Andrea Bernstein

Under bombardment from transpo activists, the Obama administration, and a good number of members in his own party, House Speaker John Boehner is delaying the vote on the $260 billion transportation bill, The Hill is reporting.

Boehner yesterday tried splitting the bill into three parts as a way to shepherd it through the house, but today's announcement seems an acknowledgement that that strategy wasn't working.

From The Hill:

"Given the volume of amendments and the need for a full, fair, open and transparent process, we may not finish energy/infrastructure this week," Boehner told his conference, according to a source in the room. "If we need more time to debate and consider amendments, that's perfectly fine with me. It's more important that we do it right than that we do it fast."

More on this soon.

This in from the U.S. DOT:

Airlines Post Best December On-Time Record, Lowest December Cancellation Rate in 17 Years
No Tarmac Delays Longer than Three Hours on Domestic Flights or Four Hours on International Flights in December

The nation’s largest airlines posted an on-time arrival record last December of 84.4 percent, the highest on-time percentage for any December during the 17 years the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has collected comparable flight delay data. According to DOT’s Air Travel Consumer Report, the carriers also had a 0.8 percent rate of canceled flights, the lowest December cancellation rate for the last 17 years.

The December on-time rate posted by the 16 reporting carriers was up from the 72.0 percent rate of December 2010, but down slightly from November 2011’s 85.3 percent, according to data filed with the Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). The carriers’ on-time percentage for all of 2011 was 79.6 percent, compared to 79.8 percent in 2010.

December’s 0.8 percent cancellation rate was down from December 2010’s 3.7 percent rate but up from November 2011’s 0.7 percent.

Airlines also reported no tarmac delays of more than three hours on domestic flights or more than four hours on international flights in December. The larger U.S. airlines have been required to report long tarmac delays on their domestic flights since October 2008. Under a new rule that took effect Aug. 23, 2011, all U.S. and foreign airlines operating at least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats must report lengthy tarmac delays at U.S. airports. Also beginning Aug. 23, carriers operating international flights may not allow tarmac delays at U.S. airports to last longer than four hours. There is a separate three-hour limit on tarmac delays involving domestic flights, which went into effect in April 2010. Exceptions to the time limits for both domestic and international flights are allowed only for safety, security or air traffic control-related reasons.

The monthly Air Travel Consumer Report also includes data on chronically delayed flights and the causes of flight delays filed with BTS by the reporting carriers. In addition, the report contains information on airline bumping, reports of mishandled baggage filed by consumers with the carriers and consumer service, disability and discrimination complaints received by DOT’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division. This report also includes reports of incidents involving pets traveling by air, as required to be filed by U.S. carriers. Calendar year 2011 data are contained in the report in a number of areas as well as data for December 2011.

A news release on the report is available at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2012/dot2412.html. The full report is available at http://airconsumer.dot.gov/reports/index.htm. Detailed information on flight delays is available at http://www.bts.gov.

-END-

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (US DOT Photo)

C'mon, Mr. Secretary, now tell us how you really feel.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who has already called the House Transportation bill "the most partisan ever" and the "worst bill in decades," heaped more criticism on the GOP-sponsored bill.

"The House has a lousy bill.  It takes us back to the dark ages," LaHood, a former Republican Congressman, said on a conference call with reporters to discuss President Obama's proposed 2013 budget. "It doesn't reflect the transportation values of the country."

LaHood said Republican Congress members have already started to defect.  "I was delighted when I read that Republican members from Illinois said they would not support [House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair John] Mica's bill unless transit funding was put back in... They were stunned at the way this was done."

A number of GOP house members around the country have objected to the bill's provision to no longer support transit from the gas tax, but put it in the general fund, instead.

"When I served on the transportation committee, we passed two transportation bills with more than 400 votes in the House and more than 80 in the Senate."

Mica "has heard from his members, both moderates and conservative. He's got people on all sides saying they're not going to vote for it. Not one Democrat will vote for [it].  Not one.  If you get a handful of conservatives and a handful of moderates, there's no way for it to get to 218."

