Testimony of
Thomas L. Jackson, P.E.
President-Elect
of the
American Society of Civil Engineers
Before the
Subcommittee
on Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety
of the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
September 30, 2002
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is
pleased to provide this statement on "The State
of America's Highway Infrastructure" for the record as the
Environment and Public Works Committee examines the reauthorization of the
nation’s surface transportation program.
ASCE, founded
in 1852, is the country's oldest national civil engineering organization
representing more than 125,000 civil engineers in private practice, government,
industry and academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and
profession of civil engineering. ASCE
is a 501(c) (3) non-profit educational and professional society.
ASCE believes
the reauthorization of the nation’s surface transportation programs should
focus on three goals:[1]
· Expanding infrastructure investment
· Enhancing infrastructure delivery
· Maximizing infrastructure effectiveness
In 2001, ASCE
released the Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, which gave the nation’s
infrastructure a grade of "D+" based on 12 categories. Roads received a grade of “D,” bridges a
“C,” and transit a “C-.”
The nation’s surface
transportation programs have benefited from an increase in federal and local
funding currently allocated to ease road congestion, to repair decaying
bridges, and to add transit miles. In
our role as stewards of the infrastructure, ASCE developed its first Report
Card for America’s Infrastructure in 1998, and the infrastructure scored an
overall grade of “D.”
Although many Americans
were alarmed by these report cards, few were surprised. Their daily experience had prepared them.
They were coping with traffic congestion and crumbling pavement. Their children and grandchildren were
attending schools so overcrowded the first lunch shift started at 10:15 a.m. or
so old and neglected that the roof leaked whenever it rained.
Indeed, ASCE’s first report
card in 1998 did help to prompt action.
Soon after its release, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21), P.L. 105-178, providing record levels
of authorized funding for roads, bridges, and transit. Voters in communities throughout the United
States passed bond initiatives to provide desperately needed funds to build and
restore school facilities.
At the same time, however,
growing frustration with worsening traffic congestion, school overcrowding and
the other burdens placed on our overtaxed infrastructure has led voters to put
the brakes on development by passing initiatives to limit growth.
A. The
State of the Nation’s Surface Transportation Infrastructure
ROADS
According to ASCE’s 2001
Report Card, the nation’s roads earned a D+, up from a D- in 1998. The major reason for this is that the Congress
and state and local governments have begun to address the investment crisis and
crumbling infrastructure through the enactment of TEA-21, which provided $218
billion for the nation’s highway and transit programs, and additional state and
local programs to fund surface transportation infrastructure. But even at these increased funding levels,
capital investments fall short of needs by 43 billion dollars a year.
On our highways, nearly 70 percent of peak-hour
traffic experiences congested conditions.
And, according to a study by the Texas Transportation Institute the
total congestion “bill” for the 75 areas studied in 2000 came to $67.5 billion,
which is the value of 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of
excess fuel consumed.[2] To keep congestion from increasing between
1999 and 2000 would have required 1,780 new lane-miles of freeway and 2,590 new
lane-miles of streets – OR – an average of 6.2 million additional new trips per
day taken by either carpool or transit, or perhaps satisfied by some electronic
means – OR operational improvements that allowed three percent more travel to
be handled on the existing systems – OR – some combination of these actions.[3] None of this took place and congestion
increased.
TEA-21 funds, combined with additional revenues from
state and local governments, have begun to make an impact on road projects in
all 50 states. Total highway
expenditures by all levels of government and all expenditure types (including
capital outlays; maintenance; and research, policing and administrative) have
increased from $93.5 billion in 1995, before TEA-21 was enacted, to $111.9
billion in 1999. Additionally, the
obligation of federal funds for roadway projects has almost doubled during this
same period from $8.6 billion in 1995 to $16.3 billion in 1999. Another good measure of the increased
attention to our nation’s highways is the miles of federal-aid roadway projects
underway. This number has also
increased dramatically from 16,654 miles in 1995 to 29,030 miles in 1999.
Even with TEA-21’s commitment, our nation must
increase annual investment by $27 billion at all levels to improve conditions
and performance adequately, according to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHwA). An FHwA report concludes that
the nation should be investing $94 billion a year in its road and bridge system
over the next 20 years. However, this
investment level refers only to capital investment and does not include
maintenance, research, policing or administrative expenditures.
