Shuster's bill provides continued funding for road and bridge maintenance and rehabilitation, community enhancements including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, mass transit programs, and air quality improvements, while protecting most of the provisions for state and metropolitan planning, local government control, and public participation in the planning process. It also provides a new "transit enhancements" program, permits more preventive maintenance use of federal transit funds and provides $50 million for a jobs access program linked to welfare reform.

Shuster had discussed for some time making ISTEA's various funding programs subject to "uniform transferability," a proposal that would have permitted state highway departments to raid funds for air pollution reduction and bike/ped enhancements. Shuster's bill now proposes "transferability" only for any increase in funding for both the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) and the Transportation Enhancements programs.

However, the bill also proposes that highway construction and widening projects be eligible for CMAQ funds. It also proposes a new "High Risk Road Safety Improvement Program" likely to lead to a rash of rural highway expansions around the country. 

A letter to Shuster Wednesday from two dozen transportation reform, environmental, planning and bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups objected to the latter provisions, and called for more attention to pedestrian safety, integrated land use and transportation planning, infrastructure maintenance, more money for jobs access and for eligibility for spending on inter-city rail from some ISTEA programs. 

Some environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen, have already issued statements opposing the entire bill because of the CMAQ highway widening provision. The Shuster bill may also face a heavy fight because it proposes -- in part to win sectional peace -- spending all transportation funding available for the next five years in the first three (and then to seek more funds). This will draw fire from deficit hawks and Congressional leaders who recently developed a balanced budget agreement with the White House.

Washington observers expect a bill from the Senate in the next week or two. Details concerning the Senate bill have been hard to come by, but at present it appears that it may substantially re-work the funding structures of ISTEA for political reasons without affecting the substance of federal transportation spending very much. It will probably clash with Shuster's plan to spend five years' transportation budget in three years.