their agenda very clear.  They have two basic economic principles:  first, tax cuts for the very wealthiest and the biggest corporations, paid for by gutting investments in education and research and infrastructure and programs like Medicare.  That’s agenda item number one.  Second is just about every regulation that's out there they want to get rid of -- clean air, clean water -- you name it.

Now, I agree that there are some rules and regulations that put an unnecessary burden on business at a time when we can’t afford it.  I mean, we’ve seen this in our travel bureau, where the bureaucracy for getting a visa to come visit Vegas is too long.  We want to get them here quicker; they can stay longer and spend more.  And that’s why, in addition to what we’re doing with the travel bureau, we’ve already identified 500 regulatory reforms that will save billions of dollars over the next few years -- billions of dollars over the next few years.  But unfortunately, so far at least, we have not gotten any willingness on the other side to say that some regulations we can’t give up.

We are not going to win the race in this competitive 21st century economy by having the cheapest labor or the most polluted air.  That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win.  There’s always going to be a country out there that can exploit its workers more, or pollute its air more, or pollute its water more, have lower worker safety standards.  There’s always going to be somebody out there to win that competition.  The competition we need to win is because we have the best scientists, and we’ve got the best universities, and we’ve got the best workers, and we have the best infrastructure, and we’ve got the best resorts, and we’ve got the best ideas, and we’ve got the best system, and it’s the most transparent and it’s the most accountable.  That’s how we’re going to win the competition for the future.  And that’s what’s at stake right now in this race.

Three in four registered voters support the New York City's proposed bike share program, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

Joseph Lhota.

(New York, NY -- Andrea Bernstein and Jim O'Grady) Governor Andrew Cuomo has made his second top transit agency choice in as many days, saying he'll nominate former Giuliani aide Joseph Lhota to run the 12-county transportation agency, the nation's largest.   Lhota is executive vice president of Madison Square Garden.

Lhota's appointment as head of the MTA, along with the announcement yesterday that Patrick Foye will lead the Port Authority, means that Cuomo has now chosen two individuals from outside the transportation world to lead key transportation authorities.

"I am pleased to accept the recommendation of the extraordinary search committee and nominate Joe Lhota to be the next chairman and CEO of the MTA," Governor Cuomo said in a statement. "Joe Lhota brings one-of-a-kind managerial, government, and private sector experience to the job and a lifelong commitment to public service that will benefit all straphangers. I look forward to working together as we continue to reform the MTA, reduce costs, and improve service for New Yorkers. I thank the members of the MTA Search Advisory Committee for their diligent work and thorough review."

One of the members of that committee, NYU Rudin Center director Mitchell Moss, said Lhota would be able to defend the commuter tax in Albany, which has been under attack from Republican lawmakers. "They’ll know he’s a serious guy, he’s a Republican," Moss said in a telephone interview "The whole culture of transportation will require very different leadership now."  Moss said he expected fewer funds from the federal government, and managing relationships with Albany would become key to keeping the MTA funded.

Lhota served in the Giuliani administration for six years, first as budget director and then as deputy mayor of operations. He also worked as an adviser to Giuliani’s presidential campaign in 2007-2008.  He was one of Giuliani's appointees to the MTA board, from 1999 to 2001. Before his work in the public sector, he was a banker at First Boston.

In a statement, Lhota said:  "Millions of New Yorkers depend on the MTA every day and they deserve the most efficient and effective service. Throughout my career in both the public and private sectors, I have initiated reforms that are performance-based and that cut costs, and I look forward to bringing this same approach to the MTA. I thank Governor Cuomo for this exciting opportunity to serve the people of New York."

Reaction among transit watchers, none of whom would speak on the record to avoid alienating the next chief of the NY MTA, was part puzzlement and part wait-and-see.

“I was a little surprised that Joe Lhota rose to the top of that pool,” said an official from a previous mayoral administration. “He understands inter-governmental relations and he understands the politics but he’s more of a political operative than a manager.”

Both Cuomo and outgoing MTA chairman Jay Walder have said in the past few weeks that the next chair did not need to have a transit background. “I think it is helpful to have a knowledge of mass transit,” Walder said at the NY MTA’s September board meeting. “I don’t know that it’s an absolutely essential quality.”

Lhota fits that profile. His resume shows no transportation posts. But he did manage large governmental agencies in the Giuliani administration and ran the city when the mayor was out of town. Since then, he has navigated the executive suites of the Cablevision Systems Corporation, which owns Madison Square Garden. And Lhota has served as a board member at the City University of New York for the past ten years.  Lhota was one of two board members who did not support withholding an honorary degree from playwright Tony Kushner last May.  The vote to table the degree past last spring’s commencement was much-criticized and later reversed.

The precipice on which the NY MTA teeters consists of several difficulties: a 2012-2015 capital construction plan with a $10 billion dollar shortfall; a looming contract negotiation with Transport Workers Union Local 100 that, by all signs, will be acrimonious; a threat from a group of state legislators to cut the dedicated revenue stream that is the regional payroll mobility tax, which last year contributed $1.3 billion to authority coffers. That’s about an eighth of the authority’s operating budget.

Sources differed on Lhota’s ability to rise to those challenges. The NY MTA needs someone “who can handle the union relationships, the crisis of money, and Lhota will get it faster than most people,” said one.

But others don't expect Lhota to be a voice for transportation in the way Jay Walder was.  Walder came from London Transport and is headed for a job running Hong Kong's transit system.  In his tenure as MTA chief he pushed for several innovative transit measures, including countdown clocks, real time information, and better communication with customers.  But his relationship with the union was toxic, and Walder presided over the MTA's deepest cuts in more than a generation.

Said Kate Slevin of the advocacy group, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, "We hope Mr. Lhota’s business acumen will help guide the agency towards more sound fiscal footing without compromising service and affordability for the system’s 8.5 million daily riders. We also hope he will continue the innovative service improvements executed by his predecessor, including subway countdown clocks, rapid bus service, and nonstop tolling."

