[Senate Hearing 107-668]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-668, Part I
REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA-21
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION,
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
REVIEW OF PROPOSALS TO REAUTHORIZE PUBLIC LAW 105-178, THE
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
__________
JANUARY 24, 2002
FEBRUARY 11, 2002
MARCH 19, 2002
MAY 15, 2002
JULY 30, 2002
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
SEPTEMBER 25, 2002
SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-723 WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS\1\
one hundred seventh congress
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
HARRY REID, Nevada JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety
HARRY REID, Nevada, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BOB GRAHAM, Florida JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
\1\Note: During the second session of the 107th Congress,
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado resigned from the
committee, and on April 23, 2002, Senator Pete V. Domenici of
New Mexico was appointed to fill the vacancy.
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 24, 2002
PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LEVELS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 8
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado....................................................... 7
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 41
Corzine, Hon. Jon S., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey.. 12
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 40
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 11
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 1
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 5
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 3
Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia 42
WITNESSES
Clavelle, Hon. Peter, Mayor, Burlington, VT, on behalf of the
National League of Cities...................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Responses to additional questions from Senator Campbell...... 56
Coles, Hon. H. Brent, Mayor, Boise, ID, on behalf of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors........................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Hart, Hon. Chris, Commissioner, Hillsboro County, Florida, on
behalf of the National Association of Counties................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Campbell......................................... 63
Senator Graham........................................... 62
Mineta, Hon. Norman Y., Secretary of Transportation.............. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Campbell......................................... 47
Senator Graham........................................... 48
Senator Jeffords......................................... 47
Scheppach, Ray, Executive Director, National Governors'
Association, on behalf of Hon. Robert Wise, Governor, State of
West Virginia.................................................. 32
Prepared statement of Governor Robert Wise................... 48
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Campbell......................................... 50
Senator Graham........................................... 51
Senator Jeffords.........................................50, 51
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement, Barr, Mayor Ken, City of Ft. Worth, TX................ 58
------
FEBRUARY 11, 2002
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 70
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado....................................................... 106
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 104
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 73
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 88
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma..69, 105
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 103
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 65
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 106
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 68
WITNESSES
Fay, William, President and CEO, American Highway User's Alliance 93
Prepared statement........................................... 123
Report, Motor Fuel Excise Revenue Leak Analysis, Center for
Balanced Public Policy....................................128-148
Hill, Tom, chief executive, Oldcastle Materials, Inc., on behalf
of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association... 95
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Reid............................................. 154
Senator Smith............................................ 157
Peters, Hon. Mary E., Federal Highway Administrator, U.S.
Department of Transportation; Accompanied by Hon. Donna McLean,
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 74
Prepared statement........................................... 107
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 117
Senator Reid............................................. 112
Senator Smith............................................ 114
Stephens, Hon. Thomas E., Director, Nevada Department of
Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials........................... 91
Prepared statement........................................... 117
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Reid............................................. 121
Senator Smith............................................ 123
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Report, Motor Fuel Excise Revenue Leak Analysis, Center for
Balanced Public Policy......................................... 128
Statements:
Duit Construction Company, James Duit........................ 149
Hecker, JayEtta, General Accounting Office................... 157
Lyon, Andrew, U.S. Department of the Treasury................ 161
Wert, Kenneth K., Associated General Contractors of America.. 163
------
MARCH 19, 2002
TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY, CONGESTION AND INTERMODALISM
OPENING STATEMENTS
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 173
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 165
WITNESSES
Downs, Anthony, senior fellow, Brookings Institution............. 178
Prepared statement........................................... 216
Responses to additional questions from Senator Smith......... 220
Lomax, Tim, research engineer, Texas Transportation Institute,
Texas A&M University........................................... 168
Prepared statement........................................... 207
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 211
Senator Jeffords......................................... 211
Senator Smith............................................ 210
Orski, C. Kenneth, Urban Mobility Corporation.................... 180
Prepared statement........................................... 222
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 227
Senator Jeffords......................................... 227
Senator Smith............................................ 225
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from the State of Washington.... 170
Pisarski, Alan, chairman, Transportation Research Board Committee
on National Transportation Data................................ 166
Prepared statement........................................... 193
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 205
Senator Jeffords......................................... 205
Senator Smith............................................ 203
Salvucci, Frederick, Massachusetts Institute of Technology....... 182
Prepared statement........................................... 228
Responses to additional questions from:......................
Senator Graham........................................... 234
Senator Jeffords......................................... 234
Sims, Hon. Ron, King County Executive, Seattle, Washington....... 177
Prepared statement........................................... 211
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, Defenders of Wildlife.................................... 240
Statements:
Florida Department of Transportation, Elizabeth Stutts....... 235
League of American Bicyclists, Elissa Margolis............... 239
------
MAY 15, 2002
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND SMART GROWTH
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 254
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 241
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 242
WITNESSES
Burbank, Cynthia, Program Manager, Planning and Environment,
Federal Highway Administration................................. 243
Prepared statement........................................... 274
Responses to additional questions from Senator Smith......... 278
Cotugno, Andrew, Planning Director, METRO, Portland, OR.......... 256
Prepared statement........................................... 293
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 297
Senator Smith............................................ 298
Cox, Wendell, Wendell Cox Consultancy, Belleville, IL............ 261
Downs, Tom, Director, National Center for Smart Growth Education
and Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD............ 265
Prepared statement........................................... 307
Espinosa, Judith, Director, Alliance for Transportation Research,
Albuquerque, NM, on behalf of the Surface Transportation Policy
Project........................................................ 259
Prepared statement........................................... 298
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 305
Senator Smith............................................ 306
Gregory, Peter, Executive Director, Two Rivers Ottauguechee
Regional Commission, Woodstock, VT, on behalf of the National
Association of Regional Councils............................... 250
Prepared statement........................................... 290
Kirby, Ronald, Transportation Director, Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, on behalf of the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations............................ 247
Prepared statement........................................... 287
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 289
Senator Smith............................................ 289
Leonard, Kenneth J., Director, Division of Transportation
Investment Management, Wisconsin Department of Transportation,
Madison, WI, on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials........................... 245
Prepared statement........................................... 279
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 285
Senator Smith............................................ 286
Wilson, Jennifer Joy, President, National Stone, Sand and Gravel
Association, Arlington, VA..................................... 263
Prepared statement........................................... 309
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement, Richard Stolz, Deputy Director of Public Policy,
Center for Community Change.................................... 314
------
JULY 30, 2002
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 411
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 446
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 418
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 417
Corzine, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey..... 448
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 409
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 321
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 323
MPO surveys.................................................326-409
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 415
WITNESSES
Harris, Hon. Ron, Judge, Collin County, Texas.................... 434
Prepared statement........................................... 500
Holmstead, Hon. Jeffrey, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency................. 420
Prepared statement........................................... 470
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 496
Senator Jeffords......................................... 476
Senator Smith............................................ 491
Senator Voinovich........................................ 488
Johnstone, Hon. Scott, Secretary, Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources...................................................... 432
Prepared statement........................................... 497
Peters, Hon. Mary E., Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation................... 419
Prepared statement........................................... 449
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 455
Senator Smith............................................ 467
Senator Voinovich........................................ 465
Replogle, Michael, Transportation Director, Environmental Defense 439
Letters, Transportation and air quality issues, several
environmental organizations...............................602-607
Memorandum, Emission Effects of Atlanta Speed Study.........554-558
Prepared statement........................................... 513
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 625
Senator Smith............................................ 631
Senator Voinovich........................................ 628
Reports:
Critique of Transportation Planning Board Demand and Air
Emissions Models......................................571-602
Preliminary Toxicological Review of Roadway Traffic
Pollution.............................................562-568
Review of Exposure to Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources...............................................568-571
Study, 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation.................535-554
Summary, Recent Studies on Regional Transportation Models...560-562
Tables, Access to Jobs in Atlanta TIP........................ 559
Stephenson, James, President, Yancy Brothers Company............. 438
Prepared statement........................................... 502
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 510
Senator Smith............................................ 512
Senator Voinovich........................................ 511
Terry, Lynn, Deputy Executive Officer, California Air Resources
Board.......................................................... 436
Prepared statement........................................... 501
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, Air quality issues, AASHTO............................... 643
Statements:
National Association of Home Builders........................ 640
Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, General Accounting Office....................607-625
Surveys:
Atlanta Regional Commission.................................. 326
Baltimore Metropolitan Council............................... 369
Denver Regional Council of Governments....................... 335
Galveston Planning Organization.............................. 339
Kyova Planning Commission.................................... 392
Mecklenberg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization......... 395
Metro and Oregon Council of Governments...................... 343
Metropolitan Transport Commission, Oakland, CA............... 374
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments............... 347
New York Metropolitan Planning Organization.................. 403
North Central Texas Council of Governments................... 330
North Jersey Planning Organization........................... 398
OKI Council of Governments................................... 351
Sacramento Council of Governments............................ 354
San Joaquin Council of Governments........................... 355
Southern California Council of Governments................... 363
------
SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
JOINT HEARING WITH SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND
TRANSPORTATION
FREIGHT ISSUES
OPENING STATEMENTS
Breaux, Hon. John B., U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana... 645
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 650
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 648
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 646
WITNESSES
Caruthers, John D., Jr., Chairman, I-69 Mid-Continent Highway
Coalition...................................................... 674
Prepared statement........................................... 770
Dusenberry, Katie, Chairman, Arizona Department of Transportation
Board.......................................................... 664
Prepared statement........................................... 712
Hamberger, Edward R., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of American Railroads.............................. 668
Prepared statement........................................... 732
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 758
Senator Reid............................................. 757
Hecker, JayEtta, Director, Physical Infrastructure Group, U.S.
General Accounting Office...................................... 653
Prepared statement........................................... 695
Responses to additional questions from:
Senators Reid and Jeffords............................... 708
Senator Reid............................................. 704
Huerta, Michael P., Senior Vice President and Managing Director,
ACS State and Local Solutions, on behalf of the Coalition for
America's Gateways and Trade Corridors......................... 672
Prepared statement........................................... 765
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 769
Senator Reid............................................. 767
Larrabee, Rick, Director of Port Commerce, Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey............................................ 670
Prepared statement........................................... 759
Responses to additional questions from Senator Reid.......... 762
Shane, Jeffrey N., Associate Deputy Secretary and Director,
Office of Intermodalism, U.S. Department of Transportation..... 651
Prepared statement........................................... 683
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 693
Senator Reid............................................. 690
Wickham, Michael W., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Roadway Express, Inc., on behalf of American Trucking
Associations................................................... 666
Prepared statement........................................... 715
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 730
Senator Reid............................................. 728
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
Evaluation of Transportation Research Board Special Report
267, Gerard J. McCullough.................................. 741
Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.......... 777
Magtube, Inc., Jim Fiske..................................... 774
McGovern, Hon. James P., U.S. Representative from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.............................. 782
------
SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
PROJECT DELIVERY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 791
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 786
Corzine, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey..... 833
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 789
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 783
Executive Order, President George W. Bush.................... 785
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 834
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 794
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 788
WITNESSES
Frankel, Hon. Emil Frankel, Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy, Department of Transportation............ 796
Prepared statement........................................... 835
Hales, Charles, Transit Planning Principal, HDR, Inc............. 823
Prepared statement........................................... 986
Kassoff, Hal, Vice President of Highway Programs for Parsons
Brinckerhoff................................................... 821
Prepared statement........................................... 982
Mead, Hon. Kenneth M., Inspector General, Department of
Transportation................................................. 801
Prepared statement........................................... 845
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords...... 849
Morefield, Kenneth, Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Engineering, Florida Department of Transportation.............. 816
Prepared statement........................................... 870
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords...... 872
Murray, Hon. Carol, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of
Transportation................................................. 813
Prepared statement........................................... 869
Siggerud, Kate, Acting Director of Physical Infrastructure
Issues, General Accounting Office.............................. 803
Prepared statement........................................... 851
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 868
Suarez, Hon. John Peter, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement, Compliance and Assurance, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 799
Prepared statement........................................... 841
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 843
Senator Voinovich........................................ 844
Wadhams, Emily, State Historic Preservation Officer, Vermont
Department of Housing and Community Affairs.................... 818
Prepared statement........................................... 894
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords...... 898
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
Manual, Standards and Guidelines, Vermont Transit...............899-982
Report, Florida's ETDM Process..................................873-894
Statements:
American Society of Civil Engineers.......................... 993
Defenders of Wildlife........................................ 990
------
SEPTEMBER 25, 2002
JOINT HEARING WITH THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
INNOVATIVE FINANCING: BEYOND THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 1001
Corzine, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey..... 1030
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 1008
Grassley, Hon. Charles, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa...... 1003
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1009
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 1004
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 1006
WITNESSES
Carey, Jeff, managing director, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., New
York, NY....................................................... 1025
Articles:
Road to Revolution Coming?, Bond Buyer................... 1099
Senate Panel Leaders Lobby DOT to Use Innovation in Its
Funding, Bond Buyer.................................... 1097
Senate Panel Tells TIFIA Program to Make Do With 2002
Leftovers, Bond Buyer.................................. 1098
Transportation for Upcoming Reauthorization of TEA-21,
Transportation Watch................................... 1103
Prepared statement........................................... 1093
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 1095
Senator Jeffords......................................... 1096
Hahn, Hon. Janice, Councilwoman, City of Los Angeles, Los
Angeles, CA, on behalf of the Alameda Corridor Transportation
Authority...................................................... 1019
Prepared statement........................................... 1080
Hecker, JayEtta, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues,
General Accounting Office...................................... 1015
Prepared statement........................................... 1066
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus......................................... 1077
Senator Jeffords....................................... 1078
Horsley, John, Executive Director, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials........................... 1023
Prepared statement........................................... 1086
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords...... 1092
Rahn, Hon. Peter, Secretary, New Mexico Department of
Transportation, Santa Fe, NM................................... 1022
Prepared statement........................................... 1084
Responses to additional questions from Senator Baucus........ 1085
Scheinberg, Phyllis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Programs, Department of Transportation......................... 1013
Prepared statement........................................... 1059
Responses to additional questions from Senator Jeffords...... 1065
Seltzer, David, Distinguished Practitioner, Mercator Advisors,
Philadelphia, PA, on behalf of the University of Southern
California Los Angeles, CA National Center for Innovations in
Public Finance................................................. 1011
Prepared statement........................................... 1031
Powerpoint slides............................................ 1033
Report, Findings and Recommendations for Innovative
Financing, National Center for Innovations in Public
Finance.................................................... 1047
Response to additional question from Senator Baucus.......... 1058
Table, Key Drivers on Innovative Finance..................... 1057
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
American Highway Users Alliance.............................. 1104
American Society of Civil Engineers.......................... 1106
Forkenbrock, David J., Public Policy Center, University of
Iowa....................................................... 1114
Karnette, Betty, California State Senator.................... 1111
National Association of Railroad Passengers.................. 1109
Texas Transportation Commission.............................. 1120
Transportation Departments of Montana, Idaho, North Dakota,
South Dakota and Wyoming................................... 1105
------
SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
CONDITIONS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY SYSTEM
OPENING STATEMENTS
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 1146
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 1135
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 1143
WITNESSES
Buechner, William R., Vice President, Economics and Research,
American Road and Transportation Builders Association.......... 1167
Prepared statement........................................... 1377
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Reid............................................. 1389
Senator Voinovich........................................ 1388
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 1137
Prepared statement........................................... 1172
Hecker, JayEtta, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues,
General Accounting Office...................................... 1151
Prepared statement........................................... 1264
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 1277
Senator Reid............................................. 1278
Senator Voinovich........................................ 1275
Jackson, Thomas L., President-Elect, American Society of Civil
Engineers...................................................... 1166
Prepared statement........................................... 1365
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Voinoivich....................................... 1374
Senator Reid............................................. 1375
Perkins, Hon. Joseph, Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities........................... 1150
Prepared statement........................................... 1192
Peters, Hon. Mary E., Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation................... 1148
Prepared statement........................................... 1175
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 1189
Senator Reid............................................. 1191
Senator Voinoivich....................................... 1186
Proctor, Gordon, Director, Ohio Department of Transportation..... 1164
Prepared statement........................................... 1362
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Reid............................................. 1365
Senator Voinoivich....................................... 1364
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Reports:
The Bottom Line, AASHTO...................................1198-1264
Surface Maritime Transportation, General Accounting Office1282-1362
Statements:
Ankner, William P., Rhode Island Department of Transportation 1390
Dull, Garth, Nevada for Safe Roads........................... 1153
REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA-21
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FEDERAL, STATE,
AND LOCAL LEVELS
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Jeffords (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Jeffords, Smith, Campbell, Inhofe, Crapo,
Chafee, Warner, Baucus, Corzine, and Reid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. The committee will come to order. Good
morning and welcome to this the first in our series of hearings
on reauthorization of the Nation's Surface Transportation
Program.
Our nation's transportation system is one of the best in
the world. Nearly every American relies upon our roads,
bridges, highways, or mass transportation to get them where
they need to go. But this reliance can also be a source of
great frustration in the lives of our citizens.
As we open our first of 11 hearings on this matter, we
begin a process that will examine what works and what does not
work, and our nation will be better off for the exercise.
The Committee on Environment and Public Works has primary
responsibility for the reauthorization process. EPW has a
distinguished record of service in this regard; most recently
and most importantly, through its work under Chairman Moynihan
in 1991 and Chairman Chafee in 1997.
Their leadership unified the committee to produce the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, referred to
as ISTEA, and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, TEA-21. I intend to continue this effective bi-
partisan tradition during 2002, and on toward the
reauthorization in 2003.
Our committee today includes many distinguished
participants from those prior authorization efforts. Senators
Warner, Smith, Inhofe, Bond, Baucus, Reid, Graham, Lieberman,
Boxer, and Wyden have all been key contributors in the past,
and I look forward to using their wisdom and experience during
the coming months. I, too, had the honor to serve on the
committee during the enactment of ISTEA.
In TEA-21, we have inherited a transportation policy and
program that is basically sound. Our task this year will be to
refine and evolve the program, based on the lessons learned
over the past 10 years. We also examined the current and
projected state of our transportation system, and the demands
that it must meet.
Along with Ranking Member Smith and Subcommittee Chairmen
Reid and Ranking Member Inhofe, I have announced an ambitious
hearing agenda for the coming year. Hearings will be held at
both the full and the subcommittee level.
This will be a year-long dialog with the many stakeholders
in the transportation community. We will seek the best ideas
from the brightest minds. We will hear from government,
industry and system users. My goal is an inclusive process,
open to all points of view from all parts of the nation.
With Senator Reid and Inhofe at the helm, members of our
Transportation Infrastructure Subcommittee will examine the
transportation program in detail. There will be technical brain
trusts. We will also work very closely with other Senate
committees' jurisdiction for reauthorization: Banking, Budget,
Commerce and Finance.
EPW will be the workshop for crafting the next
authorization language. I invite proposals from my many
colleagues on the wide range of issues that will make up the
final committee package. I offer this committee as the forum
for blending these proposals. As chairman, I extend my good
offices to achieve that blend.
A few common threads run through our upcoming hearing
projects. These include safety and security, economic growth,
community enhancement, and the balancing of interests. These
are challenging matters, made more difficult by our nation's
current financial uncertainties.
In fact, concern over future resources unites all the
stakeholders in transportation. Success will require strength
through unity. This committee will provide a common ground.
The nation's transportation program is a model of effective
federalism. The program is de-centralized, collaborative and
flexible. It draws on resources from Federal, State, local, and
private sources. In recognition of this, we are joined today by
our partners from the Cabinet, the States, and local
government.
Our hearing today will begin with the Honorable Norman
Mineta, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and
my close colleague in the House. Norm has taken a break from
inspecting the baggage at BWI to join us this morning, and we
appreciate that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith, Secretary Mineta will be followed by a panel
of elected officials from around the country. Bob Wise, the
Governor of West Virginia, unfortunately was scheduled to be
here, but his plane is grounded. So he will not be here, but we
will have his testimony.
Bob also served with me in the House, and served on the
House Transportation Infrastructure Committee. So he knows a
thing or two about the reauthorization.
Commissioner Chris Hart of Hillsborough County, FL, will
represent the National Association of Counties. Chris chairs a
NACo Transportation Committee.
Boise, Idaho Mayor H. Brent Coles will represent the U.S.
Conference of Mayors. He is the immediate past president of the
conference.
Finally, from my great State of Vermont, my friend,
Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle will represent the National
League of Cities. I am especially pleased to welcome a fellow
Green Mountain Boy to these proceedings. In Vermont, we put a
high value on balancing our environmental concerns and our
transportation needs. I pledge to move forward on the bill,
which will encompass a balance in the years to come.
I am pleased to be joined by such very knowledgeable
witnesses. We will need their wisdom when we reconsider the
authorization here.
I want to know how our transportation policy works for
Americans, for voters, for customers, users, citizens, and
constituents. I want to know how the program is blended with
other public objectives, social, environmental, and economic.
Finally, I want to explore the ways to best meet future
challenges. I look forward to our distinguished witnesses
coming forth. But let me now turn to my good friend, Bob Smith.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
good morning, Mr. Secretary. It is always a pleasure to see you
here.
I want to just point out, as you did, Mr. Chairman, that
this is the first in a series of hearings that we are going to
be having for the reauthorization of the so-called
Transportation Equity Act, or TEA-21. It is a lot of work. We
have a lot more to do.
I can remember 4 years ago, I was a member of the
conference committee on the TEA-21 legislation. We worked hard.
I think we did some good things, and there is always room for
criticism, I guess. But I feel that overall, we did a good job
with this legislation, and we made some significant changes.
Over the next year or so, as we prepare for this
reauthorization, this is really one of the most significant
things that Congress does. Virtually every American, in one way
or another, is impacted by either a car or a road. Our economy
is so closely linked with the capabilities of our
transportation system, it just takes on huge importance. It is
vital to each one of our States, as well as us, personally.
What you hear most often about TEA-21 is that it provided
for about a 40 percent increase in transportation funding over
the previous law, which was called ISTEA.
But another highly touted feature was that it provided
funding guarantees, so that the tax revenues that came into the
trust fund would be spent on transportation, which is the way
it should be.
But some of the cornerstone achievements of TEA-21
unfortunately appear to be threatened by the shortfalls in the
so-called RABA calculations revenue-aligned budget authority.
There is a $5 billion reduction predicted there from TEA-21's
guaranteed levels, if you will, for fiscal year 2003.
We could not really anticipate, and I have never run into
anybody yet, that could totally predict what the budget is
going to be on a given year. But this issue has enormous
unintended consequences, and I think you know, Mr. Secretary,
that we are all going to have to deal with it.
But I appreciate your sharing these calculations with us in
the past few days, in the interest of honesty here, so that we
have some time to digest the impact before the release of the
President's budget, and we really appreciate that. We will
treat it in that spirit, as well.
We are going to be having a hearing very soon, after the
budget is released, I know, Mr. Chairman, to explore in detail
the revenue forecasts, the firewall principles, and the RABA
mechanism. But for now, I have just asked my staff to
thoroughly examine the provisions with the help of the
documentation that you have provided us, Mr. Secretary, so we
can adopt or develop a prudent course as we move forward on
this bill.
I want to briefly bring three points to the attention of
the chairman and my fellow committee members and the Secretary
on some areas that I think we are going to have to focus a good
deal of effort on, and it is something that I have been
involved in.
First is environmental streamlining. It is a very important
issue, because it oftentimes is unintended--sometimes intended,
I suppose--and slows down and increases the costs of many of
the highway projects in our country.
We are working on a pilot, if you will, in New Hampshire,
on the I-93 corridor, where we have everybody sitting down
periodically and talking and working together, so that we do
not have to do this sequential business; but we can rather work
together. It is working very well. It is just a widening
project, but it is a little more than that. There are some
other things that have to be involved there.
It is working, and I think with this streamlining, we are
trying to make the streamlining language, which I helped to
draft, work in a way that is productive. I think it is working.
But if the project is consistent with environmental protection,
then it should not be subject to excessive delays, and
oftentimes, it is.
The second area that I will be focusing on is that of the
freight movement in this country and the capacity. From 1990 to
1998, there was a 22\1/2\ increase in vehicle miles traveled.
During that same period, there was only a 1 percent increase in
the number of lane miles on the roadway.
So transportation is not just about accommodating
commuters. It is also a very efficient system, vital to moving
consuming goods from one part of our country to the other. If
we neglect this issue, it is going to have even more of a
negative impact on our economy.
Finally, let me mention briefly the issue of air quality.
There are some loose ends that remain from some of the court
decisions on this issue. Myself and other members of the
committee want to work closely with the U.S. Department of
Transportation and EPA on resolving these loose ends, so
called, so that we can accomplish our air quality goals,
without burdening the transportation community, or causing
unnecessary delay.
I do not believe we have to burden or cause unnecessary
delay to meet those standards. It is about cooperation and
partnership, rather than confrontation.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, on
those issues. Again, I thank you for coming here today, and
thank you for your strong commitment to our nation's
transportation system, and thank you for serving; and thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you for a good statement.
Senator Reid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Senator Jeffords. I
appreciate your recognizing me. I have to get back to the floor
by 10 o'clock.
This is the first in a series of hearings reauthorizing our
Nation's Surface Transportation Program. I am happy to be able
to chair the Transportation Subcommittee. I recognize that that
was given to me by virtue of Senator Baucus, who is heavily
engaged in other matters. I appreciate that very much.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Smith, and of course, Senator Baucus, who has to be an integral
part of anything that we do in this legislative session with
this bill; not only because he has chaired this full committee
in the past, but also because he is chairman of the Finance
Committee.
As some of you will soon recognize, if we are going to be
able to do the things that need to be done with transportation
in this bill, we are going to have to get some help from the
Finance Committee, because of the monetary shortfall that we
have.
The problems in Nevada, I think, are representative, but to
an exaggerate point, of the problems that we have in America
today. We are a very large State; the sixth largest State in
the Continental United States, seventh now with Alaska.
We have not only wide areas; the length of the State is
some 700 miles long. We have growth in Southern Nevada that is
10,000 a month coming in to that area. We have really serious,
serious problems that we need help with.
I recognize the budget shortfall that we are going to have
unless something changes. In the State of Nevada, if things go
the way they are, we will have a budget shortfall of about $60
million in just highway transportation funds. That is a
significant amount of money in a Highway Bill for a State like
Nevada.
But having said that, it is our job to build upon the
successes of ISTEA and TEA-21, and protect the gains, identify
the weaknesses, and improve our transportation system.
Throughout this hearing process, we are going to look at
ways to meet the transportation challenges of a new century.
Chairman Jeffords and I have worked together so that we are
going to have about one hearing a month, the full committee or
the subcommittee.
We want to make sure that people who have concerns about
transportation in this country have an opportunity to voice
their opinions. We will investigate how multi-modal approaches
can help us address transportation problems and improve
mobility. We will examine the physical condition of our
highways; the bridge infrastructure.
We will study the transportation sector's impact on the
economy and the environment. We will look for innovative
approaches to transportation problems.
Last fall, I worked very hard in trying to come up with an
infrastructure investment package for purposes of having a
stimulative effect to this economy. There is nothing that
stimulates the economy more than road building. It is very,
very labor intensive.
Every billion dollars means 42,000 new jobs. Every person
who has a job is paying taxes. They are buying homes, cars,
refrigerators. We need to do whatever we can to stimulate that
sector of our economy.
Having said all that, I hope that we have the resources
that we need to meet the demands of Nevada and the rest of this
country.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy, and I will ask
unanimous consent that my full statement be made part of the
record.
Senator Jeffords. It will be admitted.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows.]
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the State of Neveda
Welcome to the first in a series of hearings on the reauthorization
of our nation's surface transportation program. I am pleased to have
the opportunity to chair the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety and look forward to working closely
with Senator Jeffords and other members of the committee to write the
legislation reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, known as TEA-21.
This legislation is critically important to each of our States and
to the Nation as a whole. I represent Nevada, the fastest growing State
in the country, and I have seen how such rapid growth has placed
tremendous demands on our road system and our entire transportation
infrastructure. I understand the problems and needs of Nevada, and
that's why I will continue to provide leadership on this issue. I want
to make sure that in my State and across America we have a
transportation system that promotes economic growth, improves safety,
enhances quality of life, and protects the environment.
Ten years ago, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
B ISTEA--revolutionized transportation policy. TEA-21, enacted in 1998,
maintained the principles of ISTEA while bringing significant new
resources to our highway and transit infrastructure. TEA-21 shifted 4.3
cents of the gas tax from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund
and created the budgetary firewalls which ensure that all revenues into
the trust fund are dedicated to transportation investments.
Now it is our job to build upon the successes of ISTEA and TEA-21--
to protect the gains, identify the weaknesses, and improve our
transportation system.
Throughout this hearing process we will look at ways to meet the
transportation challenges of a new century.
We will seek to use new technologies to improve
operations, alleviate congestion and enhance security in metropolitan
areas;
We will investigate how multi-modal approaches can help
us address transportation problems and improve mobility;
We will examine the physical condition of our highway and
bridge infrastructure;
And we will study the transportation sector's impact on
the economy and the environment;
As we look for innovative approaches to transportation problems, we
must recognize that ensuring adequate funding will be perhaps our
biggest challenge.
Last fall, I was the leading proponent of including infrastructure
investment funds in the economic stimulus package. My view was, and
still is, that investing in our infrastructure creates jobs and
economic activity in the short-run and results in permanent
improvements that also benefit our economy in the long run.
Unfortunately, in Fiscal Year 2003 we face a $9 billion decrease in
highway funding. This is just the opposite of an economic stimulus B it
is more of an economic depressant. This loss of funding is of great
concern, especially during a recession, and in the long run will
diminish the productivity of our transportation sector. I hope that the
President's budget will somehow consider this important economic issue.
It will continue to be a top priority for me.
The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee
that I chair will hold a hearing devoted to the fiscal year 2003
Federal Highway Administration budget proposal and TEA-21
reauthorization in February. I look forward to addressing funding
issues in much greater detail at that hearing.
For now, I am very pleased with the excellent slate of witnesses we
have on hand for this opening hearing to provide the committee with
perspectives on reauthorization from the Federal, State, and local
level. Mr. Secretary, I welcome you here today. We could ask for no
better partner in this process and I am delighted at the opportunity to
work with you again. I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Campbell.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize
for being late. Has the Secretary made his statement yet?
You have not? We are still rattling around. I would rather
listen to him speak than hear myself. I have been a friend of
Norm Mineta for years and years, serving with him in the House.
We also have a connection in San Jose, where we both spent an
awful lot of years.
I would like to say that if you look at the numbers,
Nevada, where Senator Reid hails from, is the fastest growing
State; Arizona, second, and Colorado, third. Because we are
such fast growing States, the importance of a new Highway Bill
is going to take on huge proportions.
When we passed TEA-21 in 1998, the total overall funding
represented a 40 percent increase over the previous
authorization. But for Colorado, it meant a 52 percent increase
over the money that we had received before that, to the tune of
about $100 million more than we had gotten.
Certainly, we were grateful for that and put it to good
use. But it seems like in those fast growing western States, we
are always behind the curve. No matter how much money we put
into transportation, we still need more, because of the influx
of people.
I personally believe, as Senator Reid does, that we need to
concentrate a great deal on highway development. It seems to me
that we ought to be learning more from those countries who have
had such great success with moving people like Japan has, as an
example, with light rail and fast rail and alternative ways of
moving people.
Because I am beginning to think that you cannot simply
build your way out in these high growth areas; just build your
way out of things by adding more and more lanes, which just
seems to increase more an more congestion. So I would hope as
we move along, we put emphasis on alternative ways of moving
people.
Last, Mr. Chairman, just let me say that I am particularly
interested, and I do not know if the Secretary is going to say
anything about this today, but we reached kind of a compromise
agreement last year on the issue of Mexican trucks coming into
America.
As we move along this year, I am going to be very
interested in seeing how that is going to develop, and what
kind of problems it has created and what kind of problems it
has solved with that compromise. So with that, just let me say
welcome, Norm. It is very nice to see you again, and I look
forward to working with you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Campbell follows:]
Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, U.S. Senator from the State
of Colorado
Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith, I would like to thank you for
scheduling this important hearing. I would also like to welcome these
distinguished panels and thank them for taking the time meeting with us
today.
As we begin this new year, the country faces many challenges. Among
these includes the transportation crisis in this country.
Each year, traffic congestion costs the United States billions of
dollars. As Mayor Coles will discuss in his testimony, the Western
United States is booming. However, along with growth and progress come
growing pains that many States have been dealing with for many years.
The passage of Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21) in 1998 has helped solve many of the transportation problems across
the country. The overall total funding in TEA-21 represents a 40
percent increase over the previous authorization Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which was enacted in 1991. Under
TEA-21 Colorado saw a 52 percent increase over the State's ISTEA
distribution. With the Federal funds that were authorized in TEA-21 by
this committee and appropriated by the Senate Appropriations Committee,
upon which I also serve, the Colorado Department of Transportation has
moved from a $200 million annual budget to more than a $300 million
annual budget.
This higher level of funding has allowed COOT to move forward with
transportation projects that would not have been able to be completed
without TEA-21. In fact, the COOT has been able to take advantage of
innovative financing techniques, which were also authorized by this
committee, to allow them to accelerate many projects.
For example, the Federal Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle
(GARVEE) Program has allowed COOT to accelerate 28 key Strategic
Projects statewide. Many of the projects would have taken 50 years to
complete. What the Federal program has allowed COOT to do is accelerate
completion of those projects to under 10 years, a substantial cost
savings.
However, recent budget projections predict a $4.9 billion shortfall
from what was originally predicted in the fiscal year 2003 budget and
over $9 billion less than what was allocated in the fiscal year 2002
budget. This budget shortfall will be a challenge to all of us as we
move forward on this first step to re-authorization. I look forward to
working with this committee on a wide range of priority topics over the
course of the year and welcome input from all levels of government,
system users and private industry.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
real pleasure to be with you today. I very much commend you and
the leadership of this committee for setting out a very
ambitious and aggressive hearing schedule.
It is my experience, frankly, that the more we begin early
with hearings and deeply examine the various aspects of this
issue, the more likely it is that we are going to have a good
product when we reauthorize this bill, I might say with some
bemusement, in another Congress. Nevertheless, it is very
important this year to get all this out and have the hearings.
I would remind you that we did get a significant increase,
as we all remember, last year from the previous Highway Bill,
because of the diversion of the 4.3 cents from general revenue
into the Highway Trust Fund.
That gave us a big shot in the arm. On average, each State
got about a 40 percent annual increase in highway fund. At that
time, we had the assistance of Senator Byrd, Senator Graham,
and the others who were very helpful in making that change.
With the problems with so-called RABA, it is apparent that
we are going to have to look for other ways to increase revenue
to the trust fund. I have some ideas on how to do that.
In addition, we might look at potential greater use of the
trust fund to get additional obligation authority, to make sure
no State gets a cut or reduction in highway funds, and perhaps
even may get an increase. Mr. Secretary, I hope at the
appropriate time you can address the degree to which you think
that is appropriate.
Highways are the life blood of my State, Montana. We have
more Federal highway miles per capita than any other State in
the nation. We have more than Alaska, but of course, Alaska
does not have quite the number of people that we do, and not
the number of highways, either, because you fly in Alaska; you
do not travel the road. But nevertheless, we have more Federal
highway miles per capita than any other State.
The program provides about 11,000 jobs in Montana. Those
are high paying jobs. They say that because, regrettably,
Montana has slid from about tenth in the nation in per capita
income in 1946 to now, depending on how you calculate it, 50th,
49th, or 80th. So these are jobs that are good paying jobs. It
makes a heck of a difference to say nothing about the greater
ease of transportation in our State.
I look forward very much, Mr. Chairman, to working with you
under your leadership on the committee. I plan to introduce a
bill in the next period of time, but I am not exactly sure when
it will be.
It will be some what of a western States' bill, but I want
to underline here and emphasize that it is going to be a
national bill, too. I do not want to introduce legislation that
is going to work to the detriment of other parts of the nation.
In the last Highway Bill, TEA-21, essentially we worked
very well. It was myself, representing primarily the western
States, and our good friend, John Chafee, representing the
northeastern States, and Senator Warner, the daughter States.
We had meeting after meeting after meeting, with formula change
after formula change after formula change.
But we finally worked it out, after lots of different
meetings, and so on and so forth. There is no doubt in my mind
that you are going to have the same approach, which worked very
well.
I might say also that on the Finance Committee, I am going
to be holding hearings on all the trust funds, looking at ways
to, first of all, examine them taking stock, but also ways,
particularly with respect to the Highway Trust Fund, to see if
we can find additional dollars. Again, as I mentioned, I have
some ideas how we can place more dollars into the trust fund.
I mentioned the RABA situation. We have got to address
that. I want to commend my good friend from New Hampshire in
mentioning environmental streamlining. I know members of this
committee will remember a couple 3 years ago when we were quite
concerned with the inadequate environmental streamlining.
We asked the department to come up with some streamlining
of environmental regulations, and my gosh, they came back with
a flow chart that would make the flow chart of the whole
committee system in the Congress look like a grapevine.
It was so complicated that it made things more worse than
better. I, therefore, think, Mr. Chairman, that the real answer
to environmental streamlining is for us, in legislation, to be
much more specific. I have some ideas there, which I will
include in my legislation, on how to deal with environmental
streamlining, because it is a huge problem particularly, I
know, in western States.
But the main point, Mr. Chairman, is just I really commend
you. You have got a great schedule outlined. You have got a
reputation of really working together, and I pledge to work
with you and also on the Finance Committee, to try to help this
committee do its jobs with extra revenue.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State Montana
Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to be here today to
discuss the reauthorization of a law that I am privileged to have
helped write. Along with Senators Warner and Chafee and others on this
committee and on other committees, we hammered out a bill that I
believe was equitable to all States and that served this nation's
transportation system well.
TEA-21 staked out new ground by putting into law the requirement
that all gas tax revenues be devoted to highways. Some of the members
in this room were instrumental in achieving that goal. Now I don't have
to remind you of the difficult debates we had over funding formulas
among the three main groups, northeast States, donor States, and
western States. But in the end, we achieved a bill that was supported
by the vast majority of Senators. So the final result, while not
perfect, was a good compromise and was broadly supported.
I look forward to working with the leadership on this committee and
other committees to develop a new highway bill that will help to
continue many of the ideas that TEA-21 began--the integrity of the
Trust Fund, the budget firewalls and an equitable distribution of
formula dollars.
I plan to hold hearings on the Finance Committee addressing the
balances in the Highway Trust Fund and on innovative ways of financing
transportation projects.
I plan to use my role as chairman of the Finance Committee to gain
more funding for the program and to protect the Highway Trust Fund. As
always I am committed to highways and to the Highway Trust Fund.
I personally have several ideas about what I would like to see in a
new bill and as I do for every reauthorization, I will be introducing a
highway bill in the coming months. I have been working with the Montana
DOT and other western States to develop ideas for the next several
years of highway policy. I assure you that my bill will not serve the
West to the detriment of other States. Quite the contrary. My bill will
be a national bill and a decidedly pro highway bill.
Once again, I look forward to being very active and assisting the
leadership of this committee as much as I can, as we embark on this new
chapter in highway law. There is something of concern that I would like
to mention here today, particularly in the presence of our
distinguished Secretary of Transportation. It has come to my attention
that because of various factors, the RABA for this year will be
negative. In fact I have heard predictions that we are looking at a
program that is $9 billion less than the fiscal year 2002 program. We
must do something about this. We cannot go into the next
reauthorization with such a low baseline. If this is in fact the case
and we are looking at a lower program over the next few years, I would
support the influx of new obligation authority to the States for the
next 2 years. This would prevent the base numbers for the next highway
bill from going down too much. I hope that Secretary Mineta will
address this in his remarks today and that this committee, the Finance
Committee and the Administration can work together to alleviate this
problem that will plague our reauthorization efforts if not addressed.
I look forward to today's hearing and future hearings as we prepare
for the next reauthorization.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you, and I look forward to
working with you.
Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Between the comments from the Senator from Montana on RABA
and the problem, and I was going to get into that, you have
pretty much said what my feelings are. The announcement on
January 18 that it could be a negative RABA is something that
we are going to have to deal with, and we have some problems
there.
I have to also say that I spent 8 years in the House,
working under the supervision of and working for Secretary
Mineta. We have always worked very closely together. Quite
frankly, I was thrilled when I heard the announcement that you
were going to be our Secretary of Transportation.
You will remember, the years that we spent trying to do the
very thing that was accomplished in TEA-21, and that is to
assure that all these highway dollars, the Highway Trust Fund,
was going to go to highway projects.
We have accomplished a lot of that. We have accomplished a
lot of the problems with donor States, that Oklahoma was
certainly in an awkward situation on; and also for the
flexibility to allow the States and the cities and local
jurisdictions to participate in this process in a way, and I
think this hearing shows that.
We are going to have input from people that are closer to
the problem, back in the States. That has always been
consistent with what you have stood for and what we have stood
for, back in the 8 years that we have worked together.
So I am looking forward to continuing this, after this
first hearing, and actively trying to do something to address
the serious problems that we have, that we have talked about
this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
Thank you Mr. Chairman. As you have indicated, today is the first
of series of hearings to prepare us for reauthorization of the Federal
Highway Program. I look forward to working with you and our colleagues
to further the progress made in TEA-21 for greater flexibility and
allowing States to keep more of their gas tax dollars. As we begin the
reauthorization process, I am anxious to hear from our State and local
partners how we at the Federal level can assist them in meeting their
unique transportation needs.
One such need that is universally felt is mobility. Not only is it
important to increase mobility for personal travel, but we must also
address the critical congestion choke points affecting freight
movements. Continue economic growth depends on an efficient and cost
effective transportation system, which includes the movement of people,
goods and services.
The challenge before us will be to increase capacity without
increasing costs by making better use of existing resources. Nothing
better illustrates this point than the announcement on January 18th
that the President's budget for fiscal year 2003 will report a negative
RABA. [Revenue Aligned Budget Authority] As devised, RABA's purpose is
to protect the principal that every dollar into the Highway Trust Fund
is spent on highway transportation projects as opposed to accumulating
large balances as was the practice prior to TEA-21. Up until this
point, we have enjoyed a positive RABA which has meant more spending on
transportation infrastructure than estimated by TEA-21. Just as RABA
provides for windfall it also means we could have a situation where
TEA-21 estimates overstate actual revenues received. It would appear
that is the case for fiscal year 2003.
Not surprisingly many questions have been asked about the
calculations used to determine the fiscal year 2003 RABA number. These
are legitimate questions that need serious examination and thought.
Certainly if we can soften the extreme negative effect of RABA for
fsical year 2003, I would be supportive as long as we operate with the
parameters of the existing statute and do not use funds outside of the
trust fund to offset the loss. I am certain that several needed
improvements to the RABA will be identified during this process which
will be part of our reauthorization deliberations. My concern is that
we proceed carefully and make sure that any immediate response
contemplated to the fiscal year 2003 negative number does not tie our
hands down the road.
Mr. Chairman I recognized that in an election year it will tempting
to ignore RABA and merely ``fix'' the problem through an infusion of
cash from general revenue. However, I believe that would be a mistake
because we need to protect the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund
which means we should structure the program around the actual receipts
of the fund, be they negative or positive.
I am anxious to hear from our witnesses representing State and
local interests on how a negative RABA number will affect your highway
program. Of course I am always pleased to hear from my good friend Norm
Mineta. I doubt there is anyone who understands the current program
better than Secretary Mineta. As one of the principle architects of
ISTEA, he has a clear understanding of not only the policy embedded in
the program, but also the politics of bringing diverse interests
together in a final bill. In that light, Norm, I want to give you fair
warning that the No. 1 issue for me in ISTEA, i.e., increasing donor
State returns, will continue to be my No. 1 issue in reauthorization of
TEA-21. I suspect we may have some spirited discussions on how to
address this, but I look forward to working with you on writing a bill
that we can all support.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to working with you and
Subcommittee Chairman Reid as we begin the reauthorization process.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Corzine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON S. CORZINE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Mineta, it is good to see you, again, welcome.
I, too, join with all of you in congratulating and
complimenting you on holding this series of hearings, Mr.
Chairman. I look forward to both learning the intricacies of
this, as a new member of the Senate, but also participating in
trying to emphasize the importance of transportation broadly to
all of our States, wherever we are.
New Jersey is a complicated State. It is the most densely
populated one in the country. The general studies will show you
that we spend about 15 hours a week, the average citizen, stuck
in traffic. While we may not be building as many highways, we
have got a lot of underpasses, overpasses, bridges, and
unlocking choke points that are necessary.
That 15 hours a week, the way some people calculate it, is
some place between $7.5 billion and $10 billion worth of lost
economics from people not being on jobs, lost time at home, and
has an obvious stress impact.
Being a 25-year commuter to New York City, I can promise
you, it is real. It is not a figment of somebody's imagination
or hyperbole. The gridlock problem is serious, and I think it
needs to be combined, as Senator Campbell suggested, with an
attention to mass transit. I am glad I am on the Banking
Committee, which will be dealing with some of those issues as
we go forward.
Then we have the donor/donee issue. While I know everyone,
in their best interests, is trying to arrange all these things
well, somehow or another, my State has ended up being in the
donee position, in that 9.5 baseline.
So it is an issue that is very much on the minds of the
people of our State. I know it is absolutely vital to the
effective economic well being of all of our States and nation.
So I think it is terrific that you are holding these hearings.
I will place my full statement in the record, and I look
forward to being an active participant.
[The prepared statement of Senator Corzine follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jon S. Corzine, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this first in a series of
hearings on reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century--TEA-21, and I'd like to join you in welcoming our
witnesses.
As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee as well
as the Banking Committee, I look forward to being an active participant
in drafting a bill that helps fund our highway and mass transit needs.
Mr. Chairman, drivers in New Jersey spend nearly 50 hours a year
stuck in traffic, according to the New Jersey Institute for Technology.
And, for many parts of our State, the total is significantly higher.
For all this time stuck in traffic, that's an average cost of $1255 per
licensed driver in wasted gasoline and lost productivity--for a total
cost of $7.3 billion a year. A different study by the Texas
Transportation Institute estimates a much higher cost--as much as $10
billion a year.
All this gridlock is dramatically affecting New Jerseyans' quality
of life, both economically and emotionally. It means lost time at work,
lost time with family and friends, and more stress. It also means more
air pollution. And it's one of the important reasons that much of New
Jersey fails to meet Clean Air Act standards.
As a 25-year commuter to New York City from New Jersey, I can
personally attest to the frustrations of the gridlock on our roadways.
Figures from the 2000 Census back this up: our State has 8.4 million
people, 3 percent of the nation's population. Yet those people drive
over 67 million ``vehicle miles'' in our State. This leads to intense
gridlock.
Solving this gridlock problem, Mr. Chairman, will require a
comprehensive approach to transportation. Clearly, there is a need for
more roads in many areas and the construction of overpasses,
underpasses and bridges also will help unlock existing traffic
chokepoints. But we'll never solve gridlock simply by pouring concrete.
We also need to focus on other modes of transportation, including rail
and transit. And we need to promote innovative approaches to traffic
management that take advantage of emerging technologies, such as the EZ
Pass system, and also promote tried-and-true approaches such as
carpools and telecommuting.
As you might imagine, Mr. Chairman, I am especially focused on the
needs of my State of New Jersey. And it is very disturbing to me that
New Jersey receives so little in highway funding for all the gas tax
and sales taxes on tires, trucks and buses that we send to Washington.
Figures for the most recent year available show that our State now
receives the minimum allowed for any State, 90.5 cents back for every
dollar sent to Washington. This, Mr. Chairman, is an important reason
that New Jersey ranks 49th out the 50 States in the amount of total tax
dollars we receive back from Washington. In the case of highway funding
that is especially not fair, considering our State's aging
infrastructure and severe transportation needs.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, on these and
other issues as our deliberations move forward, especially what level
of environmental review must exist before a project is begun. I am in
favor in general of the efforts in TEA-21 to streamline our
environmental review process in order to begin road and rail projects
more quickly. However I strongly believe that we can only do so in a
way that protects our quality of life.
In addition, I also expect to be active in the Banking Committee,
as well, in efforts to promote transit, which also is critical to my
State, and that effort in particular will be focused on building a
critically needed tunnel under the Hudson River for rail transportation
which will go a long way toward breaking down existing gridlock in our
rail transit system.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me again thank you for your
leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with you and
hearing from our witnesses.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much, Senator, and I want
to thank all of my colleagues for their excellent statements.
Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you here. We look
forward to working with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
Secretary Mineta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It
really is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to appear
before you and the Senators of this committee. I want to thank
you for this opportunity to share some thoughts with you about
the lessons that we have learned from TEA-21, as well as the
predecessor legislation, ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank you for your leadership in having this first hearing on
the reauthorization of TEA-21.
All of us at the Department of Transportation and in the
Bush Administration look forward to working with the Senators
of this committee and with Congress as a whole in shaping
proposals for the reauthorization of this very important
legislation.
Today, America's transportation sector faces a period of
not only extraordinary challenge, but also of extraordinary
opportunity, as you are so very well aware.
On September 11, 2001, a determined and remorseless enemy
attacked one of America's most cherished freedoms, the freedom
of mobility. The horrific events of that day and the weeks and
months that have followed have reaffirmed the critical
importance of our nation's transportation system, both to the
security of every American and to our economic well being. The
committee wisely begins the reauthorization process by looking
to the lessons of TEA-21 and its predecessor.
As many of you may know, I helped author ISTEA, working
with all of you at that time during my tenure as chair of the
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the House Committee
on Public Works and Transportation.
This landmark legislation established several new
principles for the nation's surface transportation programs,
which have proven out over time the importance of building
strategic partnerships with State and local officials and with
private industry; a new commitment to intermodalism; and a
heightened sensitivity to the impacts of transportation on the
shape and character of America's communities, to name but
three.
Building on this firm foundation, TEA-21 strengthened our
transportation system in five distinct areas: No. 1,
predictability, equity, and flexibility of funding; No. 2,
safety; No. 3, mobility in system upgrading; No. 4, the
application of innovative technologies; and No. 5, improving
the quality of life.
Now I would like to touch very briefly on some lessons
learned. My written testimony expands on each of these five
areas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request unanimous consent
that my full testimony be made a part of the record.
TEA-21 revolutionized transportation funding and authorized
record levels of investment for transportation. Minimum
guarantees in the Highway Trust Fund firewalls created
confidence among grantees regarding Federal funding, which is
an extremely important aspect of the program delivery for State
and local officials.
Just as importantly, the funding flexibility that was first
included in ISTEA, and then continued in TEA-21, enabled State
and local decisionmakers to consider a variety of
transportation options, and allows them to tailor their
transportation choices to meet the unique needs of each of
their local communities.
Increased TEA-21 funding also allowed the States to make
needed safety improvements. Under TEA-21, States may use their
Surface Transportation Program, inter-state maintenance, and
National Highway System funds for safety improvements and, in
fact, many do.
TEA-21 also enabled improved connectivity access across the
modes, particularly in the area of freight movement. TEA-21
also authorized the job access and reverse commute program to
address transportation gaps in the public transit system, and
to reduce the barriers for those moving from welfare to work.
TEA-21 continued, and increased funding for several quality
of life programs, originally authorized in ISTEA, broadened
eligibility for others, and then established the new
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot
Program, all of which continued to help States and communities
improve the environment.
TEA-21 also directed us to streamline environmental
reviews. As a result, the average time to process environmental
documents for major projects has been cut by almost 8 months,
and we are well positioned for significant future progress.
Now while we have begun the job of streamlining, more can
and must be done. In short, the programmatic and financial
initiatives of these two very historic surface transportation
bills provided us a solid and balanced structure, around which
we can shape this new reauthorization legislation. However,
while we should build upon the best of ISTEA and TEA-21, we
have an obligation or opportunity to do even better.
Now as we move forward, we ought to adhere to certain core
principles and values. We must continue to assure adequate and
predictable funding for investment in the nation's surface
transportation system. We must preserve funding flexibility to
allow the broadest application of funds to the best
transportation solutions identified by our States and local
partners.
We must also build on the intermodal approach that was
found in ISTEA and TEA-21, and we must expand and improve the
programs of innovative financing, in order to encourage private
sector investments in the transportation system, and look for
other incentives or other inventive means to augment existing
revenue streams.
We must emphasize the security of the nation's surface
transportation system, providing the means and the mechanisms
to perform risk assessment and analysis, incident
identification, responses, and when necessary, evacuation.
We must continue to focus on making substantial improvement
in the safety of the nation's surface transportation system.
None of us should consider it acceptable that we suffer 40,000
deaths and over 3 million injuries annually on our highway
system.
Finally, we must continue to develop and deploy innovative
technology with the ultimate goal of making ``intelligent
transportation system'' an unnecessarily redundant phrase.
Mr. Chairman, you have proposed an ambitious hearing
schedule that will allow us to explore all of these topics in
detail, and I want to commend you for that. We, at the
Department of Transportation, look forward to working with all
of you, with both houses of the Congress, with State and local
officials, and with stakeholders, in shaping the Surface
Transportation Reauthorization legislation.
This is a moment of great opportunity, a moment that we
must not let pass by. I am confident that by working together,
we can build on the lessons learned from ISTEA and TEA-21, to
develop reauthorization legislation that will best serve the
American people.
Mr. Chairman, before I close, everyone has made mention of
the provision in TEA-21 that I know is on the minds of all of
you. That is the revenue-aligned budget authority, or RABA.
When TEA-21 passed, the goal was to ensure that the highway
taxes paid by users be spent and not languish in the Highway
Trust Fund as an unobligated balance. Now I agree with that
philosophy. RABA was included in TEA-21 to annually adjust
actual spending to tax receipts.
Now the RABA mechanism has provided over $9 billion of
additional highway spending over the past 3 years.
Unfortunately, with the decline in the economy, combined with
the overly optimistic revenue estimates in past years, the RABA
calculation for 2003 is a negative $4.965 billion. Even with
this RABA over the past 4 years, it has provided a net gain of
some $4 billion.
Now the RABA calculation is based on two factors. One is a
look back and a look forward; $3.468 billion or 70 percent of
the negative RABA is because the actual 2001 tax receipts are
below the estimated tax receipts used in the fiscal year 2001
RABA calculation. This is the look back correction.
Now $1.497 billion of the $4.965 billion negative RABA is
because the tax revenue estimate for fiscal year 2003 is below
the level that was estimated in TEA-21 for fiscal year 2003,
and this is a look ahead provision.
The RABA calculation is not a policy call or a policy
interpretation. It is a simple budgetary, arithmetic
calculation, based on law. As we discuss the reauthorization of
TEA-21, we need to discuss the design of RABA, and how its
current swings in positive and negative directions could be
smoothed out over time.
So, again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let
me thank you for this opportunity to testify before you. I look
forward now to responding to the questions that you might have.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. There
seems to be a general support in the current program and
universal support for its funding protections.
Unlike years past, where stakeholders and States were
divided, this year, the parties seem to have much more in
common. Do you concur with that statement?
Secretary Mineta. I am sorry, I did not hear the first part
of that, Senator.
Senator Jeffords. There seems to be general support for the
current program, and universal support for its funding
protections. Unlike years past, when stakeholders and States
were divided, this year the parties seem to have much more in
common.
Secretary Mineta. I believe, Mr. Chairman, you are correct
on that observation. I think, again, this deals with the kind
of flexibility that is there in the legislation, in TEA-21,
that allows, with the NHS and the STP pot, to be able to be
used, to be able to respond to the needs that exist in States
and localities. I think because of that flexibility, there is a
great deal of acceptance about the major underlying provisions
of TEA-21.
Senator Jeffords. Well, I look forward to working with you,
and we all do. I thank you for a very excellent statement.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Mr. Secretary, this whole reauthorization
process for coming up with another Transportation Bill, or you
can call it whatever it is going to be called, TEA-21 plus or
whatever, it is about as nonpartisan as anything we do. I mean,
it basically is an issue where all of the States try to work
together to make the formula as fair as possible.
I would just like to probe a little bit into how you will
work with us on that, as we begin to have these hearings. Are
you going to be providing us specific details on some of your
core principles, or are you just going to give us general
details? Can you tell us just a little bit in terms of how we
might work with you, as we proceed along this process over the
next year? I am not asking for a lot of detail here, but just
conceptually, how you would work with us on the committee.
Secretary Mineta. First of all, I intend to work very
closely with all of you, and with the members of the other
body. What I have laid out is a very broad area in terms of
principles. But during the course of this year, I will be
becoming more specific about where we are going. I am hoping
that when you reconvene in 2003 to have a legislative proposal
ready for Congress' consideration.
But during the course of this year, I think with the give
and take of our conversations back and forth, we will refine
what we are hearing from the stakeholders, from State and local
governments, from private sector organizations, contractors,
and everyone involved, in order to refine where we will be
going in terms of a specific legislative proposal, which I
would like to have ready for presentation to the Congress in
2003, early right after we convene.
Senator Smith. I commend you for that, because I think that
is going to make it a lot easier to come up with a final
product, if we are all working together on it along the course
of the next year, rather than just simply dropping a proposal,
``the Administration proposal,'' on the committee and on the
Congress, essentially next year.
We both mentioned this. You mentioned in your testimony and
I mentioned in my opening statement the issue of streamlining.
When I was chairman last year, we had a couple of hearings on
this with the previous Administration on the streamlining
regulations.
The process and the result, I think, were flawed. I do not
know if there was some misunderstanding or disagreement. We
could not seem to get a handle on what we actually meant. There
was a difference of opinion as to what we actually meant in
terms of these streamlining provisions. I think Senator Baucus
mentioned that they were probably too general, not specific
enough, and there was too much room for differences of opinion.
There has been no final action on those regulations. I
would just ask you, what does DOT propose to do on those
regulations; go back to the drawing board, or hold off until
the next reauthorization?
Secretary Mineta. Well, I guess the debate that we are
having is, should we just go ahead and withdraw those proposed
regulations, to look at the reauthorization process as part of
the way to incorporate any improvements we might make on
streamlining.
I do not think that where we are with the proposed
regulations out there that we will move forward with that at
all. My feeling is that we should really be working toward
improving the legislative or the environmental process right
now, and look toward the reauthorization process to refine,
again as I said earlier, all of these different elements that
we have right now as general principals, but to refine that for
legislative purposes.
Senator Smith. I agree with you. I think that makes sense.
We are learning a lot. I think some of us had different views
as to how these streamlining provisions worked. I have a pilot
project going in New Hampshire and others do too.
I think we are learning a lot about how to streamline and
what the intent of the Congress was. Perhaps working together
like this, rather than to go back and try to finalize something
that there was a lot of concern about; let us try to work
together and incorporate it into the next authorization. I
think it is a good point. I appreciate you saying it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I was wondering whether we had the support
of the Administration to give States additional obligation
authority to alleviate the RABA problem.
Secretary Mineta. Well, I think it is too early. We have
not gotten to that point yet of how we are going to solve or
deal with the issue of the drop in RABA. I think my basic
approach is how do we smooth out the peaks and valleys about
RABA?
We have had the good fortune of having an increase since
the inception of TEA-21; this year being the first year that
are experiencing this kind of a negative RABA. How to deal with
that, I have not looked at that.
It seems to me that part of the legislative response is
going to have to be to try to smooth that out, so we do not
have these peaks and valleys. Because I think from a State and
local perspective, predictability of funding and the
consistency of that funding is very important.
As I believe Senator Inhofe mentioned, or whoever might
have mentioned it, about the fact that there are 42,000 jobs
generated from $1 billion being spent in transportation. This
is a very significant economic stimulator, as well. So we are
concerned about what this kind of a precipitous drop has.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that. One way to even that out
is to add the additional obligation authority for this year.
Secretary Mineta. It is. But the only problem there is, if
I were to put on a budget hat, it would be looking at the
increased deficits in the total budget. I know that this is
something that the Administration will be looking at, in terms
of what that deficit picture looks like. If you take more money
out of the general fund, or more money out of the trust fund.
Senator Baucus. That is right but, of course, the trust
fund surplus has amassed true deficits. It has been a budgeting
gimmick.
Secretary Mineta. That is why RABA got there in the first
place.
Senator Baucus. Those funds are dedicated to the highways,
so they might as well be spent for highways.
Secretary Mineta. Absolutely, I am a believer in that.
Senator Baucus. Additional obligation authority.
Secretary Mineta. I will jot it down, and we will take a
look at that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. You know, Mr. Secretary, clearly this is a
very serious subject. You mentioned the economic stimulus. You
mentioned the adverse yo-yo effect with the current RABA. So I
urge you to very firmly look at ways to deal with that.
Will the Administration be sending up a bill?
Secretary Mineta. I am hoping to do that, as I mentioned
earlier, within the first month in January of 2003.
Senator Baucus. I trust that that bill will preserve the
firewalls.
Secretary Mineta. I am a very big supporter of firewalls.
This is going to be something that we will still have to be, I
think, arm wrestling within the Administration before we have a
final answer. But I happen to be supportive of the treatment of
the revenues, both in TEA-21 and AIR-21.
Senator Baucus. I further trust that the legislation that
we will provide the Administration will protect the fund from
invasion from other modes?
Secretary Mineta. Yes, I think that is where we will be.
One of the basic principles, though, that we have always found
in TEA-21 is the intermodal nature of it, especially as it
relates now to freight movement, and the question as to how to
make sure that we have that inter-connectivity between ports
and onto our highway system.
But within the TEA-21 modes absolutely there will be some
flexibility. But from other non-TEA-21 modes, I would say my
personal opinion is, we should minimize or say no to any of
those invasions.
Senator Baucus. Well, I appreciate that. We have got a lot
of work ahead of us, and I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Mineta. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Section 1016 of the Patriot Act declares
that it is the U.S. policy that for any physical or virtual
disruption of critical infrastructure in the United States,
that it be brief and minimally detrimental to the economy.
As you will recall, I have a background of some 45 years in
aviation. I think right now I am the last active commercial
pilot, certainly in the Senate, and maybe in the House, too.
Consequently, I got more of the calls than I think most of
the other members did about the disastrous effect it had on the
GA economy. The closing of Class B airspace for an extended
period of time actually put people in Oklahoma and throughout
the Nation out of business.
I felt that at that time, and I am not saying this
critically, because everyone was hysterical and trying to do
the right thing, that we did not have the right adequate input
of the general aviation community in making those decisions
insofar as airspace is concerned. Now I agree that we needed to
do what we did. But I do not think we needed to do what we did
in some areas of the country, as long as we did it.
Is there any step that you are going to propose to be taken
to include more input from the general aviation community, so
that we can be anticipating if something should happen in the
future, and how to handle this differently than we did this
last time?
Secretary Mineta. Well, I think what we have done since
September 11th, right after the 11th, I set up what I referred
to as National Infrastructure, a NISK, within the department,
to deal with various modes and the security issues relating to
each of those modes.
In the infrastructure committee that we set up, we have
what we call direct action groups. Those direct action groups
reach out to the user community. So in the instance of the DAG
as relates to aviation, they reach out to general aviation to
commuter airlines, the very user communities.
I know that here in the Maryland area, there has been a
great deal of conversation about general aviation airports that
still remain closed. Maybe by the end of next week, I am hoping
to resolve an issue where we will have the three remaining
airports in the Greater Washington D.C. area opened.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Secretary, I know that there is a
reason for that. This is the area that was the targeted area,
and I understand that. But there are a lot of parts of the
country that were not. So I think that the action that you are
taking is going to help a great deal, and I would encourage you
to use the general aviation community as that comes up.
I want to quickly touch on two other areas here before my
time expires. The DOT Appropriations Bill of 2002, as sent to
Senate of Congress regarding hours of service, and that is at
Section 356, states that no action shall be taken that would
diminish or revoke any exemption granted in Section 345 of the
National Highway System designation, unless it is shown such
exemptions create a public safety risk.
As you may know, there has been an ongoing concern that
those exemptions that have been granted to certain types of
drivers such as ag. drivers and oil services and this type of
thing be changed. Can you update us at all on that?
Secretary Mineta. Last week, we had a discussion on the
pilot on hours of service duty time as it relates to pilots. At
that meeting, I also had Joe Clapp, who is the head of our
Federal Motor Carrier Service Administration and Safety
Administration, taking a look at the whole issue of circadian
balance or rhythm as it affects pilots and as it affects truck
drivers.
So we are hoping that the Federal Motor Carriers Safety
Administration will be able to come to a conclusion on the
hours of service provision. Now as to when that would be, I
would be guessing right now. But I would assume it would still
take another four to 5 months before we finalize our thoughts
on hours of service.
Senator Inhofe. I would request that you put me in the loop
on this, so that as this progresses, we will be able to have
some input.
I have one last question, and I know my time has expired.
But I can remember when you and I and Congressman Oberstar and
others, back after Pan Am 103, were concerned about the
detection technology that has been used. We actually took some
trips, and explored what technology is out there.
This is a similar problem that we have at DOD and in
Customs, that we have used the same old technology. People are
concerned, as far as airline traffic, more than any other
single thing, on checked luggage, on what is out there.
I started, after the 1995 explosion in Oklahoma City, to
look at this, and we found different technologies. One was
PFNA, Pulsed-Fast Neutron Analysis, which would take a sealed
container and get a three dimensional look at everything in
there, along with also the chemical composition that might be
in there.
We have put language in the Airline Security Act to
encourage you to look at other technologies. Is there any
update that you can give us on that?
Secretary Mineta. Absolutely; one of the things that we did
as a result of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
passing, or actually prior to that, because there has been a
great deal more work done on it, since the passage of ATSA, we
have what we call rapid response teams. The one dealing with
technologies is very, very ambitious in terms of what they want
to do.
So we are looking, as the legislation talked about, at
advanced technologies. We are looking at back scatter and a
number of other technologies to look at how to meet the
requirement of the law that all bags will be screened by an
explosive detection system by December 31, 2002.
Senator Inhofe. That is very good news and it is welcome.
We have been working on this for many, many years.
Secretary Mineta. Absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. There has been a resistance to change, as
there always is. But we just need to have a more advanced
technology. The technology is out there. We need to use it, and
I appreciate your efforts in that.
Secretary Mineta. With the sophistication and the
innovativeness of the terrorists, whether it be ceramic knives,
whether it be, let us say, a Glock 17, a plastic gun, they are
very, very difficult to detect with our x-ray technology and
other systems that we have right now.
So that is why we are getting into these other areas that
can detect explosives that are not based on nitrates, looking
at back scatter radar, to be able to pick up objects that would
not be able to be distinguished in an x-ray technology.
So we have a number of innovative approaches, using
advanced technologies. Believe me, we have got every technology
company that thinks they have the best thing since the
invention of sliced bread to solve all of our problems. So we
are examining all of them, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Chafee?
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, especially for
getting an early start on these hearings and scheduling
frequent hearings. I look forward to working with the
Secretary. Certainly, this has been one of the great success
stories of the last decade, and I am sure it will be successful
in the future, as we go through this reauthorization process.
I especially look forward to working with you as one of the
original architects of ISTEA on the issues that you highlighted
in your opening statement: safety, mobility, new technology,
and especially quality of life.
I really do not have any questions, Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. I would like to followup a
little bit on one of your comments with Senator Baucus.
I want to make it very clear that I want to have a balance
to the system. I was a little concerned, as I have a strong
belief that railroads should play a more important role in
trying to get a lot of the freight off the highways. I want to
inquire as to what your attitude is with respect to rail,
because you seem to be pretty pro-highway here.
Secretary Mineta. Well, the part that I was referring to
earlier was the whole issue of inner-connectivity of the
various modes. I think the Alameda Corridor is a good example
of a project that is vitally needed. It will be completed in
April of this year.
I think as we look at financing mechanisms in the new
legislation, I think we have to look at new innovative methods
of financing. Alameda Corridor utilizes, I believe, TFIA
financing.
So it really deals with the inner-connectivity of railroads
and highways, and yet it does not dip into the Highway Trust
Fund to finance the project. There are some highway moneys in
there. But the vast majority is non-highway moneys.
So I think that the kind of question that I believe Senator
Baucus was alluding to is, do we use the trust fund to finance
other modes that are not eligible for Highway Trust Fund
moneys? I think in terms of protecting the integrity of the
Highway Trust Funds, unless there are additional taxes that
would be thought of by the Congress, I do not see any other way
to finance those kinds of non-Highway Trust Fund modes of
transportation.
Senator Jeffords. Then we would never get out of the mess.
Secretary Mineta. Well, no, I think there are ways of
getting out of the mess. I think innovative financing is one of
the those ways that we can do that. I think TFIA is a good
example of where it has been used for various modes, and that
it can be utilized.
I think what we ought to be doing is being able to say, if
it is worth doing, than there ought to be some private sector
investment interest, as well. Private sector bonds do that
right now with highways. What about getting other kinds of
bonding mechanism or other approaches, in terms of one of our
authorizing principles in reauthorization, intermodal?
So, again, I think there are distinct areas of financing
that we have right now that have to be, I do not want to say
maybe protected, but they have not to be assured that that
funding is going to continue. I think these other kinds of
approaches, unless the other non-Highway Trust Fund potential
users would like to have additional taxes imposed on them, then
there is no alternative.
I think the whole issue, we have moved over the 4.3 cents;
and the question of, are there, let us see, what is it, 2.3
cents right now from the railroads? Is the railroads that pay?
Let us see if I can get some help here.
I am sorry, all 4.3 goes to the general fund. I thought
some portion of it was going to the trust fund. But in any
event, I just feel that because of the continued needs, in
terms of the national highway system, we just, I think, have to
minimize who is going to be at the table, drawing on those
funds; yet, recognizing the importance of the intermodal nature
of TEA-21.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you, we will be talking about
these issues as we go along.
Secretary Mineta. Absolutely.
Senator Jeffords. This is just the beginning.
Secretary Mineta. This is just the beginning; yes, sir.
Senator Jeffords. Right; thank you very much, and thank you
for excellent testimony.
Secretary Mineta. Thank you very much.
Senator Jeffords. I have to tell you how much I look
forward to working with you.
Secretary Mineta. Great; thank you.
Senator Crapo. I would like welcome the second panel. I
would like to use my time for that to introduce one of the
witnesses, who is a very good personal friend of mine and a
great leader in Idaho, Mayor Brent Coles from Boise.
Mayor Coles is the immediate past president of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, and I understand he now sits on the
executive committee. He has been instrumental in Idaho in
working on transportation issues, as well as many others.
I certainly look forward to his testimony. I suspect that
he is going to talk to us about some of the issues of urban
sprawl and the kinds of pressures we are facing, even in a
broad big State like Idaho, and the fact that the
transportation issues that this committee deals with are so
critical.
I know that he has been working very aggressively on
focusing the resources that he can in the area of Boise and the
surrounding counties with which he works with as the Mayor of
Boise, to address things like rail systems or bus systems or
other types of approaches to help us reduce congestion and
increase the quality of life.
So I, again, want to welcome Mayor Coles here, and we look
forward to your testimony, Mayor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much.
I, of course, would like to welcome my Mayor from
Burlington, Vermont, Mayor Clavelle. It is nice to have you
with us and we look forward to your statement.
I understand we have Ray Scheppach as the Executive
Director of the National Governor's Association. We are pleased
to have you here; and Commissioner Hart, it is a pleasure to
have you with us, also.
Mr. Hart. Good morning.
Senator Jeffords. I will exercise my home State prerogative
and introduce Mayor Clavelle. Mayor, it is wonderful to see
you. You have done a fantastic job in the city of Burlington. I
have enjoyed working with you in the past, and look forward to
future collaborations in service to the citizens of Vermont.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER CLAVELLE, MAYOR, BURLINGTON, VERMONT,
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
Mr. Clavelle. Thank you, Chairman Jeffords. I very much
welcome the opportunity to be with you today, and I thank the
members of the committee for this opportunity to discuss such
an important issue to the Nation's cities.
As was indicated, I am Peter Clavelle, Mayor of Burlington,
Vermont. Today, I am pleased to be here, not only as a
Vermonter, but also as a representative of the National League
of Cities.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a short statement, and
then would ask that my full testimony be included in the
record.
Senator Jeffords. It will be.
Mr. Clavelle. The National League of Cities represents
18,000 cities and towns, and over 140,000 local elected
officials. The NLC represents all cities, regardless of size.
Our largest member is the great city of New York City, with a
population of eight million people. Our smallest member is
DeGraff, Minnesota, with a population of 149. As representative
of the Nation's local leaders, NLC has a vital interest in the
reauthorization of TEA-21.
NLC's Transportation Infrastructure and Services Committee
appointed a special TEA-21 Reauthorization Task Force, which
recently completed a year-long re-write of our transportation
policy. Our new policy was adopted by NLC's full membership at
our annual meeting in December of 2001.
Mr. Chairman, I also would like to submit NLC's 2002
transportation policy for the record.
In addition to representing NLC today, I am here on behalf
of my city, Burlington, Vermont. With a population of 40,000,
Burlington is Vermont's largest city. I am currently serving my
sixth term of mayor; and just this Fall, I concluded a 2-year
term as President of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. I
also serve on the Advisory Board of the United States
Conference of Mayors.
Mr. Chairman, as we embark upon the reauthorization
process, we must take into account the current climate in
Washington, DC. and the Nation. As you know, these are tough
economic times in the aftermath of September 11th, and local
officials are shifting priorities.
Cities nationwide are moving valuable resources to public
safety expenditures, which makes a continued Federal commitment
to infrastructure even more important.
In several NLC surveys of municipal officials conducted
after September 11, over half of the cities reported that they
are increasing spending and public safety and security.
The majority of cities surveyed reported that they would
reduce spending in other areas to meet the new public safety
funding gap. This means that cities may have to postpone or
cancel some needed transportation projects to shift funding to
security.
The shifting of local revenue to a public safety and
security-related budget is unavoidable. The question becomes,
what will be the role of the next Federal Surface
Transportation Program in Homeland Security? Will the Federal
Government be able to offer greater assistance to cities to
meet their needs?
As the committee considers these fundamental core concerns
for the program, the Nation's local elected officials would
also like to highlight some key priorities for the next Surface
Transportation Bill.
NLC members identified congestion as a major concern when
they created the TEA-21 task force to review NLC's policies.
The themes of funding, flexibility and intermodalism permeated
these discussions.
On funding, NLC supports the current budget mechanism
developed in TEA-21, which directly linked transportation user
fees to transportation spending. We call for all transportation
taxes, including those levied on gasohol and alternative fuels,
to be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund.
In addition, we support innovative financing programs and
techniques such as tolls, State infrastructure banks, and the
Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act.
These programs support the development of public/private
partnerships, and provide creative ideas for meeting the
infrastructure needs in our cities.
On flexibility, NLC supports local flexibility to design,
manage, and operate transportation systems. ISTEA and TEA-21
embodied these themes, empowering local governments through the
creation of the metropolitan planning process. We look to the
committee to continue this Federal, State, local partnership
through reauthorization.
To continue to provide the most options to local
governments, NLC supports the continuation of the Congestion
Mitigation Air Quality Program, as well as Transportation
Enhancement Programs, and the Transportation and Community
System Preservation Pilot Program, TCSP, and the Intelligent
Transportation System Program.
These programs have made a huge impact on localities, and
have had a positive effect on quality of life. In Burlington,
as you know, Mr. Chairman, we have utilized the enhancements
programs to launch the revitalization of a historic commercial
center along North Street.
We have implemented street lighting upgrades and
streetscape improvements. We have benefited from TCSP funds for
improvements to the Church Street Marketplace. CMAQ funding has
enabled us to try new approaches to solve downtown parking and
transportation problems.
In addition, NLC urges the committee to consider the
development of a new congestion program that recognizes that
congestion is a local issue, and provides direct funding to
cities and regions of all sizes to address related problems in
their communities.
On intermodalism, NLC strongly supports Federal programs,
which fund different transportation modes, such as the Federal
Transit and Rail Programs. Commuter rail, inter-city rail, high
speed rail, and MAGLEV provide communities with other options
to consider as part of a transportation and smart growth plan.
In my small city, commuter rail service has been
instituted. We support funding to both preserve existing
transit systems and for new starts. In addition, we support a
change in the law to allow States and localities to use TEA-21
dollars for inter-city passenger rail. We support the
development of a national high speed rail network.
Last year, NLC joined our local and State partners in
supporting the High Speed Rail Investment Act. In addition, NLC
supports the development of intermodal facilities. In
Burlington, we will break ground this Fall on an intermodal
transit facility that will provide seamless connections for
regional transit, passenger rail, bicycle, and lake ferry
services.
This facility, and all of its inter-connected modes will
make our waterfront accessible to a great number of visitors,
without overwhelming it with automobiles.
In conclusion, the Nation's local elected officials stand
ready to work with you throughout the reauthorization of TEA-
21. We understand the delicate balance among the priority
objectives, of all of the partners from the Federal, State, and
local levels testifying before the committee today.
We value our seat at the table in this process, and accept
the responsibility of planning and implementing innovative
transportation strategies to meet the needs of our citizens.
It is clear to us that congestion remains one of the
nation's top complaints, and is affecting the quality of life.
In addition, safety and security have become top priorities in
this new post-September 11th climate.
We believe the Federal Government can strike a balance
between protecting our citizens and enhancing their quality of
life. We will continue to strive for an innovative intermodal
and multi-modal transportation system.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would like to
thank you and the members of the committee for this hearing
today, and for the opportunity to appear before you. I will be
happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. I am going to withhold
questions until everyone has had a chance to give their speech
here.
Mayor Coles?
STATEMENT OF HON. H. BRENT COLES, MAYOR, BOISE IDAHO, ON BEHALF
OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
Mr. Coles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today and represent the U.S. Conference
of Mayors, and the 1,000 cities that are over 30,000 in
population that are represented at the Conference of Mayors.
Senator Crapo, thank you very much. Senator Chafee, I
appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify.
There is no question that ISTEA and TEA-21 have
revolutionized the opportunities at the local level to provide
for the transportation needs in our communities.
We have looked very carefully and worked very closely with
Standard and Poor's DRI, and we have found that the metro
economies of this Nation are what support this Nation's
economy. As go the cities and neighborhoods and metro
economies, so goes this Nation's economy. If we are to protect
those metro economies, we must protect and enhance the quality
of life that people and businesses have in their communities.
One way to do that, of course, is to provide for their
transportation needs. For industries to grow in Boise, Idaho
and the other metro economies across this Nation, our
businesses and industries must have the transportation network
for our employees to get to work, to enjoy their neighborhoods,
to enjoy their educational opportunities and cultural
opportunities, that enhance our communities.
To do that, TEA-21 and ISTEA have given us those
opportunities to look at congestion mitigation, so that we can
reduce air quality concerns in our community, so that our
industries can grow, as opposed to having the numbers of cars
grow in our communities.
The 10 years of this legislation has made a great impact on
our cities and our metropolitan areas, and we must protect this
legislation. We must move forward in reauthorization, enhance
TEA-21 and ISTEA congestion mitigation opportunities, the
flexibility for cities and metro economies to determine whether
or not it is a rail system that they need; whether it is an
enhanced bus system that they need; commuter van systems;
bicycle pathways; the whole complex opportunities of a
comprehensive transportation system.
Without ISTEA and TEA-21, we would not be where we are
today. We believe that we can enhance what we do at the local
level, given the flexibility that the Federal Government has
offered us, through ISTEA and TEA-21.
It has, in fact, created, and I will use the word
``forced,'' State governments to give us that flexibility, and
to work more closely with local governments.
We work more closely with the Idaho Department of
Transportation now than we ever have in the past. We are
finding great leadership there, and desire to reduce the number
of lanes and highways, or lanes to the highways, adding lanes
to highways that they look at when there are projections, if
there is an opportunity to enhance congestion mitigation; if
there is an opportunity at the local level to get engaged with
the overall regional transportation planning. With the
partnerships at local government levels, through ISTEA and TEA-
21, we were able to create what we call the Treasure Valley
Partnership. It is where the Mayors meet together each month,
and at a volunteer level, work to communicate, and land use
planning is the No. 1 issue; and around land use planning is
transportation.
Around transportation then comes your educational system
and comes around your economic system. So to enhance our
economy in this great Nation, to secure our economy, the
quality of life is a very significant issue.
We received what we call the Treasure Valley Futures Grant
through, again, TEA-21. That gave us the opportunity, ladies
and gentlemen, to take our comprehensive plans, throughout the
seven or eight cities and the two counties, and begin to
compare those comprehensive plans, so that we know what the
build-out will be in our region.
Instead of one city having their build-out and another city
somewhere else, and a county over here planning their build-
out, we took those together as a region. It happened because of
TEA-21 legislation. Once we know a build-out, then we know our
transportation needs, and then we, at a local level, can begin
to make decisions about what kind of transportation do we want.
Is it going to be that in this Nation, and particularly in
the West, that a teenager at age 16 must feel that they must
own a car to have the independence that they so desire at that
young age? Instead of emphasizing and focusing on their
education and their gifts and their talents, they are out
working some part-time job so that they can have a car, so that
they can move around the West.
The West must be able to develop with train systems, with
commuter rail systems, with light rail systems. Let us allow
that opportunity as we grow in the West, as opposed to waiting
until it is too late, and the land uses are gone, and we do not
have the corridors in place.
So we support and appreciate the opportunity to work with
Secretary Mineta. We find him to be a great leader, a great
communicator, and a partner, as we plan the regions in the West
and throughout the United States, to protect our metro
economies and the economy of this great Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you, that was an excellent
statement.
Commissioner Hart?
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS HART, COMMISSIONER, HILLSBORO COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Mr. Hart. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am Chris Hart, Commissioner of Hillsboro County,
Florida. Today, I am here to represent the National Association
of Counties, where I serve as chair of its Transportation
Steering Committee.
On behalf of NACo, I want to thank you and the committee
for inviting me to appear on the panel today. I am very
delighted to join the National Governor's Association here in
testimony, as well as Mayor Clavelle from Burlington, Vermont,
and Mayor Coles of Boise, Idaho. In fact, we have worked
together for many years on so many of these issues.
My personal county seat is in Tampa, Florida, where I
directly represent over one million people on the Central West
Coast of Florida. It is an urban community of seven counties,
with over 3.5 million people.
It is also the economic engine of the Tampa Bay Region, in
great measure because of our focus on improving the
transportation network, plus because of our major international
air and sea ports that connect us to our global economy.
Senators on a lighter note, I cannot leave here today
without getting something in return for Florida's Steve
Spurier.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hart. Also, if you have not had a call for the head
coach position of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, rest assured you
will. Everyone else has. We do have a sense of humor in
Florida.
Senator Jeffords. You have to have one.
Mr. Hart. You have to, right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hart. Mr. Chairman and committee members, NACo has a
broad interest in obviously the transportation policy, and has
been very active over its 50 years in assisting Congress and
the Administration in developing legislation to benefit our
member counties, as well as our partners in the cities and the
States.
Much of our focus has been on the highway program for the
simple reason that counties own 44 percent of the Nation's
highway mileage, and 45 percent of the Nation's bridges. With
3,066 counties in our vast Nation, certainly our membership is
diverse.
It is in 1,000 urban counties, where both economic and
population is occurring. Metropolitan counties or in urban
centers, like mine on Tampa Bay, account for 84 percent of the
gross domestic product, and have over 125 million people living
in just 100 of the most populated counties. Strong economic
growth will occur only with a sound transportation system.
Of course, the downside of that growth has been increasing
traffic congestion, which at times threatens our quality of
life, and deprives citizens of their ability to move around in
a safe and efficient manner.
Conversely, there are 2,000 rural counties with a dwindling
tax base, that must maintain and improve their highway bridge
system, if they are just to maintain competitive in today's
economy, and retain their current population.
TEA-21 and its predecessor, ISTEA, have been very helpful
to our members and to our Nation, as a whole. There is little
doubt in my mind that these programs have contributed to the
overall economic growth that our Nation has experienced over
this last decade.
ISTEA, in 1991, began a trend of increasing the Federal
investment in the highway program, and TEA-21 provided a 40
percent boost.
The increase was needed, and we have seen the benefits. For
example, last year, the State of Florida was able to
appropriate over $1 billion for a combination of improvements
to the local, State, and Federal transportation system in the
Tampa Bay Region. This was a direct result of increased
funding, because of TEA-21.
The leadership of NACo supported the funding increase for
transportation in TEA-21, and fought hard to support the
financing changes in TEA-21 that made this level of spending
possible.
It would be an economic disaster if Congress were to
eliminate the firewall established in TEA-21, or began to use
the Highway Trust Fund, or either finance other programs, or
mask the deficit. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
the financing decisions made in 1998 were the right ones.
Let me also add that I believe our highway infrastructure
performed well on September 11th and in its aftermath. We
should all remember that the highway program was first begun to
ensure our Nation's defense. While the tragic events of last
September were never anticipated, the security function of our
highway and bridge systems worked.
When NACo's Homeland Security Task Force met first in early
October, in addition to the President, it was most specifically
the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, along with
Governor Tom Ridge, that the counties and people of our Nation
wanted to hear from.
Aside from funding, the key change in highway legislation
over the past 10 years has been the creation of a flexible
program, that has relied on greater input from local elected
officials. The result of this has been better planning, better
decisionmaking on project selection, and better projects.
It is likely that the Federal Government will continue to
spend substantial Federal resources each year on highways and
bridges. That makes it essential that both local and State
government leaders sit down together at the table when
decisions are made. The reauthorization of TEA-21 should
continue and accelerate this partnership.
ISTEA required the cooperative decisionmaking through the
metropolitan planning organization, or MPO process, on how
surface transportation funds are spent. This is the most
flexible category and where they are spent the best.
TEA-21 has continued that requirement, and legislation also
called for cooperation and consultation between States and
local decisionmakers in other Federal highway programs.
TEA-21 expanded this to the rural areas and statutorily
called for a consultation process in States for obtaining rural
local officials' input in the statewide transportation plan.
I must add that while some States have a process, and the
Federal Highway Administration did issue guidance on this
change to the field offices, the U.S. Department of
Transportation has yet to issue the final regulations on rural
planning requirements.
Last Fall, I established NACo's TEA-21 Reauthorization Task
Force under the able leadership of my colleague, Commissioner
Glen Whitley from Tarrant County, Texas. I can State without
reservation that environmental streamlining will be a top issue
on that for our membership.
Also, I want to be very clear that we are not calling for
any repeal of our Nation's important and strong environmental
protection laws. Rather, we will be recommending that the
reauthorization include provisions to ensure that projects are
completed in a timely and efficient manner, and the delays in
the current system that are unnecessary and create those
slowdowns that are unjustified are eliminated.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman and committee members, I and the
National Association of Counties, are asking for a concurrent
process, rather than an uncoordinated sequential one. In the
broadest sense, this means that we need to get all the players
and projects involved at the outset. This means that local
officials, State DOTs and other regulatory officials, and
Federal agencies have a role to play, as well as our
environmental community, and most especially, our affected
citizens. No one should be ignored. No Federal agency should be
allowed to operate independently without being there as a
participant.
In my State of Florida, for example, this effort has been a
work in progress, even since the legislation was passed. But it
will not be successful without the collaboration from the
Federal Government.
Congestion will be another key policy issue that you and
Congress must address with this reauthorization. Urban
counties, their citizens, tourists, and commerce, are all
strangling in congestion. Time, money, and productivity are all
sitting on the backs of commerce, and we can ill afford this
for our businesses, for the American commuter, or our tourists,
to be stuck in traffic. There is no one solution, except that
we must apply common sense approaches to this challenge.
Solutions must be found where close local, State, and Federal
cooperation exists. Congestion occurs on county highways, not
just on the State or Federal networks.
We must remember that we have a system of highways, and
when one part, albiet local, State, or Federal, breaks down,
the others are directly affected.
Any new legislation should provide those highways and
bridges that we now have, and ensure that they are properly
maintained by funding them, so that traffic moves safely.
We must invest money in highways to guarantee that our
current system is maximized. We know that as much as 50 percent
of congestion occurs due to breakdowns and accidents on our
roadways. Therefore, we must be smart enough to establish
simple, efficient methods of getting incidents resolved
quickly.
Here again, Federal agencies and their resources can be
partners with local and State governments, to save time, money,
and most especially, lives.
We need to have the system of procedures in place that
includes all the various agencies involved in incident
management, from the highway departments, police, sheriffs,
fire rescue and EMS, to wrecker services, all communicating
with one another. We can do better, and I will quickly
illustrate, Mr. Chairman.
How many times have we seen a break down or accident in one
lane of traffic, and I do not even have to mention the Beltway,
with emergency vehicles taking up the other lane or lanes; and
if we are lucky, perhaps we are able to pass after an hour of
waiting in traffic? This is very common, not just here, but in
every community in America.
Systems and procedures in incident management could go a
long way to relieving congestion, and it is much cheaper than
building road systems, rail, and other things associated with
this.
Another key to relieving congestion is moving traffic to
signalization. We have all been on highways where signals are
coordinated and traffic flows. We have also been on roads where
we are stopping at every red light. Many local governments need
additional resources to modernize traffic signals.
The good news is that electronic signals and now the
Intelligence Transportation System, or ITS as it is commonly
called, give us a return of about eight to one, compared to
other investments.
By the way, what we do not need are automatic signs saying,
``congestion ahead,'' when we are already caught in traffic,
and where there are no alternative routes that we can take.
Mr. Chairman, now in finishing my remarks, I would like to
address one last major concern that we all share: rural roads.
Rural roads are in need of substantial Federal investment.
Safety is the primary reason.
According to the U.S. General Accounting Office Report from
July, 2001, rural local roads have the highest accident and
fatality rate per vehicle mile traveled on all types of
roadways; over six times that of urban interstates.
In 1999, over 25,000 fatalities occurred on rural roads
across the United States. That figure is two and-a-half times
greater than the fatality rate from accidents on our urban
highways in areas like Las Vegas, Miami, St. Louis, Cleveland;
you pick it/name it, our communities.
If Congress wants to reduce auto fatalities, there is no
better investment than in our roads in rural communities.
Because rural roads are so dangerous, we, in NACo, will be
proposing a new program to address this. Rest assured, Mr.
Chairman, that we would work closely with your committee in
developing this.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, this concludes my
testimony. I thank you and the committee members for the
opportunity to be here today. I would be pleased to answer your
questions.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Commissioner.
Our final witness is the Executive Director of the National
Governors' Association, Ray Scheppach. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF RAY SCHEPPACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF HON. ROBERT WISE,
GOVERNOR, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Scheppach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being
here today on behalf of the National Governors' Association.
Let me first say that Governor Wise was supposed to be here,
and he apologizes. Essentially, his aircraft was grounded for
safety reasons, and so he was unable to be here.
I would appreciate it, however, if his full statement were
submitted for the record.
Mr. Scheppach. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by
mentioning a couple of comments about the fiscal situation of
States, because I think it is relevant to this particular
program.
The current shortfall in States is about $40 billion. You
are going to have to add to that about another $6 billion for
the State costs for homeland security. That currently is about
7.5 percent of State-only revenues, which is quite large, by
historical standards.
However, because both unemployment and State revenues lag
the economy, it is highly likely that this situation will
continue to deteriorate for another year to 18 months, probably
peaking in excess of $50 billion.
If you compare this current recession to that recession in
the early part of this decade of 1990/1992, this one is far
worse, even at this particular point in time. The total
shortfall previously was about $20 billion, which was 6.5
percent of revenues, and as I said, we are going up easily to
$50 billion, or 10 percent of revenues, over the next year to
18 months.
You might ask, why is it worse? The economic dip so far has
been relatively small. The basic reason is that the phenomenal
growth in the economy over the last half of the decade of the
1990's was so strong that it camouflaged a number of underlying
problems.
Essentially, we have a deteriorating tax base, largely
driven by the fact that we do not tax services; and Internet
sales now are cutting dramatically into State sales tax
revenues.
So on one hand, we have a deteriorating tax base, because
it is essentially for a manufacturing economy of the 1950's,
and not for a high tech service-oriented economy of the 21st
Century.
On the other hand, health care costs are exploding.
Medicaid, which represents about 20 percent of State budgets,
is now growing 11 to 12 percent per year, with pharmaceuticals
growing 18 percent.
If you add other health care, it represents another 7
percent of State budgets. We have 27 percent of our budgets
growing at double digits, clearly at 11 to 12 percent. So it is
a combination of these two major structural problems that is
creating the State fiscal situation.
Unfortunately, this is not something that is going to be
turned around in the next year or so. This is a two or three,
or perhaps even 10 year problem, because of the structure.
Let us turn now and mention a couple comments about the
highway program. First off, Governors were very satisfied and
really supported the reauthorization last time, and we do
believe that this program has worked quite successfully over
this period.
We now, however, do see that in some of the preliminary
estimates of the revenues coming into the trust fund, that it
is possible the revenues are down quite dramatically; some
people argue as much as 30 percent going forward.
And it is probably not just a one-time downward adjustment.
But we are probably on a different baseline, because of a
slower growth in the economy, even when we come out of this
recession.
This is a problem in a program which is essentially a
capital investment program. When you have levels of funding
going up or down of that order of magnitude, it creates a lot
of inefficiencies in capital programs, that have to run over a
7 or 8 year period.
I do not know what the answer is, in all honesty, but we
hope to work with the committee in terms of, is there any way
in which we can smooth the revenues and expenditures on this
particular program?
I will just mention a couple of other issues. This problem
in the funding level may play out, because a lot of States do
float bonds to cover this. Of course, the interest rate that is
on those bonds is somewhat sensitive to the Federal funding
level. So that is an issue that we are somewhat concerned
about.
Finally, the other issues that we would like to work with
the committee on are essentially insuring that we continue to
move toward incentives, as opposed to mandates.
I agree with Commissioner Hart, in terms of the
environmental streamlining concurrent processes. That is an
issue for us, and also maintaining the flexibility of the
program, so that there is a lot of State and local control on
what those particular priorities are.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with
you over the next year, as you reauthorize this program. Thank
you.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you, and thank all of you for
very excellent statements. It is a pleasure to have you with
us. As you know, we are going to be very busy over the next
couple of years, trying to make sure that we do the best job
possible here.
Senator Warner wanted to express his apologies. He had to
leave. I asked for unanimous consent that his statement be made
a part of the record. I do not hear anybody objection. I know
that no one dare to object.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows.]
Senator Jeffords. But thank you; Senator Warner has been a
great member of this committee over many years, as you all
know, I am sure.
I would like to turn to my good mayor, first. I am
intrigued by the idea that local communities might manage
certain aspects of the Federal Aid Transportation Program. Can
you tell us a bit more about your experiences in that regard?
Does the current program encourage the local role, or should we
explore measures to extend local government's role in project
management?
Mr. Clavelle. Well, I think anybody who has been a local
government official understands that citizens will hold us
accountable and responsible for transportation, as well as
quality of life within our communities.
So from my perspective, it makes great sense to involve
local government officials very intimately in the planning, the
design, and the construction and management of transportation
projects.
Now in the State of Vermont, we have had an excellent
relationship with our State Transportation Agency. They have,
in fact, delegated substantial responsibilities where local
governments are willing and interested in managing those
projects.
In my small city, we have taken on the responsibility of
managing projects that range from bike paths, to multi-million
dollar transportation centers, to major highway projects.
So I think it is a great idea. Our experience has been very
positive for both the State agency, as well as the community. I
would urge you, as you consider reauthorizing the legislation,
to promote and encourage this practice.
Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. I share your view that presently, the
intermodal investments are somewhat orphaned in the Federal
program. The League has endorsed the idea of a specific
intermodal program. Can you enlarge on the idea for us?
Mr. Clavelle. I believe that it is a good idea to have a
separate intermodal program. I think that would help clarify
Federal responsibilities, in terms of the management of such a
program.
But I also think, from a local official's perspective, it
would simplify the planning, the design, and the financing of
intermodal facilities. Currently, with intermodal facilities,
you need to bring together a hodgepodge of funding sources to
make a project a dream, a reality.
I think a separate program would truly give some meaning to
this word that we frequently use of ``seamless.'' I think if we
had a seamless Federal program, it would enhance our capability
and capacity of creating within our communities intermodal
projects that were truly seamless.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, and I agree with you on these
matters. I look forward to working with you.
Mayor Coles, I want to commend you on the fine work you
have done in your part of the country to promote a balanced
transportation system, and encourage smart growth, as well.
I, too, believe that we need all modes of transportation
working together, to get the best out of our system. Do
barriers exist now in the current Federal programs, to
achieving your goals? If so, as I expect you will say, we would
look forward to working with you, as we go along; but please,
comment.
Mr. Coles. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Mr. Chairman, a major barrier out in the West and around
Boise is that Amtrak does not come through Boise. It does not
come through Idaho. We do not have that link, that national
rail link, that we would like to have to make the intermodal
system a vision, and one that people can believe in.
When a Mayor says, 1 day we will have a rail system here,
and we will be able to link nationwide to a rail system, they
say, well, Amtrak stopped service here 3 or 4 years ago. Our
community, therefore, went out and purchased 18 miles of right-
of-way, using property tax dollars.
That is 18 miles of Union Pacific Railroad, which links our
city to at least the National Rail Network. Without that 18
miles, Amtrak could never have come back to us.
So the barriers certainly are funding. We are beginning
now, because of TEA-21 and your vision, sir, and the vision of
this committee and this Senate, to work more closely with State
government.
But our State government has not given us a funding source
for multi-modal transportation. They still only fund streets
and roads and highways, and they will match any Federal grant
that comes along.
But if we had a Federal grant system that would match and
provide an incentive, I think for State governments to match a
Federal grant system to put into place a multi-modal system,
and maybe it is available, our State may not be using it. But
it is that kind of leverage from the Federal Government to the
State government that we believe would help the local
government, also.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. You have got a sympathetic
voice here.
Mr. Coles. Sir, I have been in your office and appreciate
your leadership.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Hart, I believe that Tampa is the
largest Metro area represented on the panel today. I know that
urban congestion will be an important issue as we provide with
the reauthorization.
You shared a few ideas with us for tackling the problem in
your testimony. Are their shortcomings in the current Federal
program that have limited your ability to address the problems
in the Tampa area? In particular, you seem to suggest that
major local and county roads were not receiving adequate
attention? Is that so, and if it is, what do we do?
Mr. Hart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have to preface
it by saying, until TEA-21, it was not getting that type of
attention. It has been a long struggle for all of us to try to
raise the understanding of what it really meant to bring
together all these programs, and that they are related.
As far as processes themselves, yes, we all have what we
have, depending on our States or local communities, or whether
you are part of an MPO network.
But in some communities that are 50,000 to say, 200,000,
they do not currently have, as I understand it, the authority,
and have the money allocation, as far as their funding process
in those areas. Yet, if you hit a community of 50,000 to
200,000, you are probably going to find one of the largest
groups of communities in America.
If that type of authority went to those communities in the
MBO process, they could better put together those networks and
make those allocations.
Some of the things, even though we are, in some part,
talking about roads and bridges, I think in great measure, both
the mayors addressed issues of the growth management or
bringing land use and transportation together, and how it
affects their quality of life; or the fact that I would have to
agree that we need a national high speed rail system.
But these things have got a link. I think the question you
are asking opens that dialog. Because ultimately, we, sitting
in my community as a metropolitan planning organization, are
making those decisions that put together local, State, and
Federal programs; but this does not happen throughout our
Nation.
In 100 urban counties it does, because we are of that size,
but it is still a challenge. For example, I addressed just on
the issue of what happens on the incident management, we do not
have to build another road for that. We have to build in
systems and procedures from the Federal to State to local
level, that we can agree on, where we are all partners.
Congestion is a great big part of that. Yet, some of that is
the allocation of funding that goes in the areas like
intelligence transportation or improved signalization; or the
fact that where you have got a Federal interstate system, and
now you have got a State road system, and a county or a city
road network all there together. One cannot happen in isolation
of the other. Too often, this has been in the case.
I think it has been a matter, in one part, of awareness. I
think by asking the question, you raise that awareness. But
until we also take a look, and I am not a heavy-handed guy that
wants more regulations or legislation, but we have got to have
more people at the table, so they all understand what we are
dealing with together, and it is a Federal, State and local
system.
That is why I was suggesting that we take a look at how we
can build in systems and procedures, just like the streamlining
planning process that we were addressing earlier. You have got
to have all the partners at the table. You cannot have some
people that are independent. I am not picking on the Corps. of
Engineers or EPA or some other agencies. It is just that they
are very easy targets for us.
But you cannot have somebody that is just operating on
their own, and everyone else thinks they have got it together,
and then they say, oh, we have got five questions here. You
have got to stop everything. That is part of the dilemma.
So with your leadership and the committee's leadership
here, we can broach the streamlining process like that, and we
can look at questions of congestion.
We can look at things like incident management, because
those will open the doors of how we establish those systems and
procedures; some part in Federal legislation, and some things
do no cost anything. Some things just give us guidance of how
to do it smarter.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Scheppach, do have anything you would
like to share with us, in addition to your statement, now
having heard the testimony across from you?
Mr. Scheppach. No, I mean, I think we have got all the
issues on the table. I think they are funding flexibility and
environmental streamlining.
I think that the current law has been working quite
effectively. The unfortunate part is that this was an economic
boom period. There were substantial revenues available to do
this. Now we have got a higher level of spending. We have got
some jobs at stake, and we have got some efficiency issues, if
we have to cut this program. So there are some tough issues
that I think the committee needs to work on.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Crapo?
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a
question or two of Mayor Coles. Mayor, I kind of want to
piggyback on the question that you were asked by the chairman.
I was interested in your written testimony, where you
talked about a survey that was taken of the mayors. In the
answers to that survey, it indicated that in response to their
being asked what the single most important surface
transportation priority was in their city or region, about 35
percent indicated system preservation; 20 percent, congestion
relief; and new rail projects at 15 percent. I suspect that new
rail projects was related to congestion relief. Then there were
other areas that were listed, many of which also related back
to congestion relief.
My question is, as we move forward to look at
reauthorization of TEA-21, it appears to me from that and from
the testimony that I have heard here today, that congestion
relief is going to be one of the major focuses that we will
need to be addressing.
In that context, first of all, could you tell me if I am
correct in that context, and whether you see that the current
system could be improved, in terms of allowing us the added
flexibility or streamlining efforts, or whatever may need to be
worked into the law to help us more effectively focus on
congestion relief?
Mr. Coles. Mr. Chairman, Senator Crapo, thank you very
much. There is no question that our ability and our reliance
upon working with the States, and every State Department of
Transportation has their own philosophy about how they work
with local government.
Now the MPO system, which requires States and local
metropolitan areas to align their transportation plans, their
intermodal systems, and their plans, requires that dialog.
But I think it also in the testimony indicates that only
about 40 percent of the Mayors have been asked to participate
with their States in making those decisions about where those
dollars are spent.
So we have come a long way in 10 years. This legislation
has created the dialog and the opportunity and the structure
for that dialog, but we still have a ways to go. That is the
requirement and responsibility for State government and local
government to make decisions about where those dollars are
spent.
Now the more flexibility, if you speak from the U.S.
Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, we
appreciate the opportunity to have funding sources that are
similar to the Community Development Block Program, where
metropolitan areas receive those dollars directly.
There is not a State agency that is making those decisions
about how we are going to spend our money; but it comes
straight from Federal Government to local government. It gives
us timely resources and the flexibility to use them, and it
shows them that we are trusted by the Federal Government to
make decisions where necessary, in our local communities to
allocate those resources and their funds.
It also then gives us the opportunity to manage, in some
cases, even the construction of the process and project, which
can also reduce costs. Often local government will have some
flexibility built in. They can manage the project. They
construct it. They can build it, and build it in a timely way
and often save money. So there are those kinds of opportunities
that we look forward to.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. I have just one other question as
a followup on this in a more specific sense. I appreciated your
bringing up the Amtrak issue, as it relates to Idaho. I think
that most people in the country, when they think of Amtrak,
think of it in some of the more urban corridors. But its impact
in Idaho is also critical.
As you know, Mayor, here in the Senate, Senator Wyden and I
have been trying to get that line between Spokane and Boise
open. In working with you out in Idaho and others, we have seen
some serious road blocks put the way of getting that
accomplished.
Do you believe that if we were to reorient or broaden the
available use of TEA-21 funds, or if we were able to give the
approach the Block Grant Program, like you were talking about,
that resources at the State level, at the city and county
level, could be more effectively utilized to encourage and
incentivize those types of rail programs?
Mr. Coles. Mr. Chairman and Senator Crapo, yes; now let me
give a little addition to that answer.
Senator Crapo. That would be helpful, thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Coles. Certainly, again, the flexibility to use those
dollars where we see the resources are appropriate in our local
communities. So we could link to Amtrak.
But truly, we also need to support the revenues for Amtrak.
Amtrak needs to be supported just as our freeway interstate
system is supported; just as currently the airline industry is
being supported.
We need the vision in our country of a multi-modal national
system, a national rail system, a national air system through
our airports and the support of our airline industry and, of
course, the interstate system. Why not have a vision that
encompasses all of those, and at the Federal level they are
supported, at the State level they would be supported, and at
the local level there would be support for a national rail
policy?
So doing that and having flexibility with TEA-21, then
people would believe, particularly in our rural areas, that you
could have a rail system that would link America together, so
that commerce and industry and people can move throughout this
country with alternatives; as opposed to right now, there are
pretty much two alternatives. You are either going to fly or
drive your car.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mayor Coles. I, myself, found out
when I got into the issue of Amtrak, how important the rail
system is. It was just interesting to me that there is some
feeling in this country that rail systems are sort of outdated
and they are a thing of the past, and we have moved on to cars
and planes and things like that.
It is very interested to me to see the importance of rail
systems, not only in Idaho, but it was like the third highest
response of the mayors of this Nation, when they responded to
your survey, which I understand was an open-ended survey; just
pick what you think is the most important thing. The third
highest response was rail systems. This indicates how that form
of transportation may need to be something better implemented
in our approach to transportation in the Nation.
Anyway, thank you very much.
Senator Jeffords. Let me followup on that, since it gives
me a good opportunity. This is something that I feel very
strongly about.
Do you have concerns with respect to congestion in your
cities, and also about the trucks, the 400 foot trucks or
whatever we have now, when they wind through your places, as to
whether that traffic could not be put on the rails, to some
extent, Mr. Coles?
Mr. Coles. Mr. Chairman, absolutely, there is no question
about it; the length of a truck, the weight of the vehicles. We
know that they pay a lot of tax to support the highways. But
there is no question that our ability to rely more on rail
would reduce congestion in our communities, large and small.
Senator Jeffords. Are there any other comments, Mayor
Clavelle?
