The grant is expected to be in the range of $1 billion, as first reported in The Colorado Independent in July. Also attending the ceremony will be Gov. John Hickenlooper, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, Congressman Ed Perlmutter, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock and various RTD and city and county representatives.

“It’s estimated that every $1 invested in transit infrastructure translates into a $4 return on investment in the local economy over a 20-year period. That’s an investment we all benefit from for years to come. Rebuilding and expanding America’s transportation infrastructure is a key element to our nation’s economic recovery. And with this unique long-term public-private partnership, the Denver region will continue to lead the nation with innovative and outside-the-box solutions to meet our transportation needs,” Perlmutter said in a prepared statement.

The grant is expected to be the largest transit grant yet awarded by the Obama administration. Festivities in Olde Town Arvada will begin at around 2:30.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said earlier this week that $268 million were being earmarked to continually develop high-speed railroad in the Midwest, though none of that money is being allocated toward a possible train route between Chicago and Iowa City. A federal $230 million was earmarked for that specific project in 2010.

The Iowa City-to-Chicago investment may not be suitable to budget, Speaker of the Iowa House Kraig Paulsen, of Hiawatha, said.

“I think if that’s a good idea and someone wants to do it, then they should invest in it and do it,” Paulsen said. “We’re talking about — I don’t have the numbers because I haven’t looked at it in awhile — but at least tens of millions of dollars to cover 57 miles from Iowa City to the Quad Cities. It just doesn’t make sense to me. And then you have an on-going expenditure year after year after year of several million dollars.”

Simply put, Paulsen added: “I don’t expect [the passenger rail] to be added into the budget bills.”

The continually developed rail would go through five Midwest states, including Iowa, although Iowa would have a half-mile of track within the length of the rail path.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) sent a letter to Gov. Terry Branstad and Legislative leaders earlier this week, urging an investment of state dollars on the passenger train line between Iowa City and Chicago. Braley noted that the investment would result in 900 new jobs in Iowa during the construction phase, and an increase in business activity along the rail route.

In response to Paulsen, Braley, of Waterloo, posted a statement on his official website Thursday:

This project has already received $230 million from the federal government, and now the state has an opportunity for a significant return on investment. If there is a better plan for creating Iowa jobs, we haven’t seen it. Instead of putting Iowans back to work, they are locked in a partisan battle that does little good for our state’s economy.

He discusses several selling points, but this one stands out: #

Finally, high-speed rail is essential for America’s long-term economic competitiveness. It will tie together rapidly growing metropolitan communities and economies through a safe, convenient and reliable transportation alternative. It will connect 80 percent of Americans within 25 years. #

Four decades from now, the United States will be home to 100 million additional people — the equivalent of another California, Texas, New York and Florida. If we settle for roads, bridges and airports that already are overburdened and insufficient, we will fight thickening congestion as we travel from one place to another. If we stand pat, tomorrow’s entrepreneurs will find clogged commercial arteries choking their productivity. #

That’s the question Scott has yet to answer. High-speed rail has been billed, among other things, as an alternative to widening Florida’s interstates ad infinitum in the coming decades. If that’s not what he envisions over the long term, then what? #

LaHood contends: #

But our roadways and airports are already crowded, near or at capacity every day. #

If we refuse to plan ahead, we’re staring at a future where we choke our own economy, where companies can’t move goods or people from place to place, where we can’t compete with other nations. #

#

The rules start with model year 2014 heavy-duty trucks and buses and require up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for 2018 vehicles. The specific emissions reduction requirements vary depending on the type of vehicle.

On a conference call with reporters today, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said the move is the latest in a series of incremental steps by the Obama administration to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The rules gain new meaning now that it appears the Senate will be unable to pass significant climate change legislation anytime soon.

“This is a transition to more energy efficiency, a transition to lower pollution, a transition to less carbon in our atmosphere,” Jackson said. She also warned that any effort in Congress to curtail the EPA’s power to address greenhouse gas emissions could affect the rules.

Here are some statistics about the program, from an Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Transportation statement (the numbers refer to cumulative effects over the lives of vehicles from model years 2014-2018):

• The program is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 250 million metric tons.
• It is projected to save 500 million barrels of oil.
• It will also result in $41 million in net benefits over the lifetime of model year 2014-2018 vehicles.

If you want to get specific, here are the emission reduction requirements for each class of vehicle, according to a statement on the proposal:

For combination tractors, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year. For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10 percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage).  Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards starting in the 2014 model year which would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 2018 model year.

According to the Center, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) “wrote Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in February, urging his cabinet agency to give ‘full and fair consideration’ to the city’s request for $81 million in stimulus money, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Center for Public Integrity. Ironically, his letter suggested the project would create jobs, undercutting the very public argument he has made against the stimulus. ‘Carrollton’s project will create jobs, stimulate the economy, improve regional mobility and reduce pollution,’ the lawmaker wrote.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), too, wrote a letter asking for Department of Transportation funds for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: “These funds are for a specific purpose that will usher into our community a much more tightly knit transit system alternative to the private automobile. … The TIGER discretionary grant deserves your consideration within existing rules, regulations, and ethical guidelines,” he wrote.