LaHood's remarks came as he was touting the President's own $476 billion surface transportation bill, part of the 2013 budget.  That proposal contains continued funding for high speed rail ($47 billion), $50 billion in "immediate investments" to "improve America's raods, bridges, transit systems, border crossings, railways, and runways."  And it would continue funding for TIGER grants, which have been heavily criticized by the House GOP.

LaHood said despite the fact that both the House and the Senate are expected to vote this week on their respective -- and far-apart -- transportation bills, "we're all at the starting gate. The House is considering their bill, the Senate is considering their bill, we're putting out our bill. "

As for the house bill "Lookit -- it's just a lousy bill, it hollows out all of our safety plans.  It's a lousy bill."

Ok, let's remember that this is not a budget -- or that it's not a budget, only.  It's a political document, in a campaign year, that is designed to press forward President Obama's case that he is on the side hard-working Americans, not the 1 %

Having said that, the transportation portion (pdf)  is remarkable in its consistency -- you'd never know the drubbing President Obama took last year on high speed rail and the jobs act.

*Like last year, the President wants a half-trillion dollar, six-year transportation bill. (It's broken out slightly differently, but with $476 for a transportation bill and $50 billion in immediate investments -- a.k.a the jobs bill -- its almost the same as last years $550 billion proposal.)

*Like last year, the President wants to spend about $50 billion on high speed rail, despite a drubbing in Congress in 2011.

*There's no backing down on TIGER grants and "streets that accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access."

More soon, after Transpo Secretary Ray LaHood's conference call.

Fifty-six-year-old Carolyn McMillan considers herself lucky. To get to work, she can drive to the Home Depot parking lot on Jonesboro road in Clayton County Georgia, then take a bus to her clerical job in downtown Atlanta.

“I’m just barely making it,” McMillan says. “Because I have to put gas in the car. I’m just barely making it.” Not too long ago, McMillan could take a local bus before switching to the Atlanta system, or MARTA. But Clayton County isn’t part of MARTA, and  the year before last,  Clayton eliminated all bus service. Today it stretches south of Atlanta in an endless string of fried chicken joints, tattoo parlors, check-cashing stores and used car lots.

In the 1970s, when Clayton County voted not to become a part of MARTA, it was then a mostly white, rural place. Now, as more affluent whites flock to downtown Atlanta, Clayton County is mostly black.

“Transportation in Atlanta has always been mired in race and racism,” says Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Center at Clark Atlanta University. When Atlanta began building its commuter rail system in the 1970s, white communities like Clayton County wanted no part of it.

“Public Transit was equated with black people and poor people and crime and poverty. And when the Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Authority was created MARTA, it was a running joke that MARTA” – he spells it out – M-A-R-T-A – “stood for moving Africans rapidly through Atlanta.”

“It’s transportation apartheid,” he says.

Back of the Bus Airs:  Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 9PM on 820 AM and Monday, February 13, 2012 at 8PM on 93.9 FM, 820 FM, and NJPR

To read more, and for photos, a timeline, or to download the documentary, click here.

The House Ways and Means committee voted to slash transit funding, a move that could cost New York City $1.7 billion. Andrea Bernstein, director of the public radio Transportation Nation project and senior correspondent for WNYC, talks about the cuts and the likely outcome of the vote next week by the full House.

An example of the "shame sticker." (Photo by Kilgub via Flickr)

Interesting result from a Quinnipiac College poll today: some 60 percent of New Yorkers think the Sanitation department should continue its practice of stickering cars that aren't moved for street cleaning.

The results were pretty much across the board, with the least support (54%) among whites and the highest (65%) among blacks.

The city council, with the full-throated support of Speaker Christine Quinn, who is running for Mayor, recently passed a bill to end the practice, which the Mayor said he would veto.

Fifty four percent of respondents said they owned a car, and half said they parked on the street, rather than in off-street parking.

Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff issued a sharply-worded statement today against the House version of the transportation bill, calling it "a huge step backward" and a "misguided bill."

Coupled with Secretary Ray LaHood's comments, where he called the bill "the most partisan ever," the statement represents one of the Obama Administration's most pugilistic stances to date. Here's the full statement:

“The House Majority’s approach eliminates a guaranteed funding source for mass transit that has been in place since the Reagan Administration and represents a huge step backward from a balanced transportation policy. The bill takes away billions of dollars that have already been collected solely for mass transit, impacting every American that rides a bus, or a train, or uses a paratransit van to get to work, school, or medical appointments each day.

“The House Majority proposal subjects all future Federal transit funding to partisan, controversial and unworkable funding schemes.  Meanwhile, the Senate has found a way to fund the needs of transit and highways in a bipartisan, non-controversial way.  There are no Democratic or Republican buses or rail systems. We can only hope that the House will follow the Senate’s bipartisan lead and fix this misguided bill.”

A map of Dallas Light Rail's proposed expansion. DART President Gary Thomas says similar expansions would be jeopardized under the House funding proposal.

Transit advocates are taking the House's threat to remove transit spending from the highway trust fund seriously.

"The idea that this bill is going nowhere couldn't be further from the truth," said Janet Kavinoky of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a conference call organized by the American Public Transportation Association. "The reports of the demise of this bill are greatly exaggerated."

"Both Democrats and Republicans agree that it's time to get a transportation bill done," Kavinoky added. "There are provisions in both the House and Senate bill that the other sides won't be inclined to agree on, but there's more in common than not in the bill."

That's what's got the transit advocates alarmed -- for the first time in thirty years, the House wants to remove transit from the highway trust fund, which gets a dedicated stream of funding from the gas tax.

"I spend a tremendous amount of time talking to Chambers of Commerce. Across the board, one of the greatest demands for transportation investment is in public transportation. The better and more efficient your workforce is, the more productive it is. For developers -- they recognize that public transportation is an integral part of creating successful developments. They're concerned about a lack of public commitment to public transit."

The advocates fear that if transit is made part of the yearly appropriations process, funding for long-term projects will dry up.  The problem of moving the trust fund solely to the highway side is that it creates revenue uncertainty that will increase borrowing costs, " said Dr. William Ankner of APTA.

"Transit is critical to the highway program. You can't build enough capacity. We don't have the resources to build our way out of the congestion," added Ankner, who noted there have been no attempts to remove transit from the trust fund in thirty years.

The House is expected to take up its transportation bill next week; the Senate will take up its version tomorrow.

It was, presumably, meant to be humorous -- a Chevy can survive anything, even the apocalypse. Or so the message of last night's Super Bowl ad for Chevy Silverados implied. As a driver passes destroyed highways, a burning Bob's Big Boy, and arrives at a plaza in front of what looks like three bombed-out banks, the soundtrack thrums "looks like we made it." Twinkees apparently also made it. Women did not, bad news for repopulation prospects.

But given the fact that this isn't the first car ad to assure owners they can survive crumbling infrastructure, maybe its part of a darker message: the world may be falling apart (or blowing up), but you can protect yourself by buying the right car.

The other ad, for Audi, profiled here, exhorts users to buy an Audi, because "highway maintenance is underfunded, costing drivers $65 billion a year, and countless tires, which drivers never actually check, because they’re busy, checking email. This is why we engineered a car that makes 2,000 decisions every second."

By the way, it appears Ford is challenging the Chevy apocalypse ad's claim, Ad Age is reporting. "We don't agree with some of GM's claims in their ad, particularly around durability," Ford's Mark Levine told the publication.

Not sure how you verify that your car can survive an apocalypse.

ProPublica's Michael Grabell speaks with Brian Lehrer on his new book "Monday Well Spent?" analyzing the stimulus bill.

Other insights:  the bill created the tea-party, no one had any idea which projects were stimulus projects, and no one noticed when their teachers weren't fired.