Mr. Clavelle. I think whether you are a mayor of a city in
Idaho or a city in Vermont, I think that we would welcome an
investment in rail that would allow us to get the heavy freight
traffic off our roads and onto the rail. I echo everything that
Mayor Coles has said. We need more flexibility and we need
additional resources in our rail infrastructure.
I hope that I will live to see the day that Amtrak will
serve the city of Burlington. But in upgrading that rail
infrastructure to provide that opportunity for Amtrak, we also
will be enhancing an infrastructure that can better carry
freight.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Hart?
Mr. Hart. Mr. Chairman, I have perhaps a little twist on
that. As I previously stated, I think we ought to have a
national system of high speed rail.
But throughout America, it is a building block.
Transportation systems that are needed in a local community
particularly are buses; a bus system where if we had the
flexibility to put more into that, you will serve more people
every day.
But one area that we have not even talked about, that I
have worked very hard on, both at the national and county
level, but in my State in community, is a the transportation to
the disadvantaged community; people that cannot drive, should
not drive, will never drive. It is a serious and growing
problem in America. You have got to have local systems that
solve that, because there are too many differences.
In our community, for example, and this is not an
advertisement, we just call it Heartline. It is not my bus
system, but it is the Hillsboro Area Regional Transit
Authority. I sit on that.
But we also put together the Transportation Disadvantaged
Program, for people who are need wheelchairs or kneeling or
whatever. So you have got to tie sidewalks to buses or
specialized transportation for people that have the dialysis or
have critical needs. But then you have got young or older that
cannot or should not drive, or you want to discourage; or as
you get into larger urban communities, you want a robust
transportation system like on buses, that would connect to a
rail system.
So I think part of that base has got to be a sound transit
system that also not only serves a great part of the
population, but specifically also has the ability to serve the
transportation disadvantages in America.
Mr. Scheppach. We are a little bit split on policy with
respect to that, so I will pass.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. I understand that.
Well, I want to thank you all. It has been very, very
helpful testimony. You are the ones that we look to, to make
sure that we do the things we should do when we are finished
here. It was excellent testimony, and we were pleased to have
you here.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida
Thank you for bringing us together today on the subject of the
reauthorization of TEA-21. The policies that are decided during this
debate will deeply affect each of our States. You are to be commended
as well for calling us together on January 24--our first week back in
session this year.
This learning process and discussion is too important to rush
through right before legislative drafting begins. You're wise to begin
now, and explore this thoroughly.
I have looked at your proposal for 11 hearings this year, and agree
with the topics chosen, and the pace of discussion.
This is the first of those proposed hearings, and as such, a great
opportunity to look back on lessons learned, and lay out, in general,
some priorities and challenges for the next authorization cycle.
You've assembled a great group of witnesses (and I am very pleased
to see a Floridian, Commissioner Chris Hart from Hillsborough County,
on the panel). Each of them brings perspective from different universe
of government: Federal, State, county, and city.
This hearing emphasizes the level of coordination and cooperation
that has developed in transportation policy since we emphasized this
time of structure and planning in ISTEA.
I'll be interested to learn of our successes, and where we must
improve in this cooperative planning process.
I would like a quick moment to reflect on my A ``lessons learned''
from the last reauthorization process, and outline a few priorities.
Lessons Learned
Follow the legislative process through to the final
regulations. Members of this committee, and witnesses in this room,
celebrated the environmental streamlining language that was
incorporated into TEA-21. We are now frustrated by the slow progress in
the development of regulations that reflect our intent. This next time,
I want to work more closely with those who will interpret what we draft
in this committee. Better lines of communication can only mean clearer,
better public policy.
Other committees can affect what we draft here. I have
been frustrated by the fact that some of the programs that we developed
in TEA-21 where grants should be awarded on a competitive basis, are
not working that way in reality. As an example, the ITS money provided
by TEA-21 is all earmarked and not awarded in the way we intended.
I'd like to work as a committee with our colleagues and find a
solution that brings us closer to the intent of what we drafted and
passed in TEA-21.
There are more lessons learned, but time is short.
I also hope the committee will seek ``lessons learned'' from those
who have actually been on the front lines of our nation's
transportation policy, much like the witnesses who have joined us here
today.
Looking ahead, the world has changed in several ways since we
finished enacted TEA-21.
There is a focus on homeland security.
We are heading into some tight budget years.
Traffic congestion is affecting quality of life.
We learned quickly after September 11 how difficult life can be if
one mode of transportation, such as air travel, suddenly becomes
difficult or impossible.
I look forward to working with our chairman, my colleagues here,
and all interested parties in taking the next few months to expand our
knowledge of transportation issues and challenges, and together
drafting the next authorization bill to meet those challenges.
__________
Statement of Hon. Tom Carper, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware
I'm happy to be here today as this committee begins its work on the
re-authorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21). In the 10 years since that bill, and its predecessor, the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Act (ISTEA) have been in place, I
believe we have made strides in the way we fund and plan for our
transportation needs.
ISTEA for the first time allowed State and local transportation
officials to work together with their regional partners and with States
to develop truly regional transportation systems. It also allowed these
new regional transportation entities and to use Federal transportation
dollars for the most pressing transportation projects in their region,
regardless of whether those Federal dollars were originally designated
for highway or transit. When ISTEA was up for re-authorization 5 years
ago, I was Governor of Delaware and headed up a group called ISTEA
Works along with John Rowland, my colleague from Connecticut. Our goal
at the time was to urge Congress to preserve and build on what we were
able to accomplish in ISTEA. Our efforts, along with the work of a
number of my new colleagues here in Congress, lead to TEA-21, which
maintained the flexibility granted to State and local officials and
greatly expanded the funding available for transportation improvements
each year. Whereas, before TEA-21, congressional appropriators could
set caps on the amount of the Highway Trust Fund that could be spent in
a given year, States can now spend the full amount that users pay into
the Fund every year.
As we sit down now to re-evaluate our national transportation
policy, I again call on my colleagues to build on what has worked so
well in the past. First, we should expand the flexibility built into
ISTEA to allow States to spend their Trust Fund money on inter-city
rail projects. Back in Delaware, commuters set out every day on
Interstate 95 in Wilmington to head for jobs in Philadelphia, Baltimore
and Washington. Commuters up and down the northeast corridor make
similar commutes every day, tying up our highways in frustrating,
wasteful gridlock. Delaware can spend as much as it wants to improve
its piece of 95. It can't do much with its Trust Fund money to improve
rail links to major northeast cities, however. I hope we can work this
year to allow States to use their Federal Trust Fund dollars to create
regional high-speed rail systems if they choose to do so.
Second, we should continue to improve the way we fund our
transportation priorities and examine whether our current funding
levels are adequate. TEA-21's budgetary firewalls, along with Revenue
Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), have led to dramatic increases in
transportation spending in recent years, but we could see reductions in
2003 for the first time. I hope we can work this year to fix RABA and
also to look for other revenue sources so that we can effectively fund
our transportation needs.
As we begin to take a closer look at what has and hasn't worked in
ISTEA and TEA-21 over the years, I think we'll see that most of what we
were able to accomplish has had a positive impact on our nation's
transportation system. I hope we can build on that success in our re-
authorization of TEA-21.
__________
Statement of Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia
Mr. Chairman, I join in welcoming Secretary Mineta to the committee
and look forward to a valuable exchange of ideas over the next 2 years
as we prepare to reauthorize our nation's highway and transit programs.
It was my privilege to be actively involved in the formulation of
TEA-21 in 1997 and 1998 in my capacity as the subcommittee chairman. At
that time, we saw a great need in this Nation to respond to many unmet
transportation demands to improve mobility in our rural communities, to
relieve congestion in our urban areas and to promote the efficient
movement of American goods. We responded with an unprecedented increase
of 40 percent in highway funding by enacting landmark budget provisions
to free up the revenues in the Highway Trust Fund.
TEA-21's revolutionary financing and formula reforms built upon the
program reforms of ISTEA. 1991. As we look to the next bill, how will
we again provide the vision and tools to ensure that our surface
transportation network--highways, transit and rail--will stimulate
economic growth?
Our multi-year reauthorization bills have provided a unique
opportunity to transform our national transportation system.
Most notably, President Eisenhower responded to the mobility needs
with the vision of the Interstate Highway System. In 1991, at the end
of the construction of the 40,000-mile Interstate System, President
Bush responded with the National Highway System to ensure that an
efficient road network reached 95 percent of all Americans.
Also in ISTEA 1991, Senator Moynihan had a keen vision of a
seamless national transportation system that connected roads to transit
and railroad stations to airports.
In 1997, President Clinton supported the efforts of this committee
under the leadership of Chairman Chafee and our Ranking Member, Senator
Baucus, to release funds from the Highway Trust Fund.
The budget reforms of TEA-21 were unprecedented. For the first time
we fulfilled President Eisenhower's commitment that taxes American
motorists pay at the gas pump will be used to build and upgrade our
highways.
As we begin today, in partnership with the Administration, to
reauthorize TEA-21, our overriding challenge is transportation
gridlock.
Bold, new initiatives are needed and I hope that we all will strive
for the standard of excellence set forth by President Eisenhower,
President Bush, and Senators Moynihan and Chafee.
__________
Statement of Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak about the lessons we have learned from the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
Through this committee's leadership, and with the active
participation of our State, local and private sector partners, the
Department of Transportation has worked to realize the purposes and
objectives of TEA-21. I would like to commend the committee for
continuing its leadership by scheduling this series of hearings on the
reauthorization of TEA-21.
We are looking forward to working with the members of this
committee and with Congress in shaping proposals for the
reauthorization of this legislation. Working together, we need to
establish the base of resources available for this important
legislation in order to meet the transportation challenges facing the
Nation.
Three decades ago, when I was Mayor of San Jose, California, I
learned that the tool that made the most difference in my community was
transportation. Nothing else had as great an impact on our economic
development, growth patterns, and quality of life. What I have found in
the years since is that this is true not just locally, but also
nationally. A safe and efficient transportation system is essential to
keeping people and goods moving and cities and communities prosperous.
As is true for many of you on this committee, I take great pride in
the enactment of the predecessor of TEA-21, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), during my years in the
House of Representatives. With that legislation we established new
principles in the implementation of the nation's surface transportation
programs--building partnerships with local and State officials to
advance the strategic goals for transportation capital investment. They
are flexibility in the use of funds; a commitment to strengthening the
intermodal connections of the nation's transportation system; expanded
investment in, and deployment of, new information technologies for
transportation services; and a heightened sensitivity to the impacts
which transportation has on our quality of life and on the shape and
character of America's communities.
TEA-21 built upon the programmatic initiatives contained in the
earlier legislation and through its financial provisions, provided
State and local governments and other transportation providers with
greater certainty and predictability in transportation funding. It
achieved this by reforming the treatment of the Highway Trust Fund to
ensure that, for the first time, spending from the Highway Trust Fund
for infrastructure improvements would be linked to tax revenue. The
financial mechanisms of TEA-21--firewalls, Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA), and minimum guarantees--provided greater equity among
States in Federal funding and record levels of transportation
investment.
The programmatic and financial initiatives of these two historic
surface transportation acts have provided us with a solid and balanced
structure around which we can shape this reauthorization legislation.
While the legislation, which the Administration and Congress will
work together to see enacted, should continue and build upon ISTEA and
TEA-21, we have an opportunity and an obligation to do more than that.
This is a time in the transportation sector of extraordinary challenge
and opportunity. On September 11 a determined and remorseless enemy
challenged one of America's most cherished freedoms, the freedom of
movement. The events of that day demonstrated how critical the nation's
transportation system is to the security of every American and to the
nation's economic well-being.
In shaping this surface transportation reauthorization bill, we
must maximize the safety and security of all Americans, even as we
enhance their mobility, reduce congestion, and grow the economy. These
are not incompatible goals; indeed, the lessons of TEA-21 demonstrate
that all of these values are appropriate goals of national
transportation policy and that they reinforce each other: it is
possible to have a transportation system which is safe and secure,
efficient and productive.
tea-21's record
In five principal areas TEA-21 has strengthened the nation's
transportation system: the predictability, equity and flexibility of
funding; safety; mobility and system upgrading; the application of
innovative technologies; and quality of life.
funding levels and program equity
TEA-21 revolutionized transportation funding and provided record
amounts of spending for transportation, a 40 percent increase over the
period of ISTEA. The minimum guarantees and the Highway Trust Fund
firewalls created confidence among grantees regarding program funding.
Predictability is one of the most important aspects of program delivery
for State and local programs. States and local communities have
increased their funding levels to match the commitments made in TEA-21.
Importantly, TEA-21's minimum guarantees provided unprecedented equity
between the States, ensuring that highway funds are distributed in the
fairest manner to date.
Equally important is the funding flexibility, first allowed in
ISTEA and continued in TEA-21. Flexible funding allows States and
communities to tailor their transportation choices to meet their unique
needs and enables State and local decisionmakers to consider all
transportation options and their impacts on traffic congestion, air
pollution, urban sprawl, economic development, and quality of life.
TEA-21's innovative loan and grant programs further augmented the
highway and transit programs. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (TIFIA) has provided almost $3.6 billion in Federal
credit assistance to 11 projects of national significance representing
$15 billion in infrastructure investment. These loans, loan guarantees,
and lines of credit for highway, transit and rail projects have
encouraged private investment in strengthening transportation
infrastructure.
safety
The Department's paramount concern is to assure the American public
that the Nation has the safest, most secure system possible as our
transportation system works to meet the needs of the American economy.
The United States has an enviable transportation safety record.
However, the challenge of safety on the transportation system remains
significant. While the number of highway fatalities in recent years has
been relatively flat, despite significantly more vehicles on the
nation's roads, more than a quarter million people have been killed on
America's highways and roads in the past 6 years, 41,000 deaths each
year. In addition, there are over three million injuries annually.
TEA-21 introduced new programs, greater flexibility and increased
funding to meet this challenge. Increased TEA-21 funding enabled States
to make needed safety improvements to the transportation
infrastructure, and States may--and do--use their Surface
Transportation Program (STP), Interstate Maintenance, and National
Highway System (NHS) funds for safety improvements. Within the STP,
funds are reserved under TEA-21 for highway and rail crossing
improvements and hazard elimination. The FHWA works closely with States
and others to improve our ability to analyze roadway safety challenges
and to direct investments to specific projects and programs, which will
deliver the most value in terms of lives saved and injuries minimized.
Since enactment of TEA-21, the Department of Transportation has
awarded a total of $729 million in highway safety grants. TEA-21 also
authorized $72 million annually for behavioral research to determine
the causes of motor vehicle crashes, to identify target populations, to
develop countermeasures, and to evaluate the effectiveness of programs
in reducing traffic deaths and injuries. The Act also established
several important, new, safety incentive grants. For example, between
fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) awarded $210 million in seat belt
incentive grants and over $113 million for innovative seat belt
programs. Between June 1998 and June 2001, seat belt use had increased
from 65 percent to 73 percent. Seat belt use, in total, saves an
estimated 12,000 lives annually.
In motor carrier safety, TEA-21, along with the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act of 1999, created new programs and tools for the
Department and States to improve safety. TEA-21 increased flexibility
for grantees, strengthened Federal and State enforcement capacity, and
provided flexibility to promote innovative approaches to improving
motor carrier safety. TEA-21 placed greater emphasis on targeting
unsafe carriers and improving information systems, and increased
funding for commercial driver license programs.
mobility and system upgrading
ISTEA and TEA-21 placed an unprecedented emphasis on developing a
seamless, intermodal transportation system that links highways, rail,
transit, ports and airports. The dramatically increased funding under
TEA-21 also enhanced mobility by upgrading the condition of highways,
particularly the National Highway System, and transit systems. As a
direct result of the increased spending provided in TEA-21, overall
highway system conditions--as measured by pavement condition, ride
quality, alignment adequacy, bridge ratings, and the condition of rail
transit assets--have improved.
As you know, Federal highway funds are used for a variety of system
improvement and congestion relief purposes, depending on the priority
needs and goals of each State. In recent years, for example,
approximately 50 percent of Federal funds were obligated for system
upgrading purposes, including reconstruction, widening, restoration and
rehabilitation, and resurfacing. These investments have led to a steady
improvement in pavement condition: in 2000, 90.9 percent of travel on
the NHS occurred on pavements rated acceptable or better.
Moreover, under TEA-21, States continued to reduce the number of
bridges rated structurally deficient. In 2001 the percentage of
deficient NHS bridges had been reduced to 21.2 percent. In fiscal year
2001, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided $3.5 billion
in TEA-21 funding for approximately 3,000 bridge projects through the
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation program. Included in this
program were 17 major replacement or rehabilitation projects and three
seismic retrofit bridge projects that received almost $88 million in
funding.
TEA-21 established new programs that enabled improved connectivity
across modes, particularly in the area of freight movements. The
National Corridor Planning and Development/Coordinated Border
Infrastructure Program (NCPD/CBI, also known as the Corridors and
Borders Program) has funded numerous freight improvement projects as
well as many economic development projects, pedestrian improvement
projects, and multi-modal studies, while strengthening the focus on
international corridors and gateways with America's NAFTA trading
partners. The Alameda Corridor Project used a mix of private funds and
public programs to improve rail and highway access and to reduce
traffic delays in the critically important area of the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach.
As of 2001, the nation's urban rail transit assets comprised 10,427
miles of track, 2,776 rail stations, and 1,310 maintenance facilities.
Under TEA-21, the substantial investment in the nation's transit
systems has contributed to an improvement in the condition of transit
assets and a resulting increase in transit ridership. Preliminary
estimates indicate that public transit trips increased by 4.4 percent
from 2000 to 2001 to 9.4 billion trips.
TEA-21 also authorized the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC)
Program to address transportation gaps in the public transit system and
to reduce barriers for those moving from welfare to work. This program
has made transit services available to many who previously did not have
access to adequate transportation and, thus, to jobs. As of fiscal year
2000, the JARC program had made new transit service available at more
than 16,000 job sites.
new technologies
Under TEA-21, the Department of Transportation has made strides in
research. Research programs include development and deployment of
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), pavement improvement,
congestion reduction, seismic hardening of highway infrastructure
elements, strengthening of bridges, and new tunnel technology. The
Highway Safety Research and Development program is the scientific
underpinning for the Department's national leadership in highway safety
programs, and includes behavioral research to reduce traffic deaths and
injuries, crash avoidance research, roadway design and operational
improvements, and vehicle safety performance standards. Rail related
research and development has focused on the next generation of high
speed rail equipment and train control, maglev systems, and innovative
technologies to mitigate grade crossing hazards.
TEA-21 authorized a total of $603 million for ITS research for
fiscal year 1998 to 2003, and significant progress has been made in
applying this technology to our surface transportation system. From
1997 to 2000, we have experienced a 37 percent increase in the number
of freeway miles with real-time traffic data collection technologies, a
55 percent increase in the coverage of freeways by closed circuit
television, a 35 percent increase in the number of buses equipped with
automatic vehicle locations system, and an 83 percent increase in
traveler information dissemination on our freeways. Through the
Department's Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, research on driver
performance, crash avoidance and warning system performance, and motor
vehicle safety performance standards offer the promise of future
reductions in highway deaths and injuries.
quality of life
TEA-21 has given States and communities across America additional
tools and opportunities to enhance the environment and quality of life
for their residents. It continued and increased funding for several
programs originally authorized in ISTEA, broadened eligibility for
others and established the new Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Pilot program (TCSP).
The TCSP program was authorized for $120 million in funding under
TEA-21 as a discretionary grant program to strengthen the linkages
between transportation and land use. The grants have provided funding
for planning and implementation as well as technical assistance and
research to investigate and address the relationship between
transportation, community and system preservation, and private sector-
based initiatives.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program has
focused on improving air quality. Under TEA-21, it provided more than
$8 billion in funding for use by State and local partners to support
traffic flow projects, cleaner fuels, improved transit services and
bicycle and pedestrian programs that reduce congestion and emissions
and improve the quality of life.
The National Scenic Byways program and the Transportation
Enhancements program have helped States and communities improve the
environment. Since the enactment of TEA-21, more than $1.4 billion in
Transportation Enhancement funds have been obligated to local
communities to implement community focused, non-motorized activities
that enhance transportation. Many more activities have been programmed
and are awaiting implementation.
TEA-21 directed us to streamline environmental reviews. This is a
major priority for the Department in assisting States and communities
build infrastructure more efficiently, while retaining important
environmental protections that maintain our quality of life. Since the
enactment of TEA-21 in 1998, streamlining of the planning and approval
process for projects has taken root throughout the country: interagency
personnel funding agreements that result in faster, concurrent reviews;
a merged process for wetland permits with the Army Corps of Engineers;
and delegated authority for historic resources. As a result of these
actions, the mean time to process environmental documents for major
highway projects has been cut by almost 8 months, the median time has
been cut by 1 year, and the Department is well positioned for
significant future progress. While we have begun the job, more can be
done.
building on tea-21
The Department of Transportation looks forward to working with both
Houses of Congress, State and local officials, tribal governments, and
stakeholders in shaping the surface transportation reauthorization
legislation. The Department has established an intermodal process to
develop surface transportation legislative proposals for
reauthorization. A number of intermodal working groups have already
identified key issues and programmatic options for consideration. In
the next few months, the Department will work with stakeholders and
congressional committees in shaping the reauthorization legislation.
In that effort, the Department will be motivated by certain core
principles and values:
Assuring adequate and predictable funding for investment
in the nation's transportation system. This funding can contribute to
the long term health of the economy and, by enhancing the mobility of
people and goods, promote greater productivity and efficiency.
Preserving funding flexibility to allow the broadest
application of funds to transportation solutions, as identified by
State and local governments.
Building on the intermodal approaches of ISTEA and TEA-21.
Expanding and improving innovative financing programs, in
order to encourage greater private sector investment in the
transportation system, and examining other means to augment existing
trust funds and revenue streams.
Emphasizing the security of the nation's surface
transportation system by providing the means and the mechanisms to
perform risk assessment and analysis, incident identification,
response, and, when necessary, evacuation.
Strengthening the efficiency and integration of the
nation's system of goods movement by improving international gateways
and points of intermodal connection.
Making substantial improvements in the safety of the
nation's surface transportation system. It is not acceptable that the
Nation suffers 41,000 deaths and over 3 million injuries annually on
the highway system.
Simplifying Federal transportation programs and continuing
efforts to streamline project approval and implementation.
Developing the data and analyses critical to sound
transportation decisionmaking.
Fostering ``intelligent everything'' in the development
and deployment of technology, such as pavement monitoring, message
systems, remote sensing, and toll collection.
Focusing more on the management and performance of the
system as a whole rather than on ``inputs'' or the functional
components such as planning, development, construction, operation and
maintenance themselves.
This is a moment of great opportunity. As was true when Congress
considered the landmark ISTEA and TEA-21 legislation, we have an
opportunity to create our own legacy and to serve the needs of the
American people. I am confident that, working together, the Department
and Congress can preserve, enhance and establish surface transportation
programs which will provide not only for a safer and more secure
system, but one which is more efficient and productive and enhances the
quality of life. One answer to the events of September 11 is to
strengthen, not diminish, the right of all Americans to mobility and to
grow the economy. These goals should characterize our work on
reauthorizing TEA-21.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today. I look forward to responding to any questions you may
have.
______
Responses of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1a. Does the Administration support transfer of rail tax
revenues into a trust fund dedicated to rail-related investment?
Response. The Administration has not yet developed a position on
this issue. As I indicated in my oral testimony to the committee,
Highway Trust Fund should only be available for modes currently
financed by it. If new programs in rail infrastructure are to be
addressed in TEA-21 reauthorization, non-Highway Trust fund sources of
revenue will have to be identified. The rail fuel tax was originally
enacted in 1990 as a deficit reduction tax. Similar taxes were also
levied on fuel used by other modes of transportation. Deficit reduction
taxes remain on rail diesel, fuel used by commercial vessels on inland
waterways, motorboat gasoline and highway gasohol. I look forward to
further discussion with the committee on financial mechanisms to
support rail-related infrastructure investments.
Question 1b. If so, should those revenues go to the Highway Trust
Fund, with broadened flexibility for rail investment, or should a new
Rail Trust Fund be established?
Response. The Administration has not yet developed a position on
this issue. I look forward to further discussion with the committee on
financial mechanisms to support rail-related infrastructure
investments.
Question 2. In general, how does the Administration propose to
ensure adequate funding so that our nation can enjoy the benefits of
world-class rail service for both passengers and freight?
Response. The Administration is committed to presenting proposals
relating to inter-city passenger rail in connection with Amtrak
reauthorization early this year. We expect to consider and work with
Congress on issues relating to freight rail in the context of TEA-21
reauthorization. The Administration and the Congress need to work
together to identify the structural reforms and develop solutions that
will result in a financially stable rail system that can help this
country meet our personal and economic mobility and national defense
needs.
______
Responses of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Questions from Senator
Nighthorse Campbell
Question 1. With the enormous responsibilities and requirements
which have been placed upon the Department since 9/11, does the U.S.
DOT have the time and resources to concentrate on this important TEA-21
Reauthorization or should a 1- or 2-year short extension be considered?
Response. It is our intention to send the Administration's
reauthorization bill to Congress right after it convenes early in 2003.
The Department has established an intermodal process to develop
proposals for surface transportation reauthorization. Over the next few
months, the Department will work with stakeholders and congressional
committees to shape its reauthorization proposals. To that end, we are
currently proceeding under the assumption that the authorization period
of this bill will be 6 years, comparable to those of ISTEA and TEA-21.
Question 2. Has there been any consideration of a special category
for highway security funding in the next reauthorization?
Response. The Department has established an intermodal process for
the surface transportation reauthorization but has not developed
specific proposals. The events of 9/11 have demonstrated our need to
address security issues and to ensure that America's transportation
system emerges from this transformation even stronger and more
efficient than before. One of the core principles of the Department's
reauthorization effort is emphasizing the security of the nation's
surface transportation system by providing the means and the mechanisms
to perform risk assessment and analysis, incident identification, and
response.
______
Responses of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1a. How do you see the reauthorization of the surface
transportation bill in relation to our new focus on homeland security?
Response. The events of September 11 have underscored the pivotal
role transportation plays in the Nation's prosperity and quality of
life. Our challenge is to create a seamless transportation system that
will maximize not only the safety and efficiency, but also enhance the
security of the movement of people and goods.
Question 1b. What are the homeland security issues we should have
in mind when drafting this legislation?
Response. Following the September attacks, the Department took
immediate steps to work with State and local officials to enhance
security. Adding security personnel, emphasizing security awareness and
response training, and hardening our transportation infrastructure
against the threat of terrorism are critical security components. In
this effort, we will work with the various modes of transportation to
assess risks and to develop incident reporting and response systems. We
look forward to working with Congress on these critical requirements as
the reauthorization process continues.
Question 1c. Will U.S. DOT and the Office of Homeland Security be
following the reauthorization process together?
Response. In developing its reauthorization proposals, the
Department will be consulting with other Federal agencies including the
Office of Homeland Security as appropriate.
Question 2. Under TEA-21 we created the ``tapered match'' program
and other alternatives for State matching requirements so that projects
did not have to be delayed. Has the ``tapered match'' or other
alternatives been used by States during the past year? Do you know of
any transportation projects that have stalled because a State could not
meet its match requirement?
Response. ``Tapered match'' provides relief for any State
experiencing a temporary shortage of State matching funds. The
Department is aware of nine States that have used the tapered match
provision. Also, 20 States are currently eligible to use non-cash toll
credits to match Federal funds, which will also help ease a cash-flow
shortage. While we have heard that some States are reprogramming funds
to obtain sufficient matching funds, we are not aware of any Federal-
aid projects being delayed because of insufficient matching funds.
__________
Statement of Hon. Bob Wise, Governor of West Virginia
Chairman Jeffords, Senator Smith, and members of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee . . . it is my great pleasure to
be with you today to offer my testimony as you begin to debate the
reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21). I am especially pleased to be one of the lead Governors on
transportation for the National Governors Association (NGA). I also
appreciate the chance to follow United States Secretary of
Transportation Norm Mineta. As you are aware, I was a member of the
U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee when Secretary Mineta was chair. I can assure you that there
is no better person to guide our nation's transportation policy. I also
wish to commend West Virginia's United States Senators and your
colleagues, Senators Byrd and Rockefeller. Having two senators of their
caliber makes my job as Governor much easier.
When I was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I was
always a supporter of TEA-21 . . . because I firmly believed that
investing in our nation's transportation infrastructure was a key
ingredient to economic prosperity. After a year in office as the
Governor of West Virginia, I am even more convinced that TEA-21 is
essential to the future of my State and this Nation. West Virginia is a
wonderful State, but we have unique transportation challenges because
of our beautiful, yet rugged terrain. One of my most important jobs is
to continue to improve our road system so that we can take full
advantage of the opportunities presented by having a modern
transportation system. West Virginia has committed itself to doing that
by maximizing our State gas tax to leverage as much local investment as
possible.
The State-Federal partnership fostered under TEA-21 has been one
that has greatly benefited the surface transportation system throughout
the Nation as a whole. The Governors are committed to maintaining a
safe and efficient transportation infrastructure, and we urge the
reauthorization of TEA-21. To meet that goal, a number of important
issues must be addressed and considered.
As this body debates the reauthorization of TEA-21, care should be
taken to fortify and protect the Highway Trust Fund. This fund is the
major financial mechanism that redistributes dedicated highway related
revenue . . . such as fuel taxes and user fees to the States for
maintaining and improving the nation's transportation infrastructure.
It is critically important that Congress and the Administration take
measures to ensure that the annual revenues to the Highway Trust Fund
are used for their intended purpose. This has been achieved during TEA-
21 through the workings of the Revenue and Aligned Budget Authority
(RABA) Program. While this concept is commendable, we now see that it
is not working as efficiently as it could. This program will provide a
total of $4.1 billion more for infrastructure investment than was
anticipated when TEA-21 was first enacted; however, that figure
represents the net effect of the very substantial increases the States
enjoyed in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Between 2002 and 2003,
the States may see their apportionments of obligation authority from
the Trust Fund drop by about 30 percent. This translates into a $9.1
billion drop in Federal highway funding from the fiscal year 2002
level. These figures are projected by the U.S. Department of
Transportation based upon new projections of the Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA). The potential magnitude of a $9.1 billion funding
decrease has the result of nearly 144,000 jobs being lost over the next
2 years.
The longer term impact on the highway program could extend for a
number of years for two reasons. First, the sharp reduction will affect
the ability of States to use bond financing for construction. Second,
the fiscal year 2003 funding numbers would serve as a baseline for the
calculations of the next reauthorization legislation. These extreme
peaks and valleys make it impossible to conduct a consistent, well-
planned investment program. Going into 2003, commitments to several
road projects around the country will have to be revisited, and
contractors will be without work. Since the redistribution of RABA
funds have been based largely on revenue estimates from year to year, I
encourage the committee to pursue changes that ensure that all Trust
Fund revenues continue to be distributed to the States but in a fashion
that smoothes out the extreme peaks and valleys we will experience
during the TEA-21 period. States are in the process of researching
solutions to achieve a more stable and reliable distribution mechanism
in light of new negative RABA projections. We would like to work with
you and your committee to ensure a rapid and bipartisan action.
Our States are responsible for the vast majority of the maintenance
of our nation's roads and finance more than one-half of all public
investments in surface transportation. My fellow Governors are
committed to maintaining a first-class transportation system and
continuing the partnership with the Federal Government developed
through TEA-21 . . . but in order to do that, it is important that each
State be granted the flexibility and authority to make the key
decisions that affect transportation.
The public transportation system is largely the responsibility of
States and local governments. It is important that the next
authorization should not weaken or preempt State authority. The
Governors oppose unfunded mandates and urge Congress not to impose new
standards without a Federal financial commitment to the States to
offset any financial impact. Furthermore, the Governors urge the use of
incentives rather than sanctions to encourage the achievement of
national goals.
The nation's Governors strongly support sound environmental
protection efforts. It is important that TEA-21 has a strong
environmental component; however, it is important that States have the
necessary flexibility to meet those environmental guidelines.
Reasonable and sound environmental policy can be achieved without
sacrificing improved transportation and economic development. One area
of frustration for West Virginia that resulted in numerous major delays
in important projects has been Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966. This section was originally intended to
protect certain highly valued recreational and natural resources from
significant impacts, which is certainly something I agree with.
However, over time the Section 4(f) requirements have been extended to
cover historic properties which are also protected under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act. A complicated and rigid ``avoid
at all costs'' mentality has developed regardless of how insignificant
the historical resource or impact. Eligibility has broadened to include
many properties that are in fact unremarkable. This ``broadening'' at
times includes very large districts surrounding the property. As you
debate reauthorization of TEA-21, I think this is an area that also
needs some consideration. This provision has led to many delays to
vitally important projects and has hindered the process of making
transportation more accessible and safe.
The safety of our citizens on the nation's roads is a major concern
for the Governors. While modern transportation systems have greatly
helped reduce injuries and deaths on our nation's highways, safety
programs should be strengthened. States should be allowed to focus
safety resources on their most pressing individual safety needs.
Implementing any new national safety standards without State
involvement will only complicate the process.
TEA-21 can be further strengthened through streamlining and
eliminating administrative processes that are duplicative. The recent
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
concerning streamlining regulations will complicate TEA-21 rather than
simplify it. I urge you to carefully consider any new administrative
guidelines that will only hinder the process. It is a waste of time and
resources to delay projects for unnecessary and burdensome
administrative processes.
In conclusion, I hope my statements today offer some insight into
the policy positions of the nation's Governors. It is very important
for all the States that TEA-21 is reauthorized and the advice of the
nation's Governors is heeded in the process.
On behalf of the citizens of West Virginia, I urge you to take all
that I have said into consideration as this process continues. I
believe for West Virginia to prosper, we must have a modern
transportation system. Many sound policies were put into place in TEA-
21. One of them was the commitment of direct contract authority from
the Trust Fund toward the completion of the long-promised Appalachian
Highway System. The completion of this system was promised 37 years ago
to the people of Appalachia. While the interstate system is now 100
percent complete, only 82 percent of the Appalachian System is
complete. These incomplete portions represent some of the most
dangerous segments of roads in the Trust Fund can the Appalachian
States be able to make meaningful progress on transportation.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be with you today on
behalf of the National Governors Association and the people of West
Virginia. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Response of Hon. Bob Wise to Additional Question from Senator Jeffords
Question. Governor, in your testimony, you said, ``States should be
allowed to focus safety resources on their most pressing individual
needs. Implementing any new national safety standards without State
involvement will only complicate the process.'' During enactment of the
National Highway System legislation a few years back, I worked to
ensure that States had design flexibility so that roadways would remain
compatible with their surroundings. Can I infer from your statements
today that the Governors continue to favor such an approach?
Response. Senator Jeffords, the Governors appreciate the effort
that you and others have made to allow for proper State flexibility. We
continue to strongly support flexibility in roadway design. Every
transportation situation is different and it is very important that
design flexibility be retained. I would strongly urge that you continue
to keep State flexibility in TEA-21. It is an important part of the
process.
______
Responses of Hon. Bob Wise to Additional Question from Senator Campbell
Question 1. Are there transportation related security projects in
which your State could use Federal funding as a result of September 11?
Response. September 11th has forever changed the way this nation
protects itself. After the attacks, I heightened security across the
State including monitoring and patrolling of key transportation assets
such as bridges, tunnels, and major interchanges. State Police and the
West Virginia Department of Transportation, along with other State
agencies, used considerable financial resources to meet that challenge.
While it is unlikely that all transportation infrastructure can be
protected at all times due to the length of roads, railroad, and
pipelines, certain key assets and segments should be protected and
watched. Without Federal financial assistance, it is nearly impossible
for the States to maintain that kind of security for any length of
time. I believe that assisting the States financially on all aspects of
homeland security is vitally important to the nation's national
security.
Question 2. Would you support the creation of a specific highway
security funding category in the next reauthorization?
Response. Governors would certainly welcome Federal funding to
assist with homeland security costs related to transportation and other
issues. However, it is important that the revenue for this purpose not
be diverted from the Highway Trust Fund but come as a new revenue
source. Simply creating a new security funding category may only get in
the way of building our nation's roads if it does not include funds
above what is being dedicated for the purpose of building and designing
transportation projects. Frankly, there needs to be more focus on
assisting the States financially with homeland security in all areas
and not just transportation. Better security should not come at the
expense of continuing to improve our transportation infrastructure. We
need to find the financial resources to both continue transportation
enhancements and improve homeland security.
__________
Response of Hon. Bob Wise to Additional Question from Senator Graham
Question. You served in the House of Representatives during the
development of ISTEA and TEA-21, and come before us today as a
Governor. After being on both sides of the equation, what would be your
top suggestion(s) on enhancing the coordination and cooperation between
the Federal Government and State government?
Response. Efforts need to be continued to streamline the Federal
review and approval process. Environmental concerns, air and water
quality, historic issues, and other important areas of concern should
be handled by the lead agencies in those areas. Without streamlining
the process, duplication by multiple agencies will continue to
unnecessarily delay important transportation projects. I alluded to an
example of the need for streamlining in my testimony. West Virginia has
suffered through numerous delays on very important highway projects
because of the duel consideration of historical sites. Eliminating
administrative duplication and streamlining the process would be a
major step forward in improving the nation's transportation system.
______
Responses of Ray Scheppach to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Your comments on the current fiscal condition of the
States are very informative and somewhat disconcerting. Please place
those comments in context of the history and future of the Federal
surface transportation program. Specifically, please address the
following:
a) What share of the nation's highway and transit investment has
been born by the States over the last 10 years?
Response. Transportation represents 8.8 percent of total State
expenditures. In 2000, States spent $83.1 billion on transportation, a
4.1 percent increase from the 1999 level of $79.8 billion. Figures for
capital spending on transportation by States show actual 2000
expenditures of $37 billion. State transportation expenditures are
primarily funded from earmarked revenues (major source is gasoline tax)
placed in special transportation (highway) trust funds.
Question 1b. Has State spending on transportation as a percent of
all State spending increased under ISTEA and/or TEA-21?
Response. State budgetary data indicates that States have increased
transportation expenditures from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2001.
In fiscal year 1999, State transportation spending totaled $79.85
billion; in fiscal year 2000, $83.14 billion; and in fiscal year 2001,
$91.10 billion.
More specifically, in fiscal year 2002, State expenditures for
transportation were funded as follows: 1) 62.2 percent from other State
funds; 2) 27.4 percent from Federal funds; 3) 5.6 percent from bonds;
and 4) 4.8 percent from general funds.
The landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) legislation passed nearly a decade ago was the beginning of a
true State-Federal partnership in approaching the national
transportation system. It acknowledged the growing need for integration
across all levels of government and permitted States and localities to
have more flexibility in the use of Federal funds and allowed
decisionmaking authority at the State level. State flexibility was
granted in determining project eligibility requirements, allocating the
required 20 percent State funding match, and in leveraging Federal
funding.
Since the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) in 1998, which increased Federal investment in highway
and transit systems by 40 percent, States and localities have leveraged
the guaranteed Federal funding to maximize State specific
transportation priorities. The increased level of Federal investment
has allowed States to: 1) increase highway preservation and
performance; 2) obtain record-levels of transit rider-ship; 3) decrease
highway fatalities; 4) provide transportation programs for Welfare-To-
Work recipients; and 5) achieve a greater level of fairness in the
distribution of funds.
Question 1c. Have States raised additional revenues for
transportation to complement the increased Federal funding levels?
Response. Yes. Since fiscal year 1998, States have raised
additional revenues by increasing the State motor fuel tax rate. In
fiscal year 2000, an additional $212.50 million was collected; in
fiscal year 1999, $22 million; and in fiscal year 1998, $462 million.
Currently, 11 States have variable rate motor fuel taxes which are
adjusted at specific intervals to sustain funding levels. Also, four
States have provisions or ``triggers'' in statute that would enable
them to increase their State motor fuel tax rate if the Federal tax
rate should decrease. Other States would require State legislative
action to adjust fuel taxes.
Because TEA-21 made it possible for States to aggressively plan out
and secure State funding through innovative finance for new
transportation projects, Governors continue to take measures to fully
put into action newly available Federal funds and accelerate critical,
but often-delayed projects. Such examples include:
In Illinois, Governor George Ryan's ``Illinois First''
initiative makes $10.5 billion available for highways and $4.1 billion
for transit over 5 years.
In California, Governor Gray Davis and the State
legislature authorized $8 billion for a congestion mitigation program,
which when matched with Federal and local funds will commit $23 billion
to 141 projects.''
Question 1d. In light of their present fiscal difficulties, will
the States be able to match the increased level of the Federal
transportation program in FFY 2002?
Response. States are expected to match funding requirements for
approved projects in fiscal year 2002. However, in 2002, States that
pre-finance with Federal highway funding may need to reprogram, delay,
and reconsider funding critical transportation projects in light of the
Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal. For example, a cut
in FY2003 spending from the current level would deleteriously impact
many States' construction planning. Most States begin to plan this time
of year, enter into contracts near the beginning of the construction
season, and implement their 2003 budgets on July 1, 2000. Numerous
States that pre-finance with Federal funds expect a reimbursement very
early in the Federal fiscal year to continue for the next year's
planning. This means that a 27 percent fiscal year 2003 cut will have
the effect of reducing expenditures well before July of this year.
Question 1e. Based on current forecasts, will the States be able to
match a Federal program funded at or above the TEA-21 level ($218 B)
during the next reauthorization period?
Response. Yes. States will continue to be a sound partner in
maintaining and developing an integrated national transportation
system.''
Question 2. Among the core principles of ISTEA and then extended in
TEA-21 was a broad commitment to flexibility in meeting State and local
surface transportation needs, ranging from highway and bridge
improvements to pedestrian/bicycle and public transportation needs. At
the same time, we note that two-thirds of the States have
constitutional prohibitions on the use of State funds for intermodal
investments, while TEA-21 emphasizes such flexibility in meeting
transportation needs.
Is there something that Federal law could do to incentivize States
to revamp their restrictions on the use of State funds to further
promote flexibility in development of a more balanced mix of surface
transportation investments?
Response. ISTEA made it national policy to ``encourage and promote
development of a national intermodal transportation system in the
United States to move goods and people in an energy efficient manner .
. .'' TEA-21 continued this precept and directed that a study be
conducted to review the condition of and improvements made since the
designation of the National Highway System (NHS) connectors that serve
seaports, airports, and other intermodal freight transportation
facilities.
The evidence shows that despite the increased funding for
intermodal connectors, interconnectivity between all the modes of
transportation in the areas of passenger and freight mobility is still
lagging.
Any future reauthorization legislation should recognize that States
continue to overcome challenges in implementing intermodal passenger
and freight connector projects. Scarcity of funds, project eligibility
and differing responsibilities and philosophies between States,
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and localities creates a
complex web in the decisionmaking process. An added dilemma is the lack
of quantitative tools that would allow States and local governments to
properly analyze and evaluate economic benefits of freight investment
to the region and the country. States believe that optimal management
of the intermodal connectors can be achieved when public, private and
multi-jurisdiction elements are working collaboratively for a desired
result.
I agree with the study's finding that ``as an incentive to freight
project development, additional funding for planning and coordination
could be used to financially support States and MPOs who are
identifying, conceptualizing and planning for freight projects . . .''
and, such funding be made available via incentive grants to agencies
and areas that have demonstrated a commitment to intermodalism and have
meaningful private sector involvement.
The next surface reauthorization legislation should continue
specific intermodal-related programs such as the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) credit
assistance program for major transportation investments of critical
national importance, Intermodal Connectors Program, and the Surface
Transportation Program (STP).
__________
Statement of Hon. Peter Clavelle, Mayor, Burlington, VT
Thank you Chairman Jeffords, Ranking Member Smith, and members of
the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
such an important issue to the nation's cities. I am Peter Clavelle,
Mayor of Burlington, VT. Today I am pleased to be here not only as a
Vermonter, but also as a representative of the National League of
Cities.
The National League of Cities represents 18,000 cities and towns
and over 140,000 local elected officials. NLC represents all cities,
regardless of size--our largest member is New York City with a
population of 8 million, our smallest member is De Graff, Minnesota
with a population of 149. As the representative of the nation's local
leaders, NLC has a vital interest in the reauthorization of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
NLC's Transportation Infrastructure and Services committee, one of
seven standing policy committees, appointed a special TEA-21
Reauthorization Task Force which recently completed a year-long rewrite
of our surface transportation policy in preparation for
reauthorization. Our new policy was adopted by NLC's full membership at
our annual meeting in December 2001.
In addition, NLC has joined other groups representing local
officials to comprise the Local Officials Transportation Working Group.
The working group includes representatives of city and county elected
officials, public works professionals, development organizations, and
city/county managers. The working group was created to provide a
unified voice of local government for the reauthorization of TEA-21. We
look forward to working with the committee and our other Federal and
State partners throughout the reauthorization process.
In addition to representing NLC today, I am here of behalf on my
city of Burlington, Vermont. With a population of 40,000, Burlington is
Vermont's largest city. I am currently serving my sixth term as Mayor,
and just this fall I concluded a 2-year term as President of the
Vermont League of Cities and Towns. I also serve on the Advisory Board
of the United States Conference of Mayors.
partnerships
The title of today's hearing is ``Partners for America's
Transportation Future.'' The passage of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991, and its successor, TEA-
21, in 1998, shepherded a new era of transportation partnership in this
country.
First, it forged a new partnership among Federal, State and local
governments by empowering Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in
the transportation decisionmaking process. This elevation of the role
of MPOs insured a more equal partnership between local and State
governments in both the planning and funding decisions for
transportation projects. This is a partnership that must be preserved
and strengthened in the process of TEA-21 reauthorization.
The second category of partnerships created by these two landmark
laws is among the modes of transportation to which the legislation
allocates funding. The various modes--automobile, trucking, transit,
rail, ferry, bicycle, and walking--were challenged to become truly
intermodal. We began to pursue the vision of creating a seamless,
uninterrupted system to accommodate the need to efficiently and
equitably serve our communities by transporting both people and goods.
In Burlington and Vermont, transportation partnerships facilitated
by ISTEA and TEA-21 have allowed us to build on a strong tradition of
local planning. Working through the Chittenden County MPO we have
accessed funds to manage our planning activities on a local level,
bringing transportation planning efforts to the front porch and the
neighborhood school gymnasium. We have also worked closely with our
Agency of Transportation in assuming management of many of our
transportation projects. The city of Burlington today is managing the
revitalization of a neglected commercial street (North Street),
improvements to our pedestrian mall (the Church Street Marketplace),
the design and construction of a major roadway (the Champlain Parkway),
the development of an intermodal transit facility, and the design and
construction of a bike path.
These partnerships, local, State, and Federal are vital to the
success of the nation's surface transportation program. As we begin to
work on the reauthorization of TEA-21, we must continue to work
together to protect the program and ensure that all levels of
government, no matter how small, play a part in the process.
budget issues
As we embark on the reauthorization process, we must take into
account the current climate in Washington, DC and the Nation. These are
tough economic times and in the aftermath of September 11th, local
officials are shifting priorities.
One of the greatest successes of TEA-21 was the establishment of a
direct link between gasoline taxes collected at the pump and Federal
transportation spending. Because of that landmark change in law,
funding for the program was increased to its highest levels in history.
The Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) mechanism guaranteed that
even additional, unanticipated gas tax revenue must be spent on the
program. TEA-21 was a strong signal from Congress and the
Administration to the traveling public that the nation's transportation
system is an important priority.
Therefore, we find it very disturbing to hear reports that this
year's RABA levels may be much less than anticipated in TEA-21. We look
forward to the President's budget submission to Congress in the coming
weeks and hope that a continued commitment to infrastructure investment
is demonstrated.
NLC supports the current budgetary mechanism in TEA-21 and we
pledge to work with you to protect the funding guarantees. We are,
however, concerned about the trend in recent years to redirect
transportation spending to specific projects through the appropriations
process. NLC supports discretionary programs under TEA-21 and would
advocate that the process remain open for all to apply and compete for
those dollars.
transportation security
Following the tragic events of September 11th, the nation's local
officials have been urgently reassessing priorities in their
communities. In several NLC surveys of municipal officials conducted
after September 11th, 52 percent were reevaluating their emergency
preparedness plans. Respondents reported immediate shifts in city
priorities to security issues, moving personnel to protecting
transportation facilities, water supply facilities, nuclear power
plants, schools, and government buildings. At the Burlington
International Airport, we have more than doubled the number of police
officers providing security.
In addition, the survey results show that fiscal conditions are
worsening for many municipalities, with a 4 percent decline in revenue
after September 11th and an over $11 billion decline nationwide. 43
percent of cities say they are ``less able'' to meet their financial
responsibilities after September 11th.
In my own city, revenues are projected to increase by a very modest
1 percent for the next fiscal year. Simply to maintain our current
level of municipal services will require a 4-percent increase in
expenditures.
Cities nationwide are shifting valuable resources to public safety
expenditures; with over half (51 percent) of the cities reporting they
are increasing spending on public safety and security. The majority of
cities surveyed reported they would reduce spending in other areas to
meet the new public safety funding gap. This means cities may have to
postpone or cancel some needed transportation projects to shift funding
to security. This March, Burlington voters are being asked to approve a
6-cent increase in their property taxes to maintain and improve fire
and police services.
We want to highlight this trend to underscore the need for
protecting the valuable gains of TEA-21, while considering how
transportation security issues could be part of the next
reauthorization bill. The shifting of local revenue to a public safety
related budget is unavoidable. The question becomes, what will be the
role of the next Federal surface transportation program in homeland
security? Will the Federal Government be able to offer greater
assistance to cities to meet their needs?
local priorities for tea-21 reauthorization
A recent survey of local officials conducted by Public Technology,
Incorporated, a non-profit technology organization supporting local
governments, found that:
62 percent of respondents (local officials) indicated that
congestion is a major political issue in their community; and
64 percent of respondents claim that transportation has a
significant impact in their community and their citizens' quality of
life.
NLC members identified congestion as a major concern when they
created the TEA-21 Task Force to review NLC's surface transportation
policy. The Task Force spent last year developing new policy priorities
for the reauthorization of TEA-21. The themes of funding, flexibility,
and intermodalism, permeated the discussions about congestion and the
future of the surface transportation system.
funding
As previously mentioned, NLC supports the current budget mechanism
developed in TEA-21, which directly links transportation user fees to
transportation spending. We call for all transportation taxes,
including those levied on gasohol and alternative fuels, to be
deposited into the highway trust fund. To that end, we are supportive
of the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act, (S. 1306), sponsored by Senate
Finance Committee Chairman Baucus.
NLC supports the Federal--State financial matching relationships
that currently exist and opposes any reduction of the Federal financial
commitments. States and localities that want to provide greater
financial resources than the minimum requirement, such as a transit new
start project, should receive higher priority for Federal funding.
In addition, we support innovative financing programs and
techniques such as tolls, State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs), and the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). These
programs support the development of public--private partnerships and
provide creative ideas for meeting the infrastructure needs in our
cities.
flexibility
NLC supports local flexibility to design, manage, and operate
cities' transportation systems. No ``one size fits all'' surface
transportation program will be able to meet the needs of the traveling
public in the diverse regions of the country. Local officials are on
the front lines and therefore better able to develop strategies to deal
with transportation challenges in their communities. ISTEA and TEA-21
embodied these themes and we look to the committee to continue this
commitment through the reauthorization process.
Many programs in TEA-21 have supported localities' innovative
solutions to congestion and gridlock. Whether a positive change in the
system comes from an added lane on the highway, a new bus route, a bike
path, a pedestrian walkway, a telecommuting program, or something as
simple as better traffic signal timing, communities are thinking of new
ways to increase quality of life by reducing daily commute times.
To continue to provide the most options to local governments, NLC
supports the continuation of the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
program (CMAQ), Transportation Enhancements program, the Transportation
and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP), and the
Intelligent Transportation System program. These programs have made a
huge impact on localities and had a positive effect on quality of life.
In Vermont, the Transportation Enhancements program is so popular
that we have programmed 133 percent of available funds. In Burlington,
we have benefited from several of the programmatic innovations
contained in ISTEA and TEA-21. We have utilized the Enhancements
program to launch the revitalization of an historic commercial center
along North Street. We've implemented street lighting upgrades and
streetscape improvements. We've benefited from TCSP funds for
improvements to the Church Street Marketplace. Congestion Mitigation
Air Quality (CMAQ) funding has enabled us to try new approaches to
solve downtown parking and transportation problems. We have also made
key additions to our local and regional bicycle-pedestrian system,
providing bike shelters and placing bike racks on buses.
In addition, NLC believes that to maintain economic viability,
congestion mitigation programs must be available to cities and towns. A
comprehensive, Federal funding program to address congestion would
foster project innovation, enhance intermodal planning, promote savings
in infrastructure investment, and increase the livability and economic
viability of communities across the country. NLC urges the committee to
consider the development of a congestion mitigation program that
recognizes that congestion is a local issue and provides direct funding
to cities and regions of all sizes to address related problems in their
communities.
NLC believes that a congestion mitigation program may help
alleviate future air quality issues in many areas. We recognize that
many metropolitan areas are currently not in attainment under the Clean
Air Act. In addition to a metropolitan congestion program, we remain
strongly committed to a Federal funding program, like CMAQ, for non-
attainment areas to address emissions from mobile sources.
Additionally, NLC supports streamlining the Federal transportation
project delivery process to help reduce unnecessary delays in
implementation, which will allow for more effective and efficient use
of Federal funds. We look forward to working with the committee and the
Administration to achieve a positive change without harming the
environment or sacrificing citizen participation in the process.
intermodalism/multi-modalism
It is essential that the nation's transportation system be
seamless, with complimentary and supportive relationships amongst all
modes. Both freight and passenger transportation should be facilitated
by the right mix of multi-modal connectors, minimizing the disruption
associated with movement through high density areas, especially at peak
times such as ``rush hour''.
NLC strongly supports Federal programs, which fund different
transportation modes such as the Federal transit and rail programs.
Passenger rail--commuter rail, inter-city rail, high-speed rail and
MagLev--provides communities with other options to consider as part of
a transportation and smart growth plan. In my small city, commuter rail
service has been instituted.
We support funding to both preserve existing transit systems and
for New Starts. In addition, we support a change in the law to allow
States and localities to use TEA-21 dollars for inter-city passenger
rail. We support the development of a national high-speed rail network.
NLC joined our local and State partners in supporting the High Speed
Rail Investment Act, (S. 250), which is pending before the Senate
Finance committee.
Federal policies should encourage ``closing the gap'' of
independent modal elements of the transportation system, with the goal
of ensuring that efficient connections are available for the movement
of people and goods. Accordingly, NLC supports the development of
intermodal facilities and would recommend that projects shown to
improve the efficiency of the connecting modes of intermodal facilities
should be recognized as a matter of national significance.
Specifically, we would ask the committee to examine the intermodal
system and determine if a specific funding program may be needed to
help alleviate congestion.
In Burlington we will break ground this fall on an intermodal
transit facility that will provide seamless connections for regional
transit, passenger rail, bicycle, and lake ferry services. This
facility and all of its interconnected modes will make our waterfront
accessible to greater a number of visitors-without overwhelming it with
automobiles.
conclusion
In conclusion, the nation's local elected officials stand ready to
work with you throughout the reauthorization of TEA-21. We understand
the delicate balance among the priority objectives all of the partners
from the Federal, State, and local levels testifying before the
committee today. The National League of Cities is committed to working
with our partners to help develop the next surface transportation
program. We value our seat at the table in this process and accept the
responsibility of planning and implementing innovative transportation
strategies to meet the needs of our citizens.
It is clear to us that congestion remains one of the nation's top
complaints and is affecting quality of life. In addition, safety and
security have become top priorities in this new post-September 11th
climate. We believe the Federal Government can strike a balance between
protecting our citizens and enhancing their quality of life. We
continue to strive for an innovative, intermodal, and multi-modal
transportation system.
______
Responses of Peter Clavelle to Additional Questions from Senator
Nighthorse Campbell
Question 1. Are there transportation related security projects
which your State or community could use Federal funding for as a result
of 9/11?
Response. First, the most significant transportation related
security challenge facing the city of Burlington as a result of 9/11
relates to airport security. The city of Burlington owns and operates
the Burlington International Airport. The Burlington Police Department
is responsible for policing this facility. A total of 1.1 million
passengers utilized the airport in 2001.
After September 11, security at the Airport has been significantly
increased. The number of police officers assigned to the airport has
been increased from four to fourteen. Vermont National Guard personnel
have been deployed to inspect vehicles at the entrance to the airport
parking garage and to generally supplement existing security forces.
Federal funding of the National Guard's presence at the Burlington
International Airport is being terminated effective April 1, 2002. The
additional security related expenses to be incurred by the City at this
small airport are estimated to be $650,000 per year. These costs will
be passed on to the airlines and/or consumers. Additional Federal
funding to offset these expenses would be most welcome.
Second, 9/11 has demonstrated the importance of offering a national
transportation system that is multi-modal and diverse. Among the
highest priorities of the city of Burlington is the improvement of both
rail infrastructure and rail service to our community. We are committed
to expanding commuter rail service, extending Amtrak service, and
reducing freight-carrying truck traffic on our streets and highways. We
also look forward to the creation of high-speed rail corridors
servicing our city and connecting communities across our Nation.
Mayors across America, from cities large and small, believe a
national rail policy is essential for our economy and our security. We
cannot depend too heavily on any single mode of transportation. I urge
Congress and the Senate EPW Committee to support the re-authorization
of Amtrak and increased investment in our nation's rail system.
Question 2. Would you support the creation of a specific highway
security-funding category in the next reauthorization?
Response. The National League of Cities established a Working Group
on Homeland Security in January to be a front line resource on homeland
security to help define the new role of local governments in national
defense and what those new responsibilities require in terms of Federal
support, intergovernmental partnerships and local budgets. Former
Dallas, Texas Acting Mayor Mary Poss and Dearborn, Michigan Mayor
Michael Guido are leading the Working Group.
NLC's Transportation Infrastructure and Services Committee will be
deliberating throughout the summer with the Working Group to identify
the needs of local governments for transportation security. Through
multiple surveys, NLC has determined that cities are drastically
increasing funding to public safety operations to protect vital city
services including transportation. The most recent NLC survey revealed
that cities expect an increase of 62 percent in first responder
overtime costs and a 26 percent increase in new public safety equipment
purchases and security upgrades.
Local emergency response and evacuation plans include a
transportation system component. Surface transportation systems can be
considered a potential target, like a transit system or bridge
infrastructure and provide the tools for a successful evacuation of a
downtown, such the Washington DC metro system did on 9/11. This
underscores the importance of protecting these facilities. NLC believes
that TEA-21 programs like the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
program will be integral to increased transportation security in the
nation's cities.
The ability of local government to use technology, through a
program like ITS, to coordinate communications among local
transportation agencies, public safety officials, and the public is
vital to saving lives in an emergency.
We look forward to working with the EPW Committee throughout the
year to determine whether a specific security-funding category will be
needed in the next surface transportation law.
__________
Statement of Hon. Brent Coles, Mayor of Boise, ID
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Environmental
and Public Works, I am Brent Coles, Mayor of Boise, Idaho.
I appear today on behalf of The U.S. Conference of Mayors where I
serve as the Conference's immediate past president and member of the
executive committee. The Conference of Mayors represents more than
1,000 cities with a population of more than 30,000.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and other members of this panel
for holding these hearings today, as we approach the next phase of
``Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century'' or TEA-21.
On September 11 the world witnessed an attack on America that was
unimaginable. The attacks instantly revealed the importance to our
national security of a balanced, multi-modal, resilient, and secure
transportation system. While our transportation agencies and businesses
struggled heroically to deal with the tragedy, many travelers did not
make it home for a week. Securing our transportation system is viewed
as a prerequisite to eliminating the anxiety that has accelerated the
nation's economic downturn and to achieving economic security for the
Nation.
Fortunately, we have tools to deal with this crisis, provided by
visionary Federal transportation laws known as ISTEA and TEA-21. TEA-21
provided the resources necessary to make investments in our
transportation network that enabled immediate and quick emergency
response.
In the weeks since that attack, mayors across the Nation have
mobilized the local resources provided through TEA-21 to protect their
citizens in the event of further terrorist activity. The national
security benefits of ISTEA were hardly anticipated when the bill was
passed 10 years ago, but the events of 2001 demonstrated the critical
importance of this law. As they always have done in times of crisis,
mayors assumed visible leadership roles, both in their cities and
throughout their metropolitan regions. They have engaged in critical
examinations of the local, State and Federal resources, as well as the
security infrastructure that exist to do this.
Now, as the Nation recovers from the tragedy of September 11,
America's mayors stand ready on the domestic front lines at assist in
every way possible. We are the ``domestic troops'' in the war on
terrorism, as Conference President Marc Morial of New Orleans has
stated. The wealth of resources provided by TEA-21 has most certainly
strengthened our ability to do this.
overview
When Fort Worth Mayor Ken Barr, the Conference's Transportation and
Communications chair, testified before the subcommittee last April, his
statement highlighted a number of issues pertaining to TEA-21. I will
speak to these issues and others in more detail in my testimony.
As a starting point, I want to emphasize a statement by Mayor Barr,
which captures the Conference's broader view on TEA-21. He said, ``TEA-
21 certainly provides the tools and the laboratory, but it doesn't
guarantee success. This is up to local elected officials working with
the Governors and State transportation officials to use the tools you
have provided.''
We commend this committee and others in Congress and the
Administration, for providing us with the opportunity under TEA-21 to
meet our surface transportation challenges. Mr. Chairman, I know that
in your capacity as Senator of Vermont, you are one of the pioneers of
the concept of transportation-oriented development. Transportation
touches every aspect of our modern lives. We thank you for your
leadership in this area.
I am here to provide context for our views on where we are today
with the implementation of TEA-21. Many of the issues highlight the
importance of cities to the success of the TEA-21 partnership.
__________
New Ideas Influencing TEA-21 Decisions
(By Mayor Ken Barr, Ft. Worth, TX)
First, I would like to call your attention to several emerging
issues that have considerable bearing on the committee's review of TEA-
21 implementation.
First, let me talk about the Conference's work on developing new
information on the role of city/county metro economies in fueling U.S.
economic growth. Since 1999, we have released annual data, prepared by
Standard & Poor's DRI, which measures the Gross Metropolitan Product
(GMP) figures for the nation's city/county metro areas.
As the focal points of economic activity, metropolitan areas are
vital to the nation's continued economic development. The contribution
of metro areas to the national economy has increased over the last
decade, a trend that is expected to continue over the next 25 years.
If they were counted as a single country, the gross product of the
five largest U.S. metropolitan areas ($1.59 trillion) would rank fourth
among the world's economies, trailing only the U.S. ($9.96 trillion),
Japan ($4.6 trillion) and Germany ($1.87 trillion). The importance of
metro area economies can also be illustrated by their size relative to
the output of U.S. States. The gross product of the 10 largest metro
areas exceeds the combined output of the 31 smallest States. In the
study, we found that 47 of the top 100 economies in the world are U.S.
city/county metro areas.
The size of metro area economies illustrates their importance to
the Nation. Mr. Chairman, the implications of this information for
Federal and State policymakers are far-reaching. There is no doubt in
my mind that the resources provided by ISTEA and TEA-21 have played a
significant role in the economic vitality of cities and metro regions.
The Conference stands ready to work with you and this committee as you
craft future surface transportation policy.
mayors' views of tea-21 implementation
In anticipation of this discussion, we recently surveyed a group of
mayors, principally those serving on the Conference's transportation
committee, to solicit their general views on how the TEA-21 is working.
Let me provide a quick review of the responses from 40 mayors who
completed the survey.
Nearly one-half of the mayors indicated that under TEA-21, their
State had committed additional funding or planned to commit additional
funds to local projects of particular priority to the city or region.
When we asked if their metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) had
set any targets for fair share funding under TEA-21, one-half of the
respondents said yes.
Based on the survey, it appears that States are reaching out to
local governments under TEA-21. Seventy percent (70 percent) of the
respondents indicated that their Governors or State transportation
officials had contacted them about new funding available under TEA-21.
However, only 40 percent of mayors have been asked to participate in a
State process to decide funding priorities for TEA-21 dollars.
When asked to indicate the single most important surface
transportation priority in their city or region, the mayors' top three
responses were System Preservation at 35 percent, Congestion Relief at
20 percent and New Rail Projects at 15 percent. The remaining 30
percent of the responses included alternative transportation, new
freeways, freeway expansion, transportation access to brownfield sites,
safety, bridge repair and major road widening. Mayors were asked to
write the response, rather than choosing from a list.
I do not think mayors can overstate the importance of
infrastructure to the economic health of our cities and regions and
transportation infrastructure is clearly one of our highest priorities.
tea-21 is working
Treasure Valley Partnership
Though suburban sprawl may conjure up visions of LA or Phoenix, the
rugged, southwest corner of Idaho also faces significant traffic and
air quality problems stemming from rapid growth. During the past
decade, Boise, Idaho had the second highest growth rate in the country.
For the first time, our residents began to think seriously about
transportation issues. Our legendary ``rush-minutes'' lengthened and
people began to experience longer, less tolerable commutes. Policy
makers began to look at ways to protect our quality of life from the
impacts of sprawl. Our highly conservative region began to discuss
ideas like transit oriented development, protection of open space, and
commuter rail.
Four years ago, we formed a working group called the Treasure
Valley Partnership. The Partnership consists of mayors and
commissioners from general purpose governments in two counties. This
group embodies the collaborative principles set out in TEA-21. As a
Partnership, we have brought together business, community groups, and
local government to make new connections between transportation and
land use. I believe that our entire process of governance in the region
has been improved and policy decisions are made in more informed and
strategic manner, so that all citizens are better served.
The Partnership began to look seriously at what our region will
look like at full build-out. For the first time, we put our
comprehensive plans side by side to see if they are consistent with
each other. Our planning staffs have begun to talk more and cooperate
more. Our transportation plans have more regional buy-in.
The Partnership has directly benefited from TEA-21. Working in
collaboration with Idaho Smart Growth and our MPO, we obtained a
$500,000 grant for a visioning process that has engaged the entire
region in a discussion of sprawl and traffic, and their link to land
use. The money has been leveraged with other grant funds to conduct
pilot projects which model the conclusions of the broader study.
Based on the principles of TEA-21, the city of Boise purchased more
than 18 miles of railroad track and right-of-way that was about to be
abandoned by Union Pacific Railroad. We used general fund property tax
dollars for this purchase, even though the track is located entirely
outside our corporate city limits. We raised private funds to purchase
Boise's historic train depot. We did this to preserve the
infrastructure that will be needed someday for commuter and passenger
rail service in our region.
The residents of our two-county area went to the Idaho Legislature
for the authority to establish regional transit programs. Then, voters
overwhelmingly approved creation of a regional transit authority. We
have yet to be given a dedicated funding source by the Legislature, but
Boise City has provided funding to hire an executive director and we
are allowing the regional transit authority to assume operation of our
bus system.
This is progress that would not have occurred without the guidance
and encouragement provided by ISTEA and TEA-21. There is more to be
done, but we believe we are on the right track.
closing comments
Now, Mr. Chairman, last Friday I was informed of the potential $9
billion shortfall in TEA-21 allocations to the States for fiscal year
2003. If the shortfall is passed onto States, the funds allocated under
TEA-21 in fiscal year 03 would be less than the base amounts promised
to States for highways and transit. As you might imagine, this would
have serious repercussions. The State of Idaho, for example, would lose
more than 25 percent of our Federal transportation funding. California
would lose $741 million dollars and Texas would lose $626 million. It's
estimated that nationwide we would lose an estimated 144,000 jobs by
fiscal year 04.
I know that this is new information and that the impacts of the
shortfall have yet to be fully explored. I pledge to you the assistance
of the Conference of Mayors as you work toward resolution of this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, the issues I have discussed today affect all of our
cities. Our cities as neighborhoods--protecting quality of life--and
our cities as regions--competing in a global economy--must have
transportation funds as tools to carry out our responsibilities within
the regional context. In our region, adequate funding and air quality
constraints continue to hamper our potential success. You have the
opportunity to permit us to respond better to both our responsibilities
to enhance quality of life and increase competitiveness in a world
economy.
The nation's mayors believe in the ISTEA partnership, and look
forward to the opportunity to build upon this success under TEA-21.
Mr. Chairman, as you move forward on TEA-21 Reauthorization, you
can count on the mayors' active participation and support. Thank you
for this opportunity to present our views.
__________
Statement of Chris Hart, County Commissioner, Hillsborough County, FL
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
Commissioner Chris Hart, County Commissioner of Hillsborough County,
Florida. Today I am representing the National Association of Counties
(NACo)\1\ where I serve as chairman of its transportation steering
committee. On behalf of NACo, I want to thank the committee for
inviting me to appear before you on the topic of TEA-21
reauthorization. I am delighted to share this panel with West
Virginia's Governor Wise, Mayor Clavelle of Burlington, Vermont, and
Mayor Coles of Boise, Idaho. My county seat is in Tampa, where I
directly represent over 1 million citizens on the central West Coast of
Florida. It is an urban center of seven counties with over 3.5 million
people. It is also the economic engine of the Tampa Bay region, in
great measure because of our focus on improving the transportation
network, and our major international air and seaports that connect us
to the global economy. On a lighter note Senators, if you haven't had a
call for the head coach position of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, rest
assured you will--everyone else has!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NACo is the only national organization representing county
government in the United States. Through its membership, urban,
suburban and rural counties join together to build effective,
responsive county government. The goals of the organization are to
improve county government; serve as the national spokesman for county
government; serve as a liaison between the nation's counties and other
levels of government; achieve public understanding of the role of
counties in the Federal system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NACo has a broad interest in transportation policy. NACo has been
very active over the past 50 years in assisting Congress in developing
legislation that benefits our member counties, as well as our partners
in the cities and States. Much of our focus has been on the highway
program for the simple reason that counties own 44 percent of the
nation's highway mileage and 45 percent of the nation's bridges. With
3,066 counties in our vast nation, NACo's membership is diverse. It's
in America's thousand urban counties where both economic and population
growth is occurring. Metropolitan counties, or in urban centers like my
home on Tampa Bay, account for 84 percent of the gross domestic
product, and have over 125 million people living in just 100 of the
most populated counties. Strong economic growth will occur only with a
sound transportation system. Of course, the downside of that growth has
been increasing traffic congestion, which at times threatens our
quality of life and deprives citizens of their ability to move around
in a safe and efficient manner. Conversely, there are two thousand
rural counties with a dwindling tax base that must maintain and improve
their highway and bridge systems if they are just to remain competitive
in today's economy and retain their current population.
TEA-21 and its predecessor, ISTEA, have been very helpful to our
members and to our Nation as a whole. There is little doubt in my mind
that these programs have contributed to the overall economic growth
that our Nation experienced in the last decade. ISTEA, in 1991, began a
trend to increase the Federal investment in the highway program, and
TEA-21 provided a 40 percent boost. The increase was needed and we have
seen the benefits. For example, last year the State of Florida
appropriated over $1 billion for a combination of improvements to the
local, State, and Federal transportation system in the Tampa Bay
region. This was a direct result of increased funding because of TEA-
21. The leadership of NACo supported the funding increase for
transportation in TEA-21, and fought hard to support the financing
changes in TEA-21 that made this level of spending possible. It would
be an economic disaster if Congress were to eliminate the firewall
established in TEA-21 or began to use the Highway Trust Fund to either
finance other programs or mask the deficit. Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, the financing decisions made in 1998 were the right
ones!
Let me also add that I also believe that our highway infrastructure
performed well on September 11 and in its aftermath. We should all
remember that the Federal highway program was begun to ensure our
nation's defense. While the tragic events of last September were never
anticipated, the security function of our highway and bridge system
worked. When NACo's Homeland Security Task Force met for the first time
in October, it was Secretary of Transportation Noman Mineta, along with
Governor Tom Ridge, that the task force wanted to hear from.
Aside from funding, the key change in highway legislation over the
last 10 years has been the creation of a flexible program that has
relied on greater input from local elected-government officials. The
result has been better planning, better decisionmaking on project
selection, and better projects. It is likely that the Federal
Government will continue to spend substantial Federal resources each
year on highways and bridges, and that makes it essential that both
local and State government leaders sit together at the table when
decisions are made. The reauthorization of TEA-21 should continue and
accelerate that partnership. ISTEA required cooperative decisionmaking
through the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) process on how
surface transportation program funds, the most flexible category, were
to be spent. TEA-21 continued that requirement; and that legislation
also called for cooperation and consultation between State and local
decisionmakers in other Federal highway programs. TEA-21 expanded this
to rural areas and statutorily called for a consultation process in
each State for obtaining rural local officials input in the statewide
transportation plan. I must add that while some States have a process
and the Federal Highway Administration did issue guidance on this
change to its field offices, the U.S. Department of Transportation has
yet to issue final regulations on rural planning requirements.
Last fall, I established NACo's TEA-21 Reauthorization Task Force
under the able leadership of my colleague Commissioner Glen Whitley
from Tarrant County, Texas. Mr. Chairman, he and our staff have been
diligent in their efforts, have met several times with members
throughout our country, and are now in the process of finalizing NACo's
recommendations for TEA-21 reauthorization. However, I am confident
that I can state without reservation that environmental streamlining
will be a top issue for our members. Also, I want to be very clear that
we will not be calling for the repeal of any of our nation's
environmental protection laws. Rather, we will be recommending that the
reauthorization include provisions that ensure projects are completed
in a timely and efficient manner, and the delays in the current system
that unnecessarily slow down projects are eliminated! Simply put, Mr.
Chairman and committee members, we are asking for a concurrent process,
rather than an uncoordinated, sequential one. In the broadest sense,
this means that we need to get all the players in a project involved at
the outset. This means the local elected officials, State DOTs and its
other regulatory officials, all Federal agencies having a role to play,
as well as the environmental community, and most especially, the
affected citizens. No one should be ignored, and no Federal agency
should be allowed to operate independently of the other participants.
In my State of Florida, for instance, this effort is a work-in-
progress, but it will not be successful without collaboration from the
Federal Government.
Congestion will be another key policy issue that Congress must
address in the reauthorization. Urban counties, their citizens,
tourists, and our commerce are strangling on congestion. Time, money,
and productivity are all lost when commerce, the American commuter and
tourist are stuck in traffic. There is no one solution, except that we
must apply common sense to the challenge of congestion. Solutions must
be found through very close State-local cooperation. Congestion occurs
on county highways, not just on the State networks. We must remember
that we have a system of highways, and when one part of the system
breaks down, the others are affected too. Any new legislation should
provide for those highways and streets we have now, to ensure they are
properly maintained, so that they can move traffic safely. We must
invest more money in highways to guarantee that our current system is
maximized. We know that as much as 50 per cent of congestion occurs due
to breakdowns and accidents on the roadways. Therefore, we must be
smart enough to establish simple, efficient methods for getting these
incidents resolved quickly. Here again, Federal agencies and their
resources can partner with local and State government to save time,
money, and lives. We need to have systems and procedures in place that
include all the various agencies involved in incident management; from
the highway departments, police, fire/rescue, to EMS and wrecker
services, all communicating with one another. We can do better. Let me
illustrate. How many times have you seen a breakdown or accident in one
lane of traffic, with emergency vehicles taking up the other lane or
lanes, and if we're really lucky, perhaps we are able to pass after an
hour or so in morning and evening rush hour traffic. Systems and
procedures for incident management could go a long way toward relieving
congestion. Another key to relieving congestion and moving traffic is
signalization. We have all been on highways where the signals are
coordinated and traffic flows. We have also been on roads where we are
stopping at every red light. Many local governments need additional
resources to modernize traffic signals. The good news is that
electronic signals, and now Intelligent Transportation Systems, or ITS
as it's commonly called, are giving us an 8 to 1 return on our
investment as compared to other alternatives. By the way, what we don't
need are automatic signs that say ``congestion ahead'' when we are
already caught in traffic, or where there are no alternative routes.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would finish my remarks by addressing a major
concern we all share, rural roads. Rural roads are in need of
substantial Federal investment. Safety is the primary reason. According
to a U.S. General Accounting Office report in July 2001, rural local
roads had the highest rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled of
all types of roadways-over six times that of urban interstates. In
1999, over 25,000 fatalities occurred on rural roads across the United
States; and that figure was 2.5 times greater than the fatality rate
from accidents on urban highways in areas like Las Vegas, Miami, St.
Louis, and Cleveland. If Congress wants to reduce auto fatalities,
there is no better investment than on roads in rural counties. Because
rural roads are the most dangerous roads in America, and are the most
costly in human lives, NACo will be proposing a new program to address
rural road safety in the coming months. Rest assured, Mr. Chairman,
that we would work closely with your committee in developing it.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I thank you and the
committee for the opportunity to be here today, and would be pleased to
answer your questions.
______
Responses from Chris Hart to Additional Questions from Senator Graham
Question 1. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that
Incident Management Agreements could help ease congestion. Could you
offer examples of where they have been implemented and worked, or where
congestion has worsened because of a lack of coordinated response to
traffic accidents?
Response. The State of Florida has 10 freeway incident management
teams and 52 community traffic safety teams. Florida also created a
statewide Traffic Incident Management Steering Committee to improve the
management of incidents on our highway system.
Incident management also relates to the issue of highway security.
Our awareness of ensuring the security of our highways and ability to
prepare for and respond to unexpected catastrophic events has been
heightened since 9/11. The same organizational arrangements, training,
communication systems, and procedures that one would need to manage
traffic incidents would be similar to those needed to address highway
security. Intelligent Transportation System technology must be a key
element in addressing this need.
Question 2. I share your concern that the environmental
streamlining regulations are still not finalized, and I plan to
encourage DOT to come forward, at the appropriate time, with
regulations that reflect what we hoped to do in TEA-21. I hope,
however, that we are moving toward an era of increased cooperation even
without the regulations. What have been your recent experiences, either
in Florida, or through your leadership with NACo, of infrastructure
projects being stymied by lack of coordination between different
agencies? Is the coordination effort improving, staying the same, or
getting worse?
Response. Florida is a leading State for the area of environmental
streamlining. Section 13098 of the TEA-21 reflected Congress' concerns
about delays, unnecessary duplication of effort and added costs often
associated with the current process for reviewing and approving
transportation projects called ``environmental streamlining''. This
legislation challenged the Florida Highway Administration and Federal
Transit Administration to implement a more efficient transportation
planning and review process. Florida was selected as a pilot State for
developing and implementing a streamlined planning and project
development process.
To date, Florida has developed a more efficient process, the
Efficient Transportation Decision Making process, which uses available
information starting at the long-range planning stage. It is also
designed to encourage earlier and ongoing coordination among agencies
to ensure the understanding and development of satisfactory approaches
to addressing environmental issues with the goal to ensure timely
permitting as early in the process as possible. Florida is attempting
to make the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the
environmental process a single process, and not create a situation
where agencies review the environmental work during the NEPA process
and then revisit the project again during the permit process.
With this process, Florida hopes to avoid the problems it has
encountered in several major projects. One example that is very
familiar to Senator Graham is the proposed expansion of US1, from
Florida City into the Florida Keys. This project was challenged by the
Army Corps of Engineers and still awaits resolution of the
environmental issues. Another example is the extension of SR 7 in Palm
Beach County. Planning for this four-mile extension of SR 7 that passes
through sensitive environmental lands moved forward with the planning
and project development with no resolution of the issues. In both of
these cases, millions of dollars were spent only to have the projects
stopped or withdrawn when environmental concerns could not be resolved.
The Efficient Transportation Decision Making process would hopefully
identify these issues much earlier in planning and the project
development phases before expensive project development and design
phases proceed.
______
Responses of Chris Hart to Additional Questions from Senator Campbell
Question 1. Are there transportation related security projects
which your State or community could use Federal funding for as a result
of 9/11?
Response. Florida's geographic location and extensive coastline
presents security challenges to Florida's ports and communities. In
addition, our State's reputation as a major tourist destination and
commercial center generates significant air traffic. Florida's ports
and airports are committed to providing the citizens of surrounding
communities the utmost safety and security.
Specifically, the Florida statewide Ports Council submitted a
statewide Port Security Issue projects list to the Florida
Transportation Outreach Program Advisory Council. This project could be
in turn submitted for Federal funding. All major airports have been
actively working to meet and integrate new federally mandated security
procedures. Part of these funds will come from the Federal Aviation
Administration and U.S. Department of Transportation. Specific airports
are seeking additional funding such as Tampa International Airport's
new Passenger Facility Charge Application which will provide roughly $9
million to accommodate modifications to existing facilities to
implement 100 percent screening of checked baggage.
Question 2. Would you support the creation of specific highway
security funding category in the next reauthorization?
Response. We need to prioritize and identify specific items within
funding categories that either serve a direct security function, or
have a dual purpose such as ITS signalization with cameras at
intersections. Cooperative arrangements among different highway and
public safety agencies, common ``first-responder'' communication
frequencies, interlocal agreements, and standardized response
procedures could all be used to deal with both transportation incidents
and potential security threats. Such protocols could be required
performance standards in the reauthorization legislation, and produce
more effective response capabilities nationwide at a low-cost.
REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA-21
----------
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure and
Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, the Hon. Harry Reid [chairman of
the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Senators Reid, Wyden, Baucus, Inhofe, Chafee,
Jeffords, and Graham.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. The Subcommittee on Transportation,
Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety will come to order.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Federal
Highway Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal and
budget issues related to the reauthorization of TEA-21, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
The President's budget raises some important short- and
long-term concerns, but I do very much welcome the opportunity
to discuss these issues today with you, Administrator Peters,
and other distinguished witnesses.
The present budget cannot be sustained. A 27 percent cut in
highway funding is a move in the wrong direction, given our
Nation's transportation needs. It would mean the elimination of
hundreds of thousands of good jobs, and it would be a drag on
our economic recovery.
I am pleased that Tom Stephens, our very fine Director of
the Nevada Department of Transportation, is here to testify on
behalf of State Departments of Transportation across the
Nation. I am sure that Mr. Stephens will speak to the negative
impact these cuts will have on Nevada.
Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation. We have
huge needs for new road capacity, not to mention new transit
and rail initiatives. A $50 million-plus spending cut in Nevada
next year would force the State to cut back on critical
transportation projects. The results would be more congestion,
reduced productivity, worsened air quality, and loss of jobs.
This is not an acceptable outcome. Nevada has significant
unmet transportation needs, and these cuts cannot be allowed.
Nevada is really the poster child for the rest of the country.
Every State has these same problems.
The Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, or RABA, mechanism
was created to ensure that spending from the Highway Trust Fund
was tied to revenues in the Trust Fund. This is a goal that I
support. However, the RABA mechanism clearly needs to be fixed
so that we can avoid the dramatic swings in spending that we
have seen over the past few years.
One of the first reasons that we authorized TEA-21 for 6
years and created the budget firewalls for highway and transit,
was to provide States with some certainty as to the level of
funding they would receive each year. A stable and dependable
funding stream is essential for States to develop long-term
transportation plans, and efficiently manage projects.
I agree with the philosophy behind RABA, that spending from
Highway Trust Funds should be connected to revenues, but I do
not think it is necessary for us to follow a broken mechanism
off a spending cliff.
Regardless of the spending adjustment mandated during RABA,
we cannot allow a 27 percent drop in highway funding next year.
Adequate funding of our Nation's highways is important, not
only for obvious, short-term economic stimulus and highway
improvement needs, but for long-term reasons, as well.
This subcommittee will be working with the chairman and the
ranking member of the full committee to put together a TEA-21
reauthorization proposal early next year. One of my priorities
is to ensure that adequate funding is available to meet our
Nation's significant transportation needs.
It is important to understand that the funding level that
Congress enacts for 2003 will serve as the baseline from which
our committee's reauthorization proposal will be scored.
Therefore, if we base reauthorization on the President's
fiscal year 2003 budget proposal, we will have $28 billion less
available to us than fiscal year 2003 spending equals the
amounts authorized in TEA-21. That is a tremendous burden for
us to bear.
A spending baseline that is $28 billion below TEA-21
baseline would spell disaster for the whole transportation
system. In fact, my focus is on doing just the opposite, in
finding a way to increase funding for all the components of our
surface transportation systems: highway, transit, and rail.
This is why the leaders of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee have worked on a bipartisan, bicameral
basis with the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, to introduce the Highway Funding Restoration Act.
This legislation, which every member of this committee co-
sponsored, will ensure that funding in fiscal year 2003 is at
least at the level authorized in TEA-21. Rest assured that I
will be advocating for the highest funding possible, but I
cannot accept a penney less than the amount authorized in TEA-
21.
I know that Administrator Peters shares some of my concerns
about the impact of these proposed highway funding cuts.
Administrator Peters, I welcome you to this hearing. Let me
tell you how pleased I am that someone so familiar with the
transportation challenges faced by fast growing Western States
is at the helm of the Federal Highway Administration. I look
forward to working with you to develop a top-notch
reauthorization bill.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada
Welcome to today's hearing on the Federal Highway Administration's
fiscal year 2003 budget proposal and budget issues related to the
reauthorization of TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century. The President's budget raises some important short and long-
term concerns and I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues
today with Federal Highway Administrator Mary Peters and our other
distinguished witnesses.
I will get right to the point--the President's budget cannot be
sustained. A 27 percent cut in highway funding is a move in the wrong
direction given our nation's transportation needs. It will also mean
the elimination of hundreds of thousands of good jobs and be a drag on
our economic recovery.
I am pleased that Tom Stephens, our fine Director of the Nevada
Department of Transportation, is here to testify on behalf of State
Departments of Transportation across the Nation. I am sure that Mr.
Stephens will speak to the negative impact these cuts will have on
Nevada. Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation and we have
huge needs for new road capacity, not to mention new transit and rail
initiatives. A $50 million spending cut in Nevada next year will force
my State to cut back on critical transportation projects. The result
will be more congestion, reduced productivity, worsened air quality,
and lost jobs. This is not an acceptable outcome. My State has
significant unmet transportation needs and these cuts cannot be
allowed.
The Revenue Aligned Budget Authority--or RABA--mechanism was
created to ensure that spending from the Highway Trust Fund was tied to
revenues into the trust fund. This is a goal that I fully support.
However, the RABA mechanism clearly needs to be fixed so that we can
avoid the dramatic swings in spending that we have seen over the past
few years.
One of the reasons that we authorized TEA-21 for 6 years and
created the budget firewalls for highways and transit was to provide
States with some certainty as to the level of funding they would
receive each year. A stable and dependable funding stream is essential
for States to develop long-term transportation plans and efficiently
manage projects. I agree with the philosophy behind RABA--that spending
from the Highway Trust Fund should be connected to revenues, but I do
not think it necessary for us to follow a broken mechanism off a
spending cliff.
Regardless of the spending adjustment mandated by RABA, we cannot
allow a 27 percent drop in highway funding next year. Adequate funding
of our nation's highways is important not only for obvious short-term
economic stimulus and highway improvement needs, but for long-term
reasons as well. This subcommittee will be working with the chairman
and ranking member of the full Environment and Public Works Committee
to put together a TEA-21 reauthorization proposal early next year. One
of my priorities is to ensure that adequate funding is available to
meet our nation's significant transportation needs.
With this in mind, it is important to understand that the funding
level Congress enacts for fiscal year 2003 will serve as the baseline
from which our committee's reauthorization proposal will be scored.
Therefore, if we base reauthorization on the President's fiscal year
2003 budget proposal, we will have $28 billion less available to us
than if fiscal year 2003 spending equals the amount authorized in TEA-
21.
A spending baseline that is $28 billion below the TEA-21 baseline
would spell disaster for our transportation system. In fact, my focus
is on doing just the opposite and finding a way to increase funding for
all of the components of our surface transportation system--highways,
transit, and rail. This is why the leaders of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee have worked on a bipartisan and bicameral
basis with the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to
introduce the ``Highway Funding Restoration Act.''
This legislation, which every member of this committee cosponsored,
will ensure that funding in fiscal year 2003 is at least at the level
authorized in TEA-21. Rest assured that I will be advocating for the
highest funding level possible, but I will not accept a penny less than
the amount authorized in TEA-21.
I know that Administrator Peters shares some of my concerns about
the impact of these proposed highway-funding cuts. Administrator
Peters, welcome, and let me tell you how pleased I am that someone so
familiar with the transportation challenges faced by fast growing
western States is at the helm of the Federal Highway Administration. I
look forward to working with you to develop a top-notch reauthorization
bill.
I also welcome Assistant Secretary for Budget Donna McLean and look
forward to further discussion on these important budget issues.
Senator Wyden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for holding this important hearing. I think this is a
critical issue, and I very much appreciate your leadership.
My view is that the Administration's budget for
transportation is the equivalent of putting an automobile in
reverse, when the country wants to move that car forward. It
just seems to me that if you are serious about economic
stimulus, you cannot propose such serious cuts in
transportation projects.
The fact of the matter is, the projects that are being
slashed are projects that are ready to go. These are projects
that will put people to work immediately.
Oregon transportation officials calculate that the
Administration's proposal to cut TEA-21 funding will mean the
loss of $80 million for Oregon's economy, and more than 1,600
family wage construction jobs. Now we have got the highest
unemployment rate in the country. So these transportation cuts
are draining the life blood out of Oregon's economy.
Now I support the committee's bipartisan's legislation to
restore funding at least to the levels called for in TEA-21.
But I also want to note that I think we need to look beyond the
immediate budget crunch at what could be an even bigger problem
that is ahead down the road.
Our country's transportation energy policies are on a
collision course. Transportation projects are primarily funded
by taxes on gas; the more gas we use, the more money to build
roads. At the same time, there is a bipartisan agreement in
Congress that we need to develop energy policies, and decrease
our dependence on foreign oil.
Increased production can help, but the only way to truly
reduce dependence on foreign oil is to reduce dependence on
oil, period. Now in the coming years, these conflicting
policies are going to bump up each other. Hybrid gas and
electric powered cars that get 60 miles per gallon are already
on the market and on the road.
Cafe standards will require more miles to the gallon for
cards and light trucks. It is predicted that fuel cell
technology and other alternatives will be prevalent by the end
of this decade. As all of these things evolve, gas tax revenues
will continue to decline, and transportation funding will feel
the pinch, unless changes are made.
I am hopeful that we can continue, under Senator Reid's
leadership, to explore new ways to fund transportation projects
that do not depend solely on the gas tax.
My home State is already starting to look at this concept,
with our Road User Fee Task Force. The Federal Government ought
to be doing more to encourage this type of creative thinking.
As part of TEA-21 reauthorization, I am interested in
working with the bipartisan leadership of this committee to
create a pilot program, where States can develop and test their
own home-grown approaches that best meet their needs.
The time to act is now. That is why it is so important that
Senator Reid has convened this effort to deal with what I think
are overly harsh cuts that will hurt communities across this
country now. Then we need to work together on a bipartisan
basis to find responsible alternatives for the future.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reid. Senator Wyden, thank you very much for your
statement.
We are joining by the Ranking Member of this subcommittee,
Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has always been very diligent.
I have come to a lot of these hearings. I do not stay as long
as you do, normally, but you are very diligent in all the
hearings, and I appreciate your being here today.
Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
with you here today in welcoming our witnesses. It is always a
pleasure to hear from the Federal Highway Administrator, Mary
Peters. We are very fortunate to have an Administrator at the
Federal Highways that understands some of the problems that the
States have.
Mary's background in the State of Arizona, which is not
very unlike Oklahoma in some of the local problems that we
have, puts you in a position, I think, to really understand
these things very well.
And it is nice to have Ms. McLean here. We served together
over on the House Public Works and Transportation Committee in
a few different capacities, and I am sure it is going to work
out really well.
I am anxious to hear from Thomas Stephens, Director of the
Department of Transportation in the chairman's home of the
State of Nevada. Again, I believe we can never hear too much
from the State officials to show how some of the things we are
doing might or might not be working at the State level.
It is always good to hear from Bill Fay. His group, the
Highway User's Alliance, will play an important role in
reauthorization.
Finally, I had hoped to be welcoming my friend and fellow
Oklahoman, Jim Duit, to testify on behalf of the American Road
and Transportation Builders Association. Unfortunately, Jim
Duit--his company had a fire which virtually burned down
everything that he had there. This was on Saturday evening. I
did call him up and talk to him. So obviously, he could not
join us today.
However, I do have the oral statement that he had planned
on making. I would ask unanimous consent to submit it for the
record, and at the same time, unanimous consent to have the
written statement of Ken Wert, who is President of Haskill/
Lemon Construction in Oklahoma City, made a part of the record,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reid. Both requests are granted.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are fortunate that Mr. Tom Hill, Chief Executive for
Oldcastle Materials, Inc., could join us today to present the
industry's perspective on the proposed 2003 budget. I
appreciate your rearranging the schedule on such short notice,
and look forward to hearing your testimony, today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reid. We are joined today by the chairman of the
Senate Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, who as most
everyone knows, has been the ranking member and the chairman of
this committee in the past.
We are expecting great things out of the Finance Committee
to help us through the problems that we have with this bill,
Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our committee, today.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was
afraid you were going to mention something about helping with
the whole budget that we are facing.
Administrator Peters, we are very happy to have you here.
We had scheduled a meeting some time ago, but unfortunately,
this country's greatest tragedy on our soil happened that day,
and our meeting was canceled.
I want to just emphasize to you something which you already
know; but I think it is important to reiterate: how important
this program, the Highway Program, TEA-21, is to us all. It is
the life blood of our country.
Certainly, in my State of Montana, you know, we are not a
seaport State, we are not a barge State. We do not have large
international airports. We just have a lot of space, but not a
lot of people. We depend almost totally on our roads and
highways.
We have more Federal highways, per capita, than any other
State in the Nation. That includes Alaska. That includes
Wyoming, and every other State. We have more Federal miles of
roads, per capita, than any other State. It is everything to
us.
In many respects, too, it is our economic development
program. As I walked in, I heard my good friend from Oregon
talking about unemployment rates in the State of Oregon. We, in
Montana, have the Nation's lowest, or second to lowest, per
capita income rates. We are 50th or 49th.
So in many respects, the Highway Program is our jobs
program. It is our economic development program. These are
obviously great paying jobs, compared with some other jobs that
we have in our country.
So I just cannot emphasize too much the importance of a
very strong highway program. That includes the various
components; you know, the bikeways and the various provisions
which allow States, and correctly, to make their own
determinations in towns and municipalities and so forth. But it
is just critical that the program be strong.
Second, I understand that RABA, which is a bit of a
question before us, is not a question at all to members of this
committee. We need to have at least the four and-a-half, or
whatever the figure comes out to, restored.
Now I know Administrations will say, ``In our budget
request to the Congress, we just followed the law.'' Well, all
Administrations submit budget requests that are sometimes
inconsistent with the law, and that is their prerogative.
Presidents make budget requests and sometimes conditions
change. So they make requests which are, if not inconsistent
with the law, at least Administrations have lots of
flexibility.
So that is not an excuse in this case. Every member of this
committee is a co-sponsor of that bill, which I frankly think
it should be a full nine. That is, the RABA went up for a year,
and then it came down. There was a net difference of about $9
billion. Because if we restore the RABA loss for the most
recent year, then the problem is, that is going to still mean
lots of jobs lost; that is, jobs that are dependent upon the
higher level that was provided for under RABA in the previous
year. It is going to be job loss. Even with the restoration of
roughly $4.5 billion, it is still going to be job loss.
I think it should be $9 billion. But most members of this
committee, I think, have a contrary view. But the contrary view
is still definitely an increase. I think we should just agree
that we are going to do the increase, and just get on with it;
because Congress will pass that increase. There is no doubt
about that, in my judgment.
Also, while we are here, I want to just reemphasize the
need for meaningful environmental streamlining. We have been
wrapped around the axil on this issue for a long time, years,
with no sufficient progress. The last Federal Highway
Administrator, or maybe not quite the last, and I am not sure
exactly when, submitted major streamlining to this Congress.
They were steps backward; not forwards, but backward.
It was so frustrating to us, that I am thinking of the
Highway Administration telling the Administration what the
environmental streamlining is, in legislation. It was such an
insult, the last steps backward. I just urge you very strongly,
to appropriately and solidly figure out ways to get this done
more quickly.
I might say, in one small respect, it is getting more fish
and wildlife personnel in the States, so we can get ahead of
the curve with these projects. If you can get ahead of the
curve, you can design around environmental problems in advance.
But mostly, I am just urging you to streamline and just do
it, so we are not wrestling with this issue anymore. It might
take you a year. I do not know how long it is going to take
you, but I urge you very strongly just to get on with it. I
know you have a good background. I also want you to know that
we, on the committee, will work very closely with you.
One final point, in the Finance Committee, we are going to
be looking for ways to increase dollars into the Trust Fund.
One is to take those few cents that go to the General Fund,
ethanol provisions, and put those 2.5 cents into the Trust
Fund. That is one idea I have, and I have got a couple of other
ideas, to make sure that the Trust Fund is larger, to enforce
the firewalls, to make sure the dollars are spent on highway
projects; because it is one program that Americans depend very
much on.
You will work well with this committee, because you will
find a lot of support on this committee for an even stronger
TEA-21.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
I am pleased that for the first time before the Transportation
Subcommittee, since her nomination hearing, we will be hearing from our
newest Federal Highway Administrator Mary Peters. Welcome Mrs. Peters,
I look forward to your testimony and the testimony of the others.
I'd like to start off this morning by mentioning how much TEA-21
has helped our Nation address our infrastructure needs and our
employment needs. This is especially true in my State of Montana. TEA-
21 has been a crucial tool for us. The bill is not perfect, but it's a
very good bill that an overwhelming majority agreed upon, at the end of
the day. Along with Senators John Chafee and John Warner and others, I
was directly involved in drafting TEA-21 in the Senate. I am proud of
that work and I look forward to working closely with the leadership of
this committee on the next bill.
My concern here today is held I'm sure, by all the committee
members--the shortfall in highway funding for fiscal year 03. This is
unacceptable. This country cannot afford a 27 percent decrease in
highway funding.
For the past 6 months Congress has been discussing the best ways to
stimulate the economy. Even though we are no longer working on an
economic stimulus bill, we face a real crisis that will negatively
affect our economy. We face unprecedented losses to our highway
program. Every State will lose money.
If we want to create true stimulus and maintain jobs for our
citizens then there is an easy solution. Highways. For every $1 billion
that goes into the highway program, 42,000 jobs are created. In an
attempt to address unemployment concerns and immediate stimulus to the
country's economy, I, along with others on the Environment and Public
Works Committee, have introduced S. 1917. This bill would restore the
authorized levels for fiscal year 2003. It doesn't get us all the way
there, but it's a start.
This is about jobs. Skilled and unskilled jobs in highway
construction are well-paid. These jobs provide employment opportunities
for workers who have lost manufacturing jobs, with minimal training
requirements. In addition, we need to ensure that current jobs will not
be lost in many of the supplier and heavy equipment manufacturing
industries. Without at least restoring TEA-21 levels, over 360,000 jobs
will be lost.
For my State of Montana that means a $71 million loss to our
highway program. And in Montana, Highways are our lifeblood. We need
the highways and we need the jobs created from new highway funding.
Also, we can't afford to lose any highway-related jobs because of this
under funding.
There is $20.5 billion in the Highway Trust Fund. We can afford at
least the $4.369 billion from that balance to be distributed over the
next year. We could afford more. In fact, we can't afford not to.
This extra $4.369 billion only begins to take care of this huge
problem that we face. I would like to see even more of an increase to
the fiscal year 03 level.
Considering the President's focus on jobs in his 'State of the
Union' address, I am dismayed that the President's budget did not take
these concerns into consideration and propose these changes.
I am hopeful, however that given the State of the economy and our
need for highway investment and jobs, he will support at least the
fiscal year 03 authorized level if not more.
Given our limited highway resources, it is my intention as chairman
of the Senate Finance Committee to take measures to increase the money
in the Highway Trust Fund. I will be looking at the effect that the
ethanol subsidy has on the Highway Trust Fund and also at Highway Fuel
Tax Evasion. I am committed to the use of ethanol-blended fuels, but I
am insistent that the Highway Trust Fund be held harmless to any costs.
Resources are too scarce to tolerate losses.
Additionally, I will be working with the leadership of this
committee to explore innovative ways to fund highway projects to
supplement the Highway Trust Fund dollars.
The next issue I'd like to speak about is environmental
streamlining. To your credit, Administrator Peters, you have made
repeated statements regarding the need to streamline the process by
which environmental approvals are obtained to construct new
transportation projects. Before you were nominated for this position,
you were a strong advocate for streamlining the planning and
environmental processes. It is my hope that your zealousness continues
and you remain active on this front.
At present, the process for allowing highway projects to move
forward is painfully long. The rule that was issued 2 years ago clearly
missed the mark. It is my hope that you will go back to the drawing
board, as they say, and issue a regulation that will help States
expedite the project approval process without and I emphasize without
weakening environmental protections.
Thank you for the time Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today's
testimony.
Senator Reid. I would say this, Senator Baucus. Having
traveled the State of Montana mostly by air, I can imagine the
vastness of that State, and how there would never be an end to
the need of roads through that massive State.
Senator Baucus. Well, that is right, Mr. Chairman. That is
one reason that for a long time, we did not have a highway
speed limit, because we value our roads very much.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. Well, we, in Nevada, had the same situation.
Senator Baucus. I know that. I remember going to school, I
would drive through Nevada.
Senator Reid. I bet it felt like home.
Senator Baucus. It felt just like home. I had a VW bug, and
a friend had a VW bug, you know, and we would just put the
pedal to the metal. We would go flat out, and we would see who
could pass whom, streaming through Nevada.
Senator Reid. Well, do not be admitting that, though.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. And we go from Montana, and do they still
need highways in Rhode Island, Senator Chafee?
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. We will be happy to hear your statement.
Senator Chafee. Route 95 comes right through Rhode Island.
And when you have the pedal to the metal in a Volkswagen,
Senator Baucus, what are you at, 55/60?
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. Well, it depends on whether you are going
uphill or downhill. Downhill is a lot faster than uphill.
[Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. I just look forward to the statements of
those giving the testimony today. It is a difficult budget
year, and we want to make sure that we make good, responsible
decisions, and at the same time, keep our highways and our
employees, as Senator Baucus said, working; which is, of
course, always the best stimulus that you can have for the
economy.
I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Senator Chafee.
The witnesses today have been advised that we would like to
hear from you for 5 minutes. What you cannot cover in that 5
minutes, we will make part of the record. Our staffs will pour
over that, and bring to our attention what we did not bring out
in the hearing. Following your testimony, members of the
committee will ask you questions.
Administrator Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED
BY: HON. DONNA MC LEAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND
PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your holding this hearing
today on this very important topic. I also appreciate your
consideration during my confirmation, and my pleased to testify
before you today for the first time as Administrator of the
Federal Highway Administration.
It is an honor, also, to be here today with the Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs and the Chief Financial
Officer of U.S. DOT, Donna McLean. With your permission, we
will submit a joint written statement for the hearing record,
as you indicated.
Our highways, as each of you have spoken to, are critical
links in our Nation's multi-modal surface transportation
system. The challenge is to maintain our high quality network,
while increasing safety, improving mobility, and promoting
environmentally responsible project decisions and, of course,
efficient program delivery, as well.
Of course, our ability to accomplish these objectives is
related to the adequacy and availability of transportation
funding. TEA-21 provided a mechanism for ensuring the revenues
into the Highway Trust Fund are spent, and that the funding
level for the Highway Program is aligned with Trust Fund
receipts.
Over the past 3 years, revenue-aligned budget authority has
provided more than $9 billion in additional highway spending,
funding that is now working in our economy.
Due to the recent economic slow-down and current
projections of future Highway Trust Fund receipts, a downward
adjustment of the Highway Program occurred when the highway
spending was aligned with revenues in the Highway Trust Fund
for 2003. The calculation, as was mentioned, is not a policy
call. It is a calculation based in law and reflected in the
budget.
The $24.1 billion funding level for highways proposed in
the President's 2003 budget reflects the funding level enacted
in TEA-21, as adjusted for the latest Highway Trust Fund
revenue figures.
As we approach reauthorization, we need to look for ways to
smooth out the current positive and negative swings that result
from this adjustment. However, we should not abandon the
adjustment concept.
Linking highway spending to receipts is a fundamental
principle of TEA-21. Even with the negative calculation in
2003, over the life of TEA-21, RABA adjustments will provide a
net gain of $4.7 billion in highway spending.
The 2003 reduction can serve as a wake-up call for all of
us. Current trends in fuel use, as well as technological
advances, including the new fuel cell technology, will require
us to consider new sources of revenue and leveraged funding, if
we are going to have sufficient funds for our highway system in
the future. Reauthorization will give us the opportunity to
consider these important factors.
The FHWA budget emphasizes four priority areas: safety,
mobility, environmental stewardship and streamlining, and
oversight. Safety remains our first priority and our greatest
challenge, and we will work aggressively to improve the safety
record on our Nation's highways.
We also can improve the operation of the system. We have
made significant progress in the deployment of intelligent
transportation systems (ITS), but need to complete that
deployment in both urban and rural areas.
The 2003 budget provides almost $360 million for research
and technology funding that will support innovations in safety,
system preservation, and congestion mitigation, including
expanded deployment of ITS. Continued progress in streamlining
the delivery of transportation improvements will also improve
safety and congestion.
We must, at the same time, remain respectful stewards of
the environment. However, meeting our Nation's mobility needs
and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive goals.
I am happy to report that the median time it takes to
complete an environmental impact statement and get to a record
of decision has been cut by an entire year. While it is an
excellent start, we are committed to accomplishing much, much
more. The budget proposes $6 million in additional funding for
streamlining efforts.
We will continue to improve Federal oversight and
accountability to ensure, as Secretary Mineta has said, that
the public gets what it pays for.
We owe a good return on investment to the public for
transportation funds that they entrust us with, and I like to
call this the public value, in place of dividends.
We must keep our infrastructure secure, and we must
strengthen our commitment to reducing highway injuries and
fatalities, even as we obtain additional capacity from the
system. Working together, we can provide the American people
with a safe, efficient, affordable, and accessible
transportation system.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for
the opportunity to make a brief opening statement. On behalf of
Assistant Secretary McLean and myself, we will be pleased to
answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Reid. Madam Secretary, we will follow the same rule
that we ask our witnesses to follow. Each member will get 5
minutes. Thereafter, if there is still a need for more
questions, we will do a second round.
I was happy to hear in your statement, that it appears that
you are willing to work with us to try to come up with some
additional funding, recognizing that there are some new things
happening out there to cut back on highway funds, in addition
to the September 11th incident. Is that right?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. While the
President's budget did follow the law, we certainly are willing
to work with you. We are aware of the bill that has been
proposed, and will be pleased to analyze that and provide any
technical assistance we can.
Senator Reid. You can imagine in Arizona, what would happen
if they had a 27 percent cut in their Highway Construction
Fund. It would cause a lot of problems, would it not?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, it certainly would.