In 1999, the total capital investment by all levels
of government was $59.4 billion, well short of the needed $94 billion.
Yet even with this added attention, 58 percent of
America’s urban and rural roadways are in poor, mediocre or fair condition,
according to the FHwA.[4] Although this is a slight improvement from
previous years, conditions remain at substandard levels.
The FHwA ranks “poor” roads as those in need of
immediate improvement. “Mediocre” roads
need improvement in the near future to preserve usability. “Fair” roads will likely need
improvement. “Good” roads are in decent
condition and will not require improvement in the near future. “Very good”
roads have new or almost new pavement.
Substandard road conditions are dangerous. Outdated and substandard road and bridge
design, pavement conditions, and safety features are factors in 30% of all
fatal highway accidents, according to the FHwA.
Americans’ personal and commercial highway travel
continues to increase at a faster rate than highway capacity and our highways
cannot sufficiently support our current or projected travel needs. Between 1970 and 1995, passenger travel
nearly doubled in the U.S. and road use is expected to increase by nearly
two-thirds in the next 20 years. Growth can be attributed to changes in the
labor force, income, makeup of metropolitan areas and other factors.
While passenger and
commercial travel on our highways has increased dramatically in the past 10
years, America has been seriously under-investing in needed road and bridge
repairs and has failed to even maintain the substandard conditions we currently
have. This is a dangerous trend that is affecting highway safety, as well as
the health of the American economy.
BRIDGES
According to ASCE’s 2001
Report Card, the nation’s bridges received a grade of C, an improvement from a C minus
in 1998. Almost a third of America’s
bridges are rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
In
one example from Alabama, a school bus bringing students to one Washington
County school had to stop at a structurally deficient bridge, let all the kids
get off and walk across so the empty -- and therefore lighter -- bus could safely
cross the bridge. The children then
climbed back on the bus and continued their trip. Naturally, this ritual was repeated on the way home. To avoid this, that bus now drives 15 miles
out of the way.
According to the FHWA, 10.6 billion dollars are required per year for 20
years to eliminate the current backlog of bridge deficiencies and ensure
acceptable levels of safety.[5]
In 1998, 29% of the nation’s bridges were rated
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete by the Federal Highway
Administration.[6] While this number remains high, it is a
slight improvement over previous years.
In fact, over the last 10 years the number of bridge deficiencies
steadily declined from 34.6% in 1992 to 29.6% in 1998. FHwA’s strategic plan states that by 2008
less than 25% of the nation’s bridges should be classified as deficient.[7]
A structurally deficient bridge is closed or
restricted to light vehicles because of its deteriorated structural components. While not necessarily unsafe, these bridges
must have limits for speed and weight.
A functionally obsolete bridge has older design features and while it is
not unsafe for all vehicles, it cannot safely accommodate current traffic
volumes, and vehicle sizes and weights.
TRANSIT
Though
transit is not within the jurisdiction of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, it is difficult to completely discuss the problems facing the
nation’s surface transportation program without mentioning it.
According to ASCE’s 2001
Report Card, the grade for transit declined from a C to a C
minus. While transit bus and rail
facilities have improved in recent years and new systems are being built, those
improvements can’t keep up with the heavy strain placed on the system by
rapidly increasing ridership, which has increased by 15 percent since 1995 --
even faster than aviation or highway transportation.
Capital spending must increase 41% just to maintain our transit system at
its present level of service. But we
need to do more than that. Many transit
systems were designed to transport workers from the suburbs to jobs in urban
centers – a pattern that has now shifted to include suburb-to-suburb commutes
as well. In order to reduce highway
congestion and the associated pollution, we need to build a flexible,
coordinated transportation system.
Improvements like that will require up to 16 billion dollars annually.
For transit there is both good news and bad
news. The bad news is that while
investments at both the federal and state/local levels are increasing,
ridership demand is increasing at an even faster rate. The good news is that increased ridership
means increased fare box revenues.
However, it means additional public investment is needed. Yet, the question remains, can investment
keep pace with demand?
In 2000 Americans took more than 9 billion trips on
transit, and transit ridership increased by 4.5% over 1998. This continued a trend that marked the
fourth straight year of ridership increases, and amounted to a 15% increase
since 1995.
Transit funding is growing, but at a slower
pace. Total spending for mass transit
in 1997 was $25.1 billion. The federal
share was $4.4 billion, state and local governments contributed $13.2 billion
and operating revenue provided the rest.
For FY 2000, the federal investment increased to $4.56 billion and to
$6.2 billion for FY 2001. Total
spending from all sources on transit capital projects for FY 1997 was $7.6
billion.
The federal government invests $7.66 billion annually
in mass transit capital improvements.
However, according to the Federal Transit Administration an additional
$10.8 billion is needed to maintain current conditions and $16 billion to
eliminate identified deficiencies.
Capital spending on transit needs to increase 41% to reach $10.8 billion
annually.
Even with the increased investment, many people in
the U.S. have little or no access to transit at all. The Federal Transit Administration reports that 25% of the
nation’s urban population does not have pedestrian access to transit. In addition, 30% of the nation’s
non-metropolitan counties have no transit service at all. This can prevent those without motor
vehicles from participating in the economy, places the financial burden of automobile
ownership on many low income families, and adds unnecessary automobile trips to
our nation’s congested streets and highways.
There are substantial benefits to the taxpayer in
exchange for public investment in transit infrastructure. Transit provides basic mobility for those
lacking a motor vehicle or who are unable to drive. It promotes location efficiency and reduces other infrastructure
costs by encouraging dense, multi-purpose, pedestrian-oriented urban
development. Transit is more energy efficient
on a per-person basis than the automobile.
Finally, and perhaps most important, it provides an environmental
benefit. By reducing passenger car
traffic transit reduces air, noise, and water pollution precisely where those
reductions are needed most, in major urban areas.
The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that:[8]
- Investment in transit continues to increase, including increased
federal funding through TEA-21. Transit system route miles show a 10-year
increase of 44.2% in rail service and 10.4% in non-rail service.
- In 1997, there were 149,468 transit vehicles; 9,922 miles of track;
2,681 stations; and 1,179 transit maintenance facilities in the U.S.
- There were 156,733 non-rail route miles of transit service in 1997.
- Transit system capacity, measured in vehicle revenue miles,
increased by 19.7% from 1987 to 1997, while non-rail increased 17.1%.
- The average condition of urban bus vehicles was 3.1 on a scale of
5.0 or adequate, largely unchanged for the past 10 years. Sixty-three percent of urban bus
vehicles are full-sized buses whose average condition has remained steady
at 3.0 for the last decade.
- The average condition of rail vehicles was 4.0 or good. This is down slightly and caused by
heavy ridership in major urban areas.
According to the Department of Transportation, the
estimated average annual investment required to maintain the same physical
conditions and operating performance of the nation’s transit systems as in
1997, by replacing and rehabilitating deteriorated assets and expanding
capacity to accommodate expected transit passenger growth, is $10.8
billion. The cost to improve conditions
and performance is estimated to be $16 billion.[9]
B. Expanding the Investment
in the Nation’s Surface Transportation Programs
Establishing
a sound financial foundation for future surface transportation improvements is
an essential part of the reauthorization of the surface transportation
program. TEA-21 provided record funding
levels to the states and significant improvements have been made to our
nation’s infrastructure. In spite of
these notable efforts, the nation’s surface transportation system will require
an even more substantial investment.
United States Department of Transportation (DOT) data reflects the fact
that an investment of $50 billion per year would be needed just to preserve the
system in its current condition. With
funding as the cornerstone of any attempt to reauthorize TEA-21 it is
imperative that a variety of funding issues be advanced as part of ASCE’s
overall strategy.
ASCE supports total annual
funding of $40 billion to $50 billion for the federal-aid highway program. To achieve this level, ASCE supports an
increase of six cents per gallon in the federal user fee on gasoline. This would raise approximately $10.2 billion
a year, of which an estimated $8.4 billion in new revenues would be available
in direct financing for federal-aid highway projects annually. The remainder — approximately $1.8 billion
annually — would be directed to federal transit programs. These increases are desperately needed.
ASCE supports the following goals for increasing
our infrastructure investment.
·
A 6 cent increase in the user fee with one cent dedicated to
infrastructure safety and security. These
new funds should be distributed between highways and transit using the formula
approved in TEA-21.
·
The user fee on gasoline should be indexed to the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) to preserve the purchasing power of the fee.