And -- the bill wasn't nearly as effective as it could have been.

Check out the full segment.

The House Ways and Means Committee voted to to remove funding for transit from the highway trust fund by a 20 to 17 vote.  The vote was mostly along party lines, with two Republicans voting against it.

In his opening statement, House Ways and Means Committee Chair David Camp (R-MI) said:

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has recently estimated that the Highway Trust Fund will run out of money for highway projects in Fiscal Year 2013 and for mass transit projects in Fiscal Year 2014.  The bill before us today will provide stable funding for these projects for at least the next 5 years—without raising a dollar in new or higher taxes or adding a penny to the deficit."

But transit advocates see it as a gutting of what's been a reliable -- if diminishing -- source of funds for mass transit.  Instead of using a small fraction of the gas tax to fund transit, the bill pushes that funding over to the general fund -- which means it would be subject to yearly appropriations, leaving its future uncertain.

In a letter signed by some 200 transit advocates, including the American Public Transportation Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Transportation for America, the signatories wrote:

"In place of gasoline tax revenues, the legislation would provide a one-­‐time  $40 billion transfer of General Fund revenues to the Alternative Transportation Account. Not only is this level of funding insufficient to fully fund the proposed authorized levels for the Alternative Transportation Account, but it would subject transit and CMAQ funding to the annual  appropriations process. This change will  make it  impossible for public  transit  systems  across  the  country  to  plan  for  the  future.  It  will  also  make  it impossible for the FTA to honor grant agreements."

After the vote, David Goldberg, Communications Director for T4America, wasn't shy about expressing his disgust:

"It is a cruel blow to the millions of Americans who use public transportation and to those who would like the option in the future," Goldberg said. "Everybody can expect their air quality to get worse and will see no relief from congestions."

The bill now goes to the full House.  If it passes, it would need to be reconciled with a vastly different Senate bill.  An agreement must be reached -- or an extension approved -- by March 31.

An expert in infrastructure financing and former member of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District has been elected to head the California High Speed Rail Authority.  Dan Richard of Piedmont has been tapped to chair the authority, which faces withering criticism from mostly Republican critics who say the $98 billion price tag is too high.

Richard succeeds Thomas Umberg, who abruptly resigned that post last month.  Umberg  will remain on the board as an active member.

Here's Richard's bio, from the CAHSRA press release:

Dan Richard of Piedmont, has been a principal of Dan Richard Advisors since 2010. He was managing partner and co-founder of Heritage Oak Capital Partners, an infrastructure finance firm, from 2007 to 2009 and was senior vice president of public policy and governmental relations at Pacific Gas and Electric Company from 1997 to 2006.

Richard was an elected member of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District from 1992 to 2004, where he served twice as president of the Board. At the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Richard led efforts to secure $4 billion in capital for system rehabilitation projects, the transit system’s expansion to the San Francisco Airport and seismic retrofit programs. 

Richard was a principal at Morse, Richard, Weisenmiller & Associates from 1986 to 1996, a firm serving the independent power industry and project finance lending community. He was vice president of Independent Power Corporation from 1983 to 1986. Richard served as Governor Brown’s deputy legal affairs secretary from 1982 to 1983 and deputy assistant for science and technology from 1978 to 1979.  He was advisor to the chairman of the California Energy Commission from 1978 to 1982.

Richard began his career at National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where he was an assistant to the deputy associate administrator from 1972 to 1978. Richard received his Juris Doctor degree from McGeorge School of Law.  

 (photo by Kate Hinds)

The reviews are in on the House transportation bill:

"It's like funding a quit-smoking program by lowering the smoking age to generate more revenue from cigarette taxes." (USPIRG statement)

"It would reverse all the progress we have made in the past 20 years...horrible." (League of American Bicyclists)

"This bill is less about creating jobs and more about giving the green light to the oil industry and road-builders."  (Southern Environmental Law Center)

“Additional research is required to demonstrate exactly how bigger and heavier trucks would impact traffic safety. Absent this research, we cannot take the chance – there is simply too much at stake.” (AAA statement)

To be sure, the bill has its supporters.