One of the things that I think is important for us to
remember, Mr. Chairman, while as you said, a 27 percent
reduction is important, this funding will not stop immediately.
We believe that capital outlay will be down around 3 percent
per year, based on the relatively slow spend-out. So we do have
some time to look at this important topic, and take care to do
it right.
Senator Reid. Well, the problem is, it establishes a
baseline that will make it almost impossible to work with. We
have to have, for next year, a different baseline than the one
that you have given us. Otherwise, programs are drastically
affected in the so-called out years.
What initiatives has the Federal Highway Administration
taken in regard to the security of our highway and bridge
infrastructure since September 11th?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, we have been actively working on
security on our bridges and our infrastructure, across the
entire system, and not just in aviation.
Senator Reid. By doing what, though?
Ms. Peters. In the days immediately following September 11,
Secretary Mineta established within the Department of
Transportation, a National Infrastructure Security Committee
(NISC). We have undertaken a number of efforts related to
security. I will pull a few notes here.
This is what we have done to date, in terms of surface
transportation. We have assessed and addressed potential
threats to the highway system. It is a challenge, given the
openness of the system. We are looking at the redundant
capacity, making sure that we have identified alternative
routes and alternative modes of transportation.
We have worked with the States and local governments to
identify high consequence, high value, high vulnerability
facilities; and assisted in conducting vulnerability
assessments, sharing best practices across the country. We are
scheduling regional emergency management workshops to ensure
that areas are prepared for evacuations, quarantines, and
restoration of operations, should that become necessary.
We are performing cases studies on the transportation
response to the September 11th incidents in both the
Washington, D.C. area and New York, as well as the Howard
Street tunnel fire in Baltimore and the Northridge earthquake
in California. We have prepared an emergency preparedness
checklist for State and local governments, and are assisting
them in emergency planning and operations.
Further, we have just recently announced an ITS
solicitation for projects that will be focused on improving
security, using technology. A freight technology exposition is
scheduled for April 27th, and we have under way ITS operations
tests for security. Three are in progress and two more will be
conducted. A national conference on incident and emergency
management will be conducted in Irvine, California, March 11th
through 13th.
We have assisted State and local governments in conducting
tabletop exercises, such as what was done in the Ft. Worth
area. We are working closely with the American Association for
State Highway Officials (AASHTO) task force on transportation
security. Secretary Mineta has asked us, and we are all working
closely together with NISC, to focus on intermodal security
issues, and to coordinate U.S. DOT's security focus across all
modes. NISC is also working very closely with the Office of
Homeland Security.
Senator Reid. There are concerns being raised about both
the accuracy of Treasury's fiscal year Highway Trust Fund
revenue figure, that is 2001, and the reasonableness of
Treasury's future revenue projections. It appears to some of us
that Treasury has based future revenue projections on fiscal
year 2001 revenues, which may represent a low point, due to the
recession.
Has your office taken a look at Treasury's numbers, and are
you comfortable with the 2001 figures being accurate, and that
future year projections are not under-estimated?
Ms. McLean. If I could take that one, sir, yes, we have
looked at them. Treasury, actually, when they estimate future
receipts, uses the same assumptions that are in the rest of the
President's budget. So there are no unique estimates made just
for the Highway Trust Fund beyond the obvious, the taxes. But
those are based on assumptions on the economy's growth, which
is the same for the rest of the President's budget.
So we believe that they are accurate, and we have walked
through them with Treasury. I am sure that Treasury can go into
more detail on that, if you would like to.
Senator Reid. The 27 percent funding cut in your budget for
2003 will have a substantial impact on State programs. Has the
Federal Highway Administration made any effort to assist the
impact on State programs for the year 2003?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, we have calculated the numbers
and provided to each State what we believe will be the
projected reductions in their program, as a result of the
calculations.
Senator Reid. I understand the dollar amounts, but the
impact of what it will do to the highway and transportation
systems in those States, have you taken a look at that?
Ms. Peters. We have done some initial assessments, sir, and
we are working with AASHTO to try determine whether there would
be more significant impacts.
As a former State transportation official, as you and
several other members of the committee have mentioned, I do
understand what those impacts can be. I understand where I
would be, had I been in the job that I was in just a year ago,
and looking at those impacts. It is not good news. I will not
attempt to whitewash that in any way. It is not good news at
all.
There are some tools that the States can use, and we will
help them in looking at those tools, to determine whether or
not they can smooth out of the effects of this reduction in
funding.
One of the tools is that this year, we have a positive
RABA, a positive $4.5 billion RABA. Next year, of course, RABA
will be negative, based on the current projections. We will be
able to smooth that out, using tools such as advanced
construction and other methods of financing.
It is accurate that this does not bring more money to the
table, but those are some of the methods that we have looked at
in terms of being able to smooth this out over the period.
Senator Reid. Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Administrator, I know you are in an awkward situation
with this budget and coming before us. You are facing a
committee that is pretty much unanimous on a bipartisan basis,
in feeling that this budget is not adequate.
For that reason, I believe every member of this committee,
Democrat and Republican, have co-sponsored S. 1917, as well as
almost all of them over on the House side.
I agree with Senator Baucus. I have served for 15 years on
this committee, with eight of those years in the House. I can
remember many Administrations coming forth with a budget that
really was not adequate, and changes can be made.
Now in your statement, and I am quoting now, you say that
the budget ``honors the highway category guarantees in TEA-
21.'' I think there is some disagreement on this point.
I would just like to ask you the question, does the
Administration have a position on S. 1917, and do you believe
that the Highway Trust Fund could accommodate the provisions of
S. 1917? Maybe that would be Ms. McLean on the latter question.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, in terms of taking a position on
the proposed legislation, we have not yet taken a position on
the legislation. But as I indicated earlier, we would be happy
to look at that, and to work with you, in terms of doing a
technical review. I will defer to the Assistant Secretary for
the second question.
Ms. McLean. I believe the bill would allow funding up to
$27.5 billion at the TEA-21 estimated level. Is that correct?
Senator Inhofe. And I might add that a lot of the people
out there do not feel that S. 1917 is adequate. They would like
to have a freeze of the 2002, which would be about $4 billion
more, I believe, than S. 1917 would provide for.
Ms. McLean. I can answer both of those pieces.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Ms. McLean. We believe that looking at the Trust Fund
balance right now, that it can accommodate the $27.5 billion,
basically the original TEA-21 funding level.
But once you get above an obligation limitation level in
2003, above the $30 billion and the $31 billion range, the
Trust Fund would not be able to support that level of
obligation limitation in the out years. In the first couple of
years, it would be able to, but in the out years, it would
begin running a deficit.
Senator Inhofe. Do you feel that that is pretty conclusive
in your thinking, when we have already experienced that we
really cannot predict into the future what that is going to be?
I can remember 3 years ago, when RABA first appeared, I
thought, one of these days, this is going to happen; and, of
course, it has happened. Anyway, that is something that you can
take a look at. Real quickly, I have heard the statement that
for every $1 billion in transportation construction funding, it
creates about 42,000 jobs. Does that sound unreasonable to
either one of you?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, it does not sound unreasonable. I
do not have the basis for the number, but it does not sound
unreasonable.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, well, I would think, as a former State
administrator, you probably have seen the effect it could have.
I would only ask that you keep that in mind,
Right now, we are doing everything we can for a stimulus
package. I honestly cannot think of anything that would do more
to stimulate the economy than to provide the jobs that will
come with increased funding and construction.
I would ask you if that was one of the considerations that
you made during your negotiations with the White House in
coming up with this budget, and if it something that you should
be looking at.
Ms. McLean. The decision was made to follow the TEA-21
legislation, because we just did not believe that abandoning
the concept of linking highway spending to receipts the
fundamental concept and principle of TEA-21 was the position to
take at this time.
We did consider, however, the fact that additional spending
in highways is linked to jobs. But at the same time as Ms.
Peters pointed out previously, the reduction in outlays for the
first year is a reduction of less than 3 percent.
We believed that that was something that could be managed,
balancing the fact that there was increase in funding in 2002
above anticipated levels.
Senator Inhofe. I have always felt very strongly about a
very robust highway program. You know, back when Republicans
were important, I chaired this committee. I have not changed my
thinking since that time.
I have one last question, and my time has expired. Let me
just ask one question, and they can answer it for the record,
if they do not have a position on it.
Does the Administration have a position on a proposed
change in the tax treatment of gasohol, with some of the things
that are being discussed right now?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, the Administration has not yet
taken a position on that. We are reviewing several proposals,
including that of Senator Baucus, with regard to the 2.5 cents,
but have not yet taken a position.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Baucus. Do you have any idea when you might take a
position?
Ms. Peters. I will defer to the Assistant Secretary for
that one.
[Laughter.]
Ms. McLean. I do not have a timetable for you, sir, but I
can get back to you.
Senator Baucus. I mean, the earlier the better, so we know
where we all are.
Ms. McLean. Sure, I understand.
Senator Baucus. Second, on the Treasury's estimates, could
you just tell me how deeply you or your staff examined the
assumptions and the data with Treasury.
Ms. McLean. Well, we have looked at their estimates. They
are all based on, as I have mentioned, the President's economic
assumptions. But there is a level of detail that Treasury deals
with on their own. They do not provide all of the details of
their estimates, and that has been a policy that Treasury has
had for years.
We can, again, provide you some additional information from
Treasury on that. But, again, the estimates are based on the
same assumptions that the President uses in the rest of the
budget.
Senator Baucus. Have you asked Treasury for more details,
and have they refused to give them, because of long-standing
policy? I am just trying to determine this here.
Ms. McLean. No, they have been very cooperative in sharing
their estimates with us. We understand that the reduction in
actuals for 2001 are based on primarily three phenomena: a
reduction in the overall economy, a reduction in receipts from
the retail tax on trucks, and increased substitution of gasohol
for gasoline. So we are very aware of the differences in the
look-back calculation.
Senator Baucus. Do you know whether Treasury uses only the
estimates at the beginning of the year, or whether they are
updated, as the economy changes?
I ask that question because, regrettably, there is a quiet
disparity between OMB and CBO, with respect to tax matters, to
the Joint Tax Committee. That is, whenever we, in the Congress,
particularly near the end of the year, when generally tax
legislation comes to the Floor, are asking the Joint Tax
Committee for estimates. Of course, they look at the economy
and look at lots of other facts.
But by tradition, they use the economic estimates made at
the beginning of the year, in January. They do not update them;
why, because OMB does not. So all this data is really dated. I
am curious whether you know, in doing your RABA estimates, like
I said, the January Administration estimates, or whether they
are ever updated to more accurately reflect the state of the
economy.
Ms. McLean. The TEA-21 legislation requires that the
adjustment for the revenue aligned budget authority and the
other adjustments to the obligation limitations are done at the
time of the President's budget release. So the law dictates
that it is done at that time.
Senator Baucus. That is a legal requirement?
Ms. McLean. Well, it specifically says in law that in the
President's budget, the President shall submit these
adjustments.
Senator Baucus. Well, there is another adjustment. I hope
it does not reflect the Trust Fund balance. That is very
interesting. There must be some meaning in that. I do not know
what it is.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. I urge all of us to go back and see if we
are using the right criteria. I urge FHA, DOT, and all of us
who are interested in this subject to do so. Perhaps we are not
using the right criteria in making these estimates. For
example, there may be some specific highway criteria that we
are just not using, and should.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, except to state
that I urge the Administration to work very strongly for, as
Senator Inhofe stated, a robust highway program.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if they go back and find that
is the correct, what were the words you used, ``program
numbers''?
Senator Baucus. Oh, the numbers.
Senator Reid. Well, my point is, if they find that those
are the right numbers, they should find some different ones,
because we need to do something.
I would ask unanimous consent, if the committee has no
objection, that statements by the Department of Treasury and
the General Accounting Office be made a part of the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Reid. Senator Wyden?
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go over the question of the implication of the
cuts, Ms. Peters, because I am still not clear, in terms of
your view on this.
What I am hearing from State transportation officials in my
State, and I think this is true across the country, is that
these cuts are going to mean significant delays for many
urgently needed transportation projects. Do you disagree with
that assessment?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, no, I do not
disagree that there will be delays. What I was saying, and
perhaps I could and should clarify for the record, is that
transportation construction projects that are underway today
likely will not be delayed, because States will be able to use
the higher level of RABA during the current year, and smooth
that out over time.
Perhaps it would be best if I would frame it, if I were
still a State administrator, would I cut existing
transportation projects, those that are being built today? The
answer to that would be no; that we would be able to work out
funding for those projects.
In terms of the future program, the Highway Program does
spend out at a slower pace than do many other programs. For
example, capital outlay, on average, 27 percent of a project
will spend out in the first year; approximately 41 percent the
second year; 16 percent the third year; and 10 percent the
following year.
Because States, and especially a State like Oregon, have a
number of transportation projects ongoing at any given time,
then you average that outlay over a period of time. So what I
am saying is, I do not see any immediate transportation
projects being stopped, or layoffs as a result of that.
However, you are correct, sir, in terms of the long-term
program. People would generally take a 5-year program and
perhaps spread that out over a longer period of time, given the
projected downturn in revenue. So it will have an effect, but
what I am saying is, it will be more of a delayed effect than
an immediate effect.
Senator Wyden. Could you provide me and other members of
the committee your independent assessment of how you reached
that judgment, because that is not in line with that I am
hearing in Oregon, and I do not think it is in line with what
the Congress is hearing.
If you think that somehow there can be some budgetary
slight of hand, I would like to see your assessment, as to how
you are going to limit the damage here, because it is not a
view that I share. Could you provide that to us?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, we would be happy
to do that.
Senator Wyden. Let me ask a question of your colleague, as
well. Were you asked by the Administration about the
consequences of these budget cuts? It seems to me that it runs
completely contrary to what the President said at the State of
the Union Address. I am just wondering if you or anybody else
in the Administration was asked about the consequences of cuts
of these magnitude.
Ms. McLean. We did discuss the details surrounding a
funding level for highways at the amount proposed in the
President's budget. It was a concern of the Administration.
The decision was made, again, not to abandon the concept of
TEA-21, which is to have highway tax receipts reflected in the
level of highway spending. Again, we believe that RABA has
provided a total benefit of $4.7 billion to highway spending,
and that was something that we did support.
Senator Wyden. But you made the judgment that this could
cost jobs and that this would have regrettable economic
consequences, and you went ahead anyway for the reasons that
you described.
Ms. McLean. Well, as you probably are aware, in TEA-21, any
additional funding beyond what was proposed in the President's
budget, because the President's budget complies with the
current law, would be spending above and beyond what is allowed
in the firewalls. Such spending would essentially either
increase either the deficit, or would have to be balanced by
reductions in spending in other domestic discretionary
programs.
As the President also stated in his State of the Union
Address, we have several priorities in the President's budget,
including fighting the current war, and balancing those
priorities are difficult choices.
Senator Wyden. Let me ask one last question for you, Ms.
Peters. In the last TEA-21, Senator Graham and I, under the
leadership of then Chairman Baucus, worked on this streamlining
issue. The history of how it has been implemented is certainly
very different than the three of us envisioned.
We saw that the whole idea was to ensure that environmental
requirements would move forward concurrently with the project
development requirements; that you put the two of them on the
same track. We are now 3 years plus into this, and it just
seems like we are still moving backward.
Why is it so difficult to take a concept that Senator
Graham and Senator Baucus and I thought was pretty straight
forward--environmental track, project track, work together--why
is it so difficult to get this implemented?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden, I share your
frustration. In fact, I spent some time before Congress in my
prior role, talking about environmental streamlining and how
important it is. I do share your concerns.
In trying to process things concurrently, what I have found
in the short time that I have been with the Federal Highway
Administration is that there are as many reasons as there are
projects out there.
But to summarize some of those reasons, the U.S. Department
of Transportation, while it was tasked with environmental
streamlining, does not have authority over a number of other
environmental regulatory areas.
I believe, however, there are ways we can work through
that. Certainly, the Secretary feels that we can work through
that by working more closely with the other environmental
resource agencies and finding a way, as you indicated, to more
concurrently process requests for project approval, rather than
having them be sequentially processed and then have to loop
back.
Further, we believe there are ways to allocate resources,
as was mentioned earlier, to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
and other resource agencies, so that they can more timely move
those process approvals forward.
We believe that states can process a number of
environmental approvals. We believe that we ought to be able to
delegate authority to the states to do a number of them, most
specifically, categorical exclusions; so again, we can move the
process much more quickly.
I believe, and the Secretary believes, that there are ways
that we can, within the existing law, substantially decrease
the time that it takes to get environmental approvals without
compromising the environment, and we are very committed to
doing so.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reid. The chairman of the full committee, Senator
Jeffords, has arrived. He has indicated he will not give a full
statement.
I will call on Senator Chafee now for his questions.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator Reid.
I believe, Ms. McLean, you mentioned several contributors
to the fall-off in revenue to the Highway Trust Fund. From a
chart I have here, it looks like the retail tax on trucks is
the biggest culprit. Could you just describe what that tax is,
and why it fell off so much? It is $2 billion, from this write-
up.
Ms. McLean. Yes, it is a 12 percent tax on purchases of new
heavy trucks, trailers, and similar pieces of equipment.
Obviously, when the economy is good, companies are making large
investments in capital in their businesses.
That is basically what was happening in 2000. In 2001,
however, those sales declined, and as a result, our tax
revenues into the Highway Trust Fund declined. If these pieces
of equipment are resold, there is no tax that is deposited in
the Trust Fund.
Senator Chafee. And is this up-to-date? If it is 2001, is
it right through December, all those zero percent deals? At
least in Rhode Island, my dealers are telling me, they had some
of their best years ever, with some of the incentives that were
offered.
So it is just such a surprisingly low number, from the
previous year. I was just wondering as to the accuracy of it.
Is it up-to-date, all through December?
Ms. McLean. The figures are for the Federal fiscal year,
ending in September.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman and Senator Chafee, our
understanding in talking with Treasury is that it is.
Apparently, there was quite a peak in the sale of new trucks in
the 1998/1999 timeframe. Then, because the economy has cooled
in more recent years, dealers, instead of buying new trucks,
are keeping the trucks they have.
One of the things that the trucking industry, in my
experience as a State administrator, was able to do, in lean
times, is put the trucks idle for awhile, and not have to
purchase new trucks or not run those trucks. The variable cost
component of their industry is rather large, so they have the
ability to do that.
Initially, at least reading through with the Treasury, as
we were aware of it, it appears that that indicator is now
moving up. I believe that the last factor that I would mention
is that, of course, the last quarter, the fourth quarter
revenue figures, I believe, are not based on actuals, but on
projected from the third quarter.
Ms. McLean. Simply because those estimates are made right
before the President's budget is released, which is right at
the beginning of the year, those estimates just have not come
up.
Senator Chafee. So theoretically, that number could change.
Ms. McLean. It could. But once again, if you go back to the
TEA-21 language, the adjustment that is made for both the
obligation limitation and the revenue aligned budget authority,
those are required to be made at the time the President's
budget is released. So those new figures could come in, but
TEA-21 requires that adjustment to be made at the time of the
release of the President's budget.
Senator Chafee. OK, and last, what is the answer? You
mentioned RABA is going to look better in the future in the
next year, and hopefully you would work with us to maybe just
smooth out some of the rough spots here, and the differences
between the years. Maybe you could just expand on that, and how
you can work with us to do that.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, Senator Chafee, I would be glad
to talk with you a little bit about that. We are looking at two
concepts. One is the calculation of RABA, per se, and is there
a way to perhaps smooth out the peaks and valleys?
The unfortunate circumstance that resulted in the number
that we are looking at today is a double negative, if you will.
In the look-back, as it was calculated, there were overly
optimistic projections for 2001, based a few years back. Then
when we calibrated those to what the actual receipts in 2001
were, that was a negative. The look forward was negative as
well.
The look-forward, however, is not as negative, if that is
not a redundant term, to say it is not as negative going
forward. But nonetheless, it was not a positive number either.
So the combination of the look-back, which was a negative $3.5
billion, and the look-forward, which was a negative $0.9
billion, resulted in what we have today.
I believe, and we have discussed this somewhat within the
Department, and certainly the Secretary mentioned it in his
testimony before this committee earlier, that there may be ways
to smooth out the peaks and valleys, by looking at the method
with which we calculate RABA.
But, as the Assistant Secretary said, and we do feel very
strongly, that tying spending to receipts is an important
concept to continue with in the future. So perhaps we can work
with the way the formula is calculated, to smooth out those
peak-and-valley effects in the future.
Senator Reid. Chairman Jeffords is here. Chairman Jeffords
is, I am sure, feeling good today. The first gold medal in the
Winter Olympics was won by a person from Vermont. Her name was
Clark, as I recall.
Senator Baucus. Kelly.
Senator Reid. Was the last name Kelly?
Senator Baucus. The first name.
Senator Reid. Yes, I thought Clark was right. But anyway,
she is a real daredevil on that snowboard. She better be
careful.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. It was not unexpected.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. Which is true.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Peters, I want to commend you on the
leadership you are providing in the area of environmental
stewardship in the so-called streamlining. You site New
Hampshire as the leader in this regard, and of course, they
probably stole everything they did from Vermont.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. But putting that aside, I encourage you
to continue to highlight best practices around the country, and
to work with your colleagues in the resource agencies.
I would like to see you make as much administrative
progress as possible before we legislate further on this topic.
Please comment on your plans in this regard.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, thank you.
We have a number of efforts underway, where we believe that
we can make some inroads, using the administrative means that
we have available to us today.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the things that we believe
has prevented us from moving forward as aggressively as we
would like is the working relationship between Federal resource
agencies and U.S. DOT. Accordingly, our Deputy Secretary has
met with his counterparts in other resource agencies, and we
want to work very closely with the Council on Environmental
Quality, as well, to move forward streamlining efforts.
We believe that we can do this by raising to a high level
the issues where projects do get hung up and are in dispute,
and by developing a dispute resolution process to move them
through much more quickly, so that we are not delayed in moving
projects forward when disputes do come about.
As I mentioned earlier, we need more concurrent processing,
rather than sequential processing. I have to say, one of the
really frustrating things for me, as a former State
Administrator, was to finally get agreement, for example, with
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and then have to go to the
Corps of Engineers, and get a 404 permit from them.
They would make a change, and then I would have to go back
to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and take the change that I had
to make to get the 404 permit back to them. I felt a little
like a rat in a maze sometimes.
We think that we can change some of those processes so that
we still are mindful stewards of the environment, but we are
not playing this constant loopback game.
Further, there are a number of projects that require
categorical exclusions. These are generally projects that are
not taking new right-of-way, and are not major expansions,
meaning that they would not add capacity. Improvement projects
such as safety and maintenance need to be able to move forward
much more expeditiously than they are today.
These, again, are areas where we believe states can be
given authority, when they have a good environmental record, to
move forward with projects, without having to then come to
Federal officials for another layer of approval. So those are
some of the methods, sir, that we think we can use to expedite
the process.
One more that I would mention is working with the AASHTO
Center for Environmental Excellence. We are allocating some of
the money that you made available to us for environmental
streamlining to get that Center started. It will collect and
share best practices, and send teams out to help people work
through environmental issues when they do hit a roadblock in
project processing.
Senator Jeffords. In your written testimony, you mention
that FHWA has modified its bridge performance measures. In my
State of Vermont, we have many historic bridges, both covered
bridges and steel truss bridges. How will the new measures
impact our ability to preserve those bridges?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, we certainly want to be sure that
we are preserving historic bridges.
If I am not speaking accurately, based on what my written
testimony was, I will certainly get back to you. But this is
one of the factors that we came up against, and this has to do
with the bridge rehabilitation fund (BRF).
If a bridge had had a rehabilitation project in the past 10
years, they were not then able to use BRF funds for future
repairs or maintenance on that bridge that would extend the
life of the bridge. We felt it was important not to restrict
that funding, because clearly we want to extend the life of
bridges.
So we wanted to make available that funding category to use
on bridges, so that we could do restorative work and continue
to extend the life of the bridge.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, that is helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling the
hearing.
Senator Reid. Thank you for being here.
There is one last question that I have. You may have stated
this in your opening statement, or it could have been in
response to Senator Baucus, who asked you a number of questions
about environmental streamlining.
You said that it had been improved by 1 year. Well, if 1
year is 1 year from seven, tell us what that means. Instead of
1 year, it is what?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the base data with
me. But the median time that it takes to complete an
environmental impact statement has been reduced by 1 year.
Senator Reid. But you do not know what that means?
Ms. Peters. I believe it was from 7 years, sir, but let me
get the exact data, so that I do not misspeak to you today. I
believe it was from 7 years. But, as I said, it is still too
long.
Senator Reid. Yes, people who are waiting to have something
done, to tell them that it is multiple years, and we have
increased it by 1 year, that is a big help. We appreciate that,
but we are going to have to do much better than that.
Based on your experience in the State of Arizona, as you
explained to us, you felt like a rat in a maze. That is how
people explain this to us; that they are shuffled back and
forth, from the Corps of Engineers, to the EPA, plus Fish &
Wildlife, and all this. It just becomes a burden that makes us
all look a little bit foolish.
So I think we should really follow the admonition of
Senator Baucus, and do whatever we can to streamline this. If
you need legislative help, we would be happy to take a look at
that.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I certainly
will work with you on that. You have my commitment.
In fact, I will say, when I spoke to the Secretary about
taking the job as Federal Highway Administrator, I mentioned to
him how important this was, and I will continue to focus on it.
Senator Reid. Senator Inhofe, or any other Senators?
Senator Baucus. Yes, I have just a couple of questions,
very briefly.
Ms. McLean, I just want to make sure that I heard your
statement correctly; that is, when Senator Wyden asked you
about whether there will be job layoffs or not.
I want you to please clarify this, because there are many,
particularly in the contracting industry, who say just the
contrary. That is, there will definitely be jobs laid off, if
the Administration's recommended budget is adopted by the
Congress. In fact, I think a panelist on the next panel, my
guess is, is going to testify very much to that point. So I
just want to make sure we heard straight what you said.
Ms. McLean. What I said, or at least what I meant to say,
was that we were looking at all the factors and all of the
details surrounding proposing a funding level at the level that
is in the President's budget.
We are well aware of those suggestions that the reduction
in funding, or an increase in funding, results in either a loss
or a gain of jobs. So that was part of the discussion.
Senator Baucus. So is it your analysis that the swing of
roughly $8 or $9 billion will result in lost jobs or not? I am
just curious what your analysis shows and what your testimony
is.
Ms. McLean. I do not have today what a number would be.
What the reduction in Federal-aid highway program outlays of
1.3 percent in 2003, that would be the reduction in funding
level.
Senator Baucus. I am just asking the simple question, are
there going to be jobs lost or not, based upon the
Administration's budget submission?
Ms. McLean. I would say that there would be a reduction in
funding for highways, which would result in the level of
construction in highways. But I could not tell you the number
of jobs.
Senator Baucus. So the answer is yes, there would be loss,
but you do not know the number.
Ms. McLean. I do not know the number.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
I have one other question, if I might. I have just some
ideas on how to get at environmental streamlining. It is my
thought that because of all the boxes and the rabbits running
around the maze and so forth, and it somewhat legitimate, but I
do not think entirely, that DOT be made the lead agency, with
respect to purposes and need and scope and alternatives.
You know, all agencies can be consulted, and should be, the
appropriate agencies. But you need some lead agency; somebody
that can organize all this.
It is my understanding that there really is not a well
defined lead agency, at this point. So one thought might be
and, in fact, in the bill that I will be introducing at the
appropriate time, it will include such language.
I am also wondering if it might make sense to have sort of
a deadline by which an agency has got to respond, at some date.
It would be something that is reasonable and make sense, but at
least some date.
I mean, the world is usually run by deadlines. For a lot of
people in Government, it is not. I am not being critical, but I
am just making an observation.
For example, all of us run by deadlines. You know, lots of
you can think of all kinds of people in their daily lives who
operate by deadlines, and the businesses have deadlines. You
have quarterly reports in the business sector, and you can name
it. But a lot of agencies do not seem to have deadlines within
which to make their recommendations, their suggestions.
It just seems to me that the agencies should have
deadlines. You know, it would force them to think a little bit.
Frankly, they might find something pretty creative, if they
have got a deadline, so long as it is reasonable. That, too,
will be in the bill. Deadlines will be included in the bill
that I intend to introduce.
But if you could just think about that, when you make your
recommendations to us, as we further discuss the legislation,
we would deeply appreciate it. Thank you.
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus, I think those
are good suggestions, and we will consider those.
Senator Reid. Max, I think that is a great idea, because a
lot of times, these agencies are waiting around for one of the
other agencies to do something.
I think that that, combined with your idea to have a time,
and as you have indicated, a reasonable time, we have got to do
that, because there is no pressure for them to do anything.
They can wait forever on this. So I think that is a great idea.
We have been joined by Senator Graham of Florida. Do you
have a statement you want to give?
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a statement,
but I do have a few questions, if this would be appropriate.
Senator Reid. We would be happy to have you ask those. This
is totally appropriate.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Graham. Now I am going to violate what I just said,
to make a brief statement.
Senator Reid. It does not matter. It is counting against
your 5 minutes, anyway.
[Laughter.]
Senator Graham. I heard the discussion about the number of
jobs affected by this. I know, as a former Governor, during a
period of economic downturn in the early 1980's, we analyzed
all the things that the State Government could do to try to
play a positive counter-cyclical role.
We concluded that one of the most significant things to do
was to accelerate our highway maintenance programs; that they
were quick starting, they were heavy employment-oriented, and
they left behind a better community and a stronger economic
infrastructure.
So I do not know how the States and other territories that
are beneficiaries of these funds are allocating it, as between
new construction and maintenance. But if a significant amount
of that is in maintenance, as I know it is in my State, you are
talking about very large number of job losses, if you cutoff
those funds. So this is a real economic, as well as a
transportation, issue.
Having said that, when did the DOT first begin to suspect
that the RABA calculation would result in such a large negative
number?
Ms. McLean. Sir, during the mid-session review, which the
White House puts out around August----
Senator Graham. This was August of 2001?
Ms. McLean. Correct, there was a release that showed a
negative, and I believe it was around, I want to say, $1.2
billion/$1.3 billion at that time.
Senator Graham. What steps were taken in August of 2001 to
alert the States that they might be facing significantly
reduced funds in the next year?
Ms. McLean. We did notify them, and I think Administrator
Peters can respond to that, as well. But I know that AASHTO was
aware, and some of the other user groups were aware at that
time, that a negative RABA or a negative adjustment was
something that was very possible, due to the tax revenues.
Senator Graham. What steps did the States take to take that
into account?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman and Senator Graham, I could not
tell you specifically what steps the States took. But we did
know as early as mid-summer, that RABA would likely be
negative.
In fact, in early July, we were hosting a Western States
Symposium of State Transportation Officials in Phoenix,
Arizona, shortly before I was able to come to Washington. We
were talking about the probability that RABA would be negative
at that point in time. By the fall, as we began to get more
data together, it was more evident and we were having
discussions with various interest groups.
I do know very specifically in early December of 2001, when
I had an opportunity to speak to the AASHTO organization, which
is the State Highway Transportation Officials, we talked very
openly about negative RABA at that point in time.
I was not party to discussions among the members about what
specifically they might do. Again, I can only look back and
tell you what I would have done, had I still been a State
administrator. I would have been looking at trying to even out
the flow between 2 years, so that I could try to keep my
programs intact, and then look at the out years of the program,
at perhaps extending the date of projects out into the future.
One thing that is important, that we certainly have talked
about, and I have talked about with some members of AASHTO is
that this is news that is not good in the short term. But, as I
mentioned earlier, because of the rather slow pay-out of
highway spending, we are not going to fall off the ``plateau,''
if you will, immediately.
But we do have reauthorization coming up and, as I think
the chairman mentioned earlier, we are starting reauthorization
at a lower level. In looking at the overall life of
reauthorization of the transportation funding act, it is very
important for us to look at this and try to provide more
stability in funding over the long run.
Senator Graham. My time is short, and I am going to make
what may be more of a statement than a question. But I
understand that you talked earlier about the Intelligent
Transportation System Program.
I have been very concerned that the high level of
earmarking of that program had undercut its basic objective,
which was to learn something about how ITS programs worked in
real world applications, so we would do a better job in the
future of reducing highway congestion.
Toward that end, last year, I offered an amendment, which
was adopted in the Senate, and stayed essentially in fact in
the final bill, which said that the following sums shall be
made available for ITS system projects, that are designed to
achieve the goals and purposes set forth in Section 5203 of the
ITS Act of 1998.
I encourage the Department of Transportation to look at
these three pages of earmarked ITS projects, and evaluate them
against that standard of, are they consistent with the purposes
that led to this ITS Act in the first place; and if you find
them not to be consistent, that you not disburse the funds. I
will be interested in seeing which of these many, many projects
you find not to be consistent with the statutory purpose.
Senator Reid. Senator Graham, for those that are watching
this, and members of the committee know, has done hundreds of
jobs and put in full shifts over the years that he was Governor
and the years he has been in the Senate.
My question is, Senator Graham, have you done anything
dealing with highway construction?
Senator Graham. Many, probably 10 or 15 highway
construction jobs, from bridge building to asphalt pouring.
Senator Baucus. I might say to my good friend and chairman,
I have followed Senator Graham's lead. I know that he has done
that. I thought it was a great idea, so I have done the same
thing, and I might say the same.
I have operated heavy equipment and raked gravel on highway
jobs. I commend it to all of us on the committee, because it
gives you a really good sense of, you know, what is going on
here, as you talk to the guys and gals.
I do not know if this happened to you, Senator Graham. I
was also a sign person 1 day, and I was trying to get the
traffic to stop. I jumped out in front of this traffic to get
them to stop, because equipment was on the road, and instead of
flashing the stop sign, I flashed the slow sign.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. A guy went through, but he knew more about
what was going on than I did. He stopped, and he just read me
the riot act, because I had flashed the wrong sign.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. But he knew exactly what was going on.
So we all have had our great experiences on these jobs. I
highly commend it.
Senator Reid. Well, I could rake the gravel, and I think I
could do the sign; but heavy equipment should be left for
someone else.
Senator Baucus. Well, 1 day they put me out in any empty
field for 3 hours by myself, to make sure I did not cause too
much damage.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. Thank you very much. We appreciate both of
you being here.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Ms. McLean. Thank you.
Senator Reid. The next panel of witnesses that we have
today is the Honorable Tom Stephens, Director of the Nevada
State Department of Transportation. He will testify on behalf
of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
We will also hear from Mr. William Fay, President and CEO,
American Highway Users Alliance, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Tom
Hill, Chief Executive, Oldcastle Materials, Incorporated, on
behalf of the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association.
As has been indicated by Senator Inhofe, we were expecting
Mr. Duit here today, but sadly, his business burned down
Saturday night, and he is therefore unable to be here.
I have said this, Senator Baucus, to Senator Graham, but I
hope the two of you do something in the form of putting
together your experiences. I think that would be really
entertaining and really rewarding.
Senator Baucus. We can do that.
Senator Reid. But I think it is great that the two of you
have done that. It is certainly a way to find out what is going
on out there, and there is no other way.
I have done it on a very limited basis, and have to
acknowledge that I have not spent full shifts out there. I will
come and do a few things and then leave. But I know that you
and Senator Graham have put in full shifts, which is very hard
to do.
We are first going to hear today from Tom Stephens. Tom,
please proceed. As each of you know, here is the little lamp.
It will say ``talk,'' and when you have 1 minute left, it says,
``sum up,'' and then ``quit.'' Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Mr. Stephens. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
am Tom Stephens, Director of the Nevada Department of
Transportation. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak
with you today on a topic of extreme concern to every member of
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Mr. Chairman, we, in the States are stunned by the fiscal
year 2003 budget proposal to slash $8.6 billion from the
current highway funding levels. In the midst of a recession,
this would cut the Federal Highway Program by 27 percent,
because of an apparent slow-down in Highway Trust Fund
Revenues, which triggered a complex revenue aligned budget
authority reduction.
Losses of this magnitude can wipe out much of what we have
accomplished in the past 4 years to reduce the backlog of
needed highway improvements. It would set the clock back to
ISTEA.
We strongly support the bill you all introduced last week
to restore highway funding to not less than the $27.8 billion
level authorized in TEA-21 for fiscal year 2003. We commend you
for your appreciation of how important sustained highway
investment is to the country, and thank you for your leadership
in putting forth this legislation.
It is our emphatic view that the ``not less than'' for
fiscal year 2003 should be no less than the $31.8 billion level
provided in fiscal year 2002.
With 36 State Governors and legislators already contending
with severe budget shortfalls, it is vital to maintain current
Federal funding. Otherwise, State and local officials will have
to begin the task of cutting billions of dollars in highway
projects from their fiscal year 2003 Transportation Improvement
Programs.
Final decision on these cuts will be made public in
September, affecting nearly every community in the Nation.
Construction contractors throughout the country will cut back
on equipment purchases, and lay off tens of thousands of well
paid construction workers.
Stock prices of several heavy equipment companies and
construction companies have already dropped. Engineering
consulting firms, already hard hit by the recession, will
almost immediately have to start laying off engineers and
technicians, as design work for next year's projects is delayed
or canceled.
Let me give you just a few State-specific examples, based
upon a survey that AASHTO now has underway. In Nevada, a $50
million cut in Federal funding will translate into a $50
million reduction in construction contracts. Future year
programs will be downsized, as well. This funding cut would
jeopardize our progress on numerous projects to meet the
demands of the Nation's fastest growing State.
In Oklahoma, a total of $120 million in construction and
right-of-way projects would be delayed or canceled, and the
State's proposed $1 billion GARVEE Bond Program would be
jeopardized.
In Montana, a $67 million reduction would result in the
loss of 2,800 jobs, roughly equivalent to a quarter of the new
jobs created in Montana in 2001.
In the longer term, we are concerned that the fiscal year
2003 cut, from $32 billion down to $23 billion, will be used as
the baseline for the reauthorization of TEA-21. Over the next 7
years, the Highway Program would lose $60 billion, the
equivalent of 2 years funding under TEA-21, with the Highway
Trust Fund locking up tens of billions of dollars by the end of
the period.
Not only do we need to ensure that the fiscal year 2003
funding levels are restored, but also that the firewalls for
the distribution of the Highway Trust Fund receipts are
perpetuated.
This damage to our highway system and the Nation's economy
need not occur. As the chart next to me shows, there is over
$19 billion in the Highway Trust Fund. By using only $2.4
billion for outlays in fiscal year 2003, we can keep highway
investments at the fiscal year 2002 level.
Now no matter what you think about the calculations, when
you look at the numbers here, the fact is that the Highway
Trust Fund has grown from $8 billion in the last 4 years, up to
$19 billion. No matter how you calculate it, there is a lot
more money in the Highway Trust Fund today than there was 4
years ago.
Clearly, the RABA mechanism needs to be refined, and
calculations by the Treasury Department need scrutiny. But
there are two principles adopted in TEA-21, which must be
maintained.
The first is to provide funding guarantees to provide the
reliability essential to multi-year investments. The second is
to preserve the firewalls in the Budget Enforcement Act, to
assure that all of the revenues which flow into the Highway
Trust Fund are spent for transportation.
Let me conclude by saying that transportation has enabled
the economic prosperity that America has enjoyed since the
1950's. It is a simple equation: better transportation equals
productivity gains and economic growth.
As we struggle to regain our economic vitality, we dare not
pull the plug on our transportation investments. America's fuel
taxes collected for highways should be spent on highways.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
Senator Reid. Mr. Fay?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN HIGHWAY
USER'S ALLIANCE
Mr. Fay. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting the Highway
User's to testify at this important, very timely hearing on
highway funding.
We are one of the most broad-based and diverse advocacy
groups in the U.S. We are a consumer's group for America's
motorists and truckers, buses and RVs. We represent vehicle
manufacturers; the oil industry; the service stations that fuel
them; 3-M, insurance and other safety interests; farmers;
industries that produce concrete, stone, asphalt; and
contractors and equipment manufacturers that turn those
substances into highways.
It seems like yesterday that we were asking for $5 billion
to stimulate jobs in the economy. Now we are here on a far
graver task, to avert the job and economic disruption that will
result from the loss of $9 billion in highway funding next
year.
Simply stated, slashing 27 percent from our Nation's
largest infrastructure program is too much. It will have
serious economic repercussions for a Nation struggling to climb
out of recession. Cuts ranging from $28 million in Delaware, to
$618 million in California, will be nothing short of
calamitous.
The mere announcement of these cuts has already cost
Americans jobs. Appended to my statement is a Joint Economic
Committee study, estimating the cost of losing one's job: the
financial hardship, the loss of health care and health
insurance, rising mortality, divorce, and suicide. Quoting from
that study, the longer jobless endures, the more likely it
becomes that frustrations will be vented on the family or on
the rest of society.
Road investments not made also delay positive societal
benefits: the safety benefits of reducing crashes, the air
quality, time saving and fuel saving benefits of relieving
gridlock, the productivity benefits of speedier deliveries.
They are the reason that the highway tax is the tax Americans
pay most willingly. But they are only realized if highway taxes
are used as intended.
No where are these gains clearer than in our study
evaluating the 20 year benefits of improving America's 167
worst bottlenecks, 287,000 fewer crashes, 1,150 fewer deaths,
141,000 fewer injuries, 45 percent less carbon monoxide, 44
less VOCs, 71 percent less CO2, 20 billion less gallons of fuel
consumed, and 19 minutes knocked off the time it takes to drive
through the bottleneck.
For commuters, that is 38 minutes a day that they can spend
with their families, at work, at errand, or recreation. That is
why this funding shortfall is so crucial to our 45 million
members.
In the short term, we strongly support prompt enactment of
S. 1917. We are mounting a nationwide media and grassroots
campaign to enlist co-sponsors, and urge appropriators to do
their part, once it is enacted.
We wish the funding levels were more, but we commend this
committee for its unanimous support and leadership, and for its
bill, that actually sets obligation levels at a little under
the amount that the Administration's budget says is going to be
collected in taxes in 2003.
America's highway users have an ironclad case that sets us
apart from other interests asking for funding. We have already
paid the $19 billion in taxes, and they are just sitting here
in Washington.
To make matters worse, even using the Administration's
conservative revenue estimations, this surplus is going to
double by the year 2008. The taxes we want released have
already been paid. If they are not released, even more funds
will languish in Washington, as our roads crumble.
Let me be clear. We knew that RABA could go both ways. We
have enjoyed record funding, because receipts have exceeded
expectations. If there was not a Trust Fund surplus, we would
be just another interest group with its hand out. But we have
already paid the taxes that S. 1917 will invest.
Turning to reauthorization, TEA-21 restored the concept of
highway taxes paid equal highway investments made. While that
concept must be preserved, we might make some minor adjustments
that are going to eliminate future funding swings.
To us, the fact that Treasury has failed to predict the
adverse impact of the recession on revenues from diesel fuel
and truck and tire sales, their models fail to understate
future revenues, particularly if the economy picks up.
To us, that suggests several clear priorities, and they are
included in my statement. We need to enact S. 1306, which will
shift over $400 million in ethanol tax receipts into the
Highway Trust Fund. We need to further stop tax evasion. We
need to invest the $19 billion Trust Fund surplus.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here to testify. We
look forward to working with this committee to continue to
support the vital role that our highway system plays in our
economy and our every day lives.
Senator Reid. We will now hear from Mr. Tom Hill from the
private sector.
STATEMENT OF TOM HILL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OLDCASTLE MATERIALS,
INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my
name is Tom Hill. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Oldcastle
Materials. We are the largest material supplier and paving
contractor in the United States, headquartered here in
Washington, D.C.
I am here today on behalf of the American Road and
Transportation Builders Association, where I am privileged to
serve as Senior Vice Chairman. ARTBA has been representing the
transportation construction industry here in Washington for
over 100 years this week.
Oldcastle has operations in 25 states and employs over
15,000 people in the transportation construction industry. We
are a federation of companies, and to help illustrate our
reach, we have significant operations in several of your
States.
In Montana, we have Jensen Construction in Missoula, and
Maronic Construction in Helena, Montana. In Connecticut, we
have Tilcon, a very major employer in the State. Tilcon also
has a large presence in Rhode Island.
In Ohio, our Shelley Company is the largest paving
contractor in the State, with well over 1,000 employees. Mr.
Chairman, we also have a fairly small operation in Elko,
Nevada.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today, because the proposals currently before Congress relating
to Federal highway investment in 2003 will have a direct impact
on our business and the hard working people we employ.
Our deep involvement in transportation improvement projects
across the Nation provide me with a unique perspective on what
the real world impacts of this will have today and in 2003.
Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that people like myself,
contractors, material suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and
State transportation officials across the Nation, are having a
hard time understanding why we are suddenly looking at nearly a
30 percent cut in Federal Highway Program funding next year.
This is nothing but a crisis for our industry. Share prices
dropped on the release of the President's budget. More
importantly, our employees are deeply concerned about their
jobs and their families.
This is not a 2003 problem, and let me reemphasize that. It
is not just a 2003 problem. States are already delaying
projects. Companies like mine are curtailing capital
investment, and the impact is being felt right now.
Then we learn that the cut is being triggered because the
program funding level is dictated by a truly convoluted
mathematical formula, that hinges on the accuracy of economic
forecasts that try to guess the future. It is confusing.
When we learn that since TEA-21 was enacted in 1998, that
the Highway Trust Fund's account balance has grown to close to
$20 billion that includes billions in surplus revenue, we do
not even know why there is a problem.
My understanding of TEA-21 was that it was based on the
principle that, for the first time, all incoming highway user
revenues to the Trust Fund would be spent in a timely manner on
needed transportation improvements. If there is a $20 billion
balance in the Trust Fund, that clearly has not happened.
The RABA adjustment cut of $8.6 billion is not just some
academic exercise that takes place in a vacuum. I was out
amongst our companies last week, meeting with employees on this
issue. I can tell you, they are scared and energized to reverse
this cut in any way they can.
The $8.6 billion is already sustaining 360,000 American
jobs in companies like mine. If you waive a magic wand and take
it away, just because someone in Washington made a mistake in
predicting the future of the economy, then those jobs will be
lost. Real American workers and companies will be hurt.
Let us use that $20 billion Trust Fund balance to maintain
the program next year at this year's level, so that we are not
creating unemployment, disrupting State highway programs, and
delaying critical safety improvements.
I am not an economist, and I am not going to pretend to be
able to explain all the nuances of Federal transportation
funding that are contained in ARTBA's testimony. That is why I
brought Dr. Buechner, who is the economist at ARTBA, along with
me.
The ARTBA written statement outlines a number of ideas for
improving the RABA mechanism and for meeting the Nation's
transportation needs in the TEA-21 reauthorization bill. I ask
that our statement and all attachments to it be included in the
record of this hearing, so they can be studied and considered
by Congress.
Senator Reid. Hearing no objection, that will be ordered,
and that is the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association to which you refer.
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman and Senator Inhofe, we deeply
appreciate your leadership, and that of your entire committee,
in introducing S. 1917 last week, which would set a floor on
fiscal year 2003 highway funding at the authorized guaranteed
firewall level. That has got the ball rolling in Congress, and
ARTBA supports your bill.
We also hope that over the next weeks, we can work with you
and Congress to maintain funding next year at the current $31.8
billion level. Cutting the program by $4.1 billion makes no
more sense than cutting it by $8.6 billion.
Please use the Highway Trust Fund for its intended purpose,
to fix this legislative glitch. The user fee revenues are
coming in to do it.
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my
views, the concerns of our employees, and the positions of my
industry's associations with you and the committee.
Senator Reid. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Hill, and
thank you for appearing here on such short notice.
The statement about which I am going to make has no
partisan ramifications. But it does have ramifications to what
I think is a bureaucracy that really prevents us from doing
certain things here in Washington. I mean, this is just not
right to have this in the budget. Some people should have
advised the President of its ramifications.
Using the figures that Tom Stephens gave us, I did this on
a calculator. I thought maybe I was wrong, so I did it by hand:
$60 billion is 2,520,000 jobs--2,520,000 jobs. These are high
paying jobs. Each person that has one of those jobs is paying
taxes, buying refrigerators and cars. I mean, we just cannot
let this happen.
Now we have been talking about an economic stimulus package
here for months. One of the things I talked about was having
what I refer to as an American Marshall Plan, infrastructure.
In Nevada, we have problems that are different than in New
York. They have things that are old. We have things that are
new that need to be done. So we have different problems all
over the country. But our infrastructure is in drastic need of
help.
We did not have it, in the Democratic proposal, even though
I tried, and it certainly did not have any support in the
Republican proposal. I cannot imagine why we did not go with
that.
I spoke at the National Mayor's Association. They went
crazy. They know it is the right thing to do. I have gotten
support from all over America, with State legislators. But here
in Washington, the bureaucrats have stymied me. A simple
program like building roads, I cannot get it through the
bureaucracy.
So I just think that not only do the cutbacks hurt programs
about which I just spoke, but the other thing that happens, and
I say this to all the panelists, if you cut back on a project,
it makes it more expensive before you finish it.
If on the road, we are going to build between search light
and railroad passes, little local stuff, I mean, if we are
going to do that over 3 years instead of 2 years, the project
is more expensive.
So I am so glad that we have the support of the Republicans
in the House and Republicans in the Senate. This is something
that we are all joining together on. I mean, they are happy and
the Democrats are supporting it. We have got to join together
and get this done. This is more than just fluff.
So I have some questions that I will submit to all of you.
Your testimony has been tremendous. Mr. Hill, we appreciate
very much your coming on such short notice.
When anyone ever says that Government cannot create jobs,
they are wrong. Government does create jobs with programs like
this. As far as I am concerned, there are two major programs
that really get people to work: building houses and doing
things with roads and bridges and dams and things of that
nature. That creates lots of jobs.
Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I think most of you were here when the previous
panel was here, and Senator Baucus said something that I recall
also. That is that quite often, under different
Administrations, Democratic or Republican Administrations, they
start with a number that is lower than we end up. I think that
has just become a reality.
Your economic analysis, all three of you, it is pretty
stark, when you talk about some of the things that could
happen. Now what would be helpful to me, for example, the $1
billion and the 42,000, to see just how you came up with these
figures.
You might remember, I asked the Administrator and Ms.
McLean that question. They did not question it, but I think it
would be helpful for us to actually, Mr. Stephens, come up with
something where we can say, this is how this works.
I would make the same request for the fact that they have
said that we could take the additional figure that is found in
S. 1917. But the Trust Fund could not support the higher figure
that you folks are talking about, and you say that they can.
So this would be helpful to us to have your analysis, so
that we could look over and make our own determination, and we
could be more persuasive in presenting our case. Are there any
thoughts about that?
Mr. Stephens. To address your first point, that is
published data. The Federal Highway Administration put it out
in a pamphlet, in preparation for TEA-21, where they showed the
number of jobs, direct, indirect, et cetera. I will be happy to
send you a copy of that pamphlet.
At that time, I happened to be the chairman of the AASHTO
Economic Committee, so the economic impact of highway
expenditures was a big deal to us, and the Federal Highway
Administration published that. So maybe it is only 40,000 per
one billion now, because of inflation.
Senator Reid. Or maybe it is 45,000.
Mr. Stephens. Or maybe it is 45,000; but that was published
data by the Federal Highway Administration.
Senator Inhofe. Well, that is very helpful, Mr. Stephens,
because I was not aware of that. When we can show that, that
helps in establishing the case. Do not always assume, when you
come up with a figure, that we have the background on that
figure.
And do not put me in an adversarial relationship. I agree
with you. I just want to be able to see it, so that we can
present it with conviction; yes, sir?
Mr. Hill. If I could just comment on that. You know, the
real world effects are, we invest in asphalt plants and
quarries, crushing plants, for 20 and 30 years. When all of a
sudden, there is a blip in what has been a fairly steady stream
of Federal moneys for the last 30 years, it really puts doubt
on whether you should invest for 20 and 30 years.
In fact, you know, we are reassessing our capital program
for next year with this in mind. That just is where the real
life effects of it are. Our equipment manufacturers are
worried, and they should be.
You know, it is not just the jobs on the road. It is not
just the guy on the back of the paver. It is the guy in the
plant in Iowa that manufacturers the crushing equipment and so
on. It is very real.
Senator Inhofe. Go ahead, Mr. Fay.
Mr. Fay. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe, what Mr. Hill said
is exactly right. He just mentioned the words ``capital
budget.'' This is our Nation's capital budget, the
infrastructure of this Nation. Yet, it is treated in much the
same way as the pencil you are holding, you know, Mr. Chairman,
in the way that it is accounted for.
Thankfully, TEA-21 actually brought some sanity to that
process by setting it apart and having a connection between
revenues received and the amount that is appropriated and
budgeted. But this is a capital program. It is just not treated
that way. A lot of States may treat it that way.
Senator Inhofe. No, I understand that, and believe me, I
have had a lot of conversations with our people at Oklahoma. As
you know, Mr. Duit was going to be here; and Mr. Hill, I
appreciate your being here on such short notice.
Well, the other thing, and you can just give me this for
the record, and that is that the numbers support S. 1917, but
according to the Highway Administration, may not support the
others; but you say they are supported. So we would just need
to have your data to help us out.
Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions.
Senator Reid. Senator Inhofe, I just advised my staff, just
so you and Senator Chafee understand, as to the way I like to
conduct the subcommittee hearings. Those people that get here
first, they give their statements in the order that they show
up. But after that, what I do is, I try to go on the basis of
seniority.
So Senator Graham, questions?
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stephens, when did your State Department first learn
that there was going to be significant reduction in 2003
funding?
Mr. Stephens. I hate to quibble with words, but we were
first officially notified of this in a letter of January 24th,
2002, signed by the Administrator, Mary Peters.
I will acknowledge that people had talked about RABA in
various forums before then. But this is the letter which drove
the point home, saying that we were only going to get $146
million for the State of Nevada, instead of the $203 million
that we had gotten the previous year, and it talks about the
adjustment.
I, frankly, had never looked at the adjustment in great
detail, and I am not somebody who is shy about crunching
numbers. I understand numbers. But when I got into the RABA
adjustment, I was just amazed at how they did the look-back,
the look-forward, estimates, authorizations, obligation
authorities, and receipts.
The receipt estimates, those are actual receipts from 1998
through 2001, $24 billion to $33 billion, and then down to $30
billion. The last year, they are saying, is $27 billion.
We are not experiencing that kind of fluctuation on the
State level in our revenues for diesel and fuel tax. We are not
seeing where they are coming up with the figures from the truck
tax. For example, they say the truck sales tax went down 55
percent. Well, the sales only went down 24 percent. So what is
going on there?
I do not know that the GAO report had shed any light on
that. Maybe people in the recession decided not to pay their
taxes last year and are paying penalties. I have no idea. But
we are not seeing the same data.
Now it has flattened out. Revenues have flattened out. They
are not increasing, but they are not dropping the way that they
have indicated on the State level. What they are doing on the
Federal level, we do not run the Treasury.
Senator Graham. It was indicated that the first signal that
the Department had was in August of last year. They thought
they had communicated it through AASHTO or other
intermediaries; but apparently, the full impact had not reached
the States affected until January.
Would it have been helpful if there had been a more formal
method of early identification to you and other State highway
administrators, as to what your budget was likely to be for
2003?
Mr. Stephens. It certainly would have been helpful, and I
think probably in a going-forward basis, and I do not mean to
be critical of the Federal Highway Administration. This has
never happened before in this manner. So I do not want to be
critical of Mary Peters and her tenure there. She is excellent.
But it would be helpful if, when they do this mid-year
review, I guess, which comes out in August, if they would sent
that out in a letter to every Director, Secretary of State,
DOT, indicating to them what was going on, so that we have
really got it on our radar screen.
Somebody saying something in a meeting, in a national
meeting, where there might be 25 percent of the Directors in
the meeting, and maybe only two-thirds of the States
represented, that does not hammer it home. What hammers it home
is a letter like this, that I got from the Federal Highway
Administration, dated January 24th.
Senator Graham. As you know, this committee will soon be
turning to the task of reauthorization of the Surface
Transportation Act. I would appreciate, from all three of you
and the members that you represent, your ideas as to how can we
create a more predictable and stable funding level.
I recognize that there is the business cycle. It has not
been repealed and, therefore, there are going to be ups and
downs, over an extended period of time. I think it is important
for people who have the responsibility of planning projects
that take multiple years to complete, to have some degree of
predictability within that up and down, as to what their
resources are going to be.
Maybe some things like multi-year averaging or other steps
that would help to knock down the peaks and valleys of funding
would be helpful. But you could be very helpful to this
committee, if you would give us the benefit of your suggestions
as to how to try to build as much stability into this program
as possible.
I mentioned in my opening statement that, at least from the
Florida perspective, we found that expenditures on highway
maintenance were some of the highest job creation activities.
These numbers are almost 20 years old in my mind now, but I
think at the time, we were projecting that for every million
dollars of expenditure, that you could create somewhere in the
range of 40 to 50 annualized jobs. This was in early 1980
expenditure levels. It is probably a little bit less today.
But what is your estimate? What percentage of your funding
is going into maintenance, and how many jobs does every million
dollars of that maintenance expenditure generate?
Mr. Stephens. Well, on the National level, the $1 million
to 42,000 works out to about one job for $25,000. So it works
out into your range of figures: the 40,000 to 50,000 for $1
million.
I do not have a study that shows this. But my feeling is
that you are exactly correct, that maintenance work creates
more jobs than construction work.
There are several reasons behind that. One, the lead time
on design of a maintenance project is shorter, because you do
not have all the complications of designing new bridges and
whatever. You do not have to buy right-of-way. You do not have
to get interrupted by long environmental delays.
So you can get the money out a lot quicker on the
maintenance project. To some extent, maintenance projects are
more labor intensive, like doing an asphalt overlay, than
buying the steel for a bridge for example, and building a new
bridge.
So you are exactly correct. To what extent maintenance
versus new capacity projects and how that relates, I cannot
tell you. But it is certainly my very strong feeling, after 7
years of experience as the Director, that that is exactly
correct.
Mr. Hill. Senator, as the largest paving contractor, we
think all the money should go to maintenance.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Senator Chafee?
Senator Inhofe. Well, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, on your
interest in my work days, one of my early work days was laying
asphalt on a maintenance project. It happened to be on Graham
Street in South Daytona Beach.
So if you want to come down to the big race in Daytona
Beach this weekend, I will arrange for you to go to Graham
Street and see what a good job maintenance I did.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. Well, you do a good job of maintenance here.
I am sure you did a good job on Graham Street.
Senator Chafee?
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Some of the comments here, I have to agree with, are
calamitous cuts. I think Mr. Fay said that. I think just in
hearing Mr. Stephens talk about what, a $50 million cut in your
budget, is that accurate?
Mr. Stephens. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Those would be just calamitous for all our
States.
I also have to agree about the accuracy and, I think Mr.
Stephens, in your testimony or at least your written testimony,
you did question the accuracy. It just seems to me also that we
have to get to the bottom of that.
So at least we are being responsible, using real dollars
and making sure they are going toward the projects that they
are designated toward. But if they are there, we want to use
them, certainly. Other than that, I have no other questions,
except for Mr. Hill. I was just wondering what does Oldcastle
Materials make?
Mr. Hill. We are the fourth largest producer of
construction aggregates, and we are the largest producer of
asphalt in the United States.
Senator Reid. You mentioned this, Mr. Fay, very briefly,
and I want to elaborate on it, because of personal experience.
I have talked to Tom Stephens many times about the road to my
hometown of Searchlight, where I have a home.
After September 11th, and I have no complaint about that,
and I am glad they did this, they took a lot of the truck
traffic off of Hoover Dam. But that has created a road from
what we call Railroad Pass to Searchlight, 36 miles, that is a
death trap.
I do not want my children to come and visit me when I am in
Searchlight, because I am afraid they are going to get killed
on that road, and I am not exaggerating. Thousands and
thousands of trucks, big trucks, come over that road every day
that did not come before.
The one thing that you talked about, that I want to stress,
this road construction saves lives. I mean, we have had scores
of people killed on that Searchlight road. It is 36 miles.
People do not know how to drive on a two lane road anymore, and
they become anxious and they pull around. There is something
facing them, and it is death for one or more.
People say, well, when I get money for home, they criticize
and say, Reid brings pork home, you know. But I have never
apologized for a single penny that I brought home for road
building and other things. Because I believe I am bringing home
things that make people more comfortable, it makes businesses
more efficient, and saves injury and death.
Now would anybody disagree with that, that is on the panel
today?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fay. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 117
Americans will die today on our roads, and 788 will die this
week.
I am a Trustee on the Roadway Safety Foundation, which is a
non-profit educational group that just puts out materials like
the fact that adding one foot to the width of a lane reduces
fatal crashes by 12 percent; adding two feet reduces them by 23
percent. Every time Mr. Hill improves a road, he does save
lives.
When you take a look at safety experts, they have a lot of
great data on this. They have calculated that 30 percent of all
fatal crashes in the United States are due to outmoded road
design.
These are roads that are carrying way too much traffic than
they were designed to carry, or roads that area not in good
condition or not well maintained. Those are roads that are
killing people. It is a real travesty.
I just point people sometimes to our interstate highway
system, because it is the safest road system in the world, in
terms of fatality rates. What is that? It is because it is
designed for that. The lanes are wider. The shoulders are
wider. There is a gentle slope off the side of the road. The
lanes are divided to prevent head-on collisions.
If you remember, we had two head-on collisions within a
couple of weeks on George Washington Parkway out here. They
just simply put up guardrails, and we have not had one since
then. These investments really do save lives.
I had gotten into a tremendous argument with an NBC
reporter that was talking about highways as the fleecing of
America. I took great umbrage because I said, as a person that
represents the taxpayers, we do not feel fleeced. What we feel
is that not enough investments are being made to save our lives
and to make our commutes easier.
The greatest personal problem that is facing Americans
today, when you look at polls, that personal problem is time
management. We do not have enough time in the day to do all the
things that we need to do.
The investments that this committee puts through, and the
investments that your bill is going to put through, are going
to save people's lives. They are going to give us more time
with our families, and we commend you for them.
Senator Reid. Mr. Hill, I have one question. You have
brought an economist with you, and I would like to have his
information be made a part of this record. I am anxious to hear
how he feels about this analysis of the Treasury's revenue
estimates.
I am intrigued by what you said, that this organization
that you are representing here today is 100 years old. Is that
right?
Mr. Hill. That is correct. It is in 2 weeks, or is it this
week?
Senator Reid. Anyway, it is recently, and we want you to
give us the benefit of your organization's information about
what has happened with the Treasury Department.
Mr. Stephens, I would like you to do the same.
Mr. Fay, if you have anything, we will take that, too.
We will make this part of the record.
Senator Reid. Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. I have nothing further.
Senator Reid. This has been a very good hearing. I
especially appreciate the members of the committee for being
here and being so attentive.
This is an issue that is, and I repeat, of a bipartisan
nature. We are going to work very hard to get more money. We
recognize that we are in a fiscal downturn. But if you want to
really get in a downturn, cut back road building the way that
has been talked about.
The subcommittee stands in adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 2:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the State of
Vermont
Thank you, Senator Reid. First, let me say that I look forward to
working closely with you as we proceed toward reauthorization of the
Surface Transportation Program. This subcommittee will be our think
tank in the months ahead.
Let me also thank all of our fellow EPW Committee members for
joining me in sponsoring S. 1917, the Highway Funding Restoration Act.
ThroughS. 1917, we have taken an important step toward ensuring that
the nation's transportation program will be properly funded in fiscal
year 2003.
We have borne many burdens as a Nation over the last few months.
Now is not the time to backslide on our commitments to the traveling
public. The construction season is just around the corner in my State
of Vermont. Literally thousands of jobs are supported by our investment
in transportation. We can't shortchange this sector if we expect to
pull out of recession.
S. 1917 is fiscally responsible. It funds the highway program at
the authorized levels. At those levels, the balance in the Highway
Trust Fund can support the spending.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about both the
immediate budget outlook and the longer-term picture.
Good afternoon to Assistant Secretary McLean and to Administrator
Peters. Your partnership and cooperation in our process is greatly
appreciated.
I'm delighted also to see the outstanding panel of industry
representatives and State officials. These folks understand the
outcomes of our budget decisions. I am most concerned with outcomes.
I know that resources will be the heart of the matter as we craft
the committee's reauthorization proposals. It is vital that we get
spending right for the coming year. Fiscal year 2003 will set the base
for the 6-year program we are about to authorize.
I want to achieve a balanced transportation system in this country.
I want a system that provides choices to our citizens, that is secure
and reliable.
As we proceed with the committee's hearing agenda, we will receive
a detailed accounting of the transportation system's needs and
opportunities for the future. I expect that the needs will be great and
the opportunities breathtaking! We must ensure that the resources are
there to be called on.
So again, I thank you Senator Reid.
__________
Statement of Hon. Tom Carper, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware
I'd like to thank the chairman for holding this important hearing
today and for giving me the opportunity to make a statement before his
subcommittee on an issue that is important to all of our States.
When President Bush released his Fiscal Year 2003 budget 1 week ago
today, the budget for the Federal Highway Administration, particularly
for the Federal-Aid Highway program, was one of the more attention-
grabbing pieces. After 3 years in which States received more than $9
billion in aid above the numbers projected in TEA-21, the program was
cut by nearly $9 billion. As we all know, this cut came as a result of
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), which, for the first time, was
negative due to lower-than-expected revenue into the Highway Trust
Fund. This means that, under the president's budget, Delaware, for
example, will experience a nearly $30 million cut in Federal highway
aid in 2003, about 24 percent less than its 2002 allocation. Other
States will see even more dramatic cuts. At a time when the economy is
just beginning to recover from recession, when combined State budget
shortfalls are at $15 billion and many States are being forced to trim
their budgets or raise taxes, Congress should act to restore some of
these cuts. That's why I joined all of my colleagues on the full
committee in co-sponsoring S. 1917, the Highway Funding Restoration
Act, a bill that would raise Federal highway aid next year to the 2003
level called for in TEA-21.
In the coming year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to
fix RABA to ensure that, in the future, States are provided with a
steadier stream of highway funding. The Federal-Aid Highway program
should not be as subject as it is now to the ups and downs of the
economy and the Highway Trust Fund should not suffer from the nation's
increased reliance on alternative fuels. At the same time we are
addressing these issues, however, we must enhance the flexibility TEA-
21 gave States in spending their Federal transportation dollars by
allowing them the discretion to spend at least a portion of their
highway and transit funding on inter-city rail projects. Just last
month, in the first hearing the full committee held on TEA-21 re-
authorization, we heard from representatives of the National Governors'
Association, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference
of Mayors and the National League of Cities, all of whom expressed
strong support for expanding the flexibility built into TEA-21 to cover
inter-city rail. The mayors, in particular, released the results of a
transportation survey showing that increased funding for new inter-city
rail projects was one of their members' top priorities. I was pleased
to hear several of my colleagues echoing the witnesses' testimony that
day when they spoke about the desire among their constituents for
passenger rail service that can connect them to our growing national
system. Allowing States to spend at least a portion of their Federal
highway and transit dollars on inter-city rail projects will
significantly improve Amtrak's ability to build on its existing long
distance routes and begin serving cities and towns that currently have
no passenger rail service at all.
In the last Congress, the full committee passed S. 1144, a
bipartisan bill that would have allowed the funds TEA-21 granted States
for the National Highway System, Surface Transportation and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Programs to be spent on inter-
city rail projects. I hope to introduce similar legislation shortly.
As I'm sure you all know, Amtrak President George Warrington
announced earlier this month that he would trim nearly 1,000 jobs and
$300 million from Amtrak's budget this year. He also announced that
Amtrak will have to propose major route reductions if it does not
receive the necessary funding from Congress to pay its operating and
capital expenses. The most likely candidates for route reductions are
those routes outside the Northeast Corridor that are not partially
supported by States. In the coming year, I plan to work with my
colleagues to see that Amtrak is re-authorized, that its budget
requests are met and that a dedicated source of capital funding is
created.
My bill will not solve Amtrak's capital funding dilemma. What my
bill will do is help States retain critical service by increasing the
tools they have available to them to spend their highway and transit
dollars more flexibly to retain critical service. Increased flexibility
will not cost the Federal Government anything and will not require any
State to fund inter-city rail projects if it does not want to do so. It
will, however, give States the ability to give our constituents the
transportation services they need. It is my hope, then, that, when the
committee considers S. 1917, we can also act to give States the kind of
flexibility our constituents and their Governors, mayors and county
administrators are asking for.
__________
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
Thank you Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to join you today in welcoming
our witnesses. It is always a pleasure hear from Federal Highway
Administrator Mary Peters. We are very fortunate to have an
Administrator at Federal Highway that understands the tough choices our
States have to make. Mary's background as the director of the Arizona
Department of Transportation will be very beneficial to us as we
balance the needs of our individual States with need the for a national
transportation system because she will be able to tells us what works
and what does not work. So I am looking forward to working with you as
we begin deliberations on reauthorization.
I have had the pleasure of working with Donna McLean first as a
fellow on the Water Resources Subcommittee on the then Public Works and
Transportation Committee in the House. We were fortunate that she
decided to stay as a permanent staffer on the Aviation Subcommittee. I
have always found Donna to be very thorough and accurate in her
analysis and I have no doubt that as we work through the varying
interpretations of RABA, we will find that she will be most helpful in
explaining the position of the Administration.
I am most anxious to hear from Thomas E. Stephens, Director of the
Department of Transportation in the chairman's home State of Nevada.
Again, I believe we can never hear too often from our State officials
on how decisions we make in Washington effect how they to their jobs at
home.
It is always good to hear from Bill Fay. His group, the Highway
User's Alliance will play an important role in reauthorization.
Finally, I had hoped to be welcoming my friend and fellow Oklahoman
Jim Duit to testify on behalf of the American Road and Transportation
Builders Association. Unfortunately, Jim's suffered a devastating fire
to his business Saturday evening. In talking with him it appears that
the cause of the fire may have been arson. Needless to say, he is
unable to join us today. However, I have the oral statement that he had
planned on making and I would ask that it be submitted for the record.
Also, I have a written statement of Kenneth K. Wert who is President
has Haskell Lemon Construction Co. in Oklahoma that I would like to
submit for the record.
We are fortunate that Mr. Tom Hill, Chief Executive of Oldcastle
Materials, Inc. could join us today to present the industry's
perspective on the proposed FY03 budget. I appreciate your rearranging
your schedule on such short notice and look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and welcome to our witnesses.
__________
Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire
Mr. Chairman, I too would like to offer a warm welcome to our
witnesses this afternoon. As I promised at our full committee hearing
on TEA-21 reauthorization just a couple weeks ago, I have looked
closely at the RABA mechanism and the highway funding level for fiscal
year 2003, and I believe we have come up with a responsible solution.
In reauthorization of TEA-21 we will need to re-examine the RABA
calculation method so that it does not result in these amplified ups
and downs in funding. I look forward to working with Administrator
Peters and Assistant Secretary McLean on that issue.
More immediately, however, we need to address the drop of almost 30
percent in highway funding for fiscal year 2003. I do not believe that
this is what Congress intended when we passed the RABA provision in
TEA-21. What was intended was that Highway Trust Fund revenues would
equal highway spending. There is no dispute that the country's economic
growth produced revenues well above the levels predicted in TEA-21, and
so RABA resulted in funding increases. However, now that revenues have
dropped off, the RABA calculation would result in a spending level well
below actual revenues. In fact, the President's budget proposes a
highway spending level of $23 billion when the latest Treasury
Department projections put highway trust fund revenues at over $28
billion for 2003. Congress did not intend for this discrepancy,
regardless of the results of a complicated and obviously flawed
calculation formula.
Our solution was to introduce S. 1917, the ``Highway Funding
Restoration Act,'' for which all 19 members of this committee are
original cosponsors. I believe this bill clarifies congressional intent
by clearly stating that highway funding for fiscal year 2003 will be no
less than $27.7 billion, the amount authorized in TEA-21. I will
continue to work throughout the budget and appropriations process to
make sure this funding is restored and distributed to the State
programs, and not diverted to project earmarks.
Finally, I want to commend Administrator Peters for her leadership
and commitment to the issue of environmental streamlining. As one of
the authors of this provision in TEA-21, I have continued to focus
attention on it at every opportunity. I also created a pilot project in
New Hampshire to illustrate how State and Federal agencies are supposed
to apply streamlining to an environmental impact statement process.
These agencies committed to complete an EIS for the I-93 widening
project in little more than 2 years, and they remain on schedule. I
invite you, Administrator Peters, to come up to New Hampshire to attend
this project's celebration of success later this year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
__________
Statement by Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, U.S. Senator from the State
of Colorado
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for scheduling this
important hearing. This is an issue that I know is very important as it
is to the rest of the West, including Colorado. I would also like to
thank the distinguished panel for taking the time to meet with us
today.
Transportation is the grease that makes our economic engine go.
Traffic congestion only slows the engine and cost businesses and
individuals billions of dollars a year due to extra fuel costs, late
deliveries, and lost production. Traffic congestion is also taking a
toll on our nation's families. Parents are now getting home to their
children later and later.
The passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 2151 Century
(TEA-21) has helped States start to solve many of these problems. The
Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) has been able to increase
its budget from $200 million to $300 million a year. This has allowed
COOT to undertake projects that help ease the stress on Colorado roads.
However, there are also problems with TEA-21. Current projects show
a $4.4 billion shortfall in the fiscal year 2003 budget, a more than $8
billion drop from the total TEA-21 funding from fiscal year 2002
levels. This means that the State would Colorado would lose $59 million
a 19 percent decrease from the year before. It is estimated that a
budget decrease of this level would result in the loss of over 3,600
jobs in Colorado over the next 7 years and 287,000 nationally during
that same length of time.
Now is not the time to decrease funding for our nations highways.
This higher level of funding has allowed COOT to move forward with
transportation projects that would not have been able to be completed
without TEA-21 and now is not the time to slow the this progress.
In addition, Colorado, along with many other States, is
experiencing State budget reductions. This ``double whammy'' will
result in additional project reductions.
Now is not the time to decrease funding for our nation's highways.
The higher level of funding has allowed COOT to move forward with
transportation projects that would not been able to be completed
without TEA-21 and now is not the time to slow this progress.
Last week I signed on as an original cosponsor to the Highway
Funding Restoration Act of 2002, which was introduced by leadership in
this committee and fully supported in a bipartisan manner. This
legislation would bring the FY2003 highway funding up to the level set
in TEA-21.
In closing, transportation remains a top priority in Colorado.
Having a transportation system that moves people and goods is important
to our economic health and quality of life. I remain committed to
working with this committee throughout the year and I look forward to
these discussions today on this important issue.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of Mary E. Peters, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration Donna McLean, Assistant Secretary for Budget and
Programs and Chief Financial Officer
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of the President's Fiscal Year
(FY) 2003 Budget proposal for the Department of Transportation and to
discuss the status of the Highway Trust Fund. We would also like to
thank you for your leadership in scheduling a series of hearings in
preparation for the reauthorization of the surface transportation
program. We are looking forward to working with this subcommittee and
with Congress to achieve the goals outlined in the fiscal year 2003
budget request and to shape reauthorization proposals. Working
together, we can meet the transportation challenges facing our Nation
and provide the American people with a transportation system that is
safe, efficient, and accessible, while remaining respectful stewards of
the environment.
overview
As a whole, the strong but flexible multi-modal system developed
under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
is working well in supporting our Nation's economic growth and
improving the quality of life for all our citizens. Our Nation's
highways and intermodal connectors are the critical link in the
national intermodal transportation system. The challenge is to maintain
our high-quality network while achieving our goals to increase safety,
ensure national security, improve mobility, and promote environmentally
responsible and efficient project delivery. The $24.1 billion funding
level, proposed by the President for the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) for fiscal year 2003, provides funding essential to meet this
challenge. This includes a Federal-aid Highway obligation limitation of
$23.2 billion. The fiscal year 2003 request reflects the funding levels
enacted in TEA-21, as adjusted to reflect the latest Highway Trust Fund
revenue figures, and honors the highway category guarantees in that
Act.
The key to ensuring that highway-related receipts are spent is that
the highway funding level is adjusted each year to reflect the latest
information on Highway Trust Fund (HTF) receipts. At the time of the
enactment of TEA-21, highway program funding levels were set based on
estimates of HTF receipts. Each year, the level is adjusted using a
formula specified in TEA-21. This adjustment ensures that highway
spending remains aligned with HTF receipts.
In fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002, our Nation reaped the benefits
of record-level funding for surface transportation as authorized in
TEA-21. The guaranteed funding level, tied to HTF receipts, has
provided the States with much needed resources to support the Nation's
highway infrastructure, as Congress intended. In fiscal year 2003,
however, declining HTF receipts will, for the first time, trigger a
downward adjustment, in the amount of $4.369 billion, in the highway
program level, in order to keep highway spending aligned with the
status of the Highway Trust Fund. Even with this negative calculation,
over the life of TEA-21, these adjustments will provide a net gain of
almost $4.7 billion in highway spending.
The calculation of the adjustment is not a policy call--it is a
calculation based in law and reflected in the budget. As we discuss the
reauthorization of the surface transportation program, we need to look
for ways to smooth out current positive and negative swings that result
from this adjustment. What we should not do is abandon this adjustment
concept. Linking highway spending to receipts is a fundamental
principle of TEA-21.
The budget proposes to fund most Federal-aid highway programs from
within the obligation limitation, including our major programs: the
Surface Transportation Program, the National Highway System, Interstate
Maintenance, the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program,
and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.
Other TEA-21 programs include the National Corridor Planning and Border
Infrastructure Improvement programs and the Transportation and
Community and System Preservation Pilot Program. The Emergency Relief
program and a portion of the Minimum Guarantee program will continue to
be exempt from the limitation. The estimated obligation level for
exempt programs in fiscal year 2003 is $893 million.
In the face of declining revenues into the Highway Trust Fund, we
continue to strongly support creative financing solutions.
Consequently, the 2003 budget includes $99 million to leverage our
Federal investment in transportation infrastructure under the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program
(TIFIA). This investment will translate into over $6 billion in
nationally significant surface transportation projects.
As the events of September 11 so graphically demonstrated, a safe
and secure surface transportation system is vital to all Americans. We
must keep our infrastructure secure and we must strengthen our
commitment to reducing highway injuries and fatalities, even as we
squeeze additional capacity from the system. To meet this challenge,
the fiscal year 2003 Budget for FHWA emphasizes four priority areas:
safety, mobility, environmental stewardship and streamlining, and
oversight.
safety
Safety continues to be the Department of Transportation's most
important priority. While the number of highway fatalities in recent
years has been held relatively flat, despite significantly rising
numbers of vehicles on our roads, more than a quarter of a million
people have been killed on America's roadways in the past 6 years,
41,000 deaths each year. There are also more than 3 million police-
reported injuries annually. Highway safety improvements are critical to
improving these numbers. Success will depend on a balanced approach
that addresses the behavioral, vehicular, and roadway infrastructure
and operations safety problems. We can, we must, and we will strive to
do better.
FHWA works closely with States and other partners to improve our
ability to analyze roadway safety challenges and to direct investments
to specific projects and programs, which will deliver the most value in
terms of lives saved and injuries minimized. For example, construction
programs continue to contribute to safety by correcting unsafe roadway
design and removing roadway hazards. States mayCand doCuse their
Surface Transportation (STP), Interstate Maintenance, and National
Highway System (NHS) funds for safety improvements. Safety can be built
into every interchange upgrade, intersection redesign and new facility
through safety conscious planning and design. Signing and pavement
improvements can enhance the safety of existing and new facilities for
all users of the highway system.
Within the STP, 10 percent of funds are reserved under TEA-21 for
highway-rail crossing improvements and hazard elimination. The Hazard
Elimination program supports efforts to resolve safety problems at
hazardous highway locations. Since the enactment of TEA-21, States have
obligated $489.3 million in Hazard Elimination funds, and another
$707.4 million in optional safety funds have been obligated primarily
for Hazard Elimination purposes. These Hazard Elimination expenditures
are estimated to have saved 7,200 lives since 1998. The Highway-Rail
Grade Crossing Safety program is designed to reduce crashes at public
grade crossings, and $499 million in Highway-Rail Grade Crossing funds
have been obligated. The grade crossing safety program is estimated to
have saved 2,000 lives since 1998.
To meet its highway safety goal, FHWA will focus its safety
programs on reducing the most frequent types of fatal crashes through
technical assistance, research, training, data analysis, and public
information.
From the $359.8 million requested for research and technology
programs for fiscal year 2003 budget, significant resources will be
invested in improving safety. Part of the research funding will support
innovations, such as brighter traffic signal lights which are more
visible to drivers, to improve safety at or near intersections.
Research funding also supports speed management techniques, which are
designed to reduce the 30 percent of fatal crashes in which speed is a
factor. Rumble strips help prevent run-off-the-road crashes, which
account for 38 percent of all fatal crashes. FHWA provides technical
assistance to States like Maryland, whose 1999 data show a $182 safety
benefit for every dollar spent on rumble strip installation.
National deployment of wireless enhanced 9-1-1 (E-9-1-1) will be
accelerated this year. E-9-1-1 is an emergency cellular telephone
service that automatically routes calls to the closest public safety
answering point and informs the dispatcher of the caller's location. It
will save lives. About 25 percent of 9-1-1 calls come from wireless
phones.
Without automatic location, when callers are unable to describe
their location, response times dramatically increase. Response time is
a critical factor in determining the survivability of a crash. Also,
more timely and accurate information will aid police, fire, and other
emergency responders in protecting victims and property and in reducing
traffic congestion surrounding the scene.
Recent events have focused attention on the need to ensure the
security of our Nation's transportation system and ITS technologies
offer many opportunities to significantly improve transportation
security. The ITS program is developing and deploying technologies to
help States and localities improve traffic flow and safety on streets
and highways and address the need for emergency notification and
response. This budget proposes to focus the fiscal year 2003 ITS
Deployment Program resources of $93 million on ITS technologies that
enhance the security of our surface transportation systems.
A major emphasis in ITS will continue to be in the area of
intermodal freight. The Department is conducting several ITS
operational tests that are designed to improve the efficiency and
security of the intermodal movement of freight. The Chicago O'Hare
cargo project, which is an operational test, uses a ``smart card'' and
biometric identifiers to identify the shipment, vehicle, and driver
during transportation from the shipper to and through the air cargo
terminal. Another project, Cargo-Mate, has particular applicability to
port and container security, in addition to enhancing efficiency of
freight movement. The system is designed to perform real-time
processing of asset and cargo transactions, provide for the
surveillance of cargo movement to and from ports, and provide an
integrated incident and emergency response capability.
To improve safety of motor carriers operating on our highways, as
well as national security, a total of $47 million is requested for
construction of motor carrier safety inspection facilities on the
Southern Border within the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program.
This builds on funding provided in fiscal year 2002 and supports
infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate permanent
facilities.
mobility
Congestion is one of the most obvious results of the mismatch
between the growing demands for transportation and the capacity of our
systems, particularly in metropolitan areas. Congestion is a complex
problem involving many factors. This budget works to address the causes
of frustrating delays that face travelers and shippers and impact the
Nation's economic efficiency. Funding will support the identification
and implementation of a mix of locally preferred investments, including
selective additions of new capacity, to improve traffic flow and system
reliability. Our progress toward our goal of supporting mobility is
tracked by measures such as improvement in pavement and bridge
condition and by reduction in the growth of traffic congestion.
States may direct 2003 Federal-aid highway funds, according to
their priority needs and goals, to a variety of system improvement and
congestion relief purposes. In recent years, approximately 50 percent
of Federal funds were obligated for system upgrading purposes,
including reconstruction, widening, restoration and rehabilitation, and
resurfacing. Consequently, overall highway system conditions, as
measured by pavement condition, ride quality, alignment adequacy, and
bridge ratings, have steadily improved. In 2001, 91 percent of travel
on the NHS occurred on pavements rated acceptable or better. In fiscal
year 2003, the Department's goal is to increase this to 92 percent.
For fiscal year 2002 and beyond, the FHWA has modified its bridge
performance measures in order to take into account the actual area and
average daily traffic on the bridge. This measure more accurately
reflects progress toward meeting our mobility goal. The previous
measure of reducing the number of deficient bridges considered all
bridges as equal, therefore large bridges with higher average daily
traffic were considered the same as smaller bridges with lower average
daily traffic. Since the enactment of TEA-21, the condition of NHS and
non-NHS bridges has improved significantly. In 1998, the percentage of
the Nation's total bridge deck area that was on deficient NHS bridges
was 32.6 percent and 32.5 percent on non-NHS bridges. In 2001, the
percentage of deck area on deficient NHS bridges was 30.6 percent and
32.3 percent on non-NHS bridges. Our goal for fiscal year 2003 is to
improve the condition of bridges so that the percentage of deck area on
deficient bridges is reduced to 27.5 percent for the NHS and 29.8
percent for the non-NHS.
The development and deployment of longer lasting materials will
mean that facilities will need repair or improvement less often,
thereby reducing congestion and safety problems associated with work
zones. Research and Technology program funds support multi-year
initiatives in pavements, structures, and asset management.
Along with improved condition and strategic expansion of
infrastructure, we must address congestion through improved operation
of the highway system. In the last year we developed and tested a
system reliability index in 10 cities that we call the ``buffer
index,'' the amount of time you have to add to your trip because of
system unreliability. It will help cities gauge how well they are doing
in responding to incidents, managing their work zones, and responding
to weather. The measure will be applied in 22 cities this year.
In the area of congestion mitigation, we have a number of other
initiatives underway that will continue in 2003, including three that
have great potential for long term impact:
We will be piloting a national campaign to rethink the way we look
at work zones. The focus will be on managing the work zone from the
perspective of the highway user, emphasizing the concept of getting in,
getting out, and staying out.
We are sponsoring a national conference on incident and emergency
management that brings together transportation and public safety
communities to focus on ways to improve traffic incident response time
and traffic incident management methods.
We are working with our State partners to help each make use of the
roadway operations self assessment diagnostic tool at least once during
the year. The purpose of this tool is to help the operating agencies to
identify ways that they can improve the operation and management of
their roadway networks.
Other strategies to improve operations include the deployment of
ITS to provide more information to drivers faster, enabling them to
take the most efficient route of travel. Significant progress has been
made in ITS deployment since the enactment of TEA-21. We have seen a 37
percent increase in the number of freeway miles with real-time traffic
data collection technologies, a 55 percent increase in the coverage of
freeways by closed circuit television, a 35 percent increase in the
number of buses equipped with automatic vehicle location systems, and
an 83 percent increase in traveler information dissemination on our
freeways. However, only 22 percent of the freeways in major
metropolitan areas are instrumented for real time monitoring.
Therefore, ITS deployment must continue to be a high priority for the
Department. The search for new technological and innovative solutions
to our mobility challenges will be supported by the 2003 budget request
for $359.8 million for research and technology.
We are committed, along with our partners at the State and local
levels, to maintain, operate, and improve transportation systems to
reduce congestion and improve mobility, thus allowing our Nation to
compete globally and Americans to enjoy a higher standard of living.
environmental stewardship and streamlining
Implementation of environmentally responsible transportation
improvements, delivered on time and within budget, is an important
component of the Department's vision for all its programs. TEA-21 gave
States and communities additional tools and opportunities to enhance
the environment and quality of life for their residents, while
directing us to streamline the environmental review process. Within the
Federal-aid highway program, NHS and STP funds support programs that
also protect the environment. There is also a mandatory 10 percent set-
aside from each State's STP apportionment for Transportation
Enhancement projects that support historic preservation, bicycle/
pedestrian travel, scenic easements, and other enhancements. The CMAQ
program supports projects to reduce emissions, that often reduce
traffic congestion. To minimize the impact of transportation on air
quality, FHWA will continue to work with the Environmental Protection
Agency and other partners to continue to reduce on-road mobile source
emissions.
Continued progress in streamlining the delivery of transportation
improvements will also improve safety and ease congestion, but must be
balanced against the need to protect communities and the environment.
Successful environmental streamlining requires fostering good working
relationships across a number of organizational lines. These
relationships allow for the development and establishment of reasonable
and realistic schedules for advancing major projects. It is important
for the Department to facilitate agreement by Federal agencies on
timeframes for conducting reviews and granting approvals. Working
together in partnerships, combining a full range of Federal, State, and
local officials and interest groups, will lead to reasonable ways to
meet the Nation's transportation needs, while being good stewards of
the environment.
The Department's streamlining approach has resulted in:
Reinvention of the environmental review process, through
interagency training, development of national programmatic agreements,
and guidance that encourages flexible mitigation practices.
Development of a system for dispute resolution that includes draft
national procedures, guidance for managing conflict during the project
development process, and assistance by qualified dispute resolution
specialists to States and project sponsors.
Research conducted to evaluate project timeframes, identify reasons
for project delays, and assess the effectiveness of implementation
efforts.
Assistance, support, and encouragement to develop numerous best
practices and pilot projects to catalyze change and lead to even better
streamlining outcomes.
Since the enactment of TEA-21 in 1998, progress has been made in
streamlining the planning and approval process for projects throughout
the country: 33 States have interagency agreements for funding
additional personnel necessary for faster, concurrent reviews; 23
States have adopted a merged process for wetland permits with the Army
Corps of Engineers; 15 States have adopted context sensitive design
approaches; and 31 States have some level of delegated authority for
historic resources. As a result of these actions, the mean time to
process environmental documents for major highway projects has been cut
by almost 8 months, the median time has been cut by 1 year, and the
Department is well positioned for significant future progress.
We have begun the job, but more can be done. Only a couple of
States, most notably New Hampshire, have attempted to define timeframes
for concurrent reviews. New Hampshire's model for setting project
timeframes for I-93, using a partnering approach, has been publicized
as an effective streamlining tool on the FHWA website and at a national
streamlining workshop.
FHWA continues to work with other agencies to advance the
Environmental Streamlining National Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Efforts to cooperatively establish realistic project development
timeframes among the full range of transportation and environmental
agencies will be advanced by this budget. For example, in 2003 we
propose to fund $6 million from the FHWA administrative takedown for
FHWA support of Federal and State initiatives to identify new, more
efficient business processes that will result in more timely project
delivery. Working cooperatively to adhere to those timeframes is
resource intensive, but it is critical to our success. With the
additional proposed funding, we will be able to intensify efforts
currently underway within DOT that focus on solidifying the interagency
partnerships, such as pilot efforts and process reinvention.
oversight
We must continue to improve Federal oversight and accountability
for the expenditure of public funds. Increased emphasis on FHWA's
oversight responsibilities must accompany the significant increases
that have occurred in the Federal-aid Highway program in recent years
if our Nation is to make the ``best buys'' in safety and congestion
relief.
FHWA oversight policies were updated and clarified in fiscal year
2001 and their implementation will continue into the requested budget
year. Even as legislation has directed FHWA to delegate many project-
level authorities to the States, the responsibility for program
oversight to ensure the effective delivery of all programs remains with
FHWA. Additional resources deployed in this area will enable FHWA to
work with the States to improve its management of the Federal-aid
highway program, including cost containment, while allowing States
maximum delegated authority and flexibility, as appropriate. FHWA will
continue to advance asset management and system preservation
initiatives to foster more systematic and strategic thinking and
investment choices by the State and local governments. Timely
investments in the size and makeup of the Federal work force itself are
also crucial with the aging of both the Interstate Highway System and
the work forces of our partner agencies in States and localities. We
are focusing new attention on work force development issues and will
keep the subcommittee advised of our efforts. As larger and more
complex projects are contemplated, a balance must be achieved between
addressing the needs of major projects and the vast majority of the
program vested in smaller projects.
In 1998-1999, FHWA undertook a major restructuring in order to move
program decision authorities closer to our primary customers, the
States, and to focus high-level technical expertise in our Resource
Centers. Through this redeployment of existing resources we have also
been able to fulfill FHWA's commitment to add an additional position in
respective Division Offices for the oversight of each major project.
The fiscal year 2003 budget requests a funding level of $318
million for the necessary salaries and benefits for our employees and
for ongoing administrative expenses in support of our Federal-aid
program. The budget request reflects modest adjustments for mandatory
salary and benefit increases and other adjustments for current service
levels.
status of the highway trust fund
The cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) at the end of
fiscal year 2001 was $27.740 billion, of which $20.372 billion was
located in the Highway Account and $7.369 billion in the Mass Transit
Account. Based on the latest projections of income to the HTF reported
by the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Transportation
estimates that the Highway Account of the HTF has sufficient revenues
to support the levels of authorizations throughout the life of TEA-21.
Balances in the Highway Account of the HTF should not be considered
as surplus funds. Current commitments of HTF revenues for prior year
obligations, as well as unobligated balances of prior year
apportionments, exceed $67 billion. However, as reimbursing cash is
made available from the HTF, revenues from excise taxes are coming into
the HTF. Any consideration of HTF balances must take into account not
only current levels of revenue, but also commitments made against that
revenue, and projected levels of future income.
conclusion
The funding requested in 2003 will help improve transportation
safety; enhance national security; maintain and expand our
transportation infrastructure, and increase its capacity; reduce
environmental degradation; and improve the quality of life for all our
citizens. We look forward to working with Congress to enact the
President's fiscal year 2003 budget in order to provide a viable
transportation system to support a strong America.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. We
will be pleased to address any questions you may have.
______
Responses of Hon. Mary E. Peters to Additional Questions from Senator
Reid
Question 1. One of the most important accomplishments of TEA-21 was
the creation of the highway and transit budgetary firewalls. These
firewalls provide the States with some degree of certainty as to the
expected level of highway and transit funding and allow transportation
leaders to better plan projects and manage budgets. In addition,
without these budgetary protections, we would have never been able to
enact the funding increases envisioned in TEA-21.
Unfortunately, the Administration's budget request does not appear
to establish any continuing connection between Highway Trust Fund
revenues and highway spending. Can we expect the Administration's
reauthorization proposal to maintain the existing transportation
firewalls?
Response. Yes. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) agrees
that the budgetary firewalls contained in the TEA-21 legislation not
only protect highway and transit budgetary spending amounts from
incursions by other discretionary programs, but also provide a direct
relationship between revenues accruing to the Highway Account of the
Highway Trust Fund and spending allowed in the Federal-aid Highway
Program. The budget amounts for fiscal years 2004-2012, the years for
which no authorization act is in place, do not reflect the
Administration's reauthorization proposal. Rather they assume the
continuation of the program level from the last year of TEA-21 with
modest growth each year. The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget will
reflect the Administration's reauthorization proposal.
The Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget was based on the
legislated mechanism known as Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA).
Even though the RABA calculation for fiscal year 2003 produced a
negative result, over the prior three fiscal years, it provided over $9
billion in additional spending authority. RABA was established with the
possibility of being either positive or negative. The negative RABA
result of fiscal year 2003 is as much a part of the promise of tying
spending to available revenues, as were the positive RABA results of
prior fiscal years. However, the FHWA would like to work with Congress
during reauthorization of the Federal-aid Highway Program to consider
adjustments to the RABA mechanism that may somewhat reduce the
magnitude of swings in its calculations from one fiscal year to
another.
Question 2. I have heard concerns raised about both the accuracy of
Treasury's fiscal year 2001 Highway Trust Fund revenue figure and the
reasonableness of Treasury's future revenue projections. It appears
that Treasury has based future year revenue projections on the fiscal
year 2001 revenues, which may represent a low point due to the
recession. Has the Federal Highway Administration taken a close look at
Treasury's numbers and are you comfortable that the 2001 figures are
accurate and that future year projections are not underestimated?
Response. Over the years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has met frequently with Treasury and understands the process used by
Treasury to administer the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). We are satisfied
that the process is complete, fair, and objective, and results in the
HTF being credited with the appropriate taxes. However, FHWA does not
have the information to independently assess the absolute accuracy of
fiscal year 2001 HTF revenues. Based on the information available to
FHWA and on discussions with Treasury, the fiscal year 2001 revenues
reported appear to be reasonable.
Future HTF projections are based largely on Administration
estimates of the pace at which the economy will recover from the
recession. It will take some time before economic conditions return to
the levels forecast prior to the recession. The same is true for HTF
revenues. Again, based on the information available to FHWA and on our
understanding of Treasury procedures, we do not believe that future HTF
revenues are underestimated.
Question 3. The 27 percent cut in your budget for fiscal year 2003
will have a substantial effect on State programs. Has the Federal
Highway Administration made any effort to assess the impact on State
programs in fiscal year 2003?
Response. FHWA has released tables that estimate the State-by-State
impact of the fiscal 2003 RABA calculation (See Attachment). States
then will have to make programmatic adjustments to reflect the revised
funding totals. States need time to analyze and evaluate options before
the impact of these adjustments on State programs can be evaluated.
To mitigate the impact of these reductions from anticipated
funding, one option available to all States is advance construction.
The primary purpose of advance construction is to allow projects to go
forward when Federal funds are not available while having those
projects retain eligibility for future Federal funds. This strategy
requires the availability of non-Federal funds until additional Federal
funds are provided.
If State/local funds are not available, a second option is to issue
transportation bonds. The bonds could be backed by State and/ or
Federal funds.
States may also consider utilizing some of their unobligated
minimum guarantee special limitation from prior years, along with the
minimum guarantee funds that are exempt from the obligation limitation.
In the aggregate, there is currently almost $3 billion in obligation
authority available to the States.
Question 4. We have heard several references to the Aperformance@
of our transportation system. While I agree that performance is the
critical standard by which we judge our system, I am concerned that we
have not developed adequate ways to measure and track performance. The
U.S. Department of Transportation puts out a biennial Conditions and
Performance report, but focuses almost exclusively on conditions. Do
you have any suggestions as to how we might better measure performance?
Response. Yes. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is
examining approaches to measuring performance that go beyond the
traditional measures of congestion used in the biennial Conditions and
Performance report. Since the 1999 Status of the Nation=s Highways,
Bridges, and Transit; Conditions and Performance report to Congress was
published, the annual FHWA Performance Plans have adopted new
procedures developed by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) for
measuring the operational performance of the Nation's highway system.
These measures include the percentage of travel under congested
conditions, the percentage of additional travel time caused by
congestion, and the annual hours of delay experienced by drivers. These
measures are calculated annually, using data collected from 400 urban
areas in the United States, according to a fixed set of formulas that
facilitate measuring historical congestion trends. The discussion of
current highway operational performance in the 2002 C&P report will
focus on these measures.
In research on customer needs and better ways to measure highway
performance, the FHWA has determined that reliability is the most
important aspect of performance for highway users. Unexpected delay
costs significantly more in late arrivals at work or childcare for
commuters, late appointments for businesses, and missed deliveries,
than predictable delay for which the traveler or trucker can adjust.
The FHWA has recently adopted a new measure of reliability, the buffer
index, calculated as the percentage increase in the amount of travel
time allowed for a trip to ensure on-time arrival on all but one
working day per month. The FHWA has calculated the buffer index with
data from intelligent transportation systems for 10 cities last year,
and will calculate the measure for 22 cities this year. Collection of
the measure will expand to other cities as the deployment of
intelligent transportation systems allows.
The biennial C&P report has been steadily increasing its focus on
the operational performance of the highway system, and on measuring the
impacts that the condition and performance of the system has on highway
users. The analytical tools used by FHWA to estimate future highway
investment requirements have been modified to recognize the costs of
incident delay, and the benefits that can be derived from improving
system reliability. The 2002 C&P report will incorporate these
analytical enhancements, and will include new information on the
impacts that alternative investments could be expected to have on the
operational performance of the highway system. This change in emphasis
has been discussed with a variety of groups with an interest in the C&P
report, including majority and minority staff from the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee.
Adequately assessing the overall performance of the Nation's
transportation system will require additional measures beyond those
outlined above. Aspects such as transit, bicycling, and pedestrian
access should also be considered. This is an ongoing research process.
Question 5. I am intrigued by the American Road and Transportation
Builders Association's suggestion that we enact a maintenance of effort
requirement for the States. Certainly our goal in providing additional
transportation funding at the Federal level is to increase the total
level of infrastructure investment rather than to have States simply
substitute Federal funds for State funds. Have you studied how States
have reacted to the Federal funding increases since TEA-21?
Response. Combined State and local governments' highway capital
investment actually grew more quickly from 1997 to 2000 than Federal
highway capital investment. The Federal share of highway capital
funding fell from 41.6 percent in 1997 to 39.9 percent in 2000. The
latest available data strongly suggest that States have not been
substituting Federal funds for State funds.
______
Responses of Hon. Mary E. Peters to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
Question 1. In your written testimony, you state that ``The
calculation of the [``negative RABA''] adjustment is not a policy call-
it is a calculation based in law . . . .'' In addition, Ms. McLean
stated in her oral testimony, in response to a question from Senator
Inhofe, that in reducing the baseline obligation limitation for 2003 by
over $4 billion, the Administration was ``just following the
legislation''. Accordingly, please state, with as much particularity as
possible, the analysis of the law that leads the Department of
Transportation to that conclusion.
Response. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21) included several provisions intended to tie highway spending to
available revenues. Sections 8101 and 8103 of TEA-21 establish funding
levels for the highway budget category in terms of outlays and
obligations, respectively. Section 1105 of TEA-21 amended title 23,
United States Code (U.S.C.), by providing a new section 110 to
establish the basic framework for Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
(RABA), the related adjustment to contract authority.
As part of the annual budget submission, section 8101(d) of TEA-21,
which amends section 251(b)(1) of the Balanced Budget and emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA), requires the agency to look at
actual receipts from 2 years prior to the budget year, plus revised
receipt projections for the budget year. The adjustment is calculated
in two parts, one looking ahead to the coming budget year and the other
looking back at the prior year.
For the look-ahead adjustment, pursuant to Section
251(b)(1)(B)(ii)(I)(bb) of the BBEDCA, the latest estimate for the
budget year is compared with the estimated level (provided in BBEDCA,
as amended by section 8101(d) of TEA-21), and the difference is added
to the amount of obligations set forth in Section 8103 of TEA-21. For
the look-back adjustment, pursuant to Section 251(b)(1)(B)(ii)(I)(aa)
of the BBEDCA the estimate for the prior year, adjusted for the look
ahead calculation for that year, is compared to the actual receipts to
the Highway Account for the prior year. This difference is also added
to the level of obligation limitation for the budget year set forth in
section 8103 of TEA-21. The sum of these differences is also converted
to the outlay effect and the highway category discretionary outlay caps
are adjusted for the budget year and the out years.
Section 110 of title 23, U.S.C., specifies actions that the
Secretary shall undertake in the event of positive (subsection (a)(1))
or negative (subsection (a)(2)) RABA adjustments. Specifically, section
110 provides for the distribution of RABA (contract authority) equal to
the amount calculated pursuant to Section 251(b)(1)(B)(ii)(I)(cc) of
the BBEDCA, as amended by section 8101(d) of TEA-21.
If RABA for a fiscal year is greater than zero, section 110(a)(1)
of title 23, U.S.C., requires that the additional contract authority be
distributed on October 15 of that fiscal year.
If RABA for a fiscal year is less than zero, 23 U.S.C.' 110(a)(2)
requires that, on October 1 of the succeeding year, amounts authorized
to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) to carry out each
of the Federal-aid highway programs (other than emergency relief) and
the motor carrier safety grant program shall be reduced by an aggregate
amount equal to the amount calculated pursuant to Section
251(b)(1)(B)(ii)(I)(cc) of the BBEDCA. Therefore, negative RABA
calculated for fiscal year 2003 requires a reduction in contract
authority to be made available in fiscal year 2004, i.e., the fiscal
year succeeding the year for which negative RABA is determined. Also,
when such sum is calculated and the obligation limitation in section
8103 of TEA-21 is adjusted under section 8101 (see section
251(b)(1)(B)(ii)(I)(cc), as amended by section 8101(d) of TEA-21), an
equal adjustment is made to the level of obligation limitations under
section 1102 of TEA-21 for the fiscal year affected by the adjustment.
Thus, adjustments in the obligation limit will occur in fiscal year
2003 for the negative RABA amount calculated this budget year, and the
reduction in contract authority will occur in fiscal year 2004.
Question 2. There was testimony at the hearing that the receipts
into the highway trust fund for fiscal year 2003 will, even with the
diminished expectations under which you are now operating, exceed the
statutory distribution of obligation limit for fiscal year 2003. Do you
agree?
Response. Yes, we agree. Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) is
a major reason why fiscal year 2003 obligation limits will be less than
estimated fiscal year 2003 revenues to the Highway Account of the
Highway Trust Fund. In particular, the ``look back'' portion of RABA
will require significant downward adjustments to obligation authority
based on prior year differences between forecast and actual revenues.
These adjustments will result in obligation limits being lower than
revenues. Having revenues exceed obligation limits is not unusual. From
1998 to 2000 revenues exceeded obligation limits.
Question 3. In your written testimony, you state that ``Linking
highway spending to receipts is a fundamental principle of TEA-21.''
Given that, and also given that receipts for 2003 are expected to
exceed the TEA-21 baseline, do you agree that S. 1917's restoration of
obligation limit for fiscal year 2003 to $27.746 billion is consistent
with ``linking highway spending to receipt''?
Response. No. Receipts to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust
Fund (HTF) often exceed expenditures from the Highway Account in a
fiscal year. The opposite is also true. These facts alone, however, do
not determine if the legislatively mandated mechanism to tie Federal-
aid Highway Program spending to receipts to the Highway Account of the
HTF known as Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) is positive or
negative in a given fiscal year.
Instead, the RABA calculation relies upon a look ahead to the
coming fiscal year and a look back at the fiscal year just ended. For
fiscal year 2003, the look-back calculation compares the actual taxes
deposited in the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal
year 2001 to the estimate of fiscal year 2001 tax receipts used to
calculate the fiscal year 2001 RABA. The fiscal year 2001 estimate,
made in December 1999, was too optimistic. Thus, a downward adjustment
to the fiscal year 2003 highway program of $3.468 billion is needed to
offset the overly optimistic estimate made earlier.
The look-ahead calculation compares the latest estimate for fiscal
year 2003 to the estimate made at the time TEA-21 was enacted. The
current economy is less robust than expected in the TEA-21 estimate
and, therefore, the latest estimate for fiscal year 2003 Highway
Account receipts is lower than the TEA-21 estimate. As a result, a
downward adjustment to the fiscal year 2003 highway program of $901
million is required in addition to the look-back adjustment.
Question 4. If you do not support passage of S. 1917, please state
your reasons, with as much particularity as possible?
Response. We are working on ways to mitigate the effects of RABA
that are consistent with the principles of TEA-21 while still
maintaining fiscally responsible solutions. We hope to come to Congress
with a proposal in the near future.