Cuomo also appointed two women to serve in key transportation posts:  Nuria Fernandez, a former Federal Transit Administration official and Chicago Aviation Commissioner, who resigned under pressure from then Mayor Richard Daily after failing to close a deal with United Airlines.  Fernandez will serve as the the MTA's CEO, and Karen Rae, who worked in the  Obama Administration on high speed rail, will serve in the Governor's office as Deputy Secretary of Transportation.

(Photo Kate Hinds)

In a city where you can have four people and five opinions, three in four support the city's proposed bike share program, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

Pollsters asked "New York City is starting a program to rent bicycles.  This will add 10,000 bicycles to New York City streets and create park lots for bicycles.  Do you support or oppose this program allowing people to rent bicycles in New York City?"

Among young people, the number supporting bike share rises to 87 percent, as close to unanimity as you'll ever see in a poll.  Bike share is the least popular in Staten Island, but even there, bike share is supported 52 to 42 percent.

Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Men, Women, Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics said they would want "bike rental lots" (presumably bike share stations) in their neighborhoods, as did residents of all the boroughs except Staten Island, and ,members of all age groups except for those above 50.

However,  only 45 percent said they'd used the bike share, compared to 53 percent who said they wouldn't.

The poll found support for bike lanes overall holding steady at 58 to 37 percent.  But when asked if they wanted more bike lanes in their neighborhoods, New Yorkers were divided, with 46 percent saying yes and 48 percent saying no.

The poll of 1,068 registered voters was taken October 12-16, and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Last March, Mayor Michael Bloomberg dined privately with a small group of guests that included his former transportation commissioner, Iris Weinshall, and her husband, the United States Senator, Charles Schumer.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, at podium, in 2006 when Iris Weinshall (right) was his DOT Commissioner (photo by Eugene Patron via Flickr)

By that time, both Schumer and Weinshall had made known their displeasure over a bike lane that had been built across the street from their home – on Brooklyn’s leafy Prospect Park West.

According to two sources familiar with what was said at that dinner, Schumer asked the mayor: “Can’t you get rid of that lane?”

“You don’t like it?” the mayor responded.  A beat. “I’m going to make it twice as wide.”

Neither Schumer’s office nor the mayor’s office would comment.

But the clash of two broadly powerful men is typical of the Prospect Park West bike lane story, which was never really about a bike lane. Or rather, it was never only about a bike lane, but rather about the perennial New York City question – who decides what goes where in the densely-packed urban streets we call home, and how they get to decide.

The city’s aggressive effort to install new bike lanes – some 260 miles of them have been added since 2006  -- has roiled many neighborhoods.  But only one group – the one that included Weinshall -- sued to have a lane removed.

And now a fresh batch of emails unearthed by Streetsblog, a decidedly pro-bike-lane website, sheds new light on how this group of influential New Yorkers managed to raise their fight above all the rest, marshalling the services of one of the city’s premier law firms, and then, as the emails show, tried to make sure that information never got out.

“We should never say how we got Randy!”  Weinshall implored, referring to a senior attorney at one of the city’s top law firms. Read on for more on what that all means.  (Click here to hear Andrea Bernstein and Soterios Johnson discussing the story.)

(from email correspondence obtained by Streetsblog)

Prospect Park West runs along the Olmstead-designed Prospect Park from Grand Army Plaza to Bartel Pritchard Square -- a distance of less than a mile.  PPW is populated with elegantly detailed mansions and stately pre-war apartment buildings. The avenue itself is a wide, five-lane boulevard.

Before the bike lane was installed, PPW had two lanes of parking, with three lanes of traffic in the middle. Cars, the city DOT says, would routinely speed – about three quarters would go over the legal limit of 30 mph. So it wasn’t a tough sell to convince the local community board to install a two-way bike lane along the park side of the street, buffered from what would now be two lanes of car traffic by a lane of parked cars.

(images courtesy of the NYC DOT)

Proponents argued the lane would provide a safe place for cyclists to ride and slow down automobile traffic.

In June 2009, the bike lane got a green light from the local community board, the most-grass roots level of city decision making (and not the playground in which the truly powerful tend to play).

Following that vote, influential dissenters began to mobilize. In October, 2009, the Brooklyn Borough President, Marty Markowitz, wrote a letter to transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, Weinshall’s successor. “I reside directly across the streets on Prospect Park West,” Markowitz wrote. (Markowitz has since moved to Windsor Terrace, about a mile away.) “This proposal would definitely reduce the number of parking spaces, further exacerbating this already-intolerable situation.”

And, Markowitz noted, he was joined in his request for more extensive scrutiny “by former DOT Commissioner Iris Weinshall, who absolutely agrees that the installation of a two-way, barricaded bike lane would cause incredible congestion.” Weinshall, as it happened, had launched the massive expansion of bike lanes while she was DOT commissioner, the one that was to add 200 miles of bike lanes by 2009 (There are now about 500 miles of bike lanes in New York City). “We’re committed to being the safest city for cycling,” Weinshall said in a 2006 press release announcing the initiative.

(from a 2006 NYC press release, when Iris Weinshall was NYC DOT commissioner)

Even so, compared to her successor, Janette Sadik-Khan, Weinshall was a much more traditional DOT chief. Sadik-Khan has worked to radically reshape how people view streets:  not just as pathways for cars, but as parks, cafes, playgrounds, walkways, plazas, and, yes bike-lanes.

Through the fall and spring of 2011, Markowitz pushed his case. In an April 2010 interview with WNYC he called Sadik-Khan a “zealot,” and no less boisterously made his case that the lane was ill-advised.