·
The Transportation Trust Fund balances should be managed to maximize
investment in the nation’s infrastructure.
·
Congress should preserve the current firewalls to allow for full use of
trust fund revenues for investment in the nation’s surface transportation
system.
·
The reauthorization should maintain the current funding guarantees.
·
Congress should stop diverting 2.5 cents of the user fee on ethanol to
the General Fund, and put it back into the Highway Trust Fund.
·
Make the necessary changes to alter the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
(RABA) to decrease the volatility of the estimates from year to year and ensure
a stable user fee based source of funding.
·
The current flexibility provisions found in TEA-21 should be maintained.
The goal of the flexibility should be to establish a truly multi-modal
transportation system for the nation.
First
to be addressed is the issue of raising the user fee on motor fuels. While the gas tax is an important element of
the current revenue stream feeding the Federal Highway Trust Fund, it continues
to erode in value due to its inherent inelastic nature. Two strategies must be advanced to remedy
this condition. First, raise the
gasoline user fee by six cents.
This would provide a much needed infusion of funding towards the $50
billion per year need. In tandem with
raising the motor fuel tax, ASCE believes that it is important to shore up the
weakness of the motor fuel tax and its inability to retain value over the long
term by adding a provision to the law that would index it based on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). This
would allow the rate to adjust and reflect the current economic conditions of
the nation.
As
the needs of the users change so must the priorities of the nation’s
transportation owners and operators.
Safety and security have always been important but have been driven to the
top of the priority list by events of the last year. In response to this important need, ASCE is advancing the
position that one cent of the proposed six cent increase in the motor fuel tax
be directed towards safety and security projects as deemed appropriate by the
transportation agencies administering the funds.
Important
provisions of TEA-21 are embodied in the principles of Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA) and firewalls. RABA
was established to ensure that the Federal Highway Trust Fund revenues would be
spent in accordance with the rate at which they were deposited into the
fund. Over the life of TEA-21 it has
allowed states to construct many projects with these additional monies that
would have otherwise languished in the trust fund. In addition, with the establishment of firewalls on the Federal
Highway Trust Fund, a condition was created wherein the states could count on
their funds in a long term investment strategy. This has eliminated the fear that some major projects would fall
victim to various budget strategies at the national level.
Any
transportation legislation must have two fundamental philosophies to build
upon. First is the issue of
equity. Some measure of equity was
accomplished through the establishment of minimum guarantees. This provision of TEA-21 raised the return
to the states to a minimum level in order to bring greater equity to the
donor/donee situation that exists across the country. In addition, a commitment to spend the maximum amount possible
from the Federal Highway Trust Fund was an important part of this
legislation. Positive, proactive
management of the trust fund balance will be essential to addressing the
critical transportation needs facing our nation today.
Innovative Financing
Even with increases in the gasoline user-fee, it is
likely that tax-based revenues will not be sufficient to keep pace with the
nation's transportation needs.
There is a compelling need for enhanced funding, to a
large extent through user-oriented fees that have been demonstrated to be a
well-accepted and equitable source of infrastructure financing. In the case of surface transportation,
federally sponsored studies demonstrate the need for higher levels of
investment. An additional challenge is
to convince our citizens and our elected leaders that we must either "pay
now” or "pay later", and that paying now is much more cost-effective
and prudent in the long run.
Innovative financing techniques can greatly accelerate
infrastructure development and can have a powerful economic stimulus effect
compared to conventional methods. This
is the current approach in South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, and
Texas, where expanded and accelerated transportation investment programs have
been announced. Innovative financing techniques,
including toll road-based funding, figure heavily in several of these state
programs.
The innovative programs in TEA-21 have been a good
start, but more needs to be done to expand their scope, and new programs or
approaches must be introduced. We must
find new and innovative ways to finance the critical transportation
infrastructure needs of the nation.
ASCE supports the
innovative financing programs and advocates making programs available to all
states where appropriate. Additionally,
the federal government should make every effort to develop new programs.
ASCE supports the following changes to enhance the
existing programs:
Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
·
The
TIFIA process for review, approval and negotiation is regarded as burdensome,
and could be streamlined.
·
TIFIA
projects have a minimum eligibility threshold of $100 million and consideration
could be given to lowering this to $50 million to expand the pool of projects.
·
TIFIA
loans could be "fully subordinated".