We believe that the forthcoming reauthorization of the Federal-aid
highway program presents an excellent forum and a unique opportunity to
consider possible modification to RABA, and we look forward to working
with the Congress during TEA-21 reauthorization to address this issue.
Question 5. As to the issue of reauthorization, what would be the
implications, both negative and positive, of restoring the collection
of interest on the funds on hand in the Highway Trust Fund?
Response. Resuming the prior practice of crediting interest earned
on HTF balances to the HTF could increase HTF revenues substantially,
depending on HTF balances and prevailing interest rates. Before being
discontinued in TEA-21, total interest payments to the highway and
transit accounts of the HTF had been as high as $2 billion. Since
interest would be paid from the General Fund, resumption of interest
payments to the HTF would mean that like amounts would not be available
for expenditure on programs financed from the General Fund.
Question 6. Administrator Peters stated in her oral testimony
regarding the environmental streamlining provision of TEA-21 that one
of the difficulties with implementation is that the U.S. Department of
Transportation, while it was tasked with environmental streamlining,
does not have the authority over a number of other environmental
regulatory areas. Please describe with specificity the additional
authority that is needed for US DOT to more effectively implement these
provisions, including any statutory or regulatory changes that would be
needed to establish the necessary authority.
Response:
Statutory Authority
FHWA is not advocating any statutory or regulatory changes to
environmental laws to achieve more authority. However, there are
statutory constraints under Section 1309 of TEA-21 and other laws that
restrict the degree of flexibility that FHWA and/or the other agencies
can exercise in achieving streamlining. To protect the environment,
Congress has enacted over 60 laws, including the Clean Air Act (CAA),
Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic
Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 (Section 4(f)),
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Many of these laws, notably the
ESA, Section 4(f), and the CAA, establish stringent environmental
protections, including both substantive and procedural requirements.
Over 12 different agencies implement these laws through regulations,
guidance, and standards developed based on their specific environmental
missions. The courts have rigorously upheld the laws and agency
regulations, creating an extensive and complex body of case law.
Congress did not grant the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
authority to collectively interpret laws administered by other
agencies, to override other Federal agencies, or to compel their
cooperation in environmental streamlining.
USDOT's statutory authority to administer the Federal-Aid Program
stems from title 23 U.S.C. Section 4(f) is the only environmental law
under USDOT domain. USDOT ensures that transportation projects, which
use Federal funds or require Federal approval, have implemented the
Federal requirements associated with the expenditure of those funds.
For transportation projects, NEPA is the umbrella under which all
environmental laws are coordinated. NEPA requires agencies to prepare a
statement on the impact of each proposed ``major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.'' NEPA
also defines the procedures regarding how USDOT meets its Federal
action approval. Some observers believe that if a project does not
require an EIS, then the project is exempt from all Federal
environmental laws and requirements. This is not correct. Even
categorically excluded projects may require coordination or Federal
approvals under laws other than NEPA.
Agency Requirements Under NEPA
As Lead Agency under NEPA, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) affirms that all of the related environmental requirements have
been addressed before granting approval for the expenditure of funds or
when a Federal approval is required. FHWA does this by approving one of
the following environmental documents: a ``Record of Decision'' for an
Environmental Impact Statement; a ``Finding of No Significant Impact''
for an Environmental Assessment; or a ``Categorical Exclusion.'' Any
number of Federal agencies will be involved. Each Federal agency has a
distinct mission and specific role in the NEPA process. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) are the
Federal resource agencies most frequently engaged in reviews of
transportation projects.
Resource agencies meet their statutory obligations by reviewing
project proposals, identifying the potential concerns, and evaluating
the impacts proposed projects would have on specific resources. For
example, USACE must issue a Section 404 permit for the dredge and fill
of waters of the United States, primarily wetlands. USACE bases its
decision to grant a permit for a transportation project, in accordance
with Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA, on whether the issuance of the
permit, not the project itself, is in the best interest of the public.
USACE must base its permit decision on the ``Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alterative.'' Certain conditions or modifications
may have to be made to a project to satisfy the USACE or another
permitting agency. In addition to Section 404, Section 7 of the ESA and
Section 106 of the NHPA are the most common laws impacting
transportation projects. These statutes and others define and impose
conditions that drive the environmental review analysis or approval by
resource and permitting agencies.
Under the leadership of the Bush Administration and with the full
commitment of the Secretary, we will be working with the other agencies
at the highest level to make the collaborative process more efficient
and effective.
______
Response by Hon. Mary E. Peters to Additional Question from Senator
Inhofe
Question. What effect will the proposed excise tax credit for ETBE-
blended gasohol have on revenue into the Highway Trust Fund?
Response. The proposed excise tax credit for ETBE-blended gasohol
will have a negligible effect on revenues into the Highway Trust Fund.
At this time, because of market economics, very little ethanol is being
used to manufacture ETBE.
__________
Statement of Thomas E. Stephens, P.E., Director, Nevada Department of
Transportation on behalf of the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Founded in 1914, AASHTO represents the departments concerned
with highway and transportation in the 50 States, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico. Its mission is a transportation system for
the Nation that balances mobility, economic prosperity, safety and the
environment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Tom Stephens.
For the past 7 years I have been the Director of the Nevada Department
of Transportation, and I am here today to testify on behalf of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). I also am President of the 18-State Western Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
I want to thank you for your leadership in scheduling a series of
hearings over the coming year to address key policy, program and
funding issues in preparation for the reauthorization of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). I am also
honored that you invited me to testify before your subcommittee. I
believe that I can offer some real world experience from the field,
especially on the subject of today's hearing--funding the Federal-aid
highway program.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by giving your colleagues a
brief picture of the great Silver State. Nevada is the fastest growing
State in the Nation. Since 1970, the State's population has quadrupled
from 500,000 to more than 2 million residents. A majority of this
growth has taken place in just five urbanized areas--Las Vegas, Reno,
Sparks, Carson City and Elko. In Clark County alone, where Las Vegas is
located, we estimate that by 2010 we will have 400,000 additional
residents. Along with this population growth, we have seen a steady
increase in the number of miles of congested highways.
We are also a large State--with roughly the same land area as all
the New England States combined. Our State-maintained highways and
bridges spread out across many rural miles as well as in the metro
areas. Twenty-six percent of all Nevada's improved roads are on the
State-maintained system. However, this 26 percent carries 61 percent of
the total vehicle miles of travel. The remaining 39 percent is on
systems maintained by county, city or other governmental agencies.
Vehicle miles of travel on all Nevada roads more than quadrupled from
3.5 billion in 1970 to 17.4 billion in 2000. The State-maintained
system also carries 84 percent of all truck traffic. With more cars,
additional heavy trucks, and more vehicle miles of travel, our biggest
challenge is preservation of our highways.
However, as the fastest growing State in the Nation, and with much
of that growth concentrated in just two counties--Washoe and Clark, we
have an added capacity challenge. In our metropolitan areas, we are
working with our local
officials to try to keep pace with our population growth and new
demands on the system. In Nevada, we are investing in new multi-modal
strategies. These include a privately funded $600 million monorail
people mover system and a bus rapid transit system in Las Vegas which
will feature low-floor, electric powered buses with an optical guidance
system. We will invest in innovative ITS technologies such as dynamic
message signs, ramp meters, closed circuit television and traffic
detection systems. Other efforts include ``low-tech'' car-pooling,
telecommuting and new bike and pedestrian facilities.
We will still need substantial additional highway capacity.
With the growth in the Federal-aid highway program provided by TEA-
21, we have been able to make progress in our preservation and highway
capacity needs. At the beginning of fiscal year 2001, there was a $483
million backlog of highway and bridge preservation work. This is
significantly lower than the $670 million backlog we had at the
beginning of fiscal year 1999. We were able to reduce the backlog by
investing significantly greater amounts in pavement preservation.
During fiscal years 1999 and 2000, our department spent $329 million on
overlay and reconstruction work--our biggest pavement preservation
program ever.
TEA-21's highway program increases have also enabled us to
undertake an aggressive effort to keep pace with our growing population
and make a real difference in addressing congestion. For example, the
$99 million ``Spaghetti Bowl'' I-15/U.S. 95 interchange in Las Vegas
opened in March, 2000, 6 months ahead of schedule. The revamped
interchange will reduce the congestion caused by the 330,000 vehicles
using it each day. It is now capable of accommodating 500,000 vehicles
per day.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me now address how
the funding of the Federal aid highway program for fiscal year 2003,
and beyond, can be sustained at levels required to meet this nation's
needs.
Mr. Chairman, we in the States are stunned by the fiscal year 2003
budget proposal which, in the midst of a recession, would cut the
Federal aid highway program by $8.6 billion because apparent reductions
in revenues to the Highway Trust Fund have triggered a Revenue Aligned
Budgetary Authority (RABA) reduction. To avoid a disastrous cutback in
highway improvements, reducing our ability to meet basic highway needs,
and to avoid the loss of thousands of jobs, we strongly support the
bill you introduced last week to restore highway assistance to no less
than the $27.8 billion level for fiscal year 2003 authorized in TEA-21.
We commend you for your appreciation of how important sustained highway
investment is to the country and thank you for your leadership in
putting this legislation forward.
We also want to share with you our emphatic view that it is vital
to sustain Federal highway investment in fiscal year 2003, at no less
than the $31.8 billion level provided in fiscal year 2002. With 36
State Governors and legislatures already contending with severe budget
shortfalls, and the Nation in an economic downturn, cutting the program
by $4.3 billion makes no more sense than cutting it by $8.6 billion.
This is especially so when there are more than sufficient reserves in
the Highway Trust Fund to provide funding for fiscal year 2003. Let me
outline what we believe the consequences would be unless current levels
of funding are sustained.
As early as next month, State and local officials will begin the
task of cutting billions of dollars in highway projects from their
fiscal year 2003 Transportation Improvement Programs. Final decisions
will be made public in September affecting nearly every community in
the Nation.
Construction contractors throughout the country will start making
business plans on how to cut back their equipment purchases and lay off
tens of thousands of well-paid construction workers. The stock prices
of several heavy equipment manufacturers and construction companies
have already dropped. Engineering consulting firms, already hard hit by
the recession, will almost immediately have to start laying off
engineers and technicians as design work for next year's projects is
delayed or canceled.
Yet since the tragic events of September 11, traffic is up all over
the country. The most recent data shows a dramatic increase in annual
traffic growth of nearly 3 percent. For example on I-15 at the
California-Nevada border, our vehicle count for the last 3 months is up
nearly 10 percent. This highway is really bottlenecked, especially in
California where Interstate 15 and 40 converge into a single four-lane
Interstate carrying the traffic from Arizona and Nevada to Los Angeles.
While this bottleneck is scheduled to be widened, the cut in TEA-21
funding could cause project delays resulting in hundreds of millions of
dollars in congestion-related costs.
Numerous other projects will be delayed in every State. This cut is
proposed at a time of increasing need for highway preservation projects
in every part of the country and capacity projects in rapidly growing
States like Nevada.
state impacts
AASHTO last week initiated a survey of State departments of
transportation to assess the direct and indirect dollar and project
impacts across all 50 States. While that survey is still in progress,
here is an example of what we found:
In Ohio, approximately $187 million worth of construction
projects would be delayed or canceled. $47 million in preconstruction,
right-of-way and/or environmental activities would be impacted.
In Oklahoma, a total of $120 million in construction and
right-of-way projects would be delayed or canceled. This could also
impact the State's proposed $1 billion GARVEE Bond Program, with the
construction let dates for the proposed projects being delayed.
In Montana,$66.8 million reduction would result in a loss
of 2,805 jobs--roughly equal to 25 percent of the new jobs created in
Montana in 2001. This drastic reduction will have significant impact on
the many small construction and design firms in Montana.
In Alaska, even if the program recovers in 2004, the
reduction in design efforts in fiscal year 2003 will translate into
future delays in construction contracting of nearly $50 million.
In Florida, a reduction of $324 million is equivalent to
approximately 24 percent of the fiscal year 2003 capacity construction
program. Implementation of these reductions would negate gains in jobs
and transportation improvements achieved from recent transportation
initiatives of the Governor and legislature.
One serious concern that must be addressed is the accuracy of the
process used by the Department of the Treasury to determine the revenue
estimates used in calculating RABA. The correction of a $600 million
error by the Department of Treasury has already reduced the proposed
highway cutback to $8.6 billion. Recent information on fiscal year 2001
truck sales and fuel tax revenues at the State level call into question
the Treasury forecasts, and leads us to believe that other adjustments
in RABA could occur.
The public policy questions Congress needs to address are these.
First, to assist in the nation's economic recovery does it not make
sense to sustain highway funding at $31.8 billion? Second, are there
reserves and cash-flow in the Highway Trust Fund to make this possible
in fiscal year 2003? The answers are ``Yes'' and ``Yes!''
funds are available to sustain fiscal year 2002 levels
Four years ago we agreed to the fundamental principle that all the
receipts going into the Highway Account would be fully used for
transportation purpose, and not be used to offset other government
expenditures. But today there is a $20.3 billion cash balance in the
Highway Trust Fund. We seek to provide $8.6 billion in obligations
which will restore the highway funding to the fiscal year 2002 level.
The budget impact of this increase will only require $2.3 billion in
outlays for fiscal year 2003. Because highway funds are spent over a
period of about 7 years, $2.3 billion in additional outlays in fiscal
year 2003 will allow us to continue the momentum we have achieved in
fiscal year 2002.
The table displayed below shows receipts and expenditures for the
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund for Fiscal Year 1998 thorough
Fiscal Year 2003. Even accounting for unpaid obligations, it is clear
that there is a substantial balance in the Highway Account with
receipts exceeding outlays over the 6-year period. Mr. Chairman, we
respectfully urge the Congress and the Administration to honor their
commitment to spend all the receipts going into the Trust Fund, unlock
the balances that have built up and make a positive contribution to the
current economic recession.
Highway Account Receipts and Outlays\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Receipts Outlays Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................. 24.3 20.3 4.0
1999............................. 33.8 23.1 10.7
2000............................. 30.3 27.0 3.3
2001............................. 26.9 29.1 -2.2
*2002............................ 27.7 30.2 -2.5
*2003............................ 28.6 30.6 -2.0
--------------------------------------
Subtotal..................... 171.6 160.3 11.3
Balance from ISTEA D8.0..........
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 179.6 160.3 19.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Estimated
Note: The Highway account balance was $8 billion at the beginning of TEA-
21. Therefore, the cash balance at the close of fiscal year 2001 is
$20.3 billion.
Source: Federal Highway Administration Long-term Impacts
In addition to the immediate impacts of reducing highway spending
by more than a quarter, the RABA downward adjustment has longer-term
consequences for the Federal-aid highway program. If the obligation
level for Fiscal Year
2003 is adjusted downward from $31.7 to $23.2 billion, then the $23
billion level will become the baseline for reauthorization of TEA-21.
That would leave us at a starting point $8.6 billion below where we are
today, and considerably lower that the $27.8 billion obligation level
for fiscal year 2003 contained in TEA-21. Starting in such a deep hole,
would make it much more difficult to maintain the Federal-aid highway
program at current levels, and perhaps impossible to expand it.
tea-21 reauthorization
As we look to reauthorization of TEA-21 and the future of the
Federal-aid highway program, we believe that, first, it is essential to
preserve and reaffirm the principle of a user-based transportation
financing system in which all receipts are guaranteed to be used for
the purposes for which they were intended.
To accomplish this, TEA-21 set highway obligations at levels based
on then-current estimates of gasoline and related tax receipts, and
established a new mechanism, Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA),
to annually adjust them based on updated revenue estimates.
To ensure that domestic discretionary caps would not prevent the
use of all available revenues, a ``firewall'' provision was included in
the Budget Enforcement Act to increase or decrease highway spending
each year so that it would align itself with Highway Trust Fund
receipts. This provision provides for a ``spending guarantee.''
Congress also guaranteed an annual funding level for transit programs,
which are funded with a combination of highway tax receipts accruing to
the Mass Transit Account of the Trust Fund and a general fund
contribution. I should add that we are pleased that in the just
released Fiscal Year 2003 budget, the Administration honors the transit
funding guarantee.
Mr. Chairman, this year the spending caps expire. If and when
Congress considers new caps, we urge you and the members of the
subcommittee to lead the way in ensuring that the ``firewall''
provision is maintained.
These tools--RABA and the ``firewall'' provisions--were designed to
provide the long-term fiscal stability needed for State and local
highway and transit agencies to finance, design and execute multi-year
construction programs.
Recent experience has demonstrated, however, that there are
unintended flaws in the RABA mechanism. Changes in economic conditions
that result in minor adjustments to estimated receipts cause wide
swings in highway funding levels. In reauthorizing TEA-21, we must
carefully examine and refine the RABA mechanism, including its
calculation methods and revenue estimating procedures. We recommend
that you consider replacing the current calculation method with one
that simply compares actual previous year receipts to the assumptions
made at the time the bill passed, with the difference becoming the RABA
adjustment.
We also recommend that you consider instituting reforms to the
Department of Treasury's process for estimating tax receipts to the
Highway Account. This is not the first time that the Department of
Treasury has made costly errors. In 1994, a $1.3 billion error
eventually cost $3.6 billion to correct. This most recent $600 million
error leaves us with absolutely no confidence in their accounting
methods. We are not alone in our concerns. In June 2000, the U.S.
General Accounting Office released a report\2\ in which they indicated
that ``Treasury's process for allocating tax receipts to the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund is complex and error prone.'' At the
request of House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young
and Ranking Member James Oberstar, GAO is now engaged in a new review
of Treasury's methods for estimating receipts to the Highway Account.
We urge you carefully consider the results of GAO's review, and
consider appropriate reforms during reauthorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Highway Funding: Problems with Highway Trust Fund Information
Can Affect State Highway Funds(GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-148, June, 2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
revenues
Near term: Changes regarding gasohol revenues need to be addressed
during TEA-21 reauthorization. A significant portion of the
unanticipated downturn in fiscal year 2001 revenues was due to
increased gasohol sales, which grew by nearly 30 percent. This
accounted for a significant portion of the revenue reduction. Now that
the use of MTBE is to be discontinued in several States, the only fuel
additive approved to address the oxygenate requirements in the Clean
Air Act is gasohol. Prior to the change regarding MTBE, the most
heavily affected State due to the lower tax rate charged for gasohol
was Ohio, which lost over $175 million in fiscal year 2001. A recent
study by the State of Wisconsin indicates that the impact may grow
significantly worse in the near future, with the impact on California
for example increasing to $450 million next year. Areas such as New
York and New England are expected to be hard hit as well. This will
become a priority issue to be addressed during reauthorization. The
Baucus Bill, for example, which would shift revenue from the 2.5 cents
on gasohol now going to the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund
beginning in fiscal year 2004, is a step in the right direction. Still
more may be required.
Long Term: The second revenue issue is longer term in nature. It is
a concern for the future ability of gas tax revenues to sustain highway
funding as increases in fuel efficiency reduce revenues relative to
travel, and other technological changes occur such as a move to greater
reliance on alternative fueled vehicles including fuel cells,
compressed natural gas, and electricity. We believe the time has come
for Congress to mandate a study of this issue by GAO or the National
Academy of Science and the development of alternatives for
consideration during reauthorization deliberations in 2009.
conclusions
In conclusion, I would like to state that the Federal-aid highway
program has been one of the most successful Federal-State partnerships
ever created. It has contributed to the nation's mobility and to the
unprecedented economic growth that the Nation has experienced since the
1950's.
TEA-21 is a major step forward in providing much-needed funding to
the nation's highway and transit program. It is essential that the RABA
principle of fully spending Highway Trust Fund receipts and
guaranteeing that spending be maintained. However, it is also essential
that in a time of recession, the consequences of the RABA mechanism not
be permitted to eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs while setting
back much-needed transportation projects nationwide.
We clearly have sufficient receipts in the Highway Trust Fund to
sustain a higher program level. Authorizing a higher level is
consistent with TEA-21, which provided more contract authority to the
States to assure the Congresses could increase the program above the
guarantee. We urge the Congress to make this investment in America.
______
Responses by Thomas Stephens to Additional Questions from Senator Reid
Question 1. Please walk us through the impact that an In February
AASHTO conducted a survey of the State departments of transportation on
the impacts to their programs from an $8.6 billion funding cut. The
results of the survey are included in the report Shortchanging America:
Impacts on States from an $8.6 billion Reduction in Federal Highway
Funding. A copy of the report is attached, and we request that it be
included as part of the record for the hearing.
Response. In February AASHTO conducted a survey of the State
departments of transportation on the impacts to their programs from an
$8.6 billion funding cut. The results of the survey are included in the
report Shortchanging America: Impacts on States from an $8.6 billion
Reduction in Federal Highway Funding. A copy of the report is attached,
and we request that it be included as part of the record for the
hearing.
Question 2. In your written testimony you express concern about the
accuracy of the Treasury revenue estimates. Can you tell the committee
what specifically gives rise to your concern?
Response. First, we were disturbed to learn that just before the
President's Budget was issued the Treasury advised that they had
determined that almost $600 million in revenue had been credited to the
Transit Account of the Trust Fund when in fact it was Highway Account
revenue. This represents a serious accounting error.
In addition The Treasury in explaining the sharp drop in revenue
attributed a substantial amount of the change to truck sales tax
declines citing a 55 percent drop in truck sales tax collections. This
is in contrast to sales figures from the trucking industry, which
reported only a 24.2 percent drop in sales. Even allowing for
adjustments the industry sales data doesn't correlate with the Treasury
figures.
Also Treasury's data assumes that gasoline tax revenues drop 6
percent from 1 year to the next. However, FHWA's Traffic Volume Trends
Report issued monthly shows VMT increasing 2.07 percent for the first 9
months of 2000. In comparing the data to that for fiscal year 2001 the
data seem to be flat.
Question 3. We have heard several references to the ``performance''
of our transportation system. While I agree that performance is the
critical standard by which we should judge our system, I am concerned
that we have not developed adequate ways to measure and track
performance. The U.S. Department of Transportation puts out a biannual
Conditions and Performance report, but focuses almost exclusively on
conditions. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might better
measure performance?
Response. This question recognizes the serious weaknesses we have
today in measuring performance. Much of the concern for better
measurement is a product of increasing congestion. We have not really
developed effective ways of transmitting the scope and character of
congestion to the public in terms of its breadth depth and duration in
an understandable way. Another reason for our need to better measure
performance is the growing value of time to both travelers and of
freight. Both will demand more exacting levels of service in the
future.
System performance is about:
Speed
Cost
Convenience
Safety and Security
Reliability
All of these factors are things that we presently measure badly, or
not at all. Most particularly measures of cost and reliability are very
weak. We are working with FHWA to construct better ways to introduce
the measurement of reliability into the description of the system's
functioning and to produce a more comprehensive condition and
performance report that truly reports condition and performance.
AASHTO is currently undertaking a major research effort to quantify
highway and transit needs, including incorporating a measurement of
reliability for the highway component. The results will be presented in
the AASHTO Bottom Line Report, which is scheduled to be released in
September 2002.
Question 4. I am intrigued by the American Road and Transportation
Builders Association's suggestion that we enact a maintenance of effort
requirement for the States. Certainly our goal in providing additional
transportation funding at the Federal level is to increase the total
level of infrastructure investment rather than to have States simply
substitute Federal funds for State funds. Have you studied how States
have reacted to the Federal funding increases since TEA-21?
Response. While AASHTO has not surveyed the States to get a
quantitative assessment of the total Federal, State and local
percentages of total highway expenditures, anecdotal information
suggests that the States have effectively leveraged TEA-21's Federal
contribution to increase the overall State contribution.
For example:
In Illinois, Governor George Ryan's 5-year ``Illinois
First'' initiative makes available $10.5 billion for highways and $4.1
billion for transit;
Kansas has enacted a 10-year Comprehensive Transportation
Program funded from increases in the State gas and sales taxes and
additional bonding authority;
In California, Governor Gray Davis and the State
legislature enacted a $15 billion congestion relief program that
combines Federal, State and local funds; and
Rhode Island voters passed a $62.5 million transportation
bond issue for new transit equipment and work on I-95; and,
Another indicator is the number of bids let:
Colorado let $491 million in bids in 1999, up from $229
million in 1995;
Tennessee let $694 million in bids in 1999, up from $597
million in 1995;
Texas let more than $3 billion in bids in 1999, up from
$1.7 billion in 1996; and,Wisconsin let $597 million in bids in 1999,
up from $414 million in 1995.
In addition, when you examine FHWA's most recent statistics for
Federal, State and local percentages of total highway expenditures over
the past 5 years, the Federal, State and local percentage shares of
expenditures have remained relatively constant. Attached a table based
on information from FHWA
______
Responses by Thomas Stephens to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Mr. Stephens testified that States have not experienced
a drop in State revenues due to motor fuel taxes that may have served
as an indicator for the Federal Highway Trust Fund revenue
fluctuations. What has been the trend over the last several years in
State motor fuel tax collections?
Response. AASHTO asked States to provide actual State
transportation revenues for 1999-2001 from State gasoline, gasohol and
diesel taxes. We also asked States to provide forecasted State
transportation revenues from 2002 and 2003 from State gasoline, gasohol
and diesel taxes. The results from 36 States is included in a table
showing actual and projected revenues, along with percentage difference
from the prior year. A copy of the table is attached.
State fuel tax revenues increased by 2.7 percent between 1999 and
2000, and increased 1.5 percent between 2000 and 2001.
__________
Statement William D. Fay, President and CEO, American Highway Users
Alliance
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Bill Fay,
president and CEO of the American Highway Users Alliance. Thank you for
inviting us to testify at this very important and timely hearing on
highway funding for 2003 and future years.
The Highway Users is one of the most broad-based and diverse
advocacy groups in the Nation. We are like a consumers' group for
motorists and businesses who pay the taxes that support the Federal
highway program. Our vast membership includes the most visible user
groups--AAA and the nation's truckers, buses, and recreational
vehicles--but also those who ensure their safety--3M, insurance
companies and the traffic service industry. It includes businesses that
rely on efficient roads to ease the flow of raw materials, supplies,
and finished products--such as farmers, auto and auto parts makers and
dealers. And our members include those who build roads and mine, drill,
and refine the products essential to highway travel--petroleum,
asphalt, cement, and aggregates producers, and many others. Our 45
million members have a strong interest in how much the government
collects from motorists and how that money is invested after it gets to
Washington.
The subject of today's hearing includes both short-and longer-term
issues: the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal and the
major funding issues pertaining to next year's reauthorization
legislation. Putting first things first, I will begin with the 2003
budget and then discuss funding for reauthorization.
Fiscal Year 2003 Highway Funding
Transportation Secretary Mineta foretold the drop in guaranteed
highway funding when he testified before this committee nearly 3 weeks
ago. Last week, the President's fiscal year 2003 budget confirmed that
the guaranteed obligation limitation for next year will be
approximately $8.6 billion less than the $31.799 billion provided in
2002. That's more than a quarter of the program (a 27 percent cut) in 1
year.
According to the Administration, the cut is a straight-forward
calculation based on a substantial reduction in fiscal year 2001 tax
receipts relative to previous estimates combined with revised, lower
estimates of fiscal year 2003 tax receipts. Questions, of course,
remain regarding the accuracy of the Treasury Department's accounting
of those receipts, and I understand the General Accounting Office (GAO)
is reviewing Treasury's calculations for a report due in May.
Apparently, one error was found after the principal budget documents
were sent to the printer but in time for the more accurate figures to
be reflected in the Department of Transportation's own budget
documents. Correcting that error resulted in a $600 million increase in
trust fund tax receipts and a corresponding increase in the fiscal year
2003 guaranteed highway funding.
The possibility of further errors in the calculation of trust fund
receipts is important, and we look forward to reading GAO's final
report. Assuming, however, that the current figures are generally
correct, we have a simple point to make about the fiscal year 2003
budget: a 27 percent cut in 1 year in the nation's largest
infrastructure program is too much.
It would have serious economic repercussions just at a time when
the country is struggling to get out of a recession, and it would be a
devastating blow to our national transportation system.
Mr. Chairman, a week ago, when initial expectations were for a $9.1
billion cut in guaranteed funding for highways (rather than $8.6
billion), we obtained a Federal Highway Administration chart showing
the potential impact on each State's obligation limitation. The losses
spread across the States are nothing short of calamitous. Nevada, for
example, would lose over $53 million of the $200 million it received
this year. Similarly, Oklahoma would I lose $118 million out of its
$428 million in 2002 receipts. While the $600 million downward revision
in lost funding will mitigate those reductions slightly, the cuts, as a
percentage of the States' total Federal funds, are still dramatic.
The Cost of Losing One's Job to Families and Society
As you have heard from others, funding cuts of this magnitude will
result in lost jobs, perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs over time.
Far too many of those jobs will be lost before the fiscal year even
begins as contractors begin laying off workers in anticipation of the
project delays that will inevitably follow. These are high-paying jobs
that induce many other jobs. Such dramatic changes in employment would
increase the call of Federal unemployment compensation funds and other
social programs, as well as cut the flow of tax dollars from those
affected families and individuals. Attached to my testimony is a 1984
study released by the Joint Economic Committee on the social effects of
losing one's job. It paints a dire picture of personal financial
hardships, loss of health insurance, and rising mortality, divorce,
criminal activity, and suicide. Quoting from that study, ``The longer
[joblessness] endures, the more likely it becomes that frustrations
will be vented on the family--or on the rest of society.'' While I wish
the study were more recent, it is unlikely the torment of losing one's
job today is any less consequential than it was in 1984.
The Life-Saving, Time-Saving, Fuel-Saving, Economic and Environmental
Benefits of Road Investments
Equally important from the perspective of motorists, a 27 percent
reduction in funds will delay the important benefits of roadway
improvements--the safety benefits of reducing crashes, injuries, and
fatalities; the air quality, time-saving, and fuel-saving benefits of
relieving traffic congestion; the economic and productivity benefits of
speedier deliveries. These are the primary reasons that fuel taxes are
the taxes that Americans pay most willingly. They realize the benefits
of a safe, uncongested, and accessible highway system to themselves,
their families, and their businesses. But those benefits are only
realized if their tax dollars are used as intended.
In 1999, The Highway Users published a study identifying the worst
traffic bottlenecks in the country and the benefits that could be
realized by improving traffic flow at those sites. Unclogging America's
Arteries: Prescriptions for Healthier Highways showed that very modest
traffic flow improvements at each of our 167 worst bottlenecks would
result in 287,000 fewer crashes over 20 years, including 1,150 fewer
fatalities and 141,000 fewer injuries; they would reduce carbon
monoxide emissions by 45 percent and volatile organic compound
emissions by 44 percent, while carbon dioxide emissions would fall by
71 percent at those sites; they would slash fuel consumption by nearly
20 billion gallons; and of course, they would reduce travel time by an
average of 19 minutes per trip. With polls showing that time management
is one of the greatest challenges facing American families today--38
minutes less for a commuter driving to and from work represents more
time for family, work, errands, and recreation.
That's an example of the ``big bang for the buck'' that this
program has the potential to deliver, but too little funding will delay
these large, critically important projects for years. That's why this
debate over 2003 funding is so important to us.
We Must Preserve The Fundamental Premise of RABA and TEA-21's
Firewalls: Highway Taxes Received Equals Highway Investments
Made
Let me be clear about our view of the funding predicament we face
in 2003. We do not believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with
either the RABA provisions or the budgetary firewall provisions of TEA-
21. It is clear that Treasury's models did not foresee the recession
(resulting in a large ``look back'' adjustment) and that those same
models will likely understate the economic recovery that most
economists predict to begin in upcoming months. As such, some minor
adjustments to the method of calculating tax receipts and guaranteed
funding levels may help eliminate dramatic changes in funding from 1
year to another, but the link established in TEA-21 between tax
receipts and guaranteed funding for the program has been critical. It
is, in fact, the reason that TEA-21 was so warmly embraced by America's
highway users--it restored the ``trust'' in the Highway Trust Fund. The
chart appended to my testimony illustrates the impact that RABA and the
firewalls have had on funding for highways during the TEA-21 years
compared to the previous 6 years.
The fact that revenues have fallen short of previous estimates
simply puts all of us back in the annual budget and appropriations game
that we used to play every year before TEA-21 tied highway funding to
trust fund receipts.
The Highway Users looks forward to being back in the game this year
and working with all of you, your House counterparts, and members of
the Appropriations committees to see that this vital infrastructure
program is not cut by 27 percent in 1 year.
We commend the members of this committee for your recent
introduction of ``The Highway Funding Restoration Act,'' legislation to
raise the fiscal year 2003 obligation limitation to $27.7 billion, the
amount anticipated when TEA-21 was enacted. By adding $4.4 billion to
the amount guaranteed for 2003, your legislation will soften the blow
of negative RABA in these difficult economic times. The Highway Users
strongly supports this legislation, and we are already working hard,
through our grassroots contacts, to build political support and enlist
additional cosponsors for the bill. We have a similar campaign underway
to support the identical legislation introduced by your counterparts on
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
$18 Billion in Motorist Taxes Just Sitting in Washington
Although funding will be tight because of the war on terrorism and
renewed deficit spending, I believe America's highway users have a
strong case to make for additional highway funding above the guaranteed
amount. In addition to describing the very serious impact of this cut
on State highway funding, jobs, safety, congestion, and the
environment, we can also cite a key distinction between our cause and
the argument Members of Congress will hear from other interest groups:
the money for highways has been collected in advance.
Before TEA-21, interest was accrued on surpluses in the Highway
Trust Fund. This interest was ridiculed by some Members of Congress as
``funny money'' that wasn't really owed to highway users. As a
condition for establishing a link between revenues and investments,
TEA-21's framers agreed to eliminate all but $8 billion of the
previously existing cash balance in the Highway Account and to stop any
further interest payments to the account. As a result, since TEA-21's
enactment, not one penny of that $8 billion or subsequent additions to
the trust fund surplus is attributable to interest payment transfers
from the General Fund.
According to the Administration's budget, the Highway Account of
the Highway Trust Fund will have a cash balance of more than $18
billion at the end of this fiscal year. All of today's cash balance--
every dime--is money previously paid by motorists and intended for
improvements to our nation's roads and bridges.
If Congress were to increase the 2003 obligation limitation by a
full $8.6 billion to bring us up to this year's level, the cash balance
in the Highway Account would only be reduced by approximately $2.3
billion in fiscal year 2003. That would leave more than $15 billion in
the account as you consider funding levels and other issues in the
reauthorization legislation.
Funding Issues in Highway Reauthorization
That leads me to the longer-term highway funding issues that you
asked us to address in connection with next year's reauthorization
legislation. Let me begin again with the basic facts.
Tax receipts to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund will
be just over $28 billion next year, according to the President's budget
documents. The Administration projects conservatively that those
receipts will grow by almost $1 billion a year through 2007. The truth
is, we collected more than $30 billion in both 1999 and 2000, so if the
economy picks up, we can expect trust fund receipts to rise
significantly above the Administration's projections. Still, the need
for additional highway investment is substantially greater than those
Highway Account tax receipts can support, according to the FHWA
biennial report on road and bridge conditions and performance To us,
that suggests several clear funding priorities. The first priority, and
by far the most important, is to continue the direct link between
annual highway funding and the taxes paid by motorists. Whether that
link is accomplished through RABA and the budgetary firewalls, a
modified version of them, or some other mechanism entirely, the point
is to provide as much assurance as possible that highway funding will
not be less than the taxes paid by motorists and deposited in the
Highway Account.
Second, the reauthorization legislation should ensure that all
taxes paid by highway users are used for their intended purpose. Here,
there are several opportunities to improve upon current law.
Support S. 1306, Which Will Shift Ethanol Tax Receipts into the Highway
Trust Fund
Last year, Senator Baucus introduced S. 1306, a bill to transfer
into the Highway Trust Fund that portion of the tax on ethanol-blended
fuels that currently is diverted to the General Fund. We strongly
support the Baucus legislation, and we appreciate the fact that four
other members of this subcommittee, including you, Mr. Chairman, are
cosponsors of it. If enacted, the bill would increase annual trust fund
deposits by more than $400 million, and it would ensure that the trust
fund receives virtually all taxes currently imposed on motor fuels.
End Fuel Tax Evasion
Another step toward ensuring the integrity of highway use taxes
would be to close the remaining loopholes in the tax collection system
that allow unscrupulous individuals to evade the Federal taxes they
should be paying. Former Federal Highway Administrator Ray Barnhart
originally brought this issue to Congress' attention years ago. His
efforts resulted in a change in the tax collection system for motor
fuels, closing the books on tax evasion schemes that robbed the Highway
Trust Fund of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Administrator
Barnhart believes, however, that other substantial tax evasion schemes
still exist, and I urge the subcommittee to review the report on this
subject, prepared by kpmg Consulting Inc., which is appended to my
testimony.
We understand that efforts are underway to draft legislation
closing these loopholes. We expect to support this legislation, and we
will report back to the committee once a bill is introduced.
Reduce the Highway Trust Fund Surplus Over Time
Our final recommendation for ensuring the integrity of highway use
taxes is to spend down the Highway Account balance over time. As I
indicated previously, the cash balance in the account will be $18
billion at the end of fiscal year 2002, slightly less than that by the
end of 2003, depending on how much funding is ultimately appropriated
for next year.
All of that money has been paid by motorists. All of it was
intended to be used for road and bridge improvements. It ought to be
used for its intended purpose.
After protecting the integrity of highway use taxes, we ought to
guard against proposals that will reduce the revenue available for the
highway program.
Don't Triple Ethanol Mandate
For instance, the renewable fuels mandate proposed in S. 1766, the
``Energy Policy Act of 2002,'' would require that large amounts of
renewable fuels, primarily ethanol, be sold in the U.S. If enacted,
that provision would nearly triple the current demand for ethanol,
which, because of the tax subsidy for ethanol-blended fuels, would have
a severe impact on revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. The trust fund
currently loses more than $1 billion per year because of the tax
treatment of gasohol. When fully implemented, the ethanol mandate of S.
1766 would result in an annual revenue loss greater than the obligation
limitation distributed this year to the States of Nevada, Oklahoma,
Montana, Virginia, Connecticut, Oregon, and Rhode Island combined.
We strongly urge you to oppose the expansion of the ethanol mandate
in S. 1766 or, if you support mandated ethanol use, to bring equity to
ethanol taxation . . . in other words, levy the same tax on ethanol
that you do on gasoline.
Stem Diversions of Highway Funding
We also urge the committee to oppose any new diversions of highway
funding away from road and bridge improvements. In particular, I know
that you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the full committee have
previously indicated your strong interest in finding additional funds
to support passenger rail development in the U.S. While Congress
considers whether and to what extent public financial support for
passenger rail service makes sense, we urge the subcommittee to resist
attempts to divert Highway Trust Fund dollars to rail. The needs are
simply too great on our primary transportation system--highways--to
justify the expenditure of limited financial resources to build or
operate a passenger rail system.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, some have also suggested a fuel tax increase
as a means to increase highway funding. Given the current state of the
economy and the President's general opposition to tax increases, I
suspect there is little possibility that Congress will approve a tax
increase as part of the reauthorization bill. In any case, I expect
taxpaying motorists are unlikely to support a rate increase unless it
is clear that the funding guarantees of TEA-21 will be continued, that
the enormous existing balance in the Highway Account will be spent
down, and that highway users are not subsidizing other Federal programs
that have little or no direct benefit to motorists.
I also have one final observation about the President's budget.
Rather than spending down the balance in the Highway Trust Fund, the
Administration projects a dramatically growing balance beginning in
fiscal year 2004, the first year of a reauthorized highway program.
Over 4 years, the balance is projected to grow by a whopping $17.4
billion despite using very conservative estimates of annual tax
receipts.
Urge President Bush to Support Continuation of TEA-21's Funding
Guarantees
We are told by Administration sources that those projections are
simply based on the extraordinarily low 2003 spending as a baseline
adjusted for inflation in future years. Unfortunately, however, it also
indicates at the very least that the Administration has not yet made
the policy decision to support continued budgetary firewalls and a
RABA-like mechanism tying highway funding to tax receipts. There is
still time for the President to make that policy decision before
submitting his reauthorization proposal to the Congress, but I believe
the recent budget documents are an ominous warning that members of this
subcommittee, State and local public officials, and we in the private
sector need to work very hard to convince top Administration officials
that the TEA-21 funding guarantees must be continued in the next bill.
Former Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater used to say that
highways are about more than concrete, asphalt, and steel; they're
about new opportunities and quality of life. We at The Highway Users
understand the value of a good transportation system, centered on our
road network. It isn't an end in itself; it's a tool to move us, our
families, our customers and employees, and our products where they need
to go as safely and with as little delay as possible.
As Federal Highway Administrator Mary Peters is quick to point out,
however, it takes a lot of concrete, asphalt, and steel to realize
those benefits. That's the central point of this hearing and much of
the coming debate on 2003 funding and the reauthorization bill: we need
a well-funded Federal highway program to improve safety, reduce
congestion, enhance air quality, and keep our manufacturers and
producers competitive in the marketplace.
We look forward to working with all of you to see that your
colleagues, journalists, and the general public understand the unique
and vital role that our highway system plays in our overall economy and
our quality of life.
__________
Statement of Mr. James Duit, President, Duit Construction Company
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association I would like to
thank you for inviting us to be here this afternoon to discuss highway
funding issues, particularly the impact of the unprecedented $8.6
billion cut in Federal highway investment that is on the table for
fiscal year 2003 and what can be done to prevent a recurrence in the
future.
I am James Duit, President of Duit Construction Company, a highway
construction firm based in Edmond, Oklahoma. I am here representing
ARTBA, which on Wednesday will mark its 100th anniversary representing
the transportation construction industry here in Washington. ARTBA's
more than5,000members come from all sectors of our industry both public
and private. Our industry generated $200 billionannually in U.S.
economic activity and sustains the employment of more than 2.2 million
Americans.
My company was founded in 1969 and now provides good jobs for 300
permanent employees. Duit Construction specializes in paving,
aggregates and quarries. I am a member of the Transportation Research
Board's pavement research committee.
It was also my privilege to serve last year as chairman of the
American Concrete Pavement Association.
I am accompanied by Dr. William Buechner, ARTBA's Vice President
for Economics and Research, who will be available to respond to any
technical questions you may have. Dr. Buechner is a Harvard-trained
economist who spent more than two decades as an economist for the Joint
Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress.
reason for negative raba for fiscal year 2003
The reason for the proposed $8.6 billion cut in the Federal highway
program in fiscal year 2003 is well known. Since fiscal year 2000, the
``revenue-aligned budget authority'' or RABA provision of TEA-21
(Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) adjusts the annual
firewall guarantee for highways if revenues into the Highway Account of
the Highway Trust Fund are above or below the initial TEA-21 baseline
revenue estimate. For fiscal year 2003, the RABA adjustment was
determined to be negative $4.369 billion-the first negative RABA
adjustment ever.
Subtracting the negative $4.4 billion from the original TEA-21
highway guarantee of $27.7 billion gives the $23.2 billion Federal
highway investment proposed in the President's budget for fiscal year
2003.
This is $8.6 billion less than the $31.8 billion enacted for
Federal highway investment during the current fiscal year.
Senator, we greatly appreciate your leadership in addressing this
issue by introducing legislation to provide fiscal year 2003 funding of
at least $27.7 billion, the original TEA-21 guarantee. We believe this
is an excellent start and look forward to working with you to restore
the highway funding this year.
Before I discuss the consequences of an $8.6 billion cut in Federal
highway investment, I want to point out that the negative RABA was not
the result of a reduction in gas tax revenues into the Highway Trust
Fund. It is easy to misunderstand what happened, and the assertion that
the proposed cut in highway funding was due to declining gas tax
revenues has appeared in a number of newspaper articles. But it is not
an accurate statement.
According to data provided to ARTBA by the U.S. Department of the
Treasury, motor fuel excise taxes collected by the Treasury during
fiscal year 2001-the ``look-back'' year for the fiscal year 2003 RABA
computation-were just about even with the amount collected during
fiscal year 2000. There was a small decline in total revenues but
virtually all of it was due to a reduction in excise taxes paid by
heavy trucks.
The overriding reason for negative RABA is that Treasury made a
forecasting error in computing the fiscal year 2001 RABA adjustment and
another forecasting error in crediting revenues to the Highway Account
in fiscal year 2000. Treasury corrected both of those errors when
computing the fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment. These were technical
corrections to past forecasting errors, caused to some extent by the
recession, but they account for almost $3 billion of the negative RABA
adjustment that concerns us today.
In addition, we believe Treasury has underestimated projected
incoming Highway Account revenues for fiscal year 2003. This
underestimate, we believe, added another $900 million to the negative
RABA. The fiscal year 2003 revenue projection does not appear
consistent with the administration's overall economic assumptions and
does not appear to take into account historical data showing that
highway travel and truck excise tax receipts recover sharply after a
recession ends.
The Treasury gas tax data and an explanation of how the fiscal year
2003 RABA adjustment was computed are attached to my prepared statement
and I ask that they be included in the record.
consequences of proposed $8.6 billion cut in highway funding
Now I want to discuss the consequences of a $8.6 billion cut in
Federal highway investment.
Job Loss. An $8.6 billion cut in Federal highway investment in
fiscal year 2003 would reduce employment in America by more than
360,000 jobs over the next 7 years, with roughly 70 percent of the job
loss occurring in 2003 and the election year 2004. This works out to
more than 825 jobs per congressional district. A State-by-State
breakdown of the job loss is included as an attachment to my testimony.
If highway investment in fiscal year 2003 is provided at the TEA-21
baseline level of $27.7 billion (a $5 billion increase from the
proposed RABA-adjusted level), the job loss would still be almost
170,000. Neither figure is acceptable at a time when the economy is
struggling to emerge from recession. Much of the job loss will affect
minorities, especially Hispanic workers who make up almost a third of
the transportation construction work force. A legislative solution that
would restore only $5 billion would concede that jobs will be lost.
TEA-21 Reauthorization Baseline. The fiscal year 2003 obligation
limitation will be the major determinant of the baseline funding levels
for the fiscal years covered by TEA-21 reauthorization legislation. As
the attached chart shows, the $8.6 billion cut would lower future
baseline highway funding by more than $10 billion each year from the
levels included in the fiscal year 2002 budget submitted just a year
ago.
Starting from this baseline will make it much more difficult for
Congress to increase Federal highway investment after TEA-21 expires.
Providing $27.7 billion for fiscal year 2003 would eliminate about half
the shortfall, but restoring the full $8.6 billion is the only way to
provide a realistic baseline for reauthorization.
Cancellation of Highway Improvements. Based on reports from State
DOTs, a number of States have already started to terminate or postpone
projects on the basis of the expected cut in fiscal year 2003 Federal
highway funding. The chaos caused by the proposed cut in Federal
highway funding will continue until Federal funding for fiscal year
2003 has been resolved. This needs to be addressed quickly to allow
State construction programs to proceed unimpeded for the 2002
construction season.
Cannibalization of State Highway Budgets. The States rely on
Federal highway funds to finance, on average, almost half of their
highway capital improvement programs. A cut in Federal highway funds in
fiscal year 2003 would exacerbate their budget problems and likely
force many to cannibalize their own highway improvement programs to
complete construction on Federal-aid projects.
how the $8.6 billion could be financed
Highway funding for fiscal year 2003 could be maintained at the
fiscal year 2002 level of $31.8 billion-and we believe should be-by
utilizing the existing balance in the Highway Trust Fund's Highway
Account. According to the Treasury Department that balance stands today
at about $20.5 billion.
This balance is not needed to reimburse States for already
committed projects and programs. Approximately $7 billion of the
balance is a cash surplus that occurred because TEA-21 did not require
the RABA adjustment until fiscal year 2000. More highway user fee
revenues came into the trust fund in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999 than were spent.
An additional $14 billion or so in the balance is to cover the
unobligated contract authority that TEA-21 has provided to the States
to date above the guaranteed firewall (You'll recall that TEA-21
authorized $177 billion for highway investment, but only guaranteed
$162 billion under the budget firewall).
That contract authority is worthless to the States unless this
money is appropriated from the trust fund. Otherwise, they cannot
commit it to projects.
It is time to free these surplus funds to save American jobs.
purpose of the raba mechanism
I would now like to turn to the second issue being addressed today-
how to improve the RABA mechanism.
Let me begin by pointing out that our overriding concern with
Federal highway funding is not only that it be adequate to meeting our
nation's transportation needs but also that it be predictable and
reliable.
Highway and bridge investments often take a long time to plan and
construct. To schedule projects efficiently, State Departments of
Transportation need stable funding sources and predictable revenues.
That is why the Federal highway program has a 6-year, rather than
annual, authorization cycle.
The RABA adjustment process was not expected by the Congress, the
States or the industry to inject the kind of instability in Federal
highway funding that we are currently facing.
The purpose of RABA was to help implement the TEA-21 goal of using
all revenues into the Highway Trust Fund for their intended purpose-
investment in transportation improvements-in a timely manner.
To accomplish this, TEA-21 set up a two-part process to determine
the annual funding for the Federal highway program.
First are the firewall amounts guaranteed in TEA-21, which from
fiscal year 2000 on were directly linked to Highway Account revenues
collected during the previous fiscal year. These guaranteed amounts
were based on revenue projections made at the time TEA-21 was enacted
in June 1998.
The second is the RABA adjustment, which automatically increases or
decreases the firewall guarantee whenever actual revenues into the
Highway Account exceed or fall short of the TEA-21 baseline estimates.
Attached to my testimony is a detailed explanation of how the
fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment was computed.
The major problem with the computation process appears to be in the
``look forward'' forecasting provision. Although annual highway funding
under TEA-21 is supposed to be tied to previous-year revenues, part of
the RABA calculation requires making a forecast of Highway Account
revenues during the budget year itself and comparing that forecast to
the initial TEA-21 baseline.
This ``look forward'' forecast has proven to be a major source of
instability in the RABA computation because the projections have been
off each year, as forecasts always are. For example, Treasury
overestimated fiscal year 2001 Highway Account revenues by $1.8 billion
when computing the fiscal year 2001 RABA adjustment and corrected its
mistake in the fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment.
This problem must be corrected when TEA-21 is reauthorized.
possible raba improvements
There are a number of ways this could be done. One is to eliminate
the ``look forward'' forecast part of the RABA formula. Basing RABA
solely on the ``look back'' part of the formula might yield smaller
RABA adjustments, but provide more predictability and stability to
Federal highway investment.
Another option might be to establish a reserve that would
automatically be drawn down whenever RABA is negative. In fact, such a
reserve exists today in the Highway Trust Fund as I have previously
explained.
I would like to suggest a third, more fundamental, reform that
would change the nature of the RABA mechanism in the TEA-21
reauthorization legislation.
Under ISTEA and previous authorizations, the annual level of
highway funding was budget-driven. Highway funding was determined by
the overall budget cap and the level of the deficit, regardless of the
amount of user fees paid into the Highway Trust Fund. As a result, the
balance in the Highway Trust Fund kept growing, breaking trust with
highway users who thought all their gas taxes were being invested in
highway improvements.
TEA-21 addressed this problem by making highway funding revenue-
driven, by linking each year's funding to the previous year's revenues.
RABA helped accomplish this but, as we have seen, introduced the
potential for unanticipated instability into Federal highway
investment.
For reauthorization, ARTBA urges that Congress go the next step and
make annual highway funding performance-driven. While TEA-21 has
succeeded in increasing highway investment, the level at present is
barely sufficient to maintain the physical condition of the nation's
highways and bridges.
Under current funding, however, system performance-particularly
congestion--is getting worse. In our TEA-21 reauthorization report,
which has been supplied for the hearing record, ARTBA recommends that
Federal highway investment from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year
2009 be set at a level that maintains not only the physical condition
of highways and bridges, but mobility conditions as well.
Based on data from the latest Conditions and Performance report
submitted to Congress just over a year ago by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, this goal would require an average annual Federal
highway investment of $50 billion during the next 6 years, rising from
$48 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $54 billion in fiscal year 2009.
Funding this investment could be achieved by modifying the RABA
provision. The modification would require setting guaranteed annual
funding levels, as recommended in the ARTBA reauthorization report,
computing the resulting outlays from the Highway Trust Fund, which OMB
and CBO already do, and automatically setting highway user fees at the
beginning for each fiscal year to raise the required revenues.
This is exactly what the U.S. Postal Service does. It determines
the cost of delivering the mail and sets postal rates at the level
necessary to cover its costs. If the postal service followed the
highway model, it would instead set postal rates at some arbitrary
level and then deliver whatever mail its budget would cpermit.
budget related reauthorization issues
Before ending, I want to briefly mention some additional budget-
related issues for TEA-21 reauthorization.
First, and most important, preserve the budget firewalls that apply
to the highway and mass transit categories and the guaranteed
obligation limitation for highways.
These two TEA-21 innovations have been instrumental in moving
toward the goal of using all Highway Trust Fund revenues for surface
transportation investment in a timely manner. The budget firewalls have
removed the incentive to cut funding for the highway and transit
programs, because the ``savings'' of doing so cannot be diverted to
other uses. The guaranteed funding has, at least until fiscal year
2003, provided predictability to Federal funding for State DOT
planning.
Second, we suggest enactment of a maintenance-of-effort requirement
for the States. An increase in Federal highway funding creates a
temptation for State legislatures to divert State-derived highway funds
to other uses. A maintenance-of-effort requirement to receive Federal
highway funds would eliminate that temptation.
Third, we recommend a significant increase in funding for the mass
transit program and, in conjunction with that, elimination or a cap on
the ability of State DOTs to transfer highway program funds to transit.
Each year, more than $1 billion of Federal highway funds are diverted
by the States to transit operating and capital expenses, as permitted
under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs. This is in addition to the
funding made available through the Federal mass transit program.
Adequate funding for the mass transit program should go hand in hand
with dedicating highway program funds solely to highway improvements.
Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank you very much for inviting me
to testify on behalf of the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association.
______
Responses by Tom Hill, from ARTBA, to Additional Questions from Senator
Reid
Question 1. Your organization has done quite a bit of analysis of
Treasury's revenue estimates and I would ask you to expand upon your
testimony that Treasury has underestimated future Highway Trust Fund
revenues.
Response. As part of the annual preparation of the president's
proposed Budget of the U.S. Government, the Office of Tax Analysis of
the U.S. Treasury prepares a forecast of revenues for the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund. A copy of the forecast used for
preparation of the fiscal year 2003 budget is provided as Attachment 1.
ARTBA's analysis of these Treasury revenue estimates indicates that
Treasury may have underestimated future Highway Account revenues.
Treasury uses a complex model to forecast Highway Account revenues.
Each of the six main revenue sources-the Federal gasoline, diesel and
gasohol excises plus the taxes on truck sales, tire sales and truck
use-is projected separately and the results are added together to
provide an overall revenue forecast.
The Treasury revenue forecast raises three concerns:
The forecast projects that revenues from the retail tax
on trucks will not recover to the fiscal year 2000 pre-recession level
until fiscal year 2008, 7 years after the trough of the current
recession (see the 4th line of Attachment 1). This is completely at
odds with every past recession, where truck tax revenues equaled or
surpassed the pre-recession peak within 2 years of the recession
trough. This includes the 1981-82 recession, which was the worst in the
post-war period and far more severe than the current recession.
Assuming that it will take 7 years to reach a level attained within 2
years after previous recessions means the Treasury forecast may be
significantly understating future Highway Account revenues. For
example, if truck excise taxes return to the pre-recession peak in
three rather than 7 years, annual Highway Account revenues would be
$1.1 billion higher than the Treasury baseline. If it takes 4 years,
annual revenues would still be more than $800 million higher than the
baseline.
On February 28, the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the
U.S. Department of Commerce reported that real Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) rose 1.4 percent during the 4th quarter of 2001 rather than the
previous estimate of 0.2 percent. The economy appears to be stronger
than originally thought and the GDP estimates used by Treasury to
prepare the Highway Account revenue forecast thus may have been too
low. Adopting a higher GDP forecast should also raise projections of
Highway Account revenues.
The Treasury Department credited the Highway Account with
$26.9 billion of revenues in fiscal year 2001, even though just under
$28 billion of revenues were actually collected. The difference was a
bookkeeping correction to make up for the fact that $1.089 billion too
much was credited to the Highway Account in fiscal year 2000. This is
explained in more detail in Attachment 2. For fiscal year 2002,
Treasury estimates that Highway Account revenues will be $27.7 billion,
which is a reasonable increase over the $26.9 billion credited to the
account for fiscal year 2001 given the forecast for economic recovery
this year. But it is $300 million less than was actually collected in
fiscal year 2001. Treasury says its revenue forecast models are
independent of the amount of revenues collected in fiscal year 2001.
But if the full $28 billion had been credited to the Highway Account in
fiscal year 2001, would Treasury have projected a revenue decline in
fiscal year 2002 in contrast to a forecast of economic recovery and
growth? It seems more likely that a higher starting point would have
resulted in higher revenue forecasts for fiscal year 2002 and all
subsequent years.
These concerns suggest Treasury's January revenue estimates may be
too pessimistic and will be revised upward when the estimates are
recomputed with more recent data for the August budget review and the
fiscal year 2004 budget.
Given the strong upward 4th quarter GDP revision and the other
issues raised in this response, the committee may wish to ask Treasury
for new revenue estimates prior to the August budget review.
A corollary issue has been raised: what level of cash balance
should be maintained in the Highway Account? The Federal Highway
Administration has said informally that a prudent balance would be $8
billion.
There is no statutory reason for this. The only benefit of a cash
balance is that it serves as a back-up source of funds in the event
that outlays from the Highway Account exceed revenues into the account.
ARTBA has found that, under reasonable assumptions about annual Highway
Account revenues and obligation limitations, a positive cash balance
will be maintained throughout the forecast period even if Congress
provides $31.8 billion for the Federal highway program in fiscal year
2003.
More fundamentally, however, the cash balance is not the
appropriate measure of the level of spending supportable by the Highway
Account.
A better measure is the statutorily required Byrd test, which asks
whether all anticipated revenues into the Highway Account over a 3-year
period are sufficient to cover all anticipated bills that must be paid
from the account during that time. This recognizes that the highway
funds distributed to the States each fiscal year actually spend out
from the Highway Account over a seven to 9 year period, with most of
the bills coming due during the first 3 years.
The Byrd test begins by adding together all outstanding obligations
that have not yet been paid plus all outstanding balances that have not
yet been obligated. This gives the maximum amount that might have to be
paid from the Highway Account. The current cash balance is subtracted
to determine how much additional cash would be needed to pay all
potential bills. This figure is then subtracted from projected Highway
Account revenues for the next 2 years. The result is the headroom in
the Highway Account. If it is positive-projected revenues exceed
anticipated bills-there is room for additional funding. If it is
negative, the Byrd amendment requires an across-the-board cut in
highway funding sufficient to restore the difference.
Under the CBO baseline, the Byrd test is consistently positive
throughout the forecast period and, in fact, grows throughout the
period. This holds true whether the highway program is funded at $31.8
billion in fiscal year 2003 or $23.2 billion or anywhere in between.
In summary, whether looking at the cash balance in the Highway
Account or the Byrd test, ARTBA believes the Highway Account could
support a $31.8 billion highway program in fiscal year 2003.
Question 2. I am intrigued by the American Road and Transportation
Builders Association's suggestion that we enact a maintenance-of-effort
requirement for the States. Certainly our goal in providing additional
transportation funding at the Federal level is to increase the total
level of infrastructure investment rather than to have the States
simply substitute Federal funds for State funds. Have you studied how
States have reacted to the Federal funding increases since TEA-21?
Response. ARTBA's analysis of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
data for 1998 through 2000 show that 26 States invested less of their
own State funds in highway capital improvements during at least one of
those years than during 1997, the last year of funding under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Four States
invested less all 3 years than during 1997. Had a maintenance-of-effort
provision been in effect during those years, it would have added
approximately $2 billion to highway capital improvements.
ARTBA based its analysis on data from the annual Highway Statistics
volumes published by FHWA. We began with total capital outlays for
highways by State Departments of Transportation (from Table SF-2) and
subtracted the payment of funds by FHWA to each State (from Table SF-3)
to arrive at the annual amount of own-State funds invested in highways
by each State. We did this for 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. The results
are shown in the first four columns of Attachment 3.
We then compared the amount of own-State funds invested in highway
capital improvements during 1998, 1999 and 2000 to the 1997 baseline.
These results are shown in the next three columns. A negative figure
means the State invested less in highway capital improvements during
that year than in 1997.
The final two columns summarize the results. The first summary
column shows the number of years each State's capital investment fell
short of the 1997 baseline. The second shows the total shortfall during
all negative years.
The table yields two important results.
First, own-State expenditures for highway capital investment fell
below the 1997 baseline in 47 instances during the first 3 years of
TEA-21, an average of just under one instance per State. Since this was
spread over 3 years, it means that one-third of the States spent less
on highways during each of the first 3 years under TEA-21 than they did
in 1997.
Second, if TEA-21 had included a maintenance-of-effort provision,
the result would have been an additional $2 billion of capital
investment in highways during those 3 years.
If Congress were to include a maintenance-of-effort provision in
TEA-21 reauthorization legislation, two issues need to be addressed:
While ARTBA's analysis used 1997 as the baseline, the baseline for
a maintenance-of-effort provision should be multi-year. This would
prevent States from manipulating the baseline.
The maintenance-of-effort provision should apply to obligations.
ARTBA's analysis was based on actual expenditures from the U.S. and
State treasuries, since these were the only consistent data available.
But expenditures are the result of obligations in previous years and
are thus only a second-best measure of State maintenance of effort.
______
Response by Tom Hill to Additional Question from Senator Smith
Question. As to the issue of reauthorization, what would be the
implications, both negative and positive, of restoring the collection
of interest on the funds on hand in the Highway Trust Fund?
Response. Prior to October 1, 1998, the cash balance in the Highway
Trust Fund earned interest from the U.S. Treasury. While interest added
resources to the Highway Trust Fund, it did not necessarily increase
Federal investment in highways and mass transit because there was no
mechanism to assure that all Highway Trust Fund receipts were actually
spent on the nation's transportation needs.
TEA-21 took one step forward and one step back. It provided
guaranteed funding for highways and mass transit and established the
revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA) mechanism to assure that all
Highway Account revenues were spent solely on the Federal highway
program.
But under TEA-21, the cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund no
longer earns interest.
According to the latest data from the U.S. Department of the
Treasury, the cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund is just over $22
billion. At current interest rates, the foregone interest on this is
slightly less than $1 billion. During the 6-year life of TEA-21, the
total foregone interest will total well over $6 billion, since both
interest rates and the size of the balance were higher at times earlier
in the period.
Restoring the collection of interest on funds in the Highway Trust
Fund would increase the resources available for Federal highway and
mass transit investment. ARTBA supports this proposal.
It will increase Federal highway investment, however, only if
Congress continues to guarantee that all Highway Trust Fund revenues be
spent only for highways and mass transit. This means preserving the
budgetary firewalls and the annual RABA adjustment mechanism for the
highway program. Without these guarantees, restoring interest to the
Highway Trust Fund could have no effect on annual investment levels.
The sole ``cost'' of this proposal is that it would increase
Federal outlays for computing the annual budget surplus or deficit. But
it would not reduce spending for other domestic discretionary
categories. This is because the additional Highway Trust Fund revenues
would raise the highway budget category directly and thus would not
require any offsets in other domestic discretionary programs.
ARTBA has proposed additional ways of increasing Highway Trust Fund
revenues, including indexing the Federal motor fuels excise taxes for
inflation, depositing all receipts from the excise on gasohol into the
Highway Trust Fund including the 2.5 cents per gallon currently
deposited into the general fund, financing the ethanol subsidy from the
general fund rather than the Highway Trust Fund, and spending down the
cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund.
Ultimately, however, we believe the Federal user fee excise taxes
on motor fuels and trucks will have to be increased or a new dedicated
revenue source developed in order to provide adequate funding for the
Federal highway and mass transit programs.
__________
Statement of the JayEtta Z. Hecker, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues U.S. General Accounting Office
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony on the Highway Trust Fund. Our
statement today is based on our June 2000 report on problems with
Highway Trust Fund information,\1\ work we performed as the principal
auditor of the annual financial statements of the Department of
Treasury's Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and other work we do to
assist the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General in
its annual audits of the Highway Trust Fund and Department of
Transportation financial statements. The Highway Trust Fund is the
principle mechanism for funding Federal highway programs authorized by
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Under TEA-
21, the funding levels for Federal highway programs are adjusted
annually upward or downward based on actual and projected receipts of
the Highway Trust Fund. These adjustments are referred to as the
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA). We are currently reviewing the
fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment. We can provide you the results of
that work at a later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Funding: Problems with
Highway Trust Fund Information Can Affect State Highway Funds, GAO/
RCED/AIMD-00-148 (Washington, DC.: June 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statement will provide a description of (1) how the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) changed the
budgetary treatment of programs financed by the Highway Trust Fund, (2)
the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) calculation process, and
(3) the results of our review of the Department of the Treasury's
excise tax distributions to the Highway Trust Fund for fiscal year
2001.
In summary: TEA-21 made significant changes to the budgetary
treatment of Federal highway and transit programs financed by the
Highway Trust Fund. In particular, TEA-21 guaranteed annual funding
levels for most highway and transit programs and more closely linked
highway user tax receipts, such as those from motor fuel and truck tire
taxes, to the annual guaranteed funding levels for highway programs.
RABA adjustments ensure that highway program funding levels will
change as Highway Account receipt levels change. For the first time,
the RABA adjustment for fiscal year 2003 is negative-decreasing highway
funding by $4.37 billion.
Our work shows that the amounts distributed to the Highway Trust
Fund for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2001, as adjusted based on
IRS' certifications, were reasonable and adequately supported based on
available information.
tea-21 and the highway trust fund
TEA-21 authorized $217.9 billion for highway, mass transit, and
other surface transportation programs for fiscal years 1998 through
2003. TEA-21 n '' the use of the Highway Trust Fund-which is divided
into a Highway Account and a Mass Transit Account-as the mechanism to
account for Federal highway user tax receipts that fund various surface
transportation programs. Prior to TEA-21, these programs competed for
budgetary resources through the annual appropriations process with
other domestic discretionary programs. In a major change to Federal
budget rules, TEA-21 guaranteed a minimum level of spending for these
programs. New budget categories were established for highway and
transit spending, effectively establishing a budgetary ``firewall''
between those programs and other domestic discretionary spending
programs. Of the $217.9 billion authorized for surface transportation
programs over the 6-year life of TEA-21, about $198 billion is
protected by the budgetary firewall-about $162 billion for highway
programs and $36 billion for transit programs. TEA-21 also enhanced the
linkage between highway user tax receipts in the Fund's Highway Account
and Federal highway program funding levels in several ways, including
(1) guaranteeing specific annual funding levels for most highway
programs over a 6-year period on the basis of the projected receipts in
the Highway Account, and (2) adjusting the guaranteed spending level
for each fiscal year upward or downward if the receipt levels in the
Highway Account increased or decreased from those projected in TEA-21.
Federal highway user taxes directed to the Highway Trust Fund
include excise taxes on motor fuels (gasoline, gasohol, diesel, and
special fuels); and truck-related taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks
and trailers, and the use of heavy vehicles (see fig. 1). Someone other
than the consumer generally pays the motor fuel taxes into the Highway
Trust Fund. Oil companies typically pay a per-gallon tax on the motor
fuels at the point where their fuel is loaded into tanker trucks or
rail cars at a terminal. Tire manufacturers pay taxes on truck tires,
by weight; and retailers pay taxes on the sales price of new trucks and
trailers. Owners of heavy highway vehicles pay taxes on the use of
these vehicles, making this the only highway tax directly paid by the
highway user.
Table 1: Highway User Taxes (Cents per gallon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Trust Fund Leaking
Type of tax Tax rate -------------------------------- underground
Highway Transit storage tank General fund
Account Account trust fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor fuels taxes
Gasoline........................ 18.40 15.44 2.86 0.10
Diesel.......................... 24.40 21.44 2.86 0.10
Alternative fuels taxes
Gasohol (10% ethanol)........... 13.10 7.64 2.86 0.10 2.5
Liquefied petroleum gas......... 13.60 11.47 2.13
Liquefied natural gas........... 11.90 10.04 1.86
M85 (from natural gas).......... 9.25 7.72 1.43 0.10
Compressed natural gas (cents 48.54 38.83 9.70
per thousand cu. ft.)..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck related taxes
Tires 0-40 lbs., no tax
Over 40 lbs - 70 lbs, 15 cents per pound in excess of 40
Over 70 lbs - 90 lbs, $4.50 plus 30 per pound in excess of
Over 90 lbs, $10.50 plus 50 cents per pound in excess of 90
Truck and trailer sales tax 12 percent of retailer's sales proce for tractors and trucks over 33,000 lbs
gross vehicle weight (GVW) and trailers over 26,000 GVW
Heavy vehicle use tax Annual tax: Trucks 55,000 lbs and over GVW, $100 plus &22 for each 1,000 lbs
(or fraction thereof) in excess of 55,000 lbs (maximum of $550)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Tax rates as of July 1, 2001.
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Office of Tax Analysis, Department of the Treasury.
Twice a month, business taxpayers make deposits of excise taxes-
including highway user taxes-generally through Treasury's Electronic
Federal Tax Payment System. Excise taxes are deposited into Treasury's
General Fund as received.
Treasury uses a complex and lengthy process-involving four
organizations within the department-for distributing excise tax
receipts to the various trust funds, including the Highway Trust Fund.
The department uses this process, in part, because it does not obtain
data from business taxpayers (when they make semimonthly deposits) on
the types of excise taxes that these deposits are intended to cover.
Because businesses, rather than consumers generally pay highway
user taxes, most of the Federal motor fuel and truck taxes come from
only the handful of States where those businesses have their corporate
headquarters and pay their taxes.
As a result, the Treasury Department does not provide the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) with State-level data on highway tax
receipts, and FHWA must therefore estimate these data in order to
distribute Highway Account funds to the States under various highway
programs. FHWA estimates State-level contributions through what it
refers to as its ``attribution process.'' Through this process, it
determines each State's share of highway motor fuel usage on the basis
of data provided by the States, and it uses that information to
estimate the amount of contributions to the Highway Account
attributable to each State's highway users. The information developed
by Treasury and FHWA is used to determine the amounts of funds
distributed to each State under several major highway programs.
The Revenue Aligned Budget Authority Calculation
TEA-21 used projections of Highway Account receipts to develop
guaranteed highway funding levels for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
Beginning in fiscal year 2000, these guaranteed levels were to be
adjusted upward or downward each year on the basis of actual Highway
Account receipts and new projections of these receipts. If this RABA
adjustment lowers the guaranteed funding level for a given fiscal year,
TEA-21 requires that the Department of Transportation reduce the amount
of funding authorized on October 1 of the next fiscal year. RABA
adjustments ensure, for the first time, that highway program funding
levels will change as Highway Account receipt levels change.
The RABA adjustment to the funding levels authorized in TEA-21 is
based on actual receipts from 2 years prior to the fiscal year, as
reported by Treasury, plus revised Treasury receipt projections for the
fiscal year in question. For example, for fiscal year 2000, TEA-21
requires that this adjustment be calculated by comparing (1) actual
Highway Account receipts for fiscal year 1998 with the TEA-21
projection of these receipts (the ``look back `` portion of the
calculation) and (2) revised projections of Highway Account receipts
for fiscal year 2000 with the TEA-21 projection of these receipts (the
``look forward'' portion of the calculation). The sum of these
differences becomes the RABA adjustment. To determine the amount of the
RABA adjustment, the Office of Management and Budget relies on
information on Highway Account receipts supplied by Treasury.
Specifically, the Bureau of Public Debt provides the actual Highway
Account receipts for the prior fiscal year, and the Office of Tax
Analysis (OTA) provides a projection of Highway Account receipts for
the next fiscal year.
Figure 2 shows the RABA calculations and resulting adjustments for
fiscal years 2000 through 2003. As shown, the RABA adjustments for
fiscal years 2000 through fiscal year 2002 were positive-increasing
highway funding levels by a total of over $9 billion.\2\ However, in
fiscal year 2003, actual Highway Account receipts for fiscal year 2001
were less than the TEA-21 estimate for fiscal year 2001, and Treasury's
projection of Highway Account receipts for fiscal year 2003 was less
than the TEA-21 estimate for that year. As a result, the RABA
adjustment for fiscal year 2003 is negative $4.37 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\FHWA apportions any additional RABA funds to the States on
October 15 of each fiscal year-about 2 weeks after apportioning the
amount of highway program funds for the fiscal year that was authorized
in TEA-21.
Table 2: RABA Calculation for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003
(In millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look Back Look Ahead
Fiscal Year ----------------------------------------------------------------------- RABA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000........................ 1998 Actual Hwy/Accnt 23,135 2000 Est. Hwy/Accnt 28,551
receipts. Receipts.
less 1998 TEA-21 22,164 less 2000 TEA-21 28,066
ext. Hwy/Accnt est. Hwy/Acct
receipts. receipts.
less look ahead 0
result for 1998.
------------- --------------
subtotal........... 971 subtotal.......... 495 1,456
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001........................ 1999 actual Hwy/Accnt 38,815 2001 est. Hwy/Accnt 30,368
receipts. receipts.
less 1999 TEA-21 32,619 less 2001 TEA-21 28,506
est. Hwy/Accnt est Hwy/Accnt
receipts. receipts.
less look-ahead 0
result for 1999.
------------- --------------
subtotal........... 1,196 subtotal.......... 1,862 3,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002........................ 2000 actual Hwy/Accnt 30,334 2002 est. Hwy/Accnt 31,732
receipts. receipts.
less 2000 TEA-21 28,066 less 2002 TEA-21 28,972
est. Hwy/Accnt est Hwy/Accnt
receipts. receipts.
less look-ahead 485
result for 2000.
------------- --------------
subtotal........... 1,738 subtotal.......... 2,760 4,543
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003........................ 2001 actual Hwy/Accnt 26,900 2003 est. Hwy/Accnt 28,570
receipts. receipts.
less 2001 TEA-21 28,506 less 2003 TEA-21 29,471
est. Hwy/Accnt est Hwy/Accnt
receipts. receipts.
less look-ahead 1,862
result for 2001.
------------- --------------
subtotal........... (3,468) subtotal.......... (901) (4,369)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Actual receipts are net tax receipts (excluding fines and penalties) after deduction of transfers and
refunds. OTA prepares forecasts of tax receipts to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund for the
President's Budget and other analyses. References to TEA-21 estimates are to the estimates of Highway Account
receipts in TEA-21. The Congressional Budget Office prepared these estimates.
Source: Department of Transportation
We are currently reviewing the fiscal year 2003 RABA calculation
and will report our results at a later date. We have, however,
completed our annual review of the Treasury's distribution of excise
taxes to the Highway Trust Fund for fiscal year 2001--which accounts
for about 80 percent of the total negative RABA of $4.37 billion.
Treasury's Excise Tax Distributions to the Highway Trust Fund for
the First Nine Months of Fiscal Year 2001 Are Reasonable
The Federal Government levies excise taxes on entities and
individuals to finance general Federal activities and specific
government programs. Several different bureaus and offices within
Treasury collected about $69 billion of net excise taxes in fiscal year
2000. However, IRS accounted for the majority of excise taxes in fiscal
year 2000, with about $54 billion in net excise tax collections on the
purchase, use, or inventory of various types of goods or services, such
as gasoline and tobacco. The various excise tax receipts accounted for
by IRS are initially deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury as
they are paid by the business taxpayer; subsequently, a portion of
these deposits are distributed to nine excise tax-related trust funds,
which are administered by six Federal agencies. More than 63 percent of
these funds are ultimately distributed to the Highway Trust Fund.
Under section 9601 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Secretary of
Treasury is required to transfer applicable excise tax receipts from
the General Fund to trust funds on a monthly basis. These transfers are
based on estimates because data is not available to attribute excise
taxes to the appropriate trust funds when the deposits are initially
made. Treasury's OTA prepares these semi-monthly estimates based on
historical IRS certification data and actual current excise tax revenue
collections. The estimates are used to prepare accounting entries for
the initial distributions to the trust funds.
Subsequently, IRS certifies the actual excise tax revenue
collections that should have been distributed to the trust funds based
on the payments and tax returns IRS receives from taxpayers.\3\ Using
the IRS certifications, Treasury then adjusts the initial trust fund
distributions. For example, in March 2001, Treasury made an adjustment
to decrease the Highway Trust Fund's fiscal year 2001 excise tax
distributions by about $1.2 billion. This adjustment was to correct for
actual collections for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2000 being
less than what was initially distributed based on OTA's estimates for
the quarter ended September 30, 2000. According to an official from
OTA, the original estimated transfer amounts for the quarter had been
calculated using an economic model that assumed a higher rate of
economic growth through calendar year 2000 than was actually the
case.\4\ As a result, the downward adjustment was made, effectively
reducing fiscal year 2001 distributions to the Highway Trust Fund by
the $1.2 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Typically IRS certifies quarterly excise tax distributions 6
months after the end of the quarter. This is to allow sufficient time
for receipt and processing of the tax returns, including returns filed
late. Even though IRS certifies collections 6 months after the end of a
quarter, certifications for any given quarter routinely contain some
amounts related to prior quarters.
\4\Prior to December of 2000, this process used economic models
and was linked to OTA's receipt estimates for inclusion in the
President's Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are issuing today results of a report on the procedures we
performed related to the distributions of excise taxes to the Highway
Trust Fund in fiscal year 2001.\5\ Based on this work, we believe the
amounts distributed to the Highway Trust Fund for the first 9 months of
fiscal year 2001, which were subject to the IRS' quarterly excise tax
certification process and which were adjusted based on this process,
were reasonable and were adequately supported based on available
information. Additionally, we believe the March 2001 adjustment made by
Treasury to reduce fiscal year 2001 Highway Trust Fund excise tax
distributions by $1.26 billion was reasonable and appropriately
supported. The certifications for distributions of excise tax revenue
collected during the period July 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001,
will not be completed by IRS until March 2002. Consequently, the
distributions of fourth quarter fiscal year 2001 excise tax revenue
were based solely on estimates prepared by OTA. While we reviewed
certain procedures associated with OTA's estimates, we did not audit
the estimation process nor did we audit the estimates themselves.
Therefore, we cannot conclude on the reasonableness of the
distributions made to the Highway Trust Fund for the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Report on Appling Agreed-Upon Procedures: Highway Trust Fund
Excise Taxes (GAO-02-379R).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact and Acknowledgement
For further contacts regarding this testimony please contact
JayEtta Z. Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or on [email protected]. Individuals
making key contributions to this testimony included Nikki Clowers, Ted
Hu, Steven Sebastian, Ronald Stouffer.
__________
Statement of Andrew Lyon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis,
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to describe recent trends in actual highway-related excise
taxes and discuss the Administration's fiscal year 2003 Budget forecast
of excise taxes dedicated to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust
Fund.
The Office of Tax Analysis in the Department of the Treasury
forecasts most future tax receipts for the President's Budget. These
forecasts are made using economic models that are constantly updated to
incorporate the most current information on tax collections and
reported tax liabilities. The forecast for Fiscal Years 2002 through
2012 incorporates the Administration's economic assumptions formulated
for the Budget by the Troika, which consists of the Council of Economic
Advisors, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of
the Treasury.\1\ Each of the six dedicated Highway Account excise tax
sources are separately forecast: (i) Gasoline, (ii) Gasohol fuels,
(iii) Diesel and other fuels, (iv) Retail tax on trucks, (v) Highway-
type tires, and (vi) Heavy vehicle use tax. In Table 1, fiscal year
receipts for 2000 through 2012 are reported for these six excise tax
sources. The 2000 and 2001 figures are actual receipts drawn from the
Highway Account Income Statement, while the 2002 through 2012 figures
are projections from the President's fiscal year 2003 Budget.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The economic assumptions are described in Chapter 2 of the
Analytical Perspectives volume of the fiscal year 2003 Budget.
\2\The Income Statement for 2001 includes three quarters of actual
tax receipts certified by the IRS. Receipts for the last quarter of the
year are based on an estimated allocation of total excise tax receipts.
Any differences between estimated and actual receipts for the last
quarter is adjusted in March and reflected in the Income Statement of
the subsequent year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recent excise tax receipts
There has been a rapid downturn in highway-related excise taxes as
the economy weakened over the past year and a half. Actual tax receipts
dedicated to the Highway Account fell $3.4 billion from Fiscal Year
2000 to Fiscal Year
2001, dropping from $30.3 billion to $26.9 billion, an 11.3 percent
decline. As shown in Table 1, five of the six receipt sources were
lower in 2001 than in 2000. Only taxes on gasohol fuels show an
increase.
Although the growth in the tax on gasohol fuels might initially
appear to be a bright spot in an otherwise disappointing year, the
growth is actually a significant factor in the overall reduction in
dedicated Highway Account tax receipts. The increase in taxes on
gasohol fuels is evidence of an ongoing substitution of gasohol fuels
for gasoline, which may be used interchangeably in cars and light
trucks. We anticipate that there will be an increasing use of gasohol
fuels, and corresponding reductions in gasoline consumption as States
ban the use of MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) as a fuel additive.
Since the Highway Account receives 15.44 cents per gallon of gasoline
but only about 8 cents per gallon of gasohol, increases in gasohol use
at the expense of gasoline consumption will result in a net reduction
in Highway Account receipts. On net, for every billion gallons of
gasohol sold in place of gasoline, Highway Account receipts are
approximately $78 million lower. Approximately two-thirds of this
negative effect on Highway Account receipts from the substitution of
gasohol for gasoline is due to the ethanol tax incentive (currently 53
cents per gallon of ethanol, which at a 10 percent blend is 5.3 cents
per gallon of gasohol). The remainder is attributable to the fact that
the law dedicates a portion of gasohol tax receipts (typically 2.5
cents per gallon) to the General Fund.
The most dramatic declines between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001, both in percentage terms and in dollars, occurred in excise taxes
related to the sales and operations of trucks. The retail tax on
trucks, a 12 percent tax on the first retail sale of heavy trucks,
buses, truck tractors, and trailers, was down 55.2 percent, a decline
of more than $1.8 billion. Tax receipts from the tax on truck tires
fell 22.5 percent, and truck use tax receipts fell 33.8 percent. The
reductions in retail truck taxes were particularly large because this
tax is levied as an ad valorem tax on the first retail sale. During the
investment boom of 1998 and 1999, a large volume of new trucks was
purchased at premium prices. As the economy weakened, large numbers of
these slightly used trucks were placed on the market. This greatly
depressed prices and sales in the new heavy truck market, and tax
revenues from retail truck taxes declined accordingly.
The first quarterly report to show weakness in total collections
was for July through September of 2000. This Highway Trust Fund
certification of excise tax receipts was issued in March of 2001.\3\
This certification shows a 4.8 percent drop compared with the same
quarter in the prior year. The subsequent quarterly certification for
October through December 2000, issued in late June, showed a 5.6
percent reduction in receipts compared to the prior year. Based on this
weakness, the Mid-Session Review of the fiscal year 2002 Budget
reported that Highway Trust Fund revenues would be lower than
previously forecast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The Highway Account Certification is issued by the IRS as the
final statement of excise tax collections dedicated to the account. The
Certification for a given quarter is issued approximately five and
half months after the end of the quarter due to the time required to
process the excise tax returns. This report, based on filed excise tax
returns, provides the first detail of tax receipts by specific tax
item.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New data for the first two quarters of calendar year 2001 have
shown further weakness in tax receipts. The certification for January
through March of 2001 showed receipts declining 3.5 percent compared
with the prior year, and the certification for April through June of
2001 was 5.5 percent lower than the prior year. These two quarterly
certifications also reflected accelerating increases in gasohol use as
gasohol taxes grew by 25.8 percent and 23.7 percent compared with the
same quarters in 2000. This series of weak Highway Account receipt
certifications explains why fiscal year 2001 total tax revenues fell to
$26.9 billion.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Total Highway Account receipts including fines and penalties
were $29.917 billion in fiscal year 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
forecast of future excise tax receipts
Looking forward, the Administration projects steady growth in
highway-related excise tax receipts. Net receipts in fiscal year 2003
are projected to be 6.2 percent higher than fiscal year 2001 and 2.9
percent higher than fiscal year 2002. Average annual growth is forecast
to be more than 3 percent per year over the remainder of the budget
period. The fiscal year 2003 Budget forecasts a faster long-run growth
in receipts than last year's Budget; however, this faster rate of
growth is relative to a smaller base, so the fiscal year 2003 levels
are lower than previously projected. In the current budget, the
Administration forecasts net Highway Account excise tax receipts to be
$28.57 billion in fiscal year 2003.
During the first 5 years of the forecast period, gallons of
gasoline and gasohol fuels are projected to grow at an average of 2.3
percent per year. Gasohol fuels grow faster than gasoline due to the
increasing reliance on ethanol as an oxygenate to meet clean air
requirements. Because of the difference in the amount per gallon
dedicated to the Highway Account, total gasoline and gasohol receipts
grow at about 2 percent per year during the first 5 years of the
forecast.
The truck related excise tax receipts are projected to grow quickly
as the economy recovers. For fiscal year 2003 compared to fiscal year
2001, retail tax on trucks receipts are projected to grow 22.1 percent
and tire tax receipts are projected to grow by 10.6 percent. Between
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2002 retail tax on truck receipts are
projected to grow 15.6 percent and tire tax receipts are projected to
grow 6.5 percent. This growth reflects the recovery of the heavy truck
market and more generally increased investment in equipment. Diesel
fuel receipts are forecast to decline slightly between fiscal year 2001
and fiscal year 2002 before resuming growth averaging more than 3.5
percent per year.
In summary, the Administration's forecast of highway-related excise
taxes reflects the most recent tax collection and liability data
available, and the Administration's economic forecast. The data reflect
the weakness in the economy during 2000 and 2001. The forecast for
future years is based on the expectation that the recession will end in
early 2002 and a strong recovery will be underway later in the year.
conclusion
I appreciate this opportunity to describe recent trends and present
our current forecast to you.
__________
Statement of Kenenth K. Wert, Associated General Contractors of America
On behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), I
am pleased to submit testimony on the critical issue of how the
recommended dramatic reduction in Federal-aid highway funding for
fiscal year 2003 will hurt the nation's economy, the construction
industry and my company. My name is Kenneth Wert, President of Haskell
Lemon Construction Co. in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
AGC is extremely concerned with the recommended cut in highway
funding in the President's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal. Toward
that end, AGC strongly supports S. 1917, the Highway Restoration Act
and the companion legislation, H.R. 3694. These bills call for
increasing obligations for the Federal-aid highway program by $4.4
billion over the President's budget request. If included in this year's
Transportation Appropriation's (FY 2003), it would fund the highway
program at $27.75 billion in obligation authority, which is the minimum
funding level included in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21). While supportive of this legislation, AGC supports
increasing funding to the level in this year's fiscal year 2002
appropriation's bill, an obligation limitation of at least $31.8
billion.
AGC is urging Congress to raise the funding for highways from the
surplus that has accumulated in the Highway Trust Fund since the
adoption of TEA-21. The money was collected with the express intent
that it be spent on transportation improvements. Our proposal will
accomplish this objective, spur the economy and save jobs.
The recommended cut in funding would be devastating to State
Departments of Transportation across the Nation. In Oklahoma, our State
Department of Transportation (ODOT) would experience a reduction of
approximately $110 million
for fiscal year 2003, if the Federal program is cut by the proposed
$8.5 billion. Construction of new vital highway projects will be the
first to be cut. The Road Information Program's (TRIP) analysis states
that Oklahoma would lose 4,600 jobs just from the Federal cut.
Additional jobs will be lost if Oklahoma cuts its State highway funding
as well. TRIP's report states that the cut in funding could result in
the loss of $627 million in economic benefits in Oklahoma. These lost
economic benefits are based on the USDOT's estimate that each $1
invested in transportation funding results in $5.70 in economic
benefits that improve safety, reduce traffic congestion and reduce
vehicle-operating costs paid by motorists.
Make no mistake about it, Oklahoma cannot afford any cut in
funding, certainly not one of this magnitude. In Oklahoma, vehicle
miles traveled increased by 31 percent between 1990 and 2000. Traffic
fatalities average 737 annually. Many of these fatalities could be
avoided with a variety of safety improvements to our State's
transportation system. Furthermore, 83 percent of the $58 billion worth
of commodities delivered annually from sites in Oklahoma are
transported on the State's highways.
Reducing Oklahoma's highway program by $110 million would be
devastating for family owned businesses such as mine, Haskell Lemon
Construction Co. For our company, the cut in highway funding will
reduce bidding opportunities for new construction, which would result
in a reduction in personnel, a reduction in plant and equipment, and
the need to develop a revised business plan.
Let me be more specific as to the impact on Haskell Lemon
Construction Co. We currently have a combined employment of
approximately 225 employees. Our company has the present capability to
progress multiple large-scale ($10-20 million) projects simultaneously.
Typical project duration is 9 to 18 months. Multiple crews within each
construction discipline (i.e. grading, drainage, paving, etc.) allows
for multiple construction operations to be in process in both urban and
rural settings.
The proposed reduction in ODOT's funding will result in the
elimination of several construction crews within the company. It is
conceivable that an entire construction segment within the company
could be laid off--one grading crew (7 employees), one drainage crew (8
employees), one concrete paving/structures crew (10 employees) one
asphalt paving crew (6 employees), one plant crew (4 employees), and
shop support personnel (3 mechanics). In addition to the construction
division employment effected by a reduction in ODOT's program, several
peripheral operations would also lose employees. The reduction in
construction projects would eliminate demand for hauling construction
materials (7 drivers), truck mechanics (2), and demand for aggregate
production (3 plant employees). The initial loss in personnel would
total over 50 employees--a reduction of 22 percent of total employment
representing over $1 million in annual payroll.
It is important to consider that along with the lost jobs
documented above, is the loss of benefits for the employees--health and
dental insurance. While the insurance is portable for a limited
duration at the individual's cost, it is becoming more expensive in an
increasingly difficult insurance market. Many laid-off employees are
forced to tap their profit sharing benefits at a substantial penalty to
survive in today's lean job market. These benefits are intended for
retirement after years of service.
Finally, Haskel Lemon Construction Co. would be forced to evaluate
its current plant and equipment operations. Our company operates four
asphalt plants, one concrete plant, and two sand and gravel operations.
Rolling stock and construction equipment are in the hundreds with a
replacement cost in excess of $20 million. A reduction in Oklahoma's
construction program would require the company to evaluate its plant
and equipment and liquidate those assets that would not have the
opportunity to produce as a result of a reduced construction market.
This is the dramatic impact a highway funding cut of this magnitude
would have on our company. There are hundreds of other family owned
construction companies that would react the same way and be forced to
lay off tens or hundreds of valued employees.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of AGC, I thank you and every member of
this committee for introducing and cosponsoring S. 1917 and attempting
to mitigate some of the impact of this proposed highway funding cut.
AGC and I stand ready to assist you. Thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony.
TEA-21 REAUTHORIZATION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY, CONGESTION AND INTERMODALISM
The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 2:30 p.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Jeffords [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Senators Jeffords, Graham, and Chafee.
Also present: Senator Murray.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all
for joining us for third in our series of hearings on
reauthorization of the Nation's Surface Transportation Program.
I also want to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses who
have traveled from near and far to be with us today. I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
The subject of today's hearing is congestion, a nuisance
that every person in this room has experienced at one time or
another. Congestion is one of the Nation's most vexing
problems, particularly in our metropolitan areas and on the
highway system in those areas. Beyond the general frustration
that congestion imposes on commerce every day, it has
significant negative impacts on our economy, delaying freight
delivery and creating inefficiencies. Congestion also harms the
environment and as such presents a threat to human health as
well.
In today's hearing, we hope to uncover some of the fresh
ideas on transportation demand, access, mobility and program
flexibility. These new ideas may become part of our
contribution to the 10-year legacy of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, and the Transportation
Equity Act for the Twenty-First Century, TEA-21. With the
passage of ISTEA and TEA-21, our transportation program shifted
its emphasis from building the interstate highway system to a
new focus, the movement of people and goods. In metropolitan
areas where congestion is of the greatest concern, this new,
post-interstate program empowered citizens and local officials
to develop transportation improvement strategy tailored to the
unique needs of the metro region.
The law also provides spending flexibility so that funds
could be targeted in ways that will carry out local strategies.
Gone for the most part are the rigid funding categories. Funds
can now be moved among programs to meet local needs.
In today's hearing, we will explore lessons learned about
our transportation program over the last 10 years. We will look
at trends in travel and congestion. Our witnesses will forecast
future conditions to give us the context for reauthorization
and based on those lessons learned and changing conditions, our
experts will share their ideas for improving our transportation
program.
Now to our witnesses. Tim Lomax is a Research Engineer for
the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University. Dr.
Lomax's most recent study, the ``2001 Urban Mobility Study,''
uses a variety of measures to illustrate the Nation's growing
traffic problems. Our second panel will present ideas to
address access and mobility. The Honorable Ron Sims was elected
King County Executive in 1997, home to the city of Seattle,
King County, Washington State's largest county. Mr. Sims is
founder and organizer of the Metropolitan Congestion Coalition,
bringing together metropolitan elected officials and business
leaders nationally. Anthony Downs is a Senior Fellow at the
Brookings Institute in Washington, DC. His 1992 book, ``Stuck
in Traffic,'' is among the most widely read on the subject of
metro congestion. C. Kenneth Orski is the Director of MIT's
International Mobility Observatory and Editor and Publisher of
``Innovation Briefs,'' a newsletter on transportation. He also
heads the Urban Mobility Corporation, a Washington, DC.-based
consulting firm. We will have Frederick P. Salvucci also from
MIT, a civil engineer and senior lecturer specializing in
transportation. Mr. Salvucci is the former Secretary of
Transportation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
presently serves as senior advisor to a number of urban
transportation programs. Alan Pisarski is chairman of the
Transportation Research Board Committee on National
Transportation Data requirements and the Committee on
Transportation History. He has worked in transportation policy
for over 30 years.
Now we are ready to proceed. Mr. Pisarski, I will ask you
to start.
STATEMENT OF ALAN PISARSKI, CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
BOARD COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION DATA
Mr. Pisarski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Alan Pisarski and I am honored to be invited to
speak before you once again to address the outlook for American
travel. I recall with pleasure that I participated in these
hearings in 1997 in the advent of TEA-21 and also in the first
hearing for ISTEA. It is a responsibility that I take very
seriously.
We need to look at the next reauthorization period through
the lens of the changes likely to occur between now and the end
of the coming cycle. We will have seen dramatic changes since
the first decade of this new century. We will have crossed 300
million in population at some point during this reauthorization
period. Our rural population will have reached 60 million
people, as large as many countries. We will have added more
than 25 million people during this period, perhaps as many cars
as people, another ten million households, perhaps 10 million
immigrants.
As the reauthorization comes to a close, the first of the
babyboomers will be reaching 65. We will have added probably $4
trillion to our economy. The point is I think we will be a very
different country at the close of the next reauthorization than
we are today and we must consider both the passenger and the
freight travel activities in both our metropolitan and non-
metropolitan forms. Many of our issues of the future will be
centered in freight passenger conflicts and the intercity and
local interactions.
My focus today will be on taking the long view on the
Nation's travel behavior and its demographic future. I am going
to be talking quite a bit about our demography and where it is
taking us in the future. There is a document called, ``Notes to
the Testimony,'' that has some notes that you might choose to
refer to.
One of the key points I wanted to make is the current data
coming out of the Census Bureau now shows the nature of the
trends that are happening with American commuting. I will skip
over the major points other than to say that when I testified
last, I thought the single occupancy vehicle had about stopped
its growth. I was wrong, it continues to grow from 73 to 76
percent. Car pooling continues to decline. The good news is
transit is holding its share at 5 percent of total commuting.
With respect to travel times and congestion in the country,
I think there is something very positive we can say about our
system. Over 20 years we have added over 35 million new riders
in our road system and we have only grown 2 minutes in average
travel time. That is a period that is getting worse but still I
think it is very positive.
One of the phenomena that is happening which needs to be
addressed is the fact that many more rural States, States
without large metro areas where you would expect congestion,
are now seeing the largest increases in commuting problems.
West Virginia was the largest increase, and Vermont and New
Hampshire for example.
The major forces that were acting in the past, I think, for
the most part, are behind us. I won't pursue those. I do want
to identify new forces of change that I think will be acting
over the next years during the reauthorization period. The
first is the evident one, the aging population. I think it is
going to be a key factor. A stagnating labor force is going to
be a key question, just the numbers of people available. If we
worried about too many commuters in the past, we may be
worrying about too few in the future.
Continuing immigration waves will change the nature of our
commuting patterns. An important influence will be what I call
the democratization of mobility. Many of our minority
populations, which are very close to being back in the 1960's
and the 1970's in regard to current mobility levels, as they
achieve the mainstream, mobility will be an important influence
on travel growth.
Finally, the increasing affluent nature of our society I
think will have an immense influence on most of our forces.
High income people will typically make twice as many trips as
low income people in a metro area. In long distance, they will
make four times as many auto trips, seven times as many air
trips. So as the society is more affluent and as people's value
of time increases, both the activity and the pressures for the
quality of the system will increase.
I would ask you to look for the following prospects. For
commuting, who and where the immigrants are will be central.
Expect appeals to older workers and women to join the labor
force even more actively than they have simply to meet the
dearth of skilled workers. For local travel, a generally more
affluent society, new minorities being able to travel more,
expect very active daytime and weekend travel. For long
distance, expect a new era of tourism in America, both foreign
visitors and domestic tourism, minorities being able to travel
extensively. In geography, the conflicting between intercity
and local travel forces will be significant. The pressures of
time for both goods and for people and the high value that each
has in terms of time are going to put tremendous pressures on
the system. Transportation is always about overcoming the
tyranny of distance and today I think although we have achieved
great successes in that, the pressures of time are going to be
the dominant force in the future and that we will have to
respond to in this legislation.
I think I should stop. I would be happy to answer
questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Dr. Lomax?
STATEMENT OF TIM LOMAX, RESEARCH ENGINEER, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION
INSTITUTE, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Dr. Lomax. I really want to thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. I have not had an opportunity to testify, so
maybe you can't blame all of this on me like you can on Alan.
The current situation is Alan's fault. I am going to help you
understand some of the future.
I have been asked to summarize a few trends that we have
identified in a report we prepare each year on urban traffic
and congestion. I will also offer a few observations about
congestion in U.S. cities over the next few years. I would like
to build on the excellent information that Mr. Pisarski has
prepared. Please keep in mind that summary of how travel has
grown and how it is going to grow in the future.
Over the last 20 years, our cities have not been able to
keep pace with demand increases brought on by population and
job growth. Congestion has increased as a result of that
imbalance. Our data shows that during the peak travel periods
in the 76 urban areas that we studied, the travel time penalty,
the amount of extra time it takes to travel during rush hour,
has increased 185 percent since 1982. The penalty in areas of
population between 500,000 and 3 million has increased over 300
percent over this time. This indicates that while most of the
problem is in the large metropolitan areas, the congestion
problem is growing in areas of all sizes. The total hours that
travelers in these 76 areas were delayed increased from 750
million in 1982 to 3.6 billion in 2000. I have a couple of
charts on a handout that I will be referring to over the next
couple of minutes.
The congestion growth was the result of the trends Alan
referenced. In our 76 areas the travel demand increased 86
percent but the road capacity, the amount of road added was
only 37 percent. Real capacity increases were probably less
than that because that includes areas that were previously
rural areas that were put into urban boundaries as they grew.
I think the imbalance is a result of several truths and
maybe a few myths about what can be accomplished. First, a
truth. Road construction can help reduce the growth of traffic
congestion. Figure 1 in my handout shows the dramatic
difference in travel time, penalty growth between areas that
added roads at a rate close to that travel growth, the green
line on top, and those areas that added few roads in relation
to travel growth, the dark blue line toward the bottom. The
cities in that group where traffic volume and road growth grew
at about the same rate, the time penalty only increased 57
percent. In areas that lagged behind sort of lesser aggressive
road building areas, the time penalties increased 245 percent.
A myth that is related to that is we should invest all our
money and effort to adding roadways. My characterization of
this as a myth is not based on ideology but on the fact that
since 1982 urban areas have only added about half the roads
need to stop the growth of traffic delay. Figure 2 shows this
percentage is about the same for all areas, about 50 percent no
matter what size urban area you are in. This is due to a
combination of factors ranging from lack of funding, lack of
land, public support, environmentally supportable alternatives.
I would suggest that roads can definitely help but
realistically they aren't the wonder drug prescription that
will solve all the problems because the city has not been able
or willing to build them quickly enough.
A similar truth can be stated about transit improvements.
They can help but they cannot solve the problem themselves.
Figure 3 illustrates the amount of transit system that would
have to be added essentially every year to keep pace with
travel demands. We would be looking at adding the equivalent of
a transit system worth a ridership between every year and every
4 years depending on what population category you are in. I
would suggest that is very unlikely.
Let me point out also a somewhat discouraging note that the
sort of regular traffic congestion we see is only part of the
problem. The variations in travel time caused by crashes,
vehicle breakdowns, special events, construction, maintenance,
weather and a variety of other factors are a source of
frustration and economic loss that you spoke about in your
opening remarks. Part of the problem is that we don't have long
term, systemwide, very detailed data that we need to fully
describe these reliability issues but the emphasis on
operational improvements over the last several years does allow
us to analyze this data for a few cities.
Figure 4 shows the kind of information we can develop and
how we can use it to identify some problem areas and the
success of improvements. It shows a graph of how congestion
varies across the year and how reliability varies across the
year in Minneapolis-St. Paul in the year 2000. Congestion is
measured by the travel time index, the dark blue line near the
middle of the graph; the buffer index is the line toward the
bottom. This is the amount of extra time travelers need to
allow because of the unpredictability and system conditions.
We can see the effect of the big snowstorms in January and
December, more congestion and very unreliable travel times. We
can also see the effect of the summer tourist season, more
variation but about the same amount of congestion. We can also
see the effect of turning off the traffic signals that control
access to the freeway system. This experiment began in October
and the freeway effects were dramatic.
The unfortunate part of this story is the monitoring and
data collection system does not extend to the entire roadway
system, so we don't know what happened on the rest of the
system. The limited data we have suggests that operational
improvements can play a significant role in providing a more
reliable transportation system for people and freight. It
appears unless something changes, we will continue to see a
growth in congested travel and congested transportation systems
in the future. Projected population increases mean more travel.
Our cities have not been able to stop congestion growth over
the last two decades and travel and population growth will
continue to stress our systems.
If we are fortunate enough to have enough funds, select
projects wisely and implement them using techniques that do not
result in significant delay from construction and maintenance
activities, we might be able to slow down the growth of
congestion and make the system more reliable than it is now but
reliably congested is not a very high standard of achievement
in my view.
If cities are going to have a different future than this,
we will have to pursue all types of improvements and implement
more projects rather than fewer and manage both the demand
patterns and the system more efficiently.
Senator Jeffords. I would like to turn to my good friend,
Senator Murray. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Senator Murray. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity
to make a quick introduction of someone who is here for the
second panel. I appreciate your having this hearing on this
critical issue.
Unfortunately, I have to leave to attend a joint hearing
but I wanted to come by and let you know that Ron Sims who is
here for your second panel really understands the critical
transportation problems we are facing in my home State of
Washington. Ron Sims serves as the Executive of King County
which is the 11th largest county in the Nation. When he talks
to you today about traffic congestion, he speaks with
authority.
The Seattle-Tacoma corridor has the second worse traffic in
the country and he has been working to address that in his role
as a board member and now as chairman of Sound Transit which is
the major transit authority in central Puget Sound. For the
past couple of months he has been working very hard to bring
business leaders, local elected officials, and the community
together to reduce traffic congestion so that King County can
continue to grow economically.
Ron has led the way on smart strategies for moving people
and products in our State that is the most trade dependent
State in the entire country. He is a real national leader on
metropolitan issues. He is a member of the Advisory Board of
the Brookings Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Ron was born in Spokane, Washington and spent 11 years on
the King County Council and for the past 5 years, served as
County Executive. He has dealt with every issue from recovering
endangered salmon to using technology to bring government
closer to his constituents.
He is a proud father of three sons but he is a passionate
advocate and a gifted leader. I think we are very fortunate to
have him come all the away across the country to give us his
expertise on this very important issue.
Thank you for having him and thank you for allowing me to
make a quick opening remark.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you and we will look forward to his
testimony.
This will be addressed to both of you. How will the rate of
growth in vehicle miles traveled change over the next 10 years?
Mr. Pisarski. I should probably leave this to Tim but let
me suggest to you that I think the rates of growth we have seen
in the past, I don't think we are going to see in the future.
We have seen a tapering in the last few years from the ranges
of 3-3.5 percent a year down more to 2 percent. I would expect
given the kinds of dramatic bubbles that we have lived through
in the last 15 years that are now behind us, I would expect
those growth rates to be more moderate in the future. I think
it will be a more operable future, something we can address
rather than the rather dramatic things we have been through in
the last 20 years.
Dr. Lomax. I think I would agree with that. I think the
down side of that slower growth is that congestion will
continue to grow, VMT will continue to grow, population and
putting that on top of many systems that are already very
stressed leads to an exponential growth in congestion.
Congestion growth is not necessarily linear when you add 1
percent of vehicles. You don't necessarily get just a 1-percent
increase in congestion depending on where that 1 percent gets
added. That is part of the trend we have seen, that the
population has grown at x, vehicle travel has grown at 2x or
3x, we may get that traffic volume growth down but it's still
going to continue to grow. We have had a very difficult time
adding system, transit, highway, any kind of system at any kind
of rate that we need to.
Senator Jeffords. Dr. Lomax, in your testimony, you state
we don't fully understand many congestion issues because we
lack the data to draw correct conclusions. What type of data is
needed to better understand the congestion situation and to
begin to address the problem in appropriate ways?
Dr. Lomax. We are beginning to get some of that data. The
operations centers that are set up to monitor the activities of
the freeway systems, principally, that dispatch vehicles during
crashes or severe weather events or create alerts for
motorists, those are the kinds of systems that are collecting
the sort of minute to minute condition information about the
transportation system. Some transit systems have had a very
good monitoring system as well.
The issue is if we don't know what's happening out on the
roadway system sort of every 5 minutes of the day; it is very
difficult to predict what we should be doing in terms of
operational improvements. In the past, our technology solutions
were do we build a freeway, do we not build a freeway, do we
add a lane, do we not add a lane. Those sorts of very large
increments of capacity don't need to be informed by very good
data, but if we're trying to figure out if we should meter the
freeway system with five cars per minute or four cars per
minute and need to put out a tow truck to relieve a crash, or
if that crash is going to be able to relieve itself, those are
the kinds of systems that need a lot more information.