In June 2010, the city began installing the lane anyway. Sometime around that time, Weinshall contacted Randy Mastro, a lawyer for the well-connected law firm of Gibson, Dunn, Crutcher.  Mastro had been a deputy mayor in the Giuliani administration, at the same time Weinshall had served as DOT commissioner (she stayed on for the first five years of Bloomberg’s tenure.)

At Gibson, Dunn, Crutcher, Mastro is the co-chair of the firm’s litigation practice group, and also co-chairs the firm’s crisis management unit, which makes him The Good Wife’s Will Gardner and Eli Gold rolled into one, but with a temperament most like Cary Agos.

(Clockwise, from top left: Matt Czuchry as Cary Agos, Josh Charles as Will Gardner, Randy Mastro, and Alan Cumming as Eli Gold)

According to the emails published by Streetsblog, on July 3, 2010, Weinshall emailed her daughter, Jessica, a recent Yale Law graduate who had volunteered to work against the bike lane. The email said: “spoke with Randy Mastro he said he would help you with the Article 78” (the legal proceeding).

Streetsblog obtained the emails through a freedom of information request to the City University of New York, where Weinshall works as vice chancellor.

Mastro confirmed in a telephone interview that his former colleague had approached him.  He said she knew of his subsequent legal work, particularly his role in opposing a West Side stadium in Manhattan, when he worked for Cablevision, the owner of Madison Square Garden. That was one of Bloomberg’s most resounding defeats on a decision on how to organize public space.

“I agreed to take a matter pro bono on an issue that warranted litigation,” – the bike lane lawsuit -- Mastro told me.  He’d taken on this kind of case pro-bono before – for example, on whether the Brooklyn House of Detention could expand without an environmental review.

That summer of 2010, he referred the bike lane matter to a colleague, Jim Walden.

Throughout that fall, the battle over the bike lane continued at fever pitch.  The New York City Council held hearings, and both opponents and supporters of the lanes staged noisy demonstrations, opened Facebook pages, and took sometimes nasty potshots at each other through a number of media outlets and blogs.

In late December, Weinshall co-signed a letter to the New York Times about the bike lane. The signatories also included two of Weinshall’s neighbors: Normal Steisel, a deputy mayor under David Dinkins (and Ed Koch), and Louise Hainline, then a dean at Brooklyn College, disputing DOT data saying the lane had made streets safer.  “The D.O.T. data produce more puzzlement than enlightenment,” the trio wrote.

“When new bike lanes force the same volume of cars and trucks into fewer and narrower traffic lanes, the potential for accidents between cars, trucks and pedestrians goes up rather than down. At Prospect Park West in Brooklyn, for instance, where a two-way bike lane was put in last summer, our eyewitness reports show collisions of one sort or another to be on pace to be triple the former annual rates.”

This was the first time Weinshall had come forward publicly as a bike lane opponent.

Weinshall and Steisel hewed to an argument common to transportation departments – that cutting lanes for automobiles would pour more cars into less space, slowing traffic, and, they argued, causing more collisions.   But there’s a serious line of thinking among urban planners that reducing automobile lanes cuts traffic volumes, because drivers choose different routes, or forgo cars altogether.

About a week later, Walden, their pro-bono attorney, wrote a private letter to Commissioner Sadik-Khan demanding more data and a moratorium on any further decision-making on this bike lane.  On letterhead noting his firm’s offices in locations including Dubai, Palo Alto, Century City, and Munich, Walden closed by saying “your written assurances on this point will obviate the need for us to pursue legal remedies at this time.”

When I obtained a copy of the letter, I reached out to Louise Hainline, who expressed deep frustration about the city’s reluctance to turn over data. One of the questions I asked:  how was Randy Mastro involved in the case? Hainline didn’t give me an answer, but Jim Walden did, telling me Mastro had asked him to take on the lawsuit.

On the evening of February 4, both TransportationNation.org and WNYC.org published stories breaking news of the impending lawsuit.  Here was my lede:

“It’s a who’s who directory of city government. Iris Weinshall, the former city transportation commissioner and wife of U.S. Senator Charles Schumer. A dean at Brooklyn College. Norman Steisel, the former deputy mayor under Edward Koch and David Dinkins. And the other former deputy mayor, Randy Mastro (under Giuliani) who introduced the group to a colleague at his high-powered law firm, Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher. And what is all this former government firepower being assembled to do?  Remove a bike lane on Prospect Park West, in Brooklyn.”

On Sunday, February 6, the New York Post’s David Seifman ran a story that Senator Schumer had been quietly lobbying to have the lane removed.  According to the report, “sources said Schumer -- who has yet to take a public position on the 19-block bike corridor -- shared his feelings privately with some members of the City Council. ‘He's asked legislators what they're going to do about [this and other] bike lanes," said one source.’

The morning the story appeared, Weinshall emailed Steisel and Hainline, urging them to “check out the post!”

Apparently unaware that I’d already confirmed (and publicly reported) Mastro’s role, Hainline wrote Weinshall back:  “I think Randy Mastro is next. Andrea Bernstein of NPR was acting like a middle school newspaper reporter trying to get details about Mastro’s involvement with the effort the other day.”

Which provoked the response:  “We should never say how we got Randy!”

In my phone call with Mastro after the emails were made public, he expressed bafflement at that email, emphasizing that he and Weinshall had been colleagues in the Giuliani administration and it didn’t surprise him at all that she would reach out to him. No evidence has emerged to suggest that Senator Schumer was in any way personally involved in the effort to recruit Mastro, other than by being married to Weinshall.  Neither Senator Schumer’s office nor Iris Weinshall would comment for this story.

However, the fact remains that this particular group of city residents upset with a Bloomberg administration decision – and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of such groups all around the city at any one moment – was able to mobilize a high-powered law firm on its behalf.

