Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and other Members of this panel for holding these hearings today, as we approach the first anniversary of the enactment of the "Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century" or TEA-21.
Overview
When Fort Wayne Mayor Paul Helmke, the Conference's Immediate Past President, testified before the full Committee last month, his statement highlighted a number of issues pertaining to implementation of TEA-21. I speak to these issues and others in more detail in my testimony.
As a starting point, I want to emphasize a statement by Mayor Helmke, 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." In my region, our metropolitan planning organization has greatly facilitated this partnership.
Mr. Chairman, we commend this Committee, and the work by others in Congress and the Administration, for providing us with the opportunity under TEA-21 for success in meeting the challenges before us in surface transportation.
This statement is lengthy, because we try to provide some context for our views on where we are today with the implementation of TEA-21. Many of the issues we identify in this statement are largely technical or fine-tuning corrections, to make the TEA-21 partnership more successful. Quite frankly, some of the nuances of highway financing are somewhat complicated and require explanation. This statement should not convey the impression that mayors are unhappy with TEA-21. On the contrary, the nation's mayors, and so many others, worked very hard to preserve the ISTEA partnership framework and build upon it, as we believe this Committee and the Congress did in enacting TEA-21. Mr. Chairman, the mayors strongly support TEA-21.
Specifically, in my statement this morning, I share the results of a recent Conference survey on how local communities are progressing under TEA-21. I also provide some new information to guide the Committee's efforts in shaping federal surface transportation policy. Throughout the statement, I provide recommendations on administrative actions and suggest ideas for adjustments to current law.
Mayors' Views of TEA-21 Implementation
Mr. Chairman, I want to summarize the results of our recent mayors' survey on TEA-21. To prepare for this hearing, the Conference surveyed a small group of mayors, principally those serving on the Conference's Transportation Committee, to solicit their general views on how the new law is working.
We asked several questions of the mayors to gather their initial impressions of how the Act was being implemented. Let me provide a quick review of the responses from 40 mayors who completed the survey.
On the issue of responsiveness of our state partners, we found that 70 percent of the respondents indicated that their governors or state transportation officials had contacted them, since TEA-21 was enacted, about new funding available to their projects. We inquired if the mayor had been asked to participate in any state process to help decide funding priorities for TEA-21 dollars within the state, and only 40 percent responded affirmatively.
Nearly one-half of the mayors indicated the state committed additional funding or had developed plans 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.
To test out the general survey responses with specific examples of TEA-21 program categories, the mayors were asked to indicate if they found it easier, harder or the same in securing funding for key transportation needs. The categories of funding were: bridge repair (Bridge Program); community-building (Enhancements); congestion/clean air (CMAQ Program); highway construction (STP/flex funds); safety (STP safety set-aside); and transit (STP, CMAQ and flexible funds). The responses assigned to each category were fairly consistent, with the low range of 65 percent (community-building and congestion/clean air) to a high of 80 percent (safety) of mayors expressing the view that funding had remained the same.
When asked to indicate one top 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, transportation access to brownfield sites, safety, Interstate expansion, bridge repair and major road widening. Mayors were asked to write the response, rather than choosing from a list.
Better Information is Key to Success of TEA-21
Mr. Chairman, one quick and inexpensive way to increase our success rate and achieve better outcomes for our communities and citizens under TEA-21 is by modernizing our information-sharing capabilities. For a relatively modest investment of time and effort, we could dramatically upgrade our TEA-21 information infrastructure' and secure more return for the taxpayer and our communities.
We know that a modern information infrastructure' helps all of us -- public and private decision-makers at every level of government -- extract the full benefits from available TEA-21 dollars. Our nation is consumed by the Information Age,' the Internet and its vast potential. We are implementing multi-modal Intelligent Transportation Systems into our regional infrastructure; yet, in transportation investment accounting, our tools are antiquated and need to be updated.
Nobody, except a handful of federal and state transportation officials, understands how federal highway dollars move in and around the system.
The lack of user-friendly information about the flow of transportation resources under TEA-21 is the "Achilles' heel" of successful implementation of the new law. And, when I say information, I mean: 1) what funds are available and for what purposes; and 2) where these funds are being programmed or will be programmed over the life of TEA-21.