We need better information about what has happened over
time, better information about what's happened over space. We
don't need to just monitor the freeway system; we need to try
to extend that to the arterial streets. That is a trend we have
seen over the last five to 10 years. I expect we will continue
to see that growth in monitoring, but whether or not we can
amass that data into usable formats that people such as
yourself or Executive Sims can use is one of the challenges of
my profession.
Mr. Pisarski. Some of the data I was showing you was from
the decennial census. We were living with 1990 data until just
recently when some of the new data became available. We still
don't have the final tabulations and the final work on the year
2000 data. In effect, in many instances we are still operating
with 10 year old information. That is from the travel demand
side. From the consumer side, we need far superior information.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Pisarski, in your written statement,
you indicate ``The future demographics of non-immigrant
Americans will help to cap the growth in urban congestion.''
You then state, ``The new immigrants to this country are at the
1960's level of transportation use and this group will increase
the demand on the system much as non-immigrant Americans did
over the past 30 years.''
My question is, where will this increased immigrant demand
on transportation occur, both in terms of areas of the country
and whether it will be urban or rural demand?
Mr. Pisarski. This is an area where really I think I'm
speculating but let me speculate and put some caveats on that.
The first point is that when you add one person by child birth,
you have a commuter 20 years later. If you add to a population
by an immigrant, you have a commuter in 6 weeks. So the whole
shift to immigration where we have 40 to 50 percent of our
population growth coming from immigrants, these people come at
the labor stages, many immediately enter the labor force, so
they have an immediate impact on the system. That is point one.
Second is the fact that they very frequently start off as
heavy transit users. You can see the impact of immigration on
some of our metro areas and how it affects the travel
ownership, the auto ownership, et cetera but over time, they
transition to a more typical pattern of the mainstream if you
will. I think one of the things transit does for us in these
areas, it acts as a socialization tool, gets people into the
system, gets them into the job markets, gets them participating
in the system and maybe over time, transitioning to an
automobile in the more typical patterns, but I think it
provides a very valuable function.
There is still an area where the immigrant population and
the minority population largely because of income are still
lagging behind the rest of the population. Many of the
characteristics of the immigrant populations and our ethnic
minorities, racial minorities, look exactly like the mainstream
population of 1970, 1965, the number of women without driver's
licenses, the number of households without vehicles is the same
as the population was in 1960. Many of those things I think
will change with growing affluence. The minorities in America
will be an important part of our growth in travel in the
future.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Graham is here. Would you have
some questions?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Graham. I would, Mr. Chairman, and if I could, also
make a short statement.
One of the issues I am very interested in because I think
it has significant potential for dealing with congestion is the
expanded application of intelligent transportation systems. I
define intelligent transportation system as being a system of
integrated technologies, communications and procedures which is
directed toward enhancing the efficiency of our existing
investment in highways.
The Federal Government has attempted to play a role in
accelerating the process of intelligent transportation systems.
As an example, in our last Surface Transportation Act, TEA-21,
between the fiscal years 1998-2003, there was $1.28 billion
authorized for intelligent transportation systems. The
principal objective of that $1.28 billion was to accelerate the
pace of development of new technologies, communications and
procedures and then to field test them in situations where we
would go through an accelerated learning curve of which of
these systems individually and in conjunction had the greatest
impact on remediating congestion. That is the theory.
The reality is what has happened is this money has largely
been earmarked and it has been earmarked in some very, in my
opinion, detrimental ways. According to the University of Texas
study annually of where the greatest congestion exists in the
United States, it's almost an inverse allocation of ITS money.
If you are on the list as having a lot of congestion, you could
pretty much count on the fact that you wouldn't get any ITS
money.
Two, the projects tended to be, although the numbers are
not small by most peoples' standards, they are small in terms
of what it takes to fund a reasonable ITS. That is, they were
in the numbers of $500,000, $1 million, $2 million.
My concern is that we have now been three-and-a-half fiscal
years into this program and I am going to ask you the question,
and I have asked other knowledgeable people, what did we learn
for the first part of the $1.28 billion we have invested? Not
much because we haven't used it in a serious, scientific
learning process.
I am sorry that Senator Murray had to leave because she is
chairman of the Appropriations Committee for Transportation in
the Senate and I know she shares my feelings. She has indicated
to me that she hopes to see some reversal of this. I think it
is incumbent on our authorizing committee to try to see what
steps we might take, and I have some ideas, to assure if we are
going to continue to spend $1.2 billion that we get something
for it. I think we ought to either recommend to our colleagues
that we cancel the ITS Program or make it what it is supposed
to be because today it is just another source of transportation
funding directed primarily at those congressional districts
which have members of the right appropriations subcommittees on
them and we're not accomplishing the purpose of advancing the
knowledge of intelligent transportation and its application to
critically congested areas of the country. That is the end of
my editorial.
Let me ask you to give me your assessment of how well the
congressional authorization TEA-21 has been used? Have we
significantly increased our knowledge of and demonstrated
capabilities of ITS as a result of this expenditure?
Dr. Lomax. Let me take a shot at that. I am from Texas A&M
University and while I like my esteemed colleagues at the
University of Texas, I do want to make clear that it goes on
the record that the study is from Texas A&M University.
Senator Graham. I have been giving Texas A&M the credit.
You just assume anything that is as common sense as that comes
out of Texas A&M.
Dr. Lomax. Thank you, Senator. I very much appreciate that
being on the record.
I think we have learned an awful lot. I think there have
undoubtedly been programs that have spent money and not gotten
the kind of impact, the kind of effect that we like. I share
your concern about investments in transportation in areas that
are important to the economy. As much as I like transportation,
I really think transportation is supposed to serve the
interests of the people, the freight and things that move on
the system. So investing in the big drivers of our economy I
think is supporting the improvement of transportation. To help
that is something I think our programs ought to be oriented
toward.
I think investing in a lot of different ideas, a lot of
different places has allowed us to find places that either
don't work or a particular technology or procedure didn't work
in one place and it did in another. I think it is important
that we have failures, otherwise we are not going to learn what
doesn't work. Hopefully we cannot do the things that fail again
but learn from them. Typically, it is not a fault of technology
that doesn't work, it is a fault of planners that don't talk to
operations people, or designers that don't talk to operations
people, or operations folks that aren't able to communicate
their message to the folks who are the appointed and elected
officials making the funding decisions to invest in particular
elements. Maintenance is always held up as the element that
doesn't get any funding because you can't cut a ribbon on a
pothole project.
The same kind of approach works with an ITS program. They
are depending on data collection technologies that need to be
maintained but there is not as much money in maintaining the
data collection effort and the information gathering pieces as
there is in deploying them initially. I think part of that is
just sort of a natural cycle that you put the equipment out and
see what works and what doesn't work and try to fix it as it
goes forward.
Mr. Pisarski. I guess I would only add that there are so
many disparate parts to this process, I think what we need to
do now is take some of the experience we have gained and do
some syntheses and bring these things together in looking at
the successes and the failure and tell people more about what
has happened and the results. I think the potentials are there.
We just haven't examined it enough and described enough what it
is we have learned.
Senator Graham. Last year the Congress earmarked something
on the order of a couple of hundred projects as ITS. Does
anybody do follow-up studies to determine what we learned from
those 200 plus or minus projects and the applicability of that
learning in future efforts to reduce congestion?
Dr. Lomax. I would say that record is uneven. I think there
are some places doing a better job of monitoring what happens
and at least as important, are putting that message out there,
getting the information into the hands of people who make
decisions. There are some definitely not doing a good job of
that.
Senator Graham. I wanted to add one final question.
If you were to direct this committee to what you consider
to be the state-of-the-art in the application of intelligent
transportation systems in the United States or elsewhere, where
would you send us?
Mr. Pisarski. Which metropolitan area?
Senator Graham. In the United States or elsewhere, the
state-of-the-art of intelligent transportation?
Mr. Pisarski. I guess one of the things I would suggest is
you address that question to Ken Orski who is going to be on
the second panel. I know he has been looking at that around the
world as well as in the U.S.
Dr. Lomax. I have the opportunity to make one person happy
and a whole bunch of people angry. I think that the Japanese
and the Germans are doing a very good job on some of the
technology stuff. Whether or not their administrative or
institutional relationships are anything like ours is something
someone else has to figure out. I don't know that.
Within the U.S., I think there are places doing very good
jobs of particular elements with which I am familiar. Seattle
and Minneapolis-St. Paul with ramp metering, LA with ramp
metering, Minneapolis-St. Paul and Chicago with incident
management. Chicago actually has tow trucks out on the freeway
system and if there is an accident, they go pick up the wrecked
vehicle and get it off the road. Houston has a motorist
assistance program operated by the State and off-duty sheriffs
man the patrol vans. They go out and fix flat tires, get
stranded motorists off the road.
The objective of a lot of the ITS Program and the main
benefit is to make the system operate reliably bad. So if you
can take out the really bad days, we have a chance to make the
system more predictable. I think there are different elements
depending on which piece of the ITS world you want to talk
about. Some places are doing well. I know I have left out a
bunch.
Mr. Pisarski. I can't think of one place that has
integrated all those pieces which would be a wonderful thing to
see.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing as we prepare for the second reauthorization of ISTEA.
Mr. Pisarski, some of the statistics in your testimony are
very interesting, particularly car pooling being down and drive
alone being up, walking alone being down over the 1990's. I am
sure a lot of that has to do with low gas prices. I saw it was
down south of here about 91 cents a gallon. I think it is
starting to creep up now.
As we prepare for this 5 year reauthorization, how much
should we, as best we can, factor in the cost of gas? Obvious
that has an enormous impact on transportation behavior,
particularly with cars?
Mr. Pisarski. In the short term, the price fluctuations in
gasoline don't have much of an effect. In the longer term, they
very well may, but the biggest effect they have is on the kinds
of vehicles people own. The tendency is to go down size to a
smaller vehicle to a more fuel efficient vehicle. The American
public today in almost the majority of households have more
vehicles than workers. So people can mix and match. What
happens is if you double the price of gasoline tomorrow,
everybody parks the SUV and takes the Saturn to work. The fuel
efficiency of the country would jump 40 percent overnight. That
is what happened in 1974, exactly the same thing.
One of the immense factors that needs to be recognized in
all this is probably the biggest change in our Nation's
transportation system in the last 20 years is the continued
reliability and longevity of the automobile. The average age of
our fleet is now 8 years old and rising. That has made an
immense number of vehicles available, very serviceable vehicles
available to low income people to gain access to the automobile
fleet. Out into the future, I think that is going to permeate
everybody's approach to the opportunities. With high prices,
people will simply shift to more efficient vehicles. The
hybrids are coming.
Senator Chafee. My wife drives one. I don't know in
particular if I agree with you that the price of gas, by
itself, would change just the type of vehicle people drive. I
would tend to think they might double up in cars, perhaps take
mass transit. It's just a budget issue at home. You stick by
what you said earlier though?
Mr. Pisarski. I think there is also a tradeoff. Clearly
what has been going on between both car pooling and transit,
transit and car pool riders look a lot alike demographically
but there is also sliding back and forth between the single
occupant vehicle and the carpoolers. Car pooling today has
almost evaporated. It is basically family pooling as if a
husband and wife work and go in the same direction. But the
traditional let's save money and car pool together just doesn't
happen. People do it because of saving time in an HOV lane.
They will do it because they are traveling very long distances
but for the most part, car pools are a much narrower concept
than they were 10 or 15 years ago.
Senator Chafee. Dr. Lomax, any comment?
Dr. Lomax. No.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for your helpful testimony. We
appreciate your participation.
Senator Jeffords. Our next panel is Ron Sims, Anthony
Downs, C. Kenneth Orski, and Frederick P. Salvucci. We
appreciate you all being with us. We will start with you, Mr.
Sims and work on down the line. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON SIMS, KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE, SEATTLE,
WASHINGTON
Mr. Sims. Good afternoon. I am glad to be here today.
I submitted remarks and go on to the general things in the
remarks I submitted to the committee.
I am the elected head of King County Government which is
the 11th largest county in the United States. We operate every
mode of transportation, buses, van pools, car pools, airport.
What I have seen and want to discuss a little is what my peers
talk about when we are in a room together, normally the large
cities, large metropolitan areas, we talk about our
frustrations at the smokestacks, the pipes, the categories or
the straight jackets that were inserted in dealing with
transportation issues within our regions.
We cannot unfortunately develop a coherent transportation
system in major metropolitan areas because we chase the
categories of funding that is available to us. Because we
chase, it is the funding available that moves us so if we have
roads money available, we chase roads money; if it is rail
money, we chase rail money. We chase the funds. I have a number
of staff whose job it is to chase the funds in order to build
our transit system. I chair another transit agency called Sound
Transit and we chase the funds.
The frustration is if we were allowed to design a system to
have it integrated, we wouldn't spend as much money chasing the
funds. We would have a ration approach to building a
transportation system. We would integrate all of the modes,
rail, commuter rail or light rail, highway expansion, bus, use
of new technologies, but because of the method by which we
receive it at the local level, because it is in so many defined
statutory categories, we simply are unable to build the systems
we would like. There isn't a policy that requires the major
metropolitan areas to build a system of transportation. We can
plan for it, but it is one thing to plan and another thing to
implement, so we don't see that.
I would hope that in this round of authorization, we can
begin to move to two things. One, we can require major
metropolitan areas to come back with definitive plans that are
transportation systems and there can be a category of funding
to fund those systems. If you look at the top 21 areas in the
United States, you find several things in common. One, they are
all congested, every one of them. The top 21 areas of the
United States that are congested account for 37 percent of this
Nation's payroll, 50 percent of this Nation's GNP, 50 percent
of this Nation's population and they are all congested.
I don't know how we compete in the 21st Century with other
countries and other cities if we have goods and people tied up
in congestion, where it adds an additional expense. We have
Boeing in our community and we found Boeing is moving the same
tonnage north to south in my county as they were moving 5 years
ago. The difference is it costs them 22,000 more payroll hours
to move it. It is a hidden tax.
If you use Dr. Lomax's data, we have a hidden tax of about
$78 million in this country and in my community it is $2
billion of hidden tax. We are hoping we can get away from the
categories that in dealing with our areas we can create a
transit system that is integrated, that responds to the
interests of business, and to our citizens, and that we can get
a grant to fund them, that we don't always have to have 90
people writing 90 different grants trying to find out the rules
for all 90 different grants.
When I spoke to the Washington State Legislature, I told
them we were concerned about arterials. They said, we give
money for arterials. I said, yes, you give money to each city
but we have found people have left the interstate systems and
were using arterials as an alternative to the interstate and
that they needed to look at those arterials as corridors. After
a great deal of discussion they decided to create corridor
projects, minor systems that we would have synchronized traffic
signals in that entire corridor, similar designs where we would
focus on how we built that out, whether we can meet bus needs
and trucks needs, whether we could get over and under rail
tracks. We looked at a corridor. It has worked effectively for
us in my county.
The important thing now is to expand that to a regional
level, to have all of the funds the Federal Government makes
available in transportation given to us as a grant so we can
develop a coherent and rational transportation system so that
we can integrate these pieces into a single system of movement.
We don't do that now. It doesn't happen now. We simply chase
the money, chase the funds that are available.
I love my job. Dr. Lomax makes my job difficult every year.
He announces congestion in our region and we always rank second
or third and the newspapers say, Mr. Sims, what are you going
to do about it and I say, we can hire more staff, we can write
more grants but what we really miss is the ability sit down
with cities, counties, businesses, environmentalists, and labor
unions to prioritize what we are going to fund as a system. So
it isn't just roads and a roads discussion, not just transit
and a transit discussion, not just ferries and a ferry
discussion, not just new technology and a new technology
discussion but we are able to weave these into a single,
coherent, rational system in order to move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Downs?
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY DOWNS, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION
Mr. Downs. My name is Anthony Downs, and I am a Senior
Fellow at the Brookings Institution. I am the author of the
1992 book ``Stuck in Traffic'' which deals with the causes and
possible remedies for peak hour congestion for which I am now
preparing a second edition. I am required to say by the
Brookings Institution that the views I state here solely are my
own and not those of the Brookings Institution, its trustees or
other staff members.
I will confine my oral testimony to making seven main
points and I will use proof by assertion, a well known
Washington technique. It means my points are conclusions
presented without benefit of any evidence or data whatsoever.
Senator Jeffords. It just confuses you when you put stuff
in like that. So go right ahead.
Mr. Downs. I assure you that these conclusions are
absolutely correct.
My first point is that peak hour traffic congestion is
erroneously considered to be a wholly negative and undesirable
condition when in fact it produces huge benefits for the
country and even for the people stuck in it. Congestion is the
primary balancing mechanism we use to ration scarce highway
space during peak hours so we can pursue certain other major
goals we desire. Those goals include having a wide variety of
choices about where to live and where to work, working during
similar hours so we can interact with each other efficiently,
living in low density settlements and enjoying highly flexible
means of movement, that is private vehicles.
There are only two other possible means of rationing the
highway space when too many people want to use it. One is
charging high tolls to keep many people off the road, but we
reject that method politically because it would unduly favor
the wealthy. Second, we could spend enormously more money to
build enough roads to handle peak hour traffic without any
delays at all, but no society can afford to do that.
Since we wisely reject these means of rationing road space,
we must use delays from overcrowding in order to pursue those
other goals we want to achieve. In other words, congestion is
bad but it is better than the alternatives.
The first conclusion implies the second one. Peak hour
traffic congestion is an inescapable result of living in any
large modern or modernizing metropolitan area anywhere in the
world. Moreover, it is bound to become worse in the future in
all of those metropolitan areas as long as their populations
keep rising. There is no such thing as a remedy to peak hour
congestion in a large and growing metropolitan area once such
congestion has appeared on its major roads. There are many
tactics that might slow down the worsening of future
congestion, but none will eliminate it or even stop it from
intensifying.
The biggest challenge to future ground transportation in
America will be dealing with the many added vehicles generated
by future population growth. Since 1980, the United States has
added 1.2 cars, trucks or buses to our vehicle population for
every one person added to our human population. Since our human
population rose by 32 million in the 1990's, if it rises by
similar totals in each of the next two decades, we will have to
cope with as many as 64 million more vehicles capable of being
on our roads by the year 2020.
As the Texas Transportation Institute has already said,
``We cannot build our way out of peak-hour congestion.'' It
appears on our major roads by adding more lanes to those roads.
After a road's capacity rises, traffic initially speeds up, and
more vehicles will converge on that road during peak hours from
other routes, other times and even other modes until it is just
as crowded during the peak hour as before the road was
expanded, although the peak hour might be shorter.
That does not mean, however, that there is no point in
building more roads. In fact, we will need enormous future
spending on roads and bridges for two reasons. The most
important is to repair and maintain the road network we already
have, much of which is in bad shape. Also important will be
creating new roads to serve population growth areas. They will
continue to be mainly low density settlements at the edge of
existing metropolitan areas.
We also need to spend a lot of money on public transit in
the future, even though there is no chance whatsoever that we
can shift any very large share of future ground movement from
private vehicles to mass transit. In 1995, public transit
accounted for about 3.7 percent of all daily commuting but only
2.2 percent outside of New York City.
The vast majority of Americans prefer moving in private
vehicles because doing so is faster, more comfortable, more
convenient in timing, more flexible in choice of routes and use
of multiple destinations, more private and often cheaper than
public transit. If we spend more on public transit, it should
be mainly on more flexible, smaller scale, and less regulated
forms that can provide convenient service to people living in
low density settlements, which will remain the predominant form
of our future growth. Also, a higher fraction of our elderly
population will be unable to drive and that population is
growing rapidly.
My written testimony presents a more complete version of
these points, plus a number of other aspects of these subjects,
including suggestions for possible improvements in slowing down
the rate of congestion.
I thank you for inviting me and I will be happy to answer
any questions.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for an excellent statement.
Mr. Orski?
STATEMENT OF C. KENNETH ORSKI, URBAN MOBILITY CORPORATION
Mr. Orski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Editor and Publisher of Innovation Briefs, a bi-
monthly publication which has been reporting and interpreting
developments in the transportation sector for the past 13
years. My testimony today is based on observations acquired in
the course of gathering and analyzing information for our
publication. These observations draw on recent briefings and
conference presentations and on interviews and personal
communications with members of the transportation community in
Washington, in State governments and local officials across the
country.
I shall confine my remarks to a very brief summary of my
prepared testimony, copies of which I believe have been made
available to committee members
My overall conclusion is that we enter this reauthorization
cycle with fewer issues than might divide the transportation
community and with a larger measure of a consensus among major
stakeholders than at any other time in recent history. Unlike
the last reauthorization cycle when interest groups jockeyed
for position and floated a number of competing proposals, this
time around I find near universal agreement that we ought to
buildupon the combined legacy of ISTEA and TEA-21 rather than
engage in a bruising fight to reinvent the Federal Surface
Transportation Program. To be sure, there will be some
proposals for changes, but these I think are likely to be
refinements to program delivery rather than radical changes in
the structure of the program itself.
Turning to specifics, I discern a large degree of consensus
within the transportation industry and among major stakeholders
on several policy directions and new initiatives.
They are, first, the need to protect the Highway Trust Fund
by preserving the budgetary firewall protections and the
principle of guaranteed minimum levels of annual spending.
Second, the need for increased program flexibility, something
Mr. Sims spoke very eloquently about. Third is the need to
mitigate traffic congestion. This is regarded by all I think as
a serious national problem requiring a national response.
There appears to be a large measure of consensus within the
transportation community that this response should include both
capacity expansion and improvements in the operation of
existing facilities, although I might add opinions do differ
among stakeholders as to the proper balance to be accorded to
these two major traffic mitigation strategies. A comprehensive
Federal attack on the problem of traffic congestion might take
the form of a specific bottleneck elimination program,
something along the line suggested by the American Highway
Users Alliance. This would be supplemented by a program of
operational improvements designed to squeeze more capacity out
of existing facilities.
The fourth point is the need for environmental
streamlining. This is considered a critical priority by large
segments of the transportation community. Indeed, there is
almost a unanimous agreement that something has to be done
about streamlining of our decision process. While the current
efforts of the Federal Highway Administration to streamline
procedures through administrative action are commendable, the
transportation community, I believe, is looking to Congress to
provide more explicit legislative direction to reduce the
delays that have plagued the project implementation process.
Fifth is the need to advance the intelligent transportation
system program, something Senator Graham was talking about. The
continued Federal support of this program remains a high
priority for large segments of the transportation community. A
frequently mentioned idea is the creation of a national
``infostructure'' which I put in quotation marks because it is
not yet an accepted term but one that I think you are going to
hear more about in the future.
This network would be capable of collecting and sharing
transportation system conditions and performance information
covering the entire national highway system. Such a national
communication network, I believe, could become an integral part
of a homeland security infrastructure, available in times of
national emergency for evacuation and mobilization purposes.
My sixth point is the need for increased transit funding,
especially for new starts. Funding is likely to dominate the
transit industry's reauthorization agenda. According to the
latest annual report on new starts, there are some 50 rail
projects in preliminary engineering or final design which
represent a potential demand of $30 to $35 billion. Carving out
a bigger role for ``bus rapid transit,'' which is now
undergoing a series of demonstrations, could significantly
reduce the need for transit capital funding. Indeed, many
transit experts, including myself, believe that bus rapid
transit could lead to a new generation of more flexible, less
expensive new starts.
This leads me to the next subject, a related initiative,
which is to convert and expand the existing stretches of HOV
lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, into seamless networks of
high occupancy/toll lanes in major metropolitan areas. These
networks would be dedicated to express bus service and car
pools but would also be open to individual drivers for a fee.
By varying the fee according to demand, the number of single
occupant cars seeking entry to those hot lanes could be
restrained to maintain free-flowing traffic conditions at all
times.
In my judgment, a congressionally authorized program of HOT
lane networks, built as enabling infrastructure for bus rapid
transit, but also available as a paying option to individual
users, would be an eloquent expression of the increasingly
intermodal nature of our Federal Surface Transportation
Program.
Finally, I sense a growing concern within the
transportation community, as well as among stakeholders, about
the long-term capacity of the Highway Trust Fund to finance the
Nation's future transportation needs. The majority view, I
believe, is that the growth in gasoline tax revenue will not
keep pace with the rising demand and cost of highway
reconstruction and rehabilitation. Looking beyond the next
reauthorization cycle, we may need to consider entirely new
approaches to financing the Federal Transportation Program.
Hence, I join other transportation leaders in urging a
congressionally mandated study to explore alternative financing
mechanisms that would offer a stable and adequate source of
transportation financing beyond the next reauthorization cycle.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to present my views.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Salvucci?
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK SALVUCCI, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Salvucci. Thank you very much. It is really an honor to
be able to share some views with this committee.
I am at MIT and have been in an academic environment on and
off for 15 years but my primary experience in this area is as a
State transportation official when I was Secretary of
Transportation for Massachusetts, so my views reflect that
background as well as the more recent academic experience. I
would like to speak to the three points you gave as a title for
this conference and add a fourth which is money. You have my
written comments, so I will try to make this brief.
On mobility for the poor, the automobile and access to the
automobile I think is increasingly solving the problem of
access to jobs for poor people. If you have a job, you can
afford at least a cheap car. For urban jobs, bus fares I
believe are too high and continue to be an obstacle for poor
people, is taking too big a piece of their private household,
in particular, the lack of free transfers in many systems is a
serious problem for the urban poor seeking urban jobs. I think
as a mobility issue, mobility for poor people is getting better
and I expect will continue to do so, I think we all hope.
I don't think the same is true for disabled and elderly.
The disabled and elderly access has improved because of the
paratransit systems which have been required of public transit
systems and I think it was an important strategic step to move
in that direction but that really limits improvements in
mobility for the disabled and elderly people to those areas
that have transit systems. It is sort of an unfunded mandate on
the transit systems to provide the paratransit service. As the
systems become fully accessible, which is the hook that got
public transit into this, there is some argument they can
lessen the quality of the paratransit service that is out
there. I think that would substantially disadvantage the
elderly and disabled populations who are not well served,
better the paratransit that is out there than nothing which is
what was there before but I think there is a lot of need for
improvement.
I think we need to change our view of disabled and elderly
access as a responsibility of the transit system to a
responsibility of the transportation system which includes
everyone, including people outside those areas served by fixed
route transit systems. I think the Federal Government needs to
step up to the plate and partially fund it, possibly at low
funding ratios, one-third Federal I think would leverage a lot
of State participation. You could require a maintenance of
effort so you didn't get hit with a big jump. I think this is a
big problem about to erupt. The aging population is growing, as
mentioned, and I think that is a big one.
There is also a teen mobility problem, particularly in the
suburbs. Soccer moms are basically chauffeurs and if we were
creative about the way we dealt with paratransit, we might find
better ways of dealing with both elderly, disabled and teen
populations rather than having mom drive. I also think there is
a cultural advantage in shifting in this manner. I am not
denigrating public employees or civil engineers, I am a civil
engineer. Civil engineers love to build things. I am a civil
engineer and I love to build things. If we want to see mobility
being the focus of these institutions, we need to focus on
that. So I think Federal funding specifically for mobility for
important constituencies, disabled and elderly, would be a big
step in the right direction.
Second, congestion, it is politically attractive to say we
are going to fix it but I would agree that it is not going to
go away, in many cases it is not even desirable to go away, and
that to do something effective about congestion requires some
peculiar situations. I had a lot to do with the Central Artery
Tunnel Project in Boston and I think it will improve congestion
at enormous cost. I think it is worth it but it is important to
remember there is a huge investment in public transportation
and a limit on the number of parking spaces in downtown Boston
which complement that very large endeavor.
I think if you are serious about getting at congestion, you
can only manage it in critical points, you can move it around
some and that is useful. Better to not have the traffic jam at
the entrance to the hospital, better to manage things so that
the critical points work. So I think it makes sense to focus on
congestion but I think we shouldn't mislead ourselves and lose
our credibility by pretending we are going to make it go away
because I don't think that is the case. The methods used in
Singapore are very interesting but they don't seem to be
applicable anywhere else in the world so far. We have to study
them but I think we shouldn't promise any early end to
congestion.
I would urge that in this area, we recognize that the
metropolitan area process I believe tends to make it difficult
to do large projects. It is easier in the metropolitan process
to do a whole bunch of little things that are too small to
matter. If you are trying to something major, the problem in my
view is not the environmental process. The environmental
process helps to structure a very complicated conversation
about how you are going to restructure old urban
infrastructure. I don't think our cities should become
petrified wood, doomed to continually repeat their old
patterns. I think we ought to rethink urban infrastructure as
we face the need to rebuild it but if we are going to expect
people to get at that job, I think there should be dedicated
funds so I will disagree with this flexibility argument to some
degree.
As a State official, in my experience the problem was not
the environmental process, the problem was not enough money.
There is only a certain amount of money. At the end of the day
you are going to spend it all. The real problem is that the
more complex projects take longer to process, so in order to
satisfy the contractor constituency, you spread more asphalt
around the State. If you want to see attention focused where it
is most needed, I believe it would be highly desirable to
target at relatively high matching ratios, I am usually an
advocate for low matching ratios, here I think they should be
high, on critical corridors, particularly airport access.
We all talk about trucks but we never give them priority. I
think we ought to be looking at airports in particular as a
location where the congestion is particularly difficult and
worthy of attention but I think we need some categorization in
order to enable officials to focus on the most critical issues.
You can't expect I believe a local official under the same
political pressure to spread things around to be able to focus
on the more complicated ones if there is not some higher level
of dedication in that area.
Finally, on money, I am suggesting a bunch of places that I
think the program should be expanded. We all know the pot is
smaller and you have an extremely difficult job just getting
reauthorization with the smaller pot. I believe the key to
being able to get a bigger tent is not to take on the
environmentalists but to embrace them. Two, I believe we should
be revisiting the pay as you go philosophy inherent in the 1956
decision to proceed with the interstate and at least for some
of these projects, begin to go to a capital budget approach as
every State and every city in the country and as Americans use
to buy their own homes.
If we use the existing revenue streams but dedicate a
portion to debt service, we could get at some of these problems
earlier and quicker than otherwise we will be able to do. I
think that would be worth doing. Eventually, we will face the
issue of if we like it, we have to raise the tax to continue. I
don't think that would be so bad either. Even if we never
increase the tax, I would much rather see serious investment
done over the next 8 years than spread out over the next 30 so
we can get the economic benefit of those critical investments.
I appreciate your attention. I have gone over my time. I
would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
I will read my question and then I will start at the other
end of the table.
One key issue in the debate over congestion is whether we
can build our way out of the problem. I wonder whether we can
afford to build our way our. In 2000, while new capacity
projects represented only 17 percent of the mileage involved in
all Federal aid projects, it required 48 percent of the money
spent that year. Isn't a build strategy prohibitively
expensive? Mr. Sims?
Mr. Sims. You can manage congestion. We will never build
our way out of it. You can manage it. The key is not to let it
continue to get worse. That is why I want to go back to the
issue of we do not have a coherent, rational policy in
metropolitan areas on transportation. We tend to like big
projects because we believe they will deliver the capacity we
want.
I always smile at what we see in our area, we will build
big projects and arterials get crowded. We will not explore van
pools because we like more what we call sexy, ribbon-cutting
things like BRTs. BRTs work in some corridors, clearly. The key
is to have a system in place and to have a discussion of a
transportation system in metropolitan areas so you can manage
the congestion, so you can find out what tools you can put in
place.
I agree with every speaker here, if anybody thinks we are
going to end congestion and build our way out of it, that is an
absolute impossibility today. It wont happen. In our State, we
have discussed saying that highway speed during peak hour are
up to 35 miles per hour. People say wow, 35 miles per hour but
the posted speed is 60. We say, yeah, but if you are moving at
35 miles per hour you are moving faster than you are moving
right now.
What we would like to do is have tools to manage them but
you are going to have to have a transportation system that
everyone has agreed to fund, big projects, small projects, a
variety of different modes of transportation and we can do it.
Right now, we don't have it.
My biggest fear is Seattle Times will report that Ron Sims
says we do not have a coherent transportation system in the
central Puget Sound but people know that already because they
are sitting in congestion, so they know it is not coherent. The
Federal Government can stimulate that by insisting on it and
then providing funds to give us, and fund a system. I keep
saying that. I am a person that connects dots. When I was a
kid, everyone else got puzzles; I got the thing that said
connect the dots. As the County Executive, I can't connect the
dots because all the funds coming out of the Federal Government
are in these categories. The categories don't talk to each
other, so we chase the money and whatever we can get we are
satisfied with but it doesn't create a rational, sensible,
thoughtful, traffic system in the metropolitan areas and the
increased congestion in every one of those areas is an evidence
that it is not rational and thoughtful at this time.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Downs?
Mr. Downs. I am sorry, but I don't agree with you, Mr.
Sims. There is no system on earth that is going to prevent
congestion from getting worse. I am not opposed to having a
better system; I think that is probably a good idea, but if you
think it is going to prevent increasing congestion, you are
living in a fantasy world. As everybody here says, if you look
at the population increase, rising congestion is likely to
occur in the Seattle metropolitan area even if we don't add 1.2
vehicles for every human being. In the 1990's, that ratio
dropped to one vehicle added for every additional human being.
We are still going to add a lot of vehicles on our roads. Not
only that, but because of the other goals we want to pursue
that I described--for example, everyone working about the same
hours so we can interact with each other--those vehicles always
converge on the roads at certain peak hours. No matter what
system you have, the roads are going to be overloaded at peak
hours unless you turn the whole metropolitan area into one
concrete slab, and you are not going to do that. That would be
an environmental disaster and we couldn't afford it. So rising
congestion is inescapable. It is a part of living in any modern
metropolitan area, and it is going to get worse as long as the
population of that area keeps going up. Sorry about that.
There are things you can do to slow down congestion's rate
of increase. But don't think if you get a great system, the
most perfect system you could imagine, that is going to solve
the congestion problem because it isn't.
Mr. Orski. We may not be able to build our way out of
traffic congestion but I don't think that should be used as an
argument for not increasing highway capacity because increased
highway capacity is needed to accommodate growth in population
and economic activity.
Mr. Downs. I agree.
Mr. Orski. I would like to draw the analogy with schools
and hospitals. Schools and hospitals in fast growing areas also
eventually fill up with students and patients and yet this has
never stopped us from building more schools and more hospitals.
Mr. Salvucci. I would agree that congestion is not going to
go away. I think we do have some choices in how we spend money
that could stretch out capacity a bit, particularly in rural
and suburban areas. My experience is that capacity goes
backwards as people add curb cuts and new land development
sprawled along the side of the road, we lose safety, we lose
capacity and when we try to maintain high speeds the whole mix
gets fairly lethal.
The same amount of money spent on a small road widening
stretched out to acquire development rights and access rights
and some environmental betterment easements would maintain the
capacity for a longer time on these roadways and then
eventually when you do get the money to widen, you have already
acquired the property rights.
We do something very foolish, we focus on a very short
piece of road, spend a lot of money and create a lot of
disruption in widening that piece of road while the Burger
Kings open 24 more joints in the next mile and we say, we'll
have to do that one too and then have to pay to relocate the
Burger Kings. We would be better off looking at it sequentially
and saying if this is a corridor that looks like it is going to
change over time, not suggesting the change is always bad, I
would get control of the curbs so that we retain the capacity
we have and if new economic development happens, and we may
want that development to happen, let it happen in an orderly
fashion off the roadway. We could achieve a pro-environmental
outcome, improve safety and preserve capacity somewhat longer
than we would otherwise.
I agree though that as cars go up, congestion will increase
but I think there is a more effective way to deal with suburban
congestion than trying to build our way out of it. I would make
an exception in the case of the critical piece next to the
hospital, so to speak. There are critical links where I think
we should be managing congestion by letting it take place away
from the sensitive location, but I would agree with Mr. Downs
that eventually congestion is going to be there. He wrote a
great book; I am using it for my students. I look forward to
the new version.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Sims, Seattle is a natural bottleneck
with the additional problem of crossing Lake Washington, so it
would seem the construction of additional roadways is not a
practical solution to your congestion problems. If additional
funding were provided to the metropolitan areas for congestion
relief, how would you utilize that funding?
Mr. Sims. In my heart of hearts, obviously we are very
concerned and want to continue to buildup our light rail system
and our commuter rail systems. There is need for road expansion
and we can see that on the Interstate 405 corridor which needs
to be expanded. We have an incredible bottleneck that ties up
everything, including every arterial. So there are road
capacity needs that remain in the area.
Our area is a prime example that there is never a silver
bullet that fixes anything. We look at a variety of tools that
could be made available to us because we believe it is going to
require a multi-modal approach. Whether it is van pools, car
pools, buses, BRT, light rail, commuter rail, road expansion,
the synchronization of traffic signals, all can play at moving
people but we are limited.
We are not unique. When I travel to other communities, I
see the same kinds of patterns. I don't see any single
metropolitan area in the United States that can sit here and
tell me that there is one solution that should be available to
them to move people and commerce. It is going to have to be
multimodal, no matter where we are.
Senator Jeffords. For you, Mr. Sims, let me wish you well
in your efforts to organize the Metropolitan Congestion
Coalition. I hope you will keep us appraised of your progress
and pass along the group's thinking on reauthorization. It is a
pleasure having you with us.
Mr. Sims. Thank you very much.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Downs, in your written testimony, you
make a brief reference to the cost of parking as a factor in
the comparative commute cost of transit to driving. You seem to
suggest that free parking can make the difference in a
commuter's decision to drive rather than to ride share or take
transit. If so, how should parking factor into our policies?
Should we look to parking pricing to reduce congestion; should
we tax employers differently if they provide parking rather
than transit allowances?
Mr. Downs. It depends on how strongly you want to attack
the problem. If you are trying to raise the cost of driving,
the best way to do it is to raise the gasoline tax. Congress
has consistently avoided that. The single most effective thing
you could do to reduce driving is to put a $3 a gallon tax on
gasoline. Of course none of you would be in office after the
next election, so you are not going to do that. That is the
most effective way to raise costs.
What you are talking about concerning parking is: could you
raise the cost of parking in theory? We could put a tax on
parking or else force employers to charge their employees for
parking. But I don't think that has anymore popularity
politically speaking than a gasoline tax. I think parking is a
relatively minor factor in people's decisions on whether to use
transit or to drive. As I pointed out, the fraction of people
who use transit is so small, even if it doubles or triples, it
will not take enough people off the roads to cause much
congestion to change at a peak hours. That is one of the
weaknesses of the argument that improving transit is going to
reduce congestion.
There may be reasons to adopt light rail systems, but one
of them is not to reduce congestion. That won't happen.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Orski, your statement that only
additional lane miles of roadway can decrease or eliminate
bottlenecks and congestion is an interesting one. That may very
well be true in the western portions of the country where
building additional roads will also improve the redundancy of
the highway system. What can be done in densely built up urban
areas like New York, Philadelphia, and the District of
Columbia? How can we build additional roadways in a socially
and fiscally responsible way?
Mr. Orski. First, I would probably modify my sweeping
statement that only roadway widenings or new road construction
can decrease congestion. The kind of congestion caused by
accidents and incidents can be effectively mitigated by
intelligent transportation systems technology by providing more
effective emergency response and clearance of accidents.
Having said this, there are many situations that
intelligent transportation systems technology cannot solve
because it is simply a matter of too many cars trying to
squeeze into too few lanes. What can be done about that? We can
use simple engineering improvements, such as eliminating three
lanes of traffic squeezing into two lanes of traffic, as is the
case with the Wilson Bridge. In other words, we could do a lot
to smooth out traffic without spending billions of dollars on
brand new highways, through incremental design and engineering
improvements to existing roadways.
This is where the bottleneck elimination program comes in,
something that I have already referred to in my testimony. It
is a recommendation of the Highway Users Federation to identify
a finite number of highly congested arteries in densely
urbanized areas and try to attack those specific bottlenecks.
This does not require building new highways. It simply calls
for engineering and design improvements to existing highways.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Salvucci, you emphasized the
importance of maintenance, repairing, rebuilding and
redeveloping deteriorating transportation infrastructure. Do
you feel that proper maintenance and repair can reduce or
alleviate the congestion problem?
Mr. Salvucci. Yes, but I think given where we are, it has
to be approached with a two pronged effort. One, I advocate
that the Federal Government should get into the maintenance
business with some funding. The management systems of ISTEA,
which I was very excited to see in 1991, have not affected
behavior at the State or bureaucratic level. I think if the
Government wants to see greater emphasis on maintenance, a
stitch in time saves nine, it is the prudent thing to do,
putting perhaps one-third Federal match on the table with a
maintenance of effort so you don't get hit in the head with a
big jump, but prospectively getting into the maintenance
business and requiring the States to become more professional
about the way things are maintained is necessary so we stop
sliding backwards.
That being said, there is a huge backlog of infrastructure
that is in terrible shape that has to be dealt with at this
point. I would fund those reconstructions at very high matching
ratios because they are very tough projects to take on. In the
local politics, the easiest thing to do is nurse it along to
the next administration because rebuilding old infrastructure
that is already heavily used is very tough politically because
you create traffic disruption while you are doing it. So you
have a built in tendency to avoid dealing with some of our
worst structural problems at the local level. I have a great
respect for the people at the local level. I was one for a long
time but I think we should recognize the pressures on them and
provide some high matching ratio, categorical funds that must
be spent dealing with old infrastructure to give local
officials the incentive to take on a very, very difficult
political problem which is absolutely necessary. We see over
and over again those issues pushed off and dealt with by the
next administration maybe and then once in a while, we get a
bridge that collapses.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Chafee?
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
It seems as though Mr. Downs summed it up in his last
paragraph when he said ``No matter what public policies are
adopted in response to future traffic congestion, it is likely
to get worse in nearly all parts of the world. My final advice
is get accustomed to it. Commute in an air conditioned car with
a stereo, tape deck and a CD player and a hands-free telephone
and a microwave oven and realize that congestion is providing
benefits to you by rationing the roads you use and letting you
pursue other goals. So just get used to it.''
Mr. Sims said here is no silver bullet. I guess the options
are high priced tolls or $3 a gallon gas tax per his testimony,
so the solutions to congestion are going to be very difficult
is what we hear in the testimony this afternoon. I guess I do
agree with that.
Mr. Downs. There are no solutions, but there could be
improvements. Examples are the hot lanes that Ken Orski
suggested; or the systems for picking up accidents and getting
them off the road faster; the metering access to expressways as
you do in Seattle; or building some additional capacity at
bottlenecks. These are things that can be done to slow the rate
of increase in congestion.
Although you might consider me to be a pessimist, I am not
a 100 percent pessimist.
Mr. Sims. If you will indulge me a second, when I was a kid
my father was directing a mass choir, I was a member. He
stopped the choir and rehearsal and said to me, Bud, lip sync,
which is what I did through the concert. The reason I want to
use that analogy is that at the regional level or talking about
metropolitan areas, there are several things wrong. One is a
cacophony, not a symphony because people are not on the same
page. Everybody has a different song sheet and until the
Federal Government provides the incentives to give us all the
same song sheets so that we have an agreed to level of
congestion, then we will not have a rational and thoughtful
process.
My middle son told me I was irrelevant the other day. He is
in college, so I guess there is a time to be irrelevant. I told
him when I was in college, I had a 'fro, I had a hair growth
period, my beard, my sunglasses, my dashiki and I told my dad
that he was irrelevant too. I did it after the tuition check
but not before as my son did.
The issues that he cited were very interesting which was
all the national and local problems. I was very impressed. We
can look at what we have done over the last several decades and
say that is acceptable or we can embark on something that is
bold, next century and of a new generation. That requires us to
get out of our comfort zones. I am telling you, unless you
require metropolitan areas to have an agreed to level of
congestion and system in place, we will be doing what we have
been doing for the last decade, and it simply won't work. It
will diminish our quality of life significantly.
Senator Chafee. Thank you for coming all this way.
Mr. Orski. Tony Downs gave me an opening to say a good word
for HOT lanes, the so-called high occupancy toll lanes. While
admittedly we will not be able to get rid of traffic congestion
for everyone, we can create conditions where people who have
reason to be somewhere on time, whose time is valued in terms
of money, have an option of faster travel. Those are the so-
called high occupancy toll lanes that have been created in
several jurisdictions, including in California that allow buses
and single occupant vehicles to travel in unobstructed traffic,
in free flowing traffic at a fee.
Some people call these lanes ``Lexus lanes'' implying they
used only by highly paid professionals but I can assure you a
utility van and a pick-up truck are a far more common sight on
those HOT lanes in California than Lexuses or BMWs. There are
many people who, from time to time, find the need for a quicker
trip and are willing to pay for this. A classic example is the
parent who is racing to the day care center to beat the $1 per
minute fine that is assessed for parents that are late. For
that parent, paying a toll of 55 cents or even $1 may be money
well spent in order to avoid the fine. So there should be ways
of improving travel conditions for people who are willing to
pay for it.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Thank you. I apologize for having to leave
for another committee meeting. As I was leaving, Mr. Orski was
making his opening statement. He was listing a number of
numerical points we needed to pursue. Several of them,
including the streamlining of the permitting process, ITS and
innovative financing were all provisions included in TEA-21.
Some of them were new, such as the streamlining of permitting,
some were continuations such as the innovative financing.
This is a question to any panel member. Has there been an
analysis of these types of programs which are intended to make
our resources and our highway facilities more effective and
efficient by managing them in non-traditional ways? Has there
been any analysis of the success of these efforts, and from
that analysis, recommendations that we might utilize as we
reauthorize TEA-21?
Mr. Orski. Senator Graham, there have been a number of
evaluations of intelligent transportation system projects. I
have in mind specifically the model deployments that have been
carried out in several urban areas. These provide quite a bit
of evidence of effectiveness of ITS.
As far as innovative financing is concerned, I cannot
really think of any good examples but State and Federal
environmental streamlining and intelligent transportation
initiatives provide a number of evaluations that would be very
valuable to the committee as you proceed with the
reauthorization.
Mr. Downs. I am not aware of any systematic evaluation of
ITS, but there is one particular project in ITS that I can
evaluate on my own as ridiculous: That is the high speed
highway on which cars controlled by computer travel at 120
miles per hour 6 feet apart. We are spending a lot of money on
this project. I believe there is an test road built outside of
San Diego. If we developed this, since the cars are only 6 or
so feet apart, there will be 10 times as many cars arriving
each hour in the downtown area, what are you going to do with
them? The real bottleneck is the downtown street system with
its limited capacity.
Even if this project were to work, which I don't think it
would, it is extremely expensive. Also the liability cost if
there is an accident would be colossal and no one knows who
would pay the cost. The whole idea is ludicrous and yet we are
spending around $100 million on this idea, so there is an
evaluation for you.
Senator Graham. One of the things I hear you saying is
maybe in our next reauthorization of the Surface Transportation
Act, we need to put in some stronger evaluation components so
that we will achieve what we had hoped which is to learn
something through this process and be able to have incremental
improvements from year to year.
It was mentioned that the attempt to streamline permitting
has pretty much failed, that there was a set of regulations
developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation which many
States felt actually made the system more cumbersome than it
had been before. Are there any models within the States where
there has been some effective effort at streamlining the
permitting process for transportation projects, examples that
we might look to for some ideas as to what the Federal
Government should be doing?
Mr. Orski. Senator, I wish that Brad Mallory, chairman of
the AASHTO was here because I think he could speak to this
subject with a great deal of authority. I believe there are
examples. I cannot cite to you chapter and verse but I believe
that Mr. Mallory and the staff of AASHTO would be the best
source of information on that question.
Senator Jeffords. We have a whole hearing planned on that
issue.
Mr. Salvucci. Let me give a slightly different point of
view on the environmental streamlining. I say this as a former
State official who dealt in excruciating detail with some of
the environmental requirements.
Basically, at the end of the day at the State level, you
are going to spend all the money you have coming. The real
damage in delay in environmental process is that it may slow
down, and in my judgment it sometimes does slow down, the most
important initiatives and some that are too small to matter
move quickly because there is no opposition.
I don't believe that is a problem that we will get at by
streamlining the environmental process. The tough projects are
tough to do because they are complex and other constituencies
may not agree. In my view, the environmental process actually
gives us a structure with a beginning and an end to sort out
the issues that must be sorted out.
I think what would help the process is, one, if there were
more money on the table because with an existing amount of
money, you are going to do a certain amount and you are just
rearranging the order. Two, I know this contrary to the
direction people are going but have a category for high
priority, large projects which tend to attract more attention,
much more opposition and are more difficult to do, so provide
an incentive to State officials to take those on because right
now the incentive is hope the bridge doesn't fall down on your
watch and let the next guy take care of it. I think you put
some money on the line, provide the incentive to deal with it,
but I would leave the environmental regulation in place.
I have made several recommendations that would add money
and you have less money on the table. I think the central issue
to make timely reauthorization work is to find some way to get
more money on the table, and if I understand the political
constraint, without increasing the gasoline tax. I believe the
only significant way to do that is to shift a portion of the
program to a capital funding approach as every State uses so
you use some of the revenue stream for debt service and you can
expand the pie. You need something to get through the next
authorization in a timely fashion if you want to deal with
these issues which every idea presented is going to cost more
money someplace or other and you have less to deal with. We are
not being very helpful unless we can suggest ways to expand the
pie. I think a look at the capital budget is the one idea I can
think of that can give you that flexibility.
Senator Graham. I think he had a very intriguing idea. Many
States, including my own, have a concept called DRIs,
development of regional impact where large scale projects are
treated differently in the land use review process than more
traditional scale projects. Maybe that is an idea that has some
seeds to explore for large transportation projects where you
would recognize their complexity and the need for some special
provisions. I would like to discuss that with you further.
I was very interested in this environmental permitting
issue primarily as a matter of sequencing. What I found in my
experience as Governor was that too often a big project didn't
have red flags raised about it until you were many millions of
dollars and years into land acquisition, planning, et cetera
and then you find there is going to be a problem. One of the
goals was to try to move those decisions to the beginning of
the process so if you were going to get a no go decision, at
least you got it in the year 2002, not 2012. We haven't
achieved that yet. I hope we might be able to make some
progress the next time we look at environmental streamlining.
Mr. Sims. In our State, we are the agency that enforces a
lot of the regulations. We are fascinated that there has been a
lot of discussion over regulatory reform. In our road building,
I only ask that we build according to the existing law and not
all the layers of discussion we have had. What happens is
permit processes and environmental processes are pushed a lot
by the prospect of litigation. Doug McDonald, our Secretary of
Transportation, and I agreed that how we would pursue our
projects is to interpret the law that was written and not all
of the processes on top of it that combine community hearings
with the permit process, that are designed to lower your risk
and go ahead and defend ourselves as necessary as meeting the
intent.
As a result, we are building faster now than we have ever
before. I don't know what they are doing in other States but we
have what we call large project processes as well but in those
projects, we say we will abide by the existing law.
On the technology side, I know you like evaluations of
whether technologies work. We try to avoid actually going to
someone to finance them because it is so difficult to figure
out whether or not the source of funding justifies the
technology you are buying. In order to have, as we have, a
smart card technology that allows you to use a single pass on
any public mode of transportation in our county, we basically
avoided trying to go to the Federal Government to finance it,
whether it is having signal synchronization that can be
overriden by the buses to move more quickly. We went to the
voters and asked them to tax themselves for it.
Evaluation can be productive but the implementation of it
is incredibly cumbersome and there is an avoidance by major
jurisdictions like ours at going down that path until it is
made more simple.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you all for your very helpful
testimony. We appreciate your time and effort in preparing for
it and preparing for us. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Alan E. Pisarski, Independent Consultant
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished members of the committee, ladies and
gentlemen, my name is Alan E. Pisarski, and I am honored to be invited
to speak before you once again to address the outlook for American
travel. I recall with pleasure that I participated in your hearings in
1997 in the advent to TEA-21, and also in the first hearing for ISTEA.
It is a responsibility that I take very seriously.
I recall in that first hearing that Senator Moynihan spoke of
seeing the New York World's Fair in 1937 as a youngster and how it
affected his sense of the future of transportation. I related then that
I had been there also, my parents had wheeled me thru that fair as a
newborn, and I must have acquired some of the same flavor he did.
We need to look at the next reauthorization period through the lens
of the changes likely to occur between now and the end of the cycle. As
the next reauthorized period concludes, delivering us to the doorstep
of the year 2010, we will have seen dramatic changes in the first
decade of the new century:
We will have crossed 300 million in population at some
point midway in the period
Our rural population alone will be over 60 million, more
than many nations
We will have added more than 25 million people
And perhaps as many cars as people
Another 10 million households
More than 10 million more immigrants
The first of the baby boomers will be at retirement age.
13 percent of the population will be over 65 years of age
We will have added four trillion dollars or so to our
economy
In many respects our world and the transportation system that
serves it will be a different place.
In reviewing travel trends and their social and economic
determinants I like to use the following list of eight elements of
transportation. Now more than ever it is critical to keep them in mind.
Commuting
Other local travel
Tourism
Service vehicles
Public vehicles
Urban goods movement
Thru passenger travel
Thru freight travel
Too often we say we are going to talk about transportation and then
we forget freight and talk only about passenger travel; then we say we
will talk about passenger travel and end up talking about metropolitan
commuting. Then we get into an argument about highways versus transit
and get lost in the thickets of advocacy.
We must consider both freight and passenger travel, in both their
metropolitan and non-metropolitan forms as the list indicates. Many of
our issues of the future will be centered in freight-passenger
conflicts; and intercity-local interactions.
The Metaphor of the Wilson Bridge
One of the difficult problems addressed by the Congress in the
recent past has been the Wilson Bridge. It is the perfect symbol of our
challenges:
It is a critical commuter corridor in the morning and
evening
A major all day regional connector for passengers and
freight
A major route for buses and private vehicles from Maine
to Florida
A critical freight link in the I-95 corridor--main street
of the Northeast
It is an aging, heavily used facility suffering from both
functional and physical deficiencies operating in a complex inter-
governmental environment. There are many Wilson bridges in our future.
My focus today will be on taking the long view on the nation's
travel activity trends and demographic future and its implications for
future travel.
A Report on Recent Trends
First a report on where we are with respect to commuting and other
travel trends. I made the mistake of going back and reviewing my
testimony 5 years ago and some of the thoughts I expressed then have
been borne out, others need some modifying in the light of the new
census data.
The changes between 1990 and preliminary 2000 data from the
statistics of the Census Bureau are shown in the accompanying table.
Journey to Work Mode Choice Trends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive alone....................... 73 percent 76 percent
Carpool........................... 13 percent 11 percent
Transit........................... 5 percent 5 percent
Taxi.............................. 0 percent 0 percent
Motorcycle........................ 0 percent 0 percent
Bicycle........................... 0 percent 0 percent
Other............................. 1 percent 1 percent
Walked only....................... 4 percent 3 percent
Worked at home.................... 3 percent 3 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my testimony 5 years ago I felt that the decline in transit and
carpooling had about reached their limits--right on transit--it has
just about held share; but carpooling has continued to decline--it is
fundamentally now an intra-household activity today--a fampool.
Detailed data from the decennial census coming later this year will
help establish the why and how of the decline.
I also stated then I expected the single occupant vehicle to have
reached a share of commuting about as high as it was going to go--
Wrong!--as you can see, by 3 percentage points, rising from 73 percent
to 76 percent--most of it coming out of walking and carpooling.
And surprisingly working at home did not grow enough to increase
its share. These rates of growth are shown below compared to total
workers. Effectively, those modes of travel that grew faster than total
workers gained share and those that grew less lost share. In the 1980
to 1990 period the only modes that showed growth greater than worker
growth were driving alone and working at home. In these data it appears
that in addition bicycling actually grew the fastest, although from a
very small base.
The growth in activity for all modes in the nineties appear in the
table below:
Net Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990-2000 (000's) percent chg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total workers..................... 12367 10.7 percent
Drive alone....................... 13032 15.5 percent
Carpool........................... -1071 -7.0 percent
Transit........................... 492 8.4 percent
Taxi.............................. 15 8.3 percent
Motorcycle........................ -79 -33.3 percent
Bicycle........................... 96 20.7 percent
Other............................. 290 35.9 percent
Walked onlY....................... -1076 -24.0 percent
Work at home...................... 669 19.6 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extraordinary fact continues to be that in the nineties, as in
the eighties, the increase in the number of single occupant vehicle
users was greater than the increase in total workers. In effect all new
commuters went to the SOV and additional commuters switched from
carpooling, walking etc. The significant difference is that transit did
actually gain in numbers of commuters in the nineties, though at a rate
less than the growth rate for workers overall thus reducing its overall
share, but a positive trend nonetheless.
Some may see cause for disappointment in that transit shares have
not increased. There are reasons to be somewhat more sanguine. Transit
served about 4 percent of the new commuters, less than its traditional
overall share of 5 percent, but its gain of about a half million users
certainly is a far superior performance than its actual decline of
several hundred thousand in the 1980-1990 period. If we can say that
the decline of transit has been arrested we will have accomplished a
great deal. When the final census data are available it could show
gains for transit sufficient to hold share at 5 percent. Transit
reports show gains since the census was conducted. The more important
share questions for transit are in metropolitan areas rather than
national figures.
Congestion and Travel Times
The new census data are preliminary and indicate that average
travel times to work increased to about 24.3 minutes, up from 22.4
minutes in 1990 and 21.7 minutes in 1980. When adjusted to correct for
definitional changes and given the extraordinary increases in travel
activity adding approximately 30 million new commuters and 35 million
new vehicles out there a travel time increase of around 2 minutes in 20
years is a really positive point, however the increase of about 1 and a
half minutes from 90 to 2000 was more than double the increase in the
previous decade. Often in these hearings you only hear problems--in
this case there can be some real pride in a system that has absorbed
tremendous travel loads and by and large functioned very well.
Travel time is not about averages however. Some States have seen
dramatic increases in travel times--especially those with already high
densities or absorbing great growth such as Georgia 4 minutes, New
York, New Jersey and Massachusetts all around 3+ minutes. But a new
phenomenon arose with more rural States showing very high increases as
workers commute to large metro areas beyond the State borders. West
Virginia led all States with a 4.5 minute increase, Vermont grew 3.1
minutes and New Hampshire also saw large gains at 2.5 minutes. About 9
million commuters nation-wide are now commuting more than 60 minutes.
More detailed data will be arriving from the census and the US DOT
later this year that will expand our knowledge appreciably. One of the
trends that is clear from other data sources is that commuting is now a
relatively small and declining share of total passenger travel--roughly
20-25 percent of local travel. We must remember not to focus on
commuting to the exclusion of other important trips.
While commuting has grown rapidly in the last 20 years,
trips for personal business, shopping, etc. have grown even faster.
Total trip-making per household has grown 66 percent
since 1970 despite a 17 percent decline in household size.
Today the average person makes more than 4 one-way trips
per day as the figure below indicates.
Moreover the average person makes about 4 trips greater
than 100 miles from home each year with a round trip distance per trip
of over 800 miles.
Challenges and Great Opportunities Lie Ahead
In the past I have called transportation ``the collision of
demography and geography.'' The following examines each in turn.
The Challenge of Geography
Few nations have been challenged by what Australians have labeled
``the tyranny of distance'' as greatly as America, and fewer still have
reduced its influence on their economic future as we have. We have
succeeded through a combination of timely investments in infrastructure
and benign public policies that served to permit market forces to work
in very positive ways. We have been blessed with great potential
endowments and have responded well to those endowments. In the
eighteenth century transportation knitted together a nation; in the
nineteenth century it welded together great internal mass markets; and
the twentieth has seen us integrate our nation into the world economy
helping to define and support that world economy.
Transportation is all about reducing the time and cost penalties of
distance on economic and social interactions. To the extent that
nations succeed in that function they enable tremendous forces of
economic opportunity, social cohesion and national unity.
What do geographic trends have in store for us in the coming
period.
We now have 50 metropolitan areas over a million in
population accounting for about 60 percent of the US population. This
is where most of the congestion and air quality issues will occur.
The remainder of the population is roughly 20 percent in
metropolitan areas below a million and 20 percent in non-metropolitan
areas.
The net flow today is from metro areas to rural areas. We
will have close to 60 million people in rural areas interacting more
and more with metropolitan areas every day.
Suburbanization continues to extend the scale and extent
of suburbs
Metropolitan areas are growing together--the fastest
growing travel pattern geographically will be inter-metropolitan
flows--from the suburbs of one area to the suburbs of another.
A key question will be the balance within suburbs of jobs
and workers so that average trip lengths to job opportunities do not
grow inordinately.
commuting trips in millions
The Challenges of the New Demography
All of our professional life times have been dominated by the baby
boom. That and the dramatic increases in involvement of women in the
labor force have defined our age. As we approach 2010 many of the
strong forces of the past will be less potent as the list below
delineates:
Lower population growth
Lower household growth
Lower labor force growth
Saturation of driver's licenses
Saturation of car ownership
Lower domestic migration rates
Again, we have absorbed the massive impacts of prodigious growth in
these areas over the last 40 years and done it rather well. These
elements, which have been the drivers of travel demand since World War
II, will not be pursued here other than to say that they will not be as
dominant an influence on travel growth and character as they have in
the past, although their influence will still be substantial in
specific areas of the Nation, especially those still receiving dramatic
levels of domestic and foreign migration growth.
We will have new forces of change to address. One sign of the more
balanced growth is that the 2000 census recorded growth in every State
in the Union.
There are just a few demographic factors that will be the key
forces of change in the coming period of reauthorization and beyond.
These are:
An aging population
A stagnating labor force
Changing household composition
A continuing immigrant wave
Mainstreaming minorities--the Democratization of Mobility
An increasingly affluent society
Of these one might say that the first three are inexorable--they
will happen; and the last three are strong likelihoods but more open to
question.
An Aging Population
There are many facets to the challenges raised by our aging
society. A sharp image is portrayed in the graphic below showing the
crucial role played by the aging of the baby boom. The combinations of
that boom with greater health among the older population and declining
birth rates will sharply shift the relationships between our population
groups.
Present estimates place the population over 65 at about 35 million,
only slightly increased from 1990. The small increase was a product of
limited increase among the depression babies generation, those now
between 65 and 75, but we also saw extraordinary growth in those
between 75 and 85, rising 23 percent. There are roughly 70 men for each
100 women in the group. Persons over 65 composed 12.4 percent of the
population with 29 States with equal or higher percentages.
By the end of the coming cycle of reauthorization those over 65
will rise to 13.2 percent by 2010 and reach 20 percent by 2030 as the
last of the baby boomer surge reaches 65. At that point we will have
reached a stage where there will be more than 31 older citizens per 100
working age adults contrasted to about 20 today. During this period the
working age population is actually projected to decline by 5 percent.
At the same time the dependent young will remain about the same level.
As a result the number and kinds of trips made by and for the elder
population will increase sharply. By 2025 there will be 27 States with
20 percent of their population over 65 or more, higher than Florida
today.
A number of factors will have bearing on how that population will
meet its travel needs:
1. The coming older population grew to maturity in an auto oriented
world--95 percent of those, men and women, who will be reaching 65
after 2010 now have licenses.
2. Disability rates among older persons have been declining in the
US, and the developed world, suggesting an active older population in
the future.
3. At present older citizens are retiring sooner and are more
likely to have the means for an active retirement.
4. Retired citizens make almost as many trips of non-work purposes
as the general population.
5. Given that the trips most oriented to transit (work and school)
are the trips not taken by elder populations it should not be a
surprise that their travel is heavily auto oriented.
Stagnating Labor Force
The chart above that showed the growth in the older population also
showed the diminishing growth in worker-age groups. The graphic
provides both the history and the future of American age and labor
force relationships. From the 70's on we see the sharp rise of the
working age population as baby boomers joined the labor force age
group, compounded further by women joining the labor force in
extraordinary numbers, doubling the labor force by 2010. But as 2010
approaches, the size of the labor force age group stops growing and
remains effectively constant out into the future. Some projections have
indicated that the group actually slightly declines in numbers. The
implications of this for retirement programs have been discussed
extensively in the public press around the world. In fact the US is
less extreme than many western nations in this regard.
The working age population responding to those job developments
will be sharply changed from the past. While the entire working age
population is projected to grow by about 12 percent the number of
members of the labor force over 55 years of age will grow by almost 47
percent. Workers over 55 will be responsible for half of the growth in
labor force from 2000 to 2010. Although these changes need to be of
concern we should note that the average age of the labor force in 2010
will be about the same as in the sixties just as the baby-boomers began
to join the labor force.
From a transportation view, however, an additional and perhaps more
significant factor will be shortages of workers, particularly in
skilled jobs, which may lead to important potential changes in travel
behavior, such as:
attempts to keep older workers in the work force longer;
attempts to recruit even more women into the work force;
greater use of part-time-like work arrangements;
greater competition among employers for workers;
the increased role of immigrant workers.
If the last decade was one of too many commuters the next may be
the decade of too few. There will be a severe lack of skilled workers
in the future--apparent already. We will have to employ everyone who is
employable. Transportation will be central to making that happen.
Connecting rural populations and inner city residents to suburban job
centers will be one need. The great demand for workers means that
workers will be more free to choose where they wish to live and
employers will follow. This may mean greater dispersion of jobs and
home sites, but it need not; workers may opt for center city living as
well as rural life styles. It will mean an amenity-driven development
process where areas that can attract and retain workers will be highly
advantaged.
Much of this suggests greater freedom for workers to define the
when and where of their work. It will mean more flexible work hours for
older workers and parents. Jobs in the future will be flexible in a
more humanized work place--women in the work force have seen to that.
The jobs of the future will look to us from this vantage point like
part-time jobs. The implications for travel are a more dispersed and
balanced travel pattern throughout the day.
Changing Household Composition
The number of households increased by almost 14 millions between
1990 and 2000, growing faster than population, yielding smaller average
household sizes. Households are key generators of travel--more so often
than individuals. Had households remained at their 1960 levels we would
have 20 million fewer households today. Households have declined to
less than 2.6 persons in size, and family based households are down to
3.14.
Households without children have grown more rapidly than those with
children. In 1970 40 percent of all households were those of married
couples with children, today they account for less than 25 percent of
households. They are now outnumbered by married couples without
children.
A notable facet of our future is that we have more than 33 million
non-family households, about a third of all households, more than 27
million of which consist of persons living alone. We now have 10
million persons over 65 living alone, most of them women. Their
transportation needs are likely to be significantly different than the
general population.
The Continuing Immigrant Wave
America is once again a nation of immigrants as it was at the start
of the last century, as shown graphically below--however the extent to
which that is true is unclear. Census estimates have ranged from 8 to
11 million immigrants arriving in the 1990's with some estimates
reaching as high as 14 millions. This would place immigration somewhere
around 40 percent of the sources of population growth in the nineties
and an even greater share of the labor force age group. Of the roughly
28 million foreign born in the US today 40 percent arrived between 1990
and 2000.
From a transportation view it must be noted that additions to the
population by natural increase generate a new worker in 18 or so years;
whereas immigrants, heavily distributed in the working age years, are
often instantaneous additions to the work force and the traveling
population. Of those immigrants arriving between 1990 and 2000 the
census estimates that two-thirds are in the age group from 16 to 45,
and more than 80 percent of men and 50 percent of women are presently
in the labor force.
The flow of immigrants nationally is toward the South and West;
tending to locate where other Americans are, in the largest metro
areas, where the jobs are. Although they have been a significant factor
in replacing residents who have been leaving center cities, the current
immigrant wave is far more likely to arrive directly at suburban
locations contrasted to center cities as in past migrations.
Mainstreaming Minorities--the Democratization of Mobility
Many of the aspects of the questions regarding immigrant travel
behavior are interrelated with a discussion of the travel behavior of
racial and ethnic minorities. For example, their arrivals in the many
large metro areas of the south and west actually had the effect of
reversing declining trends in the number of households without
vehicles. Not surprisingly there are indications that new immigrants
use transit more than current residents, but that over time their
travel choices echo the general population. Immigrants constitute a
significant element of transit ridership today in many metropolitan
areas. A distinct role for the transit systems of the Nation may well
be in the socialization process of immigrant populations.
It is often the case that immigrants and resident minorities
constitute that group in our society with limited mobility. Their
growing access to vehicles will be one of the major factors in travel
growth in the future. The figure below shows the long term trend in
vehicle ownership among households. The key observations here are that
one vehicle households having been stable for almost 40 years at about
30 million households have jumped by 5 million in the last decade, and
a related move of households without vehicles to below 10 million for
the first time. Both of these moves are strongly related to immigrant
and minority trends. We have moved from more than 25 percent of
households without vehicles in 1960 to less than 10 percent today even
with the surge in immigrants in the last decade.
The relative saturation in drivers' licenses and vehicles has been
noted earlier. These apparent national patterns mask the reality that
such saturation has a long way to go before it is a fact among
minorities and immigrants. While the White Non-Hispanic population
tends to be saturated in ownership of drivers licenses, with both men
and women having above 92 percent with licenses, these values are more
like 80 percent among Hispanic and African American men and in the
range of 70 percent among women of those groups.
Auto ownership has similar patterns with households without
vehicles at about 7 percent among White Non-Hispanics and closer to 30
percent for African-American households and half that for Hispanic
households. Even rural African-American households have 17 percent of
households without vehicles.
An important facet of national mobility regarding minorities is the
longevity of the vehicle fleet and the resultant affordability of
serviceable vehicles for lower income households. The average age of
the vehicle fleet today exceeds 8 years.
In many respects our minority populations are somewhere back in the
sixties or seventies in terms of transportation and mobility
They are at 25 percent of households without vehicles, as
the general population was in 1960
Minority women are at 70 percent with drivers licenses;
white women probably were at that level in the 60's.
Long distance travel rates by minorities are less than
the general population rates of the seventies.
Rising Affluence and Aspirations
Many of the aspirations we have for our society are closed
connected with rising affluence, either in establishing the means for
families to act on their own economic and social goals or to create the
resources to assist those that do not have those resources.
Among these goals are:
Home ownership and adequate housing--2/3 of households
today own homes
Greater access to opportunity and social services
Greater participation in the mainstream of society by
minorities
Increased freedom for all to act on their social and
economic goals
All of these very desirable goals are tied to mobility and the
interaction between mobility and rising incomes is strong. Some key
attributes:
Minority households are reaching the income levels where
vehicle ownership is an increasing probability and near certainty.
There will continue to be a close linkage between workers
and vehicle ownership. Most households without vehicles will also be
without workers
Trip making and trip lengths will increase with
increasing incomes
Long distance travel for business and recreation is
strongly correlated with income.
Households spending going to transportation is about $7,400 per
year, about 19 percent of all household spending, second only to
housing--not surprisingly most of it oriented to the acquisition and
use of personal vehicles. Transportation, like other household
expenditures, clothing, housing and food for example, is both a
necessity and a discretionary good. The amount of spending rises
substantially, even in percentage of income terms, with rising
household incomes as documented in the figure below.
Note: Those with low incomes may have other assets
Increased spending is closely associated with greater auto
ownership, more trip making and with trips of greater length. In part
this is attributable to the fact that higher income households often
have more household members and more workers, but it is also
attributable to the fact that higher income households have more
discretionary income for travel including recreation, visiting friends
and relatives, eating out, etc. Auto trips over one hundred miles
increase 4 fold between low income and high income households and air
trips more than 7 fold. In local travel trip-making by high-income
households roughly doubles that of low income households. Much of the
growth in travel we have seen in recent years is a product of this
affluence.
Long distance travel also means important international
interactions, as not just we, but also our neighbors, rise in
affluence. Despite 9/11 it is expected that foreign visitors to the US
will rise to 60 million per year by sometime after 2005, a delayed
growth but with no long term effects--a tremendous force for economic
health and social understanding--but a challenge for our transportation
systems. Foreign visitors, especially our North American neighbors, are
heavy users of all aspects of our transportation systems.
Perhaps the most illuminating variation in transportation spending
is that between rural populations and their urban counterparts. Rural
households have the highest share of income going to transportation
expenditures (23.5 percent) contrasted to only 19 percent for urban
residents. In fact they spend more in total dollars, about $7460 than
their urban counterparts despite earnings about 80 percent of urban
households. It is tremendously significant, however, that rural
residents have the lowest housing costs share and have the lowest total
costs share for the housing-transportation combination. Housing and
transportation are tightly linked in cost and character with
transportation representing the tradeoff in terms of home cost and
size. The fact that two-thirds of American households own their own
homes is a crucial factor in our understanding of transportation
budgets.
At 2000 with about 1.72 vehicles per household, on average, the
majority of American households have two or more private vehicles;
vehicles available equal or exceed workers in the majority of
households regardless of the number of workers in the household.
Perhaps the most significant event in auto ownership, as noted earlier
has been that households without vehicles have dropped below 10 percent
of all households for the first time.
One of the things that this says is that congestion is one of the
prices we pay for a high degree of affluence and vehicle affordability.
In my view congestion is: People with the economic means to act on
their social and economic interests--getting in the way of other people
with the means to act on theirs!
Another thing the reality of rising national affluence produces is
that the value of time will be increasing for most people. As incomes
rise the value of time rises accordingly. Particularly, the pressures
of time will be acute for working women, seeking to balance multiple
goals and tasks.
We must also recognize that rising in parallel with that value of
personal time is the rising value of the goods and products we move.
These too are a product of our increasingly affluent society. It
suggests that many products will be intensely time sensitive with a
tolerance for high cost transportation if it provides high speed,
reliable transport; this will often mean the air freight-truck
combination.
Implications
In summary, America will be:
A stable ``older'' population
Operating in a global economy
Where ``high cost'' transport is OK
Where skilled workers are at a premium
Where many workers can live and work anywhere
Who, where are the immigrants will be a key question
Where mainstreaming minorities will be a key factor of
growth
We will be a challenge affluent society where transportation will
have immense importance in helping us remain competitive and to realize
our economic and social aspirations.
To me transportation is about society building--not just economy
building--society building ! It ties people together across distances--
especially today when families are dispersed over the entire nation.
The greatest strength of our economy is the nationwide mobility of
workers in a highly specialized division of labor. Transportation knits
families back together.
Many planners still think in terms of ``community'' as the people
physically next door--our communities today are a product of multiple
voluntary links across vast distances supported by two pillars--
communications and transportation--virtual communities.
Transportation's goals are all about speed, cost and reliability
and those are the three things we are just terrible at measuring in
transportation! We must do better.
Summary
In summary the factors that will matter most in the future are
these:
For commuting--the lack of workers, skilled workers especially,
creating a sellers market in jobs--greater freedom of location through
technology and greater flexibility about work schedules (more part-
time-like jobs) in the work place. Who and where the immigrants are
will be central. Expect appeals to older workers and even more women to
join the work force.
For Local travel--an aging population with more freedom and
discretionary resources for recreation and other travel. A more mobile
minority and immigrant population. A generally more affluent society
able to act on its social and economic interests. Expect very active
day-time, evening and week-end travel patterns.
For Long Distance Travel--many people in the peak long distance
travel age groups; more people able to participate in long distance
travel; more foreign visitors. Expect a peak period in American
tourism.
For Geography--the flows between local elements of the Nation will
expand faster than the internal travel within those elements. Expect
interaction conflicts between long distance and local travel.
A higher value of time for people and goods means greater emphasis
on time-saving technologies and modes of transportation for both.
Expect interaction conflicts between freight and passenger travel.
Transportation will always be about distance and time. I have said
in the past that transportation's goal must be to reduce the impact of
distance on the ability of society to act on its social and economic
interests. Today in many respects America through its transportation
system has largely overcome the challenges of distance and reduced its
costs to our society. This is a large part of our success as a Nation.
We are now at the stage where it is the pressures of time that should
be the great driver of transportation goals and issues for the future.
______
Responses of Alan Pisarski to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Would you please discuss, in greater detail, your
thoughts on hot lanes? What I am most interested in are your thoughts
as to how such a concept can be employed on a nation-wide scale in our
bill next year re-authorizing the Highway Trust Fund and surface
transportation program?
Response. I prefer to think of hot lanes as ``premium service
lanes''--that captures the essence of the service they provide. My
thoughts regarding their development nationally follow:
a. They must be additional lanes not conversions of existing
lanes--the public has demonstrated again and again their antagonism for
taking existing lanes for any purpose.
b. The public, at all levels of income, will accept the idea of
paying for better service, as long as the non-tolled option continues
to exist.
c. They should be tied in with bus rapid transit and carpooling
preferably in a network of routes. We desperately need to find ways to
resuscitate car-pooling and to provide lower cost transit services.
d. The private sector can be a major source of development and
funding thru revenue bonding of these facilities.
Question 2. As you know, ISTEA created various programs and
policies to increase transportation options, and reduce people's
dependence on single occupancy vehicle trips, yet as your testimony
showed, driving alone has increased over the last 10 years, and vehicle
miles traveled also experienced substantial growth. What are the
mobility benefits and constraints associated with such policies, and
what segments of the population bear the burden of such policies?
Response. We have seen a tremendous focus on the value of time in
our society, particularly among women who are maintaining careers,
households, etc. As our population becomes more affluent their value of
time increases and the standards by which they judge the transportation
system become higher than before. It is my belief that as long as fuel
costs remain anywhere near reasonable and vehicles are relatively
affordable that the public will react to their time pressures through
the use of the single occupant vehicle. The only suitable way to make
headway against that trend is to improve the competitiveness in speed
and quality of transit and carpooling services. Efforts to push workers
out of their cars by making things worse for them--consciously abetting
congestion or increasing the costs of travel are antagonistic to
society's best interests and to our faith in our citizens' ability to
make sound judgments about how to lead their lives. Perhaps more
significantly, I would argue that there are critical needs for
transportation services regarding getting low income populations to
jobs and services, assisting our rural populations and serving the
aging population everywhere that should be the focus of our resources,
taking precedence over spending money trying to attract high income
commuters out of their cars.
Question 3. You define congestion in terms of economic and social
interests. How would you define mobility? Is there a way to measure or
assign value to increased mobility (due to greater transportation
choices and capacity) or decreased mobility (due to increased
congestion)?
Response. This is a wonderful question that unfortunately goes to
the heart of our ignorance about transportation and its benefits. At
least part of it is that we have always taken our mobility for granted
and have not needed to rigorously defend or justify its value to
ourselves personally or to society in general. Mobility of course is
closely linked to my sense of economic and social interests. I think of
mobility in terms of choice--expanded opportunity for choices which
means selection, service and perhaps most important--price. Recent data
show that the ranges of choices of products and services available to
the public has exploded. Among the most important of these
opportunities are job opportunities whether seen from the workers point
of view--jobs within a half hour of home--or from the employer's--
potential employees within a half hour of my office.
Perhaps the most telling way to appreciate its value is to consider
its absence. Center city populations lacking mobility are often
subjected to low quality services and monopoly prices because they do
not have the mobility to take advantage of alternatives. Rural
isolation has similar attributes.
It is interesting that we measure fuel efficiencies in miles per
gallon to two decimal places and air quality in parts per million in
legislation but have no metric for the benefits of travel activity--
mobility. This has clearly distorted our tradeoffs and the policy
decisions that support them. Perhaps we should think of it in terms of
``opportunities provided per minute''. A major research effort to
quantify, understand and relate the value of mobility to us as a
society would be very valuable to public policy. The question is
important and needs to be pursued. The more we know about mobility and
its interactions in a healthy society the better will be our public
policies.
______
Response of Alan Pisarski to Additional Question from Senator Graham
Question 1. You mention the growing tension between movement of
people and movement of goods. Both are becoming gridlocked. Will this
tension escalate in the face of new security measures screening cargo,
perhaps several times, along its route? Can you offer advice on ways to
ensure movement of goods with minimal impact to passenger travel, and
timely screening for national security?
Response. We have used ``time-separation'' as a way to reduce
conflicts between cars and trucks in the past. The Interstate belonged
to cars by day and trucks by night--that is now failing us. Trucks used
to get off the road in our metro areas during peak hours until traffic
subsided--that is now failing us. All of these failures are due to
increasing congestion and the need of truckers to get through in
something like a timely manner.
Ultimately I believe it will lead us to some form of separation of
the vehicle streams--separate truck lanes for large, through vehicles--
as both a safety and a driving ease matter. Sections of the New Jersey
Turnpike are the example I am thinking of. Such separation would
facilitate truck screening and monitoring as well, as in weigh
stations. The need for security inspections will only add to our
conflicts. The air-truck combination will grow in significance in the
future with the increases in value of goods. Inspections at the airport
inbound and out may become a critical factor in travel conflicts.
Perhaps we need to consider a wholly separate set of national
parkways designed for personal vehicles, accepting the fact that trucks
will dominate permanently on certain Interstate routes.
______
Responses of Alan Pisarski to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Mr. Pisarski, you mention in your testimony that
transit ridership increased slightly in the last 10 years (500,000 net
increase) while remaining at 5 percent of the work commute trips.
However, I understand from FTA data that transit ridership declined in
the first 5 years of that period (1991-1996), and then rose
dramatically, by 21 percent, in the last 5 years (1997-2001). If you
focus on the most recent 5 years, you get a different picture of where
transit is going, don't you?
Response. Yes, I would like to think so. There were some
indications from other census surveys that transit may have dropped
below its current 5 percent share during the 90's and got back to that
figure by decades end at least in part due to new services, new fare
policies, and new worker populations, etc. It is important to recognize
that these data sets portray very different snapshots of the activity.
The census data I base my work on counts workers and the way they
travel to work. The FTA data on the other hand are effectively
turnstile counts. If a worker passes through a turnstile (or
equivalent) four times in a day that would be a big jump in FTA data
but still just one worker as counted by census. This would not really
change the 5 percent figure share I mentioned in my testimony. There
are just a few metro areas at 10 percent shares for transit across the
country today New York, Chicago, and Washington for sure; maybe Boston,
Philadelphia, and San Francisco--a very worthy goal to examine would be
to see how many more areas we could bring up to that level. Shifts in
transit use for non-work activities could add to the differences but I
do not expect that they have grown enough to change transit's 2 percent
share in overall travel. It is important to keep a sense of scale in
interpreting these measures.
Question 2. Mr. Pisarski, your testimony touches on the aging
population and their transportation needs in terms of the need to
continue driving. However, many Americans lose their ability to drive
as they age. For example, in 2000, only 68 percent of women over the
age of 65 had licenses. How will we meet the needs of older Americans
unable or unwilling to drive?
Response. I wish there were easy answers here. In the early stages
of the aging scenario we face, roughly the next 15 years, the numbers
of elderly drives will increase strongly--for instance with women's
licensing rising to over 90 percent for those over 65--as the first
real age group that grew up with the car ages. Most of their travel
demand will be met by their own driving and then secondarily by family
and friends, which is a major factor in the mobility of aging
populations typically. For those unable or unwilling to drive and for
most of those who reach the higher age groups where infirmity begins to
be a critical factor something new in the forms of present community
transportation services needs to be developed. While, there are many
willing people and organizations trying to serve the aging community
well, from what I have seen in my work the present systems of services
need careful review and rationalization. They are often times confusing
and expensive. In many cases these older citizens cannot use
traditional transit or even curb side delivery but need door to door
assistance. We will need a national summit-like discussion of how to
respond to these dramatic social challenges. Costs and pricing are
critical. A role for the private sector and for community institutions
is crucial. It must be an important focus for reauthorization planning.
Question 3. Mr Pisarski, you discuss the mobility needs of
immigrants and resident minorities. Do the data sources mentioned have
a good rate of return from these communities. What is your confidence
level in these data?
Response. In the census I am convinced that they have done a
successful job of accessing minorities and obtaining the necessary
information. There are certainly response problems with undercount that
we all are concerned about but by and large they have been very
effective. I am much more concerned about travel surveys by local
governments, MPO's etc., and even our national sources, the NPTS now
NHTS. While those survey's managers are doing a great job trying to
address these challenges, the weaknesses in phone interviewing
techniques are critical in causing concern about the representativeness
of the returns. I had similar problems 30 years ago in surveying in
face to face interviewing, so this is nothing new but the changes in
people's life styles and means of communications have not been balanced
by new approaches in surveying methods. We might consider matching
census data with survey data to evaluate gaps and weaknesses. We need a
national commitment to better data to support transportation
decisions--this means more money, of course, but also research on
innovative methods, employing new technologies to respond to these
growing challenges.
Question 4. Mr. Pisarski, you emphasize demographic factors behind
travel patterns. However, the data shows that the growth in driving
itself is far outstripping the growth in population. In fact, an FHWA
analysis found that population growth is responsible for only 13
percent of the increase in driving, and TTI data show that the distance
driven rises every year. Can you speak more about how travel demand
management can be an effective congestion-fighting strategy.
Response. Senator Moynihan was fond of saying that ``demography is
destiny''--and so it is--certainly in transportation. But these
demographic factors go far beyond population growth. I was responsible
for the FHWA study mentioned in your question and concur that
population growth itself is typically a relatively minor factor in
growth--except in metro areas and States seeing dramatic shifts in
population--Nevada, Georgia to name just two. More to the point areas
losing population are still seeing growth in travel. Clearly it is the
per-capita growth rates that are significant. Growing affluence,
changes in family composition and life styles, the availability of
relatively low cost transportation automobile services are the really
significant drivers of change. A central factor in the changes we have
seen has been the same aging factor referred to in an earlier question.
We have many more people of working age; many more at the peak travel
age group.
Given these factors it is not clear what the role of demand
management should be. I would certainly argue that suppressing trips is
both undesirable and unwarranted. Trips have economic and social
transactions at their end of value to each citizen. This suggests that
reducing the time and cost penalties of trip-making is a highly
desirable public goal--I see such ``induced'' travel as a major social
benefit--to be applauded not condemned. We may think of others' trips
as unnecessary, but which of us examining his or her own travel would
judge them to have been meaningless. Almost 30 years a congressional
committee asked me what percent of trips were frivolous--a question I
could not answer.
There may be opportunities in getting people to combine trips in
what we call ``trip chains,'' linking purposes together in a time and
energy efficient pattern. People tend to do that under the pressures of
time.
Land use solutions, where people might find opportunities at
shorter distances travel might have limited potential, but I would not
overstate it. Many of the changes we are seeing are the product of
shifts in trip purposes and their lengths. Going out to eat for
instance instead of preparing meals at home; taking laundry out rather
than doing it at home. This is often accompanied by increases in trip
length as distant opportunities become accessible. One of the not-so
obvious factors is just the growing size of our metro areas. About 60
percent of our population lives in the 50 areas of more than a
million--substantially up from the past ( there were 39 such areas in
1990). Such areas make possible the prospect of work trips of 20 miles
or even trips to a restaurant or to visit friends and relatives of that
distance that do not exist in a smaller metro area. The most
significant factor there will be travel times and the effects of
congestion.
__________
Statement of Tim Lomax, Research Engineer, Texas Transportation
Institute\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The views in this testimony are those of Tim Lomax and do not
necessarily represent those of the Texas Transportation Institute, or
The Texas A&M University System
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today. I have been asked to
summarize a few trends that we have identified in a report we prepare
each year on urban traffic congestion. I will also offer a few
observations about congestion in U.S. cities in the next few years. I
would like to build on the excellent information that Mr. Pisarski has
prepared. Please keep in mind his summary of how travel demand has
grown and how it will continue to grow in the future.
Over the last 20 years our cities have not been able to keep pace
with the demand increases brought on by population and job growth.
Congestion has increased as a result of that imbalance. Our data shows
that during peak travel periods in 76 urban areas we studied, the
travel time penalty--the extra time it takes to travel during the
``rush hours''--has increased 185 percent since 1982. The penalty in
areas with populations between 500,000 and 3 million increased by 300
percent over this same time. This indicates that while most of the
problem is in the large metropolitan areas, the congestion problem is
growing in areas of all sizes. Total hours that travelers in these 76
areas were delayed increased from 750 million in 1982 to 3.6 billion in
2000.
This congestion growth was the result of the trends that Alan
referenced. In just our 76 areas, travel demand increased 86 percent,
but road capacity only increased 37 percent. The real capacity
increases were much less; the 37 percent value includes many roads that
were incorporated as a result of growing urban area boundaries, rather
than newly constructed roads. The imbalance is the result of several
truths and myths about what can be accomplished. I would like to
emphasize just a few important elements.
First, a truth. Road construction can help reduce the growth of
traffic congestion. Figure 1 shows the dramatic difference in travel
time penalty growth between areas that added roads at a rate close to
the rate of travel growth-the green line at the top-and those areas
that added few roads in relation to their travel growth-the dark blue
line at the bottom. The cities in the bottom group added roads at a
rate close to travel growth-for example, a 4 percent annual growth in
the traffic might be accompanied by a 3.5 percent growth in major
roads. The time penalty only increased 57 percent in the areas that
were able to add roads. Time penalties increased 245 percent for the
``least aggressive'' roadway adding areas.
Second, a myth. We should invest all our money and effort in adding
roadways. My characterization of this as a myth is not based on
ideology. It is based on the fact that since 1982, urban areas have
added only about half of the roads needed to stop the growth in travel
delay. Figure 2 shows that this percentage is about the same for all
four urban population ranges we track in our annual report. This is due
to a combination of factors ranging from lack of funding, land, public
support, and environmentally supportable alternatives. Roads can
definitely help, but realistically they aren't the ``wonder drug''
prescription because cities have not been able or willing to add them
quickly enough.
A similar truth can be stated about transit improvements-they can
help, but cannot solve the problem themselves. Figure 3 illustrates the
amount of new transit riders and carpoolers that would have to be added
each year to keep pace with travel demand growth. We are looking at
adding the equivalent ridership of a current transit system between
every year and every 4 years. This is very unlikely.
Let me point out a somewhat discouraging note that ``regular''
traffic congestion is only part of the problem. The variations in
travel time caused by crashes, vehicle breakdowns, special events,
construction, maintenance, weather and a variety of other factors are a
source of frustration and economic loss to person travel and freight
movements. Part of our problem is that we don't have the long-term,
system-wide, detailed data we need to fully describe the issues. The
emphasis on operational improvements over the last several years allows
us to analyze a few years in a few cities, but these improvements need
to cover more of the nation's transportation system.
Figure 4 shows the kind of information that can be developed and
how we can use it to identify problem areas and the success of
improvements. This graph is for some of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
freeway system in 2000. Congestion is measured by the Travel Time
Index-the peak period travel time penalty shown in the dark blue line.
Unreliable travel conditions are measured by the Buffer Index-a measure
of the amount of extra time travelers need to allow because of the
unpredictability in system conditions. We can see the effect of the big
snowstorms in January and December-more congestion and very unreliable
travel times. The summer tourist season is also the cause for greater
variation in travel time, although not a substantial increase in
average travel time penalty. We can also see the effect of turning off
the traffic signals that controlled access to the freeway system. This
experiment began in October, and the freeway effects were immediate and
dramatic. The unfortunate part of this story is that the monitoring and
data collection system does not extend to the entire system of freeways
and streets so we cannot completely analyze the experiment from this
data. But the limited data we have suggests that operational
improvements can play a significant role in providing a more reliable
transportation system for people and freight.
It appears that unless something changes we will continue to see a
growth in congested travel and congested transportation systems.
Projected population increases mean more travel; our cities have not
been able to stop congestion growth over the last two decades and
travel and population growth will continue to stress our transportation
systems. If we are fortunate to have enough funds, select projects
wisely, and implement them using techniques that do not result in
significant delay from construction and maintenance activities, we may
be able to slow down the growth of congestion, and make the system more
reliable than it is now. But ``reliably congested'' is not really a
high standard of achievement in my view. If our cities are going to
have a different future than this, we will have to pursue all types of
improvements and implement more projects, rather than fewer and manage
both the demand patterns and the system more efficiently.
More information on Texas Transportation Institute's urban mobility
studies can be found at: http://mobility.tamu.edu
______
Responses by Dr. Tim Lomax to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. In your testimony, you point out that the ``congestion
penalty'' in areas with over 300,000 population has increased over 300
percent since 1982. Your also mention these travelers were delayed a
combined 3.6 billion man-hours by congestion. I have two questions
about this part of your testimony:
i. Could you please explain, in as much detail as possible the
calculations and assumptions you made that brought you to those two
conclusions?
ii. Most of the figures I have seen putting a value on the cost of
the ``congestion penalty'' are a bit outdated. For example, in my
opening statement at the hearing, I referred to figures dating from
1998. In your opinion, in 2002 dollars, what is the average cost of
this penalty to rush-hour commuters in those same metropolitan areas
you referred to?
Response. i) I have attached a copy of the analysis methodology
used in our study. Some additional notes on our results:
I think my testimony refers to areas with population
between 500,000 and 3 million, rather than 300,000.
Our study only covers 75 of the approximately 400 urban
areas in the United States. The study includes all of the largest 40
urban areas and most of the U.S. urban travel delay.
The 3.6 billion person-hours are only for the year 2000,
not 1982 to 2000.
Response. ii) To estimate congestion in future years, I would use
the following trends.
The Consumer Price Index has increased 6.8 percent since
1999.
Travel delay, the main component of the congestion cost,
has increased 6.2 percent per year over the last 5 years.
Using these values, I estimate the average congestion
cost has risen from $505 per person in 2000 dollars to $590 per person
in 2002 dollars.
Question 2. With regard to your answer to the previous question, do
you have an opinion as to whether that figure would likely materially
vary from one part of the country to another, and if so, can you offer
an explanation for such a phenomenon?
Response. The congestion cost generally varies by population of an
area-larger cities are more congested, have more people and, thus, have
higher congestion costs.
The value of time (measured in dollars per hour) is a constant in
our study. That value probably varies from one part of the country to
another, but I do not have an estimate of that. I do believe the
research on value of time also shows that it varies by trip purpose,
activities on each end of the trip, whether the traveler believes they
will be on time, as well as the personal value of time.
Question 3. Do you agree with Alan Pisarski and Ken Orski who
testified in favor of what they term ``hot lanes'' as one way to reduce
traffic congestion?
Response. I think high-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes can provide an
option that does not currently exist for most trips. The ``option''
aspect of HOT lanes seems to be the most important element in my
opinion, rather than congestion reduction. There may be some congestion
reduction benefit if enough trips use the lanes, and if the ``before''
congestion level is not too high. Most corridors that I know of where
the HOT lane concept is being studied, however, are very congested. The
likely effect will be to shorten the period of slow traffic speeds and
to provide a high-speed option for some trips, rather than to
significantly improve overall average speeds.
______
Response of Dr. Tim Lomax to Additional Question from Senator Graham
Question. Your testimony discusses the difference between
``regular'' traffic congestion that occurs in bottlenecks, and
congestion caused by accidents, breakdowns, and other non-recurring
events. Have you or TTI researched the best approach to dealing with
the day to day breakdowns, accidents and other incidents that lengthen
commutes?
Response. Incident management programs are the general term for the
problem you identify. The elements might be separated into the
following categories:
Detection (finding the problem)-The wire loops in the
pavement, radar speed sensors, toll tag reading devices and other
automated devices can identify problems using comparisons between
nearby sensors and comparisons to historic averages. Motorists using
cell phones to report accidents are becoming the quickest way to
identify accidents. Cameras can be used to confirm the incident
location and proper response vehicles and personnel.
Clearance (removing the problem)-"Highway helper''
programs have been developed in many areas and consist of many
different elements. The basics include a roving set of vehicles that
assist motorists with disabled vehicles or with minor crashes. More
advanced programs might include tow trucks that are assigned to clear
crashes and disabled vehicles from important sections of road.
Communicating the incident location and expected duration of road
blockages--such as the National 511 traveler information telephone
number program--is also an important element.
Prevention (reducing the problem)-Some of the incident
delay problems might be addressed most appropriately by driver
education or design changes. The delay that occurs when motorists in
the opposite direction of an incident slow down (so called
``rubbernecking''), for example, does not have an easy solution other
than to educate drivers as to the delay and safety problems this
causes. Some sort of visual screen mounted on top of the median barrier
might also reduce the problem. Teaching motorists to maintain their
vehicles and monitor fuel level, tire condition, etc., would also pay
significant benefits in reduced vehicle breakdown rates.
______
Response of Dr. Tim Lomax to Additional Question from Senator Jeffords
Question. Mr. Lomax, over the last few years, the Texas
Transportation Institute Mobility Study has moved away from calculating
the number of lane miles of roadway needed to 'solve' congestion to
bring free-flow conditions to highways. In recent years, the report has
begun to discuss increasing transit capacity and managing travel
demand. Can you talk about your shift in thinking on the approach to
solutions?
Response. We have attempted to broaden the set of improvements we
refer to, rather than to move away from any solution. We have also
chosen to look at achievable or realistic options. The number of lane-
miles needed to keep pace with annual traffic growth are still
presented along with the transit riders or carpoolers needed.
Building hundreds of lane-miles to solve congestion problems,
however, is not a realistic option in almost all urban areas. Slowing
the growth of congestion, however, is probably achievable and relevant
in many urban areas. Our studies show that this will take a full range
of construction, operational improvements, transit and carpool
enhancements, and demand management alternatives in larger cities.
Smaller cities, however, have not been any more successful at
adding roads in sufficient amounts to keep pace with traffic growth.
This suggests that a broader view of the solution set might be
appropriate for more than the largest and most congested cities.
__________
Statement of Hon. Ron Sims, Executive of King County, Washington
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, and members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding new
ideas for the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21.) Your reauthorization of these vital
transportation funds can better help communities address the public's
need for greater mobility in the face of growing congestion that
threatens the quality of life in our metropolitan areas.
I applaud the dramatic changes Congress has instituted in the last
two surface transportation reauthorization bills, particularly those
that have helped address congestion problems in America's major urban
areas. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) strengthened the role of metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) and encouraged the use of Federal-aid highway moneys for high-
occupancy vehicle lanes, transit systems and other projects designed to
meet congestion problems. TEA-21 established ``firewalls'' that ensured
that the funds collected from the public for transportation purposes
will be spent on transportation, restoring trust to the Highway Trust
Fund, and freeing up billions of dollars for congestion relief
programs.
I believe that next year's reauthorization bill should take what I
view to be an essential next step. By targeting transportation
investments into metropolitan areas that are competing in the global
economy, we can help these areas and our country retain our competitive
edge. If we don't, companies will leave our area, and, in some cases,
our country. Infrastructure investment in our metropolitan areas will
not only bring much needed congestion relief, it will help secure the
stability and health of these metropolitan areas that are the economic
engines of this country.
Despite the efforts of programs like TEA-21, we must do more to
ensure congestion relief infrastructure investments are targeted to key
major metropolitan areas. Clogged roadways delay people, goods and
services from moving freely to their destinations. Metropolitan
congestion relief will have a tremendous impact on the quality of life
for business, industry and the residents. More and more people are
living in urban areas. Through very successful Smart Growth strategies
aimed at managing growth in urban areas, many cities are seeing a
revitalization of their cores as people move back into cities. In King
County, we know that over 50 percent of all daily trips are still by
single-occupancy vehicles despite great strides being made in
increasing transit trips and carpool rides. Our long-term goal is to
get people to live, work and shop in the same community--to use public
transportation and to cut down on driving alone. But it is imperative
we create and invest in the infrastructure to help make this goal a
reality.
The viability of urban areas is increasingly dependent on reliable
transportation networks of all kinds--from major freeways to regional
arterial networks and public transportation, inter-city rail, and all
other efforts aimed at congestion relief. And we're moving in the right
direction. In 2002, transit ridership in King County grew by almost 4
percent, boarding 100 million riders given on buses, trolleys, and
streetcar. We have dozens of programs aimed at getting more people out
of their cars, like our Transit Oriented Development projects that
combine housing and local retail with a transit station or a park-and-
ride lot to locate people and services near transit to discourage auto
use. We are creating better pedestrian linkages to bus service.
Further, ongoing national health studies show that some urban
development, especially sprawl, limits physical activity causing
obesity and related illnesses. We have an obligation to give our
citizens the transportation choices they need to make their lives
easier and more healthful.
Therefore, included in whatever is done with the reauthorization of
TEA-21, metropolitan congestion relief is a must. A successful
comprehensive plan will include transportation infrastructure that
helps our metropolitan areas to thrive as both economic engines and as
wonderful places to live.
Economic Importance of the Major Metropolitan Areas
As the United States economy grew and prospered in recent years, we
have witnessed significant growth in major metropolitan areas and
business centers across our Nation. The major metropolitan areas are
significant major contributors to the economic viability of our nation
as a whole. The 20 most congested metropolitan areas in the United
States together have more than one-third of the entire economy of the
Nation. Using 1999 payroll data as an indicator for economic activity
(payroll is the largest share of GDP), these top 20 metropolitan areas
had a combined payroll total of more than $1.7 trillion--37 percent of
the total national payroll of $4.6 trillion. Further, these 20
metropolitan areas contain nearly 50 percent of the population and
economic activity of the total metropolitan areas combined.
Let me talk about our economy and its importance to the region,
State and Pacific Northwest. Based on 2000 economic data, this
metropolitan area ranked as the nation's 13th largest metropolitan
economy, generating about $115 billion in economic output. Compared to
nations of the world during the same period, the area out-produced
Greece or Venezuela and nearly out-produced Finland. Further, King
County represents 43 percent of Washington State jobs and 55 percent of
the State's dollar payroll.
This region is also a port community, largely dependent on the
increasing pace of global trade. International trade supports one of
every three jobs in Washington State, and we serve as an important
export and import gateway for the northern tier of States. I want to
thank this committee for including the National Borders and Trade
Corridors program in the last authorization bill. We are using funds
from that program in our region to help construct a series of railroad
grade separation projects that are increasingly important as mile long
container trains move slowly off the docks at the Ports of Seattle and
Tacoma.
Costs of Congestion
The total cost of traffic congestion in the metropolitan areas
studied by the Texas Transportation Institute amounts to almost $74
billion. TTI has calculated that significant amounts of fuel are wasted
as a result of congestion, noting that drivers stuck in traffic used
more than six billion gallons of fuel in 1996.
Now, congestion remains the primary threat to the long-term health
of the economies of many different regions. Traffic congestion deeply
affects our nation's ability to move goods and services. Corporations
and businesses in these congested areas have experienced significant
financial losses as a result of increased traffic. The Boeing
Corporation, the nation's No. 1 exporter, estimates that while they
move the same amount of freight up and down the Puget Sound region as
they did 5 years ago, it takes them 22,000 more payroll hours to do it.
Boeing shocked our region last year when they announced they were
moving their corporate headquarters, partly because of our State's
failure to keep up on transportation spending. The added costs
associated with traffic congestion are causing many businesses to
search for other, less congested areas, just to meet their freight
mobility needs.
Infrastructure Investment Has Not Kept Pace with Growth
Decaying and outdated roads are having a severe impact on all
aspects of residents' daily lives, from how they get to work to when
they return home to spend time with family and friends. Road rage and
other congestion-related ills are affecting the quality of life for
many Americans.
As this committee knows, the overall level of public investment in
transportation has declined from a peak in the 1960's to levels that
now threaten the economic vitality and the livability of our
communities. Recent polls taken in the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan
area, for example, consistently indicate that solving congestion is the
highest policy priority of residents. They consistently rank
transportation congestion as their No. 1 problem, far ahead of concerns
over crime, education, taxes, or the environment.
The Washington Legislature has struggled, as many other State
legislatures have, to craft statewide and regional packages to fund
much-needed transportation projects. The Washington State Legislature
voted late last week to increase statewide spending for transportation.
This will be financed through a combination of gas tax, truck weight
fee, and vehicle sales tax increases. A regional transportation finance
mechanism was also authorized. Our transportation problems can only be
addressed through bold cooperative actions, not just at the State
level, but at all levels of government.
Development Patterns Have Contributed to Congestion
Urban sprawl has been a major contributor to our growing traffic
congestion problems. From 1970-1990, population in the Seattle
Metropolitan Area grew by 38 percent while the development of land
increased by 87 percent. This represents a doubling of land needed for
each person over the previous period. Related to this statistic, there
has been a 30 percent drop in residential densities since 1970 while we
have seen new jobs locate in sprawling low-density employment centers.
Communities comprised of housing exclusively combined with low-
density development randomly scattered around a region, have created
land use patterns that are difficult for transportation to serve.
People have no choice but to drive everywhere. Alternate forms of
transportation such as public transit, walking, bicycling, carpooling
don't work as well in a pattern of sprawl development because travel
trips are too long and too scattered. It is more difficult for
government to respond to the growing needs created by these inefficient
development patterns. Housing, jobs and shopping become more distant
from each other, resulting in greater vehicle miles traveled.
I challenge us to look for ways to meet our current transportation
needs, while at the same time, we support efforts to steer new
development into smart growth land use patterns. New funding plays an
important role in fixing transportation problems in our major
metropolitan areas. We need to leverage these new resources by making
changes to the development patterns the transportation system serves to
get the most efficient use of our money.
Smart Growth Is Part of the Solution
Smart growth is a major factor in reversing the trends resulting
from typical development patterns and traffic congestion. Smart growth
provides for ``common sense'' development by encouraging growth where
facilities and services already exist, bringing jobs and housing
closer, and limiting development into farm lands and low density rural
areas. I support the testimony of Don Chen, Executive Director of Smart
Growth America, who spoke to your committee 2 weeks ago about the role
the Federal Government can play in supporting smart growth policies and
actions by local governments. The reauthorization of TEA-21 can become
a mechanism to support smart growth initiatives. This committee can
help local governments solve transportation problems by encouraging
smart growth policies leading to fewer cars on the road.
In King County, we've been working diligently to make Smart Growth
work. In 2000, only 4 percent of all of our new housing units went into
our designated Rural Area. We're revitalizing our older urban areas as
evidenced by the nearly 10 percent growth in the city of Seattle from
1990-2000. Growth in the centers of the close-in suburbs is also
rising. Over the last 10 years, the population in King County grew by
15 percent and the city of Seattle grew by 9 percent. This data
demonstrates a reverse in the declining growth trend in the city of
Seattle during previous decades. This is not just happening in Seattle,
but in other metropolitan areas as well. Future transportation
investments need to support these recent trends.
The viability of our urban areas is increasingly dependent on
reliable transportation networks. If we are successful in creating more
Smart Growth communities, where people use their cars less, then we are
actually preserving road capacity for those that really need it--like
for the movement of freight. A clear example of how land use and
transportation are being used together is in a Transit Oriented
Development Project, which typically combines housing and local retail
with a transit station or a park-and-ride lot.
We need to create better pedestrian linkages to bus service,
encourage greater densities and mixed-use developments around transit
centers, and simply provide connections within our communities. Ongoing
studies are demonstrating that many forms of urban development,
especially sprawl, can work against physical activity such as walking
and other forms of exercising. We have an obligation to give our
citizens the transportation choices they need to make their lives
easier and more healthful.
Increases in Vehicle Miles Traveled
People drive more and they own more cars. In King County, there are
more registered vehicles than there are registered drivers for those
vehicles. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has also increased, so traffic
congestion continues to worsen.
