Every six years Congress adopts a surface transportation bill that guides federal transportation revenue and spending, including allocation of money collected by the federal gas tax. The current incarnation of that bill is called SAFETEA-LU, and is set to expire about a year from now. SAFETEA-LU is pretty similar to its six-year predecessor, TEA-21, which was itself pretty similar to its predecessor, ISTEA. The numbers change, but for the most part the feds haven’t changed how they do business in a long time.

When Congress convenes in 2009 a new TEA bill (that’s Transportation Equity Act, BTW) will be near the top of its agenda. But the world of 2008 isn’t the same as was the world of previous TEAs. Climate change is proven science, gas prices are way up, the highway trust fund is broke, drive-til-you-qualify no longer applies, and transit agencies are shattering ridership records left and right.

It’s clear that no matter who wins in November, this time around Congress will have to think outside the box. America needs a new TEA bill that recognizes and responds to the world around us, not a copypasta reauthorization of the same spending deal we functioned under during different times. If Congress doesn’t come through with a major rewrite it won’t just be a disappointment, it will be an epic failure of government, and a violation of the trust of the American people.

If Congress acts responsibly, it will have to address the following five big questions:

1. Do we need more money, or only wiser money?
   Transit and multi-modal projects obviously need more money, but to get it do we need more money generally, or should we shift money currently being spent on highways over to other uses? If we eliminate pork like the bridge to nowhere, is there enough for legitimate needs, or will we still require more dollars?
2. Is the gas tax the best (or only) way to raise money?
   As Americans drive less and use more fuel-efficient vehicles, federal gas tax revenue is declining. One potential solution is to raise the gas tax, but USDOT Secretary Mary Peters thinks we should ditch the gas tax and charge tolls on all major roadways. There are a lot of potential benefits to tolls. They’re a more direct user fee, they reward people for driving less as opposed to buying a hybrid and driving just as much, they should be more stable than the gas tax over the long term, and they’re scalable to congestion – you can charge a higher toll if there’s more traffic. Should we do one, the other, or both?
3. Should there be modal parity?
   For years the TEA bills have had separate highway funds and transit funds, but the two funds have never been treated equally. Not only is the highway budget vastly larger, but harnessing money from it is a matter of right for every state, whereas localities must compete for transit money. States are currently awarded highway money according to a formula. If Virginia’s population pays in $x to the trust fund via gas taxes, Virginia automatically gets $y back to spend on road projects. On the other hand, there is so little transit money that if a state (like, say Virginia) wants to build a transit line (like, say the Silver line), it has to go through a stringent competition / regulation process to convince FTA overlords of its worthiness. Want to build a highway? Knock yourself out, here’s the cash. Want to build a Metro? Spend the next decade doing paper work, and then maybe. Congress must decide if this non-mode-neutral system is still in America’s best interests.
4. Should MPOs get the bulk of money instead of state DOTs?
   State Departments of Transportation are, almost uniformly speaking, bureaucratic monsters that are rarely able to respond adequately to the needs of metropolitan regions. Even under the best circumstances, DOTs dictate local needs from faraway capitals. But metropolitan regions are the driving force of America’s economy these days, and home to the bulk of America’s population. It is becoming more and more clear that transportation money to be spent in metropolitan regions should be controlled from the regions themselves. Sure sure, let the state DOTs handle true intercity routes and rural connectors, but why should Arlington have to beg Richmond for money that theoretically should belong to Arlington in the first place? Federal regulations already require MPOs to manage transportation planning in metropolitan regions; should they manage the money too?
5. Should climate change legislation affect transportation?
   Of course it should! Transportation-related emissions are one of the chief culprits of global warming. But how? Both presidential candidates have expressed interest in carbon cap and trade concepts, but only Obama’s suggests carbon allotments be auctioned and the proceeds used to fund clean energy alternatives. Could those alternatives include transit? Why not use carbon auction money to fund the next generation of rapid transit lines in American cities? Or a national high-speed rail network? Or anything. Cap and trade, if it happens, will probably happen as a separate piece of legislation rather than as part of the TEA bill, but it will be the same Congress debating both bills. Why not use one for the other?

Five big questions; five answers we need to get right if America hopes to compete in a future without limitless, cheap gasoline. This is a story sure to continue, so stay tuned.