This is a right to know' process about how we are or soon will be deploying the taxpayers' money. Mr. Chairman, as a former governor, you can appreciate state concerns about another burden of reporting, but quite frankly, this view reflects only a small part of the equation. The real issue is about making the very best decisions, in a meaningful and healthy partnership structure among federal, state, regional and local officials with the public.
Information Gaps Threaten TEA-21 Decision-Making
Mr. Chairman, to illustrate why this information is so vital to local elected officials and others, I offer the following detailed examples.
Reporting
To prepare for this hearing, the Conference of Mayors requested and then reviewed the Section 104(j) Report, as provided to this Committee pursuant to TEA-21.
This report is intended to deliver annual updates to the Congress on the use of funds under the new Act. Specifically, the law calls for an annual accounting of obligations by state and substate areas, along with further detail by program category and type of improvement. I have attached a copy of this report to my testimony.
As an individual at the local level who has been involved in transportation issues for some time, and in my capacity as a leader among local officials on this subject, I don't understand what this report tells the public.
Local officials and the public can't immerse themselves in the intricate details of this type of reporting. It seems to be a collection of computer runs, devoid of any analysis or context.
Mr. Chairman, there has to be a higher standard for informing us and the public on what the states -- as the lead partner in the highway program area -- did with more than $20 billion in federal highway funds during the last fiscal year, seven years after ISTEA was enacted.
Let me turn to a local example from the ISTEA period to make the point more clearly. It is about air quality and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding.
Congress had wisely provided states with investment dollars for clean air needs in local areas, through ISTEA's CMAQ program. Here Congress provided the tools, both spending authority and actual obligation authority, to address a national problem that affects my region and many others throughout the U.S. While serving as a member of the MPO, we funded a whole set of air quality projects, and we did it with an open accounting system in full disclosure to the public.
To preserve state flexibility, Congress chose not to suballocate the funds to local areas as the STP program does, leaving decisions to the states on how much actual money would be obligated and where funds would be provided to projects in "non-attainment" and "maintenance" areas within the state.
During ISTEA, the Fort Worth-Dallas region was redesignated under the Clean Air Act, from moderate non-attainment to serious non-attainment for ozone. At the same time and in other places, several larger metro areas were being reclassified into more serious categories. Here in Washington, U.S. EPA was finalizing new clean air rules, setting more restrictive standards for ozone and particulate matter.
It was not until the ISTEA period was ending that I learned the State of Texas had unused spending authority for CMAQ. It turns out that, over the six-year life of the Act, we now know, according to U.S. DOT, that the State of Texas had more than $213 million in unobligated apportionments for CMAQ projects in my area and others with clean air problems.
Mr. Chairman, a theme for the Conference of Mayors over the past two years has been the importance of city/county metro areas in driving the U.S. economy. But, there are side effects that come with the incredible performance of these metro economic engines, such as threats to air quality. In my region, where nearly two percent of the nation's population resides, we are challenged by air quality problems. This explains our intense interest in the subject of CMAQ funding.
The story does not end there. A subsequent U.S. DOT computer run on the ISTEA period shows our experience is not unique. Nationwide, the CMAQ program had the lowest obligation rate (81.2 %) of the five core highway programs under ISTEA.
The fact that, collectively, we, and I mean principally the states, left more than $1 billion in spending authority (i.e. unused CMAQ apportionments) for clean air on the table during the ISTEA period, has largely gone unnoticed.
Turning to the Section 104(j) report, which I mentioned before, we now have information on the first year of experience under TEA-21. Again, like the ISTEA period, the CMAQ program had the lowest obligation rate of the five core highway program categories. What is alarming is the current rate of obligation of CMAQ funding is well below the ISTEA average. In fact, the obligation rate for the CMAQ program is about 40 percent lower than the ISTEA average. Unfortunately, this finding is not readily apparent and is based on further analysis.
Why can't these projects keep pace with the rate of progress states make on their traditional projects? And, why can't we have this information delivered in a timely manner, not at the end of the Act's funding cycle, and in ways that help inform the public?
Better information on the dollars is just part of the equation. Let me provide another example based in Virginia.