In the Seattle region, from 1980 to 1990, VMT increased nearly
three times faster than population and employment growth. However, from
1990 to 2000, VMT grew at approximately the same pace as population and
employment. Although the trend is in the right direction, the
transportation system needs to catch-up from the rapid growth in vmt
from the past 20 years. Also, through strategic investments, we can
ensure that this trend continues and does not revert back to the rapid
rise of the 80's.
While traffic congestion is the most evident sign of increasing
VMT, other important impacts are significant to our quality of life.
Increasing VMTS correlate to worsening air quality and higher energy
consumption rates.
Increase in Transit Ridership
As we look to solutions to address our traffic congestion problems,
we need to keep in mind that there is no quick fix to eliminate
congestion. Instead, we will need broad solutions to address different
facets of congestion and to give metropolitan areas the flexibility and
choices they need.
Often, we turn first to adding highway lanes. While this is an
important part of the solution, alone it will not alleviate the traffic
congestion problems we currently face. Additional congestion-fighting
tools include improved transit service and other actions.
In King County, we have one of the best transit operations in the
Nation. Last year we exceeded 100 million annual riders for the first
time. Transit's share of daily travel is also going up. In the Seattle
Metropolitan Area, commute trips on public transportation, as a
percentage of all work trips, has increased from 6.3 percent in 1990 to
7.1 percent in 2000. I believe strategic investments will help us
maintain this trend in transit ridership. However, we know that
increasing traffic congestion is having a negative effect on our
ability to operate transit efficiently. More congestion makes if harder
for buses to maintain schedules, leading to more buses providing the
same level of service. Clearly, this is not a very efficient way to
operate.
Transit can and should be one of the key tools to address traffic
congestion, especially in metropolitan areas and centers where there
are concentrations of people and jobs. To do this, we need to make sure
transit becomes a viable alternative. Transit can compete with the car
for commute trips if appropriate funding and operating incentives are
provided. Many inter-city rail routes, for example, have proven this
and incredible progress in ridership has been realized.
Revenue Sharing Formulas May Not Be the Answer
Almost all highway assistance is provided to States based on a
formula. Exceptions include the recently enacted trade corridor/border
crossing, intelligent transportation system deployment, and
transportation community and system preservation programs that are
allocated on a national discretionary basis each year. Other exceptions
are the regional Surface Transportation Program and Congestion
Mitigation/Air Quality programs where project selection is the
responsibility of metropolitan planning organizations. About two-thirds
of transit assistance is provided to transit operators on a formula
basis through their metropolitan planning organizations. About one-
third is allocated on a national discretionary basis annually to start
new and bus capital projects. Federal assistance must be directed
toward solving problems in proportion to their severity.
recommendations
Encourage and Promote Flexible Funding Approaches
Most Federal transportation programs pay for specific solutions;
e.g., new highway lanes or transit new starts, rather than the best
overall transportation solution for a given corridor. While ISTEA and
TEA-21 included flexible funding programs like the surface
transportation program and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality programs
with broad program eligibility, most Federal assistance is still
provided on a mode-specific basis to existing road and transit
providers. Furthermore in the first 4 years of the CMAQ program, it has
managed a mere 57 percent obligation rate. This rate is troubling and
is the worst of any of the core programs in TEA-21 suggesting that even
when Congress provides tools to the States for metropolitan needs it
has not merited enough attention to address the problem.
It is my belief that addressing congestion in the most strategic
and effective way demands a comprehensive approach encompassing
everything from improving operations to managing growth. Federal, State
and local governments can no longer afford to view investments in
metropolitan infrastructure in separate, distinct elements particularly
when transportation infrastructure at the metropolitan level is far
more complex and inter-modal then at the State or Federal levels. The
very nature of a global economy and the need for our nation's
metropolitan economies to stand up against their competitors around the
world by definition necessitates comprehensive, strategic planning and
ultimately targeted investments. Funding must be predicated on the
notion that metropolitan governments in partnership with their
constituents are most familiar with residential growth patterns,
commercial development needs, freight mobility and the many other
demands on local metropolitan areas. These demands must be dealt with
in a cohesive fashion that allows for optimum flow and efficiency.
Creation of a Metropolitan Transportation System
Mr. Lomax's research has consistently shown that roadway congestion
can be quantified through various research indexes to identify our
nation's significant problem areas. According to his research, rush-
hour travel in five regions--Los Angeles, San Francisco-Oakland,
Seattle-Everett, the Washington DC Metro Area and Las Vegas--takes 50
percent more time than non-rush hour travel. Additionally, he indicates
that drivers in the largest metropolitan areas spend about half of
their driving time stuck in traffic, far more than drivers in medium
and smaller sized metropolitan areas. This work of identifying our
nation's significant problem areas must be advanced further.
I believe Congress should take the next step of calling for in the
upcoming reauthorization the creation of a metropolitan transportation
system that geographically defines the boundaries of metropolitan areas
within which Federal transportation funds will be targeted. Similar in
concept to the Federal Highway System or Interstate systems, planning
and investments for major highways, regional arterials, bus and subway
routes, local and inter-city rail, freight corridors, ferries, and
other transportation modes such as air travel must be carried out as
part of a comprehensive metropolitan transportation system. Congestion
relief is of such an urgent and immediate nature, that a step of this
magnitude is necessary and warranted. Some of this work has already
been accomplished through the work of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations. We must find ways of furthering this work and
aggressively infusing such metropolitan systems with the kind of
strategic resource allocation that is needed.
Creation of a Metropolitan Congestion Program
Finally, I it is time for Congress to create a Metropolitan
Congestion Program that would funnel Federal dollars directly to the
metropolitan transportation system. This Metropolitan Congestion
Program should be sized at a minimum equal to the National Highway
System Program which this year received nearly $5 billion under TEA-21.
I acknowledge the need for the next reauthorization bill to be crafted
in a way that does not perpetuate a multiplicity of programs and
perhaps this metropolitan program would encompass other programs in the
current reauthorization bill originally intended to address congestion.
However, at the local level, metropolitan organizations and governments
in major urbanized areas are suffering from the lack of tools at their
discretion. In fact metropolitan sub-allocations under TEA-21 are
smaller as a percentage of total funding as compared to levels under
ISTEA.
While land use, permitting and many other functions that involve
growth planning, residential and commercial development are primarily
the responsibility of these governments we are handcuffed by the lack
of balance in matching infrastructure investments to support
development planning. Transportation dollars that are funneled
ultimately to local areas lack the clarity, transparency and precision
in investment decisions that metropolitan governments are most
appropriately situated to provide. I strongly advocate that the right
and ideal place is in the metropolitan areas.
Over the past several months, I have begun to partner with
colleagues around the country to form a metropolitan congestion
coalition. The magnitude of these changes require the kind of bold,
decisive leadership that our citizens deserve. The purpose of this
coalition is to bring together metropolitan elected officials and
business leaders in metropolitan areas to address these ideas for the
reauthorization of TEA-21. We have to date been successful in our
initial discussions around the country because the need is so evident.
I have no doubt that you also recognize this need and I am hoping to
partner with you during this reauthorization cycle.
I respectfully urge this committee to consider where transportation
problems are most severe and the associated socio-economic consequences
then to direct available Federal assistance to those areas proactively.
In metropolitan areas and at all levels of government public resources
are scarce. This only emphasizes the importance of greater discretion
in funding decisions. We have strong decisionmakers in every
metropolitan area who are first responders and are on the frontline
helping to lead the economic engines of this Nation. The depth of this
leadership capacity must be further utilized to propose and implement
solutions that enhance vitality and energy in these regions. Congestion
cannot be allowed to stand in the way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for giving me
this opportunity to share with you my views on the reauthorization of
the Federal Surface Transportation Program.
__________
Statement of Anthony Downs, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
My name is Anthony Downs, and I am a Senior Fellow at the Brookings
Institution. I am the author of the 1992 book STUCK IN TRAFFIC, which
deals with the causes of and possible remedies for peak-hour traffic
congestion, and which I am now revising for a second edition. The views
I state here are solely my own, and not those of the Brookings
Institution, its Trustees, or its other staff members.
My comments will consist of a series of major points, with some
supporting discussion of each. These points are focused on a realistic
view of the nature of traffic congestion, both present and future, and
what actions might be taken to relieve it.
The Positive Social Function of Traffic Congestion
Most people regard peak-hour traffic congestion as an unmitigated
evil, but that viewpoint is incorrect. Congestion is a vital de facto
device we use to ration the scarce space on our roads during periods
when too many people want to use that space at once. In effect,
congestion is a balancing mechanism that enables us to pursue many
other goals besides rapid movement--goals American society values
highly. Those goals include having a wide variety of choices about
where to live and where to work, working during similar hours so we can
interact with each other efficiently, living in low-density settlement
patterns, and enjoying highly flexible means of movement--that is,
private vehicles. The only other possible means of rationing highway
space when too many people want to use it would be (1) charging high
tolls to keep many people off the roads then, which most Americans
decisively reject because it would unduly favor the wealthy, or (2)
spending enormously more money to build enough roads to handle all
peak-hour traffic without delays. But that would require turning
metropolitan areas into virtual cement slabs--which would be
environmentally undesirable and prohibitively costly. Since we wisely
reject those means of allocating road space, we must use delays from
overcrowding in order to pursue the other goals we want to achieve. So
congestion makes possible large-scale social benefits as well as the
costs of delay on which most people focus when they think about it.
Peak-Hour Congestion Is Inevitably Going to Get Worse All Over the
World
Because it performs a critical rationing function, traffic
congestion is inescapable in large modern and modernizing metropolitan
areas all over the world. In fact, it is certain to get worse in almost
all of those areas, because populations are growing, and higher
fractions of those increased populations will be using private vehicles
for movement. So the biggest future ground transportation problem
everywhere in the world will be coping with immense increases in the
number of vehicles in use. In the United States, since 1980, we have
added 1.2 cars, trucks, or buses to our registered vehicle population
for every one person added to our human population. (This ratio was
1.49 to 1 in the 1980's, but declined to 1 to 1 in the 1990's.) In
addition, we have increased the average number of miles each vehicle is
driven each year. Hence total vehicle miles traveled increased by 72
percent from 1980 to 1998; whereas our total population increased by
less than 20 percent.
In the 1990's, we added 32 million persons to our human population,
and we may do so again in each of the next two decades. Unless American
behavior changes radically, that means we will add as many as 64
million more vehicles to our registered vehicle population by 2020.
Coping with the added traffic generated by this increase will be the
main challenge to our ground transportation policy in the next two
decades. Without doubt, traffic congestion will get worse because of
these population dynamics.
Peak-Hour Congestion Is Almost Impossible to Eliminate Once It has
Appeared
Once peak-hour congestion appears on a major roadway, it cannot be
entirely eliminated by expanding the capacity of that road, though its
duration can be reduced. That is because of the operation of the
Principle of Triple Convergence. If the road's capacity is expanded,
traffic at first moves faster on that road. But soon people realize
this, and start altering their behavior. Drivers converge on the
expanded road from other routes they have been using to escape
congestion, from other times they have been using to avoid it, and even
from other modes like buses or trains. Soon the increase in vehicles
overloads the expanded road once again until traffic at the peak hour
is moving no faster than before. True, the peak period may be shorter
and the number of vehicles carried by the road each hour may be larger,
since the road's capacity has been expanded. But traffic during the
peak period will move no faster than before the road's capacity was
increased. This means we cannot ``build our way out of congestion'' by
expanding road capacity on crowded expressways or other key routes,
once peak-hour congestion has appeared on them.
Another obstacle to ``building our way out of congestion'' is that
expanded roads may attract more new development along their routes,
generating more traffic than before the roads were expanded. This is
particularly likely in fast-growing metropolitan areas.
Yet American Society Will Need to Spend Heavily on Road Construction in
the Future
Though we cannot build our way out of existing congestion, large
future spending on road capacity will certainly be needed for two
reasons. The first is to maintain existing roads and bridges, many of
which are in serious need of repairs. Existing roadways are almost
certain to carry much more traffic in the future than any new roads
built, since the former serve large already-existing population
centers; whereas new roads will mainly serve lower-density growth
areas. That makes improving existing roads a very high priority goal.
The second reason is to provide mobility for new-growth areas, most
of which will be located on the peripheries of existing metropolitan
regions. As settlements expand outward, new roads will be necessary to
create mobility for their residents. Some advocates of ``smart growth''
argue that most future population increases should be accommodated by
raising densities in already-built-up areas, rather than by expanding
outward in more ``sprawl.'' Some increases in density will probably
occur. But residents of most American neighborhoods do not want higher
densities and will resist them vehemently, as experience clearly shows.
Therefore, the chance that even a majority of future growth will occur
through higher densities rather than though more outward development is
very small. A lot more roads will be needed to provide mobility for
residents of those new outlying areas.
Emphasis on Measuring the Aggregate Costs of Congestion Tend to
Exaggerate Its Pain
The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) has developed useful
measures of traffic congestion, and changes in it over time, for a
large number of major metropolitan areas. But the way these measures
are expressed tends to exaggerate the amount of pain inflicted upon the
American driving public. TTI estimates that the greatest annual delay
from congestion in 1999 per person occurred in the Los Angeles region
and equaled 56 hours; the average annual delay per person for 68
regions was 36 hours. 56 hours is a whole week of 8-hour days, and that
certainly seems like a lot of wasted time. But when divided by 240
working days, and then by 2 for two trips per day, the average delay
per person was 7.0 minutes per one-way commuting trip in the worst case
(Los Angeles) and only 4.5 minutes for all 68 regions. When viewed this
way, the ``excess'' time spent commuting does not seem so immense,
though we all tend to remember the worst delays as being close to the
average. This is the price we pay for rationing the scarce space on our
roadways during peak hours so we can pursue all those other goals I
mentioned at the outset of this testimony.
Americans Strongly Prefer Moving in Private Vehicles to Using Public
Transit
Most Americans prefer using private vehicles for mobility instead
of public transit because private vehicles have many superior traits.
These include greater comfort, more flexibility as to timing, ability
to perform several tasks on one trip, greater speed, more privacy,
and--if parking is free--possibly lower costs. The average automobile
commuting trip in 1990 was about 22 minutes; whereas the average bus
commuting trip was 36 minutes and the average rail commuting trip was
45 minutes. Thus, any major shift from private vehicles to transit
would increase the average amount of time spent commuting.
The strong preference among Americans for moving in private
vehicles is shown by data from the 1995 nationwide Personal
Transportation Survey. Over 90 percent of all work trips were in
private vehicles, vs. 3.7 percent on public transit. (Since a large
fraction of all public transit work trips are in New York City, if that
city's trips are removed, only about 2.2 percent of commuters outside
New York City use public transit.) Counting all types of trips, 86.1
percent were in private vehicles, and only 1.8 percent on public
transit.
Transit advocates have pointed out that transit usage has recently
grown faster in percentage terms than miles driven in private vehicles.
Therefore, in December 2000, the Surface Transportation Policy Project
(STPP) claimed that ``Growth in public transit exceeds growth in
driving.'' But transit usage is so tiny compared to driving that even
very small percentage gains in highway travel involve vastly larger
absolute increases miles traveled than much larger percentage gains in
transit travel. In 1999, the year about which STPP said that ``Growth
in public transit exceeds growth in driving,'' total transit travel
grew by about 1.7 billion passenger miles. But car passenger travel
grew at least 51 billion miles, and travel in all small private
vehicles (excluding motorcycles and buses) increased at least 80
billion miles. Thus, the annual increases in highway passenger miles
traveled in 1999 exceeded those in transit passenger miles by ratios of
either 31 or 48 to 1. That hardly indicates that growth in transit was
exceeding growth in driving!
More Spending Is Needed for Public Transit Too--But Much of It Should
Be for a Different Kind of Transit
The nation's public transit systems also need major future
investments, but they should aim at making significant changes in the
way public transit is provided. Future public transit expansion should
focus on smaller-scale, more flexible, and less heavily regulated means
of movement that are feasible for serving relatively low-density
settlement patterns, which will remain dominant. Improving such forms
of public transit will be vital in serving portions of the population
unable to drive, especially the rapidly rising very elderly population.
Major spending on fixed-rail systems, including light rail, is not
likely to be very efficient at meeting our most pressing public transit
needs. Moreover, expanding public transit is also not likely to reduce
future traffic congestion much, if any. Some of the regions with very
extensive public transit systems also have among the most intensive
traffic congestion, including Washington, Boston, St. Louis, and San
Francisco.
How Could Future Traffic Congestion Be Reduced?
What devices exist for improving future congestion levels--even
though some worsening of congestion probably cannot be prevented? There
are no total remedies, and not even many approaches that might slow
down increases in future congestion. However, the following tactics
seem the most promising:
Coping with Accidents and Incidents as Causes of
Congestion Delays. Many experts--including the TTI--believe accidents
and incidents are the single most important cause of traffic
congestion. Accident rates per 100 million miles driven have been
steadily declining, partly because a higher fraction of traffic is
occurring on better designed roads, especially interstate highways. But
the absolute number of accidents has stabilized because of increased
driving. Probably the most effective way of reducing accident-caused
congestion on major roadways consists of faster removal of accidents
from traffic lanes using roving teams of specialists controlled by
traffic management centers. Many States already have created such
centers, but their effectiveness could be improved with more sensors
and more roving teams of obstacle removing specialists. This requires
intensive coordination of police, fire, health-care, towing, and
communications agencies in each jurisdiction.
Shifting Some Future Growth to Smaller Regions. Multiple
regressions based on TTI congestion measures show that congestion is
most serious in the largest metropolitan areas, and those experiencing
absolutely large amounts of population growth. Smaller areas are not as
seriously affected by congestion even if they have high percentage
growth rates. Hence one long-range offset to congestion would be
shifting more population growth to smaller metropolitan areas. True,
that is difficult to do through public policies. Most larger areas want
to keep on growing, and they have important advantages of scale to
attract future development. Yet any individual or organization
extremely frustrated by congestion can greatly improve his, her, or its
mobility by moving to a much smaller metropolitan area.
Using HOT Lanes to Provide Drivers on Congested Roads
with a Fast Choice. On already-heavily congested expressways, HOT lanes
(High-Occupancy-Toll lanes) can offer a high-speed peak-hour mobility
alternative to those drivers willing to pay tolls, without forcing all
those not willing to pay tolls to drive at other times. HOT lanes
accept both High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) and Single Occupancy
Vehicles (SOVs) if the latter pay a toll during peak hours. The toll is
variable, and it is set high enough to keep traffic on such lanes low
enough to permit rapid traffic flow. This arrangement does not
eliminate all congestion on such roads, but offers drivers a choice of
rapid movement through paying high tolls or congested movement without
tolls. Hence HOT lanes are politically superior to putting tolls on all
the lanes in the roadway, which eliminates the choice of traveling
without tolls on that roadway during peak hours. However, HOT lanes
should be created only by adding new lanes to the roadway or converting
HOV lanes, not by converting existing non-toll lanes to HOT lane use.
Metering Access to Expressways. Metering entry-points
onto expressways so as to slow entering flows appears to have some
potential for increasing the average speed during peak hours, according
to experience in Seattle. However, it may shift some previous
congestion to lines of people waiting to get onto the expressways
through the meters.
Adding Capacity at Specific Bottlenecks. Where traffic
flows suffer from definite bottlenecks, expanding the capacity of those
bottlenecks might speed flows over the whole network of which they are
a part. However, doing this is often difficult technically, and may be
controversial as well. An example of both problems is the major traffic
bottleneck created by the San Francisco Bay Bridge.
Moving Home and Job Closer Together. One tactic an
individual can use to cut commuting time is moving either home or job
so they are closer together. This can be quite effective for one
person, but may be difficult for a household in which more than one
person works outside the home. It is also difficult in regions with
very high housing costs, such as the San Jose and San Francisco areas.
Get Used to Traffic Congestion
No matter what public policies are adopted in response to future
traffic congestion, it is likely to get worse in nearly all parts of
the world. So my final advice is: Get accustomed to it. Commute in an
air-conditioned car with a stereo radio, a tape deck and CD player, a
hands-free telephone, a micro-wave oven, and a fellow passenger whose
company you enjoy. Realize that congestion is providing benefits to you
by rationing the roads you use and letting you pursue other goals
besides rapid movement. In short, learn to treat being stuck in traffic
as part of your normal leisure life, because it's here to stay.
references
1. David Schrank and Tim Lomax, The 2001 Urban Mobility Report
(Texas Transportation Institute, May 2001).
2. Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation's Travel: 1995
nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, Early Results Report
(Washington D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, September 1997).
3. Anthony Downs, Stuck in Traffic (Washington D.C.: The Brookings
Institution and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992).
4. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
2000 (Washington D.C: Government Printing Office, 2001). Data on
population and vehicle registrations.
5. Applied Research and Development Facilities and Activities, part
of Cal Poly Foundation, Evaluating the Operation Impacts of a Variable-
Toll Express Lane Facility in the SR91 Corridor , http://
airship.ardfa.calpoly.edu/sr91/sr91main.htm. An in-depth study of the
longest-established HOT lanes project in America.
6. Alan E. Pisarski, Commuting In America II (Lansdowne, Virginia:
Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., 1996).
______
Responses of Anthony Downs to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. In your testimony, you restate in different terms the
TTI estimate of delay from congestion, based on 1999 figures. At the
hearing, Dr. Lomax of TTI gave updated numbers. Specifically, he
testified that ``The penalty [from congestion] in areas with
populations between 500,000 and 3 million increased by 300 percent
[since 1982] . . . Total hours in travelers in the[se] 76 [largest
metropolitan] areas were delayed increased from 750 million in 1982 to
3.6 billion in 2000. Do you have any dispute with that testimony?
Response. I have not analyzed the Texas Transportation Institute's
(TTI's) method of computing hourly and dollar costs of congestion in
detail, and I have great respect for Tim Lomax. So I have no reason to
dispute his assertions about these costs.
Question 2. You testified that ``the 'excess' time spent commuting
does not seem so immense''. In light of Dr. Lomax' testimony, what is
your opinion of the real dollar cost in lost time and productivity,
increased insurance premiums, auto maintenance, and collision repair
for the average rush hour commuter in these 76 areas?
Response. The reason I said that ``the time spent commuting does
not seem so immense'' involves dividing TTI's estimates down to their
daily impact upon individual commuters. For example, he says that
``total hours of delay in the 76 largest metropolitan areas amounted to
3.6 billion in 2000.'' In 2000, the 76 largest metropolitan areas (MSAs
only) contained 160,288,549 residents. In 2000, 46.8 percent of the
population was employed. If that ratio were true in these 76 areas,
that would be 75.015 million workers living there. If 90 percent drove
to work, which is the national average, that would be 67.514 million
auto commuters (not counting those on buses who would also experience
congestion). Thus, 3.6 billion hours divided by 67.514 million
commuters is 51.8 hours per commuter per year in 2000. But there are
240 working days each year, and 2 commuting trips per day. That is 480
trips for each commuter. 51.8 hours equals 3,108 minutes. That number
divided by 480 equals an average of 6.48 minutes of delay per commuting
trip. That does not seem nearly as immense a figure as 3.6 billion
hours for the whole year, but it is the same number.
Furthermore, because people experience commuting delays a little
bit at a time, it is not clear to me that they could make as productive
use of this lost time as the totals might imply. 51.8 hours per
commuter per year is more than an entire work week. But if you saved
6.48 minutes per trip each day, you would not have one block of more
time equal to 51.8 hours to use--you would have 480 blocks of 6.48
minutes each. That is why I believe aggregating these numbers into
totals exaggerates the real loss that people experience, and the
alternate uses to which they could in theory put that time.
I cannot compute the ``real dollar cost in lost time and
productivity, increased insurance premiums, auto maintenance, and
collision repair for the average rush hour commuter.'' However, I can
tell you that the absolute number of automobile accidents in the United
States has not risen much in recent years, in spite of large increases
in vehicle miles driven. Thus, from 1990 to 2000, when vehicle miles
driven in the entire United States rose by 28.6 percent, the absolute
number of vehicles of all types involved in accidents increased by only
0.5 percent, and the number involved in fatal accidents declined by 3.7
percent. So I see no reason that commuting has caused more collisions
(since there aren't many more collisions) or higher insurance premiums
or repair costs in the period from 1990 to 2000.
Question 3. Please quantify, with as much particularity as you are
able, the detrimental impact on our environment (in terms of air
quality in the nation's 76 largest metropolitan areas) of traffic
congestion.
Response. It is impossible to quantify the detrimental impact of
traffic congestion in air quality in the 76 largest metropolitan areas
because that impact varies immensely from one region to another, and
from one place to another within each region. Air quality is greatly
influence by local topography, local wind currents, and other factors
that make any large generalizations about its overall reaction to
commuting suspect. No doubt congestion does add to the pollutants in
the air by keeping people in their cars with their motors running
longer than they would be if there were no congestion.
But no large metropolitan area in the world can function
efficiently without traffic congestion during peak periods. Traffic
congestion is a necessary balancing mechanism in the efficient
operation of modern life, which requires most people to work during the
same hours so they can interact easily. Therefore, we need some way to
ration the limited space on our roads among the many people who want to
use them at the same time--far more people than they can hold
simultaneously. There are only two other ways to ration that space: by
charging money to enter it, and by building so many roads that everyone
who wants to travel in peak periods can do so without delay. The latter
is impossible as long as we all work the same hours, because it would
be immensely costly and turn each region into one giant concrete slab.
The former is not politically acceptable to Americans. Therefore, we
have to have congestion to function efficiently, since that requires
most people in each region to work about the same hours each day.
Question 4. Please describe, with as much particularity as you are
able, what you believe to be an acceptable level of environmental
impact, in terms of air quality, resulting from traffic congestion in
the nation's 76 largest metropolitan areas.
Response. I am not an air quality specialist, so I cannot describe
what is ``an acceptable level of air quality'' resulting from traffic
congestion. However, I believe the current method of measuring air
quality in individual regions is not reliable. As I understand it, a
region's air is considered polluted if it violates pollution standards
for a tiny percentage of all the observations made in that region
during an entire year. But I leave this esoteric subject to specialists
in the relevant regulatory agencies--especially the Environmental
Protection Agency--who understand it better than I do.
Question 5. For those of us not so sanguine about traffic
congestion as the view expressed in your testimony that ``in effect,
congestion is a balancing mechanism that enables us to pursue many
other goals beside rapid movement'', would you please describe, with as
much particularity as you are able, all of the detrimental/deleterious
effects to our society from traffic congestion?
Response. Congestion does cost people time lost sitting in traffic,
but that is the price they are willing to pay for being able to pursue
other goals they prefer over getting to work sooner. Those goals
include having a wide choice of places to live and work, being able to
perform more than one purpose on a single trip, working at the same
time as other people for the efficient operation of the economy, buying
lower-cost homes that are located far out, living in low-density
settlements, and working in scattered low-density workplaces. If many
people really placed a huge value on minimizing the time they spent
commuting, they would move closer to their jobs, or take jobs closer to
where they work, or move to smaller regions where congestion is low.
Some do, but most do not because they still prefer pursuing other goals
over minimizing their commuting time.
Congestion also increases air pollution and consumes more fuel than
would be the case if there were no congestion. But we cannot live in
large-scale settlements without peak-hour congestion, for reasons set
forth above. If Congress were really interested in conserving fuel and
reducing air pollution, it would substantially raise gasoline taxes, as
most other developed nations have done. But Congress is clearly not
very interested in reducing fuel consumption or air pollution if doing
so would incur political costs, which it would because the members know
that many Americans would object. Most Americans are not interested in
reducing national fuel consumption or air pollution either--if doing so
would cost them more, which it would.
Long congestion also makes people irritable and increases tension.
This is more likely on days when congestion is unexpectedly long
because of some unusual incident than on typical days, because people
get used to their ``normal'' delays.
Question 6. In your testimony, you assert that we cannot ``build
our way out of congestion'' because drivers will divert to newly
expanded roads with better travel times, or expanded roads may attract
new development, thus generating more traffic. This phenomenon is often
referred to as ``induced traffic.'' How would you describe the positive
social benefit of ``induced traffic'' in terms of increased mobility or
congestion?
Response. ``Induced traffic'' usually means that, if more roads are
built, more development will take place along those roads, increasing
the traffic flows on them. That is different from the ``Principle of
Triple Convergence,'' which states that expanding the capacity of a
freeway that is already experiencing peak-hour overloading will cause
people who are already traveling in some other manner to shift onto the
expanded freeway during peak hours from (1) other routes, (2) other
times, and (3) other modes, such as transit. Such shifting will
continue until the freeway is just as overloaded as it was before the
capacity gain, although the peak period may be shorter and more cars
will be able to move on the freeway during that period. Thus, ``induced
traffic'' refers to the creation of additional traffic from people who
are not present today; whereas the ``Principle of Triple Convergence''
refers to people who are already commuting but would rearrange their
behavior in response to more freeway capacity.
``Induced traffic'' is one way of looking at the result of building
roads out into vacant land around a metropolitan area. The existence of
the roads makes living in those now-vacant areas more convenient,
thereby encouraging developers to build housing and other improvements
along those roads. This provides a social benefit to the people who
occupy that housing or use those other improvements. In fact, it is
impossible to avoid creating ``induced traffic'' in areas experiencing
rapid population growth, which usually occurs at the edge of each
region. As more people occupy homes there, a need arises for more roads
to serve them--as will surely be the case in the next 20 years in the
U.S. But when those roads are built, that encourages still more people
to move there. But, after all, those more people will have to live
somewhere. ``Induced traffic'' is thus an almost inescapable
accompaniment to population growth. Stopping ``induced traffic'' would
require stopping most future growth, or at least growth in outlying
areas. But that is not consistent with the likely future growth of the
United States at over 1 percent per year.
Senator Smith's questions display some frustration about the idea
that congestion is a necessary and inescapable part of modern life in
large metropolitan areas. But it performs a vital social function--that
of rationing road space during peak hours. I sympathize with that
frustration, which is only natural in light of increasing congestion.
But alternatives to rising traffic congestion--such as road pricing or
raising gasoline taxes sky high--are understandably unpalatable to
Congress.
As our society gets more populous, our traffic congestion is going
to get worse because we are not willing to adopt those measures that
would prevent it from doing so. Most Americans accept rising congestion
as better than those alternative measures, although they like to
complain about the resulting congestion. But it is futile to rage
against rising congestion if we are not willing to pay the price of
adopting those policies that would prevent congestion from rising. The
only other alternative is to halt the nation's population growth. But
we cannot stop babies from being born or people from crossing our
border into the United States without also adopting policies that we do
not regard as acceptable. So rising congestion is inescapable under
present political and economic conditions. That is why I urge people to
get used to it, and learn to enjoy it as best they can!
__________
Statement of C. Kenneth Orski, Editor/Publisher, Innovation Briefs
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: My name is C. Kenneth
Orski. I am editor and publisher of Innovation Briefs, a bi-monthly
publication which has been reporting and interpreting developments in
the transportation sector for the past 13 years. Innovation Briefs, I
am pleased to say, has a wide and influential audience that includes
congressional staffs, Federal, State and local transportation
officials, newspaper editors, business leaders, association executives,
and transportation professionals. My testimony today is based on
observations acquired in the course of gathering and analyzing
information for our publication. These observations draw on recent
briefings and conference presentations, and on interviews and personal
communications with members of the transportation community in
Washington, and with State and local transportation officials across
the country.
My overall conclusion is that we enter this reauthorization cycle
with fewer issues that might divide the transportation community, and
with a larger measure of a consensus among major stakeholders than at
any other time in recent history. Unlike the last reauthorization
cycle, when interest groups jockeyed for position and floated a number
of competing proposals, this time around I find near-universal
sentiment that we ought to buildupon the combined legacy of ISTEA and
TEA-21rather than engage in a bruising fight to reinvent the Federal
surface transportation program. To be sure, there will be some
proposals for changes, but these are likely to be refinements to
program delivery rather than radical changes in the program structure
itself.
Turning to specifics, I discern a large degree of consensus within
the transportation industry and among major stakeholder groups on
several policy directions:
Protecting the Highway Trust Fund
There is unanimous agreement, I believe, that the budgetary
``firewall'' protections and the principle of guaranteed minimum levels
of annual spending should be preserved. At the same time, everyone
recognizes that some refinements in the RABA formula will be necessary
in order to prevent dramatic year-to-year swings in highway funding,
such as occurred this year.
Increasing Program Flexibility
Similarly, there appears to be much support for greater program
flexibility, i.e. giving Federal-aid recipients greater freedom to
transfer funds between major programs and between sub-categories within
programs. While a good deal of flexibility already exists, there is
support for clarifying and enhancing this flexibility, perhaps by
reducing the number of existing set-asides and sub-allocations.
Congestion Mitigation
Traffic congestion is viewed by all as a serious national problem
that requires a national response. There appears to be a large measure
of consensus within the transportation community that the response
should include both capacity expansion and improvements in the
operation of existing facilities--although opinions among stakeholders
differ as to the proper balance to be accorded to these two major
traffic mitigation strategies. My own belief is that, while operational
strategies can help to some extent to reduce congestion due to
accidents and vehicle breakdowns (the so-called ``non-recurrent''
congestion), only additional highway capacity, in the form of new lanes
and design changes, can decrease or eliminate recurrent bottlenecks
caused by too many vehicles trying to squeeze into too few highway
lanes. Proponents of the ``you-can't-build-your-way-out-of-traffic-
congestion'' school of thought seem to ignore the fact that additional
highway lanes, even if eventually they do fill up with traffic, help to
accommodate increased population growth and economic development. After
all, schools and hospitals in areas of rapid growth also eventually
fill up with students and patients, yet this never has stopped us from
building more schools and more hospitals to fill growing demand.
A comprehensive Federal attack on the problem of traffic congestion
might take the form of a specific ``bottleneck reduction'' program
(along the lines suggested by the American Highway Users Alliance),
supplemented by a program of operational improvements designed to
squeeze more capacity out of existing facilities. Bottleneck reduction
can often be achieved without major new construction by eliminating the
sources of traffic flow instability, such as inadequate acceleration
and deccelertion lanes, and lane constriction (e.g., three lanes of
traffic funneling into two lanes.) Operational improvements would rely
heavily on the application of advanced intelligent transportation
system (ITS) technologies, to strengthen emergency response, improve
detection and clearance of accidents (incident management), promote
wider dissemination of real-time weather and traffic information to the
traveling public, improve work zone management and establish more
regional Traffic Management Centers.
Environmental Streamlining
Simplifying and accelerating the process of highway project review
and approval is viewed as a critical priority by large segments of the
transportation community . While current efforts of the Federal Highway
Administration to streamline procedures through administrative action
are commendable, the transportation community, I believe, is looking to
Congress to provide more explicit legislative directions to reduce the
delays that have plagued the project implementation process. Issues
that call for congressional resolution include establishing uniform
ground rules and timelines for dispute resolution; further reducing or
eliminating the Federal review process for minor projects; setting
maximum time limits for federally required reviews for major projects;
clarifying responsibilities and requirements under NEPA in Section
4(f); and giving States and localities greater authority to sign off on
environmental reviews through self-certification.
The environmental community's position on environmental
streamlining reforms is not clear at this time. To my knowledge, no
overt opposition to expediting the project approval process has been
expressed by environmental groups so far, perhaps because
transportation officials have been careful to stress that advocacy of
environmental streamlining should not be construed as an attack on
environmental values, and that project delivery can be streamlined
without hurting the environment.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program
Continued Federal support of the ITS program remains a high
priority for large segments of the transportation community. Specific
objectives advocated by the ITS community include initiatives to
encourage regional partnerships for coordinated ITS operations;
deployment of ITS technology to enhance highway operations and to
increase the efficiency and security of intermodal freight movement;
and programs to expand freeway and arterial monitoring instrumentation
in metropolitan areas (currently, only 22 percent of the urban freeway
network and virtually no arterials are instrumented). Another
frequently mentioned idea is the creation of a national
``infostructure'' network, capable of collecting and sharing
transportation system condition and performance information covering
the entire national highway system. Such a national communication
network could become an integral and vital part of a homeland security
infrastructure, available in times of national emergency for evacuation
and mobilization purposes.
Transit Issues: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Increased funding, especially for New Starts, is likely to dominate
the transit industry's reauthorization agenda. According to the latest
Annual Report on New Starts published by the Federal Transit
Administration, there are some 50 rail projects in preliminary
engineering or final design. These projects represent a potential
demand of $30-35 billion. Another several dozen projects, worth $70-75
billion, are in the alternatives analysis stage. While the transit
industry is not expected to seek funding for all these projects, this
begins to define the level of future demand for new starts projects in
the eyes of the transit community.
Carving out a bigger role for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which is now
undergoing a series of demonstrations, could significantly reduce the
need for transit capital funding. According to the General Accounting
Office, Bus Rapid Transit shows promise of offering a level of service
comparable to that of light rail transit (LRT) at a fraction of their
cost (an average of $9 million/mile for BRT vs $34.8 million/mile for
LRT--Report GAO-01-984). Many transit experts believe that Bus Rapid
Transit could lead to a new generation of more flexible, less expensive
New Starts.
High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) Lane Networks
However, for Bus Rapid Transit to offer service quality comparable
to that of rail (and to make it eligible for New Starts funding) the
buses must be able to run in reserved lanes that are congestion-free
even in peak periods. This has led to proposals to convert and expand
existing stretches of HOV lanes into seamless networks of high
occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes in major metropolitan areas. The HOT lanes
would be open to buses and carpools without charge and to single-
occupant cars for a fee. By varying the fee according to demand with
the help of electronic transponders (as is already being done on the I-
15 HOT lanes in San Diego), the number of single-occupant cars seeking
entry to the HOT lanes could be restrained to maintain free-flowing
traffic conditions at all times, thus ensuring the integrity of the Bus
Rapid Transit concept. Funds to develop and operate the HOT lane
networks could come from a combination of existing Federal-aid highway
funds, a New Starts BRT set-aside, and tolls collected from single-
occupant vehicles using the reserved lanes.
Surveys of motorists on the SR 91 Express Lanes in Orange County
show that people of all income levels choose to use the toll lanes when
saving time is really important to them. Indeed, a utility van or a
pickup truck is a far common sight on California's HOT lanes than a
Lexus. A recent study of the High Occupancy/Toll lanes on I-15 north of
San Diego indicates that public opinion strongly favors priced lanes
that offer the option of a faster and more reliable trip. As existing
urban freeways become more and more congested and as travel on them
becomes increasingly slower and less reliable, I believe there will be
plenty of people and businesses willing to pay for the privilege of
traveling in congestion-free lanes. Such HOT networks would benefit not
only individual travelers, freight movers and goods deliverers who need
a fast and reliable way to reach their destination, but also users of
general purpose lanes, which would become less congested as some
traffic switched to the toll lanes. In my judgment, a congressionally
authorized program of HOT Lane networks-built as enabling
infrastructure for Bus Rapid Transit but also available as a paying
option to individual drivers who seek a faster and more reliable trip-
would be an eloquent expression of the increasingly intermodal nature
of our Federal surface transportation program.
``Essential Intercity Bus Services''
While the subject of Amtrak and intercity transportation falls
outside the scope of this hearing, there is one aspect of it that may
be of potential concern to this committee. The restructuring of Amtrak
and the potential abandonment of some of its unprofitable intercity
rail corridors, may create serious mobility deficiencies in many
communities across America. One solution would be to establish a
network of intercity buses to take the place of the discontinued train
services. The bus network would connect small towns and rural
communities to regional airports and to transportation hubs in larger
cities. The bus services could be run by private carriers and, where
necessary, supported by Federal subsidy payments modeled after the
congressionally authorized ``essential air services'' program (49
U.S.C. 41731). Essential air services have been maintained with Federal
subsidy support at approximately 100 communities affected by airline
deregulation. I believe a similar approach could restore mobility to
hundreds of communities threatened by possible cutbacks in intercity
rail service.
Long Term Viability of the Trust Fund
Finally, I detect a growing concern within the transportation
community about the long term capacity of the Highway Trust Fund to
finance the nation's future transportation needs. The preponderance of
opinion is that the growth in gasoline tax revenue will not keep pace
with the rising demand and cost of highway preservation, reconstruction
and rehabilitation. A growing use of ethanol-based fuels (its use
jumped 28 percent in 2001) and the long range impact of hybrid and fuel
cell vehicles is expected to further diminish the prospects for gas tax
revenue sufficiency. In the short run, shifting ethanol tax receipts
from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund might ease the
situation somewhat. But looking beyond the next reauthorization cycle,
we may have to consider entirely new approaches to Federal
transportation program financing. Hence, I join other transportation
leaders in urging a congressionally mandated study to explore
alternative financing mechanisms that would offer a stable and adequate
long-term source of transportation financing.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to
present my views.
______
Response of C. Kenneth Orski to Additional Question from Senator Smith
Question. Would you please discuss in greater detail your thoughts
on HOT lanes. What I am most interested in are your thoughts as to how
such a concept can be employed on a nation-wide scale in our bill next
year reauthorizing the Highway Trust Fund and surface transportation
programs.
Response. HOT Lanes and Bus Rapid Transit are two key ideas on
which we should build a new urban transport policy for the 21st
century. The first offers urban motorists an option of faster,
congestion-free travel, while the second promises effective mass
transit service at a fraction of the cost of new rail starts. Combined,
they offer a powerful new approach to improving urban mobility.
HOT Lanes
High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes are limited-access lane which high-
occupancy vehicles (carpools and buses) are allowed to use for free
while other vehicles gain access to them by paying a variable toll. The
lanes are ``managed'' through pricing so as to maintain free-flow
conditions even during the height of rush hours. HOT lanes have been in
operation for several years in Orange County (the SR91 Express Lanes)
and San Diego County (converted HOV lanes on I-15). More than a dozen
other HOT lane projects are in the planning process in places like
Dallas, Denver, Houston, Miami and Silicon Valley .HOT lanes have been
endorsed by the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental
groups as an innovative transportation concept that offers benefits to
all users of a congested corridor-carpoolers and transit riders as well
as automobile users.
Bus Rapid Transit
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) refers to high-capacity bus transit along
major corridors, aiming to match the capacity and level of service of
rail transit while adding the inherent flexibility of buses. For Bus
Rapid Transit to offer service quality comparable to that of rail,
buses must be able to operate in limited access, congestion-free lanes.
The best examples of high capacity BRT systems are Curitiba, Brazil and
Ottawa's Transpo where buses travel on separate dedicated busways. In
the U.S., bus rapid transit, as currently promoted by the Federal
Transit Administration, includes express-bus service on major streets
with traffic-signal preemption, on exclusive bus lanes on arterials,
and on freeway HOV lanes. The metro area that has done the best job
marrying express buses with HOV lanes is Houston.
Carving out a bigger role for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which is now
undergoing a series of demonstrations, could significantly reduce the
need for transit capital funding. According to the General Accounting
Office, Bus Rapid Transit shows promise of offering a level of service
comparable to that of light rail transit (LRT) at a fraction of their
cost (an average of $9 million/mile for BRT vs $34.8 million/mile for
LRT--Report GAO-01-984).
BRT is rapidly picking up support within the transit community,
which realizes that only a small number of communities have the fiscal
capacity to support costly rail projects and that the Federal New
Starts program can only fund a small fraction of the rail candidate
projects. Bus Rapid Transit is seen as ushering in a new generation of
less costly New Starts and extending the benefits of rapid transit to a
much larger number of communities. In the San Francisco Bay Area, both
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the grass-roots Bay Area
Transportation and Land Use Coalition have been advocating much greater
use of express buses as an alternative to multi-billion dollar rail-
transit expansion.
HOT Networks
Instead of building isolated HOV or HOT lanes on a handful of
freeway segments, the new strategy would involve creating seamless,
region-wide networks of HOT lanes, including connectors at major
freeway interchanges. A metro-area-wide HOT Network could remain
congestion-free at all times thanks to variable pricing. The HOT
network would become, in effect, a system of fixed guideways for high-
speed BRT, giving express buses a speed advantage over buses using
congested freeway lanes. At the same time, the HOT network would
provide a faster travel option for motorists for whom time savings are
really important. Tolls would be debited electronically from the users'
smart cards, thus doing away with toll booths and cash transactions.
Funds to develop and operate the HOT lane networks could come from a
combination of existing Federal-aid highway funds, a New Starts BRT
set-aside, and local funds in the form of tolls collected from single-
occupant vehicles using the reserved lanes.
Equity Issues
Some people have questioned whether solo motorists should be
allowed, as a matter of public policy, to ``buy their way out'' of
congestion. Surely, the answer must be ``yes''. There is nothing
intrinsically unfair about paying for access to a higher level of
service in our market-based economy. After all, money buys better
service in every other aspect of our lives, including transportation.
We pay higher prices for first class travel in planes. Door-to-door
taxi service costs more than slower and less convenient public
transportation. Even Amtrak, a publicly supported carrier, offers
different classes of service. Why, then, should we insist on having a
one-size-fits-all level of highway service?
Nor is it just the highly paid professionals that would benefit
from priced lanes, but anyone for whom time is a precious commodity.
That includes many ordinary people, such as workers whose job depends
on always being on time, parents racing to get to a daycare center
before the late fee kicks in, and repairmen anxious to fit in one last
appointment in a busy day. Surveys of motorists on the SR 91 Express
Lanes in Orange County, CA show that people of all income levels choose
to use priced lanes when saving time is really important to them.
Indeed, a utility van and a pickup truck are a far more common sight on
California's HOT lanes than a Lexus or a BMW.
A new study of the High Occupancy/Toll lanes on I-15 north of San
Diego indicates that public opinion strongly favors priced lanes that
offer an option of a faster and more reliable trip. A survey conducted
by Wilbur Smith Associates in the fall of 2001 found that, by a 91
percent to 7 percent margin, I-15 users think it's a good idea to have
a timesaving travel option. Surveys in Washington State have reached
similar conclusions.
This suggests that paying for the use of lanes (or roads) that
offer a premium level of service may become an accepted practice in the
years ahead. As existing urban roads become ever more congested and as
highway travel becomes increasingly slower and less reliable, there
will be more and more people and businesses willing to pay for a chance
to travel on congestion-free lanes.
In sum, the HOT Networks approach presents a situation where
everyone wins. Transit riders would win because many cities that could
not justify or would not qualify for new rail starts, would be able to
implement effective region-wide express bus service. Individual
motorists would benefit by having the option of faster and more
reliable travel on a network of congestion-free lanes when saving time
is really of importance to them. Users of regular lanes would gain
because regular lanes would become less congested as some motorists
switched to the toll lanes. And, importantly, HOT lanes would provide a
revenue stream that could be used to finance the local share of the
cost of new lanes.
A congressionally authorized program of High Occupancy/Toll (HOT)
networks-built to benefit motorists and transit users alike-would
constitute an eloquent expression of the increasingly intermodal nature
of our Federal surface transportation program.
Note: an in-depth study of HOT Network feasibility is currently
underway at the Reason Policy Institute under the direction of Robert
Poole, the Institute's Transportation Director. The study is expected
to be completed in early autumn.
______
Responses of C. Kenneth Orski to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. Constituents are frustrated with ITS Message Boards
that merely flash the news ``Congestion Ahead.'' What have been the
best examples you've seen of information sharing to commuters that was
time--sensitive and meaningful?
Response. I share your constituents' frustration with meaningless
(``Have a Nice Day'') or obvious (``Congestion Ahead'') messages on
electronic variable message boards. In partial defense, let it be noted
that, because of their relatively small size, there is not enough room
for detailed, informative messages. However, a far better job of
informing the traveling public is done on the Internet, where web sites
run by State and local transportation agencies display color-coded maps
indicating up-to-the-minute levels of congestion on the highway
network. Many such web sites also provide camera images of congestion
``hot spots,'' alert motorists about work zones and lane closures, and
give estimated trip time between origin-destination pairs on the
highway network. Good examples of effective traveler information web
sites are those of the city of Houston (traffic.tamu.edu), the
Washington State DOT (www.wsdot.wa.gov/traveler) and the Arizona State
DOT (www.azfms.org).
The obvious weakness of the Internet as a medium of time-sensitive
traveler information is that the information can only be accessed
before getting into the car. Since traffic conditions can change
rapidly, such ``pre-trip'' information is often out of date by the time
the motorist reaches a reported scene of an accident or congestion
bottleneck. This explains the continued popularity of ``drive-time''
traffic reports on the radio. Despite their alleged shortcomings
(spotty, not frequent enough, covering only key corridors) commercial
broadcasters still do the best job of keeping drivers currently
informed of traffic conditions and incidents. This may change in the
years ahead, as cars become equipped with wireless telematic terminals
that can display Internet-based messages and congestion maps. A
widespread use of in-vehicle telematics, however, is still 5-10 years
away, according to industry estimates.
Question 2. I have been concerned that the ITS deployment money in
Transportation Appropriations has recently been focused on areas that
are not identified in TTI's list of most congested cities. Your
testimony mentions that only 22 percent of the urban freeway network is
instrumented--do you share the concern that we have a lot more research
to do in urban use of ITS?
Response. The fact that only 22 percent of the urban freeway
network (and hardly any urban arterials) has been instrumented can be
attributed to several factors: the high cost of installing electronic
detection equipment (loop detectors, optical sensors, ``radio
cameras'', closed circuit video cameras, etc); the tendency to spend
available Federal money on elaborate Transportation Management Centers
rather than on roadway instrumentation; the desire to promote rural as
well as urban applications of ITS; and a reluctance by local and State
governments to give priority to ITS implementation given the many other
demands on their highway resources. I agree that highly congested urban
areas deserve priority attention in the allocation of scarce Federal
ITS deployment funds-because that's where the potential payoff for ITS
clearly is the greatest.
______
Responses of C. Kenneth Orski to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question. In your oral testimony, in summarizing the ``policy
directions and new initiatives'' for reauthorization that enjoy
widespread consensus among stakeholders, you include ``the need for
increased flexibility.'' Would you elaborate on this. In what respects
is the current program insufficiently flexible? How would increased
flexibility influence outcomes?
Response. While there already is considerable freedom to move funds
within the Federal-aid highway program and between highways and
transit, we do continue to hear calls for more flexibility. The calls
come primarily from those who would like to see an end to most
categorical set-asides and congressional earmarks, on the theory that
set asides and earmarks deprive State and local decisionmakers of the
flexibility and discretion to allocate resources according to their own
notions as to where the resources can do the most good. While one can
take issue with this position, the fact remains that calls for
``greater program flexibility'' can be found in a number of
reauthorization-related position statements, among them, those of APTA
(``preserve and enhance the flexibility for highway and transit
programs . . .''); AASHTO (``encourage greater flexibility in
transferring Federal funds''); ARTBA (increase flexibility within the
Surface Transportation Program); and STPP.
Question 2. Your analogy between hospitals and roads assumes that
the objective is both health care and transportation is to meet an
ever-increasing demand that is based solely on population growth. The
trouble with this analogy is that the need for hospital beds, or roads,
is not primarily based on population growth, but depends on many other
factors. In health care, the level of general public health determine
how many people need hospitalization.
Response. In transportation, the general accessibility level of the
community helps determine whether people need to drive to reach every
destination. In fact, what we are seeing is a growth in driving that is
far outpacing population growth. For example, Texas Transportation
Institute figures show that in Atlanta, the population grew 36 percent
between 1990 and 1999, while the amount of driving grew by 64 percent.
The distance driven by the average American in that time period
increased by 24 percent. If more roads are not inducing more travel,
what is the cause of this impressive increase in driving?
In my testimony I stated that ``proponents of the 'you-can't-build-
your-way--out-of-traffic-congestion' school of thought seem to ignore
the fact that additional highway lanes, even if eventually they do fill
up with traffic, help to accommodate increased population growth and
economic development.'' There are, of course, other factors, besides
population growth, that have contributed to the rapid increase in
vehicle-miles-of-travel (VMT) in recent times. For example, according
to the 2000 Census, metropolitan densities have dropped by more than 20
percent nationwide between 1982 and 1997 and this has led to a greater
dispersal of homes and jobs, and longer commutes. Of the 281
metropolitan areas in the Nation only 17 have become more dense during
the decade of the 1990's; all the other 264 metro areas have
decentralized, according to the 2000 Census. Another factor responsible
for a rapid increase in VMTs is the growth of two-worker households.
Today, chances are that both the husband and the wife drive to work,
thus doubling the work-related VMTs of ``traditional'' households of an
earlier era..
However, work trips are not solely responsible for the dramatic
increase in VMTs. After all, they only constitute about 25 percent of
total daily travel. Personal business trips, shopping and social/
recreational trips have actually experienced a more rapid growth. Both
types of trips are a reflection of a higher rate of economic activity,
a rising standard of living and their high contribution to VMTs is a
function of the dispersed housing location which cannot be easily
served by public transit.
Like hospital beds and school classrooms, roads fill up because of
many other factors besides population growth. But, while we are not
reluctant to meet growing demand for hospital beds and classrooms, we
seem to apply a different standard to meeting highway demand.
__________
Statement of Frederick Salvucci, Civil Engineer specializing in
Transportation, with particular interest in infrastructure, urban
transportation, public transportation, and institutional development in
decisionmaking.
Biographical Sketch
Most of his career has been in the public sector, having served as
transportation advisor to Boston Mayor Kevin White between 1970 and
1974, and then as Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts under Governor Michael Dukakis between 1975 and 1978 and
again from 1983 to 1990. In those roles he has participated in much of
the transportation planning and policy formulation in the Boston
urbanized area and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts over the past 20
years, with particular emphasis on the expansion of the transit system,
the development of the financial and political support for the Central
Artery/Tunnel Project, and the design of implementation strategies to
comply with the Clean Air Act consistent with economic growth. Other
efforts include the extension of the Red Line in South Quincy and
Alewife, the relocation of the Orange Line in Boston's Southwest
Corridor, the acquisition and modernization of the Commuter Rail
Network, the restructuring of the MBTA, the formulation of noise rules
to halt the increase in aircraft noise at Logan Airport, the
development of strategies to achieve high speed rail service between
Boston and New York, and the planning for the redevelopment of the Park
Square section of Boston through the location and construction of the
State Transportation Building there.
More recent activities have included participation in a
restructuring of commuter and rapid transit services in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, using concession contracts with private-sector companies
(the new system has improved both efficiency and effectiveness);
participation with the Volpe Center in a review of the transportation
planning process in US metropolitan areas of over 1 million people, and
participation in an innovative research and educational collaboration
with the University of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Highway and
Transportation Authority, focused on the development of a new transit
system for San Juan, Puerto Rico. The project, called Tren Urbano, is
the first design-build-operate system in the United States. Mr.
Salvucci is also a key participant in a new major MIT research project
with the Chicago Transit Authority, patterned on the Tren Urbano
program.
Mr. Salvucci teaches courses in Urban Transportation Planning,
Institutional and Policy Analysis, and Public Transportation. He
attended MIT as both an undergraduate and graduate student of Civil
Engineering, earning his Bachelor of Science in 1961 and his Master of
Science in 1962. International education includes a year at the
University of Naples as a Fulbright Scholar from 1964 to 1965, studying
the use of transportation investment to stimulate economic development
in high poverty regions of Southern Italy.
Introduction
First, let me thank the committee for the extraordinary opportunity
to participate in your consideration of the needs to be addressed in
the process of reauthorization of Federal Surface Transportation
Funding. Let me share with you my views on some key emerging issues,
based on my experience as a City and State transportation official in
Boston, Massachusetts, and more recently as an academic researcher at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
A. Emerging issues
As we anticipate the reauthorization process for the surface
transportation bill, I believe this is a useful time to step back and
re-examine the evolution of the Federal program since 1956, and the
changing needs of the Nation.
The initial impetus of the program, to create a national highway
infrastructure, has substantially been accomplished. The mechanism of
high Federal matching ratios for capital investment, stable and
reliable funding, clear Federal policy guidelines, and implementation
decentralized to the State government level, has been very successful
at creating an ubiquitous high-quality highway network. As this primary
objective has been substantially achieved, the program has evolved to
include funding for complementary modes such as transit and the urban
system, and to issues of management of operations and maintenance
(ITS). These shifts have required more complicated planning and
environmental procedures and institutional requirements, with transit
authorities, metropolitan areas and cities, and sister agencies with
environmental and public health responsibilities, playing important
roles, in addition to State highway departments. Persistent issues of
congestion, especially in suburban areas, continue to generate
intractable problems at the interface of transportation performance,
economic growth, land use, and environmental quality. Moreover, as the
system ages, deteriorating physical condition of old infrastructure
gives rise to the need for reconstruction, or redevelopment of old
urban infrastructure in complex urban environments. The Big Dig in
Boston is perhaps an extreme example of the cost and complexity of this
challenge, and is indicative of challenges ahead in a very large number
of urban areas. The need to renew and expand the bridges and tunnels
that serve Manhattan, compounded by the tragedy of September 11, is
perhaps the most vivid example, but dealing with the earthquake damaged
infrastructure in West Coast cities such as Seattle is likely to be
similarly challenging. The vulnerability of the air traffic system
exposed by the September 11 tragedy was already becoming obvious
because of the growing airport congestion, and poses the question of
the need for complementary intercity rail services and improved
``ground access'' to airports.
Finally, the unglamorous question of proper maintenance of the
existing highway network is perhaps becoming more important to the
national interest than the further expansion of the network.
I believe that our democratic political system will and should
translate these emerging problems into a demand to be as innovative and
creative with new national initiatives as were the founders of the
Interstate system.
My suggestions to anticipate and deal with these emerging issues
are these:
(1) Establish a new program to federally fund the cost of operating
and maintaining the existing national highway system, with clear
Federal guidelines and policies for planning, but a decentralized
structure to allow local flexibility for implementation. A pay-as-you-
go incentive of 1/3 Federal, 2/3 State funding would, in my judgment,
be adequate to create substantially more attention and sophistication
to this unglamorous but vital activity.
(2) Develop a new category of funding for the rebuilding and
redevelopment of old infrastructure and mega-projects. This will be a
very expensive undertaking, but one that is essential to the economic
health of the Nation. It will require high Federal matching ratios to
be affordable at the State and local levels, and will require planning
and financial mechanisms similar to those of the Interstate program.
Early costs are likely to be modest because of the long lead times
often involved, and some national planning will be required to even
develop realistic national cost estimates.
(3) Develop a new initiative to prioritize access to airports,
particularly for truck movements which are increasingly trapped in
congestion, with severe economic consequences. Again, the early costs
are likely to be modest because of lead time, but eventual costs will
be high, and require high Federal matching ratios.
(4) Develop a new program to provide Federal funding for improved
paratransit services. The dramatic growth in the aging population is
creating a mobility demand far in excess of the ``interim'' services
for the elderly and disabled provided by transit authorities for
systems which are not fully accessible. The growing need extends well
beyond the extent of many transit providers, and as transit systems
become physically accessible they could theoretically withdraw the
current limited services. To deal with this emerging issue at an
adequate level requires that it be viewed as a responsibility of the
entire transportation system (not just inaccessible public
transportation systems) and that it receive reliable Federal funding,
not be imposed as an unfunded Federal mandate. A 50-50 Federal share of
costs is probably adequate to motivate the level of effort required,
but the unserved need is great and growing, so the (Federal and State)
funding needs will grow substantially as organizational capacity to
serve the need improves.
(5) Understand and anticipate increased funding requirements for
complementary systems such as transit, intercity rail, elderly and
disabled access, and recognize that aviation funding authorizations
will be considered in the same timeframe as surface transportation
reauthorization.
(B) Implementation Considerations
For all of these emerging needs, an expanded and restructured
financial base will be required, and it is important to consider the
political and financial context of reauthorization.
The Federal role in transportation has been evolving based on a
combination of three factors:
(1) the changing needs of the Nation as a whole,
(2) The narrower needs of the transportation public agencies at the
State, metropolitan, and local level, and
(3) the needs of the transportation construction industry whose
economic viability is strongly affected by Federal transportation
authorizations and appropriations.
In many ways the evolution of the Federal program has been shaped
by these three forces, particularly in the recent history of the
program (1990 to the present), and the challenge facing the re-
authorization process of 2003. In order to balance these three
considerations, the Congress has periodically increased Federal funding
through increases in the gasoline tax so that ``new'' issues can be
addressed without weakening existing programs, but the President
appears unlikely to support this approach in 2003.
I believe that the successful balancing of these three
considerations in 2003 could best be achieved by reconsidering three
major features of the Federal program:
(1) If the pay-as-you-go philosophy, established by Eisenhower,
were partially replaced by a capital budget bonding approach, similar
to that used by every State government, the existing tax revenue
streams could support a major expansion of program to meet changing
national needs and allow expansion for all transportation agencies and
the transportation construction industry, while deferring the need to
increase gasoline taxes. If one-third of the existing revenue streams
were to be used for debt service, the program size could expand, so
that over the next 6 years, instead of approximately $145 billion it
would be possible to invest approximately $175 billion, approximately a
20 percent increase. While OMB would oppose this possible change (as it
has in the past) it would have major economic benefits to the Nation by
allowing increased investment now, producing both short-term economic
stimulus, and long-term economic growth, within the existing tax
constraints.
(2) If the State and local matching ratios were increased beyond
the 20 percent ratio now favored, national program size would increase,
and State and local accountability would grow, easing the burden on
Federal oversight somewhat. Traditional thinking has favored very low
State and local matching ratios based on the precedent of the 90/10
ratios of the Interstate highway program and the strength and
popularity of that program, and the very simple political task of
building State and local political will to raise 10" to attract 90".
But it is still a bargain to raise 33" at the local and State level and
get 67" from the Feds, and you ``leverage'' a somewhat larger program,
with more fiscal discipline at the State and local level.
(3) If the focus of the Federal role were shifted from capital
investment to include a larger component for operation and maintenance,
the effectiveness and efficiency of the overall program would increase.
An extremely large and extensive highway network has now been created,
but the operation and maintenance of that system is often inadequate
and inefficient. The ``new'' capital needs are increasingly to rebuild
older parts of the system which have deteriorated from decades of
inadequate attention to operation and maintenance.
Modification of any one of these three features alone is very
difficult, but a combination of the three could make it possible to
deal with both pressing ``new'' initiatives such as elderly and
disabled needs, environmental concerns, very expensive reinvestment and
renewal needs, and increased levels of funding for operation and
maintenance as well as continuing existing programs, allowing all major
players to ``win'' without a tax increase during the near-term future.
The current situation, with gasoline tax revenue estimates low, has
created multiple political problems. Highway appropriations have been
cut, and the beginning point for the reauthorization is lower. In a
policy area with increasing claims, a ``growing pie'' is essential to
accommodate new interests without damage to long-standing
constituencies. A ``shrinking pie'' is a disaster. This political
problem could produce the political will to partially shift to a
capital budget approach, which could produce growth rather than
shrinkage, and allow the Congress to better deal with emerging issues.
ISTEA began a process of introducing operation and maintenance
themes into the program through its management reporting systems and
``flexibility'', but these have not been fully embraced by the States
because the management reporting requirements were often treated as
perfunctory paperwork, and flexibility requires shifting money away
from some traditional activities. This proposed new combination would
allow introduction of funded operation and maintenance activities
(perhaps at ``low'' 30 percent match) that would produce the carrot for
real operation and maintenance reform, without sacrifice of capital
investment, and could really continue, deepen and consolidate the new
initiatives of ISTEA while respecting the continuing need for new
investment (and the economic and political importance of the
construction industry). It could also prepare the capacity to deal with
major national infrastructure rebuild issues such as Manhattan Post-9/
11 and (to extrapolate to the aviation re-authorization process) large
reinvestment projects like the proposed restructuring of O'Hare
Airport.
(c) Some additional clarification of conceptual proposals
Let me provide a little more explanation of the new program
initiatives I proposed earlier.
(1) Operations and/or Maintenance Funding
Such an extensive highway and transit system has now been built
that the use of what we have, and its proper maintenance, is more
important to performance of the overall system than the addition of a
new link. Yet in spite of the importance of maintenance and operations,
and the system management requirements of ISTEA, maintenance and
operations continue to be treated as afterthoughts, with sporadic
attention and funding. Most State transportation systems continue to
focus on facilities, not the operation of the system, and new
construction continues to be the most visible activity. This is partly
institutional; these agencies tend to be dominated and led by civil
engineers (like myself) who like to build things, especially new
things. New construction is exciting, highly visible, expensive, and
federally funded, so there is a lot of attention to doing the job right
(and less attention to asking if we are doing the right job). In these
organizations there is often high capacity to design and manage the
construction of new facilities coexisting with under-funded and poorly
managed maintenance, so that facilities require reconstruction because
of deferred maintenance. Traffic operations is often viewed as less
exciting, or important, and is reactive. Very little attention is given
to protecting existing capacity and safety through acquisition of
development rights, so we see sprawl development eroding highway
capacity, as well as environmental quality. In order to transform this
institutional landscape into one where improved mobility and
accessibility are the primary objectives, and sophisticated management
of facility maintenance is available to serve the accessibility mission
(while retaining capacity for excellence in the design and construction
of new facilities or the redevelopment of obsolete facilities), it is
necessary for Federal leadership to adequately fund maintenance and
operations activities and provide support for research and management
improvement. Steady reliable Federal funding, even at modest ratios
such as 30 percent, will serve to protect O&M budgets from the vagaries
of local budget fluctuation, and allow this transformation to occur.
(2) Rebuilding, redevelopment of old infrastructure and mega-
projects.
I believe that there is a large backlog of aging infrastructure in
most metropolitan areas which badly need to be renewed, replaced,
redeveloped, or augmented, but which are systematically under
prioritized in the planning and procurement systems in metropolitan
areas. Often these facilities are seen as lower priority because they
already exist. In addition, they are often intensively utilized,
creating dramatic problems of maintenance of traffic during
construction, so agencies may tend to postpone projects that will be
very difficult to manage and politically unpopular. The environmental
processing of redeveloping and/or replacing old, heavily used
facilities can be complex and time-consuming, and the high cost and
``lumpiness'' of these can be very difficult to deal with in an MPO
process, because they often require a large share of available funds on
one project in a small geographic areas over multiple years. The
combination of competition for resources from other projects, the
difficulty and potential political unpopularity, and large funding
requirements make these difficult to achieve, yet they are crucial to
the future viability of many of our major metropolitan areas.
I believe that some protection from competition, through dedication
of Federal funds at high Federal ratios, is essential to mitigate a
tendency to avoid these challenges, with long-term destructive impact
on accessibility and economic performance.
There are often suggestions that simplification of environmental
procedures would expedite these and other ``mega-projects.'' I believe
this is a dramatically mistaken view. First of all, the complexity of
the environmental process is a reflection of the real impacts that
redeveloping our infrastructure will have, on both traffic and the
environment. Moreover, old infrastructure problems are often seen as
the occasion to reconceptualize the facility and its relationship to
the environment, not simply ``rebuild'' it. Indeed, if we do not want
our regions to become a form of ``petrified wood,'' locked into
hundred-year-old patterns, reconceptualization is an appropriate and
essential activity. Developing public understanding and participation
in this process is desirable and necessary, and I believe the
environmental process is a useful way to organize this essential
participation. Given the political importance of the environmentalists
rather than picking a fight, I propose that we should strengthen the
enforceability of environmental commitments. More fundamentally, the
real delays in implementation do not come from legitimate environmental
process so much as from lack of available funding, ``predatory''
competition for funds, and agency reluctance to implement these
difficult projects. Attempting to reduce environmental process is
likely to simply increase the political unpopularity of these projects
and exacerbate the real problem, which is competition for limited
funds. Creating an adequately funded, high Federal matching ratio,
dedicated funds for these ``mega-projects'' would deal directly with
the real problem which inhibits dealing with this category of issues.
In addition, increased Federal capacity for technical support and
oversight of these projects is needed. I believe that the FTA Project
Management Oversight program which uses expert consultants responsible
to FTA to help oversee these unique projects is a good model. New
York's West Side Highway collapsing without real replacement, and the
redevelopment of Boston's Central Artery as a depressed highway, at
very high cost, are good examples of the range of possibilities, and
the importance of this issue.
(3) Airport Access
This represents another category of accessibility likely to be very
important to the economy, but underprioritized in the metropolitan area
process. Airports and the aviation industry zealously oppose any idea
of responsibility to deal with landside access. Additionally, port
authorities tend to make money from parking and rent-a-car revenues,
leading to a lack of advocacy or even support for improved public
transportation access to airports. Truck access to airports, presumably
very important for high-value goods, generally receives no particular
attention. In the competition for scarce funds at the metropolitan area
level, airport and other intermodal access is often a bit of an orphan
(similar to rebuild and mega-projects). Again, a separate high Federal
matching ratio dedicated fund for airport and intermodal facilities
could help ensure adequate attention to this important area. Since the
reauthorization of aviation funding is under consideration by Congress
at the same time as the surface transportation authorization, it should
be possible to introduce symmetrical provisions in the aviation
reauthorization to create some responsibility and funding to prioritize
landside access. If some matching share from the airport proprietor
were required to access dedicated surface transportation funds for
airport and inter-terminal access, an incentive could be created to
encourage a more proactive attitude by airport operators.
(4) Elderly and disabled paratransit services.
Currently, most paratransit services for the elderly and/or
disabled population are provided by public transportation providers
whose fixed-route services have not yet achieved full ADA
accessibility. There are several problems inherent in this situation:
a) Funding the paratransit service competes directly with funds to
operate fixed-route bus and rail services, and weakens fare recovery
ratios. (Paratransit fares typically cover only 5-10 percent of
operating costs.)
b) This leads transit providers to consider the paratransit an
``unfunded Federal mandate,'' and provide paratransit service of lower
than desirable quality, and (because of budget and fare-recover ratio
constraints) reduce fixed-route service.
c) As fixed-route service comes into compliance with ADA, the legal
obligation to provide paratransit service is removed, but approximately
50 percent of the clients cannot really use ``accessible'' fixed-route
service, creating a potential crisis.
d) Outside of fixed-route transit districts, paratransit services
are less available.
e) The aging population, some of whom should not drive but still
need mobility, is growing dramatically.
For all of these reasons I believe we should recognize that we are
dealing with a problem of access to society, not access to fixed-route
systems, for growing numbers of people, and that this is a
transportation system responsibility, to be funded (at a 50-50 level)
by Federal funds with Federal planning and service characteristics, in
order to provide reasonable access and mobility to the full population.
This could be a building block toward creating institutions focused on
mobility and accessibility rather than exclusively on facilities.
(5) Intercity rail and bus services to complement aviation in the
aftermath of 9/11.
Partly because of the ongoing fiscal problems of Amtrak, partly
because of the increased aviation travel times caused by the increased
security in the aftermath of 9/11, intercity rail and bus facilities
are likely to be seen as increasingly legitimate claimants for a share
of transportation funding. While this will raise complex institutional
issues which neither States nor MPOs are perfectly suited to encompass,
I believe there is legitimacy to the public claim and that it would be
prudent to anticipate a need for a new funding initiative here, at
least for capital.
(6) Implementation of reauthorization.
Again, given the combination of legitimate increased public claims
for participation, the reduced level of gasoline tax receipts, and the
likelihood of great resistance to increasing the gasoline tax before
the next election, and that the historic reality has been that the
surface transportation act reauthorization require ``all winners,'' I
believe that re-opening the question of a capital budget approach to
surface transportation is the best hope to create adequate room to go
forward with a broad consensus.
To be sure, using part of the current revenue streams for bonding
allows increased investment in the short run, but requires either
ending some capital investment or increasing the gasoline tax at some
point in the future. But either of those outcomes is better than the
status quo. Bonding costs are at or lower than the rate of inflation in
the construction industry, so dealing with investment needs sooner
through bonding does not cost more. On the contrary, it provides both
short-term economic stimulus and long-term economic growth, both of
which are desirable. It is the way every homeowner in America buys a
house, most private investment is financed, and every State and City
government invests. If, in 6 years new investments are curtailed, we're
better off to have had the investment early. If, on the other hand a
unified constituency successfully lobbies to increase the gasoline tax
so investment can continue, that's even better.
In the short term, we need a strategy to incorporate ``new''
claimants and environmentalists in support of an expanded surface
transportation authorization, and I believe these suggestions can help
us get there.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
______
Responses of Frederick Salvucci to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. You raise an important point about highway maintenance.
It is as important, or more so, than new construction. Do you feel that
poorly maintained roads and bridges cause congestion?
Response. Senator Graham, I support your view that maintenance is
as important as new construction, if not more so. I believe there is a
complex interrelationship between poor maintenance of roads and
bridges, and congestion, and that increased Federal attention and
funding could produce improved management of maintenance with
beneficial effect in reducing congestion. When poor maintenance leads
to closure or load limits on bridges there can be dramatic impact on
congestion as vehicles are forced to re-route to other route where they
may cause congestion. Generally, maintenance and operations are under-
funded at the local level. Consequently, responsible officials tend to
carry out maintenance in the ``cheapest'' manner for the agency budget,
even if that means causing congestion and shifting costs to motorists.
Carrying out some maintenance activities at night may lower congestion
impacts to motorists, but will cost the agency more money from an
already inadequate maintenance budget, so the agency is likely to use
higher cost/lower congestion methods only when forced to do so by
political pressure on very high-traffic routes. Moreover,
reconceptualizing maintenance activities in coordination with
operations of traffic systems, and maintenance of the more
sophisticated ITS methods increasingly available requires a commitment
of management attention and money, when agencies are usually under-
funded for maintenance, and management attention is usually focused on
more visible, and better funded construction activities. As a result
you are more likely to see sophisticated traffic management techniques
applied in ad hoc application to reasonably well-funded reconstruction
projects, to minimize congestion impact of reconstruction, than as part
of ongoing maintenance activities. ISTEA mandated the development of
improved maintenance and management systems, but provided no dedicated
funding, so the results have been modest. If the Federal requirement to
develop maintenance and operations management systems is strengthened,
but accompanied by Federal funding to facilitate not only the
development of management systems but also the more expensive
techniques which can reduce congestion, then I believe we will see much
more significant utilization of techniques to reduce congestion, as
well as a better level of ongoing maintenance to reduce the need for
very costly and expensive reconstruction which current policies
encourage.
Question 2. You also raise the issue of truck and cargo access to
airports in your testimony--and possibly a new Federal revenue stream
to make access improvements. Do you feel the same re: access to
seaports?
Response. Yes, I believe that a new Federal revenue stream, to
prioritize access to airports, should include access to seaports and
other intermodal terminals. Again, ISTEA encouraged more planning
attention to cargo and intermodal issues, but provided no dedicated
funding to facilitate implementation. Developing ways to improve
intermodal connections, and prioritize truck access generally is very
difficult conceptually, can be unpopular with the general motoring
public if not done very carefully, and often receives little support
from the terminals who fear they maybe asked to provide financial
support to any potential solutions. If the ISTEA mandates are
strengthened and supported with dedicated funding streams, I believe we
will see better results.
______
Responses of Frederick Salvucci to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Your testimony provides many important insights on some
of the key areas that needed to be addressed by this committee. I
wanted to focus on your comment that ``if one-third of the existing
revenue streams were to be used for debt service, the program could
expand . . . by approximately 20 percent.''
How would you structure this new approach? Would this new approach
conform with your view that ``proper maintenance of the existing system
is perhaps becoming more important to the national interest than
further expansion of the network?"
Response. I am suggesting that a portion of the existing Federal
funding streams be used to support debt service on bonds, so that a
somewhat larger capital program can be feasible along with a new
program for Federal funding of a portion of operation and maintenance
costs. Another candidate for new Federal operating funds should be
Federal funding for the growth cost of elderly and disabled paratransit
services. Without bonding, any appreciable expansion of the capital
program, and any new operation and maintenance program would require an
increase in dedicated taxes (presumably gasoline taxes). I have
suggested partial bonding because it facilitates program expansion
without a gas tax increase in the near term. Even if a gas tax increase
were politically feasible, I believe partial bonding would be desirable
to get a larger program expansion. Bonding could be done at the Federal
level directly. Alternately, USDOT agencies could enter into long-term
(25-year contracts) for contract assistance with State and regional
entities, for long-term maintenance assistance and/or debt service on
State or local bonds. These could be similar to ``T.I.F.I.A.'' loans or
``G.A.R.V.E.E.'' bonds, except with Federal support. Either approach
could work, as long as there is equitable access to the expanded
funding among States and regional entities.
Question 2. I noted your interest in providing more coordination of
resources between TEA-21 and AIR-21. You noted some attention to
freight needs. Do you also see some need to address intercity passenger
travel as well, linking airports to city centers along corridors?
Response. As part of coordinating TEA-2 and AIR-21 reauthorization
bills, I agree that it would make sense to look at intercity passenger
travel across air, rail, bus, and auto modes, particularly for trips
within 300 miles, and move toward better integrated passenger systems,
as the Europeans are achieving. On the cargo side, while we need a new
emphasis on intermodal coordination supported by Federal funding, I
emphasized the cargo issue because it can be developed more rapidly, as
there are advantages to most parties whereas passenger services,
particularly involving rail, will likely conflict with both rail cargo
needs and air passenger suppliers, and may be less amenable to
resolution in TEA-21 and AIR-21 reauthorization processes.
__________
Statement of Elizabeth Stutts, Grant Programs Administrator, Florida
Department of Transportation on behalf of the Association for Commuter
Transportation
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to participate in the dialog on the reauthorization of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21. My name is
Elizabeth Stutts, Grants Program Administrator for the Florida
Department of Transportation in Tallahassee, Florida. I am pleased to
be here today representing the Association for Commuter
Transportation--or ACT.
The members of ACT represent a broad coalition of organizations--
from major private-sector businesses and institutions to transportation
agencies--but we all have one thing in common . . . We are all working
cooperatively to make transportation work better by making it more
efficient and less costly.
ACT members are working together in public-private partnerships to
make transportation work better for business. Major employers recognize
that transportation issues impact the bottom-line. Workers are facing
commutes that get longer each day--under more stressful and less
predictable travel conditions. This situation has a direct impact on
employee recruitment, retention, and productivity--increasing labor-
related costs and affecting competitiveness.
Our testimony today will focus on creative approaches to making our
transportation system work better by investing in a more comprehensive
approach--not just to the way we build our transportation systems, but
to the way we use our transportation systems.
In communities around the country, ACT members are working closely
with the people who use transportation on a daily basis. We have a
customer-driven approach. After all, transportation is really about the
people who use it--and the individual decisions they make everyday
about where they need to go, when they need to leave, and how they're
going to get there. Unfortunately, all too often, everyone tries to go
the same place, at the same time, using the same route and the same
mode of travel. The result is congestion and inefficiency, which
greatly impacts our business productivity and our quality of life. Our
members include public-sector entities working in partnership with
businesses and residents to make transportation more efficient;
private-sector employers, working with their employees to improve the
commute; and schools working with their students to improve connections
to the campus and the classroom.
The reauthorization of TEA-21 presents a clear opportunity to
support America's businesses, workers, and citizens by supporting
transportation programs and partnerships that can make a difference. In
our testimony today, we are asking the committee to:
Build upon the foundations of flexibility and partnership
established under ISTEA and TEA-21,
Recognize the important balance between the way we build
transportation and the way we use transportation,
Increase support for partnerships that engage the private
sector, and
Enhance travel choices and provide incentives for smart
choices.
ISTEA and TEA-21: Building the Foundation
The enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) in 1991, and its successor, TEA-21, in 1998, signaled a new
era in the development of our nation's transportation system. By the
early 1990's, the construction of the original interstate highway
network was complete, and a growing number of business and community
leaders were looking to broaden their approach to meeting the
transportation needs of their workers and citizens. ISTEA and TEA-21
responded. By giving communities new flexibility to use Federal funds
to invest in a variety of travel modes--from highways, to rail lines,
to bike paths--ISTEA and TEA-21 recognized the benefits of allowing
communities to invest in transportation that gives people more choices
in how they get around. These bills recognized the significant power of
transportation investments--not simply as an end in themselves--but as
an effective tool to achieve a wide range of community goals.
Throughout the 1990's, transportation agencies, metropolitan
planning organizations, and local jurisdictions responded to
increasingly diverse travel needs by investing in multi-modal
transportation improvements. The results of this shift were
significant. Annual Federal investments in public transportation
systems doubled from just over $3 billion in 1990 to nearly $6 billion
in 1999, and Federal funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects grew
from only $7 million in 1990 to $220 million in 1999.
In addition to enhancing funding flexibility, ISTEA and TEA-21
stressed the importance of partnerships between Federal, State and
local agencies--empowering metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
to facilitate intergovernmental partnerships in the transportation
decisionmaking process. This focus on partnerships allowed Federal
transportation investment decisions to better respond to the unique
transportation goals of States and communities--and led to an overall
increase in State and local funding for projects that provide citizens
with enhanced travel choices. For example, between 1990 and 1999, local
and State funding for public transportation grew by 34 percent.
As we move toward the reauthorization of TEA-21, we must build on
these foundations of flexibility and partnership. We must continue to
strengthen our national transportation infrastructure, including road
and bridge networks, bus and rail transportation lines, ferry services,
and bicycle and pedestrian trails. We must continue to prioritize
investments in preserving the quality of existing roads and bridges and
improvements in transportation safety. And we must continue to support
the expansion of rail and bus transit services to meet the ever-growing
demand for these services.
TEA-21 Reauthorization: Making It All Work
While ISTEA and TEA-21 were remarkable steps forward, many
challenges remain. Across the country, traffic congestion is a serious
and pervasive problem for both businesses and communities. In 1999,
congestion cost the Unites States over $78 billion dollars in wasted
time and wasted fuel. People are spending more and more time stuck in
traffic and less time with families. More frustrating and less
predictable commute times are impeding the ability of employers to
recruit and retain valued employees, and congestion is impeding the
efficient movement of goods. Air quality continues to endanger public
health and degrade community livability. Finally, as the tragic events
of September 11th revealed, the functionality of transportation systems
affect a wide range of security and emergency preparedness issues, from
the movement of response vehicles to the evacuation and protection of
citizens.
To tackle these critical challenges, the reauthorization of TEA-21
must build on the foundations of flexibility and partnership first
established by ISTEA. Reauthorization must take the next step forward
by integrating programs and partnerships that can make the
transportation system work better--by not simply focusing on the way we
build transportation, but on the way we use transportation. This is a
critical distinction, as it recognizes that how well the transportation
system works depends on the balance between the availability of
transportation infrastructure--from roads to bridges to transit lines--
and the way that people use this available infrastructure.
Focusing on the way that people use transportation means focusing
on where they need to go, when they need to leave, and what choices
they have in how to get there. It means providing people more
transportation choices and real-time travel information about these
choices. It means recognizing that people make travel decisions based
on a variety of factors like time, cost, convenience, safety and
reliability--and developing incentives to encourage smart travel
choices. And it means forging partnerships between the people that
depend on transportation every day--partnerships between transportation
organizations and private employers, between employers and their
employees, between educational institutions and their students, and
between developers and their tenants.
To address the significant transportation challenges facing our
businesses and communities, the reauthorization of TEA-21 must
recognize the importance of this balance between the way we build
transportation and the way we use transportation. The following
sections highlight the need to integrate programs and partnerships
designed to achieve this balance.
Partnerships with Employers
Reauthorization represents a key opportunity to enhance the spirit
of partnerships developed in ISTEA and TEA-21 by supporting win-win
public-private partnerships between employers and transportation
organizations. Through commuter benefits like monthly transit passes,
onsite commute information, and flexible work schedules, employers play
a significant role in the travel decisions of their employees. A 2001
national survey called the Zylo Report found that, on average,
employers that provide commuter benefits have 15 percent fewer
employees driving to work alone (86 percent vs. 71 percent). Employers
offer commute programs because they make good business sense. Employer
commute programs allow businesses to address employee recruitment and
retention problems, increase employee productivity, and lower facility
construction and maintenance costs related to employee parking. For
example, a commute assistance program saved a company in San Antonio,
Texas, over $2.5 million by eliminating the need to build and maintain
1,000 extra parking spaces.
Employer partnerships are an important source of additional funding
for transportation--as businesses invest in employee transit passes,
invest in the development and operation of shuttle programs, and invest
in other commute resources for their employees. As a powerful example,
in 2000-2001, every $1 that the public sector invested in supporting
employer commute programs in the State of Washington resulted in $12 of
additional investment from employers.
Employers and the organizations that support employer partnerships
are also a critical resource in emergency preparedness planning and
response. On September 11th, ACT members worked with employers and
employees to get people home safely--providing critical information on
the availability of transportation alternatives. In the weeks following
September 11th, our members worked in partnerships to keep businesses
productive by supporting commute alternatives like telecommuting and
ridesharing.
The reauthorization of TEA-21 should strengthen support for
organizations that facilitate employer partnerships. These
organizations integrate one of the sectors most impacted by
transportation challenges--America's businesses--into the fold as
partners in developing effective solutions. For example, innovative
programs spurred by the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program (CMAQ)--including public-private organizations
called Transportation Management Associations, or TMAs--are responsible
for many employer-partnership success stories. To further promote these
programs, the next transportation bill should maintain support for the
CMAQ program with an enhanced emphasis on partnerships and innovation.
Reauthorization should further recognize the value of employer
partnerships by supporting a tax credit for businesses that offer
commuter benefits to their employees. A commute benefit tax credit
would provide a powerful tool to leverage additional private-sector
investments in transportation solutions that work.
Choices, Incentives and Information
On a daily basis, people make a variety of transportation
decisions. These decisions begin with the travel choices available to
them--where to go, when to leave, what mode to use, what route to
take--but they also include a variety of other influencing factors,
like travel time, trip cost, convenience, safety, and reliability.
The reauthorization of TEA-21 should support the continued
enhancement of travel choices. A strong and balanced transportation
system provides travelers with a variety of choices--rather than
limiting choices--allowing each traveler to choose the best travel
alternatives to meet their needs. The next transportation bill should
continue to support a multi-modal approach to building transportation
by continuing to encourage flexibility in the use of Federal funds and
by maintaining the Transportation Enhancements program.
In addition, the bill should also support smart travel choices that
make more efficient use of existing facilities--including smart mode
choices like transit, ridesharing, bicycling, and walking; smart time
choices like traveling during off-peak hours, smart route choices based
on real-time traveler information; and smart location choices like
living near your place of employment, living near public transit
services, or utilizing travel-free alternatives like telecommuting and
e-commerce. Supporting smart travel choices can reduce the overall
``demand'' for transportation--improve the efficiency, operation, and
performance of the existing system--and produce broad-based benefits.
We must also work to make smart travel choices truly viable. We
must create an environment where the other key decision criteria--like
travel time and travel cost--are equitable between travel choices. As
an example, commuters can currently receive up to $185/month in tax-
free benefits from the their employer to park their cars at work all
day, yet they can only receive a maximum of $100/month for the same
trip via transit or vanpool. This inequity does not encourage smart
travel choices and should be addressed during reauthorization. In
addition, other travel choices like carpooling, bicycling, walking, and
telecommuting should be made eligible for this transportation benefit,
creating equity between all travel choices.
Finally, people cannot make smart travel choices without increased
awareness and real-time information on the alternatives available, how
to use them, and even when to use them. The development of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) should continue, especially development of
real-time traveler information services. At the same time, the
development of ITS infostructure must be supported by programs and
services that can get real-time transportation information into the
hands of the people that need it, when they need it, and where they
need it--so that they have ample opportunity to make the smart travel
choices that can make a difference.
Integration with Operations and Major Investment Planning
The programs and services developed and implemented by ACT members
to forge partnerships with major employers and enhance travel choices
are a critical tool in the effort to make transportation more efficient
and less costly. As a compliment to major capital improvements, these
customer-driven programs and services (often called transportation
demand management, or TDM) can provide near-term benefits which improve
transportation operations and make the most of existing resources by
improving the way we use transportation. The reauthorization of TEA-21
should recognize the role of TDM organizations by supporting improved
coordination between these and other organizations that manage and
improve the daily operation of the transportation system.
Finally, the reauthorization of TEA-21 must strengthen the
integration of TDM programs and services in major investment and
corridor planning efforts. Too often, TDM programs are compared to
other major investment alternatives in a ``no-build'' versus ``build''
analysis, setting up an illogical either-or evaluation. Instead,
reauthorization should require the integration of TDM programs and
strategies as a complement to major capital investments. TDM programs
have proved effective as construction mitigation measures, and offer
near-term implementation advantages to address transportation
challenges before the construction of the major investment is complete.
conclusion
Again, the reauthorization of TEA-21 presents a clear opportunity
to support America's businesses, workers, and citizens by supporting
programs and partnerships that make transportation more efficient and
less costly. Reauthorization should:
Build upon the foundations of flexibility and partnership
established under ISTEA and TEA-21,
Recognize the important balance between the way we build
transportation and the way we use transportation,
Increase support for partnerships that engage the private
sector, and
Enhance travel choices and provide incentives for smart
choices.
We appreciate the opportunity to present testimony before the
committee and offer the Association for Commuter Transportation as a
resource on these important issues. If you have any questions, or would
like to discuss these matters further, please contact Kevin Luten, ACT
Assistant Director, by phone: (202) 546-5478, or by email: kevin@act-
hq.com. You may also contact ACT's Washington, DC, representative
Thomas J. Bulger, Government Relations, Inc., by phone: (202) 775-0079,
or by email: [email protected].
__________
Statement of Elissa Margolin, Executive Director, League of American
Bicyclists
Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith and members of the committee, thank you
for holding these hearings regarding the reauthorization of the
Transportation and Equity Act for the 21st Century. On behalf of the
League of American Bicyclists, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
address the benefits associated with the use of the bicycle as it
relates to mobility, congestion and intermodalism.
The League of American Bicyclists was founded in 1880 as the League
of American Wheelmen when cyclists from across the United States joined
together to advocate for paved roads. Their efforts ultimately led to
our national highway system.
Today, the League promotes bicycling for fun, fitness and
transportation and works through advocacy and education for a bicycle-
friendly America. We represent the interests of the nation's 42.5
million cyclists. With a current membership of 300,000 affiliated
cyclists, including 40,000 individuals and 600 affiliated
organizations, the League works to bring better bicycling to
communities across the country.
We recognize that bicyclists are not going to completely solve our
nation's congestion problems. However, they are certainly a key piece
of the puzzle and cannot be overlooked. It is important that Congress
recognize the important role bicycling plays in transportation during
this reauthorization process.
Aside from creating gridlock, traffic congestion wastes time and
energy and creates pollution and driver frustration. Those who use
their bike as a mode of transportation will be the first to tell you
that their bicycling commuting experience is far more pleasant than
sitting in a car. The typical bike commute takes less time than
driving, particularly in urban areas such as Washington, DC; is less
expensive; certainly uses less gasoline and emits no air pollution.
Generally, the bicyclist arrives at work less stressed and invigorated
for a productive day.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, 40 percent of all
automobile trips are less than 2 miles. Turning even a small percentage
of those trips into bicycle trips would ease congestion tremendously.
Many of those trips are made by parents dropping their children off at
school, creating dangerous congestion near and around schools. If we
help make those school routes become safer for children to travel by
bike or by foot, think of the congestion that would be eliminated, not
to mention improving their health by promoting physical activity. Mr.
Chairman, the physical benefits of bicycling for all Americans is an
important topic that deserves its own hearing, as does the
environmental benefits.
Not only will getting more people to take trips on their bicycle
decrease the amount of vehicles on our roads, it will also
substantially decrease air pollution.
At the present, 80 percent of carbon monoxide and 50 percent of
nitrogen oxide emissions in the United States are a result of our
transportation system. 60 percent of automobile emissions pollution
occurs at the very beginning of vehicle operation when the engine is
cold and the pollution control devices have not begun to work
effectively. Therefore, the shorter automobile trips are producing more
pollution on a per-mile basis than shorter trips.
With regard to intermodalism, the bicycle plays a vital role. All
over this country, in addition to bicycling all the way to work, people
are biking to their local bus stop or train station and then taking
mass transit. In some cases, they keep a bicycle at the other end to
finish their commute. The Federal Transit Administration estimates that
at least one-in-five transit buses nationwide are equipped with bike
racks.
Buses in Seattle carry over 60,000 bicyclists a month, or 60,000
single-occupancy vehicle drivers. More and more of our nation's subways
and trains are encouraging bicycle access, making it easier for
bicyclists to use mass transit and reducing the number of cars on our
roads and highways, especially during rush hours.
Mr. Chairman, it is critical that Congress continue to recognize
the contributions that bicyclists make with regard to mobility,
congestion and intermodalism. Even a small percentage increase in
bicycling will go a long way in making a positive change and improve
mobility for all.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify before this
distinguished committee. We look forward to working with you throughout
this important reauthorization process, as we collectively strive to
improve the transportation system in the United States for all
Americans.
__________
Defenders of Wildlife
March 19, 2002.
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
410 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510-6175.
For submission to hearing record: ``Mobility, Congestion and
Intermodalism'' Tuesday, March 19, 2002, 2:30 p.m. Hearing Room (SD-
406)
Defenders of Wildlife is a national nonprofit conservation
organization with over 400,000 members, committed to preserving the
integrity and diversity of natural ecosystems, preventing the decline
of native species and restoration of threatened habitats and wildlife
populations. We have been involved with transportation and environment
issues for nearly a decade, recognizing the importance of this often
overlooked segment of our nation's continued growth. Recently,
Defenders launched a new campaign to address the conflicts between
transportation and wildlife. Our objective is to reduce the impact of
surface transportation on wildlife and habitat, and to incorporate
conservation into transportation planning to avoid or minimize the
negative effects on wildlife and habitat.
In your attempt to examine fresh ideas on transportation demand,
access, mobility and program flexibility, we remind you that mobility
is not always best served via the single occupant vehicle and that
additional roadbuilding and lane miles are not always the most
efficient answer to traffic congestion. We submit the following
information for the record:
1. *A Taxonomy for Induced Demand in Transportation. 2001. Hunt,
J.D. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
2. Highways and Induced Travel Demand. 2000. Marshall, Norm.
Resource Systems Group.
3. Estimating Induced Travel, Emissions and Benefits in Highway
Corridor Analysis. 1998. DeCorla-Souza, Patrick. Federal Highway
Administration.
4. *A Framework for Understanding the Demand Inducing Effects of
Highway Capacity. 1994. Dowling, Richard G. Transportation Research
Board.
5. *Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic. 1994. Wood, D.A.
Great Britain Department of Transport.
6. *Effects of Increased Highway Capacity on Travel Behavior. 1993.
Dowling Associates. California Air Resources Board.
7. *The Air Quality Impacts of Urban Highway Capacity Expansion:
Traffic Generation and Land-Use Impacts. 1993. Dobbins, Allison.
California Air Resources Board.
8. *Portland's Livable Downtown. 1992. Corbett, Judith. Surface
Transportation Policy Project.
9. *User Response to New Road Capacity: A Review of Published
Evidence. 1989. Pells, S.R. Institute for Transport Studies.
10. *The Relationship of Changes in Urban Highway Supply to Vehicle
Miles of Travel. 1979. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council.
*Regrettably, most of these reports are available in hardcopy only,
copies provided.
Sincerely,
Patricia A. White, Transportation Associate.
REATHORIZATION OF TEA-21
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M.
Jeffords [chairman of the committee] presiding.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND SMART GROWTH
Present: Senators Jeffords, Reid, Corzine, Chafee, and
Wyden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. The hearing will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing on transportation planning and
smart growth. We are joined this morning by a number of fine
witnesses from around the Nation. I appreciate their
willingness to lend us a hand as we proceed with our
examination of the Nation's surface transportation program.
Our topic this morning, transportation planning, is one of
the lynch pins of the new thinking introduced by the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, or ISTEA, as it
has become known. In passing ISTEA, Congress inaugurated the
post-interstate era. With its enactment, our transportation
program moved from a focus on new highway construction to a
recognition that transportation is the means to the end. We
recognize that our investments in transportation and other
infrastructure mold and shape our communities. Beyond community
form, we saw transportation's influence on people's daily
lives, on the time they spent away from their families, and on
their health and well-being.
Because of transportation's broad ramifications, ISTEA
provided States and, for the first time, local officials, wide
latitude in the use of Federal aid dollars. ISTEA had provided
flexibility, the freedom to move Federal money from category to
category as best fit the needs of a given State or metropolitan
area.
I had the honor to serve on this committee during the
enactment of ISTEA. At the time, we recognized that with the
freedom of flexibility came enormous responsibility. The
highway program, alone, has provided $300 billion in taxpayers'
dollars to State and local officials. Stewardship of these
funds demands great care. The transportation planning
provisions of ISTEA were intended to ensure that would be
working.
The idea is simple. Let's think before we act. Before
spending Federal aid dollars, State and metro officials would
first assess needs, communicate with citizens, coordinate with
stakeholders, and realistically forecast financial resources.
This basic planning process would guide and inform the
investments to follow.
TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
of 1998, refined the ISTEA planning provisions but retained its
basic thrust. As a result, we now have 10 years of experience
in this new way of doing the Nation's transportation business.
Today we will explore lessons learned over the past 10 years.
We will also examine a range of ideas for the future of the
planning program.
I will turn now to my good friend, Senator Reid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your holding this very important hearing. Let me
say, to the witnesses, that while there might not be many
Senators--Senators will come in and out during the day--that we
have everything taken down, and this, of course, is shared with
the other committee members. And, of course, every person that
is a member of this committee is represented here by staff, so
these are extremely important hearings.
One of our goals in writing transportation policy is to
maximize the mobility of people and freight while minimizing
air pollution and other environmental impacts. This isn't easy,
and success requires a thorough planning process. Planning is
especially important in areas that are experiencing high rates
of population growth--for example, Las Vegas metropolitan area
in the State of Nevada.
The Las Vegas region is the fastest-growing area in this
country. Its population doubled over the past decade. So the
challenges are especially acute, but almost every metropolitan
region in the Nation is growing.
I think people sometimes don't realize how difficult in a
relatively small State growth is. We have as many as 10,000
people each month moving into the Las Vegas area. Just to keep
up, for example--and I've used this illustration before--to
keep up with the growth in schools, we've had to build as many
as 18 new schools every year, just in the Clark County School
District. Think of that--18 new schools. It's very difficult.
And from a transportation perspective we always seem to be
trying to catch up to growth after traffic congestion begins to
choke our roads. We'd be better off if we could stay one step
ahead of growth and make the important connection between land
use and transportation before growth accelerates rapidly,
rather than as an afterthought.
The Federal Government must give States and metropolitan
regions the tools necessary to ensure that transportation
planning and population growth go hand in hand, and planners
need the maximum flexibility within the transportation program
to address growth in the way that best suits each region's
needs.
Many transportation options are available: road
construction, mass transit, high-speed rail, improved
management of transportation system, upgraded pedestrian
access, new bike routes, carpooling, high occupancy lanes, to
name a few. I'm sure many of you will talk about these things
I've spoken of in more detail. Good planning can ensure that
the best mix of these options is chosen.
Our challenge in Las Vegas is to address the needs of a
booming population while maintaining the high quality of life
that attracts so many to move west, but transportation is a key
to this challenge.
The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
is using almost every transportation option that I just
mentioned to address traffic congestion. In addition, Las Vegas
is trying to promote transit use through some smart growth
initiative of its own--for example, planning transit-based
development around the construction of a new monorail system,
also tied to new bus rapid transit system. The monorail will
eventually connect the airport to the strip to downtown to the
rapid transit buses to population centers to park and ride lots
and to an eventual high-speed train connection with southern
California.
I have made no secret of my belief that we need to invest
more money in our transportation infrastructure nationally, and
I was happy to take the House take action, Mr. Chairman,
yesterday. That's not as much as we need, but it is a step in
the right direction.
As chairman of this committee's transportation
subcommittee, I'll make increasing the level of investment in
transportation a top priority. However, with more money comes
more responsibility. We need to make sure this funding is put
to its best use, and a robust and open planning process is the
best way to ensure that transportation stays one step ahead of
growth.
Mr. Chairman, let me again congratulate you for having this
meeting, and also we start activity on the floor at 10:30, so
I'll have to be over there to referee some of the fights.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. It's a pleasure having you
here, and you're doing a great job as chairman of the
subcommittee.
Our first panel consists of practitioners from across the
Federal, State, and local spectrum. They include: Ms. Cynthia
Burbank of the Federal Highway Administration; Mr. Kenneth J.
Leonard of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, on
behalf of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials; Mr. Ronald Kirby from the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, on behalf of
the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations; Mr.
Peter Gregory from the Two Rivers Ottauguechee Regional
Commission in Woodstock, Vermont, on behalf of the National
Association of Regional Councils.
Let us start with Ms. Burbank.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA BURBANK, PROGRAM MANAGER, PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENT, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Burbank. Mr. Chairman and Senator Reid, thank you very
much for the opportunity to report to you today on the status
of transportation planning and what FHWA has been doing to
assist States and MPOs to meet the planning goals of ISTEA and
TEA-21. I wanted to note it is a particular pleasure, Mr.
Chairman, for me as a long-time Vermonter, a ninth-generation
Vermonter who goes back to a family history when it was an
independent nation, to appear before you.
I ask that my written statement be made part of the record
for this hearing.
Senator Jeffords. It will be.
Ms. Burbank. Thank you.
Transportation planning identifies transportation problems
and solutions that fulfill multiple national, State, and local
goals. Planning must do more than merely list highway and
transit capital investments. It must advance a State's or an
area's long-term goals, as you have noted, through strategies
for operating, managing, maintaining, and financing the
transportation system.
ISTEA and TEA-21 made significant changes in planning
requirements for highways and transit. These changes require
greater attention to public involvement, fiscal prudence, and
environmental impacts.
States continue to have the primary responsibility and
authority, but the role of MPOs and local governments in
transportation planning and programming has been strengthened.
The States, in consultation and cooperation with MPOs, local
governments, and transit operators, choose which projects will
advance.
To assist in making the best transportation choices for
these areas and States, FHWA and FTA have launched a major
initiative that we call ``capacity building,'' and by this I
mean institutional capacity building, not necessarily transit
and highway capacity building.
Our first effort in this institutional capacity building
has focused on metropolitan planning needs through developing
training courses, providing and preparing models and case
studies. More recently, we have developed a rural capacity
building initiative because there are unique needs in rural
areas. Through this effort we are also providing training,
technical assistance, and information exchange targeted to the
needs of the rural areas.
The rural capacity building initiative is a partnership
with the National Association of Regional Councils, the
National Association of Counties, and the National Association
of Development Organizations.
Now let me address for a moment an issue of concern to both
metropolitan and rural areas, smart growth. Smart growth means
different things to different people. FHWA has looked at this
very carefully and our perspective on smart growth is that it
is a set of State and local policies and programs designed to
protect and preserve natural and cultural resources and make
efficient use of existing infrastructure while accommodating
economic development and population growth, as Senator Reid
described in Las Vegas.
Smart growth often means expanding transportation choices
and providing a balanced intermodal transportation system to
allow for efficient and economical movement of both people and
goods. In some areas that may mean more transit, in other areas
it may entail significant roadway improvements, and in most
areas it probably means both, as well as bicycle and pedestrian
improvements and meeting the needs of freight transportation.
We want to stress that it is up to State and local
officials to decide how best to address their unique
circumstances and serve their smart growth interests, and it is
U.S. DOT's role to help areas best implement their decisions
within the funding available.
We believe that all of the programs in TEA-21 can be
effective tools to serve smart growth, but one that I know is
of particular interest to the members of this committee is the
TCSP program--Transportation and Community, and System
Preservation Pilot Program. It is a small program authorized at
just $25 million per year, but it is an opportunity to provide
innovative funding to areas to involve their citizens more in
making these important decisions and to achieving their
economic growth and environmental interests.
While FHWA strongly believes that land use decisions are
State and local in nature and should remain that way, we
believe there is much to be gained from more coordination among
State and local planning, zoning, and housing authorities, and,
as well, environmental and transportation officials, to reach
good decisions.
The changes in planning under ISTEA and TEA-21 have
enhanced and improved the transportation decisionmaking
process, but we are well aware that continued progress is
needed. In reauthorization, we look forward to working with
this committee and with our partners to find additional means
of assisting States and local governments in strengthening the
transportation planning process.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify. I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for your excellent statement.
Mr. Leonard?
STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. LEONARD, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, MADISON, WISCONSIN, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Mr. Leonard. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm
Ken Leonard. I'm director of planning with the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation. I'm also the vice chair of the
Standing Committee on Planning for the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Transportation planning today is a complicated process, and
an overriding recommendation we have is simplify, simplify,
simplify. ISTEA and TEA-21 made some positive changes in the
planning process, first by shifting decisionmaking in many
areas from Federal to the State level and by emphasizing a
broad planning process that includes all stakeholders, as well
as all modes of transportation, but there's still room for
improvement. Among these areas are: freight planning, financial
constraint provisions, local consultation, and the role of
States in regard to land use.
First, in regard to freight planning, freight movement is
growing faster than capacity. Over the next 20 years,
international trade is expected to triple and domestic freight
is expected to double. It is critical that we upgrade our
freight planning efforts.
AASHTO is recommending an increase in freight training and
capacity building for States and for local agencies, and we're
recommending an increase in freight transportation research,
and also the creation of a National Freight Advisory Council.
In Wisconsin, as well as in a number of other States, we
already have advisory committees represented by freight
providers and shippers that advise us on our State planning
process, and we are recommending something like that at the
national level.
In regard to financially constrained plans, the intent was
to avoid the creation of transportation wish lists where funds
were not available. I think, as a whole, we've accomplished
that intent. Our programs, in terms of a total level, stay
within what we expect in terms of financial resources, but the
actual day-to-day application is still difficult for States in
terms of making adjustments when projects are delayed or when
there's additional resources. AASHTO believes that
reauthorization should increase flexibility related to
financial constraints for both States and MPOs.
Congress attempted in TEA-21 to eliminate major investment
studies as a separate requirement and to integrate that within
the planning process and the NEPA process, but that has really
not occurred. In fact, the proposed USDOT regulations really
expanded the applicability of MISes.
We would urge that in reauthorization you direct USDOT to
eliminate the MIS requirement effective immediately and not
contingent upon new regulations.
State DOTs and MPOs should develop options to ensure that
decisions reached in the statewide and the metropolitan
planning process regarding purpose and need and the range of
alternatives would then be binding in the NEPA process,
therefore eliminating duplication.
In regard to State long-range plans and timelines, Congress
should continue to provide flexibility to States in terms of
performance measures and planning horizons as long as we keep
the minimum 20-year planning horizon. To improve the planning
process and public involvement within that, AASHTO also
advocates that Congress change the update cycle for long-range
metropolitan plans from 3 years to 5 years.
In the area of smart growth, most States defer land use
decisionmaking to local governments, believing that it reflects
a number of local circumstances and that local officials should
have the responsibility to determine land use for their
particular area.