The law firm aggressively pursued the suit, penning hundreds of pages of legal motions, arguments and briefs, appearing repeatedly in court, subpoenaing a boatload of officials and community leaders, and FOILing thousands of emails from project proponents.

Even so, that big law firm lost its case.  On August 16, Justice Bert Bunyan ruled the lawyers had missed the statute of limitations by not filing within months of the installation of the bike lane in June 2010. He dismissed the plaintiffs arguments that the deadline for filing had been extended because the lane was “experimental,” saying the plaintiffs had been unable to furnish proof for that.   He did agree that the city hadn't properly responded to the group's Freedom of Information request, and ordered it to do so.

The group is not giving up. On September 26, it filed a request with the court to appeal.  Its resources continue, undiminished.

Artist's Rendering of Woodward Avenue Lightrail (rendering courtesy Detroit 2020)

More love for Michigan from the Obama Administration.   U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood traveled to Detroit to announce some $928.5 million in transit grants for 300 public transportation projects around the country.

According to the DOT the grants "are made available through the Federal Transit Administration’s fiscal year 2011 Alternatives Analysis, Bus Livability, and State of Good Repair Programs, will go toward replacing or refurbishing aging buses, building or improving bus terminals, garages, and other transit facilities, installing bus-related equipment, and conducting studies to help communities select the best transit options to meet future transportation needs. "

The DOT pulled out three examples to highlight in its press release (two of them in the key swing states of Michigan and Pennsylvania.)   Other big grants include $11 million for Harris County, Texas (Houston's County), more than $100 million for the NY MTA for vehicle replacements and a new radio system for buses, and $25,000,000 to replace vehicles in Los Angeles.

The full list is here:

And here's what the DOT highlighted, in its press release.

•    The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments will receive $2 million to study a possible second phase of the planned Woodward Avenue corridor transit project in Detroit and the best mode of transit to pursue. The first phase, a light rail line still in the early planning stages, would end just south of Eight Mile Road. The second phase may one day provide additional transit solutions another 7.5 miles to Maple Road (Fifteen Mile Road).

•    Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) will receive $5.4 million to replace buses in its Seattle-area fleet that are beyond their useful lives with hybrid-diesel buses.

•    The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority will receive $5 million to restore Philadelphia’s historic 33rd Street and Dauphin Street bus facility, a 110-year-old facility that is in a state of disrepair.

US President Barack Obama (C) and South Korea's President Lee Myung-Bak listen to plant manager Alicia Boler-Davis(3rd R) during a tour of the General Motors Orion Assembly plant October 14, 2011 in Lake Orion, Michigan. At left is GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Daniel F. Akerson. AFP PHOTO/Mandel NGAN (Photo MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Without mentioning him by name, President Obama jabbed leading GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney for his position on the auto bailout.

"When I took office, I was determined to rebuild this economy based on what this country has always done best -- not just buying and consuming, but building, making things, selling those goods all around the world, stamped with three proud words:  Made in America. And that’s why one of the first decisions that I made as President was to save the U.S. auto industry from collapse," the President said after touring a Chevy Sonic plant in Orion Township, Michigan.

Then, obliquely referring to Romney, who has taken a high-profile stance against against the auto bailout.

"There were a lot of politicians who said it wasn’t worth the time and wasn’t worth the money. In fact, there are some politicians who still say that. Well, they should come tell that to the workers here at Orion."

As we've reported, the politics of the auto bailout are nevertheless thorny for the President -- even in a state where lots of jobs were saved -- no one feels particularly thrilled when the big guys get a handout.  But Michigan is a must-win for the President next year, Romney has roots in Michigan (his father was governor), and its a classic swing state that can be tugged in either direction.

Here are the full transcripts of the remarks, as well as those of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak who toured the plant with President Obama.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Hello, Detroit!  (Applause.)  Hello!  Everybody, please have a seat, have a seat.  It is great to be back in the Motor City.  (Applause.)  I notice the mood is a little brighter on this particular visit.  (Laughter.)  I’d like to think it’s because everybody is excited about the Korea Free Trade Agreement, but I suspect it might just have a little bit to do with your Lions beating up on my Bears.  (Applause.)  All right, all right, all right.  (Laughter.)  Don't get carried away now.  (Laughter.)  Not to mention your Tigers hanging in there last night.  (Applause.)

As you can see, President Lee is a pretty good politician.  (Laughter and applause.)  He knows how to get on your good side.  (Applause.)  Today I brought a good friend and one of our closest allies, President Lee of South Korea.  Some of you may know, President Lee has got a remarkable story.  He grew up a little ways from Detroit, but he embodies that same spirit that Detroit is all about.  Through sheer grit and determination, he worked his way from the humblest beginnings.  The South Korea of his childhood was an extraordinarily poor country.  But he worked his way up, worked his way up, went to school while cleaning streets, and eventually went on to run a Hyundai machinery plant -- so he knows a little bit about cars -- then the whole company, and ultimately was elected the President of the Republic of Korea.  And this is a country that's staged one of the world's greatest economic comebacks that we've ever seen.

So President Lee knows what it's like to go through tough times.  He knows what it's like when folks have counted you out.  And he knows what it's like to make a big comeback.

So with that, I want to welcome President Lee to Detroit and have him say just a few words.  (Applause.)

PRESIDENT LEE:  Thank you.  (As interpreted.)  Folks, I'm a little bit shorter than President Obama, so I'm going to adjust the microphone.  (Laughter.)  I hope you'll understand.

Well, first of all, ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure visiting your factory here in Detroit along with one of my closest friends, President Obama.