The Commonwealth of Virginia uses federal system classifications -- primary,' secondary' and urban' -- which, as you know, were eliminated in 1991 when ISTEA was enacted, to show spending patterns with the state. It is very difficult for local officials and the public to follow the progress of spending provided under TEA-21 with system classifications that no longer exist under federal law.
Fair Share
The ISTEA period ended on September 30, 1997. Today, as we discuss implementation of the new law, key information has not been reported on what happened under ISTEA, such as where the dollars went within the states.
Mr. Chairman, the Conference and other local officials began a campaign after the enactment of TEA-21 to make sure that all of the focus on funding equity didn't stop at the state lines. And, that the principles of funding equity should be extended, in reasonable ways, to substate areas and communities. We call this our Fair Share Campaign.' Our members and the public need better information about what happened with prior funds to make our case for fairness in future state funding allocations.
To help us understand the flow of dollars among areas within states, the Conference asked the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) to prepare a report on the ISTEA period since no official report from U.S. DOT or the states was expected.
As a result, we are doing our part to help inform these discussions, and at least, provide local officials with some baseline to gauge their work with their states in securing a fair share' of these resources.
Today, I am pleased to provide this Committee with an initial report on the distribution of funds to the nation's urbanized areas during the ISTEA period. It was prepared for the Conference by STPP, using data provided by states to U.S. DOT.
Mr. Chairman, it provides the only place-based accounting, on a national level, of where the more than $100 billion in federal highway dollars under ISTEA were invested.
Let me emphasize that we recognize the limitations of this information. However, we view this report as a useful tool in helping mayors seek their own accounting of how federal transportation dollars were invested in their city and throughout their region.
We provide this report to local officials to aid them in securing TEA-21 investment for their areas. And, we encourage them to use the information to bolster their own requests to their state transportation agencies for a full accounting of how ISTEA dollars were spent in their area.
With the growing public outcry for better transportation decisions, this should be the last time a non-profit, public interest coalition has to step in and help us understand where and how we have used federal resources. It was necessary at this juncture, absent efforts by the U.S. Department of Transportation and/or state agencies making such information available about the ISTEA period.
Mr. Chairman, the Conference would strongly support reports like this from the U.S. DOT and our state transportation agency partners. Such information helps all of us understand how federal transportation dollars are being invested. Let me share one last case study using the Forth Worth-Dallas metro area as one example.
This STPP report estimates what each urbanized area of the country received on its investment of federal gas taxes relative to highway spending.
It is estimated that the Fort Worth-Dallas metropolitan area realized a return on its gas taxes of about 55 cents on a dollar. Of the estimated federal gas tax payments of $2.25 billion from taxpayers in our region, we received about $1.23 billion in highway funding under ISTEA. This rate of return is about 25 percent lower than what the State of Texas, overall, received during the ISTEA period. These numbers concerns me and other mayors, and we have no way to find out if this information is correct. Moreover, we did not have this information going into the TEA-21 discussion.
Now that Texas' funding share of the new law, both in terms of percentage return and funding levels, has risen appreciably under TEA-21, our region is better positioned to advance our case for fair share' funding. Our MPO has created partnership programs with TxDOT which have helped considerably. We look forward to fine-tuning this partnership with your help.
However, it is extremely difficult to make the case for more funding if there is no baseline upon which to measure equity.
Finally, while this information may be explained differently, it is important to note that STPP used U.S. DOT data supplied by state agencies. It seems there is the capacity for place-based funding reporting using existing data sources, and we would like to see it assembled by U.S. DOT in cooperation with state agencies.
During the TEA-21 debate, I worked in concert with other officials in my region and with my State, as you did Mr. Chairman as then Governor of Ohio, to seek a more equitable distribution of federal resources among donor states. I do not want to lose a fair chance to argue for these resources for my city and region, due to lapses in our information systems.
We are here today to talk about implementing TEA-21 in the next millennium with the investment of these resources; yet, it seems our current information systems are operating in a manner that defies broader public scrutiny and understanding.
Mr. Chairman, TEA-21 is the largest single public works investment program in the nation's history. We need to retool our information infrastructure so it is up to the task of effectively deploying the more than $150 billion in taxpayer dollars, funds which are reserved in TEA-21 for the core highway programs.
As we move forward, I offer some specific suggestions.