Federal statutes should continue to defer to local and
State governments in whether and how to consider land use. That
being said, AASHTO and the State DOTs are doing a number of
things in the area of smart growth. Wisconsin has smart growth
legislation, and we're working cooperatively with our local
units of government. We've developed a transportation guide to
help local units of government, and we're encouraging them to
plan land use and transportation together once they develop
what the vision is for their community.
AASHTO is also developing a guide and contact-sensitive
design that's going to be published later this year. AASHTO is
sponsoring a smart growth competition between States to
highlight best practices in the States. AASHTO also has an
environmental stewardship initiative and has launched the
creation of a Center for Environmental Excellence. All of these
things will deal with land use and smart growth.
In regard to the roles and the tools of the various
parties, the existing balance of decisionmaking authority
between the MPO, the State, and the local officials has worked
well for a decade and that should continue. We think that
Congress should maintain this balance and reaffirm the
leadership role and the authority of States as TEA-21 is
reauthorized.
AASHTO is working closely with others in developing tools
to assist transportation planners and is identifying needed
research.
Finally, States and MPOs need flexibility to adapt their
planning provisions to the many diverse parts of the country.
I look forward to answering any questions you have.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for an excellent statement.
Mr. Kirby, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF RONALD KIRBY, TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR,
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, WASHINGTON, DC,
ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Kirby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I'm Ronald Kirby, director of transportation
planning for the National Capital Region Transportation
Planning Board, which is the metropolitan planning organization
for the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. I am appearing today
at your invitation on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations.
TEA-21 and its predecessor, ISTEA, rightfully recognize the
importance of planning a metropolitan transportation system and
gave the Nation's 340 MPOs increased responsibility to develop
effective, strategic, long-range plans and comprehensive
multimodal transportation improvement programs. With the 2000
census, we expect that additional MPOs will be designated,
perhaps as many as 60, to establish newly designated urbanized
areas, and that the geographic areas and populations served by
existing MPOs will grow significantly.
While we've got new responsibilities such as management and
operations required by TEA-21, the percentage of the highway
program funding for metropolitan planning has remained at the 1
percent level set in ISTEA. AMPO believes that it is time to
increase this takedown from the highway program, and also the
amount allocated from the transit program for metropolitan
planning to reflect the almost 20 percent increase in MPOs that
we expect the growth in population and increased
responsibilities, and we suggest that we look at a level of 2
percent of the overall program for metropolitan planning.
I'd like to mention three different categories of tools for
metropolitan planning: those the we believe are working
effectively and that we should retain, those that are effective
and that we should expand, and some new tools that we need.
First, with regard to those that are working effectively,
we believe the that requirement for a financially realistic
plan in a fiscally constrained program is the most effective
tool provided by ISTEA and TEA-21. This requirement eliminated
the possibility of wish list plans and programs which did not
identify enough funds for implementation. The financial
restrain requirement gave credibility to the MPO plans and
programs and presented the public with a realistic view of what
can be delivered in the way of transportation projects and
services. It is imperative that this requirement be retained.
In addition to this, two ancillary requirements need by
retained--the requirement for cooperative revenue forecasting
among MPOs, States, and transit authorities; and the
requirement for an annual listing of obligated projects to be
prepared by the MPO.
Along with the financial tools, the overall planning
approach established in ISTEA and TEA-21 should be retained.
The requirement that long-range plans be strategic in nature
with broad community goals and specific objectives places the
transportation agenda in a broader context, encouraging the
linkage between transportation, land use, the economy, and the
environment in a metropolitan area, and the MPO provides a
forum to bring together State and local groups and agencies
that have to deal with smart growth initiatives. We feel we
have the opportunity to do that.
With this approach, with extensive and early involvement of
the community, the MPO has a solid basis for developing its
long-range plan and transportation improvement program. The
proactive public involvement requirements in ISTEA and TEA-21
have been particularly important in enhancing the effectiveness
of the MPO process and should be retained.
In the Washington metropolitan area these ISTEA and TEA-21
tools have, in the words of one of our elected officials and
board members, ``forced us to ask the right questions.''
Application of the financial constraint in the early 1990's
resulted in a rather stressful prioritization of transportation
improvements for inclusion in our long-range plan and the
initiative of a visioning process aimed at developing a broad
community consensus on regional goals and addressing the
critical funding needs that we had identified as a result of
applying the financial constraint requirement.
The transportation, community, and system preservation
pilot program has allowed us to pursue previously unaddressed
goals and a new vision regarding a new system of regional
greenways and circulation systems within regional activity
centers and allowed us to focus increased attention on those
areas in project selection.
With regard to existing tools that work effectively that we
should expand, we are particularly interested in, obviously,
the planning resources to MPOs, which I mentioned earlier, and
then, with regard to funds for building projects, ISTEA and
TEA-21 for the first time put funds in the hands of local
elected officials to assign to projects developed cooperatively
through the MPO process. Each MPO with more than 200,000 in
population receives a portion of the STP funds allocated to its
State to expend on specific projects. These funds could be
program based on the MPOs best judgment of the transportation
needs of their areas. The funds are made available by the
States through sub-allocation. The availability of these funds
not only provides funding for vital local projects, but also
encourages local officials to get involved in the
transportation decisionmaking process for their region, since
there is real money on the table.
Sub-allocation of STP funds has been a great success for
the one-third of the MPOs that have populations over 200,000
and needs to be expanded to the remaining two-thirds of small
areas that still have pressing needs.
AMPO suggests restoring the suballocation of the STP
minimum guarantee funds that was in ISTEA but disappeared in
TEA-21, and extending the sub-allocation of STP funds to all
MPOs. Second, that we should sub-allocate CMAQ funds to MPOs in
air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas.
With regard to new tools, in order to complement the
financial restraint requirement and sub-allocation proposal, we
would like to see that the States account annually for
expenditures of NHS and other programs so that we know what we
have done, as opposed to what we plan to do.
Once facilities have been built, it is important that we
manage and operate them effectively and monitor their
performance. We would like to put more resources into
monitoring devices to track the operations of existing
facilities, the so-called ``infostructure,'' and to encourage
the development of performance-based management and operation
elements within MPO plans and programs, and we'd like to have
NHS, STP, and CMAQ funds eligible for use on projects that
manage and operate the system, in addition to building new
facilities.
In the area of planning, freight planning needs some new
tools. We are concerned about this area, as well. We have it as
a planning factor, but we have limited eligibility of funding
for freight projects, particularly in our port areas, which has
been a problem for a number of our members. We'd like to see
port access and gateways be eligible for the corridors and
borders program in the reauthorization.
We're also concerned about streamlining project delivery
and air quality conformity processes. There are opportunities
within the MPO process, we believe, to identify environmental
issues and incorporate them into the planning process before we
get down to specific project alternatives in the EIS process.
We'd like to have Federal project sponsoring and resource
agencies engaged at the MPO level prior to the development of
specific EIS projects.
We'd like concurrent reviews and also incentives for
innovative streamlining techniques.
With regard to air quality conformity requirements, we
would recommend that the new law add two tools. First, put the
State air quality implementation plan and transportation
conformity plans on the same timeframes--they are quite
different at the present time--and to focus conformity on the
plan, as opposed to the 6-year program or 3-year program.
In summary, I'd like to emphasize the importance of
planning in producing effective transportation systems. In the
planning, designing, and building of transportation facilities,
the most important leadership must come in the planning phase.
If we do a good job of planning, the implementation will
follow. If we shortchange the planning process, we often end up
having to go back and start over when project development comes
to grief. With that kind of planning, we can assure you, we
hope, that we will have a transportation system that works.
Thank you for the time and opportunity.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Kirby. Excellent
statement.
Mr. Gregory, we are pleased to have you here. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF PETER GREGORY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TWO RIVERS
OTTAUGUECHEE REGIONAL COMMISSION, WOODSTOCK, VERMONT, ON BEHALF
OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COUNCILS
Mr. Gregory. Thank you, Mr. Jeffords and committee members,
for inviting me to appear before the committee and speak on
transportation planning.
Transportation planning, the resources necessary to carry
it out, and the role of the local elected officials is key to
my commission, to the National Association of Regional
Councils--NARC--and all my colleagues across the region and the
country.
My name is Peter Gregory. I am director of the Two Rivers
Ottauguechee Regional Commission in Woodstock, Vermont. I'm
also a member of the Executive Directors Committee of NARC, and
I serve on the NARC Transportation Working Group and advise
rural transportation interests to the association. I am here in
multiple capacities today, as an executive director
representing 27 rural towns, most with populations of less than
1,000 residents, their elected officials; as spokesman for NARC
on transportation issues; and on transportation issues for all
councils and MPOs across the country.
NARC is a full-service, nonprofit organization serving the
interests of urban and rural regional councils, councils of
government, and MPOs. Regional councils and MPOs are created by
compact, enabling legislation as consortia of local
governments. As such, regional councils and MPOs represent
locally elected officials from cities, towns, counties, and
villages. As such, RPCs and COGs are uniquely positioned to
address issues across jurisdictional lines.
In my jurisdiction and across the State of Vermont, for
example, councils have a strong voice in transportation
planning. Each regional planning commission's work is guided by
a Transportation Advisory Committee made up of locally elected
officials. These officials provide the Vermont Agency of
Transportation, VTRANS, with a regional transportation plan and
a list of prioritized projects across all modes. This
comprehensive program to document local interest has served
VTRANS well since 1992. Successive Governors and secretaries of
the Vermont Agency of Transportation have all strongly
supported the processes that regional planning commissions use
to identify and support projects. However, Vermont's regional
planning commissions need a consistent and predictable funding
source to provide these services. Although they have close
working relationships with VTRANS today, it is imperative that
the process my council has undertaken over the last 10 years
does not falter due to changing economic or political
situations. Therefore, guaranteed funding for rural areas to
carry out this planning is essential.
As in Vermont, councils need funding to plan the best
transportation systems possible. To help achieve this, NARC is
proposing new funding opportunities and a net set-aside for
rural transportation planning.
NARC proposes changes in TEA-21 to allow States and regions
to replicate the success in Vermont. We will ask Congress to
smooth inconsistencies among the States by adopting clear and
concise law incorporating local governments into the
transportation decisionmaking and planning process.
Urban areas are being held hostage to congestion, delay,
and loss of productivity while workers and freight sit in
traffic. This is a symptom manifest beyond any local
jurisdiction. It is a national problem and needs a national
solution, and NARC pledges to work cooperatively with this
committee to address that.
We need to not only guarantee States the flexibility to
spend funds, plan and program projects based on their
priorities, but also extend the same responsibility and
authority to all locally elected officials. Furthermore, we
need to reexamine the process we use to achieve clean air
goals. The current process opens regions to poorly defined
legal challenges, faulty science, and consigns many of them to
a bureaucratic quagmire. While conformity is well intended and
necessary, its application should be modified. As others have
mentioned, conformity and plans should be timed together to
achieve maximum results.
NARC will also urge Congress for this in the coming year to
consider greater emphasis in safety in rural and urban
communities, a balanced and intermodal approach to Federal
funding, comprehensive review and consideration of technology
deployment, and greater consideration of freight movement as an
essential part of the transportation planning process. Of
particular concern to NARC members and its citizens they
represent are the tens of thousands of lives lost on our rural
roads each year. Coupled with increasing safety concerns in
urban areas, this presents a sobering picture of travel in
America. NARC is urging Congress to apply resources in new and
innovative ways to lessen this tragedy.
NARC is asking Congress to consider ways to streamline
project delivery, while ensuring the health of our natural
environment. The ability to move projects quickly, especially
those that make our roads safer, is of key concern. Given the
fact that many regional councils are currently involved in
emergency management activities, NARC will ask Congress also to
consider regional councils and MPOs as primary recipients for
homeland security funding.
When completed, NARC will submit to you its position and
policies for reauthorization of TEA-21. We hope you will
consider them as part of your ongoing process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. Further
comments have been submitted to this committee and I will be
happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.
Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you for an excellent
statement.
Peter, I am very proud of the work that you and your
colleagues have done in Vermont. Can you summarize for us the
value to any State in providing funding for rural
transportation planning?
Mr. Gregory. Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, many of the
areas are not served by MPOs, and engaging in a process that
includes the rurals ensures that all citizens throughout the
country have the same access to decisionmaking and project
prioritization. Many of these decisions are made elsewhere and
directly affect the lives and the quality of life of our rural
citizens, so it is imperative that we provide the same benefits
and opportunities to rural America as we do currently to urban
America.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Burbank, how many applications do you
receive for the TCSP program?
Ms. Burbank. We've received 1,332 applications for
discretionary funding under the TCSP program over the period
since it started under TEA-21, so there has been significant
interest.
Senator Jeffords. And how many do you accept?
Ms. Burbank. Pardon?
Senator Jeffords. How many do you accept?
Ms. Burbank. Of those, we awarded 80, given the $25 million
in funding that was available. Several hundred additional
projects have been earmarked.
Senator Jeffords. What is the ratio of need to desire for
TCSP?
Ms. Burbank. I think the ratio is roughly 10 to 12 times
the funds authorized. Beyond the authorized funds in TEA-21,
additional funds were made available through the appropriations
process.
Senator Jeffords. What does that tell you about community
desire to plan proactively?
Ms. Burbank. There is a tremendous interest in more
community-level planning. It certainly indicates the strength
of that interest from all across the country.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Let me go back to Mr. Gregory. This is for all of you, but
I'll go down the line. While consideration of land use trends
is not specifically referenced among the planning factors in
Title 23, it seems to me to be a basic element in planning for
transportation needs. How do each of you incorporate
considerations of land use trends in your work? We'll start
with Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Gregory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The regional planning
commissions, of course, deal with all kinds of issues, not just
transportation, so, again, they are qualified to work and bring
in all these different issues.
In our area of the country, we integrate land use planning,
local development decisions, access management, demand side
management to a great extent. It is clear that we could never
build our way out of congestion, and although ``congestion'' is
a relative term, we do have it in Vermont. But managing the
demand, controlling access, and things like that can preserve
the functionality of our system.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby. Mr. Chairman, as part of the committee structure
at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, we have
the local planning directors from the local governments who
report up to our board of directors, and we work closely with
them in developing forecasts of population and employment by
small area zones for our travel forecasting process. We've also
developed a comprehensive regional map showing the location of
development centers and linking them to where the
transportation facilities are, and it has given us the ability
to look at where we have transportation and not enough
development, where we have development and not enough
transportation, so those linkages exist within our
organization.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Leonard?
Mr. Leonard. Mr. Chairman, in Wisconsin, when we develop
our State-wide, long-range transportation plan, we work with
our local regional planning commissions and our metropolitan
planning organizations and develop that transportation plan
based upon their land use plans.
Also, in addressing the smart growth legislation in
Wisconsin, we've worked with all the local communities and
we've put together a transportation guide to help them do their
transportation element of their comprehensive plan. In that
guide, we recommend that they develop land use and
transportation plans together, but that they first think about
what the vision is for their community, what they would like
that community to be, and then develop their land use plan and
transportation plan based on that. So it gets a very high level
of emphasis.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Burbank, would you like to make a
comment?
Ms. Burbank. Sure. I want to emphasize that by statute the
transportation plans are required to look forward 20 years, and
in doing so it is essential that the 20-year look-ahead
considers how land use is going to evolve, how it will affect
transportation, and how various transportation investments will
affect land use. That needs to be part of that planning
process. Land use is further brought in through the conformity
requirements, where you have to examine the air quality impacts
of those long-range plans in the interplay of land use and
transportation. So we work closely with the State and local
governments to make sure that their plans are doing this and to
provide them tools.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Next question is there appears to be some disagreement over
the application of fiscal constraint in your planning work. I'd
like to hear your thoughts on that issue, and I'd also like to
ask you your perspective of organizations--how your
organizations work together over the next few months to seek
common ground on the issue. In general, I would prefer to
receive solutions rather than problems, and from those
interested in the reauthorization.
Mr. Gregory?
Mr. Gregory. We look forward to continuing our dialog with
all of the organizations that have a role to play in
transportation planning, be it urban or rural or State
organizations, and look forward to continuing that dialog with
the committee.
The fiscally constrained issue is something that we work
closely with our MPO on and the MPO works closely with the
State of Vermont on. In fact, the State of Vermont developed a
way to pare down its capital program, a little bit of truth in
advertising so citizens understand that not everything that had
been on a capital plan would ever get built, and regional
commissions were key in working with local governments to
ensure those programs and projects that were on the list were
realistic, were fully supportive, and were likely to be built
in our lifetime, so we continue to work in that direction.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby. Mr. Chairman, we believe that the law in ISTEA
and TEA-21 and the regulations that were developed following
ISTEA were really appropriate for metropolitan planning. We've
found them to be very workable from the regional level. They
have been very important to us in developing our plans. The
development of revenue forecasts and cost forecasts and
matching these over time over our 25-year period is probably
the most important activity that we undertake as an MPO. We
update these every 3 years and our board members and technical
staff are very focused on that exercise. It has also had an
impact back through our State DOTs and our transit agency. They
work closely with us on this.
I think it is a provision that is working well. I think the
fact that we are updating our plans regularly does provide the
flexibility to update revenues and costs as new information
comes along, so overall I think it is a very good requirement.
Mr. Leonard. AASHTO plans to, over the next few months,
work with all the various organizations addressing what are our
draft policy positions, working with AMPO and NARC and Federal
Highway Administration, as well as the other organizations. I
think that, as a whole, we certainly understand and support
financial constraint, having our plans and programs live within
expected revenues. Our problems are probably more on a day-to-
day basis. For instance, when we run into a complex project in
contaminated soil, things like that, that extend the life of
the project, change the cost, then we have to go back and
change our program, go back through the review and approval
process, so it is more on a day-to-day basis where it causes us
problems, but we'll certainly work with the organizations on
this issue.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Burbank, do you have a comment?
Ms. Burbank. First, I want to emphasize the Department's
very strong commitment to fiscal constraint. It is essential to
a good planning process, and we are committed to fiscal
constraint.
Having said that, however, it requires flexibility, good
judgment, and reason in judging what fiscal constraint is in
any particular program or plan. I think the greatest need is
for good administration of fiscal constraint . I haven't heard
a lot of specific ideas for statutory changes to fiscal
constraint in reauthorization, but we'll certainly be willing
to look at that and discuss it with our partners and with the
Congress.
Senator Jeffords. Senator Chafee?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
having the hearing. I'm just struck that, as we have these
various hearings on the reauthorization, you don't hear too
many dissenting notes about the reauthorization. I think that's
different from the last time it was reauthorized. There were a
lot of questions about it. I don't think this panel is any
different from the others we've heard in the last number of
weeks.
I don't have any other further questions.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Senator.
The traditional planning process begins with a problem
statement, develops information, weighs alternatives, and then
sets a course of action. To be effective, it must be a
continuing process. In the classic planning model, the
mechanism for regenerating the process is evaluation. Did this
strategy work? And what were the outcomes?
My question is: do we have an evaluation step in our
transportation planning process? And are we measuring outcomes?
And can we become more effective in this regard?
Mr. Gregory, I'll pick on you first again.
Mr. Gregory. By the nature of planning, planning is
iterative, so we are constantly reevaluating our situations,
taking into account new circumstances. But you are absolutely
correct that evaluation and measurable progress toward our
goals is key. We can always do more. We are always looking at
ways to further integrating data that we collect, whether it be
natural resource or economic development data, to ensure that
the transportation goals that we have set out in our local,
regional, and State-wide plans are met.
Mr. Kirby. Mr. Chairman, this is a question we are often
asked as MPOs is, ``How accurate has your planning been?'' The
MPO process has been in place now for some 30 years, and we are
able to look back in the Washington region to plans in the
1960's and see how well they turned out, how the forecast
turned out. We have not always projected population and
employment growth on target. We under-estimated the growth of
labor force participation by women. We didn't anticipate the
growth in telecommuting. We didn't anticipate people buying
SUVs as much as they have. So there are changes that occur in
lifestyles that we have to keep up with, but the continuing
updating nature of the process is what gives us the ability to
check on our progress, to look backward as well as forward.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the word ``continuing.'' That's
the critical component, I think, to evaluation and keeping up
with changes as they occur.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Leonard?
Mr. Leonard. Mr. Chairman, State DOTs use performance
measures in their State-wide plans, and one of the things
AASHTO is doing is supporting increased research and training
in the use of performance measures so we can always continue to
evaluate how well we are doing, what's the condition of our
transportation system.
You've also probably heard the term ``asset management.''
That is a large emphasis area within AASHTO so that we are
continuing to evaluate how well we are doing at preserving the
existing system, as well as improvements in that system. So
between performance measures and asset management, we are doing
a good job of evaluating the outcomes and what have been the
changes.
Senator Jeffords. Comments, Ms. Burbank?
Ms. Burbank. Yes. Starting at the Federal level, we do
establish performance measures for ourselves and track them
under The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and I
think we are getting better at doing that. However, it is
certainly not easy to track those outcomes and to identify what
they should be. They range from mobility measures to
productivity measures to environmental measures and safety
measures.
Shifting to the State and local level, we have noticed
increasing emphasis by both MPOs and State DOTs on establishing
performance measures and doing performance planning.
Senator Jeffords. Well, I want to thank you all for your
excellent answers, and hopefully we will all work together.
Ms. Burbank, I understand that other members who have been
delayed in attending today's hearing were looking forward to
discussing the issues with you. I wonder if you would mind
staying on a little bit after the next panel?
Ms. Burbank. I would be happy to.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much.
Well, thank you all. We're going to be back in touch and
depending upon you to help us keep going in the right
direction, so thank you very much.
Our second panel will offer a range of views on the
effectiveness of the planning program and on the scope going
forward. The second panel will include: Mr. Andrew Cotugno of
the Portland Oregon MTO known as METRO; Ms. Judith Espinosa
from the University of New Mexico on behalf of the Surface
Transportation Policy Project; Ms. Jennifer Joy Wilson on
behalf of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association;
Wendell Cox from Belleville, Illinois; and Mr. Tom Downs of the
University of Maryland.
Again, thanks to the panelists for coming. We look forward
to your testimony.
Mr. Cotugno?
STATEMENT OF ANDREW COTUGNO, PLANNING DIRECTOR, METRO,
PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Cotugno. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you
for holding this series of hearings on reauthorization of TEA-
21 and inviting me. I'm Andy Cotugno, planning director for
METRO. We're the regional government of the Portland, Oregon,
metropolitan area. METRO is the only elected regional
government in the U.S. We also serve as the MPO and are active
members of the Association of MPOs.
Portland is often cited as the smart growth capital of the
world. Whether that's true or not, we are certainly scrutinized
for our smart growth programs and they are closely tracked from
across the country. It is from this unique base of experience
linking land use and transportation that I offer my comments
this morning.
I'd first like to speak on the principles of making the
smart growth connection to transportation and then relate that
to recommendations for how the next authorization bill could
recognize these principles. The linkage between smart growth
and transportation is about understanding how developing land
use patterns impact the effectiveness of the transportation
system and, in turn, how new transportation projects affect
these development patterns.
METRO and the Portland region have implemented a number of
integrated land use and transportation strategies. We have an
urban growth boundary in place for now more than 20 years,
which has effectively stopped the sprawling development pattern
leapfrogging onto farmland. We've used zoning to reinforce a
higher-density development pattern in locations that can be
well served by transit, producing six consecutive years of
ridership increases. We have protected industrial areas and
intermodal freight terminals from conversion to big box retail,
preserving this land and highway capacity for more important
economic uses.
We've adopted parking limitations to ensure new development
does not over-build parking. We've adopted a requirement for
greater local street connectivity to ensure that a system of
cul-de-sacs does not simply shift local traffic onto the
regional system.
We have restricted development near streams and purchased
open space to ensure a balance between growth and access to
nature.
We have adopted revised street design guidelines to ensure
highways intended for through traffic are built to emphasize
moving cars and trucks, while streets in downtowns and
neighborhoods support a strong pedestrian environment.
We've used the flexibility provided by ISTEA and TEA-21 to
fund a broad mix of highways, light rail, bike trails,
sidewalks, and transportation development projects. We've put
to good use funding made available through the new starts
program to build a successful light rail system that helps to
focus growth and has ridership 7 years ahead of forecast.
We've leveraged the requirement for an MPO into a
coordinated regional growth management and environmental
protection program.
With this framework, my focus on smart growth and the next
authorization bill is going to emphasize three programs--the
Federal new starts program, FTA new starts program; the Federal
highway national trade corridor, so-called ``borders and
corridors'' program; and the Federal Highway TCSP program.
First, the new starts, which I believe can be a model for
the other two programs. It has been successful in constructing
light rail projects. As a result of high competition for these
funds, there is a long line waiting for funding, and to manage
that demand, Congress has set clear criteria to distinguish the
most meritorious projects. The Federal Transit Administration
requires local areas to go through a rigorous process,
producing the best projects.
The Federal Transit Administration makes a recommendation
to Congress on projects that are recommended, highly
recommended, or not recommended for funding, and based upon
that the congressional authorizing and appropriating committees
authorize execution of a multi-year funding contract.
This program produces a limited number of good projects
that stand up to scrutiny from a large, competitive field, and
produce projects that actually make a difference. For the
Portland region, the new starts program has provided the means
to build an essential part of the region's infrastructure and
shape growth of the region in the process. It has had a
profound impact on our ability to reign in sprawl and hold
tight an urban growth boundary. It has helped produced a
terrific downtown Portland, and is now shaping the future of
downtowns in Gresham, Beaverton, and Hillsboro, and has been
possible to leverage State and local funds that would otherwise
not have been spent on transportation into the projects.
So what might be the equivalent on the highway side? You
might think the national highway system program would be that
because it is intended for modernization of the most
significant part of the Nation's highway system, but that
system is large and the use of those funds is quite varied.
I would follow the new starts model with a national trade
corridor program to make that smart growth connection to build
a strong economic base with a trade and freight emphasis. Like
new starts, I would suggest it be authorized at over $1
billion, allowing Congress to make multi-year commitments to
large construction projects; however, with those funds Congress
should set a high standard on how those funds are spent to
ensure high-quality projects are funded that produce the
greatest impact on global economic competitiveness. Federal
Highway Administration, like the new starts, should make sure
that the local areas go through a rigorous process so that
there can be a recommend, highly recommend, or not recommend
recommendation to Congress, providing the basis for executing a
full funding contract.
In Portland, the case study is I-5 through the middle of
town connecting Oregon and Washington and California. It is a
national trade corridor. It is one of the national trade
corridors. But the I-5 bridge across the Columbia River is the
bottleneck. It was built in 1917, well before the interstate
system was conceived, and represents the bottleneck right where
the port of Portland, the intermodal railroad terminals, access
to the Portland International Airport, and access to 80 percent
of the region's truck terminals are all concentrated.
We've developed a fragile consensus on how to fix this
problem, but a consensus faces many difficulties because of the
high impact of further widening in a low income minority area,
because of the Endangered Species Act affecting construction
across the Columbia River, and because that 1917 bridge is on
the National Register of Historic Places.
But we've come to a conclusion that that bridge needs to be
expanded from six lanes to ten lanes, light rail needs to be
expanded from Portland into Clark County, Washington. We need
an aggressive program to minimize demand. And we've reached an
agreement that land uses need to be controlled to avoid simply
more sprawl in response to a bigger freeway resulting in simply
a bigger traffic jam in the future.
The third program is the Federal TCSP program. It was
really founded to make the land use connection to
transportation system and was based upon the principle of
having transportation projects support good local and regional
growth decisions. In the first year, I believe Federal Highway
did a good job of setting guidance and selecting competitive
projects; however, since then it has been earmarked to a
potpourri of different projects and I believe could also
benefit from the rigor of the new starts model, not the build
the major elements like freeways and light rail, but to build
good communities that support the transportation system around
that.
Again, Federal Highway should continue its guidance to
development to identify what are the best types of projects to
fund and publish these as best practices. I would consider
increasing the authorization level to that that was earmarked
in 2002, but tighten up the statutory language to ensure grants
cannot be awarded unless they demonstrate a supportive land use
connection, and base those earmarks on a Federal Highway
recommendation of recommend, highly recommend, or not
recommended, the same for all three programs. The areas go
through a rigorous process, therefore justifying a substantial
funding commitment to a project that actually makes a
difference.
The final comment I would like to make, in addition to
support of Ron Kirby's comments about the MPOs' planning funds
and STP funds, is a suggestion that there be a better
connection between the Clean Water Act and the Endangered
Species Act with TEA-21 reauthorization. There's already a
strong connection with the Clean Air Act, and similar kinds of
linkages would be appropriate for Clean Water and Endangered
Species.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Ms. Espinosa?
STATEMENT OF JUDITH ESPINOSA, DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, ON BEHALF OF
THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT
Ms. Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
allowing me to be here to testify. I am Judith Espinosa,
director for the Alliance for Transportation Research Institute
at the University of New Mexico. I appear here today on behalf
of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, where I serve as
a member of the board of directors.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. STPP has just celebrated 10
years of progress since ISTEA and TEA-21 reauthorization, and I
believe, Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Chafee were there to
celebrate with us.
I also bring greetings from New Mexico and to say that we
are very pleased to see that Senator Domenici has rejoined the
committee again, and we look forward to working with the
committee and with him on all of these issues.
New Mexico has had 400 years of cultural diversity, and
with that has brought 400 years of the oldest commercial trade
route in this country founded by the Spanish called the Camino
Real, so we think we know a little bit about pedestrian and
horse cart and now ultimately automobile and transit through
our State. Like Vermont, we are a rural State, and so I was
pleased to hear panelists earlier talk about the need for rural
planning and for the engagement of the public not only in our
large urban centers, but also in rural America, as well. We
find that to be very important, and I believe that my written
testimony, which I would ask to be put into the record, speaks
to that.
STPP and its coalition of national, regional, and local
organizations--of which we now number many hundreds due to a
new charter that we have engaged many hundreds of organizations
and individuals around the country--believe that the
transportation policy and planning concepts and the structure
in the current law is fundamentally sound and should be
preserved. However, despite the progress that we have made over
10 years, we also want to make sure that we can fully
capitalize on the many opportunities that TEA-21 has intended
to make available, and we still feel that there need to be
improvements. Like my mother almost always told me, Mr.
Chairman, ``Improvements is what life is all about,'' and so we
cannot stop on the progress that we've made.
The public has an appetite now for transportation
improvements. It has been stimulated over the last decade, and
I think that is due to the public input provisions in ISTEA and
TEA-21. The public wants choice and balance and transportation
with options that add value to their lives.
STPP views TEA-21 reauthorization as the ability for this
committee and for Congress to continue to renew the public's
concerns with transportation investments, but to do good
planning, Mr. Chairman, we need good data and good research. I
believe that Cindy Burbank and I have talked about this on some
of the Transportation Research Board committees we have been
on. We need to continue to develop that.
You will see, Mr. Chairman, on this panel and other panels
that you hear from the discrepancies in data. Some will argue
that smart growth is very difficult to achieve and that what
smart growth plans and what transportation planning does now
does not achieve what we are looking for. I would say to you,
Mr. Chairman, that that is why we need to present ourselves
with good data, and this governing body and the Federal
Government can help do that for the States and the local MPOs.
We need funding transparency. You've already heard about
investments and looking at that. The public wants to know where
their money is going. This is a taxpayer issue. This is an
issue for the public taxpayers. The public does not want to
continue paying for incremental increases in capacity and in
infrastructure without knowing exactly whether things can be
done differently, how they can be done differently, and
alternatives to that planning.
We need to know what the budgets are from the States. They
change. The MPOs do not always know. MPOs do not know from only
year to year what kind of budget they will have to spend in
their areas.
Those are all very important and critical needs that we
have in order to effect and enhance our planning process in
this country.
I might also mention, Mr. Chairman, just to know and to say
last that this Congress this year and next year and this
committee has the opportunity to look at transportation in an
integrated fashion. You, Mr. Chairman, on this committee and
Members of Congress will be looking in 2003 at air, rail,
highway, and transit reauthorizations. We would urge the
Congress and this committee to look at an integrated
transportation system for this country that looks at not just
surface transportation but integrating our airports with our
cities and also our cities with our rural areas. That will
bring a diversity of bus, light rail, high-speed rail,
aviation, and highways to our population, and that we can start
planning for that in this millennium so that we have a truly
integrated opportunity to provide benefits and quality of life
to our communities.
Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. I thank you for an excellent statement.
Mr. Cox?
STATEMENT OF WENDELL COX, WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY, BELLEVILLE,
ILLINOIS
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You surprised me. I am a
consultant. I live in Belleville, Illinois. I was appointed to
three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission
by Mayor Tom Bradley and to the Amtrak Reform Council by
Speaker Gingrich. I have just returned from 2 months as a
visiting professor at a French national university, and I am
visiting fellow at Heritage Foundation, though I don't speak
for them today. I speak for myself.
What I will suggest to you today are things probably you've
not heard before, things that are very controversial, things
that will probably disagree with most everything else you hear
today. But recognize that in the 1950's urban renewal and
ripping up our cities was what planners thought we needed to
have, and I'm here to suggest to you today that the whole smart
growth agenda in many ways is a step in the wrong direction.
First of all, if you look at my slide No. 2, you see what's
happened to Paris in the last 50 years. Urban Sprawl is not an
American problem. Urban sprawl occurs all over. It occurs where
there is affluence and it occurs where there is population
growth. And, of course, we have great amounts of land in this
country. Only about 3 percent of it is urbanized at this point,
according to USDA data.
Now, smart growth seeks to control sprawl, to reduce
sprawl, and, in attempting to do so, claims that it will reduce
traffic congestion, that it will reduce air pollution, it will
lower overall costs, and so on.
The key to smart growth is density. If you do not increase
density, you can accomplish nothing of what smart growth seeks
to accomplish. But the claims don't hold up. International and
national evidence proves that traffic congestion is greater
where densities are higher. That's not surprising. Federal
research indicates that at the present densities of our urban
areas, if you have 100 percent increase in density you will
have about an 80 percent increase in traffic. Now, granted,
that means the per capita driving drops, but the overall
increase in traffic continues, and that creates another
problem. Traffic slows down, commute times are longer. In
addition to that, because traffic slows down and because there
is more stop-and-go driving, you have worse air pollution. All
the data internationally and nationally shows that density is
associated with worst traffic congestion.
By the way, we've made great progress, and I want to make
sure you are aware of the progress we've made in this country.
This chart in my presentation from the EPA indicates great
progress in reducing the three criteria pollutants or two of
the three criteria pollutants in this country at the same time
that vehicle miles traveled have gone up very much.
You've also probably been told that sprawl is costly, and I
don't come here with a brief for sprawl, I come here with a
brief for freedom. I believe we ought to allow people to live
and work where they like, and we ought not to interfere with
that unless there's a good reason. The fact is that the overall
consumer expenditure data of the U.S. Department of Labor shows
that, where densities are lower, costs are lower overall. Yes,
transportation costs are higher, but housing costs are lower.
But worst of all is the impact of the anti-sprawl efforts
and the densification efforts on minorities and low-income
people. Sprawl is associated with higher levels of home
ownership. The data is very clear on that. There's all sorts of
research on that. There's a raging debate between people like
me--and there are other people like me in the academic
community--and those on the other side who say, ``Well, how
much is sprawl increasing? How much is the anti-sprawl movement
increasing the price of housing?'' Well, the problem is this--
it's an intellectual discussion. Any increase in the price of
housing hurts people. Smart growth rations lands and
development. When you ration, you raise prices. As prices go
up, you hurt the lower part of the income spectrum, and that
means in this country that minorities and low-income people
will pay the greatest price for the anti-sprawl measures that
will inevitably increase the price of housing relative to
income.
Now, the normal answer to that is to hear people say,
``Well, we'll increase the housing affordability program, the
affordable housing programs.'' The problem with that is in this
country today we only support one-third of the eligible
recipients of housing assistance with our programs as they are,
so before we even start with the anti-sprawl strategies we've
got two-thirds of the people who are eligible who aren't even
getting money.
Finally, we should remember that this country is the
richest country in the world. It is the most prosperous country
per capita in the world except for countries smaller than
Fresno, for example, and we need to recognize the role that
land plays in wealth creation and we need to be very careful
about limiting land and regulating land.
Now, a couple of quick notes on transit. Transit is very
concentrated in this country. I am not here to be anti-transit
or pro-transit or anti-roads or pro-roads. The fact is transit
works very well. Transit carries 75 percent of the people who
work in New York. Transit carries 60 percent of the people who
work in the loop in Chicago. But it carries virtually no one to
work who has a car outside our central business districts, and,
unfortunately, our central business districts now represent
only 10 percent of employment. What that says is that transit
is in no position to reduce traffic congestion except in those
corridors going to central business districts.
I take a bit of evidence--a recent study by the Union of
International Public Transport. The International American
Public Transit Association was quoted thusly: ``In the United
States, with the exception of New York, public transit is
unable to compete with the automobile. Its speed is half as
fast, which means that door-to-door travel times incorporating
terminal distance times, waiting and transfer times are three
to four times longer than public transport.'' I think that's an
over-statement. It isn't that bad. The fact is, however, that
transit, unfortunately, has no potential because of our
dispersion to reduce traffic congestion except in those
downtown corridors.
Now, in conclusion I would suggest to you that no problem
has been identified of sufficient magnitude to justify the
coercive smart growth strategies; two, that there is little
potential for reducing traffic congestion or increasing
transportation choice for all but a few, mainly those going
downtown through transit. There are no material successes. You
will not find any successes in this regard anywhere in the
developed world. And, finally, smart growth strategies tend to
intensify the very problems they are purported to solve.
Therefore, I would suggest new Federal mandates with respect to
planning on local agencies based upon a philosophy of smart
growth are inappropriate.
Finally, I won't read the quotation from Adlai Stevenson,
but I think it is well to remember that we are a country that
is very prosperous and we have led the world in economic
progress and a whole bunch of other things through history, and
the Stevenson quotation from the 1952 campaign basically
concludes with, ``Who shall say the American dream has ended? I
think we need to look forward to the future with confidence,
recognizing the great success we have had and not go back and
start regulating land and reduce the affluence of this country
and, frankly, make minorities pay the price.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Cox.
Ms. Wilson?
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER JOY WILSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL STONE,
SAND AND GRAVEL ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
Ms. Wilson. Good morning. I'm Joy Wilson, president and CEO
of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association located in
Arlington, Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, as someone once confirmed by former
membership of this committee and as a former Senate staffer, it
is a pleasure to be here.
NSSGA represents the Nation's crushed stone, sand, and
gravel industries, and our membership represents 90 percent of
the crushed stone and 70 percent of the sand and gravel
produced annually in the United States. Nearly three billion
tons of aggregate valued at approximately $14.5 billion were
produced in this country in 2001. There are about 10,000
construction aggregate operations nationwide in virtually every
congressional District, and construction aggregates are used
primarily in asphalt and concrete. Of asphalt pavement, 94
percent is aggregate, 80 percent of concrete is aggregate.
While I appear this morning representing the aggregates
industry, I also appear as a member of the Partnership for
Quality Growth, which is 13 labor and industry organizations
that share a common interest and concern for the future of our
country's growth management and its impact on transportation
infrastructure. I know this is something we share with the
members of this committee, so we particularly appreciate this,
Mr. Chairman, and your initiative in holding this hearing.
Our industry labor coalition adheres to the basic concept
that Americans should be allowed the freedom of mobility and
the freedom of choice in where we live and when and how we
travel. We recognize that as our population continues to grow,
all planning, whether it is Federal or local, must accommodate
that continued growth, plus the collateral increase and
transport of freight that will be needed to support that
population. We hope to ensure that Federal policies respect
local planning power to meet growth needs, especially with
regard to infrastructure improvements.
Use of Federal transportation law to drive local planning
decisions should be approached with extreme caution lest local
and State land use decisions become usurped by Federal
determinations.
Since 1975, the U.S. population has increased more than 30
percent, passenger car traffic has more than doubled, and truck
traffic has increased six-fold. At the same time, highway
capacity rose just 6 percent. There is no wonder we are
experiencing congestion. We haven't, as a Nation, kept up with
our needs.
Traffic congestion in and around our cities costs our
economy $78 billion annually in added time, wasted fuel, and
labor costs.
Economic growth is not the only cost to society. Each year
14,500 people die in traffic accidents attributable to unsafe
road and bridge conditions. Safety improvements and maintenance
of our current system will take $50 billion a year. We're about
$20 billion a year short of that investment, even with TEA-21,
and we need to understand and support what additionally it will
take to solve the capacity issues.
One in eight traffic fatalities results from a collision
involving a large truck. That's about 5,000 deaths a year. This
last figure warrants some thinking about the benefits of
separate truck lanes, or HVLs--heavy vehicle lanes. This idea
merits consideration because such separation of heavy vehicles
from passenger vehicles could enhance motorist safety, relieve
congestion, and reduce wear and tear on lanes used by lighter
vehicles.
Even though our country is blessed with the best
transportation system in the world, transportation planners can
fail society if they refuse to acknowledge the data that is
critically important to decisions when they are made about when
and where to add capacity. Consider this: suburbanites or rural
residents who move to an urban area are estimated to drive 90
percent as much as they did before, but if the urban population
doubles, then even with the reduced per person driving pattern
the city will see a tremendous increase in vehicle miles
traveled.
How then are cities going to reduce congestion and still
offer Americans freedom of mobility? Capacity increases will
need original thinking and some creative, tough, practical
know-how. Everything should be on the table, from adding turn
lanes and smart signals to considering additional land miles or
new roads, as well as public transportation, HOV lanes, maybe
heavy vehicle lanes, tunnels, elevated streets, and so forth.
Americans view as fundamental their freedom of choice in
where they live and work and how they travel. In 2000, when the
voting public in Arizona and Colorado came to fully understand
the ramifications of State-wide ballot initiatives on smart
growth, the initiatives failed. They failed because the
proponents misread how strongly the vast majority of Americans
hold to the values of home ownership, safe neighborhoods, and
the freedom to travel and to choose where to live.
Consider these statistics: by 2025 the U.S. population is
expected to reach 337 million people, an increase of 60 million
over 2000. Annual passenger miles traveled are predicted to
increase from 5 trillion miles in 2000 to 8.4 trillion miles in
2025. By 2025, freight transportation will expand to just over
5 billion ton miles, a 29 percent expansion. Rail ton miles is
also projected to grow by 2 percent per year between 2000 and
2025. Capacity needs are real and present for all modes of
transportation--air, waterways, ports, rail, transit, and road.
That's why we must increase our investment in transportation
infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I know I'm getting to the end of my time.
I've got just about one more page of summary, if that's all
right.
Senator Jeffords. Keep on going.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
The reality is that goods will need to continue to be
shipped, primarily in trucks on our Nation's highways. People
will still want to go to work and have the freedom to be fuel
efficient and timewise by practicing trip chaining, or going to
multiple destinations in one trip. The decisions made in the
reauthorization of TEA-21 and the successor legislation will
have significant impact on this Nation 21 years from now when
the U.S. population will have increased by 60 million people.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Downs?
STATEMENT OF TOM DOWNS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR SMART
GROWTH EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND,
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Mr. Downs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Chafee. I'm
Tom Downs, and I'm the director of the National Center for
Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of
Maryland, created by a consortium of schools of engineering,
agriculture, public affairs, and architecture and planning.
Instead of giving you the kind of executive summary of my
comments, I was struck by a couple of things that maybe I can
summarize and perhaps reinforce. One is that smart growth is
about growth. That's why the ``growth'' word is part of that.
And you can quibble about whether or not it is smart, quality,
efficient, effective growth. It is a framework that questions
how we will respond to the demographics that Ms. Wilson just
laid out--the demographics which, by the way, are about 64
million people additional in the United States in the next 20
years, not 25 years. Demographics are destiny. That's two
Californias. The question is how this country will choose, with
hundreds of billions of dollars worth of transportation
investment, to cope with eight trillion miles of travel in the
United States in the next two decades.
If the frustration with the existing system at its current
population levels and travel levels is high enough to be ranked
at the top of almost every public attitude survey in the United
States about local issues, then we have to be accountable in
this reauthorization for how we begin to answer some of those
questions about how we absorb that growth.
The Center received a grant from the Packard Foundation to
look at some of the issues in data and modeling to see where we
were in this. An incredible gap between assumptions about how
the planning process works in America, about transportation
funding, and what we know it actually produces. There is
relatively little research of a national level that shows the
impact of highway investments, transit investments, or any
other modal investment over the long haul about density,
suburbanization, growth, land use patterns. The research that
is there suggests that there are little economic development
impacts of the construction of a highway corridor; that, in
effect, that highway corridor is simply a moving of the
economic chairs within a region. There's no net gain or loss
from that from an economic development standpoint for the
region. There are winners and losers within the region.
It suggests that urban areas with beltways sprawl faster
than areas without beltways, but it is inconclusive.
It shows some linkages between highway capacity, expansion,
and growth in VMT, but the correlation, the actual growth in
VMT is less than popular literature would suggest.
The literature also suggests strongly that not building
highways does not change VMT growth within an urban area. So if
you don't build it, they come. If you build it, some of them
come. But the research doesn't help us enough to understand why
we are making hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars
worth of national investment in transportation systems.
The question that the planning process and the framing of
TEA-21 in its purpose chapter needs to be looked at again,
expanded, and put in the planning chapters of the next bill. It
posited that the Nation had an interest in safe, efficient
movement of goods, intermodalism, social justice, social
equity, clean air, environmental mitigation, and all of those
were expectations about the use of those Federal funds. If we
say that they are simply block grants to be passed along to the
rest of the inter-governmental system, we miss an important
point about our national responsibilities.
I'd like to hit two points, one that was raised by Mr. Cox
about the question about whether or not the suburbanization or
smart growth impacts minorities adversely or positively. To
show you the lack of data, there is an additional study that
shows that the poorest of families, the lower 25 percent of
families in terms of income in the United States, are severely
disadvantaged from a transportation cost standpoint about a
move to the suburbs, and that those costs more than offset the
gains in housing so that there are no easy answers.
The answer is that the poor and the disadvantaged have
always been disadvantaged by transportation investments. We
simply don't have that as a focus in our transportation
systems.
One of the points that Ms. Wilson made about how many roads
within the Washington region were drawn, only one was built,
failing to mention that, of those, just one envisioned the
removal of 15,000 individuals from that corridor, alone; that
our transportation system has always made assumptions about
what is best for communities, and the strength of this last
bill was in mandating more direct involvement in the planning
process by counties and local communities.
The last is that one of the major assumptions that people
make is that density increases traffic. We don't actually know
that because we don't count one of the important methods of
transportation in most urban areas, and that is pedestrians.
Unless you are carrying around 2,000 pounds of sheet metal, you
don't get counted in the transportation process. There's some
data that suggests, for instance, that there are more
pedestrian trips in New York City than there are transit and
automobile trips combined, but we don't know that because
pedestrians obviously don't count. They don't pay a gas tax.
What we don't need is a lot of ideology struggling over the
outcome of this bill. What we don't need are opinions. What we
need is a funded set of research objectives beyond materials
and road construction that lets us understand how we have
affected the land, our jobs, and how we live in America, and I
think that there is an emerging consensus among a lot of people
about the purpose of transportation investments, at least at
this level, and that is to help Americans choose how they want
to live and travel--something that for a lot of Americans is
very difficult to do. In this democratic society, we hope it is
about choice and freedom.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Downs.
I now will ask a question for the panel, and I'll go down
and start at the opposite end again.
Our committee has jurisdiction over the highway title,
while the Banking Committee handles transit. I look forward to
working closely with Senator Sarbanes on the reauthorization.
One element in the transit title that appears very promising to
the transit-oriented development using TOD, transit properties
can enter into partnerships with the private sector to generate
new land uses that both support and benefit from the
availability of transit facilities, and the Federal Transit
Administrations encourage and support these partnerships. In so
doing, TOD can return revenues to the transit property and the
transportation system.
I would like to explore the transferability of the TOD
concept to highways, and I would like your thoughts on this.
Mr. Cotugno. Mr. Chairman, we use the flexible dollars now
to support transit-oriented development projects. We use it by
transferring STP or CMAQ funds from Federal Highway to Federal
Transit, which is available under TEA-21, and thereby access
the Title 49 eligibility for TODs that's not available under
Title 23, but the transferability of funds is available to do
that.
If it were more directly included in the Title 23 side, I
think that would be useful. Certainly, the TCSP category
explicitly incorporates that eligibility, whereas the other
categories require this transfer to the FTA site. It works, and
we've used it effectively.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Burbank, do you have any comment?
Ms. Burbank. Were you asking whether highway programs could
be revised to be more supportive of transit-oriented
development? Is that the thrust your question?
Senator Jeffords. I believe so, yes.
Ms. Burbank. Well, as Andy noted, there is considerable
flexibility now, and yes, I'm sure there are opportunities to
take that further. It's something we could take a look at and
comment on.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Espinosa?
Ms. Espinosa. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what Mr.
Cotugno said, and also I believe that looking at transit-
oriented design and where highways come into play, you're
looking at a note and a place where people want to be and where
they come from. To be able to increase the funding on the TCSP
side would be, I think, one of the more opportune available
methods for this body to use, perhaps looking at minimum
amounts. I know that is sometimes difficult with earmarks, but
it is quite important. It has been a very popular program and
one that can be flexed to look at transit-oriented design, and
also how that is designed around streets and around roadways in
communities. I know in Albuquerque one of the mayors is doing
that in a small community because he doesn't have available
transit. He's looking at how pedestrians interact and
bicyclists interact with the roadways.
Flexing the money is certainly important, but there is also
the ability to get that money into the local areas so that the
flexibility comes within the MPOs and within the local
government areas. They know best where some of that, if you
will, transit-oriented, highway-oriented design should be
placed and how that might be able to be worked. They're the
ones that work within their community, I believe, and they also
can provide the transparency and the public input to be able to
make those plans realistic. We would like to see that more in a
local type setting, whether it's a rural planning or whether
it's a local MPO planning area, rather than sitting at the
State side where those decisions would be made at that level.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, as you know, these programs need to
be effective. I mean, we, as we've heard from two of the
witnesses today, are looking at a situation where we're going
to have eight trillion vehicle miles in this country in 20
years, and I fully agree with Mr. Downs with the view that we
need a whole lot better research than we have at this
particular moment.
What we do with TOD with respect to the Federal program I
think should, to some extent, have to do with how effective
that program is with respect to other alternatives that we
have, and I would really urge you, Mr. Chairman, and the
committee and the Congress to be thinking very seriously about
some new ways to think about transportation planning in this
country and some new indicators.
One that strikes me--and there may very well be much better
indicators than this, but, I mean, think about eight trillion
miles in the next 25 years. I mean, we are going to spend a lot
more time sitting in traffic. There is just simply no way that
that's not going to be the case. And so maybe we ought to be
looking at trying to restructure the Federal program to
encourage those kinds of strategies that reduce hours of delays
for people the most, and maybe the indicator ought to become,
with respect to all these programs and whether they survive in
an overall package, whether this year or next reauthorization,
perhaps we ought to be looking at something like cost per
reduced hour of delay.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Ms. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I might add to
that discussion is I think the flexibility is important, but I
think it is important that it be at the ability of the local
level to flex either way. It may be in a particular community
that a combination of some sort of HOV bus lanes would be the
proper thing. It may not be transit in the rail sense, and it
may be adding turn lanes, it may be traffic signalization.
There are all sorts of things that I think need to be looked at
in the flexibility, and would propose that when you look at
flexibility and adding enhancing options that the flexibility
be able to go in and out of the road program both ways.
Mr. Downs. Mr. Chairman, only an editorial comment that if
we're going to talk about a future we probably ought to start
talking about people miles of travel rather than vehicle.
Vehicle miles of travel always proposes that vehicles count
more than people.
The recent research about transit-oriented development
suggests that the key factor is not the investment, it is the
local land use set of relationships if you link in the
transportation plan, a set of expectations about the
development that local jurisdictions ought to be required to
show how their local land use and zoning is compatible with
that set of investments. It is not a Federal predisposition to
say that a set of local land use requirements are better than
others, but it should be that, if there is a Federal investment
that is based on a series of expectations at the local level
about an outcome, that the local jurisdiction show how it is
going to make that outcome happen.
My guess is that transportation-oriented development will
suffer the same lack of linkage to local land use decisions
that transit-oriented development does now.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you all.
A second concept that seems promising is the safe path to
schools initiative. I know that my colleague in the House,
Congressman Oberstar, shares my interest. How can
transportation planning most effectively advance the safe
routes to school idea?
Mr. Cotugno. Maybe just to start, the focus of
transportation tends to emphasize moving adults a lot more than
it does moving kids--getting to work, moving freight. Safe
routes to schools is the younger population that is just as
important and ought to be just as much attention as getting to
work or getting to shopping or getting to the warehouse for
trucks.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Burbank?
Ms. Burbank. Yes. One way it can do that is greater
attention to pedestrian and bicycle facilities in
neighborhoods. Through our bike/ped activities and fulfilling
some of the mandates in TEA-21, we have been working on that,
providing curricula on bicycle design and safety which kids can
use to get to school, as well as promoting better design of
sidewalks to accommodate children and disabled adults. And so
there are many ways to support safe routes to schools through
greater attention to bicycle and pedestrian design,
incorporating bike/ped needs into the design of highways, and
context-sensitive design that can make a difference and are
taking place now.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Ms. Espinosa. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to say that the
Surface Transportation Policy Project was a sponsor of safe
routes to school in California. That program has shown what
will happen with good flexibility when a State and local
governments come together to be able to flex money to get it
out to local planning, particularly for schools and for
children getting to schools.
While in places other than California there's different
ways of doing this, but I think the concept is very appropriate
and the concept is very appropriate for consideration and
reauthorization.
Safe routes to school allows for what we're talking about,
which is public input and public decisionmaking and a place
where the public can see where their investment is going.
Let me give you an example. Outside of Albuquerque, New
Mexico, we were working on planning a contact-sensitive design
project. Actually, the community stopped a five-lane roadway
through there because they wanted to see smaller lanes. One of
the chief areas of interest was that going right past this
roadway or right by this roadway were two schools, a middle
school and a first-grade-through-fifth-grade school. Neither
the Highway Department in the State nor the local public works
agencies had ever talked to the schools or the children or
their parents to see what kind of walkways we needed, what kind
of pedestrian walkways, what kind of bicycle routes, how people
would cross this proposed five-lane highway.
Safe routes should be put into planning where new models
can be developed for planning where you can talk about the
disadvantaged communities which in this community were
disadvantaged children, how they are going to get to school,
and what is the safest route to go.
That brings the entire circle in. It also allows for new
challenges in modeling. How do we get research? How do we get
data? And how do we do new models that are going to include our
younger generation--which, by the way, is very fast-growing in
this country. So we would hope that this body would look at a
safe routes to school provision in TEA-21 reauthorization, do
it in a broad fashion that allows local governments that kind
of planning with their communities.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I would only urge some caution,
because oftentimes the beginning of Federal regulation and the
beginning of Federal programs brings us into a situation where
local prerogatives are interfered with in the long run. I'm not
saying that's what is happening here, but we need to be
concerned with that.
I'm real pleased to have the opportunity--I know that you
here don't spend a lot of time on school buses because school
buses tend to be a local and a State issue, for the most part,
but the school bus systems in our local school districts around
the country are one of the real transportation successes of
this country. Every school day they carry 45 million rides.
That's almost double the number of rides that are carried by
all of the buses and subways in this country. So it is quite a
transportation resource, and obviously we ought to do whatever
we can to make that ride and that walk to school the safest
possible.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with this
specific legislation, and I may need to expand this answer for
the record, if that would be all right.
Senator Jeffords. It would be.
Ms. Wilson. But I would simply say that I'm delighted that
you're focusing on some of the safety aspects, whether it is
for school children getting to school on foot or on bike or on
bus. The safety situation with our transportation system is one
of the saddest but also one of the most motivational things we
can do in the reauthorization. We're trying to correct that in
this country, and I applaud you for going in this direction.
Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Downs?
Mr. Downs. Mr. Chairman, I think it goes without saying
that the transportation system should not kill or maim
children. We don't count them. If they don't count, they don't
count. We don't understand any of the relationships between the
spiraling out of control of childhood obesity, childhood
asthma, and transportation or how children move. None of the
local planning processes that I know do any kind of accurate
update about how children move through their transportation
system. It is perceived to be recreational, and it just doesn't
count.
If this is a comprehensive transportation planning process
and we think that children count in this process, it should
start with them literally counting children and how they behave
and move within the system, but we do not, and you could
address that in this legislation.
Senator Jeffords. Now I'd like to welcome Senator Wyden
here. You could have the last word.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the
bad manners. As you know, we've got Enron hearings and that's
of special importance to the Pacific Northwest. But I very much
want to thank you for holding this important hearing. I look
forward very much to working with you as we go forward on the
next significant transportation initiative in this area. As you
know, I was a principal author of the transportation community
system preservation program, and we're especially proud because
so much of what the Federal Government is now doing under that
legislation really stems from the efforts that began at home
with METRO, its predecessor, and we're very glad Mr. Cotugno is
here and is in a position to talk to us about these issues. Let
me, if I might, just begin with him for a question or two.
Andy, what has been METRO's experience with applying for
grants under the program? Obviously, what we want to do is we
want to increase the funding. We want to try to get the
Congress away from earmarks, which has been almost a biological
imperative around here. Come up with a good program, and
somebody says, ``Well, let's hijack the money. Let's hijack
it.'' And what we had sought to do--and Senator Moynihan and
Senator Chafee were especially helpful to me as a new member of
the Senate in putting together the program. They said, ``Let's
make this something done on merit and we'll have a competitive
bidding process so as to encourage people all across the
country to come forward with innovative ideas for linking smart
growth and transportation at the local level.''
So tell us, if you would, what your experience has been
with the program.
Mr. Cotugno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Wyden, we
applied the first year for two grants, and, as I indicated in
my remarks earlier, the first year was run as a competitive
process by merit by the Federal Highway Administration, and we
succeeded in getting one of those two grants.
The next year we applied for one grant, decided we should
pick our own priorities and not submit two, so we submitted
one, and we thought we had that grant award because we were
receiving calls from the Secretary's office indicating that it
was going to be announced, but it was withdrawn because the
funds were earmarked.
The third year we applied and I don't think it ever went
through a review process because it was also earmarked again
the third time.
So we were successful that first year, but have not been
able to obtain a grant since then.
Senator Wyden. Well, I want you to know, and all of you,
that I'm going to pull out all the stops to go back to what was
originally produced in this legislation. We do have the good
fortune--Chairman Jeffords, of course, has a long record and
history of support for smart growth, and his State, as well as
Oregon, are really considered the pioneers in terms of the
smart growth area, so we are very fortunate in this crusade to
get back to making these calls on the merits, to have a leader
with a gavel in his hand who can help us and, of course, has
the State experience that is very much in sync with Oregon.
Let me wrap up by asking you a couple of questions about
what model we might choose in terms of trying to get this
program back to what it was intended.
Andy, as I understand it, what you all are suggesting is
that something along the lines of the new starts program for
transit projects would be a sensible foundation for improving
the program. Would something like this allow the Vermonts and
the Oregons and the States that have really been leaders in
smart growth to get this program back to what we envisaged,
which is one where the calls are made on competition and the
merit?
Mr. Cotugno. Mr. Chairman, yes. Senator Wyden, I think
that's an approach you could take. I think it would entail
including in the authorizing language a restriction that
requires that funding only be awarded based upon a
recommendation that recognizes that smart growth connection.
Like the new starts program, if the Federal Highway
Administration comes forward with a recommendation, a high
recommendation, or a not recommended, then it is still up to
the appropriations and authorizing committee to award that
project. You can choose to take and fund a not-recommended
project, but your own peer pressure amongst each other would
tend to pick the highly recommended projects because those are
the ones that are shown to stand up on a merit basis.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Burbank, I appreciate your staying, as
well, given how hectic the schedule is. I understand that you
all had applications many, many times over the amount of the
available funding, and to me, as we go forward in this effort--
and Chairman Jeffords and others have been involved with the
Smart Growth Caucus and we've had a lot of exciting
developments since our first effort with the last ISTEA
legislation, but all of it is going to be hard to achieve
unless the Administration will support additional funding for
this program.
Is this something that you can discuss this morning and
talk about the designs of the Administration? I mean, what I
like about this--and, you know, Mitch Daniels has always been
very open in terms of dealing with me, and I'm going to make
this case to him. This is something that's locally driven and
home grown, and the idea of having a program with competitive
grants, with the opportunity to try different approaches at the
local level strikes me to be very much consistent with the
Administration's philosophy.
I don't think I've ever told Chairman Jeffords, but Scoop
Jackson, interestingly enough, put in the first Federal bill to
promote smart growth. He, of course, was a legend in our part
of the world. And when scoop put this bill in they said this is
a monster plot, it's going to lead to Federal zoning and the
Federal Government is going to confiscate private property. I
think that what we were able to do in the last ISTEA bill was
just the opposite of Federal zoning. We have basically said,
``Let's let folks do their thing at the local level, and the
Vermonts and Oregons play up their innovative approaches in
growth, and we'll encourage the other States to catch up.'' So
I would see this as very much consistent with the
Administration's philosophy.
Make my day, Ms. Burbank, and tell us, by god, we're going
to find some additional dollars for this important effort.
Ms. Burbank. I'm not sure I can make your day, but I do
want to be as positive as possible because certainly that
program has been one of the most popular programs. TCSP is
exciting because it does generate local initiatives and
innovative ideas. We do feel that the competitive process of
reviewing and ranking them at the Department through a
multimodal group of evaluators has yielded some really good
projects, but the projects that have been identified through
earmarking are quite different. They don't tend to put as much
emphasis on efforts to involve the local citizens in planning
and anticipating needs. The earmarked projects tend to be
oriented more toward a specific, pre-ordained solution, and we
think that has some limitations to it. So we certainly would
like to see a competitive program. We think a competitive
application process has a lot of benefits.
In terms of funding level and reauthorization, it goes
without saying that we are all going to face some tough choices
with funding because there are a lot of needs in
transportation. So I can't quite make your day in going so far
as to say what the Administration's position will be. It is too
early to say. But we do see a lot of benefit in TCSP.
Senator Wyden. I've imposed on the chairman's time, but I
hope that you will really be a passionate advocate for this,
both for additional funding and for returning to something
along the lines of a competitive model. I mean, you have been
very diplomatic here this morning by saying, ``Gee, Senator,
the earmarked projects are a little different.'' The idea is
that, well, maybe they have something foreordained. I mean, to
me that just defeats the whole idea. I mean, when I went to
Senator Moynihan and Senator Chafee as a brand new Senator,
Senator Moynihan said, ``Look, we know Oregon is a leader in
this, but they're going to have to compete with everybody
else.'' That's the whole point. I mean, it seems to me that we
have got an opportunity to really catalyze all across this
country in communities from one end of the country to another a
wave of innovative thinking in this area if we have the
dollars, if we make the calls on the merits.
Mr. Chairman, I feel badly about imposing on you. Just know
that I am very glad that you've got the gavel in your hand on
this, because the Vermont/Oregon smart growth axis has an
opportunity, in my view, to show the rest of the country how to
do the job right, while at the same time giving them all the
freedom and all the flexibility to carve out their own
approaches that are consistent with their needs. I really look
forward to working with you.
Senator Jeffords. Well, I certainly look forward to working
with you. Oregon and Vermont are almost peas in the same pod.
We do everything the innovative----
Senator Wyden. The enlightened way.
Senator Jeffords. Right, the enlightened way. We could go
on.
[Laughter.]
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Burbank, I want to thank you for
spending the extra time to be with us during both panels. I
look forward to working with you.
This has been a very wonderful experience this morning, my
first time in this area. I have a number of first times in
store for me, my new responsibilities, but you have been very
helpful and enjoyable and innovative and, wow, you're great.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Cynthia Burbank, Program Manager, Planning and Environment
Core Business Unit, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony on the important subject of
transportation planning. Today, I would like to report to you on the
status of transportation planning, and what FHWA is doing to assist
States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in fulfilling the
planning goals of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21).
overview: the essential role of planning
Transportation planning is the process of identifying
transportation problems and looking for solutions that fulfill multiple
national, State, and local goals. Statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning processes, governed by Federal law (23 United
States Code (USC) sections 134 and 135; 49 USC sections 5303-5305) and
applicable State and local laws, are required if Federal highway or
transit funds are to be used for transportation investments in the
State or metropolitan area. The planning process must do more than
merely list highway and transit capital investments. It must provide
strategies for operating, managing, maintaining, and financing an
area's transportation system in such a way as to best advance that
area's long-term goals. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rely on the transportation
planning process as the primary mechanism for cooperative
decisionmaking at the State and local level. This means that local
officials and others who anticipate using Federal transportation funds
must be involved in planning. Transportation planning must be attentive
to the public's needs and include sufficient opportunities for public
input.
The planning process produces the information on which elected
officials and policymakers will base their decisions regarding
transportation improvements, and helps ensure better, more informed
decisionmaking. Transportation planners undertake comprehensive
analyses and evaluation of the potential impact of transportation plans
and programs and, at the same time, address the aspirations and
concerns of the community that these plans and programs serve. Planners
examine past, present, and prospective trends, and issues associated
with the demand for the movement of people and goods at local, rural,
metropolitan, statewide, national, and international levels. Public
officials equipped with this information can make decisions that
address key community objectives and tradeoffs, while reducing
unanticipated consequences.
Transportation planning must reflect the desires of communities and
take into account the impacts on both the natural and human
environments. Transportation plans should help regions and communities
set and achieve their goals. A comprehensive planning process that
considers land use, development, safety, and security, also helps
ensure that transportation decisions will be made in an environmentally
sensitive way. The States, MPOs, and transit operators choose which
projects will advance. The Federal role is to provide funds, standards,
technical assistance, and planning models so that State and local
decisionmakers are able to make the best transportation choices for
their area within the funding available.
planning under istea and tea-21
ISTEA made significant changes in the metropolitan and statewide
planning requirements for highways and transit, requiring greater
attention to public involvement, fiscal prudence, and multimodal
transportation systems planning. In addition, ISTEA provided State and
local governments more flexibility in determining transportation
solutions, whether transit or highways. ISTEA instituted statewide
planning and continued the metropolitan planning processes as the
framework for making these decisions. As a result, much of the past 10
years has been devoted to adjusting to these changes and applying the
new requirements. In most cases, the MPOs, State Departments of
Transportation (DOTs), and transit operators have worked together in a
cooperative way to implement the changes. The ISTEA reforms have
resulted in more attention to developing financially sound
transportation plans and programs and to involving the public and
stakeholder interest groups in developing the plans and programs. The
changes have enhanced and improved the integrity and effectiveness of
the transportation decisionmaking process, but continued progress is
needed.
To assist the MPOs, State DOTs, and transit operators in
implementing the ISTEA changes, FHWA and FTA have focused on conducting
training courses, providing technical assistance, supporting peer
exchanges, identifying best practices, and preparing case studies.
The changes initiated by ISTEA were carried forward by TEA-21 with
some further refinements. The financial discipline in the development
of plans and programs introduced in ISTEA was continued, with an added
requirement that financial estimates be developed cooperatively between
the State and MPO.
By statute, metropolitan transportation plans must address a
minimum of a twenty-year planning horizon and be updated on a schedule
identified by the Secretary (currently 3 years in non-attainment areas
and 5 years in attainment areas). By statute, Transportation
Improvement Programs (TIPs) address a 3-year horizon and must be
updated at least every 2 years at the State and metropolitan level.
State plans are updated on a cycle identified by the State. In non-
attainment areas, under the Clean Air Act, FHWA and FTA have sought, in
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop
approaches to more effectively integrate air quality and transportation
planning timeframes and processes. This is a continuing challenge,
which will arise in reauthorization.
Section 1308 of TEA-21 directed the Secretary to eliminate the
separate requirement for a Major Investment Study (MIS) and integrate
the remainder of the process into the environment and planning
processes. Although regulatory changes have not been completed, FHWA
and FTA have fostered and supported experimentation with alternative
approaches, as mutually developed at the State and local level.
While ISTEA and TEA-21 strengthened the role of MPOs and local
governments in transportation planning and programming, States continue
to have the primary role, responsibility, and authority-albeit in a
framework of consultation and cooperation with MPOs, local governments,
and transit operators.
Since the passage of ISTEA and TEA-21, States have become more
involved in comprehensive transportation planning, including the
development of multi-modal transportation plans. As a result, many
States are now engaged in activities, such as rural freight issues,
which previously received little attention. Because the statewide
planning process is continuing to evolve, many States are looking at
ways to restructure their transportation planning and programming
processes. They are determining which decisions should be made at the
State level and which can be decided at the rural or metropolitan
level.
institutional capacity building
FHWA and FTA have jointly developed specialized training courses
and new tools and procedures that address the emerging needs. Also,
FHWA and FTA have sponsored peer exchanges that have allowed States,
MPOs, and transit operators to share best practices.
FHWA and FTA, in a collaborative effort with the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), and the National
Association of Regional Councils (NARC), have launched the Metropolitan
Capacity Building (MCB) Program-an initiative to strengthen MPOs. The
program is targeted not only for transportation professionals, but also
the elected officials who make transportation decisions. Collecting,
synthesizing, and disseminating examples of successful innovations by
States, MPOs, and transit operators, the Capacity Building initiative
provides multiple mechanisms for getting critical information to
decisionmakers. Moreover, it helps spread innovation in decisionmaking
by publicizing the new techniques and strategies developed by State and
local officials. This initiative has supported peer exchanges focusing
on transportation modeling and fiscal constraint. A new course on
metropolitan planning has been developed to provide public officials
and staff with an overview of planning process expectations and
options. A public officials briefing book has been prepared, directed
specifically to helping elected officials understand their role and
responsibilities, as well as the overall planning process. Additional
activities are in development and will be disseminated over the coming
year.
In addition to the involvement of the MPO, State DOT, and transit
operators, TEA-21 made it very clear that new parties should be coming
to the planning table at both the metropolitan and statewide levels.
TEA-21 added a requirement that freight shippers and users of public
transit be provided a reasonable opportunity to comment on
transportation plans and programs. Among the most important parties to
come to the planning table are local officials, and TEA-21 emphasized
the importance of bringing non-metropolitan officials into the process.
Most States have procedures for engaging local officials throughout
their planning and programming processes. FHWA and FTA are working hard
with States and MPOs to improve or otherwise enhance their efforts to
bring non-metropolitan local officials, freight shippers, and users of
public transit to the table and involve them in planning and
programming.
FHWA and FTA have advanced several initiatives, including safety
conscious planning, implementation of the Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) Architecture requirements, freight planning, work zone
safety, and operational improvements. These efforts have contributed to
congestion mitigation and enhanced safety consideration.
transportation planning and smart growth
Today, we frequently hear the term ``smart growth"-a term that
means different things to different people. FHWA views ``smart growth''
as a set of State and local policies and programs designed to protect
and preserve valuable natural and cultural resources and make efficient
use of existing infrastructure, while accommodating economic
development and population growth. ``Smart growth'' policies link
transportation projects with desired land use patterns in order to make
more efficient use of infrastructure and reduce environmental impact.
Land use and transportation have a symbiotic relationship. How
development occurs can greatly influence regional travel patterns and,
in turn, the degree of access provided by the transportation system can
influence land use distribution. Transportation affects land use just
as do affordable housing, good schools, and low crime rates.
State and local governments have the responsibility for
establishing growth policies. Transportation agencies respect those
policies and work with the State and local requirements. Smart growth
can mean State and local land use strategies to increase population and
housing densities and make transit more viable, and it can also mean
managing and operating existing highway, transit, and other
transportation modes to maintain or improve performance for each mode
without adversely affecting neighborhoods or urban centers. The goals
for smart growth include knitting transportation improvement projects
and public/private investments so that they merge as seamlessly as
possible into the community; supporting the provision of mixed use
development, where feasible, so that transit, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and ferry boats are viable options to driving; and
accommodating the flow of freight and passengers throughout the country
so that the economy can continue to grow.
Smart growth does not mean pitting transit or any other mode
against highways. We recognize that it is impractical to completely
build our way out of congestion in our most congested metropolitan
areas. But that does not mean that we think that new roads and
improvements to the existing road network should be eliminated. It is
not an issue of highways versus transit. It is an issue of expanding
transportation choices and providing a balanced intermodal
transportation system that allows for the efficient and economical
movement of people and goods. In some areas that may mean more transit
and in other areas it may entail significant roadway improvements, and
in most areas it probably means both. It is up to State and local
officials to decide how best to address their unique set of
circumstances, and it is the Department of Transportation's role to
help them best implement their decision.
While FHWA and FTA strongly believe that land use decisions are
State and local decisions, and should remain that way, we do believe
that there is much to be gained from more coordination among State and
local planning, zoning, and housing authorities, and environmental and
transportation officials, in reaching those decisions. We also believe
that there should be more dialog between local decisionmakers and
transportation professionals on the connections between land use and
surface transportation-including, for example, more dialog between
airport sponsors and metropolitan planning organizations. Such dialogs
would allow us to learn from each other and produce better
transportation outcomes.
FHWA's role in promoting ``smart growth'' is to provide technical
assistance and training to our State and local customers concerning the
linkages between transportation and land use. Along with FTA, we will
work cooperatively with other Federal agencies such as the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the EPA, to assist us with
transportation-related issues, such as affordable housing or
brownfields, to provide as much assistance as possible in the form of
research, technical expertise, and training to local and State
governments. At the same time, we will be mindful that the people of
this country hold freedom of mobility as a cherished individual right.
In addition to the Metropolitan and statewide Capacity Building
Program mentioned above, our efforts to help State and local
governments make smart decisions about growth include support for the
Transportation Enhancements Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the Transportation and Community
and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP), and research in areas
such as value pricing, modeling, and land use.
transportation and community and system preservation pilot program
(tcsp)
The TCSP program was created by section 1221 of TEA-21, as a
competitive discretionary program to stimulate innovative strategies
for using transportation investments to achieve economic growth, while
simultaneously protecting the environment and ensuring a high quality
of life. TCSP projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 1999 and fiscal year
2000 are demonstrating results that include: developing new analytical
tools to assess the impacts of transportation and land use alternatives
on mobility and economic development; expanding the range of partners
involved in transportation and land use planning; and demonstrating
design practices that increase travel options and improve the character
of local communities. For example, TCSP grants are being used in Mono
County, California; Centreville, Delaware; and Cleveland, Ohio to
investigate design changes that can improve safety and pedestrian
access, while still maintaining traffic flow, where high-traffic roads
run through community centers. A TCSP project in Oregon will survey the
impact on travel patterns of telecommuting centers being developed in
rural Oregon by the Oregon Department of Energy.
TCSP was authorized in TEA-21 at $25 million per year. The response
to the program has been positive--between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2002, we received approximately 1,332 applications totaling $906
million in response to Federal Register Notices. With the pending
announcement of fiscal year 2002 TCSP awards, there will be a total of
420 TCSP grant awards.
A significant number of TCSP projects in fiscal year 2001 and 2002
were designated in congressional committee reports. While many of these
projects might not have been selected in a competitive process similar
to the one used to recommend the fiscal year 1999 and 2000 TCSP
discretionary awards, we can state that all projects that have received
funds are statutorily eligible.
Although FHWA believes that a truly discretionary program,
administered through a competitive merit-based process, would allow us
to better maximize the benefits of the TCSP program, we are working
aggressively to ensure that the funds provided for TCSP projects are
used to advance the program's goals as established in TEA-21.
TCSP outreach efforts by FHWA, including a comprehensive report on
the first 3 years of implementation based in part on interviews with
grantees, have elicited suggestions for improving TCSP in
reauthorization. Suggestions include: award future TCSP grants through
a competitive process; continue to emphasize learning and knowledge
transfer; and maintain a focus on both planning and implementation.
conclusion
ISTEA and TEA-21 have provided us a solid and balanced structure
around which to shape reauthorization legislation and we will build on
the programmatic and financial initiatives of these two historic
surface transportation acts. To this end, we will apply the core
principles enunciated by Secretary Mineta in testimony before this
committee in January, including:
Building on the intermodal approaches of ISTEA and TEA-
21; * Preserving funding flexibility to allow the broadest application
of funds to transportation solutions, as identified by State and local
governments; and
Simplifying Federal transportation programs and
continuing efforts to streamline project approval and implementation.
In reauthorization, we want to work with this committee and with
our partners in the transportation community to find additional means
of assisting States to strengthen and improve their transportation
planning processes to better achieve not only their transportation
goals but their other societal goals as well.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I
look forward to responding to any questions you may have.
______
Responses of Cynthia Burbank to Additional Questions From Senator Smith
Transportation Planning and Smart Growth
Question 1. A recent report by the Transportation Research Board on
long-term research needs states, ``Research on transportation and the
environment has only recently begun to explore in any significant depth
the complex relationships among land development patterns,
transportation investments, travel behavior and consequent
environmental impacts.'' Please comment on the practicalities of
implementing a ``smart growth'' program given our limited understanding
of these relationships.
Response. FHWA's approach to Smart Growth recognizes the limits of
our knowledge of the complex relationships among land use,
transportation, and environment. Our approach relies on (a) research
into these relationships, often via case study approaches and through
research partnering with other organizations; and (b) deference to
State and local governments in establishing and carrying out land use
and Smart Growth policies, based on the circumstances and community
values on issues such as economic growth and environmental quality in
each State or area.
Question 2. How can we develop a more outcome-oriented
transportation planning process that relies less on mandatory planning
processes?
Response. FHWA has initiated Planning ``Capacity Building''
programs to improve the planning process through best practices, case
studies, training, peer-to-peer exchanges, and technical assistance
tools. This is a cooperative effort with Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), the American Public Transit Association (APTA), the Association
of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), the National Association
of Regional Councils (NARC), and the American Association of Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
As part of this Capacity Building initiative, we are focusing on
``performance-based planning,'' which several States and metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) have undertaken. We will disseminate
information and case studies on performance-based planning and will
encourage all States and MPOs to adopt performance-based planning,
which focuses on establishing outcome goals, tracking progress, and
making adjustments as needed to achieve those outcome goals.
__________
Statement of Kenneth J. Leonard, Director, Bureau of Planning,
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, on Behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Founded in 1914, AASHTO represents the departments concerned with
highway and transportation in the 50 States, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico. Its mission is a transportation system for the Nation
that balances mobility, economic prosperity, safety and the
environment.
tea-21 reauthorization--statewide transportation planning
AASHTO Recommends that Congress Consider the following:
Freight
Provide funding to support the development and
implementation of a training and capacity-building program to
strengthen the ability of State and local transportation agencies to
effectively address freight transportation issues.
Provide funding for the FHWA research program to support
freight transportation research that includes the private sector, and
allows the pooling of U.S. DOT modal agency funds.
Establish and fund a Freight Transportation Cooperative
Research Program.
Strengthen the transportation data programs and link them
to national, State and local planning for freight transportation.
Authorize a Freight Advisory Council that will
communicate to U.S. DOT, State DOTs, and others the industry's needs
and issues.
Financial Constraint
Calculate financial constraint based on total dollars in
the program compared to total revenue available, including both Federal
and State funds.
Allow flexibility in the documentation requirements used
by States to demonstrate financial constraint.
Revise financial planning and financial constraint
requirements for mega-projects to get away from the ``one size fits all
approach'' that impacts all projects over a certain cost level.
Permit the States and implementing agencies to
cooperatively develop definitions of ``anticipated full funding'' and
``reasonably available.''
Permit projects for which discretionary funding is being
sought to be included in financially constrained TIPs.
Permit a 10-year fiscal constraint time horizon for
purposes of the metropolitan long range transportation plan.
Major Investment Studies
Direct U.S. DOT to eliminate the MIS requirements
effective immediately and not make elimination of the MIS contingent on
the issuance of new regulations.
Authorize State DOTs and MPOs to develop optional
procedures (with public transit operators, as appropriate) through
which decisions reached in the statewide and metropolitan planning
process regarding purpose-and-need and range of alternatives would be
binding in the NEPA process.
Planning Timeline
Continue to provide flexibility to States as to the
content of statewide Long Range Transportation Plans, performance
measures and planning horizons so long as a minimum 20-year horizon is
maintained.
Change the update cycle for Long Range Metropolitan
Transportation Plans from 3 years to 5 years.
Land Use and Smart Growth
Continue to defer to local and State governments on
whether and how to consider land use in the course of transportation
planning.
Consultation
Continue the existing balance of decisionmaking authority
between the MPO, the State and local officials.
Planning Roles and Responsibilities
Maintain the current balance of responsibility for the
development of highway transit and intermodal projects, and reaffirm
the leadership role and authority of the States.
Retain the current definitions of planning
``consultation, cooperation and coordination.''
Retain the existing program structure rather than
authorizing new set-asides or program categories.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Ken Leonard. I am the Director of the
Bureau of Planning at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. I am
speaking today on behalf of the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in my role as vice chairman of
the AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning.
Mr. Chairman, thank you on behalf of the State transportation
officials across the country for inviting AASHTO to participate in this
hearing to examine the State of the transportation planning process. My
testimony today will address a number of specific planning issues that
have drawn attention, including freight planning capacity, financial
constraint provisions, local consultation, performance-based planning
and the role of State department of transportation (DOTs) with respect
to land use. First, I want preface my remarks with the observation that
the statewide transportation planning process is very complicated, in
part because of the very complex set of transportation challenges that
the transportation planning process must address, but also because of
the many layers of Federal and State transportation and environmental
statutes and directives that guide the process. From our perspective,
the goal should be to simplify the process and not add further
complexity.
Federal law has long established that the Federal-aid highway
program is a ``federally assisted State program''. The program has
evolved through the years and, in addition to providing roles for
Federal and State officials, provides roles for local governments and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was
important as the first piece of transportation legislation in the post-
Interstate era. ISTEA set in motion a positive effort toward
implementation of a responsive transportation program designed to meet
a diversity of national transportation needs.
ISTEA placed a strong emphasis on the transportation planning
process, including much more emphasis on public involvement. In
addition, ISTEA included 23 planning factors for use in statewide
planning, and 16 planning factors for use in Metropolitan Planning.
While much of this type of analysis and public involvement was already
being done by many State DOTs, ISTEA placed stronger emphasis on these
matters.
The successor to ISTEA, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) consolidated the planning factors into seven,
including:
Support the economic vitality of the Nation, the States
and MPOs.
Increase the safety and security of the transportation
system for motorized and non-motorized users.
Increase the accessibility and mobility options for
people and freight.
Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy
conservation and quality of life.
Enhance the integration and connectivity of the
transportation system, across and between modes throughout the State
for people and freight.
Promote efficient system management and operation; and
Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation
system.
TEA-21 also included a provision that failure to consider any one
of the planning factors is not actionable in a court of law. In part,
this recognizes the need to allow diverse approaches that reflect the
unique conditions in each State--i.e., State constitutional and
statutory requirements, geographic size and population, institutional
history, political environments and differing transportation
challenges, needs and priorities. Despite its complexity, the post-
Interstate transportation planning process has evolved effectively
because of support for innovation, understanding of the need for
flexible approaches and emphasis on training, technical assistance and
information sharing rather than command and control oversight.
Current Transportation Planning Practices and Innovative Approaches
The current framework for statewide and metropolitan transportation
planning was established in TEA-21 and its predecessor ISTEA. In the
past decade, we have seen significant changes in the transportation
planning process. We have strengthened the stakeholder and public
involvement, and established multi-modal planning processes that take
into account a broad array of factors, including community input and
goals, economic development, improved access to transportation
facilities and services for all, and enhanced environmental quality and
protection.
In addition, there has been a renewed focus on attainment of the
Federal clean air standards, and with that we have incorporated
transportation conformity requirements into the planning process. The
objective of transportation conformity is to better harmonize
transportation and air quality planning and to ensure that
transportation investments do not thwart clean air goals.
While the transportation planning processes within the States and
metropolitan areas are generally sound and should be retained, some
improvements can be made to simplify and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the process. However, in doing so, we need to ensure
that new requirements are not added that will encumber the processes
that have evolved over the past decade. In addition, the U.S. DOT
should continue and enhance its training, technical assistance,
capacity building and information sharing efforts.
Greater Focus on Freight in the Transportation Planning Process
Both ISTEA and TEA-21 emphasize the need for increased attention to
freight movement in their planning factors. States have been including
the freight system in their statewide multimodal transportation plans
as required first by ISTEA. As part of this effort, Wisconsin, and a
number of other States, include a freight advisory committee as part of
their planning process that engages both freight transportation
providers and shippers.
Recognizing the increased importance of freight transportation,
AASHTO has created a new committee to focus on freight, the Special
Committee on Intermodal Transportation and Economic Expansion.
AASHTO has also been putting increased emphasis on freight planning
in its tools development and capacity building for States and MPOs.
Currently we are funding a research project on ``Best practices in
statewide Freight Planning'' which will examine planning in States
where efforts have been made to better understand goods movement. The
lessons learned in this project will then be passed on to other States
and MPOs. We will also be conducting a workshop this year on the need
for better intermodal freight connections. The objective of this
workshop will be to improve the awareness within States and MPOs of
intermodal freight needs.
In addition, AASHTO is sponsoring an increasing amount of freight
research through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). I am
personally chairing a research project for $500,000 to develop
``Methods for Forecasting statewide Freight Movements and Related
Performance Measures''. The results of this research should improve our
ability to predict future freight movements so we can plan and
construct facilities accordingly. Another research project is entitled
``Freight Movement by Rail--Impacts and Opportunities''. This project
will examine the relationships between rail and other freight modes to
identify opportunities for rail as part of an optimum mix.
To facilitate freight consideration in the planning process, AASHTO
recommends the following actions:
$10 million annually should be provided to support an
initiative through which the U.S. DOT and the State DOTs will jointly
develop and implement a training and capacity-building program to
strengthen the ability of State and local transportation agencies to
effectively address freight transportation issues.
Congress should increase funding for the FHWA research
program to support freight transportation research that includes the
private sector, and allows the pooling of U.S. DOT modal agency funds.
A Freight Transportation Cooperative Research Program should be created
and funded in the range of $5 million to $7.5 million annually. The
transportation data programs should be strengthened and linked
effectively to national, State and local planning for freight
transportation.
AASHTO's recommendations to Congress also include support for
authorizing a Freight Advisory Council that would communicate to U.S.
DOT, State DOTs and others with one voice the industry's needs and
issues.
Financially Constrained Plans
ISTEA included a provision for a financially constrained
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). Subsequent FHWA regulations defined this
requirement to mean fiscal constraint by type of fund and year, with no
over-programming.
TEA-21 continued requirements for financial constraint for State
Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPS) and urban Transportation
Improvement Programs (TIPS). The intent of these requirements was to
match program-level project commitments to overall resources at the
planning and program development stage in order to avoid the creation
of wish lists of projects for which funds might not be realistically
available for the foreseeable future under any circumstances. While the
expectation for a fiscally constrained planning and programming process
is both reasonable and beneficial, in practice it is sometimes being
applied to cash-flow and project management.
From the State DOT perspective, the financial constraint
requirement makes it difficult for States to make adjustments needed as
to which projects can move forward to obligation and letting. States
need flexibility in managing their programs to be able to make
adjustments should a project become delayed. The financial constraint
provision makes it difficult to move forward another ready project for
funding should a project in the STIP be delayed for any reason. It is
equally difficult to move forward with projects when unanticipated
State initiatives make additional funds available.
The TEA-21 reauthorization legislation needs to provide sufficient
flexibility in financial constraint and timing to allow States to deal
with unexpected delays in project development and in working with their
State legislatures to obtain adequate funding. State DOTs and MPOs need
flexibility and discretion in the development of their STIPs and TIPs
to enable them to deal with the realities of cash-flow, uncertainties
in project schedules, and fluctuating funding levels. Moreover, when
air quality and other environmental laws are paired with financial
constraint requirements, it creates a bureaucratic maze that delays
needed projects and prevents States from concluding the NEPA process on
large, multi-phase projects whose costs are spread over a long time
period.
AASHTO believes that the TEA-21 reauthorization legislation should
increase flexibility related to financial constraint in State and
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs. AASHTO recommends
legislative changes that:
1. Calculate financial constraint based on total dollars in the
program compared to total revenue available, including both Federal and
State funds. 2. Allow flexibility in the documentation requirements
used by States to demonstrate financial constraint. 3. Revise financial
planning and financial constraint requirements for mega-projects to get
away from the ``one size fits all approach'' that impacts all projects
over a certain cost level. 4. Permit the States and implementing
agencies to cooperatively develop definitions of ``anticipated full
funding'' and ``reasonably available''. 5. Permit projects for which
discretionary funding is being sought to be included in financially
constrained TIPs. 6. Permit a 10-year fiscal constraint time horizon
for purposes of the metropolitan long range transportation plan.
In practice, the problem with the Financially Constrained Plan is
that it is too strictly applied, and has become more of a cash-flow
financial management instrument.
Major Investment Studies
In October, 1993, FHWA issued revised regulations implementing the
planning provisions of ISTEA. These revised regulations included a new
concept--the major investment study or MIS, which was not specifically
required in ISTEA itself.
The regulations required an MIS for any ``major metropolitan
transportation investment'' where ``Federal funds are potentially
involved''. The regulations defined a major investment as a ``high-type
highway or transit improvement of substantial cost that is expected to
have a significant effect on capacity, traffic flow, level of service,
or mode share at the transportation corridor or subarea level''.
Two options were allowed for preparing an MIS. Under ``Option 1 ``,
the MIS was prepared as a stand-alone study prior to the NEPA process.
Under ``Option 2'', the MIS was combined with the EIS into a single
document.
The two options for the MIS raised significant concerns:
Option 1 MIS (prepare MIS, then EIS): When Option 1 was
used, the ``decisions'' made in the MIS process were often discarded
when the NEPA process began. In effect, it became necessary to start
over again in the NEPA process, which caused the MIS process to lose
credibility among agencies and the public.
Option 2 MIS (prepare MIS and EIS together): While the
Option 2 MIS avoided the problems with Option 1, it also provided less
flexibility. The Option 2 MIS was, in fact, an expanded EIS; it did not
provide a vehicle for conducting a corridor-level planning study before
making a commitment to prepare a full EIS for a specific project.
In reaction to the experience with the MIS, Congress enacted
Section 1308 of TEA-21 which directed U.S. DOT to ``eliminate the major
investment study . . . as a separate requirement and promulgate
regulations to integrate such requirement, as appropriate, as part of
the analysis required under the planning and NEPA processes for highway
and transit projects.
Section 1308 also provided that ``the scope of the applicability of
such regulations shall be no broader than the scope of such section''.
In May, 2000, FHWA and FTA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) for new statewide and metropolitan planning regulations.
Pursuant to Section 1308 of TEA-21, the proposed regulations would have
eliminated the MIS as a stand-alone requirement. However, the proposed
regulations also would have created a new requirement with broader
application.
In its comments on the NPRM, AASHTO strongly opposed the MIS
integration provisions in the FHWA's proposed planning regulations.
AASHTO raised several objections, including:
The proposal created a new requirement that applied to
all projects, not just major investments. Because the new requirement
was broader in its applicability than the original MIS regulation, it
directly contradicted Section 1308 of TEA-21. * The new requirement
created a mandatory process, which had the potential to become
extremely resource-intensive. * The new process did nothing to ensure
that decisions made in the planning stage would be accepted in the NEPA
process.
AASHTO's recommendation regarding the MIS issue when it is
considered in the reauthorization of TEA-21 is that Congress direct
U.S. DOT to eliminate the MIS requirement effective immediately, and
not make elimination of the MIS contingent on the issuance of new
regulations.
AASHTO also recommends that Congress authorize State DOTs and MPOs
to develop optional procedures (with public transit operators, as
appropriate) through which decisions reached in the statewide and
metropolitan planning process regarding purpose-and-need and range of
alternatives would be binding in the NEPA process.
Planning Timelines
With regard to State Long Range Transportation Plans, Congress
should continue to provide flexibility to States as to content of Long
Range Plans, performance measures and planning horizons so long as a
minimum 20-year horizon is maintained.
TEA-21 required that each MPO develop a Metropolitan Long Range
Transportation Plan with a minimum 20-year forecast period.
Metropolitan planning provisions in TEA-21 establish general guidelines
for State DOTs, MPOs and transit agencies to follow in updating MPO
plans, which FHWA requires every 3 years.
However, in a 3-year update cycle, MPOs don't have adequate time to
improve their data collection and modeling processes. Further, the 3
year update cycle makes it difficult to involve the public since the
planning agency is always in a continuous update cycle. If the update
cycle was changed to 5 years, MPOs would be able to strengthen the
planning process by improving the data and updating their modeling
tools.
To overcome the problems listed above, AASHTO advocates that
Congress change the update cycle for Long Range Metropolitan
Transportation Plans from 3 years to 5 years.
Land Use and Smart Growth
TEA-21 requires consideration of projects and strategies that will,
among other things, ``increase accessibility and mobility options'' and
``enhance the integration of the transportation system.'' These
parallel considerations are often included in land use planning
activities. TEA-21 correctly eliminated any specific reference to
State-level responsibility for land use planning in recognition that
States only rarely have authority to directly make land use decisions.
Land use has historically been considered to be a local government
function. Most States, as a matter of State law or practice, defer most
or all land use decisionmaking to local units of government. Land use
reflects a number of local circumstances, and local officials should
have the responsibility to determine land use for their particular
area. Trying to legislate one particular approach to land use--a ``one
size fits all'' approach--simply would not be workable from an
interjurisdictional perspective.
Congress should ensure that Federal statutes continue to defer to
local and State governments on whether and how to consider land use in
the course of transportation planning.
With regard to Smart Growth, Wisconsin has ``Smart Growth''
legislation, and has worked cooperatively with local units of
government and developed a ``Transportation Guide'' for the local
communities to use in developing their comprehensive plans. This
stresses the importance of planning for land use and transportation
together once the community has determined its vision.
AASHTO has several Smart Growth related activities underway,
including:
Sponsoring meetings and working with State DOTs, U.S. DOT
and other organizations on Context Sensitive Design. AASHTO supports
Context Sensitive Design, and attention to the way streets and highways
are routed or redesigned through living areas to lessen any negative
effects they may have on the livability of an area. AASHTO is
developing a guide on context sensitive design, which is slated for
publication later this year. * Through a grant from FHWA and EPA,
AASHTO is sponsoring a Smart Growth competition to highlight new and
innovative Smart Growth initiatives being tried around the country.
AASHTO has launched an Environmental Stewardship
initiative to assist State DOTs in capacity building efforts to deliver
needed transportation projects in a manner that preserves and enhances
our environment.
Under this Environmental Stewardship initiative, AASHTO is working
with FHWA, other Federal agencies, and environmental organizations in
the establishment of a Center for Environmental Excellence,
AASHTO is also sponsoring an Environmental Stewardship pilot
program to again disseminate information about best practices in
working with the environment.
Several State DOTs, such as New York, have incorporated
environmental stewardship into all facets of their operations, whether
planning and designing new facilities, or maintenance activities such
as grass cutting.
Are the appropriate parties being included in the process?
Congress should continue the existing balance of decisionmaking
authority between the MPO, the State and local officials. This would
continue already proven arrangements that have worked well for a decade
and been agreed to by transportation officials and professionals
nationwide.
In particular, the current relationships in rural areas should
remain unchanged. Rural transportation planning already is fully
encompassed by the statewide planning provisions of 23 USC section 135,
which have been institutionalized nationally since ISTEA. Indeed, in
most States a comparable rural/statewide transportation planning
process was in place before ISTEA.
Much has been said about the changes that TEA-21 made to
consultation with rural officials. In fact, a review of the language in
both statutes reveals that the net effect of the changes is that, with
respect to nonmetropolitan areas, States are to consult not only with
certain ``elected officials'', but also with affected local officials
``with responsibility for transportation.''
There is no question that there must be consultation, and we
believe that in most States this is taking place. Where local officials
are being left out of planning discussions, we believe that FHWA should
consider some type of case-by-case action to ensure consultation.
However, failure by one State or area to consult should not become the
basis for imposing broad regulations that dictate how the States should
consult with their local officials.
In Wisconsin, rural planning is a collaborative effort between the
States, regional planning commissions and local government. This
arrangement goes back to the 1960's. These parties coordinate their
planning activities utilizing advisory committees, intergovernmental
committees, guidance documents, association meetings, public
involvement, etc. In addition, Wisconsin has a Local Roads and Streets
Council composed of all levels of government: counties, towns,
villages, cities and State. This council develops and evaluates local
road data and develops policy initiatives based on that data as well as
evaluates policy and program options on funding. Other States have
similar arrangements for their local planning depending on their unique
institutional and statutory authority.
Have the planning partners been given the proper roles and mandate?
In recognizing statutorily that the Federal-aid highway program is
a ``federally assisted State program'', TEA-21 acknowledges two
centuries of federalism. Implicit in this recognition is an
appreciation of the central role that the States perform in the
development of our surface transportation system, even as other
jurisdictions and institutions--local government, MPOs, tribal
governments and Federal agencies--have come to play important parts.
The nation is well-served by the current balance of responsibility for
the development of highway, transit and intermodal projects, and AASHTO
recommends that Congress maintain this balance and reaffirm the
leadership role and authority of the States as TEA-21 is reauthorized.
Congress should continue TEA-21's decisionmaking responsibilities,
processes, and procedures for planning, programming and project
selection. This means retaining the balance of decisionmaking between
States and MPOs, and State and rural officials; retaining the current
definitions of planning ``consultation, cooperation and coordination,''
and meeting needs through the existing program structure, rather than
through new set-asides.
Do planning organizations have adequate capacity, tools and resources
to carry out their assigned role and responsibilities?
AASHTO is working closely with the Federal Highway Administration,
the Federal Transit Administration, the Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations, and the National Association of Regional
Councils to develop and deploy various capacity building tools to
assist transportation planners. Several initiatives are included in
this activity, including a web site where transportation planning
assistance can be disseminated.
In addition, AASHTO has been working closely with the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) to continue to improve planning
tools. There are on-going projects related to safety, freight planning,
rural planning, public involvement, economic benefits, and innovative
financing. There are additional needs for techniques to deal with
capacity needs to support the nations' economy, accelerating the
renewal of our highways, providing reliable travel times, and making
improvements in highway safety. In fact, in these four areas, AASHTO is
working cooperatively with FHWA to identify research needed to address
these problems. These research proposals will be completed in time to
be considered during reauthorization of TEA-21.
However, if there are increases in requirements through the Federal
legislative or regulatory process, it will be difficult to meet them
through the planning process. Currently, planning and research for
States and their localities is supported by 2 per cent of certain
Federal aid categories. If the overall Federal program grows, planning
funds should be sufficient. But if the program does not grow, there
will not be enough planning funds to keep up with new challenges let
alone any new requirements. For years, Wisconsin has shared its
planning funds with the MPOs, regional planning commissions and local
government. This is becoming much more difficult. In addition, research
at the national level is critically under funded.
Summary
As statewide and Metropolitan planning issues are considered in the
reauthorization of TEA-21, it is important to recognize the differences
among States and provide adequate flexibility. The reauthorization
legislation needs to include flexibility that allows States and MPOs to
adapt it to different parts of the country based on government
structure, geography, population and a number of other important
factors.
In addition to legislative changes, AASHTO is particularly
concerned about any Federal planning regulations that may come forward
after the reauthorization legislation is passed. AASHTO strongly
believes that such regulations should be consistent with congressional
intent.
Thank you for allowing me to present AASHTO's perspective on these
issues. AASHTO is available to work with you and your staff on these
important issues that will be considered in the reauthorization of TEA-
21. I would be happy to answer any questions here, or in writing.
__________
Responses of Kenneth Leonard to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question. Do you feel that computer simulations, an example of
which would be TRANSIMS, are (or could be) valuable in the planning
process? Are, or could they be, effective in the examination of various
planning options?
Response. A computer simulation approach to estimating and
analyzing travel in a metropolitan area holds great potential for
evaluating a number of issues currently of concern to policymakers at
the Federal, State, metropolitan and local level. The principal
development effort for a computer simulation approach has been through
the TRANSIMS project under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of
Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency. Because TRANSIMS
models the travel of individual travelers and vehicles as opposed to
predicting aggregate travel for entire zones, it has the potential to
more accurately estimate travel as well as to address a number of
issues that current travel demand models are unable to address. These
issues include, for example, analysis of travel by various segments of
the population, differences in travel characteristics by time of day,
the effects of a number of traffic operations and Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) measures, the effects of priority
treatments for transit and/or high occupancy vehicles, as well as the
effects of changes in the amount of transit or highway capacity
provided. The potential value of TRANSIMS lies with its simulation
which has significant advantages over the traditional 4-step traffic
models. Transportation planners, in particular, have long sought the
capability to simulate travel on roadway networks, but have only
recently been given the software and hardware needed to apply
simulation.
TRANSIMS gives planners the ability to see how traffic actually
moves through the network, demonstrating how traffic responds to
network and other conditions that affect traffic. It also provides
information on how individual vehicles and groups of vehicles function
in their surroundings. This capability is important because it permits
the planner to work with the traffic engineer to understand and use
simulation results to improve traffic flow conditions and thereby help
both to better deal with actual conditions. The simulation in TRANSIMS
also permits a better understanding of traffic congestion by
forecasting when vehicle travel will be initiated, thereby
demonstrating how congestion propagates.
Probably equally important is the information that simulation
provides on the operating conditions of motor vehicles, thereby
permitting better understanding of how travel patterns and traffic
conditions affect motor vehicle engine performance and the resulting
air quality in the vicinity of roadways. Second-by-second simulation of
vehicle movements for every vehicle on the transportation system will
allow for much more accurate estimates of vehicle emissions, taking
into account vehicle acceleration, deceleration and idling
characteristics, as well as cold start and evaporative characteristics
after the vehicle has been turned off. This offers the potential for
much more accurate and detailed analysis of the effects of proposed
Transportation Control Measures for air quality.
Because of the level of complexity of the computer simulation
approach used by TRANSIMS, the development of the model has proven to
be more complicated and time consuming than originally anticipated.
Until the model is operational and used in an actual metropolitan area
(the first application is expected to be in Portland, Oregon), the full
potential, benefits and costs of the model will not be known. Of
specific concern is the amount of data that may be required to make the
model an effective analysis tool in any particular metropolitan area.
Because TRANSIMS is a radical departure from current travel demand
modeling approaches, there will be special challenges in educating the
transportation planning community in how to use it and in acquiring the
necessary computer hardware to operate such a complex, computer
resource intensive model. AASHTO is supportive of the continued
development of TRANSIMS due to its potential as an analysis tool, but
cautions that it is still too early to understand all the issues that
are associated with its use throughout the transportation planning
community.
______
Responses of Kenneth Leonard to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. What would be the impact of a legislative mandate for
greater consistency in the incorporation of local governments into the
transportation decisionmaking process, as has been suggested by the
National Association of Regional Councils?
Response. The States have greatly varied needs, resources and
environments that call for flexibility in order to give each State the
ability to adapt its process to its unique social, political,
geographical, legislative and constitutional circumstances. Each State
has developed its own process for consulting with local officials that
reflects and conforms to these unique factors.
The AASHTO interim position on TEA-21 Reauthorization, in speaking
to this issue, states:
Recognizing that the Federal-aid highway program is a ``federally
assisted State program,'' Congress should continue TEA-21's
decisionmaking responsibilities, processes and procedures for
transportation planning, programming and project selection. This means
retaining the balance of decisionmaking between the States and MPOs,
and States and rural officials; retaining the current definitions of
planning ``consultation, cooperation and coordination,'' and meeting
needs through the existing program structure.
While preserving State leadership and authority in the development
of transportation plans, programs and projects, the TEA-21
Reauthorization should also respect the roles of other jurisdictions,
institutions and the public and their involvement in the transportation
planning process.
Question 2. Is there a shortage of qualified transportation
engineers and planners, and if so, how has it contributed to the
challenges faced by the transportation planning process, and what can
be done to solve this problem?
Response. According to a May, 2001 NCHRP report titled Managing
Change in State Departments of Transportation, issued May 2001, ``State
departments of transportation face severe challenges in recruiting and
maintaining their workforces''. State DOTs are looking for innovative
ways to recruit and retain the necessary workforce.
State DOTs are facing shortages of not only transportation
engineers and planners, but also of personnel who are able to use new
technology.
The growing complexity of the transportation planning process makes
it difficult for State DOTs to handle the growing range of issues that
are considered. This complex transportation planning process that
includes such challenging items as travel modeling, economic analysis,
financial planning, public involvement and additional items make it
difficult for State DOTs to recruit and train sufficient staff with the
broad range of needed skill sets.
States DOTs are addressing this workforce issue by increasing their
efforts in recruitment and retention. As a longer term solution, they
are strengthening professional development programs and establishing
succession programs and processes. In the shorter term, many State DOTs
are using private consultants to help keep projects moving.
In Wisconsin, the department provides support to the university
transportation center to promote the education of transportation
professionals and regularly participates in university job fairs and
class lectures promoting careers in transportation engineering and
planning.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before your
committee on May 15, and I am available should you or your staff have
additional questions or need additional information.
__________
Statement of Dr. Ronald Kirby, Director of Transportation Planning,
National Capital Region, Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Ronald Kirby,
Director of Transportation Planning for the National Capital Region
Transportation Planning Board, the Metropolitan Planning Organization
for the Washington, DC region. I am appearing today at your invitation
on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(AMPO) of which I am an active member, serving as vice chairman of its
Management Committee and a member of its Policy Committee.
I want to thank you and the members of the committee for holding
this series of hearings to review critical issues surrounding the
reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21).
This act and its predecessor, ISTEA, rightfully recognized the
importance of planning a metropolitan transportation system and gave me
and my colleagues at 340 other MPOs increased responsibility to develop
effective strategic long-range plans and comprehensive, multi-modal
transportation improvement programs. With the 2000 census we expect
that an additional 61 MPOs will be established to serve newly
designated urbanized areas, and that the geographic areas and
populations served by existing MPOs will grow significantly.
While new responsibilities such as management and operations have
been added to MPO requirements by TEA-21, the percentage of highway
program funding for metropolitan planning has remained at the 1 percent
level set in ISTEA. It is time to increase the takedown from the
highway program and the amount allocated from the transit program. This
will reflect a) the almost 20 percent increase in MPOs resulting from
the 2000 census, b) the increasingly urbanized U. S. population coming
under the rubric of existing MPOs, and c) the increased MPO
responsibilities created by enhanced planning provisions and
requirements. AMPO suggests the takedown be increased to 2 percent of
the overall program.
I understand your interest is in exploring the lessons learned from
the 10 years of experience with metropolitan planning since the
enactment of ISTEA in 1991, the adequacy of the planning tools
available, the adequacy of resources to perform metropolitan
transportation planning, and whether the right groups have been at the
table during the development of plans and programs. I would like to
provide you with a few initial thoughts: we need to retain key
provisions in the planning process, increase the resources for plans
and projects, and venture into new areas to improve planning and
implementation of our metropolitan transportation systems.