"Chairman Mica has done tremendous work," the Associated General Contractors of America said.  "The legislation will significantly accelerate transportation improvements." (Associated General Contractors of America)

But the tone of criticism by advocates for smart growth, biking, walking, and transit was considerably sharper than its been in the past-- an indication of how far apart the two sides are on a bill that used to be negotiated far more amicably.

Even AASHTO -- the group that represents state transportation officials, also known as a big proponent of highway spending -- wasn't exactly effusive.

"We are pleased that the House and Senate are moving ahead on a long-term surface transportation authorization. A long-term bill that sustains the surface transportation program at current funding levels is critical to the nation's economy and creating American jobs."  (AASHTO statement).

Democratic politicians didn't pull any punches.  Here's New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler: "I am generally troubled by the treatment of programs critical to our nation's economy, and to the New York region, namely: transit, environmentally friendly alternative transportation programs, rail, (and) freight...As language in the bill currently stands, these dedicated funding soruces are either fundamentally reformed, or eliminated completely."

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has given the bill little chance of passage (a Senate bill is only for two years of funding, among the many differences), but that won't prevent a spring with a lot of heat over this one.  Stay tuned.

A Princeton professor emeritus and author of a book on the Port Authority says Governor Chris Christie's hiring recommendations at the Port Authority far outpace his predecessor's patronage hire. 

Christie is defending the hirings. "I make no apologies about trying to put some people in place who are going to understand what the view of this administration is and execute …in a way that’s consistent with my policies,” he said at a news conference Monday.

Christie's spokesman didn't respond to Doig's criticisms.

Shawn Boburg, one of the Bergen Record reporters who broke the story, said the hirings "cut against the grain" for Christie, who made his bones as a prosecutor crusading against corruption.  (You can listen to an interview with Boburg here. )

The report says among those hired were an actor, a gourmet food broker, and the author of a self-help book by a Port Authority executive.  The salaries total $4 million.

Christie says, under his watch, overall headcount has dropped at the bi-state transportation authority.

The Port Authority is not subject to the same disclosure laws as New Jersey state agencies, and has not released the resumes of the 50 employees.

President Obama drives a Chevy Volt (2010 White House photo)

President Obama is making it clear he won't miss an opportunity to push the narrative that bailing out Detroit was the right thing to do (particularly since Romney didn't want to.)

The Preisdent walked into the showroom of the 70th annual Washington Auto Show this afternoon, where he inspected about 15 new electric and hybrid models from Ford, Dodge, and GM.

President Obama got inside man of the cars, sitting behind the wheel as he inspected the interiors.

Among the vehicles he viewed were the 2013 Ford C-Max Energi, 2013 Ford Fusion, 2013 Dodge Challenger SRT, 2013 Dodge Dart, 2013 Chevrolet Malibu Eco and the American Pride Camaro (colorfully decorated with illustrations showing the history of the U.S. military, starting from the Revolutionary War, plus American flags, U.S. presidents and a bald eagle).

After the tour, the President said:  “When you look at all these cars, it is a testimony to the outstanding work that’s been done by workers, American workers, American designers. The U.S. auto industry is back. The fact that GM is back to number one I think shows the kind of turnaround that’s possible when it comes to American manufacturing. It’s good to remember the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die. Because of folks coming together, we are now back in a place where we can compete with any car company in the world. And these are not only selling here in the United States; they also serve as a platform for us to sell product all around the world. I’m just very proud of what we’re seeing here. That Camaro with the American eagle and the American flag, that helps tell the story. Thank you very much. Keep up the great work.”

Vice President Biden travels to Grand Rapids, Michigan tomorrow to visit the American Seating Company, which makes seats for buses, trains, stadiums, and concert arenas.

Expect to hear a whole lot more of this, this year.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood doesn't think there's much chance Congress will pass a surface transportation spending bill this year.