Even Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.), founder of the Tea Party Caucus, wrote “more than a half dozen letters to federal agencies on behalf of proposed stimulus grants, including one to the Transportation Department for the St. Croix River Crossing Project that she argued ‘would directly produce 1,407 new jobs per year while indirectly producing 1,563 a year – a total of 2,970 jobs each year after the project’s completion.’”

The list goes on and on.

Correction: This post initially identified the lawmaker who wrote to Secretary LaHood as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). In fact, it was Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). We apologize for the error and urge the Republican caucus to diversify its nomenclature.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood flanked the president — as did a bevy of mayors; Norman Mineta, a Democrat and George W. Bush’s transportation secretary; and Samuel Skinner, a Republican and George H.W. Bush’s transportation secretary.

“By making these investments across the country, we won’t just make our economy run better over the long haul,” the president argued, repeating a push he first made on Labor Day. “We’ll create good, middle-class jobs right now.” To back him up, the Council of Economic Advisers released (PDF) a new analysis of the White House’s $50 billion proposal, tied to a re-authorization of the surface transportation program and the creation of a new National Infrastructure Bank.

The public broadly supports such infrastructure spending. From the CEA report:

As a result of years of under-investment in our transportation system, Americans’ satisfaction with our public transit system, when compared to public satisfaction with public transit systems around the world, ranks 25th out of 32 OECD nations. While our nation has historically favored road building over public transit, we rank only 17th out of 32 — in the middle of the pack — with respect to our satisfaction with our roads and highways. The relatively higher satisfaction with roads and highways is consistent with the observation that our nation’s historic investment pattern favored highways and roads over public transit.

One study found that almost 19 out of 20 Americans are concerned about America’s infrastructure and 84 percent support greater investment to address infrastructure problems.

But Congress has proved intransigent. Republicans have repeatedly blocked any additional stimulus spending, no matter how many jobs it might create, citing concerns over the deficit. And Obama cannot create new investment — no matter how economically rational — without Congress.

Our collaborative effort simply sought to expand the discussion to include other common forms of driver distraction. We are pleased that the concept has met its goal of expanding dialogue on distracted driving; therefore, the proposed coalition is no longer being pursued.

A more likely explanation for the about-face is that a ten-page internal document prepared by Seward Square was obtained last week by the website Fair Warning, which promptly publicized the group’s efforts to reposition the debate away from regulating mobile technology in automobiles and toward promoting education about driver distraction in general. In a policy statement the association gave to legislators, it argued:

Scientific research has demonstrated driver distraction can arise from a wide variety of sources – conversations with passengers, eating, consuming beverages, smoking, tending to children and other such activities.

Except cell phones have been estimated by the National Safety Council to cause 28 percent of all vehicle crashes.

The DOT says that the fine — the maximum allowable — is the largest civil penalty the NHTSC has ever assessed against a car maker for failing to report defects until long after they were allegedly discovered. Still, it’s irresistible to mention that the fine would represent $7.12 per car recalled.

LaHood emphasized that the new guidelines will benefit not only the planet, but also American drivers, who will see their fuel costs drop as vehicles become more efficient.

“Putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road isn’t just the right thing to do for the environment,” he said. “It’s also a great way for Americans to save more at the pump.”

Jackson, who called the guidelines “historic” and a “win-win program for our economy and the environment,” added that they will also benefit American innovators, who will work to develop more efficient car parts and new batteries, and will mean “$2.3 billion that can stay at home in our economy rather than buying oil overseas.”

In response to a question from FOX News about whether this move has implications for further regulation of greenhouse gases, Jackson said the program will show people that emissions can be easily regulated, without harmful consequences to the economy. “It puts to rest these doomsday scenarios” about greenhouse gas regulations, she said. This is only the first step in regulating emissions, she emphasized; “the president’s big plan for dealing with energy and climate is new legislation.”

The guidelines drew immediate praise from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which has long advocated national emissions and efficiency regulations rather than patchwork state-by-state rules.

“America needs a roadmap to reduced dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gases, and only the federal government can play this role,” Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance, said in a press release. “Today, the federal government has laid out a course of action through 2016, and now we need to work on 2017 and beyond.”

Update: Elana Schor has some more details on the new guidelines, which would raise average vehicle efficiency to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. The rules are more lax for luxury car manufacturers like Mercedes and BMW; they will have extra time to comply.

Proclaiming the “end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” LaHood sent the following recommendations to state departments of transportation as well as local governments and groups:

• Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.
• Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities.
• Go beyond minimum design standards.
• Collect data on walking and biking trips.
• Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling.
• Protect sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected (for example, snow removal)
• Improve nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects.

Of course, these are just recommendations, and you won’t see LaHood scrap the Highway Trust Fund in favor of a cycling fund. But this announcement does represent a tangible manifestation of a new direction in transportation policy that’s making Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) look more mainstream by the day.