Well, folks, as you know, the global economy is going through some tough times, and so there's one thing on the minds of both President Obama and I, and that is jobs.  It is about creating good, decent jobs, and it is about keeping those jobs.  And this is what keeps us awake.  (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, before I came here to see you, I just had a brief tour given to me by the members of this factory and I heard about the history, and I also heard about the danger of how this factory was on the brink of being closed.  But now, as you can see, we have so many people here, like all of you here working here and earning a good living.  And I think more than anyone else here in this factory, I think it's President Obama who's the happiest man to see this factory being so energetic and enthusiastic.  (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, it was three years ago when I first met with President Obama, and back then I still remember how we talked about a lot of things.  And one of the things that was on President Obama's mind was how to revive the U.S. automotive industry.  Because we all know that the U.S. automotive industry was, and is, the leader in the world, and President Obama was concerned what he can do to revive Motor City and the United States automotive industry.  And we talked a lot about that.  And, folks, I know a few things about automobiles because back when I was in the private sector, I used to build cars myself.  So I know a thing or two about automobiles, and I think perhaps this was the reason why President Obama raised the subject.  But we talked a lot about how to revive the U.S. automobile industry.

Ladies and gentlemen, President Obama just briefly talked about my past, how I really worked hard throughout my life.  And I was once just like you -- I did work in factories, and I was also in the boardroom, as well, as a CEO of one of the largest companies in Korea.  But one thing I learned throughout my experience in my life is this:  During times of challenges, when you're faced with difficulties and if you want to create good jobs and maintain these good jobs, there’s only one thing and the surest way to do that is for the workers and for the managers to work together.  It is about cooperating together, and that is the surest way to ensure good jobs and for you to keep your jobs.  (Applause.)

And, ladies and gentlemen, we are here with President Obama because when I was a worker I knew that, more than anything, for all of us to enjoy good life is for all of us to have a good, decent job.  And I know how important it is for anyone to have a good, decent job.  And the factory here -- as I was looking around, I felt once again how important it is for all of us to work together because I know that three years ago GM Korea and GM Orion, you guys worked together to set up this factory.  And today, you are building models here and you're manufacturing cars that three years ago, GM Korea and your company has been working together.  And that is the reason why I came here, so I can see with my own eyes the good work that all of you are doing here.  (Applause.)

Folks, when I was President, as soon as I became President of Korea, I visited a GM Korea factory not once, but twice, which was quite unusual for the President of Korea to do so.  But I came here today -- and as I watch the factory and I took on a tour, I was very, very -- deeply impressed by the way you’re operating this factory.  I was impressed by the fact that this factory is very pro-environment.  You take care of the environment.  Also you’ve adopted the latest IT technology so that efficiency is up.  You have the highest standards, and you're building excellent cars here in this factory.  And I am confident that this factory is going to continue, and it’s going to make good cars, and your lives are going to be good.  And I’m sure -- and I’m confident in the future.  (Applause.)

Lastly, folks, I just want to say one thing before I go.  As you know, the KORUS FTA will soon be implemented.  I know, folks, that some of you here may think that with the implementation of the KORUS FTA, that somehow your jobs may be exported or go somewhere else.  But let me tell you one thing -- that is not true.  (Applause.)  I am here with President Obama today because I want to give this promise to you, and that is that the KORUS FTA will not take away any of your jobs.  Rather it will create more jobs for you and your family, and it is going to protect your jobs.  And this is the pledge that I give you today.  (Applause.)

Soon, folks, Motor City is going to come back again, and it’s going to revive its past glory.  And I have all the confidence in the world that you are going to do that.

Thank you.  (Applause.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Give President Lee a big round of applause.  (Applause.)

All right.  Well, thank you, President Lee.

Thank you, to everybody who has joined us here today.  A couple of people I just want to mention.  First of all, the CEO of General Motors, Dan Ackerson, is here.  Where is Dan?  (Applause.)  There he is.  The UAW President, one of the key people who helped make this agreement possible -- that is my dear friend, Bob King.  (Applause.)  And my U.S. Trade Representative, who spent a lot of long nights with his Korean counterpart -- Ron Kirk is in the house.  (Applause.)

I just want to follow up President Lee’s remarks with a few words about what the Korea Free Trade Agreement will mean for American jobs and for the American economy.  In the last decade, we became a country that was known for what we bought and what we consumed.  And a whole bunch of goods poured in here from all around the world, and we spent a lot of money and took on a lot of debt, in a lot of cases, to buy those goods.  But it didn't necessarily produce a lot of jobs here in the United States.

So when I took office, I was determined to rebuild this economy based on what this country has always done best -- not just buying and consuming, but building; making things, selling those goods all around the world, stamped with three proud words:  Made in America.  (Applause.)  And that’s why one of the first decisions that I made as President was to save the U.S. auto industry from collapse.  (Applause.)

There were a lot of politicians who said it wasn’t worth the time and wasn’t worth the money.  In fact, there are some politicians who still say that.  Well, they should come tell that to the workers here at Orion.

AUDIENCE:  Yes!

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Because two years ago it looked like this plant was going to have to shut its doors.  All these jobs would have been lost.  The entire community would have been devastated.  And the same was true for communities all across the Midwest.  And I refused to let that happen.  (Applause.)

So we made a deal with the auto companies.  We said if you’re willing to retool and restructure, get more efficient, get better, get smarter, then we’re going to invest in your future -- because we believe in American ingenuity.  Most importantly, we believe in American workers.  (Applause.)  And today, I can stand here and say that the investment paid off.  (Applause.)  The hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been saved made it worth it.

AUDIENCE:  Yes!

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  An American auto industry that’s more profitable and competitive than it’s been in years made it worth it.  (Applause.)  The taxpayers are being repaid.  (Applause.)  Plants like this are churning out groundbreaking fuel-efficient cars like the Chevy Sonic -- the only one of its kind that’s made and sold in the United States of America.  (Applause.)

And for folks who haven't tried it, you've got to sit in that car.  There's a lot of room in there.  (Laughter.)  Felt -- even for a pretty tall guy like me, I felt pretty good.  They took away the keys, though.  Secret Service wouldn't let me -- (laughter) -- I checked in the dash.  It wasn't there.