The bill is on its way to being three years late -- it was supposed to be reauthorized in September, 2009.

"Given the politics, the number of days that remain, the differences between what the Senate and House are looking at -- I think its very unlikely we will have a surface transportation bill during this year of Congress," LaHood told a gathering of transportation professionals at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting.

"When you look at the number of days that Congress will be in session -- it is limited.  Given the political atmosphere that is around us now with presidential politics and every member of Congress seeking reelection in November that obviously will play into what happens."

LaHood told reporters after the panel that another big obstacle is the differences between the two-year Senate bill and the five-year House bill, which as of yet has no "pay-fors." "I think the difference between a two-year bill and a five-year bill is a pretty big gulf to overcome particually given the number of legilsative days," LaHood said.

But his remarks seemed to take his own top aides by surprise.

"I didn't hear him say we're not going to have a reauthorization bill this year," said Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff, who was in the audience and left with Secretary LaHood.. "I'm an optimist, the real way we are going to put people to work the fastest and make progress on all these policies, is by getting a reauthorization bill as soon as possible."

LaHood's comments came at a panel of transportation secretaries going back to Alan Boyd, who was Lyndon B. Johnson's transportation secretary.  The moderator asked the secretaries if they were optimistic or pessimistic about the future of transportation funding.

“I’m hopeful but I’m very concerned," said Boyd, who went first, "because it seems to me looking and listening as I do now from my vantage point in Seattle so many of my fellow Americans want to have good roads, good bridges, but they don’t want to pay for it, they want somebody else to pay for it. There is this sense to me  around the country: no new taxes.  The world keeps changing and if America is going to be the leader it says it is and wants to be its got to improve its infrastructure. "

(LaHood did express optimism about the future of high speed rail -- that story here.)

Ray LaHood, speaking earlier this year (photo by thisisbossi via Flickr)

The U.S. Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, still wants to connect 80 percent of Americans to high speed rail by 2036.  That's the goal that President Barack Obama laid out in last year's state of the union.  But since then, the governors of Florida and Ohio followed Wisconsin's governor in halting their states' projects, and congress made no new allocations of high speed rail funds going forward.

The President made no reference to high speed rail in his 2012 State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Even so, LaHood told reporters after an appearance at the Transportation Research Board Wednesday: "High speed rail is a priority for President Obama and it’s a priority for the administration,  and we’re going to continue to make progress. We’ve made a lot of progress. We’ve allocated over $10 billion. That’s a pretty good leap in a three year period."

LaHood pointed out that the DOT had allocated nearly $1 billion to the Northeast corridor, "which is what members of Congress have been clamoring for." (That would refer to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair John Mica, who poo-pooed initial administration allocations for high speed rail that gave little to Amtrak's Northeast corridor.)

Asked if he still was working on connecting 80 percent of Americans to high speed rail in under a quarter century, he said, "that's our goal."

(LaHood also expressed doubt on the chances of a surface transportation bill passing congress this year -- article here. )

Here are his full remarks:

"We’ve made ten billion dollars worth of investments. We’re going to continue our efforts to implement high speed rail.

We’re going to continue our efforts with our partners.  We have great partners all over the country. W e have a great partner in Michigan in the governor.  e have a great partner in California in the governor we have great parters in the Midwest whether it be Michigan Illinois, Missouri.  We have great partners on the Northeast corridor.

If you look at the money we’ve invested over the last 18 months -- almost a billion dollars in Amtrak on the Northeast corridor  -- which is what members of Congress have been clamoring for.  We listened to them and we made those investments.

High speed rail is a priority for President Obama and it’s a priority for the administration,  and we’re going to continue to make progress. We’ve made a lot of progress.

Three years ago there was not one penny spent for high speed inter-city rail. We’ve allocated over 10 billion. That’s a pretty good leap in a three year period."

Does he still want to connect 80 percent of Americans to high speed rail by 2036?

"That's our goal."