PREPARED
STATEMENT BY C. KENNETH ORSKI, EDITOR/PUBLISHER OF INNOVATION BRIEFS , BEFORE
THE HEARING OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE , MARCH 19, 2002
The Emerging
Consensus on Surface Transportation
Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Committee,
My
name is C. Kenneth Orski. I am editor and publisher of Innovation Briefs, a
bi-monthly publication which has been reporting and interpreting developments
in the transportation sector for the past 13 years. Innovation Briefs, I am pleased
to say, has a wide and influential audience that includes congressional staffs,
federal, state and local transportation officials, newspaper editors, business
leaders, association executives, and transportation professionals. My testimony
today is based on observations acquired in the course of gathering and
analyzing information for our publication. These observations draw on recent
briefings and conference presentations, and on interviews and personal
communications with members of the transportation community in Washington, and
with state and local transportation officials across the country.
My
overall conclusion is that we enter this reauthorization cycle with fewer
issues that might divide the transportation community, and with a larger measure
of a consensus among major stakeholders than at any other time in recent
history. Unlike the last
reauthorization cycle, when interest groups jockeyed for position and floated a
number of competing proposals, this time around I find near-universal sentiment
that we ought to build upon the combined legacy of ISTEA and TEA-21rather than
engage in a bruising fight to reinvent the federal surface transportation
program. To be sure, there will be some proposals for changes in program
delivery, but these are likely to be refinements to the existing program rather
than radical changes in the structure of the program.
Turning
to specifics, I discern a large degree of consensus within the transportation
industry and among major stakeholder groups on several policy directions:
1.
Protecting the Highway Trust Fund
There
is unanimous agreement, I believe, that the budgetary “firewall” protections
and the principle of guaranteed minimum levels of annual spending should be
preserved. At the same time, everyone recognizes that some refinements in the
RABA formula are necessary in order to prevent dramatic year-to-year swings in
highway funding, such as occurred this year.
2.
Increasing Program Flexibility
Similarly,
there appears to be much support for greater program flexibility, i.e. giving
federal-aid recipients greater freedom to transfer funds between major programs
and between sub-categories within programs.
While a good deal of flexibility already exists, there is support for
clarifying and enhancing this flexibility, perhaps by reducing the number of
existing set-asides and sub-allocations.
3.
Congestion Mitigation
Traffic
congestion is viewed by all as a serious national problem that requires a
national response. There appears to be a large measure of consensus within the
transportation community that the response should include both capacity
expansion and improvements in the operation of existing facilities — although opinions among stakeholders differ
as to the proper balance to be accorded to these two major traffic mitigation
strategies. My own belief is that, while operational strategies can help to
some extent to reduce congestion due to accidents and vehicle breakdowns (the
so-called “non-recurrent” congestion), only additional highway capacity i.e.
roadway widenings, and new road construction, can decrease or eliminate
recurrent bottlenecks caused by too many vehicles trying to squeeze into too
few highway lanes. Proponents of the
“you-can’t-build-your-way-out-of-traffic-congestion” school of thought seem to
ignore the fact that additional highway lanes, even if eventually they do fill
up with traffic, help to accommodate increased population growth and economic
development. After all, schools and hospitals in fast growing areas also
eventually fill up with students and patients, yet this never has stopped us
from building more schools and more hospitals to fill growing demand.
A
comprehensive federal attack on the problem of traffic congestion might take
the form of a specific “bottleneck elimination” program (along the lines
suggested by the American Highway Users Alliance), supplemented by a program of
operational improvements designed to squeeze more capacity out of existing
facilities. Such operational
improvements would rely heavily on the application of advanced intelligent
transportation system (ITS) technologies, to strengthen emergency response,
improve detection and clearance of accidents (incident management), promote
wider dissemination of real-time weather and traffic information to the
traveling public, improve work zone management and establish more regional
Traffic Management Centers.
4.
Environmental Streamlining
Simplifying
and accelerating the process of highway project review and approval is viewed
as a critical priority by large segments of the transportation community. While
current efforts of the Federal Highway Administration to streamline procedures
through administrative action are commendable, the transportation community, I
believe, is looking to Congress to provide more explicit legislative directions
to reduce the delays that have plagued the project implementation process.
Issues that call for congressional resolution include establishing uniform
ground rules and timelines for dispute resolution; further reducing or
eliminating the federal review process for minor projects; setting maximum time
limits for federally required reviews for major projects; clarifying
responsibilities and requirements under NEPA in Section 4(f); and giving states
and localities greater authority to sign off on environmental reviews through
self-certification.
The
environmental community’s position on environmental streamlining reforms is not
clear at this time. To my knowledge, no overt opposition to expediting the
project approval process has been expressed by environmental groups so far,
perhaps because transportation officials have been careful to stress that
advocacy of environmental streamlining should not be construed as an attack on
environmental values, and that project delivery can be streamlined without
hurting the environment.
5.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program
Continued
federal support of the ITS program remains a high priority for large segments
of the transportation community.