Closing the Information Gaps
My testimony has discussed some of the limitations in our information-sharing among partners in the intergovernmental system and the public, examples which are generally drawn from the ISTEA period.
I applaud this Committee for a number of changes it made during action on TEA-21 to improve the free flow of information, helping to end some of the mystery about deployment of federal highway dollars.
Report to Congress Section 104(j) Report
Mr. Chairman, with some additional efforts and an eye to the public use of this information, the Section 104(j) report can be a very useful tool in aiding policy-makers and the public in tracking how TEA-21 dollars are being deployed.
I attached a copy of the first report to illustrate the point that a compendium of tables, devoid of context, is not particularly useful information to local officials and the public.
Tables alone do not convey useful information to the reader. Obligated funds by category, without reference to available spending authority (i.e. apportioned funds for the category for the current fiscal year or acknowledgement of carry-forward apportionment balances from prior years), do not allow a reader to determine what the data means.
The report does not offer insight into flexing of funds among categories, which is an area that local officials have also been concerned about. If spending authority, at the state's discretion, is shifted from one core program category to another, such as to the Surface Transportation Program (STP), local officials want to know and have the opportunity to see some portion of these "flexed funds" shared with their MPOs and local governments and for Enhancement or Safety projects in their areas. As you know, when funds are provided to the STP program in the first instance, local areas through their MPOs and the STP set-asides share in this funding.
The report shows spending by area, clustered by category of area, be it rural, small urban, urbanized or other. Again, the reader doesn't understand how these categories match with local areas and populations within the state. By simply adding population to the tables, we could get some idea of dollar flows on a per capita basis to groupings of jurisdictions.
DOT's database does track funding into local areas. Yet, this report provides no additional detail below categories of substate areas. As a result, it provides no particular insight or guide for gauging where within the states these funds are being invested.
Accompanying analysis of the obligation rates can begin to compare trends in state programs for purposes of delivering a more complete picture to policy-makers.
I emphasized our interest in the CMAQ program. With new air quality standards soon coming on line, the public and affected local areas want to know if progress on air standards is being helped by investment in CMAQ projects or slowed by disinvestment in CMAQ projects.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage you and this Committee to work with U.S. DOT to get this report delivered in a manner that better informs the public debate on these matters. While the report may technically comply with the Act, it does not provide a full accounting to the public.
The Congress wisely directed that this report be provided on an annual basis. Here we have an excellent opportunity for the Department to produce more user-friendly information on the status of TEA-21 funding, serving an audience beyond transportation budget analysts. Since this report series is just starting up, the Conference of Mayors would be pleased to provide any support to the Committee in this regard.
Cooperative Revenue Estimates
TEA-21 also included a provision that directs states to work cooperatively with the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to develop joint forecasts of anticipated funding under TEA-21.
This is a very important provision of the new law, and it places in the law a specific directive that such joint forecasts will be developed. U.S. DOT previously developed a rule under ISTEA addressing cooperative revenue forecasts, but these rules went largely unnoticed by state transportation officials.
Fully implementing this requirement would help create more accountability in federal highway funding. Mr. Chairman, the leaders of the local government community have written directly to Transportation Secretary Slater on this matter, urging him to include clear directives on this provision in the upcoming DOT planning rules.
I understand that some states have moved aggressively since June 1998 to program significant portions of their funding over the life of TEA-21, making advance decisions on deploying these resources, without complying with this provision of the new law.
This cooperative revenue forecast provision is about making sure that we have a meaningful partnership in surface transportation. Mr. Chairman, in Ohio when you served as Governor, there was an Ohio Futures Forum on Creating a Regional Vision. In these focus groups, the voters told you and other state and local officials that they wanted "simple, basic bookkeeping." An effective, cooperative revenue forecast process is about simple, basic bookkeeping.
Consider that in 1997 local governments, collectively, provided more than $36 billion for highway investment a commitment which represent one-third of all highway investment by all governments (i.e. federal, state, and local). This local tax effort that is equivalent to more than 20 cents per gallon of gasoline. And, that cities and counties own and/or operate about 80 percent of the nation's more than four million miles of roads and streets. Moreover, we own and operate the lion's share of the nation's ports, airports and public transit providers. There is much that is going on in the nation's transportation systems.
