TESTIMONY OF THE
HONORABLE RON SIMS,
EXECUTIVE OF KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
Tuesday,
March 19, 2002
OPENING STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding
new ideas for the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21.) Your reauthorization
of these vital transportation funds can better help communities address the
public’s need for greater mobility in the face of growing congestion that
threatens the quality of life in our metropolitan areas.
I applaud the dramatic changes Congress has instituted
in the last two surface transportation reauthorization bills, particularly
those that have helped address congestion problems in America’s major urban
areas. The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) strengthened the role of
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and encouraged the use of
federal-aid highway monies for high-occupancy vehicle lanes, transit systems
and other projects designed to meet congestion problems. TEA-21 established “firewalls” that ensured
that the funds collected from the public for transportation purposes will be
spent on transportation, restoring trust to the Highway Trust Fund, and freeing
up billions of dollars for congestion relief programs.
I believe that next year’s reauthorization bill should
take what I view to be an essential next step.
By targeting transportation investments into metropolitan areas that are
competing in the global economy, we can help these areas and our country retain
our competitive edge. If we don't,
companies will leave our area, and, in some cases, our country. Infrastructure investment in our metropolitan
areas will not only bring much needed congestion relief, it will help secure
the stability and health of these metropolitan areas that are the economic
engines of this country.
Despite the efforts of programs like TEA-21, we must do
more to ensure congestion relief infrastructure investments are targeted to key
major metropolitan areas. Clogged roadways delay people, goods and services
from moving freely to their destinations. Metropolitan congestion relief will
have a tremendous impact on the quality of life for business, industry and the
residents. More and more people are
living in urban areas. Through very
successful Smart Growth strategies aimed at managing growth in urban areas,
many cities are seeing a revitalization of their cores as people move back into
cities. In King County, we know that
over 50% of all daily trips are still by single-occupancy vehicles despite
great strides being made in increasing transit trips and carpool rides. Our long-term goal is to get people to live,
work and shop in the same community - to use public transportation and to cut
down on driving alone. But it is
imperative we create and invest in the infrastructure to help make this goal a
reality.
The viability of urban areas is increasingly dependent on
reliable transportation networks of all kinds -- from major freeways to
regional arterial networks and public transportation, inter-city rail, and all
other efforts aimed at congestion relief.
And we’re moving in the right direction. In 2002, transit ridership in King County grew by almost four
percent, boarding 100 million riders given on buses, trolleys, and
streetcar. We have dozens of programs
aimed at getting more people out of their cars, like our Transit Oriented
Development projects that combine housing and local retail with a transit
station or a park-and-ride lot to locate people and services near transit to
discourage auto use. We are creating
better pedestrian linkages to bus service. Further, ongoing national health
studies show that some urban development, especially sprawl, limits physical
activity causing obesity and related illnesses. We have an obligation to give our citizens the transportation
choices they need to make their lives easier and more healthful.
Therefore, included in whatever is done with the
reauthorization of TEA-21, metropolitan congestion relief is a must. A successful comprehensive plan will include
transportation infrastructure that helps our metropolitan areas to thrive as
both economic engines and as wonderful places to live.
Economic Importance
of the Major Metropolitan Areas
As the United States economy grew and
prospered in recent years, we have witnessed significant growth in major
metropolitan areas and business centers across our nation. The major
metropolitan areas are significant major contributors to the economic viability
of our nation as a whole. The 20 most
congested metropolitan areas in the United States together have more than
one-third of the entire economy of the nation.
Using 1999 payroll data as an indicator for economic activity (payroll is the largest share of GDP), these
top 20 metropolitan areas had a combined payroll total of more than $1.7
trillion – 37% of the total national payroll of $4.6 trillion. Further, these 20 metropolitan areas contain
nearly 50% of the population and economic activity of the total metropolitan
areas combined.