Current TIFIA legislation is written to subordinate TIFIA loans to other
creditors. However, in the event of
liquidation/default, the TIFIA loan advances to parity status with other
creditors. This is known as the
"springing lien" provision.
It is thought by some that this has limited the availability of other
credit. The issue is controversial,
with pros and cons on both sides, but reform should be seriously considered.
State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs)
·
With
the exception of five states (Texas, Rhode Island, Florida, Missouri, and
California), TEA-21 did not permit further capitalization of SIBs with federal
funds. It is felt that this has
suppressed SIB activity.
·
Federal
regulations still apply to loan funds that are repaid to the bank, encumbering
SIB funded projects with federal regulatory requirements.
Grant
Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs)
·
Increase
the flexibility of GARVEE bond repayment methods. For example, utilize the total apportionment amount as a source
of repayment (i.e., all funding categories), so that no particular funding
category is overburdened.
New programs for consideration as part of the next
reauthorization are:
·
Increased
use of user fees, tolls, value pricing, and HOT lanes.
·
Possible
indexing of highway trust fund motor fuels tax to inflation.
·
Establishing
a true multimodal funding program (i.e., funds can be used interchangeably for
rail, highway, freight, intermodal facilities, etc.).
·
Tax
credit bonds, private activity bonds, and tax-exempt bonds for privately
developed projects.
Long-term
Viability of Fuel Taxes for Transportation Finance
ASCE supports the need to
address impacts on future surface transportation funding and believes that
provision should be made in the next surface transportation authorizing
legislation to explore the viability of the most promising options to
strengthen this funding. In particular, the impacts of fuel cell technology should
be studied as well as how to create a mileage based system for funding our
nation’s surface transportation system as this technology comes to market and
lessens the nation’s dependence on gasoline as a fuel source for automobiles.
Fuel taxes have long been the
mainstay of transportation infrastructure finance, but their future is now
uncertain. In many states, there is a
strong reluctance to raise fuel taxes, and some state legislatures have even
reduced taxes to compensate for the sharp increase in average gasoline prices
over the last two years. Many localities and states are supplementing or
replacing fuel taxes with other sources, such as sales taxes and other general
revenue sources. There is also a
growing trend to use additives to gasoline for environmental reasons. The most prominent additive, ethanol, enjoys
a federal exemption from fuel taxes that reduces federal and state trust fund
revenues by some several billion dollars annually. Looking ahead, a slow but steady increase in fleet
efficiency--perhaps due to increased market penetration by electric, fuel cell,
or hybrid technologies--would reduce the revenue per mile of use generated by
users. Whereas cleaner-burning fuels
and increased fuel efficiency are desirable policy goals in their own right,
particularly in regard to global warming, they may reduce the reliability of
fuel taxes in the future.
A helpful first step in this
process will be the Transportation Research Board’s recently initiated Study on
Future Funding of the National Highway System, which will describe the current policy framework of
transportation finance and evaluate options for a long-term transition to
sources other than fuel taxes. The goals of the study are to: (1) determine the extent to which alternatives to
fuel taxes will be needed in the next two decades or so; (2) analyze the pros
and cons of different alternatives in terms of political feasibility, fairness,
and cost; (3) suggest ways in which barriers to these alternatives might be
overcome; (4) recommend ways in which the efficiency and fairness of the fuel
tax could be enhanced, and (5) recommend, as necessary, a transition strategy
to other revenue sources. The study's first task, to be summarized in an
interim report, will provide one or more scenarios to illustrate the time span
during which petroleum-based gasoline availability and cost might reduce fuel
tax revenues. The interim report has
been requested to provide insight to those parties involved in the development
of the surface transportation reauthorization legislation, particularly with
regard to projections of fuel tax revenues during the next reauthorization
cycle. The study will also provide
estimates of trends in expenditures for transportation infrastructure from
sources other than the fuel tax.
C. Life
Cycle Cost & Surface Transportation Design
The
use of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) principles will raise the awareness of
clients of the total cost of projects and promote quality engineering. Short-term design cost savings which lead to
high future costs will be exposed as a result of the analysis. In the short-term the cost of projects will
increase; however, the useful life of a project will increase, and there may be
cost savings in operations and maintenance over the long term.
