Yesterday all five Iowans in the U.S. House helped pass a bill that extends funding for federal transportation programs through September and requires approval of the Keystone XL pipeline project. The vote will lead to conference committee negotiations over a long-term authorization of the Highway Trust Fund and other programs.

Follow me after the jump for more on yesterday’s House vote and other transportation policy news. Younger Americans are increasingly choosing to get around without a car where alternatives to driving are available.

Both senators from Iowa supported the long-term transportation authorization bill that cleared the U.S. Senate last month. However, House Speaker John Boehner couldn’t round up 218 votes in favor of the Senate measure. Nor could he secure the votes to pass the GOP leadership’s preferred three-part-approach to highway funding.

A temporary extension of federal transportation programs was the path of least resistance, and House Democrats indicated this week that they were willing to help.

While considering the latest short-term transportation bill, the House approved a Republican amendment “meant to speed up environmental approval of highway projects” by 255 votes to 165. Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was one of 18 House Democrats to support that amendment. Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against it, as did most of the Democratic caucus.

Then the Democratic motion to recommit with instructions failed by 176 votes to 242. All three Iowa Democrats voted for that motion; Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against it. Among other things, the motion to recommit would have removed funding for a beltway around Birmingham, Alabama, as well as a Canadian highway. (The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out press releases yesterday slamming numerous House Republicans, including Latham and King, for supporting “earmarks for Canadian highways, pet projects for fellow Republicans in Washington.”)

As I mentioned above, all five Iowans in the U.S. House voted for final passage of the short-term extension, which easily passed by 293 to 127. Speaking on the House floor yesterday, Transportation Committee Chair John Mica promised to ask for a conference committee immediately. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer urged House leaders to appoint conference committee negotiators as soon as possible.

In order to win more GOP support for the transportation bill, House leaders added provisions requiring the federal government to allow construction of the Keystone XL project. Some House Democrats reluctantly agreed to that language in order to get to conference committee talks. (Conventional wisdom says Senate negotiators won’t agree to keeping the Keystone language in the bill.) But Iowa Democrat Braley wants everyone to know that he loves the Keystone project. From an April 18 press release (emphasis in original):

Braley Votes for 90 Day Transportation Bill Extension that Expedites Keystone XL Pipeline

Criticizes delay of long-term transportation bill, supports Keystone construction

Washington, DC – Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) released the following statement today after voting to pass a temporary 90 day extension to continue funding federal transportation projects like roads, highways, bridges, and other infrastructure.  It’s the 10th temporary extension Congress has passed without completing work on a long-term transportation authorization bill.

“It’s appalling that partisan gridlock in Washington continues to interfere with fixing Iowa’s crumbling roads and bridges.  Businesses and individuals continue to suffer because Congress keeps kicking the can down the road.  I’ll hold the Speaker to his word that this short term extension will result in a long-term solution to address our transportation needs.

“I’m encouraged that this bill will help expedite the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.  The pipeline project is an opportunity to create thousands of jobs in Iowa and the Midwest and reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.  Environmental concerns must be addressed, and this bill provides an avenue to air those concerns to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

“Keystone XL has attracted rare bipartisan support because of the enormous economic benefits it will provide.  It should move forward quickly once it’s approved.”

Braley’s enthusiasm for Keystone surprised me because in February, he voted against a House bill to encourage more offshore oil drilling and force the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. (Boswell supported that bill.) Braley is wrong about the “thousands of jobs in Iowa.” Keystone wouldn’t create many jobs in this country and might even produce a net job loss. If completed, the Keystone pipeline would cause a slight increase in gasoline prices across the Midwest.

Back to the transportation bill: no one knows whether negotiators can work out a long-term deal before the November election, but Kathryn Wolfe reported one bit of good news at Politico.

Almost everything about the House’s transportation bill seems up in the air except this: The changes to transit funding that Republicans originally proposed have been squashed.

It’s a measure of how effective the transit lobby was at marshaling opposition to the original bill and how ingrained in communities transit has become regardless of politics or location. […]

In recent history, about 20 percent of gas tax revenues that went to the Highway Trust Fund, which mostly pay for highway infrastructure, have been funneled into federal transit projects. Currently, out of the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gas, 2.86 cents goes into the transit account.

When the House GOP finally revealed its transportation bill earlier this year, it contained a change that would have kicked transit out of its dedicated share of the Highway Trust Fund. […]

Mort Downey, who served in the Carter and Clinton-era transportation departments, said in hindsight, Republicans have admitted pursuing the change was a mistake.