In my own region, 55 percent of overall transportation expenditures are from local revenue sources, and we just approved an additional $300 million in locally-enacted bond funds for surface transportation.
A cooperative revenue forecast is about putting together our local and regional budget for future transportation investments, which are supported by substantial and ongoing local tax effort. These local revenues, nearly all of which is raised from the general taxpayer as opposed to users through gas taxes, are the silent partner in the surface transportation financing equation. However, most people assume that surface transportation investment is only about federal and state gas taxes.
Having full and timely information about what TEA-21 funds will be available to our region, through Fiscal Year 2003, is about recognizing and respecting the substantial, and increasing crucial, role local governments play in surface transportation investment.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this concern in utmost respect to you as a former governor, but too often state agencies view TEA-21 as simply state resources. An effective revenue forecast process with the MPOs is about building our investment plans cooperatively, with complete disclosure about where and when TEA-21 resources will be available.
I encourage this Committee to give its support to the full implementation of these provisions by the U.S. DOT in its upcoming planning rules. There will be related benefits to the MPOs in satisfying new information requirements included in TEA-21 in that an effective revenue forecast process underpins and facilitates MPO efforts to provide more complete and accurate accounting on their transportation improvement programs (TIPs) and anticipated financing schedules for these projects.
Increasing the Use and Availability of Project Information
Mr. Chairman, we have now entered a new era of information exchanges, which is driven by new technologies and by a growing public desire for quick and user-friendly information.
I would like to encourage this Committee to begin examining ways to deliver more information on transportation generally, and TEA-21 investments specifically, to the public directly, using the new information resources like the Internet and GIS systems. Such user-friendly platforms are now deployed in many other areas by governments and their specialized agencies as well as by other public and private entities.
Recently, I had an opportunity to see the new platform developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to facilitate community decision-making and public involvement. HUD uses data, provided by grant recipients, to exhibit how they are using the funds. The data is geo-coded, allowing HUD to assemble and convey to the public which enables HUD to provide very detailed, graphically-displayed information. It is called the "Community 2020" software.
To demonstrate, I have attached a couple of examples of this GIS-based information system. "Community 2020" offers information on the location of HUD-funded projects, combined with Census data and other information, to allow its users to get a more complete picture of what is happening block by block in neighborhoods, communities and regions throughout the country. It helps communities to think more strategically about investments in local projects.
What is missing in this equation is the display of transportation investment information. As a community leader, I can tell you that, for too long, we have underestimated the power and influence of transportation investments on our communities and neighborhoods. This Committee's recent hearings on open space and urban growth underscored the importance of transportation investment in shaping urban development patterns. Combining transportation investment data, with other resources, would go a long way in helping public and private investors and the public make better decisions in the use of transportation dollars and other funds.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage this Committee to explore policies, pilot programs and other actions to move transportation data systems forward in ways that take fuller advantage of the many new information technologies.
Broader TEA-21 Program Issues
As this Committee begins to consider technical corrections or other adjustments to TEA-21, there are some areas where the mayors would urge changes and further oversight.
Mayor Helmke pointed out our concerns about the gap between apportionments (i.e. authority to spend) and obligation authority (i.e. funds to be obligated to actual projects), an unanticipated development under TEA-21.
The unanticipated gap in Fiscal Year 1999 of nearly 13 percent, or more than $2.5 billion in excess apportioned funds, means that states are accumulating more spending authority than can be reasonably expected to be obligated over the life of TEA-21.
It is one thing to provide flexibility to shift funds among program categories, it is another to make available excess apportionments available so that key local programs, like CMAQ or Enhancements, might not be funded.
Let me explain further, under ISTEA, the gap between apportioned funds and obligation authority averaged between 7-8 percent, with a smaller program. Against a much larger base of funding, a gap of nearly 13 percent, when combined with unobligated balances from ISTEA, allows states the option of underfunding key programs of interests to their local partners.
Consider that the CMAQ program, according to Section 104(j) report, has an obligation rate in Fiscal Year 1998 of slightly more than 50 percent, as measured against new Fiscal Year 1999 apportionments for CMAQ. This is troubling to local officials struggling with clean air problems, particularly as we await implementation of the new air standards.