When
the cost of a project is estimated only for design and construction, the
long-term costs associated with maintenance, operation, and retiring a project,
as well as the cost to the public due to delays, inconvenience and lost
commerce are overlooked. The increasing
use of bidding to select the design team has resulted in a pattern of reducing
engineering effort to remain competitive, with the result of higher
construction and life cycle costs.
ASCE
encourages the use of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) principles in the design
process to evaluate the total cost of projects. The analysis should include initial construction, operation,
maintenance, environmental, safety and all other costs reasonably anticipated
during the life of the project, whether borne by the project owner or those
otherwise affected.[10]
D. Integrated
Truck and Highway Design[11]
Truck
sizes and weights need to be viewed in the context of major changes in cargo
movement caused by the deregulation of the truck, railroad and aviation
industries. Changes are continuing and
will have profound impacts on the highway industry. Thus, while the use of larger and heavier trucks improves the
productivity of the trucking industry and reduces the cost of transporting
commodities, such vehicles also affect highway safety and accelerate
deterioration of highway pavements and bridges.
History documents a continuing trend
toward larger trucks and smaller passenger vehicles along with significantly
increasing truck volumes. The safety issue and highway pavement and geometric
design aspects of mixing large trucks and smaller passenger vehicles will
continue to be a subject of importance to highway administrators and designers.
State
limits for weights may not differ from the federal maximums on the Interstate
system except where "grandfather" provisions allow heavier
combinations. Realistically, these
trucks must also use highways which are not a part of the Interstate system for
access. Many miles on the National
Highway System do not meet the standards to qualify for the designated highway
network. There are many miles of state
and local roads which are even more deficient in meeting the standards of
geometric and structural capability.
States should balance the need for access to widely dispersed industrial
and commercial sites with the need to protect inadequate road segments.
Increases
in truck sizes and weights impact negatively on the structural life and
geometric adequacy of the present road network. Users of the transportation system, both the general public and
the trucking industry, will experience reduced service levels, delays,
increased vehicle wear and operation costs and reduced safety. These negative impacts must be balanced
against productivity gains and reduced commodity costs. Highways can be designed and constructed to
accommodate various truck sizes and weights.
Additional maintenance can be provided to sustain the pavements,
capacity and safety of the system.
Trucks can be designed to reduce axle loadings, enhance productivity and
improve safety. Truck safety can also
be enhanced through improved inspection, enforcement and operator safety
programs.
Thus,
highways and trucks can be designed and operated to improve their interaction,
protect the highway investment and enhance safety. Industry and government cooperation in research, testing and
evaluation can identify ways to improve trucking efficiency and safety while
protecting the public investment in the highway system.
The
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) supports a program where[12]:
·
Truck and highway
design should be coordinated through joint research activities, such as in the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), and others. ASCE urges Congress, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the state transportation
agencies, and the trucking industry to form these strong cooperative
relationships.
·
New and reconstructed
roadways should be structurally, geometrically, and environmentally designed to
support modern truck sizes and weights, and to insure the safe operation of the
system.
·
Truck designers should
consider the effects of vehicle configuration and suspension systems on
pavement and bridge performance. Manufacturers should also consider the effects
of these factors on the safe operation of the vehicle in mixed traffic.
·
Industry and government
should ensure that trucks meet legal size and weight limitations and are safely
maintained and operated.
E. Intermodal
Facilities
TEA-21 continues a surface transportation program
with flexible funding for highway, transit and other modal facilities. Traditional transportation practice inhibits
attainment of a truly intermodal process because of customary approaches and
philosophies that support the modal orientation of agencies, the lack of
connections among modes, the inequities in federal matching ratios for
different modes, and the consolidation of funding for multimodal projects.
A
primary emphasis of passenger intermodalism is to facilitate connections
between the private automobile and other access modes and public transportation
systems. For example, park-and ride facilities provide critical connections for
mass transit commuters using automobiles for a portion of their trips.
The
movement of freight from origin to destination is increasingly multimodal. Most freight is carried by trucks for final
delivery, making planning the connections between highways and other modes
critical to efficient freight movement.
TEA-21
continues to highlight intermodalism.
Increased intermodalism is accomplished by statewide and metropolitan
planning organizations, management systems and compliance with the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Federal
regulations explicitly state that "each State ... carry out a continuing,
comprehensive, and intermodal statewide transportation planning process," and
that metropolitan transportation plans and programs shall "lead to the
development and operation of an integrated intermodal transportation system
that facilitates the efficient, economic movement of people and goods."