Now, here's the thing.  We live in a global economy, and that means most of the potential customers for American companies like GM won't just be here in the United States; they'll be all around the world.  And the more goods and services we sell abroad, the more jobs we create here at home.  (Applause.)

In fact, every $1 billion in exports supports thousands of American jobs.  And that’s why I’ve set a goal of doubling our exports -– and that's a goal that we’re on track to meet.  That’s why we worked with Panama and Colombia, as well as South Korea, to resolve outstanding issues with these trade agreements, and that's why I pushed Congress to pass them as soon as possible.  (Applause.)

Now, Korea is one that is critically important, because understand Korea has 50 million people; it's one of the fastest-growing countries in the world.  It's one of our closest allies and our closest friends.  And -- President Lee and I talked about this when we had dinner the other night -- our trade is basically balanced between the United States and Korea.  They buy as much stuff from us as they sell to us -- and that's how fair and free trade is supposed to be.  It's not a one-sided proposition.  (Applause.)  That's how trade is supposed to be.  And I know President Lee doesn't mind me saying this, even though he's a Hyundai guy.  (Laughter.)  If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais from Korea, then I know Koreans should be able to buy some Fords and Chryslers and Chevys that are made right here in the United States of America.  (Applause.)

The other thing that happened was -- this took a little longer than some people expected because I wasn't going to sign just any trade deal.  President Lee wasn't either.  We had to work hard to reach an understanding.  It was like a scene from a GM dealership, where folks are negotiating about the heated seats and the extended warranty, and you’re going back and forth and trying to figure how does it fit together so that it works for everybody.  But when all was said and done, President Lee and I walked away with a trade agreement that is a win-win for both of our countries.  (Applause.)

Here in the United States, this trade agreement will support at least 70,000 American jobs.  It will increase exports.  It will boost our economy by more than our last nine trade agreements combined.  And as I said, the good thing is we’ve got a balanced situation.  It’s not just a matter of folks sending a bunch of stuff here.  Koreans are also buying American products.  That's what makes it a win-win.  (Applause.)

And by the way, I also held out on sending this agreement to Congress until they promised to renew a law called the TAA -- Trade Adjustment Assistance -- that helps American workers who’ve been affected by global competition so that they are able to help transition.  (Applause.)

Now, it’s because of all these benefits -- it’s because of all these benefits that this trade agreement won the support of business and labor, from automakers and auto workers, from Democrats and Republicans.  That doesn't happen very often.  And it was good to finally see both parties in Congress come together and pass legislation that is good for the American people -– an agreement that will not only build on our strong economic relationship that’s been existing for years to come, but also promises, as we’ve seen at this plant, the capacity for us to exchange ideas and technologies and systems, which will improve productivity on both sides.

Nearly a decade ago, when a Korean business named Daewoo Motors went bankrupt, it was General Motors that stepped in and saved that company, which is now known as GM Korea.  And years later, it was the engineers from GM Korea who helped make the Chevy Sonic possible, and the collaboration with that company that’s helped save this plant and these 17,050 -- 1,750 jobs.

So on a larger scale, the closer economic ties between the United States and Korea are going to lead to more jobs, more opportunity for both nations.  (Applause.)  Already, Korean investment -- and by the way, it’s not just in the auto industry.  Already, Korean investment is creating jobs here in Michigan, with LG Chem planning to make lithium ion batteries in Holland, Michigan; and Hyundai manufacturing suspension modules in Detroit; and Mando opening a new research and development center for brakes and steering in Novi.  In Korea, American businesses are going to be pursuing those same investments and opportunities.  So it’s truly a win-win for everybody involved.

So I just want to say thank you to President Lee for his cooperation and for his leadership.  I want to thank the members of Congress who fought so hard to get this done -- especially the delegation from this state.  I want to especially thank the people of Detroit for proving that, despite all the work that lies ahead, this is a city where a great American industry is coming back to life -- (applause) -- and the industries of tomorrow are taking root, and a city where people are dreaming up ways to prove all the skeptics wrong and write the next proud chapter in the Motor City’s history.  (Applause.)

And that’s why I came here today.  Because for every cynic that's out there running around saying it can't be done, there are a whole bunch of folks that are saying, "Yes, we can."  (Applause.)

Yes, times are tough.  Times are tough and they've been tougher in Detroit than just about anyplace else.  But we’ve made it through tough times before.  We do not quit.  We've rolled up our sleeves.  We remembered our history.  And we said to ourselves there's nothing that we cannot do when we're willing to do it together.  You are all a testimony to the American spirit.  (Applause.)  These cars are a testimony to the American spirit.  And if we can take that same spirit and apply it across the board to all the challenges we face, there is nothing that we cannot do.

God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

President Barack Obama Drives a Volt During a Michigan Visit in July 2011 (White House Photo)

UPDATED WITH UAW PRESIDENT  COMMENTS ON TRADE AGREEMENT:

President Barack Obama is on his way to Michigan with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, where the two will tour the GM Assembly plant that produces the new Chevy Sonic subcompact.   The argument that the auto bailout early in his presidency was good for Michigan, the auto industry, and the U.S. is not an argument the president is willing to lose.

"At the beginning of his administration, President Obama made the very tough and unpopular decision to restructure GM and Chrysler – a decision that saved over a million American jobs and revitalized an entire American industry,"  according to materials on the visit released by the White House.  "In the year before GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, the auto industry shed over 400,000 jobs.  Since these companies emerged from their restructurings, the American auto industry has created 128,000 jobs."

The President has to thread a narrow needle here -- arguing both for the political wisdom bailout and for the recently-passed trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and other nations.  The White House argues the agreements will create jobs, though free trade agreements have not exactly thrilled labor unions, as a whole.

