Highways, Bridges and Roads

A civil rights coalition is arguing that a proposed cut to public transportation in the $260 billion surface transportation bill being considered by the House of Representatives is a violation of the rights of minorities.

The measure, the American Energy and Infrastructure Act (H.R. 7), eliminates a trust fund for mass transit and redirects the 2.86 cents of the federal gas tax that normally goes to it to highway spending.

The Washington, D.C.-based Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights said the cut be felt most acutely by minority public transportation riders.

"Communities of color, low-income Americans and people with disabilities will be disproportionately impacted since they are the most transit dependent communities and negotiate their daily lives on mass transportation to reach employment, health care, and educational centers," the coalition said in a letter to lawmakers Tuesday. 

Read more...

A union that represents employees of numerous federal agencies accused Republicans in the House of Representatives of cutting benefits to fund their $260 billion surface transportation bill.

The Washington, D.C.-based National Treasury Employees Union sharply criticized H.R. 3813, the Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2012, arguing the legislation would divert savings from spending less on federal employees' pensions to the Highway Trust Fund.

The bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.), was approved Tuesday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The Senate Finance Committee approved a $9.6 billion package of funding offsets Tuesday night for the chamber’s $109 billion surface transportation bill it intends to counter a House Republican proposal to tie infrastructure spending to increased oil drilling.

The Highway Investment, Job Creation and Economic Growth Act of 2012, which contains the funding for the Senate’s two-year transportation bill, eliminates most of a roughly $13 billion gap between the chamber’s transportation plan and the amount brought in by the federal trust funds that traditionally fund it.  The measure was approved on a 17-7 vote Tuesday evening after GOP senators attempted unsuccessfully to include the House drilling proposal.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said his priority was protecting the Highway Trust Fund, which a recently Congressional Budget Office report predicted could go bankrupt as early as 2014.

“The American people are relying on us to provide the funds for their safety and mobility,” Baucus said at the state of Tuesday’s hearing. “They need us to ensure the funds will be there to help create jobs at a time when the construction industry still faces unacceptably high unemployment.”

The conservative Heritage Foundation's political arm is urging senators to vote against their chamber's version of a new federal highway bill ahead of an important committee markup Wednesday afternoon.

The Senate Finance Committee will take up its Highway Investment, Job Creation and Economic Growth Act of 2012, which contains the funding for the upper chamber's transportation plan, which would spend about $109 billion over two years.

The Heritage Foundation spoke out last week against the House's version of the transportation bill, which would spent $260 billion over five years, but the group said it would hold senators who vote for the measure accountable too.

"Heritage Action opposes S.1813 and will include it as a key vote on our scorecard," the group said in an email to supporters, referring to the main transportation bill, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.

The measure is being framed as the House GOP’s jobs bill, but conservative activists say it is too expensive.

Rep. Pat Meehan argued a highway bill is vital for the economy despite opposition by the Club for Growth.

The $260 billion transportation bill being pushed by Republicans as a “jobs bill” was approved by a key House committee in the wee hours of Friday morning after nearly 16 hours of debate.

The measure, dubbed the American Energy and Infrastructure Act (H.R. 7), provides funding for road and transit projects by tying infrastructure spending to expanded oil drilling.

Democrats, who oppose such a trade-off, peppered the transportation bill with amendments during a hearing that began at 9 a.m. Thursday and ended at almost 3 a.m. Friday. The bill was approved on a 29-24 vote, with one Republican, Wisconsin Rep. Tom Petri, voting no.

The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to mark up the financing portions of the transportation bill Friday morning.

Opponents of allowing heavier trucks on highways put the brakes on an effort to raise the limit in the $260 billion surface transportation bill being considered by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Thursday.

After a debate that defied party lines, a bipartisan amendment from Reps. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) and Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) to require a study before an increase in the limit on truck weight that was included in the Republican American Energy and Infrastructure Act (H.R. 7.) was approved Thursday on a 33-20 vote.

Under the defeated proposal , freight trucks could weigh up to 97,000 pounds, an increase from the current limit of 80,000 pounds, if they had six instead of five axles.

But lawmakers on the panel from both parties argued the increase would make roads less safe.

“That’s for community to decide, not for our federal government to sit up here in Washington and decide,” says lawmaker.

The $260 billion transportation bill released this week by House Republicans to spur highway construction in the United States would make roads in the country less safe, AAA argued a day after the GOP announced the legislation.

The proposal from House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) to spend $260 billion over five years on road and transit projects includes a provision that would increase the weight of trucks allowed on highways from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds.

AAA said the increased shipping capacity is not worth the risk of accidents involving bigger trucks.

“With a nine percent increase in truck related fatalities in 2010, traffic safety is a significant concern,” Jill Ingrassia, AAA’s managing director of government relations and traffic safety advocacy, said in a news release. “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.”