To illustrate, in Georgia where the greater Atlanta metropolitan area is in the midst of debate on clean air standards, the State received apportioned spending authority of roughly $930 million in FY99. This includes a CMAQ apportionment of $33 million. The State received about $812 million in FY'99 obligation authority. This gap is roughly $118 million in Fiscal Year 1999, which is about 3 « times the amount of the CMAQ apportionment. The state could simply chose not to fund CMAQ, Enhancements ($24 million), STP Safety ($24 million) in FY'99, and still not reach balance between apportionments and obligation authority in that year.
Given the need for more priority on clean air, the Conference urges you to look at the concept of proportional obligation for the CMAQ program, as now provided to urbanized areas under the STP program, as one option to improve the flow of funding to CMAQ projects in qualifying areas. And, the extent to which Enhancements and Safety investments appear to be threatened similarly, these program areas should be given consideration for proportional obligation or through another means that provides for commitments to these areas.
Mr. Chairman, another issue we have heard about from mayors and the MPOs is how the Minimum Guarantee Program was structured in TEA-21 and its subsequent effects upon STP accounts for local governments. As a result of how these "equity" funds were allocated, we did not see the suballocated funds to MPOs grow at the same percentage as all funding under TEA-21. We urge the Committee to review this issue and look for corrections to address this shortfall in STP funding to MPOs and local governments.
Let me discuss a new and somewhat related issue and that is RABA or Revenue Adjusted Budget Authority. Under TEA-21, additional gas tax receipts, in excess of assumed baseline funding, are distributed directly to the core highway programs. Federal gas taxes are now generating more revenue than was anticipated under TEA-21. As a result, states in the next fiscal year will receive additional obligation authority of about $1.5 billion, along with an identical amount of new apportionments.
Given existing surpluses of unobligated apportionments already available among the states, it may not be necessary to send the additional apportioned amounts to the states with the new obligation authority. This action would help reduce the gap between apportioned funds and obligation authority to levels closer to what occurred under ISTEA, and promote more balanced investment among the TEA-21 program categories.
Related to this issue is the mayors' continuing desire to see balance in the funding among highways and public transit. We have for some time advocated for the preservation of the historic 80/20 split between the core highway programs and public transit. The Administration in its Fiscal Year 2000 budget has asked Congress to preserve this balance by directing a portion of the RABA funding to public transportation, a proposal that is supported by the mayors. We encourage the Committee to examine this request and look for an opportunity to make the technical adjustment to TEA-21 to allow some sharing of excess gas receipts with public transportation needs.
The mayors continue to be concerned that states are not fully exercising the flexibility that the Act provides by funding critical intercity, regional and local rail projects. With the enactment of ISTEA, local decision-makers identified new rail starts and rail extensions as a priority need in strengthening the performance of surface transportation networks.
With the exception of CMAQ funds which have been "flexed" to transit investment, largely by MPOs, we have not seen states engaged in making funds available to these projects. There are nearly 200 rail and fixed guideway projects all across the country in various stages of development. In communities and regions, both large and small, local leaders see these investments as necessary compliments to our extensive highway and street networks.
In my own region, our MPO flexed $40 million in CMAQ funds to the Trinity Railway Express, connecting Dallas, DFW International Airport and Fort Worth.
Consider the Washington area where this point comes into focus. At one of the nation's largest interchanges, the Springfield Interchange, an eight-year overhaul of the facility is underway, with State transportation officials urging commuters and others to use public transportation as an alternative. At the same time, the METRO rail system is posting record passengers levels, trying to absorb growing demand for its services. In local markets, our highway and transit systems are interconnected.
I would encourage the Committee to examine these issues further, and to look once again and support at making TEA-21 funds eligible for partnering with Amtrak. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the federal government matches many investments by state and local governments in areas such as highway, transit and aviation. But it doesn't provide this same opportunity for Amtrak in the delivery of passenger rail service. It is clear that fixed rail services, be it local or regional service or Amtrak intercity passenger rail, offer substantial opportunities to extract more performance from existing highway networks. These systems provide alternative transportation options to those that can or will use it, freeing up highway capacity for those who can't.