To counter that, the White House released an op-ed penned by UAW Chief Bob King.

" The UAW fully supports this trade agreement because the automotive provisions, which are very different from those negotiated by President George W. Bush in 2007, will create significantly greater market access for American auto exports and include strong, auto-specific safeguards to protect our domestic markets from potentially harmful surges of Korean automotive imports," King wrote.

"Unlike the 2007 negotiations with South Korea, the labor movement, and particularly the UAW, had an opportunity to be part of the 2010 discussions on strengthening the trade deal. Working with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and other members of the Obama administration, then-Ways and Means Committee Chairman Levin and top management from the auto companies, the UAW believes the new agreement will help protect current American auto jobs, contains meaningful trade law enforcement and makes stronger labor and environmental commitments."

As we've reported before from Michigan, the politics of the auto bailout are tricky -- people do see it creating jobs, but, as with the bank bailout, it's hard to swallow big corporations getting handouts when you're totally broke yourself.   Two years after the bailout, Democrats lost key Michigan races in a rout.

Nevertheless, the President and his team have argued again and again that the bailout was wise, and he'll do so again today.

We'll have more on his remarks later.

When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said he was not running for president but vowed to make President Barack Obama a “one-termer,” the feeling may have been mutual.

Chris Ward, head of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Stephen Nessen/WNYC)

DNA Info's Julie Shapiro has the details of quite a speech outgoing Port Authority Chief Chris Ward gave in Lower Manhattan this morning.

"What I learned, as my hand got singed in the oven, was that you can't raise tolls anymore to what they would have to be to sustain the Port Authority," Ward said Wednesday morning at a Lower Manhattan Marketing Association breakfast.

The Port Authority Chairman is, by tradition, appointed by the New York Governor, in this case, Andrew Cuomo.  Cuomo took office in January 2011 -- Ward was already at the helm, having been appointed by the previous Governor, David Paterson.

It's been long suspected that Cuomo -- who is known to trust a relatively tight inner-circle of advisers -- would let Ward go after the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. (The Port Authority owns the World Trade Center site, in addition to three area airports, several   Hudson River crossings, and the PATH commuter train to New Jersey.)

Despite his almost-on-the-outs status (or maybe because of it)  Ward pushed a toll hike on the Hudson River crossings this summer. Governors Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie, of New Jersey, ultimately accepted a hike, but a smaller one than Ward had initially pushed.  As a result, Ward said, he became, in the eyes of the public, the bad guy.

"I somewhat paid the political price of saying [the tolls] could have and should have been higher."

Ward himself believed that he would be asked to leave after the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. But Ward jumped before he could be pushed, letting word leak out of his imminent departure.  Ward himself hasn't said anything publicly, until, it would seem, today, when he warned that a decreased budget for the Port Authority would mean an ever worsening local transportation system.

"You're going to be stuck in traffic on the George Washington Bridge," Ward said. "You're going to be stuck on buses trying to get into the Port Authority Bus Terminal. You're going to be stuck at LaGuardia and JFK because [they] don't have enough runway capacity."

NJ Governor Chris Christie (photo courtesy of NJ Governor's Office/Tim Larsen)

UPDATED: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made two things perfectly clear in his announcement that he won't run for president.  "Now is not my time" Christie said, saying there was too much work for him to do in New Jersey  to leave now.   And this:  he wants to "make sure Obama is a one-termer."

That feeling may be mutual.

Late last week, New Jersey and the U.S. DOT  settled a year-long tussle over a transit tunnel that was to run under the Hudson River from New Jersey to Manhattan, a project Christie pulled the plug on last year. But bitterness and rancor remain, even as Christie bows out of his chance to take on Obama directly.

(Read down in the post for some choice words U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood had for Governor Christie, in an overlooked letter LaHood wrote last April.)

Once upon a time,  governors  of both political parties did not fight with the federal DOT, which was seen a source of funds for the kinds of public works that make local officials look good -- roads, bridges, tunnels -- big projects that were seen to create jobs, make constituents happy, and, most of all, give politicians all-important ribbon-cutting opportunities.

But in 2010, Christie showed that he was perfectly willing to stop a big project literally in its tracks, to the increasing consternation of the usually amiable LaHood, himself a former Republican Congressman from Peoria, Illinois.

At issue was a $9 billion transit tunnel under the Hudson River, the largest new transit project in the nation. The tunnel, known as the Access to the Region's Core, or ARC tunnel, was already under construction. It was to have created an extra pathway for NJ Transit trains, which now share a tunnel with Amtrak. That tunnel is at capacity.

A year ago, Christie halted work, so he could review the project's finances. Christie said he feared the project could cost New Jerseyans billions of dollars more than projected. Big infrastructure projects do tend to run over budget -- but project supporters argued that the construction jobs it would create, along with increased business activity and rising property values along the train line, would offset any increases. That, at least, was the logic that has propelled these kinds of projects forward in the past.

When I first began calling around to federal officials and Washington insiders in the fall of 2010, there was widespread disbelief that Christie would pull the plug on the project.

Both because billions of dollars of federal money would not be coming to New Jersey (the federal government, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and NJ Transit were each footing a third of the $9 billion bill), and also because no one seemed to think Christie would be willing to generate such animosity amongst federal officials whom he might need help from later.

But he was.

In fact, as Christie was publicly mulling a decision he’d already clearly made, the U.S. DOT was strenuously lobbying him (Ray LaHood himself traveled to Trenton twice to make the case).  But publicly, no one from the federal government was talking.  There were no red hot pokers from the Obama administration side.

Just how angry Ray LaHood became only began to come out as the tunnel was being buried –- literally, as workers began throwing dirt back into the hole after the project had been killed (a second time, as it happened, since Christie, in response to LaHood's treatises, gave the project a temporary reprieve.)