Let me talk about our economy and its
importance to the region, state and Pacific Northwest. Based on 2000 economic data, this
metropolitan area ranked as the nation’s 13th largest metropolitan
economy, generating about $115 billion in economic output. Compared to nations of the world during the
same period, the area out-produced Greece or Venezuela and nearly out-produced
Finland. Further, King County represents
43% of Washington State jobs and 55% of the state’s dollar payroll.
This region is also a port community, largely dependent
on the increasing pace of global trade.
International trade supports one of every three jobs in Washington
State, and we serve as an important export and import gateway for the northern
tier of states. I want to thank this
Committee for including the National Borders and Trade Corridors program in the
last authorization bill. We are using
funds from that program in our region to help construct a series of railroad
grade separation projects that are increasingly important as mile long
container trains move slowly off the docks at the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma.
Costs of Congestion
The total
cost of traffic congestion in the metropolitan areas studied by the Texas
Transportation Institute amounts to almost $74 billion. TTI has calculated that significant amounts
of fuel are wasted as a result of congestion, noting that drivers stuck in traffic
used more than six billion gallons of fuel in 1996.
Now,
congestion remains the primary threat to the long-term health of the economies
of many different regions. Traffic
congestion deeply affects our nation's ability to move goods and services. Corporations and businesses in these congested
areas have experienced significant financial losses as a result of increased
traffic. The Boeing Corporation, the nation's number one exporter, estimates
that while they move the same amount of freight up and down the Puget Sound
region as they did five years ago, it takes them 22,000 more payroll hours to
do it. Boeing shocked our region last year when they announced they were moving
their corporate headquarters, partly because of our State's failure to keep up
on transportation spending. The
added costs associated with traffic congestion are causing many businesses to
search for other, less congested areas, just to meet their freight mobility
needs.
Infrastructure
Investment Has Not Kept Pace with Growth
Decaying
and outdated roads are having a severe impact on all aspects of residents'
daily lives, from how they get to work to when they return home to spend time
with family and friends. Road rage and
other congestion- related ills are affecting the quality of life for many
Americans.
As this committee knows, the overall level of public
investment in transportation has declined from a peak in the 1960's to levels
that now threaten the economic vitality and the livability of our
communities. Recent polls taken in the
Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area, for example, consistently indicate that
solving congestion is the highest policy priority of residents. They
consistently rank transportation congestion as their number one problem, far
ahead of concerns over crime, education, taxes, or the environment.
The Washington Legislature has struggled, as many other
state legislatures have, to craft statewide and regional packages to fund
much-needed transportation projects.
The Washington State Legislature voted late last week to increase statewide
spending for transportation. This will
be financed through a combination of gas tax, truck weight fee, and vehicle
sales tax increases. A regional
transportation finance mechanism was also authorized. Our transportation problems can only be addressed through bold
cooperative actions, not just at the state level, but at all levels of
government.
Development
Patterns Have Contributed to Congestion
Urban sprawl has been a major
contributor to our growing traffic congestion problems. From 1970-1990, population
in the Seattle metropolitan area grew by 38% while the development of land increased by 87%. This represents a doubling of land needed for each person over
the previous period. Related to this
statistic, there has been a 30% drop in residential densities since 1970 while
we have seen new jobs locate in sprawling low-density employment centers.
Communities comprised of housing
exclusively combined with low-density development randomly scattered around a
region, have created land use patterns that are difficult for transportation to
serve. People have no choice but to
drive everywhere. Alternate forms of
transportation such as public transit, walking, bicycling, carpooling don’t
work as well in a pattern of sprawl development because travel trips are too
long and too scattered. It is more
difficult for government to respond to the growing needs created by these
inefficient development patterns.
Housing, jobs and shopping become more distant from each other,
resulting in greater vehicle miles traveled.
I challenge us to look for ways to
meet our current transportation needs, while at the same time, we support
efforts to steer new development into Smart Growth land use patterns. New funding plays an important role in
fixing transportation problems in our major metropolitan areas. We need to leverage these new resources by
making changes to the development patterns the transportation system serves to
get the most efficient use of our money.
