Testimony of Judith Espinosa
on behalf of
the
Surface
Transportation Policy Project
Before the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Hearing on Transportation
Planning and Smart Growth
May 15, 2002
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.
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 ten 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 ten 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 dialogue on many social
equity concerns which too often were overlooked or ill-informed in
transportation decision-making. 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 decision-makers 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
five 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 decision-making, 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 ten 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.
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 one-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
six-year period of the law.
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.
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.
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.