"Chris Christie’s decision to terminate America’s largest transportation project was particularly disappointing," LaHood wrote in an op-ed in the Newark Star Ledger the day after the project died. "Unfortunately, his choice comes with profound consequences for New Jersey, the New York metropolitan region and our nation as a whole."

"Tens of thousands of jobs that the tunnel would have created will be lost. Future New Jerseyans will face shrinking property values, suffocating road traffic, interminable train delays and increasing air pollution. A $3.358 billion federal investment in the region’s economic future will move elsewhere."

But even though the project was dead, the bitterness only seemed to escalate.  The U.S. DOT demanded that New Jersey pay back $271 million in funds already spent on the project, which Christie refused to do. Characteristically pugnacious, Christie hired the well-connected law and lobbying firm, Patton Boggs, to argue his case in Washington.

Periodically, the DOT would release stats on how interest and penalties were accruing on the project.

Privately, Ray LaHood was getting more and more irate. In a letter (pdf) to U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg in April, LaHood wrote:

"In February 2010, Governor Christie sat in my office and expressed his full commitment to the completion of the ARC project. In March of 2010, when several news stories called Governor Christie’s commitment to the completion of the ARC project into question, I asked the Governor to restate that commitment in writing. He did so in a letter to me dated April 6, 2010,”

And, then essentially, LaHood called Christie a liar. “The possibility that this project’s cost could run [as high as $12 billion] was first shared with New Jersey Transit as far back as August 2008. Any notion that the potential for cost growth constituted new and emergent information when the Governor made his decision is simply not accurate.”

LaHood held to his position that he would not relent on his demand that Christie pay back the $271 million. By last week, with interest and penalties, the bill had grown to $274 million.  But New Jersey’s two Democratic U.S. Senators, Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, had been arguing that New Jersey could pay a lesser amount and at the same time agree to direct $128 million for transit projects in New Jersey.

On Friday the U.S. DOT announced that it had agreed to settle the case.  It would accept $95 million from New Jersey, plus the $128 commitment for transit spending.

But Christie tossed into his statement a claim that the $95 million would be offset by $100 million in insurance premium refunds. “First I’m hearing of that,” shot back one federal official when asked.

The implication –- and Christie said as much in his statement –- was that the settlement contains “not one additional dollar of New Jersey taxpayer money.”

But that’s not exactly right.  If Christie had gotten his way, and paid zero to the federal government, presumably New Jersey would have been able to pocket the $100 million in insurance premium refunds, not use it to offset a $95 million payment.

Still, though, Christie was able to create the impression he’d boxed his opponent into a corner, again.

That’s a stance we’ll likely see much of from Christie in the next year -- whether he's a candidate for president or not

Austin, TX, got a new commuter rail in 2010.

Transit ridership increased by 85.7 million trips, or 1.7 percent nationwide, in the first six months of 2011, according to a report released today by the American Public Transit Association, the pro-transit lobbying group.

The report said ridership increased across the board on commuter rail, light rail and bus systems, with the biggest jumps on commuter rail in Austin, TX, which added a new service, (221.4 percent) and Nashville, TN (38.5 percent)

Light rail saw ridership hikes in Seattle (42.2 percent) and Dallas, TX (32.3 percent).

Miami and Orlando had the biggest upticks in bus ridership, showing a rise of about ten percent in both cities.

You can see the full report here.  Analysis coming soon.

New Jersey has agreed to pay the federal government $95 million for a never-built transit tunnel under the Hudson River. The U.S. Department of Transportation and  NJ Governor Chris Christie's administration have been engaged in a bitter dispute over $271 million in federal funds that New Jersey had already spent on the tunnel when Governor Christie pulled the plug on the project a year ago, citing a fear of cost overruns on the $9 billion project.

Under the terms of the deal, New Jersey has also promised to direct $128 million of the money to transit projects approved by the DOT. That money was already allocated for New Jersey, but could, in theory have gone to other projects. This is nearly identical to a deal offered by the DOT in December.

Construction on the he so-called "Access to the Region's Core" -- or ARC -- began during the administration of Christie's predecessor, Governor Jon Corzine.  The tunnel, which would have been completed in five year's time, would have doubled transit capacity for commuter trains going from New Jersey to Manhattan.

Christie had initially said he was in favor of the project, but last fall he changed his mind, saying he feared the project would go way over budget.

This had been a marquee project for the U.S. Department of Transportation -- it was the biggest transit expansion underway in the nation.  U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood strenuously fought to save the project, traveling to Trenton and offering a number of sweeteners.

But Christie was unpersuaded, and workers began filling in the hole that had been dug last fall.

The bitterness over the tunnel's cancellation spilled over into a dispute about whether New Jersey would have to pay back funds it had already spent, with LaHood insisting that New Jersey pay back all the money, plus penalties and interest. Christie's administration hired the influential lobbying firm, Patton Boggs, at a cost of about $1 million, to negotiate the deal.

Today's settlement represents about a third of what the federal government initially said NJ owed. Governor Christie's office said the full amount would be covered by insurance on the project.

New Jersey Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez -- both Democrats and vocal critics of the project's cancellation -- praised today's decision nonetheless, saying they didn't want New Jersey to have to pay nearly $300 million to the federal government for an unrealized project.

Tom Wright, Executive Director of the Regional Plan Association, which had worked on the ARC tunnel for 20 years, said, at the end of the day, he too approved of the decision. "You don't want big projects to be canceled with no repercussions," he said in a phone interview. "But at the end of the day you want that money for transit projects going forward."

New Jersey has agreed to pay the federal government $95 million for a never-built transit tunnel under the Hudson River.  The U.S. Department of Transportation and Governor Chris Christie's administration have been engaged in a bitter dispute over $271 million that New Jersey had already spent on the tunnel when Governor Christie pulled the plug on the project a year ago, citing a fear of cost overruns on the $9 billion project.