I classify the tools for planning in three categories: 1) tools
that are working effectively and we should retain, 2) tools that work
effectively and we should expand, and 3) new tools we need to continue
effective planning.
First, we should retain tools that are working effectively. The
requirement for a financially realistic plan and a fiscally constrained
program is the most effective tool provided by ISTEA and TEA-21. This
requirement eliminated ``wish list'' plans and programs which did not
identify enough funds for implementation. This financial constraint
requirement gave credibility to the MPO plans and programs and
presented the public with a realistic view of what can be delivered in
the way of transportation projects and services. It is imperative that
this requirement be retained.
Any dilution of the fiscal constraint requirement may find us over-
promising transportation improvements and losing our credibility with
our customers. Citizens and users of our metropolitan transportation
systems who rightfully complain about congestion and unreliability in
parts of our system will not countenance papering over the problem with
wishes for projects that cannot be delivered.
In addition to financial constraint, two ancillary tools in TEA-21
should also be retained: 1) the requirement for cooperative revenue
forecasting among MPOs, States and transit authorities and 2) the
requirement for an annual listing of obligated projects to be prepared
by the MPO.
Along with financial tools, the overall planning approach
established in ISTEA and TEA-21 should be retained. The requirement
that long range plans be strategic in nature with broad community goals
and specific objectives places the transportation agenda in a broader
context, encouraging the linkage between transportation, land use, the
economy and the environment in a metropolitan area.
When this approach is combined with early and extensive involvement
of the community, the MPO has a solid basis for developing its long-
range plan and transportation improvement program. ISTEA and TEA-21
transformed the long range plan from a twenty-year listing of
transportation projects to a blueprint for community development which
indicates the appropriate contribution transportation investment can
make to that development.
In the Washington metropolitan area, these ISTEA and TEA-21 tools
have, in the words of one of our elected officials, ``forced us to ask
the right questions.'' Application of the financial constraint in the
early-1990's resulted in a rather stressful prioritization of
transportation improvements for inclusion in the long-range plan, and
the initiation of a visioning process aimed at developing a broad
consensus on regional transportation goals and addressing the critical
funding needs we had identified. The Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Program (TCSP) has allowed us to pursue previously
unaddressed goals in our new vision regarding a system of regional
greenways and circulation systems within regional activity centers, and
to focus increased attention on these areas in the project selection
process.
Second, we believe we should expand some of the existing tools that
work effectively. Two tools have been effective and should be expanded:
1) ensuring that adequate planning resources are available to MPOs, and
2) making project funds available directly to MPOs.
As you may know, MPOs receive planning funds via a small percentage
take-down from the Federal highway authorization and a line item amount
from the transit authorization. ISTEA set the percentage for the
highway program at 1 percent, a reasonable figure given the increased
responsibilities asked of MPOs and the understanding that involving the
public in transportation decisionmaking would require appropriate
additional resources. With the increased urbanization of America, AMPO
believes that it is time to increase the takedown to 2 percent to serve
an increasing number of MPOs and a growing percentage of our population
in existing MPO areas.
Regarding funds to build projects, ISTEA and TEA-21 for the first
time put funds in the hands of local elected officials to assign to
projects developed cooperatively through the MPO process. Each MPO with
more than 200,000 in population receives a portion of the Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds allocated to its State to expend on
specific projects. These funds can be programmed based on the MPOs'
best judgment on the transportation needs of their metropolitan areas.
The funds are made available by the States through ``suballocation.''
The availability of these funds not only provides funding for vital
local projects, but also encourages local officials to get involved in
the transportation decisionmaking for their region, since, as they say,
there is ``real money'' on the table. Suballocation of STP funds has
been an outstanding success for the one-third of the MPOs that have
populations over 200,000, and needs to be expanded to the remaining
two-thirds of smaller areas that still have pressing needs for their
regions. AMPO suggests: 1) restoring the suballocation of the STP
minimum guarantee funds and extending the suballocation of urbanized
STP funds to all MPOs, and 2) suballocating CMAQ funds to MPOs in air
quality non-attainment and maintenance areas.
Third, let us look at possible new tools to improve the
effectiveness of metropolitan transportation planning.
In order to complement the financial constraint requirement and
suballocation proposal, it would be helpful to require States to
account annually for expenditures of NHS and other programs. This would
allow for a clear and comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of
plan implementation. In other words, ``did we build what we planned?"
Once we have built facilities, and managed and operated the system,
we should determine how effective we have been. MPOs need better data
on the use of the metropolitan transportation system. AMPO suggests two
tools to measure effectiveness: 1) invest resources in monitoring
devices to track use of our transportation facilities, the so-called
``Infostructure,'' and 2) encourage the development of a performance-
based management and operation element within MPO plans and programs.
To give local officials the greatest flexibility in applying solutions
to our metropolitan transportation needs, we recommend that the law
make clear that NHS, STP and CMAQ funds may and should be used for
projects that manage and operate the system.
Another area of transportation planning, freight planning, needs
some new tools. While consideration of freight is a planning factor, it
is time to give MPOs greater capability to develop and apply solutions
to freight needs. AMPO proposes that the reauthorization bill broaden
the eligibility of freight project funding, provide incentives to
attract private investment, and allow port access and gateways to be
eligible for the ``corridors and borders'' program.
Finally, we feel new tools are needed to streamline project
delivery and air quality conformity processes. The MPO planning process
offers untapped opportunities to identify environmental issues and
incorporate them into the process of defining project alternatives. To
take advantage of these opportunities, we propose that the
reauthorization bill 1) require that both Federal project-sponsoring
and resource agencies participate in the MPO corridor planning process,
2) allow concurrent review processes, and 3) provide incentives for
demonstrating innovative streamlining techniques.
Regarding air quality conformity requirements, we recommend that
the law add two tools: 1) put the State air quality implementation plan
(SIP) and metropolitan transportation conformity plans on the same
timeframe, and 2) focus the conformity process on the metropolitan
transportation plan, not the transportation improvement program (TIP).
We will have more specific proposals regarding air quality conformity
in the near future.
In summary, I would like to emphasize the importance of planning in
producing effective transportation systems for our metropolitan areas.
In the planning, designing, building and operation of transportation
facilities the most important leadership must come in the planning
phase. With a solid plan developed through consensus you may be assured
that we will have a transportation system that works.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak before this
committee.
______
Responses of Ron Kirby to Additional Question from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Do you feel that computer simulations, an example of
which would be TRANSIMS, are (or could be) valuable in the planning
process? Are, or could they be, effective in the examination of various
planning options?
Response. Computer simulations have been successfully applied in a
variety of fields and industries, including transportation. One type of
simulation--small area micro-simulation--has been used by
transportation engineers for years to help study traffic across
bridges, complex interchanges, toll plazas, etc. Computer hardware and
software has reached the performance level that allows simulation
technology to be applied on a larger scale: a city or even a large
metropolitan area. TRANSIMS is a developmental effort in this class of
transportation planning tools, aimed at simulating travel of every
individual and every vehicle in a large metropolitan area. Once fully
developed, simulations like TRANSIMS could allow transportation
planners to build a significantly more precise model at the regional
level. In the shorter term, TRAMSIMS could be applied on a more limited
geographic scale to help with certain projects like new transit
stations. Additionally, the visual component in TRANSIMS could be
helpful to citizens and decisionmakers, such as local elected officials
on MPO Boards, because it allows non-experts the opportunity to see
various simulations.
______
Responses of Ron Kirby to Additional Question from Senator Smith
Question 1. How would you modify the conformity process to focus on
results, instead of process?
Response. We believe the intent of the law dictating the conformity
process focuses on results but that the true measure of success is
found when a region is able to attain the clean air standard. We feel
that conformity is an important link between mobility and clean air.
Additionally, we believe that the process can produce useful results if
there is good communication and cooperation between all stakeholders.
At this time, we defer on making specific recommendations for change to
the process itself in hopes of providing more information in the fall
after our policy committee has fully addressed this issue.
Question 2. What percent of an MPO's budget is typically spent on
the conformity process?
Response. In Chicago, the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS)
spends about 7.5 percent of a total budget of $4.7 million on
conformity. A representative from the MPO stated that they have spent
less on conformity over the years because they have ``gotten better at
it.'' In Dallas-Ft. Worth, the North Central Texas Council of
Governments spends about 10 percent of a total $5 million budget, or
$500,000, on conformity. In the Washington metropolitan region, we
spend about 7.7 percent of a $7.8 million budget or $600,000.
Question 2a. What percent of an MPO's budget is typically spent on
the transportation planning process? Please provide some examples for
specific MPOs.
Response. MPOs are charged solely with transportation planning. The
MPO spends 100 percent of its budget on this.
Question 3. What percent of current MPO budgets are covered by the
State and local governments? What percent of the MPOs responsibilities
relate to Federal transportation investment, and what percent of their
work relates to State and local responsibilities?
Response. The standard for funding is 80 percent Federal with a 20
percent local match (a portion of this may be provided by the State as
well as by the local governments). Local match may exceed 20 percent in
some cases. Planning responsibilities mirror this.
Question 4. Is there a shortage of qualified transportation
engineers and planners, and if so, how has it contributed to the
challenges faced by the transportation planning process, and what can
be done to solve this problem?
Response. We can only offer anecdotal information. According to
Institute of Transportation Engineers:
The Federal Highway Administration has indicated that 40 percent of
the State and local transportation workforce is between the ages of 45-
64. In the next 5-15 years, 40-50 percent of all transportation workers
will begin to retire. Graduate school enrollment in transportation
programs is on a decline as is undergraduate enrollment in civil
engineering. Although not exclusive sources of professionals to the
workforce, they are significant.
For additional information on this, please contact Aliyah Horton,
Senior Director of Government Affairs at (202) 289-0222.
__________
Statement of Peter Gregory, Executive Director, Two Rivers-Ottauquechee
Regional Commission, Woodstock, Vermont, on Behalf of the National
Association of Regional Councils (NARC)
Thank you Chairman Jeffords and members of the committee for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Peter Gregory; I am
the Executive Director of the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional
Commission (TRORC), in Woodstock, Vermont. I am here today representing
the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), our members, and
the local elected officials and citizens we represent. I am providing
testimony on behalf of NARC on the importance of transportation
planning to regional councils and Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs). I would like to discuss the success of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century, and changes necessary in its
reauthorization to strengthen planning, the role of local elected
officials, and specifically, how to better integrate rural areas into
the process. The topic of transportation planning and the processes
MPOs and councils use to achieve it is important to my commission,
NARC, and all of my colleagues across the country. In these processes
transportation systems are first developed and discussed so I am glad
to see this issue is important to the committee as well.
The National Association of Regional Councils is a 32-year-old
organization serving the interests of regional councils, and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations. NARC is an umbrella organization
comprised of planning commissions and development districts made up of
large urban and small rural councils, and MPOs from across the country.
NARC provides advocacy and technical assistance in and for
environmental issues, economic and community development, emergency
management, and transportation. NARC emphasizes regional
intergovernmental cooperation to resolve common problems in all of
these important areas.
Regional councils and MPOs are created by compact and enabling
legislation as consortia of local governments. As such, regional
councils and MPOs represent local elected officials from cities,
counties, townships, and villages. Their mission is regional planning
and coordination across multiple jurisdictions. Regional Councils and
MPOs deliver a wide-range of programs and services such as, economic
development, first responder and 911, health care, infrastructure
development, aging services, air and water quality, land-use planning,
work force development, emergency management and homeland security, and
transportation.
Among all of these programs, transportation is key to the continued
prosperity and health of all regions across the country. Access to
employment and recreation, and the movement of goods and services,
drive regional economies and serves to bridge communities otherwise
separated. An excellent example of regional coordination and service
delivery is the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC),
which is one of 12 regional planning commissions in the State of
Vermont. TRORC has planning responsibilities for 27 rural towns, most
with populations of less than 1000 residents. TRORC performs emergency
management, natural resource, land use and transportation planning
across its jurisdictions.
Since 1992 when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) was enacted, the State of Vermont has elected to obtain
local input on transportation investment decisions by contracting with
Vermont's regional planning commissions. Each regional planning
commission's work is guided by a transportation advisory committee
(TAC) comprised primarily of locally elected officials. These local
officials provide the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) with a
regional transportation plan and prioritized projects in all modes. In
Vermont, local and regional transportation policy is developed locally
and feeds into the statewide plan, thereby creating a seamless
philosophy on transportation investment.
This comprehensive program to document local interests has served
VTrans well since 1992. Successive Governors and Secretaries of the
Vermont Agency of Transportation have all strongly supported the
processes that regional planning commissions use to identify and
support projects. In addition, the Vermont Legislature has demonstrated
strong bi-partisan support for the inclusiveness of the process. They
have understood that regional planning commissions are closer to the
communities and bring a comprehensive and trusted approach to their
constituents. This innovative approach to public participation has now
been used by most of the agencies of State government as a cost
effective means to obtain an accurate assessment of local desires. The
regional planning commission relationship with the State of Vermont is
strong and is serving Vermonters well. It has evolved and matured and
has reacted to changing circumstances whether they be freight movement
or homeland security.
As an example of this relationship and as enabled by ISTEA and TEA-
21, Vermont took advantage of the opportunity to revisit highway design
standards used by VTrans engineers. In the mid-1990's, Vermont adopted
new, context sensitive standards that replaced the previously used
AASHTO standards. Highway, bridge and pedestrian and bicycle facilities
now attain their purpose and need while enhancing the built environment
and protecting more historic, social and environmental resources.
Vermont's regional planning commissions played the decisive role in
ensuring adoption of these new standards.
Vermont's citizens have also benefited by the formal involvement by
regional planning commissions in transportation planning. Through the
10-year period, the level of understanding by the general public in
transportation issues has grown steadily and dramatically. This, in
turn, enables more meaningful input for VTrans on project scope, and
allows the public greater understanding as to the constraints that are
faced when developing transportation infrastructure.
Vermont's regional planning commissions bring many unique talents
to the process, not the least of which is the expertise in all the
other disciplines that is needed when contemplating the rehabilitation
or construction of infrastructure. Vermont's regional planning
commissions all bring years of experience in computerized mapping which
delineates everything from sewer infrastructure to wetlands and
wildlife habitat. Integrating the extensive knowledge base we have with
the locally elected officials' input enables projects to be designed
and constructed substantially sooner than would have occurred in
previous decades. This preserves the environment and saves tax dollars
while meeting the mobility needs of the New England economy. Vermont is
clearly a ``best practice'' in rural transportation planning.
Vermont's regional planning commissions need a consistent and
predictable funding source to provide the services that we provide.
Although they all have close working relationships with VTrans today,
it is imperative that the process TRORC has undertaken over the last 10
years does not falter due to changing economic or political situations.
Guaranteed funding for rural areas to carry out planning is
essential. As in Vermont, councils need funding to plan the best
transportation systems possible. NARC will ask Congress to provide
States with meaningful incentives to move toward the Vermont example of
seeking rural officials' involvement. NARC is proposing new funding
streams in the next Bill, to make this a reality--including a Rural
Set-Aside for planning and projects.
This committee can appreciate a system that works well. Vermont is
an example of where ISTEA and TEA-21 were implemented successfully.
This success, however, is not replicated in all regions across the
country. Local elected officials, councils, and MPOs, in many cases and
in many places, have less say in the transportation planning and
decisionmaking process, then those in Vermont.
NARC proposes changes in TEA-21 to allow all States and regions to
replicate the success of Vermont. The association asks Congress to
smooth inconsistencies among States by adopting clear and concise law
incorporating local governments into the transportation decisionmaking
process. Local elected officials, cities, counties, and regions, should
not be left out of the system because, at the Federal level, there are
not clear voices sounding on their importance in the process. For
example, in many rural areas across the country, there is no Federal
statute that requires States to formally engage local elected officials
in the planning process. NARC would like to see law and regulation
requiring this process. Congress did ask the United States Department
of Transportation to promulgate their proposed regulation on local
official consultation. NARC asks this committee to reemphasize the
importance of this regulation and urge the Department of
Transportation, in the strongest sense possible, to move forward on its
release.
NARC is urging Congress to consider all its partners, not just
rural councils as important to building and maintaining the best
transportation system in the world. NARC seeks more funding for MPOs,
better coordination within State and Federal programs, and new and
innovative programs aimed at alleviating urban transportation problems
such as congestion, funding flexibility, and air quality. Congress
should guarantee States the flexibility to spend funds and program
projects based on their priorities and extend that same responsibility
and authority to all local elected officials.
Air quality, planning coordination, and finance and fiscal
constraint are of particular interest given new directions in air
quality regulations, the need to better coordinate planning cycles, and
fewer resources at the regional and local level. These new regulations
will impact urban and rural areas in ways not yet understood. First and
foremost, Congress should consider air quality conformity as a tool to
achieve clean air quality goals.
The conformity process as currently legislated neither readily
achieves air quality nor facilitates an easy solution. The current
process opens regions to poorly defined legal challenges, faulty
science, and consigns many of them to a bureaucratic quagmire. While
conformity is well intended, and necessary, its application should be
reexamined. Of no less importance to regions is the assurance of well-
timed plans.
Both conformity and transportation plans should be timed together
to achieve maximum results. Required plan updates, plan lifetimes, and
conformity checks should be synchronized, and required less often. By
doing these two things MPOs and regional councils can conserve planning
resources and make plans more meaningful to the public and their
elected officials. To ensure MPOs and regional councils have the
ability to plan in the first place they need concise revenue forecasts
and tight internal control of their resources.
Fiscal constraint on MPOs and councils is absolutely necessary, as
long as revenue forecasts are precise and fiscal standards consistent.
MPOs and regional councils are held to higher fiscal standards in their
planning and programming processes then the States that fund them.
Congress should require States to provide accurate revenue forecasts to
MPOs and councils and engage them in calculating these forecasts as
well.
NARC will also urge Congress throughout this and the coming year to
consider greater emphasis on safety in rural and urban communities, a
balanced and intermodal approach to Federal funding, comprehensive
review and consideration of technology deployment, and greater
consideration of freight movement as an essential part of the
transportation planning process.
Of particular concern to NARC members and the citizens they
represent are the tens of thousands of accidents and deaths on rural
roads each year. Coupled with increasing safety concerns in urban
areas, this presents a sobering picture of travel on America's roads.
NARC is urging Congress to apply resources in new and innovative ways
to lessen this tragedy.
NARC is urging Congress to consider ways to streamline the project
delivery process, while ensuring the health of our natural environment.
The ability to move projects quickly, especially those that will make
our roads safer, is of key concern. Bound intimately with safety are
new concerns for security.
Given the fact that many regional councils are currently involved
in emergency management planning, NARC will also urge Congress to
consider regional councils and MPOs as primary recipients of homeland
and surface transportation security funding.
NARC would like to help all councils achieve the same success as
those in Vermont, and in other places, through a balanced, intermodal,
comprehensive, and locally and regionally led process of planning,
programming, and project selection.
NARC will be happy to elaborate at any time and assist Congress in
any way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members for allowing the
National Association of Regional Councils time to present its views.
__________
Statement of Andrew C. Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, Portland,
Oregon
Mr. Chairman I want to thank you and the committee for holding this
series of hearings on reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and inviting me to testify. I am Andy
Cotugno, Planning Director for Metro, the regional government covering
the 24 cities and three counties of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan
area. Metro is the only directly elected regional government in the
U.S. Metro has a home-rule charter approved by the voters, establishing
a Metro ``that undertakes, as its most important service, planning and
policymaking to preserve and enhance the quality of life and the
environment for ourselves and future generations.'' We also serve as
the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) under the Federal
transportation planning statutes. Metro is an active member in our
national organization located here in Washington, the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO). I am pleased to be joined
today by my colleague, Ron Kirby from the MPO for the Washington, DC.
region.
The Portland region is often cited as the Smart Growth capital of
the world. Whether that is true or not, Metro's programs have been
closely scrutinized throughout their 23 year life. It is from that
unique base of experience, transportation integrated with Smart Growth,
that I offer these recommendations.
This morning, I would like to speak to you first on the principles
of making the Smart Growth connection to transportation and then relate
that to recommendations for how the next transportation authorization
bill could recognize these principles. The linkage between Smart Growth
and Transportation is about understanding how developing land use
patterns impact the effectiveness of the transportation system and, in
turn, how a new transportation project affects those development
patterns. The key to the successful integration is to recognize what
land use goals are being pursued and how a planned transportation
project will either lead the region closer to the goals or conflict or
undermine the goals.
Metro and the Portland region have implemented a number of
integrated land use and transportation strategies through something we
call the Region 2040 Growth Concept:
We have had an urban growth boundary in place for 20+
years, which has effectively stopped the sprawling development pattern
leapfrogging out onto farmland. As a result, all aspects of urban
infrastructure, including roads, transit, sewer, water, schools, police
stations, libraries and parks are focused within a compact urbanizing
area, reducing the need for expensive extensions.
We have used land use plans and zoning to reinforce a
higher density development pattern in locations that can be well served
by light rail and bus transit, producing six consecutive years of
transit ridership increases.
We have protected industrial areas and areas intended for
intermodal freight terminals from conversion to big box retail,
preserving this land and highway capacity for more important economic
purposes. In this manner, key highway expansion projects are retained
for their function to move freight rather than being overloaded with
shoppers.
We have adopted parking limitations, not just parking
minimums to ensure new development does not overbuild parking.
We have adopted a requirement for greater local street
connectivity to ensure a system of cul-de-sacs does not simply shift
local traffic onto the regional system.
We have restricted development near streams and acquired
open space to ensure a balance between growth and access to nature.
We have adopted revised street design guidelines to
ensure highways intended for through traffic are built to emphasize
moving cars and trucks while streets in downtowns and neighborhoods
support a strong pedestrian environment and access to transit.
We have taken advantage of the flexibility provided by
ISTEA and TEA-21 to target funds to a broad mix of highways, light
rail, arterials, buses, bike trails, sidewalks, transportation demand
management programs and transit-oriented development projects.
We have put to good use funding made available through
the New Starts Program to build a successful light rail system that
helps to focus growth and has ridership 7 years ahead of forecast.
We have leveraged the planning framework provided by the
Federal requirement for a metropolitan planning organization into a
broad-based intergovernmental program to coordinate regional land use
and environmental protection plans.
In summary, we have used transportation investments to influence
desired land use plans and we have used land use controls to produce a
more effective transportation system. The premise of the Metro 2040
Growth Concept is that integrating our land use and transportation
plans produces both better communities and better mobility.
With this Smart Growth framework, I would like to focus on three
transportation programs that can serve as the framework for the Smart
Growth direction in the next transportation bill:
1. Title 49, Section 5309--Major Capital Investment Grants for New
Fixed Guideway Systems (Which I will refer to as the New Starts
Program);
2. Title 23, Section 1118--National Corridor Planning and
Development Program (which I will refer to as the National Trade
Corridor Program); and
3. Section 1221--Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Pilot Program (which I will refer to as the TCSP Program).
fta new starts program
All of these programs could follow the model established by the New
Starts program. The New Starts Program has been a sustained program for
over 25 years providing discretionary grants to construct light rail
projects. Since these are expensive projects, local areas have a
significant incentive to pursue 50--80 percent Federal funds. As a
result, competition is high and many projects from all over the country
are waiting in line. To manage the demand:
Congress has set clear criteria to distinguish the most
meritorious projects;
The legislation provides for seed money to develop a
project with the expectation that the best projects will be in line for
construction funding;
The Federal Transit Administration requires local areas
to go through a rigorous process to prove the merits of their projects;
New Start regions collaborate on what constitutes a good
project and hold each other to a high standard;
The Federal Transit Administration makes a recommendation
of projects that are ``Highly Recommended,'' ``Recommended'' or ``Not
Recommended'' to Congress;
With the approval of the congressional authorizing and
appropriating committees, a multi-year funding contract is executed for
the best projects subject to annual appropriations to fulfill this
commitment.
This is a very successful program. It produces good projects that
stand up to scrutiny. It is administered in a manner that results in
selection of a limited number of good projects from a large competitive
field. The funding is significant enough to hold local areas and the
projects they seek to a high standard. The projects make a significant
difference when they are built.
For the Portland region, the New Starts program has provided the
means to build an essential part of the region's transportation
infrastructure and, in the process, shape the growth of the region to
be supportive of Smart Growth goals. It has had a profound impact on
the ability of the region to reign in sprawl and hold tight it's Urban
Growth Boundary, thereby eliminating the need to build public
infrastructure in an ever-expanding urban area. It has helped produce a
terrific downtown Portland and is now shaping the future of downtown
Gresham, downtown Beaverton and downtown Hillsboro, as well as new
communities sprouting up around light rail stations. And, because the
Federal New Start funds make a significant contribution, it has been
possible to leverage State and local funds into the projects that would
not have been spent on the transportation system. In addition,
decisions have been made to target various Federal formula funds into
the New Start projects (through STP, CMAQ and FTA Section 5307).
b. fhwa national trade corridor program
If the New Starts Program is the transit component of a Smart
Growth strategy, what is the equivalent for the Federal Highway
Administration? You would think the complementary program would be the
NHS system. It is a significant funding category available to all the
States. It is intended for modernization and expansion of the most
important part of the nation's highway system. However, the NHS system
is so large and the eligible uses of these funds across this system are
so varied, their use is not focused. In the case of Oregon, these funds
are used primarily to rehabilitate the system that already exists.
That's a prudent asset management decision to make but doesn't deal
with the needs to expand and modernize that system in targeted areas of
national economic importance.
The National Trade Corridor Program could follow the New Starts
model and be the strategic Federal investment in the National Highway
System. Through the National Trade Corridor Program, there can be a
Smart Growth connection to building a strong economic base, not just
livable, walkable neighborhoods. To do this, the ``Borders'' and
``Corridor'' funding categories should be separated because they are
distinctly different. With that, the ``Corridors'' component should be
revised to mirror the New Starts program but with a Freight and Trade
emphasis, as follows:
It should be authorized at a funding level sufficient to
allow Congress and the FHWA to make multi-year funding commitments to
significant construction projects. Like New Starts, that means $1+
billion per year, not the current $140 million per year (split with the
Section 1119--Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program), allowing
commitments to projects of $300-500 million.
It can provide the funding for the seed money to develop
projects, leading to a later request to fund construction (at the
present, the National Corridors Program can only fund these studies or
very small scale construction projects);
Congress should set a high standard on how the funds are
spent to ensure high quality projects are funded to produce the
greatest impact on global economic competitiveness rather than
spreading the funds across a list of projects of unknown merit.
The Federal Highway Administration should ensure
localities go through a rigorous process to establish the basis for
their recommendation to Congress to ``Highly Recommend,'' ``Recommend''
or ``Not Recommend'' projects for a multi-year funding contract.
With the approval of the congressional authorizing and
appropriating committees, a multi-year funding contract can be
executed, subject to annual appropriations.
Through this process and the high degree of national
competition, State and local governments should be encouraged to
leverage their NHS, Interstate-4R and STP funds, not to mention State
and local funds into the project.
This approach would provide the means for implementing significant
highway projects needed to move freight and support the nation's
economy.
Let's look at a Portland case study as an example. Interstate 5 is
a designated National Trade Corridor from Canada to Mexico through
Washington, Oregon and California. The segment connecting Oregon and
Washington in the Portland/Vancouver region is a significant bottleneck
and the most congested corridor in the region. The I-5 bridges across
the Columbia River are an antiquated pair of draw bridges (three lanes
each northbound and southbound), the first one built in 1917, well
before the Interstate system was imagined, and the second in 1958.
These old bridges represent the critical bottleneck where access to the
Ports of Portland and Vancouver provide U.S. connections to the Pacific
Rim (the only west coast ports with a positive balance of international
trade). This is the same corridor that accesses the intermodal
terminals for the two transcontinental railroads (BN/SF and UP/SP).
This is the same corridor that accesses the Portland International
Airport to ship high value products such as the source of Intel's
Pentium 4 chip. And, this is the same corridor where 80 percent of the
region's truck terminals are located.
Finally, I-5 is located in a fragile social and environmental
setting making construction of any improvements difficult. I-5 was
built by displacing a 3-4 block wide swath through the low income/
minority area of the region making further widening difficult. In
addition, construction of any new bridge across the Columbia River will
be regulated by the Endangered Species Act due to listing of salmon and
steelhead as endangered. And to top it off, the 1917 bridge is on the
National Register of Historic Places.
With the tremendous benefit of a $2 million ``Borders and
Corridors'' grant from FHWA (thank you), we have now completed an
extensive community-based process to develop a solution to the
``bottleneck'' and have succeeded in coming up with a fragile multi-
modal consensus on how to proceed, including:
Upgrading the existing bridge from 6 lanes to 10 lanes
across the Columbia River at a cost of $1.2 billion +;
Extension of the two existing light rail lines in
Portland north to connect as a loop in Vancouver at a cost of $1.2
billion +;
Implementation of aggressive measures to reduce demand,
increase transit service and encourage the use of alternatives to auto
commuting; and most revolutionary;
An agreement to control land uses to avoid inducing more
sprawl in response to a bigger freeway to simply result in a bigger
traffic jam in the future.
So, you say, what is the problem. TEA-21 provides significant help
through the NHS, Interstate-4R and Bridge programs that the States of
Oregon and Washington can choose to commit to this corridor. Well,
Oregon has prioritized these funds to take care of over 7,500 miles of
existing highways statewide and expansion comes after taking care of
the existing system. Washington State priorities are focused on its
major population center of Seattle. This corridor is currently
unfunded. But, because of it's critical trade characteristics it would
be a good candidate for a revised ``National Corridors Program'' in the
manner described.
Ironically, the LRT components of the plan have a better chance of
being implemented through the New Starts program than the I-5 freeway
components. The economic implications spread far beyond this corridor
because freight that is shipped through the marine, rail, truck and air
cargo terminals moves to and from points throughout the Pacific
Northwest, the entire U.S. and the Pacific Rim.
c. fhwa transportation and community and system preservation pilot
program
Let's move to the third component: the Transportation and Community
and System Preservation Pilot Program. If the New Starts Program is
intended to build the backbone to move people in a Smart Growth context
and the National Trade Corridor Program is the means to build
significant highways for moving commerce, TCSP is the model for
building strong communities around the transportation system. Whether
it's Transit-Oriented Development around Light Rail or an Interchange
Management Plan to avoid incompatible development from overloading a
new interchange, the TCSP Program was designed to make the land use
connection to the transportation system.
The program was conceived with all good intentions. It was founded
on the principles of Smart Growth, based on the premise of building
transportation projects that support good local and regional growth
decisions. It was intended to support such concepts as urban growth
boundaries, transit-oriented development, interchange land use
management plans and green corridors separating metropolitan areas.
In the first year of TEA-21, FHWA did an admirable job of setting
guidance for the program and selecting competitive projects (in fact,
the Portland region is now finishing a TCSP grant to do the master
planning for a major expansion of the region's urban growth boundary).
However, since then, Congress has earmarked the funds to a potpourri of
projects. In the most recent appropriations bill the program originally
authorized at $25 million was earmarked with $250 million of projects.
This program could benefit from the rigor of the New Starts model. And
it could be the third pillar of the national program, not to build the
major elements of the system, like light rail and freeways, but to
build strong communities taking advantage of and supporting the major
elements of the transportation system:
The Federal Highway Administration, in partnership with
the Federal Transit Administration should continue to develop guidance
for projects to be funded through the TCSP Program. The initial effort
to define the principles for selecting the projects was a good start
and should continue to ensure funding is targeted to best support good
land use decisions rather than ignore or undermine land use decisions.
The Federal Highway Administration should publish
information to highlight the characteristics of successful projects and
disseminate these ``Best Practices.''
Congress should increase the authorized level of the
program to $250 million, comparable to the fiscal year 2003
appropriations.
Congress should tighten up statutory language to ensure
grants cannot be awarded unless they demonstrate a supportive land use
benefit.
Congress should require an evaluation of the merits of
the proposed projects by the Federal Highway Administration and approve
funding based upon a recommendation of ``Highly Recommended,''
``Recommended'' or ``Not Recommended.'' This should be designed to
ensure good projects are recommended for funding, although in a more
streamlined manner that the large multi-year contracts under the New
Starts and National Trade Corridor Programs.
The theme for all three of these programs is the same. The Federal
Government ensures localities go through a rigorous process, thereby
justifying a substantial funding commitment to a project that really
makes a difference. With this focused undertaking, other funding
sources and programs also are leveraged.
In sum, I encourage you to consider what I call the three pillars
of the Smart Growth connection to the next transportation bill: 1) New
Starts to focus housing and jobs, 2) National Trade Corridors for
global economic competitiveness and 3) TCSP to build strong communities
around transportation.
Let me turn now to a few other issues:
1. Title 23, Section 104(f)--Metropolitan Planning Funds/Title 49,
Section 5303--Transit Planning Funds: With the 2000 Census, there will
be more MPOs created, potentially reducing the level of planning funds
to existing MPOs.
To avoid this reduction, Federal Highway Planning funds should be
increased from a 1 percent take-down on categorical funds to a 2
percent take-down. FTA Transit Planning funds should be increased from
their FFY 2003 authorized level of $58.6 million consistent with the
increase in MPO population.
2. Title 23, Section 133(d)(3)--Surface Transportation Program
funds to Transportation Management Areas: A portion of STP funds is
suballocated to MPOs designated Transportation Management Areas in
excess of 200,000 population. Again, with the 2000 Census, there will
be more TMAs formed and an increase in population in the existing TMAs.
To recognize this, the formula for splitting STP funds between these
TMAs and the balance of the State should be revised accordingly.
3. Clean Water Act--There has long been a connection between the
Clean Air Act and transportation legislation. Planning and funding
decisions between the two Federal acts are well integrated because
vehicle emissions are a major contributor to air pollution problems.
In the same manner, the road, street and highway system is a major
contributor of polluted stormwater runoff. As such, there could be a
tighter connection to the Clean Water Act to ensure transportation
projects can employ more environmentally friendly stormwater handling
methods.
4. Endangered Species Act--State and local governments in the
Northwest are working closely with the National Marine Fisheries
Service to recover the salmon and steelhead listed as endangered. Past
transportation projects have contributed to this listing by blocking
access to important upstream habitat. There should be clear eligibility
to use Federal transportation funds to retrofit previously installed
culverts to restore access to this habitat.
______
Responses of Andrew Cotugno to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Do you feel that computer simulations, an example of
which would be TRANSIMS, are (or could be) valuable in the planning
process? Are, or could they be, effective in the examination of various
planning options?
Response. Computer simulation tools are a valuable asset to have in
the planning process. Depending upon the degree of sophistication of
these tools, transport and land use allocation models can be linked to
provide a comprehensive analysis of regional growth strategies.
Specifically, the allocation of population and employment is subject
not only to the land availability, but also to the degree of
accessibility provided by the transportation infrastructure. This
capability is essential if the allocation is seen as a means to reduce
travel demand and the corresponding expense to provide infrastructure.
A well-specified simulation tool can aid the decisionmaker in
quantifying the travel impacts from localized urban design
alternatives. For example, the consequences of developing a high-
density mixed-use center around a light rail station can be quantified
in terms of the effect on auto ownership, origin and destination
patterns, and mode choice (including walk and bicycle) decisions.
Multi-modal accessibility is a key consideration in the development
of a balanced transport system. Options must be available to minimize
the reliance on single occupant vehicles. Simulation models are used to
analyze the effectiveness of proposed system improvements. For example,
the tools can be used to quantify new transit riders, vehicle-miles-
traveled impacts, roadway delay, and air quality consequences for a
particular project or system plan. The measured benefits can be
compared to costs to provide assessment measures.
______
Responses of Andrew Cotugno to Additional Questions Senator Smith
Question 1. In the current marketplace, what are the Federal
obstacles to transit-oriented development?
Response. In the current marketplace there are actually very few
Federal obstacles to transit-oriented development. In fact, Metro
operates a transit-oriented development implementation program that has
used Federal funds for TOD projects since 1998, the first of its kind
in the United States. The Federal processes for TODs are not well known
and are difficult, but Metro has several outstanding TODs completed.
Other areas of the country have studied Metro's program and Maryland
appears ready to launch a similar but more ambitious program. The Metro
TOD Program was made possible through Section 5309 of TEA-21 (carried
forward from Sec.3 (a)(1)(d) of the Transportation Act of 1978) and the
Federal Transit Administration Joint Development policies issued March
14, 1997. Three other key elements of the FTA policy that significantly
facilitate TODs are use of a ``highest and best transit use'' appraisal
for real estate sale, the ``Exception to the Common Grant Rule'' for
return of the revenue to subsequent eligible transit expenses, and the
use of a two step process to meet requirements of the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). It is important that favorable use
of Section 5309 including acquisition of real estate for TOD purposes
based upon the standard ``highest and best use'' appraisal with
subsequent sale to a TOD developer based upon a ``highest and best
transit use'' appraisal and the exception to the common grant rule be
continued in new legislation. Metro's current TOD Program operates
under a ``"programmatic environmental assessment'' that allows it to
evaluate potential TOD opportunities within any station area of the
light rail transit system. Once a project is selected, a detailed NEPA
analysis is conducted through a ``documented categorical exclusion.''
This process allows the TOD Program to forge public private
partnerships that can respect and function within the fast-paced
environment of private sector real estate development, and this
interpretation of NEPA must also be retained.
The main obstacles to TODs within the private sector include
developers and builders who are unfamiliar with the product type,
banking practices that do not recognize TOD as a standard financial
product, and suburban real estate economics that favor land consumptive
sprawl patterns over high quality, more compact, walkable environments.
Obstacles that may exist within the public sector include local zoning
codes that do not allow mixed-use project and minimum parking ratios
that preclude developing projects at higher transit-supportive
densities.
Despite these problems, facilitating TODs is good public policy.
They reap a tenfold increase in transit use and nearly 2 1/2 times
increase in biking and walking compared to standard suburban
development.
Improvements to FTA regulations could be made in the way TOD
projects are analyzed. Current policy requires a ``greater economic
benefit to transit,'' relying on capitalized value of added transit
fare box revenue as the measure of Federal financial investment in a
TOD project. This should be broadened so that a TOD project simply be
more cost effective in time saved/transit ridership gained than the
transit system it is enhancing.
__________
Statement of Judith Espinosa on behalf of the Surface Transportation
Policy Project
Mr. Chairman, I am Judith Espinosa, Director of the Alliance for
Transportation Research Institute at the University of New Mexico. I
appear today on behalf of the Surface Transportation Policy Project
(STPP) where I serve as a member of the Board of Directors. I would
like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee for
inviting me to testify and for structuring your hearings so that you
may hear from a diverse representation of views on reauthorization of
TEA-21.
The STPP coalition has taken an active role in the debate on
Federal transportation policy since its inception in 1990, helping
provide policy support for what became ISTEA and later TEA-21.
As we begin the debate on the renewal of TEA-21, I wanted to
describe briefly STPP's process for identifing specific recommendations
to support further progress on a national transportation reform agenda.
We have embarked on a broad national outreach effort, called the
Alliance for a New Transportation Charter (ANTC), to support consensus
proposals, based on input from hundreds of national, regional and local
organizations as well as State and local elected leaders. To support
this, our Charter focuses on seeking reforms in the following key
areas: 1) enhancing health, safety and security; 2) conserving energy
and enhancing the environment; 3) promoting social equity and livable
communities; and 4) advancing economic prosperity. STPP's
recommendations on reauthorization will reflect our Charter's focus
areas and a broad perspective on improvements to current law as made by
those groups and organizations that advocate the principles in the
Charter. ISTEA/TEA-21
I would like to offer a few observations to guide this panel's
efforts as you prepare to renew TEA-21 next year. First, the STPP
coalition strongly believes that the basic structure of the TEA-21 law
is fundamentally sound and should be preserved. It is our belief that
transportation policy in America has been fundamentally reshaped as a
result of the 1991 ISTEA law. If there is a single shortcoming, it is
that the law has not been fully implemented. As a result, we do not see
the Federal, State and local partnership developed to the point where
it is promoting the full intent of ISTEA and TEA-21. In short, despite
much progress, we have failed to fully capitalize on the many
opportunities this law has intended to make available to our States,
regions and communities. We see renewal of TEA-21 as another step in
the continuum of the transportation reform process that will span
longer than simply the last decade.
In December, STPP along with other key partners celebrated ``Ten
Years of Progress'' at a special event where we had an opportunity to
take stock of the many transportation changes that the ISTEA
legislation fostered. In celebrating this record of progress, we were
particularly pleased to recognize Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan with
a special award, named after the late Senator John H. Chafee. Senators
Chafee and Moynihan were longstanding members of this panel whose
efforts helped this panel, the Senate and the Congress move forward on
a national transportation policy reform agenda.
What particularly impresses me, a person who has worked extensively
with local and regional transportation advocates, is the depth of the
public's awareness about the role of transportation infrastructure
investment and how they see its power to influence their lives, their
neighborhoods, and their communities within the context of their
broader regions and States. ISTEA and TEA-21 have stimulated the
public's appetite for transportation improvements that offer more
choice and balance in their transportation options and that add value
to their lives and to their communities. At the same time, I would note
that implementation of the law has been a struggle in many places and
it is certain that the law has not been implemented equitably across
States and within areas of individual States. We believe that U.S. DOT
and its modal agencies can now provide renewed leadership to ensure the
public they are engaged in the full implementation of this law. States,
MPOs and local governments must likewise renew their stewardship to
improvements in implementation.
A Decade of Milestones
To frame some of my perspectives on the issues before the panel
today--``Transportation Planning and Smart Growth''--I have highlighted
some key policy developments of the last 10 years, suggesting areas for
further review as this committee crafts legislation renewing TEA-21.
ADA: ISTEA was crafted immediately following the
enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. While we have not
seen a level of progress in implementing this law relative to the
transportation sector, we now know and have come to appreciate that
efforts to address the mobility needs of persons with disabilities can
simultaneously deliver broader societal benefits, be it increased
emphasis on pedestrian safety benefiting children, seniors and the
broader public or a stronger emphasis on bicycle/pedestrian
infrastructure that anticipates the aging of our nation's population
and the market push toward investment in existing places.
Brownfields: When ISTEA was being developed, its authors
recognized the potential of underdeveloped or underutilized lands in
proximity to major highway, rail and port infrastructures and their
desirability for reuse. No one could have anticipated the national
debate that would follow on the reuse of vacant lands. This debate
recently culminated in the enactment of Public Law 107-118. Mr.
Chairman, Senator Chafee and others on this panel who played such an
important role in moving this legislation forward after years of
disagreement, we thank you. A broad national commitment to recycling
America's land is an important policy thrust and we encourage you to
look for additional ways in the TEA-21 renewal bill to prompt broader
reuse--both planning and investment policies--of these many thousands
of brownfields throughout the Nation. We see this focus on the
reclamation of brownfields and others vacant lands as a significant new
community development priority.
Census: The 2000 Census challenges the upcoming debate on
TEA-21 renewal in a number of ways. It underscores the need to
accelerate our policy efforts to prepare for the aging of the nation's
population. At a recent committee hearing, we learned that the
demographics of Florida, which were once thought to be unique to that
State, will be found in other States in the near future. We also see
that, as the Nation is getting older, there is also a boomlet of the
very young, giving rise to initiatives, like Safe Routes to School and
others, which focus transportation dollars on facility improvements to
offer more protection for our most vulnerable. The new Census also
shows us the changing racial composition of our cities, suburbs and
rural areas as a result of immigration and other trends of the last
decade. This calls attention to the need to further strengthen our
efforts on environmental justice and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Finally, we continue to see changes in the population and land areas of
our nation's urbanized areas. A recent DOT notice shows that there will
61 new MPOs, with many others whose boundaries are being redrawn and in
other cases urbanized areas will be renamed. We see the new Census data
as informing our policy reform discussions on TEA-21 renewal just as
the 1990 Census helped support review of the Federal transportation law
that became ISTEA in 1991. Specifically on the MPO issues, this new
data should prompt us to review the range of issues surrounding the MPO
structures of current law to modernize these agencies, reforms that
were not pursued in TEA-21 or ISTEA. The 2000 Census, along with the
many new challenges and expectations now before MPOs, necessitates a
new look at how MPOs are funded, structured and supported.
Clean Air: Like ADA, ISTEA followed the enactment of
amendments to the Clean Air Act. At that time, the relationship between
transportation sector investments and clean air objectives was not
fully understood. Since that time, we have come to realize that
attainment of clean air standards would prove more difficult than
expected, even with the commitment of new resources under ISTEA and its
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program. We now understand
that mobile sources would become more dominant, not less, as the key
determinant for most regional efforts to achieve attainment with
national standards. More recently, the Supreme Court's decision
affirming EPA's stance on the need to move forward with new air
standards further amplifies the need to preserve, and further expand
our resource commitments here, be it an expanded CMAQ program or other
means to further local efforts to achieve attainment of national air
quality standards.
Environmental Justice: Over the last 10 years, we have
seen the emergence of a broad movement to examine the linkages between
social justice and our public investment decisions. ISTEA with its
emphasis on ``early and continuous'' public involvement, and its
broader data collection and research efforts, opened up the public
dialog on many social equity concerns which too often were overlooked
or ill-informed in transportation decisionmaking. This is a significant
area of public debate that continues to challenge our planning and
other processes under TEA-21 to ensure that EJ concerns are addressed
in a much more systematic manner. Research is needed, data systems must
be updated and further capacity should be built at the State and MPO
level if we are to effectively address the difficult challenges in this
area. I am pleased to have been recently appointed by EPA Administrator
Whitman to serve on the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) to work with other interested parties to assist Federal
agencies in efforts which relate to environmental justice. I would be
pleased to provide any support to this committee's review of these
issues that are very much a part of our national views on
transportation equity.
Metropolitan Economics: This committee previously has
heard testimony from the mayors and others on the importance of the
nation's metropolitan economies in driving the economic prosperity of
this Nation. This is new data that wasn't available prior to ISTEA. We
know that these areas account for a disproportionate share of U.S.
economic output. These economic studies also project that the nation's
300+ metropolitan areas, largely represented by MPOs under the TEA-21
law, will warehouse virtually all of the key sectors--high technology
and financial and business services--that will drive the nation's
future economic output. As we look at the issues of planning and smart
growth, improvements to TEA-21 are crucial in ensuring the broader
health and vitality of these economic engines. Among the issues that we
would ask the committee to examine is the relative funding commitment
to these areas. For example, the current law provides certainty to only
the largest MPOs, those serving areas of 200,000 or more in population
and representing about 54 percent of the nation's population. And, they
are only certain that about 6 cents of every dollar (i.e. STP
suballocated funds) will be made available each year from TEA-21, a
modest commitment to areas that collectively account for a substantial
share of the nation's economic output, a large majority of all transit
use, aviation passengers and port tonnage as well as critical elements
of the nation's freight rail and passenger rail capacities. We suggest
that increased local control over TEA-21 funds be seriously considered
in the new law.
Rural Economies: In contrast to metropolitan areas, we
know that rural areas face a whole set of other challenges. In the last
decade, we continue to see the erosion of rural economies despite many
transportation infrastructure upgrades to State highway facilities. At
the same time, these areas are impacted by the sustained urbanization
of our metropolitan areas, which push outward and place enormous
pressure on rural communities and land resources. More recently, we
have seen new information that documents the significant safety needs
of our rural road systems. We have looked at data that shows that there
has been a sustained investment in rural areas within many States,
investments that are generally disproportionate to the population of
these areas. There is a need to rethink the investment patterns in our
rural areas and look at alternatives, which will improve safety,
promote sustained economic advancements, and give people choices for
travel. Many State highway investments in these areas are pursued in
the name of economic development or safety but many may simply be
missing the mark.
We have seen great success with a relatively small investment that
has been made in the National Scenic Byways Program. Here is a program
that creates a strong linkage among rural communities along a large
corridor, creating an opportunity to leverage other public resources
and capturing new private sector investment in areas that would
otherwise have been overlooked. We have seen how modest commitments of
Transportation Enhancement funds have stimulated tourism and other
economic activity through improvements to main streets, trails,
historic train stations and other projects. Many of these same projects
could be funded with State STP funds but, instead, are usually
committed to other investments in State highway facilities.
There has been reluctance by many States to commit safety funds to
areas where signage, markings and shoulders would make a difference at
much less cost. In my State, our rural agencies, known as rural
planning organizations or RPOs, have worked hard to plan and develop a
transportation investment agenda for their areas utilizing a broad
scope of public input. Their recommendations and plans are largely
ignored by our State's transportation department or set aside as a low
priority agenda. When these rural planning organizations are viewed as
advisory only, true regional transportation planning becomes flawed. To
have effective planning, there has to be a connection between resources
and the local areas that are planning and seeking the improvements. In
New Mexico, our RPOs plan projects but never will receive any resources
to implement them.
Failure to implement TEA-21 and use its flexibilities, we are
talking about the many opportunities that are lost when State
transportation officials ignore the potential of these more modest
projects and the impetus they can provide in stimulating rural
economies. Likewise, U.S. DOT must become more aggressive in addressing
rural transportation planning needs. Despite directives in TEA-21 to
address rural planning issues, U.S. DOT regulations have yet to be
issued.
Stewardship Movement: Increasingly, we see that ISTEA's
reforms have played a significant role in helping revive an interest in
stewardship of our systems, with the public and State and local elected
leaders engaged in trying to look at transportation in a more
comprehensive manner. At its core, ISTEA's transportation planning
process was the first effort at ensuring that transportation
investments are considered in a multi-disciplinary manner, considering
impacts on air quality, communities, energy use, and so on. As we
approach TEA-21 renewal, this engagement of the public and elected
leaders envisions a broader stewardship agenda, be it habitat
protection, biodiversity, air and water quality, or the preservation of
cultural, historic and land resources. We see this move toward
stewardship as a very positive development, but we must ensure that the
resource commitments are there to move it forward. Our coalition is now
reviewing how an environmental stewardship initiative could support
this broader vision.
Taxpayer Engagement: ISTEA was designed to encourage a
broader public discourse on transportation investment. This week The
Washington Post is calling for reader ideas on ``things that could be
done quickly and cheaply to alleviate traffic congestion.'' We now see
a level of engagement of the taxpayer in this debate which is
unprecedented. Whether you accept the rubric of smart growth or smart
planning, these issues resonate with taxpayers who are increasingly
pressing public decisionmakers to get more return from their public
investments, particularly return from existing investments. The public
now understands that the outward development of their regions, and the
road improvements that are needed to develop these outlying areas, are
stressing public capital resources and diminishing what is available to
places where most of them now live and work. In rural areas, there is a
growing recognition that funds are generally available for major new
State highway projects, but not for other transportation needs. The
message from the public increasingly is that they want a better return
on the use of their tax dollars, not just moving money out to
undeveloped or underdeveloped areas. This is real and is growing
broadly throughout the Nation. The public's renewed appreciation of
these issues is challenging our planning processes which historically
have not accounted for an engaged public, many of whom may not always
participate in each step of the process but certainly are increasingly
aware of and vocal about the outcomes.
Transit Use: The growth in transit use, particularly in
later part of the ISTEA decade, reversed a multi-decade decline in
public transportation. In fact, over the last 5 years, transit use has
grown at about twice the rate of auto use (as measured by VMT), with
transit trips today reaching levels not achieved since 1960. In the
wake of ISTEA and its emphasis on local decisionmaking, we have seen a
dramatic increase in demand for transit investment, particularly rail
transit, in the nation's larger urban areas. When local areas are
empowered to shape future investment plans for their regions, it is
clear that local areas are often making different decisions and ones
that emphasize broader transportation choices for their regions. There
has been a virtual explosion in demand for rail transit, for example,
since MPOs were empowered to share future transportation decisions for
their regions.
It is interesting to note that of the top 50 metropolitan areas,
which represent a substantial share of the nation's economy and
population, 48 of these areas are planning new rail transit projects,
expanding existing rail systems or constructing new rail systems. The
emergence of rail transit and the broader push for increased transit
investment overall is an important development as we look to renewal of
TEA-21.
Water Quality: During the last 10 years, we have a better
understanding of the implications of the ``Water Quality Act of 1987''
and its emphasis to move beyond point sources to control of urban
runoff through municipal and other stormwater discharges. Today,
hundreds of communities hold permits, requiring water quality
monitoring, best management practices and even structural improvements.
We have assembled a substantial record that documents how highway
runoff and other transportation-related uses are contributing to the
degradation of our nation's water quality. When ISTEA was first
enacted, stormwater regulatory efforts were in their infancy, which is
certainly not the case today. We see this as a substantial new
development that should be more fully considered as the TEA-21 renewal
moves forward, both in the planning process and in the allocation of
resources.
Welfare Reform: The 1996 welfare reform legislation was
particularly important in reminding transportation professionals and
system operators that existing planning efforts did not fully account
for the new demands of a large number of Americans who would be making
the transition from welfare to work. In TEA-21, the Job Access and
Reverse Commute (JARC) program followed immediately in the wake of the
welfare reform legislation, helping transit and other providers fill
the many gaps resulting from the spatial mismatch of workers and job
centers. This program was also deployed to help workers in rural areas
get to jobs in other parts of their region. This area will continue to
challenge us to use JARC funds and find other resources under TEA-21 to
further refine these strategies, be it adding routes where transit
services are now offered, supporting new services in areas where
services are unavailable, or incentives to plan and support the
location of training and support services at key transit and
transportation facilities. We see the renewal of the TANF law this year
as one part of a broader effort to coordinate and establish new
linkages between TEA-21 and TANF to further the transition of thousands
of Americans from welfare to work.
9/11: Finally, I would note that we closed out the ISTEA
decade with the catastrophic events of September 11. We are still
grappling with the implications of this attack and its subsequent
threats, with most of the Federal policy efforts focused on redesigning
our aviation and port security capabilities. We do know that the
surface transportation systems of New York and Washington, DC were
diversified to a level that allowed them to absorb these shocks without
further disruption to these major regional economies and the broader
U.S. economy. In fact, New York and Washington are the top two rail
transit systems in the Nation and are also linked to the nation's only
high-speed passenger rail corridor. We see the need to carefully
consider how we can use available transportation resources to further
diversify our transportation systems. With this disruption to the
nation's aviation system and subsequent realignments in service, there
is a compelling case to be made for moving swiftly on expanding the
nation's intercity passenger rail capacities, providing more economic
stability over the longer term and providing intercity rail options to
communities, some of which have lost or have reduced air service.
Specific Recommendations on Planning and Smart Growth
As I noted in the opening of my statement, STPP's coalition
partners are now developing a detailed set of recommendations on TEA-21
renewal that we will share these with the committee at a later date. I
do, however, offer several suggestions on areas where STPP has
previously recommended action or where our coalition has identified
initial recommendations.
Can't Plan Without Good Data--STPP urges immediate action
on a broader investment plans that will immediately move toward a
modernization of our data sets, an effort that is crucial to effective
State, regional and local planning efforts. We must move to upgrade key
transportation surveys and others data systems to correct for
limitations (i.e. exclusions of population groups, failure to account
for pedestrian trips, etc.) that undermine effective policy choices at
the State and local levels. Investment in this area should be
frontloaded in the new bill, even in advance of new funding for
research commitments. Research funding could be ramped up in later
years after key data sets are improved.
Can't Plan or Invest Effectively Without Funding
Transparency--One of the real deficiencies of TEA-21 is the lack of
transparency about where funds are invested, by project, program and
place within the States. It frustrates the public's confidence in the
system, it diminishes the value of other public and private sector
investments, and erodes the partnership that was envisioned under
ISTEA. In an era of the Internet, GIS mapping and GPS locators, we
currently have a system in place that can't readily account for the
expenditure this year of about $32 billion of the public's money. This
is extraordinary by any measure. Like modernizing the data sets, it is
also crucial that we modernize the reporting systems on the use of TEA-
21 so that State and local funding decisions are fully accessible to
all governmental partners and to the public.
Can't Plan Without Certainty About the Budget--As noted
earlier in my statement, the larger MPOs (i.e. those serving areas with
a population of 200,000 or more) are the only substate agencies who
have any certainty about annual funding, and it is only that portion of
TEA-21 highway funds that are suballocated in the law, funding that
nationwide represents about six cents of every dollar that is made
available to the States. To put the Federal commitment to these areas
in a local context, consider that local governments and their agencies
are the largest single investors in transportation--air, transit and
highways. The suballocated funds to the nation's largest MPOs,
similarly, represent a small fraction of total local transportation
spending. The level of commitment to these and other MPOs and rural
areas is an area that should be examined more thoroughly in preparing
legislation renewing TEA-21. If you want local elected officials, the
private sector and the public more engaged in building a meaningful
planning at the local level, there must be real resources on the table
that are subject to the process. STPP believes that more resources
should be moved from State decisionmakers to local areas, and we expect
to provide further suggestions in this area when we submit our broader
recommendations for TEA-21 renewal.
Under current law, MPOs serving areas of 50,000--200,000 have no
idea from year to year what funds will be made available to their
areas, a circumstance that is generally shared with rural areas of the
States. Among the immediate reforms that would increase certainty to
selected local areas is change how funds are delivered through the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program. We would urge that CMAQ
funding be proportionately obligated and then suballocated (based on
the formula that delivers funds to the States in the first instance) to
non-attainment and maintenance areas so they can more effectively
budget funding for air quality projects.
Among the existing budget tools in TEA-21, we strongly support the
position of AMPO and others about the need to preserve the fiscal
constraint provisions of current law. On a related issue, we were
disappointed that there was no apparent commitment to implement current
provisions on cooperative revenue forecasting which were intended to
bring MPOs together with their State transportation departments and
transit providers to develop shared estimates of future TEA-21 funding.
This is about the enhancing the ability of the MPO to plan and budget
beyond a 1-year horizon. By contrast, the funding guarantees of the
TEA-21 delivered considerable funding certainty to the States, allowing
State transportation departments to readily forecast their revenue flow
over the 6-year period of the law.
Can't Plan Without Capacity--We agree with suggestions
that there should be a broader commitment to MPOs and capacity-
building. Given the many developments directly affecting regional and
local agencies--air and water quality, broader environmental
stewardship, integration of air, rail and highway networks, smart
growth, welfare reform, urban congestion, etc.--it is clear that
additional Federal commitments are needed to help MPOs absorb the
growing demands on these agencies. However, we do suggest that as part
of an expanded commitment to capacity-building at the MPO level, it be
coupled with a more complete review of these structures to modernize
their operations in light of the Census and other considerations.
On a related issue, STPP will be recommending a new initiative to
focus financial and other resources to help develop broader State and
MPO capacity for environmental stewardship. We are concerned that the
continuing calls for environmental streamlining have overshadowed the
real and substantial needs that now exist for capacity-building within
State transportation departments and MPOs to reasonably address the
many environmental challenges before them. We believe that investing in
stewardship is where we should be focusing our attention if we are
serious about improving the pace and quality of environmental reviews.
It is our hope that we could share these recommendations with you at
your upcoming hearing on this subject.
Can't Plan Without Good Research--I had the opportunity
to serve on TRB's Committee for the Surface Transportation
Environmental Cooperative Research Program Advisory Board that was
charged with developing a long-term strategy for environmental
research. This panel's findings were just released in Special Report
268. I would like to excerpt from this report's recommendations about
the state of our current research efforts. ``The effectiveness of
current transportation planning and decisionmaking methods and tools is
limited by the fact that they are based in engineering principles,
facility standards, and an emphasis on mobility defined as travel time
and cost . . . Too often, planners and other interested parties become
frustrated with the inadequacy of these old methods and tools for
dealing with current problems.'' STPP is now developing a set of
recommendations on the research agenda to further inform the
committee's specific consideration of funding commitments to a broader
research agenda. This excerpt simply illustrates the importance of
solid research in supporting the many State and local planning efforts
in addressing the operations and management challenges before
communities, regions and States. I would also note that this panel
concluded that a long-term, coordinated research strategy with
sufficient funding is the only way of adequately preparing
transportation policymakers to confront the substantial challenges of
an increasing population and expanding economy.
Can't Plan Effectively Without Anticipating New
Challenges--There remain a whole set of new challenges before MPOs and
State transportation planning officials. We see a very strong push from
the public and elected leaders to address lessons learned as a result
of 9/11. We think that means taking a fresh look at the potential of
intercity passenger rail and to consider how transportation investment
plans at the State and regional levels can accelerate efforts to move
toward more balanced and integrated surface transportation systems.
Another example of a new challenge is the new research that
documents the growing epidemic of obesity, particularly among America's
youth, and other health concerns like rising rates of diabetes, which
are particularly linked to lack of exercise and fitness. At the same
time, we have developed a transportation infrastructure that too often
frustrates pedestrian activities and even discourages unplanned
pedestrian trips as we continue to design systems that focus on auto
trips and auto dependency. This is an area where MPOs and State
planning efforts need to lead by taking additional steps to help
reengineer our transportation systems in ways that promote non-
motorized travel, principally pedestrian activities, that can provide
new avenues to combat these negative health trends over the longer
term. * Can't Plan Smarter without the Tools--How to plan smarter is an
area where the STPP coalition is focusing considerable attention as
move toward renewal of TEA-21. In my testimony, I have identified
several issues that link directly to a broader emphasis on smart
growth. The expansion of suballocated funding would give local
decisionmakers more control over transportation funds, moving resources
closer to the officials who are in the best position to align land use
decisions with transportation investments. A stronger emphasis on
modernizing the data, research and transparency features of the law
will contribute substantially to local planning efforts as local
officials work to calibrate their transportation decisions with local
land use plans. I talked about the increased emphasis on brownfield/
vacant land reuse. I see this policy emphasis as a powerful ally in
helping local areas grow smarter, by restoring sites where existing
transportation and other infrastructures are already in place. Here is
a case where more modest investments to improve existing facilities can
directly benefit taxpayers, in contrast to greenfield development which
relies on substantially more public investment to build-out new
infrastructures. We particularly want to underscore our strong support
for continuation of TEA-21's TCSP program. While we have been
challenged by a rash of congressional earmarks, the original intent of
the program is very sound and stimulated a broad range of initiatives
in local areas all across the country that is making a real difference
in these communities in connecting transportation to other community
priorities.
We know that there is a need to modernize the models that are used
to support State and MPO planning efforts. A new idea is to look for
ways to replace some of our modeling structures with visioning
exercises that, through a broadly participatory process, allows
communities to decide for themselves how they want to design their own
communities and then how to construct transportation facilities that
serve these goals. In Chicago, planners are already using a modified
version of the SimCity computer game to look at development and
transportation to simulate a different future. There are some modest
investments that could be supported under TEA-21 that could facilitate
such efforts.
A broader agenda on smart growth will be among the areas that the
STPP coalition members will be bringing back to the committee as you
continue your deliberations on TEA-21 renewal.
Closing Comments
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by emphasizing that democracy means
paying attention. ISTEA and TEA-21 provide the policy framework for
developing transportation systems serve our nation's need for access
and mobility, while also promoting community health, wealth and quality
of life. But we must pay attention to the details, promoting the means
that make our transportation agencies accountable, transparent and
participatory.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and member of the committee for this
opportunity to share the views of STPP on these important issues.
______
Responses of Judith Espinosa to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. Do you feel that computer simulations, an example of
which would be TRANSIMS, are (or could be) valuable in the planning
process? Are, or could they be, effective in the examination of various
planning options?
Response. The short answer to these questions is, ``yes''. These
computer simulations are a valuable part of the planning process and
will become even more so in the future. There are many efforts to
deploy these technologies, ranging from the more complicated systems
such as TRANSIMS to the use of visioning software techniques that can
dramatically strengthen the public's understanding of various
transportation and development scenarios.
Let me explain further. As with all models and computer analysis
tools, the data input and intended application are critical to the
quality of the outcomes, as is the efficiency of the model itself.
Therefore, if the data is not well developed or lacking in integrity,
the outcome of the computer model is faulty and will not represent a
true picture.
TRANSIMS is an example of a new model for analyzing travel patterns
in large urban settings. However, as with many other travel models
developed over the last 50 years, it does not include variables that
are critical to analyzing how we travel and how that travel impacts our
land use patterns and social and environmental needs. While we do not
expect TRANSIMS to be broadly deployed given its cost and complexity,
its use will help further inform and instruct transportation
policymakers as we continue to develop, and refine these and other
predictive models.
We would also note that some agencies have invested their efforts
in fine-tuning traditional four-step models, showing some promising
results, such as those in San Francisco County. But perhaps the most
important application of modeling and simulations has been in the area
of community design and decisionmaking. Such tools, which range from
public involvement technologies (e.g. the Electronic Town Hall) to
computer-based graphic simulation programs (e.g. Community Viz), can
help facilitate the democratic process in community planning, enable
people to visualize how proposed changes might affect their
communities, and more accurately forecast fiscal, environmental,
economic and social impacts. The predictive ability of this emerging
set of technologies has enabled communities to develop better estimates
for everything from traffic impacts to infrastructure costs. And, the
ability to graphically depict potential changes makes it easier for the
public to be engaged in making informed choices.
Overall, we see great potential in these technologies and would
encourage this committee to examine ways to support such efforts where
relatively modest investments now can result in substantial returns in
the future, as communities, regions and States seek to foster broader
public input into better informed transportation planning efforts,
helping the public more fully anticipate and understand the outcomes of
the various options before them.
______
Responses of Judith Espinosa to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Please explain how ``smart growth'' would address the
increased traffic congestion from densification of urban and suburban
areas.
Response. The weight of academic research reveals that denser
development actually reduces traffic because compactness results in
greater travel choices, including walking, cycling and transit. One
recent study by the U.S. EPA found that dense ``infill development''
sites were projected to generate 48 to 61 percent less traffic than
comparable sprawling ``greenfield'' sites. (Allen, E., Anderson, G.,
and Schroeer, W., ``The Impacts of Infill vs. Greenfield Development: A
Comparative Case Study Analysis,'' US EPA, Office of Policy, EPA
Publication #231-R-99-005, September 2, 1999.) In another recent study
of the benefits of location efficiency, a number of studies were
reviewed, showing significant reductions in driving associated with
higher residential density. In one of the studies of world's largest
cities, it was noted that driving is reduced 30 percent every time
density doubles. (John Holtzclaw, Robert Clear, Hank Dittmar, David
Goldstein, and Peter Haas, ``Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and
Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use--
Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco,'' Journal of
Transportation Planning and Technology, Volume 25, 2002.)
While less of an academic review, but nonetheless part of the
committee's record, is testimony by The U.S. Conference of Mayors on
brownfields and related policy reforms. The statement of Elizabeth
Mayor, J. Christian Bollwage, for the committee's February 27, 2001
hearing on S. 350, reviewed findings of the Conference's survey on
brownfields. He states,''One of the very interesting findings came from
survey respondents who were asked to quantify how many people their
communities could absorb without adding appreciably to their existing
infrastructure. 118 cities estimated they could support an additional
5.8 million people, a capacity that is nearly equivalent to the
population of Los Angeles and Chicago. This capacity is more than 2
years of U.S. population growth.'' In this survey, a relatively small
number of U.S. cities reported on their capacity to absorb additional
population, with these cities indicating that their infrastructures
could meet traffic and other effects of increased density. Among the
cities in the sample were those where substantial population losses had
occurred over the last several decades, and which have latent
transportation and other capacities in place to handle much larger
populations. It follows that increased traffic, and potentially even
increased congestion associated with densification, is more about
tapping the considerable capacity and infrastructure that now exists in
the cities described by Mayor Bollwage and which are capable of
handling larger populations.
Question 2. A recent report by the Transportation Research Board on
long-term research needs states, ``Research on transportation and the
environment has only recently begun to explore in any significant depth
the complex relationships among land development patterns,
transportation investments, travel behavior and consequent
environmental impacts.'' Please comment on the practicalities of
implementing a ``"smart growth"'' program given our limited
understanding of these relationships.
Response. I am a member of the Transportation Research Board's,
Committee for the Surface Transportation Environmental Cooperative
Research Program Advisory Board, which wrote the report that is quoted.
That statement is certainly factual, but the Report further goes on to
detail and cite research currently proceeding that explores and begins
to explain these very relationships and issues of ``"smart growth''.''
The Report from the TRB Advisory Committee further calls for a strong
national research program that will support increased funding to public
agencies, academic institutions, NGO's and others to bolster our
knowledge and science of ``smart growth,'' and the relationships
between land use, transportation, travel, environment, and other social
needs.
Many States and local governments have already instituted ``smart
growth'' initiatives, plans and legislation to address how their
communities grow in the 21st century. The State of Oregon, a
representative from which was on the Transportation Planning and
``smart growth'' Panel, has certainly been a leader. But there are
other examples of broad-based initiatives and many other targeted
efforts among States and local governments. The many programs in States
and in hundreds of communities to recycle brownfield sites are one
example of a targeted effort, which at its core is about ``smart
growth.'' Growing interest in brownfields comes from environmental
justice representatives in communities, such as, Atlanta, Chicago,
Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area. They continue to note that
``smart growth'' programs coupled with brownfields development and
transportation access is key to community revitalization and job
opportunities.
The public debate within urban centers, rural areas of the Nation,
communities of color, suburban commuters, and business and industry has
begun to inform policymakers. It is about how we, as a people, expect
to grow and prosper through environmentally sound transportation
choices and land use and planning initiatives that promote our quality
of life. The TRB Advisory Board Report takes note of how transportation
and environment initiatives are linked, and further expands by
illustrating where we currently have gaps in knowledge, data
collection, and planning tools to address our national ``smart growth''
needs in an environmentally sound, efficient and socially responsible
fashion. I believe, along with local and State agencies and communities
across this Nation, that a strong Federal role is needed in support of
current ``smart growth'' initiatives and expansion of the research
base. A well reasoned Federal approach to and support for a ``smart
growth'' agenda will lead to better program planning and implementation
and is a must if we are to compete in a technologically advanced global
economy.
__________
Statement of Thomas M. Downs, Professor, University of Maryland,
Director, National Center for Smart Growth, Research, Education and
Training
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Environmental and Public Works
Committee: It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning to
address the role of the planning process and its linkages to
transportation planning, land use planning, economic development and
growth management.
I will lean heavily on the recent work of Dr. Susan Handy, a
professor at the University of Texas, who is both an engineer and a
planner.
Dr. Handy did a comprehensive review of all of the literature that
has focused on the transportation and land use connections.
It turns out that there are few major studies at the national level
that have looked at the connections between transportation and land use
patterns. While we as a nation have spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on developing better pot-hole material, better cement, and
better bridge steel; we have spent almost nothing on the most important
aspect of transportation--how it has changed the way we live and work.
Dr. Handy found that in a study in 1999 by Hartgen and Curly that
regions without beltways grew faster and that population densities
declined faster in regions with beltways. She also learned that a 1980
study by Payne and Maxie found beltways had no impact, positive or
negative, on economic growth. This study also found that office and
apartment development locates near a beltway, but at the expense of
other parts of the region.
After Dr. Handy looked at beltways, she then examined the research
on the effects of highway corridors. She found that a 1998 study by
Hansen concluded that highway capacity expansion stimulates development
activity, both residential and non-residential, in the expanded
corridor. A 2002 study by Ten Siethol and Kockelman demonstrated
dramatic increases in property valuations most proximate to the freeway
corridor. A large review study by Boarnet and Houghwout in 2000
suggests that highways influence land prices, population, and
employment changes near the project, and that the land use effects are
likely at the expense of losses elsewhere. Dr. Handy's conclusions from
these studies is ``Building new highways will not increase the rate of
growth, but will influence where in a region growth occurs and what
kind of growth occurs. Not building highways will not necessarily
prevent continued decentralization.'' The research seems to suggest
that highway capacity expansion serves to move the economic chairs
around a region, but does not create a new net growth in a regions
economy.
Dr. Handy then looked at the issue of increasing highway capacity
and induced demand (or build it and they will come). She found that
there does seem to be some correlation between capacity expansion and
vehicle miles of travel (VMT), but that the elasticities are lower than
suggested by popular literature. She concludes that simply not building
new highways will not significantly slow the growth in VMT.
The conclusions about highways impact on land use only serves to
show us how little we know about the real outcomes of these large scale
national investments. We, in part, do not know because we are not
funding the research that would give us better answers.
On the transit side, Dr. Handy looked at the research on the
effects of light rail transit (LRT) investments on land use and
development. She found a TCRP report in 1995 that shows that transit
investments and services are incapable by themselves of bringing about
significant and lasting land use and urban form changes. A 1996 study
by Vesalli showed that transit system's impacts on land use are limited
to rapidly growing regions with a healthy underlying demand for high--
density development.
The research on transit impacts shows us what we all intuitively
know, that outcomes really depend on the local governments land use
decisions and on the health of the regional economy. The research
suggests that the real accountability for outcomes in transit
development rests squarely on local land use decisionmakers. A close
look at the Washington region's success or failure in capturing the
enormous Federal investment in METRO proves this point.
Lastly, Dr. Handy looks at assumptions that changing development
patterns will effect travel behavior and she comes to the conclusion
that ``land use and design strategies may reduce automobile use a small
amount'', Kitamura, et al. 1997.
The conclusions of her review of research findings over the last 15
years is:
1. New highway capacity will influence where new growth goes, but
not the overall growth within a region.
2. New highway capacity probably increases travel a little.
3. LRT can encourage density with the right help.
4. New Urbanist design strategies make it easier for those who want
to drive less to do so.
Dr. Handy then asks why the data does not yield more, and answers
that the interactions between transportation investments, land use
patterns and travel patterns are much more complicated than we have
assumed. We are not collecting data on those complex interactions in
part because we have traditionally looked only at the movement of
people and goods as the outcomes of transportation investments.
Dr. Handy suggests that we must be able to use increasingly
sophisticated statistical techniques to handle the complex web of
connections and the limitations of the data. She strongly suggests that
we invest in better and more sophisticated data collection and that the
focus after that should be on the translation of empirical results into
planning and forecasting tools.
While Dr. Handy's work looks at the actual outcomes of investments
in highways and transit within a region, there are several areas that
are not reviewed , because the issues are mostly ignored.
The first area that has almost no data available is the
relationship of regional health to transportation investment. If
childhood asthma is increasing at catastrophic rates, is it related to
air quality, VMT, or land use patterns; and if so, how? If the Nation
is now in a spiral of obesity, is there a relationship to the type and
quality of transportation investments in a region?
Recent research also suggests that auto mobility comes at a very
high price for the poor, exceeding expenditures on health, education,
and food. Do we know if these impacts on the poorest 25 percent of
families varies by region, and do we know what strategies work to
relieve the strain of that cost burden?
We can now ask even more ambitious questions. How do these health
costs and family transportation costs effect the economic health of a
region? We do not now know the answer, but it is clear we now have the
tools to begin to understand those relationships, we just have to make
the effort.
We have not, as a Nation, looked at the results of our investments.
The creation of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics was supposed to
help with research on data quality and integrity, as well as how to use
the data in complex regional models. It is unclear how BTS lost its
way, but it has, until recently, been either a hobby shop where
research focused on what was of interest to the researcher; or it
became a job shop for the Office of the Secretary, doing small scale
projects. BTS is also limited by the fact that it receives most of its
funding from FHWA.
Several suggestions to strengthen our understanding of the complex
relations between transportation, land use, and behavior:
1. Take mandatory set asides out of Transit, Highway, and Aviation
to fund an independent BTS.
2. Require BTS to not only report annually to the Congress on its
funding agenda, but also its findings, with recommendations on the
relationship of those findings to the regional planning and forecasting
process.
3. Given the real and understandable Federal reluctance to engage
in any local land use decisions, the next step in the accountability
chain would be to take the introductory purpose statements of TEA-21
and place those objectives in the planning language section of the new
bill. It would then provide a framework for developing accountability
for outcomes at the regional level. Because there are no expectations
of outcome, beyond clean air, there is little we can do as a country to
measure the results of our investments.
4. If there is going to be a research chapter in this
reauthorization, do not let it be totally dominated by one mode or one
profession. If we could establish, through research, better data,
better models, and better frameworks for decisionmaking, we could
become more accountable for the results of our transportation
expenditures as a Nation.
5. Incorporate requirements into the planning process to address
issues of health, pedestrian trips, and land use impacts. It is
important to have the planning process address these areas, not to make
judgments about the outcomes, but to make sure they are part of the
factors considered in planning.
While this may seem a long digression there are several key points
to be made in summary:
1. There is little real relationship between the transportation
planning processes and its impact on land use and travel.
2. The planning process is primarily a way to move a capital
program into the pipeline, and not a series of complex competing goals
needing resolution.
3. Unless we begin to measure and compare actual outcomes of our
investments, we will be exactly in this same spot for the next
reauthorization.
4. Unless there are outcome requirements for the MPO planning
process and some direct, non-modal funds to meet those requirements,
MPO planning will not change.
5. We need to actually look at what we want as outcomes of our
national investments in transportation. It looks increasingly like it
should mean making it easier for Americans to make a wide variety of
choices in transportation.
__________
Statement of Joy Wilson, President and CEO, National Stone, Sand &
Gravel Association
Good morning. I am Joy Wilson, president and chief executive
officer of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association-NSSGA-
located in Arlington, Virginia.
NSSGA represents the nation's aggregate industries-producers of
crushed stone, sand and gravel, as well as suppliers of equipment and
services to aggregate producers. Our 850 member companies turn out 90
percent of the crushed stone and 70 percent of the sand and gravel
consumed annually in the United States. Nearly three billion tons of
aggregate valued at approximately $14.5 billion were produced in this
country in 2001, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The
aggregate industry workforce is made up of about 120,000 men and women
across America.
Just to provide some perspective, there are 10,000 construction
aggregate operations nationwide. Virtually every congressional district
is home to a crushed stone, sand or gravel operation. Proximity to
market is critical due to high transportation costs, so 70 percent of
our nation's counties include an aggregate operation.
Construction aggregates are used primarily in asphalt and concrete.
Ninety-four percent of asphalt pavement is aggregate; 80 percent of
concrete is aggregate, whether used in pavement, buildings, dams,
sewage treatment plants and the like. About 10 tons of aggregate per
person are used annually in America. Every lane-mile of interstate
consumes 38,000 tons of aggregate; about 400 tons of aggregate are used
in construction of the average home.
While I appear this morning representing the aggregates industry, I
also appear as a representative of the Partnership for Quality Growth
that includes 13 labor and industry organizations that share a common
interest and concern for the future of our country's transportation
systems and infrastructure and how they relate to our national quality
of life.
I know this is something we share with the members of the
Environment and Public Works Committee, so we particularly appreciate
Chairman Jefford's and Senator Smith's initiative in holding this
hearing to examine the issues surrounding ``Transportation Planning and
Smart Growth.''
Our industry-labor coalition has a significant interest in ``smart
growth''
Among other things, this diverse group adheres to the basic concept
that Americans should continue to be allowed the freedom to live and
travel where and when they please.
We also recognize that, as our population continues to grow, all
planning-Federal or local-must accommodate that continued growth, plus
the collateral increase in the transport of freight that will be needed
to support that population.
We hope to insure that Federal policies respect as much planning
power as possible in local communities to meet growth needs-especially
with regard to transportation and other infrastructure improvements.
Use of Federal transportation law to drive local planning decisions
should be approached with extreme caution, lest local and State land
use decisions become usurped by Federal determinations.
It is essential that local planners have the ability and
flexibility to formulate their plans with a sound basis of knowledge
about where and what the aggregate resources around them are. While
those resources are plentiful across the United States, they vary in
quantity and quality from location to location. It's important for
planners to know if their local resources are suitable for multiple
uses, including construction, erosion control, water quality protection
and the like. And they must know how long their supply of the resource
will be available.
Geological mapping is a key tool for planners in pinpointing
resources. The placement of a school, a shopping mall or a hospital,
for example, atop a rich aggregate deposit would indefinitely eliminate
that deposit's beneficial use by the community.
That is another reason why our industry is attuned to discussions
about land use planning and concerned about the potential impacts of
the ``smart growth'' movement on Americans' mobility, our industry, on
transportation planning and construction and on the reauthorization of
TEA-21.
I will begin by discussing these points and then I will offer some
observations on how we have an opportunity in the reauthorization
process to promote ``quality growth.''
Let me define some terms.
``Quality growth,'' as defined by the Quality Growth Coalition, is
planned growth that respects the fundamental freedom of Americans to
choose where they live, their choice of housing and how they travel.
It promotes quality urban development and growth management by
improving the entire transportation network-including additional road
capacity, better management of traffic flow and more efficient public
transit.
Defining ``smart growth'' is more challenging.
Generically, ``smart growth'' principles are motherhood and apple
pie: preserving green spaces, easing traffic congestion, restoring
sense of community, promoting regional growth strategies and nurturing
a high quality of life.
Leaders in the major political parties and at all levels of
government have embraced these basic principles.
However, others interpret ``smart growth'' to mean no expansion of
suburban development; the imposition of urban growth boundaries;
increased housing density; getting people away from individual car use;
reduced emphasis on road improvement-especially road capacity-and
disproportionate investment in rail and mass transit.
Others see a strong Federal land-use planning role to combat what
some call unorganized spreading out, or ``sprawl,'' prodding Americans
to infill within urban areas.
We do not believe that the vast majority of Americans want
restrictions on their freedom of mobility. And air pollution from
mobile sources has declined so much that today, while still a concern,
it's not even the primary source of air pollution in most areas of the
United States.
Over the past 30 years we've seen more than more than a 30 percent
increase in population, the number of licensed drivers increase by 64
percent, a 125 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled and 87
percent increase in licensed vehicles, according to the U.S. Department
of Transportation.
Air pollution reductions from mobile sources have been dramatic.
According to a January 2002 U.S. Department of Transportation report,
Carbon monoxide is down 43 percent over this same 30-year
period; volatile organic compounds are down 59 percent;
Particulate matter is down 42 percent;
NOx is holding nearly steady and
Lead has been virtually eliminated from our air.
There are many interpretations of ``smart growth,'' but we and our
industry colleagues believe the focus should be on ``quality growth.''
After all, as one of the greatest friends of the environment this
country has ever known-President Theodore Roosevelt-once said:
``Conservation means development as much as it does protection.''
We have facts and studies, and we must put the debate more fully in
the sunshine-with decisionmakers at all levels of government.
We found that with two statewide ballot initiatives in Arizona and
Colorado in 2000 that the citizens-once apprised of the true impacts of
the ``smart growth'' initiatives-did not agree at all with such extreme
measures that took away personal freedoms, property rights and ability
to plan for future growth.
Both these ballot initiatives were defeated by majorities of more
than 70 percent with the support of coalitions of business, labor and
government.
Let's look in our own backyard. Many of you are familiar with the
1960's National Capitol Transportation Plan for the Washington area
that called for 14 new roads, mass transit and high-occupancy vehicle
lanes.
Well, we got Metro and the HOV lanes-but only one of the 14 roads.
And look at our congestion now-second worst in the entire nation. Road
capacity did not increase in parallel to population increases and the
desire of people to make multiple stops on the way to and from work and
throughout the day.
So, one impact of ``smart growth'' on transportation planning is
the misunderstanding, or even misinterpretation of how much congestion
relief mass transit can assume.
In fact, a growing body of evidence suggests that Americans will
choose to drive and that government policies will not change their
behavior.
In his book, Commuting in America, noted transportation expert Alan
Pisarski observes that, over the past three decades and despite
billions of dollars invested in alternatives to driving, every means of
commuting, except lone drivers who can't use HOV lanes, has lost market
share from 1980 levels.
Year 2000 census data released this past August showed the trend
continuing and confirmed Pisarski's findings.
We are concerned about claims in the name of ``smart growth,'' that
putting what's tantamount to a moat around a city-an urban boundary-
will maximize the use of our resources and prevent open spaces from
being developed.
Matthew Kahn of Tufts University and others at the University of
Illinois and the University of Southern California who've studied the
phenomenon find growth in suburbs to be a pattern resulting essentially
from increased prosperity.
Rocky Moretti of The Road Information Program recently unearthed a
fascinating nugget of research that tells us much about human behavior.
What he found is that the human race has been ``sprawling'' for
some time.
He located a city in Central America with an urban corridor
connected to suburbs by series of roads. Research showed that, as the
core of the city expanded and filled with commercial and other
activity, inner city residents moved to the suburbs. The town is called
Caracol and the movement to the suburbs predated the automobile by 1200
years. This suggests a strong human propensity to seek space when
possible.
We agree with Alan Pisarski's recommendation that transportation
policies should facilitate Americans' lifestyle choices, not thwart
them.
Another factor where ``smart growth'' interacts with transportation
planning is in the myth that proponents of better roads want to pave
America over-and that if you build, widen or improve a road, more cars
will be attracted to it as if it were a magnet. The data and surveys
contradict this hyperbole.
We do not have a shortage of land, a shortage of farmland or a
shortage of forests. What we have is a desire by most people to live in
certain core areas, and those areas, not surprisingly, are densely
populated-generally characterized by urban centers and suburban growth.
As the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas reports:
Less than 5 percent of the nation's land is developed and
three-quarters of the population lives on 3.5 percent of the land.
Only about one-quarter of the farmland lost since 1945 is
attributable to urbanization.
Predictions of future farmland loss based on past trends
are misleading because farmland loss has been moderating since the
1960's, falling from a 6.2 percent decline in farmland per decade in
the 1960's to a 2.7 percent decline in the 1990's. Other factors, such
as crop yield and market conditions, have had a greater impact.
And freedom of choice is the fundamental issue here. The freedom to
choose where to live and how to travel to work, to recreation and to
two working parents' unending errands.
Americans continue to choose to buy and drive cars, SUV's and
trucks.
They choose lifestyles-including ordering goods by e-commerce-that
put ever more trucks on the road to deliver consumer products to their
stores and homes.
Their lifestyle choices have relegated commuting to a scant 20
percent-one-fifth-of all trips. America's highway travel is growing and
will continue to grow in the future.
So, Americans are choosing to drive, but they're also choosing the
suburbs over the cities.
Some indict government-sponsored infrastructure investments-like
sewer and water lines and highways-for suburban migration. The logic
goes, ``stop the infrastructure investments, stop the sprawl.'' But is
that true? Studies have shown that Americans move from cities to
suburbs because of prosperity. As we become more successful and
prosperous, we want a better quality of life-and many find it by moving
out of cities.
Public opinion polls further buttress these conclusions. When
asked, Americans list quality public schools, affordable housing, good
jobs and low traffic congestion as their top priorities in choosing
where to live. Secondary priorities are open space and low-density.
And the principal factors used in deciding where to live aren't
compatible with high-density living and limited highway capacity.
In a nationwide survey by National Association of Homebuilders in
the late 1990's, 83 percent of respondents said they would prefer a
detached, single family home in the suburbs over an equally priced
urban townhouse near transit, even though the suburban home would
entail longer distances to work and shopping.
Today, more than half of Americans live in suburbs. Forty percent
of our jobs are located there, and more jobs are being created in
suburban communities than anywhere else.
When the public's clear choice to drive and to live in the suburbs
is suppressed, or if policy decisions try to change behavior by
reducing or stopping highway investments, decisionmakers will allow
traffic congestion to worsen.
With nearly all Americans choosing to drive, public policies that
ignore that vast majority will fail.
In contrast, relieving traffic congestion will reap very real
benefits to our communities and our quality of life.
Two years ago, NSSGA supported American Highway Users Alliance's
definitive study on the benefits of congestion mitigation.
The study found that improving America's 167 worst traffic
bottlenecks would produce dramatic safety, environmental, fuel economy
and time-saving improvements over the next 20 years:
First, safety: * 290,000 fewer crashes, 141,000 fewer injuries,
1,100 fewer fatalities;
Second, environmental improvement:
45 percent reduction in carbon monoxide,
44 percent reduction in smog-causing volatile organic
compounds,
71 percent less CO2, and
Finally, economic productivity:
A reduction of 19 minutes for each vehicle driving
through the bottlenecks.
Road investments enhance our freedom of mobility and democratized
mobility for all Americans. With more than 90 percent of American
households having access to automobiles, mobility reaches through all
classes and incomes.
Road investments have made it possible for lower income workers to
live in areas they can afford yet commute to higher paying jobs in
areas where they cannot afford to live.
Road investments have increased the opportunity for more Americans
to buy their dream homes and boosted leisure time.
Road investments create jobs. The U.S. Department of Transportation
estimates that 42,100 total full-time jobs are created with every $1
billion that is invested in Federal-aid highways: 27,600 in highway
construction and related industries and 14,500 that are induced in
other industries as the 27,600 spend the wages they've earned. Highway
dollars create construction jobs, which create supplier jobs, which
create jobs for businesses that provide the goods and services they
want.
Last but not least, road improvements reduce commute times. In its
2001 Urban Mobility Report, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)
concluded that traffic congestion in 68 major cities wastes 4.5 billion
commuter hours annually costing $78 billion in lost time and
productivity.
The last time a rush hour was really an hour was in the late
l960's. The rush hour grew into the ``rush period'' of 3 hours daily by
1982. And in 1999, the rush period was almost 6 hours (about 3 hours
each way).
The TTI study also showed about 6.8 billion gallons of excess fuel
is consumed annually in what they call a ``congestion tax.''
And pollution is reduced when you can reduce emissions from idling
traffic to smooth-flowing traffic.
This leads me to my final point: how the reauthorization of TEA-21
can promote quality growth.
We are faced with challenge after challenge in our nation's courts
to highway projects authorized by TEA-21 and approved through the
local, State and Federal environmental permitting processes and are
needed by commuters.
The challenges have come in the guise of protecting air quality
under the Clean Air Act. But, occasionally, you find an admission by
opponents that they just don't want these projects built in Atlanta,
Sacramento, Baltimore, Salt Lake City or in other key urban areas
because they fear the projects will enable growth.
The reauthorized highway bill must anticipate harassment litigation
on projects prioritized by the States and approved by the Federal
Government. These are projects that have passed through all the
environmental hoops and local planning processes.
They're projects that communities want for capacity, for gridlock
reduction, for relieving traffic congestion and for improving air
quality and the quality of their lives. They're projects that can
reduce the loss of life, time, money and fuel.
The Partnership for Quality Growth firmly believes that such anti-
road litigation is one facet of ``smart growth'' that isn't and doesn't
contribute to ``quality.''
We want to be positive about the contribution of sound planning to
our quality of life. Some opponents would paint us as ``anti-
planning.'' But that's not true; let's look at planning recommendations
our industries propose for local consideration at the community level:
Well-designed suburban communities
Flexible planning and zoning regulations
Protection of key open space
Comprehensive transportation systems with adequate road
capacity
Improved road design, and
Preservation and redevelopment of previously occupied
sites.
Over the past 30 years, our roads have increased capacity only by 6
percent when our population has grown by more than 30 percent.
And, our population is expected to grow by 100 million people by
the year 2050.
TEA-21-the largest infrastructure bill ever passed by any Congress-
is going to make a dent in that, but the need is so immense that the
challenge for the next transportation bill is even more formidable.
Quality growth principles can help frame the debate during
reauthorization. These principles are:
Acknowledging our freedom to choose how to live and
travel,
Acknowledging that growth is good if managed properly,
Sharing the benefits of improved mobility as broadly as
possible-mobility is a major factor in the quality of our democracy,
Advocating that decisions should be made locally and
involve local citizens, and
Believing that our policies should facilitate American
culture and choices, not thwart them.
Investment and use of mass transit and public transportation--
whether buses or rail--are necessary and important tools in our battle
to solve congestion. But these tools need to be in some proportion to
Americans' interest in using them, and should not be used as weapons
against roads and vehicle use. HOV lanes, Heavy Vehicle or Dedicated
Truck Lanes, and other gridlock-busting alternatives also must be
examined to lift our nation out of congestion.
TEA-21 is being impacted by ``no growth'' litigation over highway
projects, projects already approved through the local, State and
Federal transportation, community and environmental processes.
The successor legislation must make and embody a critical
philosophical choice-are we as a nation trying to dictate cultural
change in America, or are we trying to serve and facilitate the freedom
of movement that has characterized this nation from its beginning?
In embracing the beneficial planning goals of quality growth, the
new legislation should support the local, State and Federal
decisionmaking processes that, once completed, should not be subject to
delay by interminable court battles due to legal loopholes.
Our industries are committed to ensuring that America continues to
grow and that it will be quality growth.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully wish to submit for the hearing record
a copy of the Quality Growth Coalition's publication, Building Better
Communities: A Toolkit for Quality Growth, which expands on some of the
points I touched on today.
Thank you for your consideration.
__________
Statement of Richard Stolz, Deputy Director of Public Policy, Center
for Community Change
On behalf of the Center for Community Change and the Transportation
Equity Network, I am pleased to submit testimony to the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee on the topic of Smart Growth and
Transportation Planning. I commend the chairman and the committee on
its decision to hold a hearing on this important topic.
The Center for Community Change is a 30-year old national non-
profit organization deeply rooted in low-income and minority
communities in both urban and rural areas. Our mission is to help
grassroots organizations build and improve their capacity to effect the
policies that impact the day-to-day lives of their membership.
The Transportation Equity Network (TEN) is a national coalition of
grassroots organizations based in low-income and minority communities
organizing to reform transportation policies at the local, regional,
statewide and national level. TEN's membership includes faith-based
networks of congregations, community organizing projects, community
development corporations, social service organizations, civil rights
groups, organizations of transit riders and other low-income people,
and progressive transportation agencies. TEN groups are active in more
than 30 States and TEN includes dozens of organizational members and
affiliates.
In 1997--1998, the Center and TEN worked closely with Members of
Congress and a coalition of allies in Washington, DC to include several
provisions related cto transportation planning in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21):
A requirement that Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPO) provide to the public an annual list of projects for which
Federal funds have been obligated.
A public involvement requirement in the statute in the
MPO certification process.
A provision that ensures that transit users are consulted
in the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning process.
The newly created Job Access and Reverse Commute
competitive grant program.
As Congress renews TEA-21, the Center and TEN urge Congress to pay
particular attention to the impact of transportation planning and
investment on low-income and minority communities, and to establish
strategies for using surface transportation legislation to support the
revitalization of rural and urban communities and regional economies.
The Center also reminds Congress that more work is needed to ensure
that the nation's transportation planning system is fully accountable
and transparent to taxpayers.
Sprawl is neither Class nor Race Neutral, and the same can be said for
Smart Growth
From the perspective of low-income and minority communities,
particularly in metropolitan urban areas, sprawl has a particularly
pernicious and deleterious impact. A growing body of research, and an
emerging consensus among researchers and advocates, asserts that in
metropolitan areas, the relationship between the concentrated poverty
of central city communities and the relative affluence of suburban
enclaves is not coincidental.
According to John A. Powell of the Institute on Race and Poverty at
the University of Minnesota, ``Sprawl and regional fragmentation on the
one hand, and concentrated poverty and social inequity on the other
hand, are flip sides of the same dynamic.''\1\ The same factors that
push and pull families away from urban centers and to the suburbs trap
the families left behind. Those able to leave have the human and
financial capital to do so. They leave for better jobs, better schools
and they invest their financial capital in property likely to increase
in value. Those left behind must deal with struggling schools, less
human capital and fewer financial resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``How Sprawl Makes Us Poor'' by John A. Powell in The
Albuquerque Journal, March 22, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powell goes on to explain that the Federal Government defines
concentrated poverty as a census tract with 40 percent or greater of
its residents living below the poverty level. This is significant
because joblessness, blight, crime, and other circumstances destructive
to families characterize concentrated poverty. Central city
communities, which are more likely to hold areas of concentrated
poverty, therefore carry the burden of having to address more social
problems, which serve to push out more families that can afford to
leave. As a result, these communities often lack the tax base necessary
to address the social ills that plague them.
There is a further layer to concentrated poverty--race. Of those
living in concentrated poverty, more than half are African American
(note that African Americans make up only 12 percent of the national
population), and a quarter are Hispanic. While the reasons behind the
stark residential race and class segregation in America's metropolitan
regions are complex, the reality is unavoidable. Paul Jargowski, as he
writes in Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City,
is on solid ground when he explains that ``neighborhood poverty is not
primarily the product of the people who live there or a ghetto culture
that discourages upward mobility, but the predictable result of the
economic status of minority communities and the degree to which
minorities are residentially segregated from whites and from each other
by income.''\2\ Sprawl both contributes to and facilitates this
residential segregation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios and the American City. Paul
Jargowski. 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since sprawl and its counterpart, concentrated poverty, must be
analyzed in tandem in order to more fully understand the impact of
willy nilly suburban growth, it stands to reason that Smart Growth also
has a counterpart: equal access to economic opportunity. The
Transportation Equity Network believes that any effort undertaken in
the name of Smart Growth that fails to address concentrated poverty and
does not advance equal access to economic opportunity is inadequate.
For example, Smart Growth strategies that encourage economic
development in central city communities should be mindful on the impact
of such development on the availability of affordable housing. And
strategies that seek to protect environmental treasures on the edges of
suburban growth should also be mindful of the need to improve access to
economic opportunity in areas of concentrated poverty.
The Role of Transportation Planning
In metropolitan regions across the country, experience has shown
that suburban development often follows road and highway construction.
As Dr. Susan Handy of the University of Texas concluded in 1999 (also
quoted in testimony by Tom Downs from the University of Maryland)
``Building new highways will not increase the rate of growth [in
metropolitan regions], but will influence where in a region growth
occurs and what kind of growth occurs.'' While she goes on to say that
not building highways will not necessarily prevent decentralization,
her conclusion does suggest that growth follows highway development,
and may do so at the expense of other areas within a metropolitan
region.
In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
Congress laid the groundwork for significant reform in the
transportation planning process by establishing the metropolitan
planning process. As such, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, which
are often the only governmental entities in a particular place with
regional jurisdiction, can play a very significant role with respect to
Smart Growth. Furthermore, because transportation investments play such
a large role in determining the nature of growth in metropolitan
regions, the choices made by MPOs have lasting impacts on the growth
patterns of metropolitan regions.
In 1999, the issue of Smart Growth and equal access to economic
opportunity came to a head in northwest Indiana. That was when a
coalition of African-American, White and Latino congregations named the
Interfaith Federation publicly challenged the planning practices of the
Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC) on both moral
and legal grounds.
Northwest Indiana, which includes the cities of Gary, Hammond and
East Chicago, is one of the most racially segregated metropolitan
regions in the country. It is also a region characterized by both
sprawl and concentrated poverty. Gary, Hammond and East Chicago have
all three experienced declines in population following the collapse of
the manufacturing and steel industries over the last three decades.
These cities are largely low-income, have relatively high property
taxes, and share symptoms of urban decay, including failing schools and
high rates of unemployment. Around these cities lies an extensive
network of suburban communities of varying degrees of affluence, and
they grow in affluence the further away they get.
The Interfaith Federation complained that NIRPC had contributed to
the decline of the region's central cities by placing undue emphasis on
the construction and expansion of roads and highways, while neglecting
the needs of residents living in areas of concentrated poverty. All
three cities are located in the northern half of Lake County, Indiana.
Over the last decade, the region's job growth has taken place in the
southern half of Lake County. The transit-dependent residents of Gary,
Hammond, and East Chicago had no way of accessing areas of high job
growth in south county by public transportation.
While some may contend that the Interfaith Federation had
challenged NIRPC on grounds that were beyond the MPO's control, it was
certainly clear that NIRPC had entirely neglected the region's neediest
residents and had failed its neediest jurisdictions. In response to the
Interfaith Federation's concerns, NIRPC contended that it had done
nothing wrong. The Interfaith Federation, undeterred, pointed to
several regulations and provisions of Federal law that the MPO had
ignored. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
Administration, after lengthy deliberation, concurred with the
Interfaith Federation, and conditionally certified NIRPC's planning
process. The FHWA also provided NIRPC with a discretionary grant to
help it better plan for the needs of low-income and minority
communities under its jurisdiction.
Examining Transportation Equity and Inequity
Though ISTEA and TEA-21 both represent enormous improvements in the
national transportation planning landscape compared to what existed
before, from the perspective of low-income and minority communities,
ISTEA and TEA-21 represent a mixed bag.
A case in point is Miami, Florida. In the late 1960's portions of
unincorporated Dade County were vibrant African American communities
with strong local economies and solid middle class families. The State
tragically steam-rolled these communities at the end of that decade
when the State built Interstate 95 right through many of these
neighborhoods. Not only were families and business displaced, but also
over the ensuing decades declining property values and other symptoms
of social decay took hold. This is a story not unique to Miami-Dade
County. Similar stories can be found in Montgomery, Alabama; Los
Angeles, California; Atlanta, Georgia, and other cities across the
country.
In the 1990's the State further stripped these communities of their
dignity by widening the I-95 corridor to within feet of people's homes
and erecting wire meshed fencing to protect these households from
highway noise and traffic. Residents endured years of house-rattling
noise, cars rolling into their back yards, shrapnel from exploding
tires and fear, and constant phone calls to State transportation and
locally elected officials led to no improvements.
Finally in 2001, an organization of local residents named
Neighborhoods in Action (NIA) organized to get the attention of the
State's regional Department of Transportation office. Only after NIA
invoked the term ``environmental justice'' did the DOT act in a
responsive manner. In a matter of months, the State of Florida
constructed a mitigation wall to protect residents of unincorporated
Miami-Dade County from both noise and physical harm.
Ironically, NIA discovered at about that time that the mitigation
wall had been written into the MPO's TIP for years, but had simply been
skipped over every year. They also discovered that similar sound walls
had long since been built along I-95 to protect other more affluent
communities. Though in the end the structure of ISTEA and TEA-21 helped
to encourage the State DOT to do the right thing, clearly the State had
not made the needs of these communities a priority.
But this is not an a-typical situation. Robert Bullard and Glenn
Johnson of the Environmental Justice Resource Center (EJRC) have
written extensively of the impact of transportation planning that fails
to consider the needs of low-income and minority communities.
For instance, the EJRC reports that the pedestrian fatality rate
for people of color is higher than that for whites. One explanation for
the difference in rates is the difference in walking patterns among
different racial groups. For example, African Americans walk 82 percent
more than whites, while Hispanics walk 58 percent more than non-
Hispanic whites (US Department of Transportation, 1997).
Also consider that asthma, which is a leading cause of disability
among children in the United States, is more likely to strike inner
city, and therefore, minority children. The hospitalization rate due to
asthma is three to four times higher among black children than white
children. Pollution from automobiles, and the proximity of roads and
congestion to low-income communities is believed to be a factor in
asthma prevalence among minority children.
But transportation inequity is not only about race, though race is
a significant factor. In Driven To Spend, a report released by the
Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Center for Neighborhood
Technology in 2000, researchers found that transportation (the cost of
an automobile, its maintenance and other costs) often rivaled the cost
of housing for low-income families. The report also found that the
greater degree of sprawl in a metropolitan area, the greater the cost
of owning and maintaining an automobile.
Then there are those households that lack automobiles. According to
the 2000 census, more than 10 percent of the American public does not
own an automobile, and are dependent on transit or other sources of
transportation besides a personal automobile to get around. This number
is likely to increase as the nation's population continues to age, and
more and more of us eventually succumb to various physical and mental
disabilities and impairments.
Transportation equity, in contrast, is about ensuring that all
communities enjoy access to economic opportunity, and that no community
is unfairly burdened with negative economic and environmental impacts.
Transportation equity is also about ensuring that planning processes
are fully transparent, accountable and accessible to the general
public. Congress should strive to ensure that every Federal dollar
spent on transportation carries with it the principle of transportation
equity.
Access to Jobs: What We Learned from Welfare Reform
Transportation is a daily struggle for many Americans. This
challenge is particular acute for low-income people and working
families that lack access to safe, reliable and timely public
transportation and cannot afford private car ownership. The low wage
labor market is often unforgiving for hard-working breadwinners unable
to get to work on time, if at all. For families on welfare who face
federally imposed work requirements and time limits, the inability to
get to jobs due to transportation, could render these families
ineligible for public assistance as well as leave them unemployed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\This material is covered in greater detail in Policy Brief:
Transportation and Access to Jobs. Center for Community Change & STPP.
2002. [Draft]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example of an innovative Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC)
program is in Columbus, Ohio. The project was driven by a coalition of
churches called Building Responsibility Equality And Dignity (BREAD),
which realized early on the potential of the JARC program enacted in
TEA-21.
BREAD partnered with the Central Ohio Transit Authority and the
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, the city of Columbus, the
Federal Transit Administration, and the county welfare office to
establish a new transit hub in a low-income community in Columbus that
is home to a large public housing project. The transit hub, which drew
funds from a number of sources, featured express bus service to areas
of high job growth in the suburbs, including feeder bus service that
could take riders closer to their work sites. The transit hub itself
also co-located child care services and job referral and training
support services so that it could simultaneously meet the multiple
needs of this community.
As demonstrated by the Columbus example, one of the JARC program's
most innovative features is its emphasis on collaboration among various
stakeholders, including transportation, welfare, and housing agencies
and the affected community.
Although most low-income people may want cars, the reality of car-
ownership can undermine the aspirations of families seeking to make a
better life for themselves and their children. For many poor families
trying to work their way out of poverty, car ownership is expensive and
does little to generate equity over time, and the cost of owning a car
can place other important wealth-generating assets, like homes, out of
reach. But if a family is without a reliable vehicle and beyond the
range of mass transportation--whether publicly or privately operated--
that family will be economically, socially and culturally isolated. In
rural communities, the circumstances are even worse. Forty percent of
rural counties lack public transit, and 36 percent of all rural
residents are considered transit dependent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Status of Rural Public Transportation. Federal Transit
Administration. 2000-2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of large cities often forget that in smaller communities
public transportation systems tend to be less well funded and receive
fewer planning resources. But even in large cities, bus service may not
accommodate the needs of second or third shift workers, or be able to
accommodate the multiple trips mothers may need to take to get their
children to childcare on the way to work.
Considering Metropolitan Planning Organizations
The Center for Community Change and the Transportation Equity
Network have developed a great deal of experience working with and in
some instances pressuring MPOs to reform their planning practices. Over
the last 6 years, the Center has gathered a good deal of information
about MPOs. The nearly 400 MPOs across the Nation represent a very
mixed bag of both good and bad practice. Certainly, experience has
shown that though MPOs--as all layers of government--often request less
oversight from the Federal Government, some oversight is inevitably
necessary. The transportation planning process is one example of where
lack of accountability and standard minimum expectations has harmed the
public interest.
In 1998, Congress enacted several provisions in TEA-21 related to
the metropolitan transportation planning process. The Transportation
Equity Network focused on three:
1) The first was an annual listing of projects for which Federal
funds had been obligated in the prior year. The intent of this
provision is to increase the degree of transparency in the
transportation planning process by creating a tool by which the public
can ascertain how Federal funds are spent in their metropolitan region,
and thereby determine funding patterns in metropolitan regions over
time. A survey conducted of a diverse sample of MPOs found that 5 years
after the law was enacted: