Mica on the Next Transportation Bill: Size Matters

We caught up with Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair John Mica today and asked him about the reauthorization.

Photo courtesy of the office of T&I Committee Chair John Mica.

Streetsblog: First, I wanted to ask you what your thoughts are about the size of the six-year bill?

John Mica: Size matters.

(Long pause, Mica laughs.)

SB: Any guesses? Would it be limited to what’s in the Highway Trust Fund?

JM: We’ll have to see. What I hope to do is have four measures of value. One would be what’s in the trust fund and stabilizing that. The second would be any money that we can find that hasn’t been used in any previous authorizations or appropriations and move that. The third would be looking at programs where we could leverage funds, like public private partnerships, bonding – and the fourth area that I would like to count would be speeding up the process. We’ve heard in the hearings we’ve done so far that the time the process takes runs the cost up, and very often projects go on for years and sometimes decades.

So those are the measures that would get me to a total figure. And I would like the size bigger rather than smaller. We’ll see what we can do.

SB: You’ve been a real supporter of mass transit and there aren’t many Republicans who are…

JM: Well, where the projects make sense. You have to look at the value, the cost-effectiveness, the routing, and the public support.

SB: Is there a way that you can talk – or that you can recommend that advocates can talk – to Republicans in a way that makes sense to them instead of a way that has been alienating?

JM: Republicans are most interested in cost-effectiveness. What they’ve seen is some wasteful projects. They’ve seen the administration take an $8 billion appropriation for high-speed rail and turn it into a Christmas tree, and many people are now returning the ornaments. I think Republicans will support sound infrastructure projects; they just have to be evaluated on a cost-effective basis.

SB: Will the next bill have the same 80/20 highway-to-transit split?

JM: We haven’t decided that, but given the mix in Congress we’ll probably stay at about the same level. It’s just my guess, of course; anything can change. And you know, I only have 50 percent of the responsibility for the bill.

SB: And how are the conversations going with the Senate side?

JM: Excellent; we had the hearing, as you heard, in Los Angeles, and I think we heard some things on our listening tour and hearings that we can adopt, and hopefully we’re gaining support for a comprehensive measure.

SB: And are you already in conversations with the Senate Banking Committee [which has jurisdiction over transit] about the transit piece of it?

JM: We’re talking to folks; we’re not down to specifics enough yet. We’ve talked about some finance things with Senate, with Mr. Inhofe and Ms. Boxer a little bit, but everything so far is really preliminary. We don’t have anything – we’re not at a stage where we can discuss specifics yet.

SB: There’s talk about whether things like bike lanes belong in an infrastructure bill – whether that’s “real transportation.”

JM: Those are more specifics that we haven’t gotten into. But we have heard cries for consolidation and flexibility, so we’ll see how that washes out and how specific we want to get in the legislation.

  • Dave ‘Paco’ Abraham

    glad size matters, but not if its solely to keep a lopsided 80-20 split. And blowing off the response to bikes being real transportation? disappointing rep Mica, very disappointing.

  • Maybe it’s just me, but it sounds like he really didn’t say much in that interview. Definitely not much of substance.

  • LazyReader

    ”Routing, and the public support.” You ask if people want stuff like sound transportation, give them broad definitions, and they’ll say yes to anything.

    http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=4641

  • Why didn’t you ask him straight out about Florida HSR?

  • Ron

    Just get a dang bill NOW for a vote. Enough chatter….Mica has been talking for over two years, and already had a bill in 2009. Just re-tool, dust it off, and go with it. The economy needs a boost this summer, so get it DONE!

  • Nathanael

    “JM: Republicans are most interested in cost-effectiveness.”

    Mica is wrong, of course. I *WISH* he were right. The fact is that Republicans as a whole don’t give a damn about cost-effectiveness — that’s why we have Abstinence-Only “Education”, the Transportation Security Administration, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, etc. etc. etc.

    Republicans care about appeasing the crazy megachurches, and helping their corporate backers, such as Big Oil. It’s lovely that Mica is an exception to this, but he’s just wrong about what most of his colleagues care about.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Mica: “The Focus of the Bill Is on the National Highway System”

|
First, to recap: The transportation reauthorization proposal that House Transportation Committee Chair John Mica unveiled yesterday (sans legislative text) calls for $230 billion over six years, cutting 33 percent out of current spending levels. The plan maintains the current 80/20 split between highways and transit funding, supports state infrastructure banks in lieu of a national […]

Mica, LaHood Stump at AASHTO Meeting

|
Rep. John Mica promised state DOT leaders this morning that he would deliver a six-year reauthorization bill. He said he had previously thought of advancing a shorter-term bill but transportation officials convinced him of the need for greater certainty. With the full zeal of the converted, he announced, “Anyone who talks about anything less than […]

Mica Drops Amtrak Privatization Plan In Call for Northeast Corridor HSR

|
House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica backed off his controversial plan to privatize passenger rail on the Northeast Corridor today, announcing at a press conference that reforming Amtrak would suffice. Mica stood with New York Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Jerry Nadler at a conference held by the US High Speed Rail Association to announce further […]

What Happened to John Mica, Pro-Transit Republican?

|
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member John Mica knew the value of good transit. “I became a mass transit fan because it’s so much more cost effective than building a highway,” he told PBS in 2009. “Also, it’s good for energy, it’s good for the environment – and that’s why I like it.” Flash […]