On another issue, Mr. Chairman, I want to note that TEA-21 directs the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to undertake a study on transportation system coordination for the delivery of human services transportation. This is a particularly important issue for us at the state and local levels as we look for ways to improve efficiencies in the delivery of these services. The Conference in its statements on TEA-21 has discussed the challenges to transit providers in delivering effective complimentary paratransit services pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
We encourage you to look at this report and consider ways to support key findings to improve coordination in human services transportation, in partnership with local and state transit systems.
In a related area, under TEA-21, we have some new flexibility to use STP funds, and along with the Enhancements program, to improve pedestrian access on our road and street networks, which is critical in mainstreaming persons with disabilities to fixed route services. Again, our issue here is whether these resources will be made available by states when developing their priorities. Paratransit services are expensive and could be helped considerably by having states make resources available to communities for improved access to existing, fixed route services. New Ideas Influencing TEA-21 Decisions
Mr. Chairman, I want 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. Last year, we released data, prepared by Standard & Poor's DRI, publishing the first-ever Gross Metropolitan Product (GMP) figures for the nation's city/county metro areas.
In the study, we found that 47 of the top 100 economies in the world are U.S. city/county metro areas. Additionally, the combined economic output of the nation's top 10 metro economies exceeds the output of 30 states.
Mr. Chairman, the implications of this information for federal and state policy-makers are far-reaching. For example, the study showed that the output of the Fort Worth/Dallas metropolitan area -- $166.85 billion in 1997 -- is only surpassed by 14 states. Our region's output already exceeds Denmark, and is slightly less than Hong Kong.
When I talk about transportation policy decisions in my own State, I describe how our region produced 29 percent of the state's output, with only 24 percent of the state's population in 1997. In short, this report tells public and private decision makers that, measured on a per capita basis, each of our region's 4.7 million are producing at a rate which is about 20 percent higher than the state's average.
Mr. Chairman, when you consider the very impressive economic performance of my region, and the importance of transportation investment in fueling our nation's metro economic engines and their contribution to U.S. economic growth, you can understand why it is so important that we fully disclose where TEA-21 dollars are invested. As regional leaders, we work hard to make strategic investments to stimulate economic growth, and this information is vital to our decision-making.
Last fall, the Conference requested DRI to prepare another report on the role of transportation infrastructure and economic growth. Mr. Chairman, I have included a description of that report with my testimony. The findings of this report further amplify the role of U.S. city/county metro areas in fueling U.S. economic growth.
The Conference would be pleased to work with you and this Committee to examine the implications of this new information in setting future federal transportation policy.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to underscore the Conference's continuing interest in promoting the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Mayor Helmke talked extensively about this issue during his testimony last month.
I know that in your capacity as Governor of Ohio, you were one of the national leaders in the brownfields movement. We applaud you for your efforts in this area.
Later this month, the Conference will be releasing its Second National Survey on Brownfields. In our work, we continue to hear about the challenges of getting transportation funding to support of brownfields redevelopment.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage you to look for additional ways to help ensure that TEA-21 resources are available to help communities redevelop brownfields. For example, it would be helpful to simply mainstream this through a blanket eligibility under Title 23, as the Committee treated eligibility for Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) investments under TEA-21.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize Senators Chafee and Moynihan and others on the Committee for their work to get the tax code to advance what is known as "qualified transportation fringe benefits" in TEA-21. These are employer-provided commuter benefits (transit passes, vanpools, and parking) for costs incurred by commuters. With these new IRS tax code changes that are now pre-tax income, employers and employees are in a win/win situation.
Mr. Chairman, these are powerful tax tools to assist with congestion, air quality needs and improved mobility in our communities and regions. We don't believe that the U.S. DOT has done enough to support the greater utilization of this incentive.
Closing Comments
Mr. Chairman, let me make some closing comments.
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 world economy -- transportation funds are the tools to carryout 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 responsibility to enhance quality of life and increase competitiveness in a world economy.
In my statement, I have provided numerous recommendations and suggestions to help us achieve these outcomes, through follow-up work by this Committee and with U.S. DOT. I want to underscore that the nation's mayors believe in the ISTEA partnership, and want to build upon this success under TEA-21. Mr. Chairman, as you move forward on these issues, you can count on the mayors' active participation and support. Thank you for this opportunity to present our views.