Specific objectives advocated by the ITS community include initiatives
to encourage regional partnerships for coordinated ITS operations; deployment
of ITS technology to enhance highway operations and to increase the efficiency
and security of intermodal freight movement; and programs to expand freeway and
arterial monitoring instrumentation in metropolitan areas (currently, only 22
percent of the urban freeway network and virtually no arterials are
instrumented). Another frequently mentioned idea is the creation of a national
“infostructure” network, capable of collecting and sharing transportation
system condition and performance information covering the entire national
highway system. Such a national communication network could become an integral
and vital part of a homeland security infrastructure, available in times of
national emergency for evacuation and mobilization purposes.
6.
Transit Issues: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Increased
funding, especially for New Starts, is likely to dominate the transit
industry’s reauthorization agenda. According to the latest Annual Report on New
Starts published by the Federal Transit Administration, there are some 50 rail
projects in preliminary engineering or final design. These projects represent a
potential demand of $30-35 billion. Another several dozen projects, worth
$70-75 billion, are in the alternatives analysis stage. While the transit
industry is not expected to seek funding for all these projects, this begins to
define the level of future demand for new starts projects in the eyes of the
transit community.
Carving
out a bigger role for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which is now undergoing a series
of demonstrations, could significantly reduce the need for transit capital
funding. According to the General Accounting Office, Bus Rapid Transit shows
promise of offering a level of service comparable to that of light rail transit
(LRT) at a fraction of their cost (an average of $9 million/mile for BRT vs
$34.8 million/mile for LRT - Report GAO-01-984). Many transit experts believe
that Bus Rapid Transit could lead to a new generation of more flexible, less
expensive New Starts.
7.
High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) Lane Networks
However,
for Bus Rapid Transit to offer service quality comparable to that of rail (and
to make it eligible for New Starts funding) the buses must be able to run in
reserved lanes that are congestion-free even in peak periods. This has led to
proposals to convert and expand the existing stretches of HOV lanes into
seamless networks of high occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes in major metropolitan
areas. The HOT lanes would be open to buses and carpools without charge and to
single-occupant cars for a fee. By varying the fee according to demand with the
help of electronic transponders (as is already being done on the I-15 HOT lanes
in San Diego), the number of single-occupant cars seeking entry to the HOT
lanes could be restrained to maintain free-flowing traffic conditions at all
times, thus ensuring the integrity of the Bus Rapid Transit concept. Funds to
develop and operate the HOT lane networks could come from a combination of
existing federal-aid highway funds, a New Starts BRT set-aside, and tolls
collected from single-occupant vehicles using the reserved lanes.
Surveys
of motorists on the SR 91 Express Lanes in Orange County show that people of
all income levels choose to use the toll lanes when saving time is really
important to them. A recent study of the High Occupancy/Toll lanes on I-15
north of San Diego indicates that public opinion strongly favors priced lanes
that offer the option of a faster and more reliable trip. As existing urban
freeways become more and more congested and as travel on them becomes
increasingly slower and less reliable, I believe there will be plenty of people
and businesses willing to pay for the privilege of traveling in congestion-free
lanes. Such HOT networks would benefit not only individual travelers, freight
movers and goods deliverers who need a fast and reliable way to reach their
destinations, but also users of general purpose lanes which would become less
congested as some traffic switched to the toll lanes. And, of course, the HOT
lane networks would become the enabling infrastructure for Bus Rapid Transit.
In my judgment, a congressionally authorized program of Bus Rapid Transit/High
Occupancy-Toll Lane (BRT/HOT) Networks would provide an eloquent symbol of the
increasingly intermodal nature of the federal surface transportation program.
8.
“Essential Intercity Bus Services”
While
the subject of Amtrak and intercity transportation falls outside the scope of
this hearing, there is one aspect of it that may be of potential concern to
this committee. The restructuring of Amtrak and the potential abandonment of
some of its unprofitable intercity rail corridors may create serious mobility
deficiencies in many communities across America. One solution would be to
establish a network of intercity buses to take the place of the discontinued
train services. The bus network would connect small towns and rural communities
to regional airports and to transportation hubs in larger cities. The bus
services could be run by private carriers and, where necessary, supported by
federal subsidy payments modeled after the congressionally authorized
“essential air services” program (49 U.S.C. 41731). Essential air services have
been maintained with federal subsidy support at approximately 100 communities
affected by airline deregulation. I believe a similar approach could restore
mobility to hundreds of communities threatened by possible cutbacks in
intercity rail service.
9.
Long Term Viability of the Trust Fund
Finally, I detect a growing concern within the
transportation community about the long-term capacity of the Highway Trust Fund
to finance the nation’s future transportation needs. The preponderance of
opinion is that the growth in gasoline tax revenue will not keep pace with the
rising demand and cost of highway preservation, reconstruction and
rehabilitation. A growing use of
ethanol-based fuels (its use jumped 28% in 2001) and the long range impact of
hybrid and fuel cell vehicles is expected to further diminish the prospects for
gas tax revenue sufficiency. In the short run, shifting ethanol tax receipts
from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund might ease the situation
somewhat. But looking beyond the next reauthorization cycle, we may have to
consider entirely new approaches to federal transportation program
financing. Hence, I join other
transportation industry leaders in urging a congressionally mandated study to
explore alternative financing mechanisms that would offer a stable and adequate
long-term source of transportation financing.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views.