“Even in a gerrymandered Congress like we have today, there are folks who understand the value of transit in their community, whether it’s urban or suburban,” Downey said. “The core nerve that was struck in this debate was suburban Republicans. You don’t want to go home and say, ‘I know you have liked having your metro commuter service the last 30 years, but kiss it goodbye.’ It’s not going to fly.”

Speaking of alternatives to driving, the Federal Highway Association’s National Household Travel Survey indicates that Americans are driving fewer miles per capita than they did eight years ago. Click here (pdf) for more detailed findings from that survey. The trend toward driving less and walking, biking, or using public transit more was especially pronounced among younger adults. Iowa Public Interest Research Group highlighted the latest research in a report on transportation policy earlier this month. This press release from April 6 summarizes the main points.

Getting Out from Behind the Wheel

Report Shows Youth Look for Modern Transportation Options

Des Moines – A new report release today by the Iowa PIRG Education Fund shows Iowans and American youth getting out from behind the wheel and seeking alternative transportation options. The report, Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People are Driving Less and What is Means for Transportation Policy, shows that young adults in particular expect our urban centers to develop of “smart growth” options that make it easier to get around without depending on a car.

“For the first time in two generations, there has been a significant shift in how many miles Iowans are driving each year,” said Sonia Ashe, advocate for Iowa PIRG Education Fund. “Our decision makers in Iowa need to understand these trends when deciding how to focus our future transportation investments.”

The trend away from driving is apparent across all age groups – with overall miles driven now lower than levels in 2004.  However, this shift is most apparent amongst young people. The average young adult (age 16-34) drove 23 percent fewer miles in 2009 than the average young person in 2001.

A growing number of young Americans across the country are even opting out of getting their driver’s licenses; from 2000 to 2010, the share of 14 to 34 year-olds without a license increased from 21 percent to 26 percent.

According to the report, between 2001 and 2009, the annual number of miles traveled by 16 to 34 year olds on public transit such as trains and buses increased by 40 percent.

“The shift away from six decades of increasing vehicle travel to a new reality of slow-growing or even declining vehicle travel has potentially seismic implications for transportation policy,” says Benjamin Davis, analyst with Frontier Group. “It calls into question the very wisdom of our current transportation investment priorities.”

For policy makers, this means investing in alternative short and long distance transportation options – including public transportation, bike friendly roads, and passenger rail.

“Young people are less enamored with driving than previous generations. They see driving as wasted time,” said Glenn Lyons, President & CEO of the Des Moines Downtown Community Alliance.

“If this trend continues, we will see the next generation choosing to live closer to work to reduce commuting times and taking more advantage of non-automotive modes of travel such as public transit and passenger rail,” continued Lyons.

Drake University Admissions Counselor, Tisleen Singh, has increasingly seen demand by prospective students and their families for passenger rail that would keep them connected to major metropolitan centers – particularly the 70% of Drake students who are coming from surrounding states.

“Day in and day out I see the need for alternative transportation to and from Chicago,” said Tisleen. “It’s concerning knowing there is an option for passenger rail on the table that is not being pursued.”

“It’s clear that transportation preferences are changing across the board. Our elected officials need to make transportation decisions based on the real needs of Iowans in the 21st century,” concluded Ashe.

The report can be downloaded here.

I asked Sonia Ashe of Iowa PIRG for more details about driving habits of Iowans. She provided the Federal Highway Administration’s statistics for Iowa from 1994 to 2010, which I enclose in the table below. “VMT” stands for vehicle miles traveled. In Iowa, as in the U.S. as a whole, vehicle miles traveled per capita increased until 2004, then leveled off or slightly declined.

year	VMT (millions)	Iowa population	VMT per capita
1994	25,737	2,829,576	9,095
1995	25,987	2,841,128	9,146
1996	26,880	2,848,674	9,435
1997	27,984	2,854,745	9,802
1998	28,911	2,861,377	10,103
1999	29,140	2,870,906	10,150
2000	29,433	2,877,700	10,227
2001	30,016	2,929,240	10,247
2002	30,847	2,929,379	10,530
2003	31,108	2,934,585	10,600
2004	31,538	2,942,311	10,718
2005	31,060	2,950,517	10,526
2006	31,355	2,965,203	10,574
2007	31,253	2,979,867	10,488
2008	30,713	2,994,658	10,255
2009	31,065	3,008,331	10,326
2010	31,388	3,023,081	10,382