TEA-21
and the CAAA have changed the way transportation plans have been developed from
a mode by mode to an intermodal basis.
Programs
of the federal, state and local governments should maintain and strengthen the
TEA-21 provisions and funding mechanisms to consider a wide range of multimodal
options and new technologies in the development of transportation plans,
programs and projects.
The American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) supports the vision of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21) in the development of "a National Intermodal
Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound,
provides the foundation for the Nation to compete in the global economy and
will move people and freight in an energy efficient manner." Support for partnerships among the federal,
state and local governments, with various citizens, groups and firms from the
private sector are essential to further the intermodal goals of TEA-21.[13]
F. Operations
and Maintenance of the Nation’s Surface Transportation Infrastructure
There is a clear and present need for an increased focus on
transportation operations and maintenance at all levels – federal, state,
regional, and local. This need is based
on several factors:
·
An aging transportation infrastructure.
·
Growing congestion and incident problems are causing
transportation system performance to be a top priority in many areas of the
country.
·
Capacity constraints and costs of new construction are
forcing us to look at alternative solutions and place a premium on maintaining
and improving the existing transportation system.
·
Customers desire travel choices, better information, and
increased reliability to meet their mobility needs.
·
An efficient and responsive transportation system is
critical to meeting homeland security priorities.
An increased focus on transportation operations functions can
enhance performance of the transportation system, for example:
·
Routine traffic and transit operations;
·
Public safety responses;
·
Planned construction disruptions;
·
Incident management;
·
Network and facility management;
·
Traveler and shipper information; and
·
Bicycle and pedestrian mobility.
The
Department of Transportation should encourage local matching and innovative
funding. The federal government has a role in exploring and promoting best
practices related to innovative funding for operations and maintenance.
ASCE supports a strong
federal role in the nation’s transportation system and strongly endorses
federal leadership in increasing the focus on transportation operations and maintenance,
thereby enhancing the performance of and preserving our investment in the
transportation system. Reauthorization
of TEA-21 should accomplish the following regarding Operations and Maintenance:[14]
·
Support and assist homeland security initiatives.
Transportation operations and homeland security share many of the same goals
and functions. Resource sharing (e.g.
communications infrastructure, traffic control centers) and joint planning are
appropriate. Transit security and preparedness, international border security,
asset security and tracking, vulnerability assessment, planning, and creation
of system redundancy are important transportation priorities for homeland
security.
·
Support and assist state and local agencies.
Beyond establishing transportation operations and maintenance as a national
priority, the Federal role should be to support and assist state and local
entities in accomplishing related goals. This includes support of research and
development, provision of tools, promotion of best practices, and enhancement
of education and training at all levels.
·
Provide flexible funding. Flexible funding
approaches are important components to supporting operations and maintenance
needs. Expanding funding eligibility for operations and maintenance programs,
enabling direct funding to local and regional operating agencies,
public-private partnerships or outsourcing, and simplifying and clarifying
federal funding processes are important actions.
·
Recognize that the private sector has much to
offer in management and technical skills in operations and maintenance. Public-private partnerships may provide
enhanced operations and management programs.
·
Specific programs. In addition to flexible
funding, several programs should be considered for targeted funding:
·
Homeland security initiatives related to transportation
·
Incident management programs
·
Implementation of infostructure for data collection and
management
·
Provision of real-time information to and from customers
· Support for
regional cooperation and partnerships
·
Programs to alleviate bottlenecks.
G. Conclusion
As Congress grapples with the reauthorization of the
nation’s surface transportation program ASCE recommends that the following
concepts guide the process:
· Expanding infrastructure investment.
· Enhancing infrastructure delivery.
· Maximizing infrastructure effectiveness.
Unless we act now, the problem will only get worse
because road use is expected to increase by nearly two-thirds in the next 20
years.
The lack of adequate investment in America’s
infrastructure has left us with a vast backlog of deteriorated facilities that
no longer meet our nation’s increasing demands.
To remedy America's current
and looming problem, ASCE estimated in 2001 a $ 1.3 trillion investment in all
categories of infrastructure over the next five years and called for a renewed
partnership among citizens, local, state and federal governments, and the
private sector.
###