Amendments are being drafted left and right as the U.S. Senate prepares to vote on its version of the federal economic stimulus package (a vote on the bill could come as early as today, with votes on amendments tomorrow).

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer announced yesterday that he would introduce an amendment to increase transit capital funding in the Senate bill by $6.5 billion. However, Streetsblog and other sources are now reporting that Schumer will co-sponsor an amendment with Sens. Diane Feinstein and Patty Murray that will increase highway funding to $40 billion (a $13 billion increase), transit funding to $13.5 billion (a $5.5 billion increase), and also add $2 billion for high-speed rail.

[Update: Streetsblog is now reporting that the Feinstein/Murray amendment has been blocked. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and global warming denier James Inhofe (R-OK) will introduce an amendment to increase funding for highways to a whopping $80 billion, and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) has introduced amendments to divert high-speed rail and flexible funds to highways.  To take action, link to Environmental Defense Fund’s action alert here.]

Several other amendments are being drafted, and it’s not clear yet whether there is one progressive transportation advocates will get behind. Transportation for America has an e-mail advocacy campaign where you can ask your senator to make sure the stimulus funds transit and prioritizes road maintenance over expansion.

There are some important differences between the Senate bill (summary here) and the stimulus package passed by the House last week. The Senate bill, if un-amended, includes $27 billion for highways, $8.4 for transit capital projects, and $3.1 billion for Amtrak, high-speed rail, and other intercity rail projects. The House package awards $30 billion for highways, $12 billion for transit projects, and $1.1 billion for rail. The differences between the two bills will have to be worked out in committee once a Senate bill passes.

Neither version of the bill contains money for transit operations, although at one point the Senate version did. A just-published New York Times article describes the transit paradox: Even as transit ridership grows and the federal government prepares to give transit agencies money to expand and upgrade their systems, operating shortfalls mean that agencies across the country must cut service. Failing to pair operating aid with capital grants could mean more ironies like that in Charlotte, N.C., where the transit agency recently opened a new light rail system but will have to reduce train service and raise fares.