Smart Growth is
Part of the Solution
Smart Growth is a major factor in
reversing the trends resulting from typical development patterns and traffic
congestion. Smart Growth provides for
“common sense” development by encouraging growth where facilities and services already
exist, bringing jobs and housing closer, and limiting development into farm
lands and low density rural areas. I
support the testimony of Don Chen, Executive Director of Smart Growth America,
who spoke to your committee two weeks ago about the role the Federal government
can play in supporting Smart Growth policies and actions by local
governments. The reauthorization of
TEA-21 can become a mechanism to support Smart Growth initiatives. This committee can help local governments
solve transportation problems by encouraging Smart Growth policies leading to
fewer cars on the road.
In King
County, we’ve been working diligently to make Smart Growth work. In 2000, only 4% of all of our new housing
units went into our designated Rural Area.
We’re revitalizing our older urban areas as evidenced by the nearly 10%
growth in the City of Seattle from 1990-2000.
Growth in the centers of the close-in suburbs is also rising. Over the last ten years, the population in King
County grew by 15% and the City of Seattle grew by 9%. This data demonstrates a reverse in the
declining growth trend in the City of Seattle during previous decades. This is not just happening in Seattle, but
in other metropolitan areas as well.
Future transportation investments need to support these recent trends.
The viability of our urban
areas is increasingly dependent on reliable transportation networks. If we are successful in creating more Smart
Growth communities, where people use their cars less, then we are actually
preserving road capacity for those that really need it – like for the movement
of freight. A clear example of how land
use and transportation are being used together is in a Transit Oriented
Development Project, which typically combines housing and local retail with a
transit station or a park-and-ride lot.
We need to create better
pedestrian linkages to bus service, encourage greater densities and mixed-use
developments around transit centers, and simply provide connections within our
communities. Ongoing studies are
demonstrating that many forms of urban development, especially sprawl, can work
against physical activity such as walking and other forms of exercising. We have an obligation to give our citizens
the transportation choices they need to make their lives easier and more
healthful.
Increases in
Vehicle Miles Traveled
People drive more and they own more
cars. In King County, there are more
registered vehicles than there are registered drivers for those vehicles. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has also
increased, so traffic congestion continues to worsen.
In the Seattle region, from 1980 to
1990, VMT increased nearly three times faster than population and employment
growth. However, from 1990 to 2000, VMT
grew at approximately the same pace as population and employment. Although the trend is in the right
direction, the transportation system needs to catch-up from the rapid growth in
VMT from the past 20 years. Also,
through strategic investments, we can ensure that this trend continues and does
not revert back to the rapid rise of the 80’s.
While traffic congestion is the most
evident sign of increasing VMT, other important impacts are significant to our
quality of life. Increasing VMTs
correlate to worsening air quality and higher energy consumption rates.
Increase in Transit
Ridership
As we look to solutions to address
our traffic congestion problems, we need to keep in mind that there is no quick
fix to eliminate congestion. Instead,
we will need broad solutions to address different facets of congestion and to
give metropolitan areas the flexibility and choices they need.
Often, we turn first to adding
highway lanes. While this is an
important part of the solution, alone it will not alleviate the traffic
congestion problems we currently face. Additional
congestion-fighting tools include improved transit service and other
actions.
In King County, we have one of the
best transit operations in the nation.
Last year we exceeded 100 million annual riders for the first time. Transit’s share of daily travel is also
going up. In the Seattle Metropolitan
Area, commute trips on public transportation, as a percentage of all work
trips, has increased from 6.3% in 1990 to 7.1% in 2000. I believe strategic investments will help us
maintain this trend in transit ridership.
However, we know that increasing traffic congestion is having a negative
effect on our ability to operate transit efficiently. More congestion makes if harder for buses to maintain schedules,
leading to more buses providing the same level of service. Clearly, this is not a very efficient way to
operate.
Transit can and should be one of the
key tools to address traffic congestion, especially in metropolitan areas and
centers where there are concentrations of people and jobs. To do this, we need to make sure transit becomes
a viable alternative. Transit can
compete with the car for commute trips if appropriate funding and operating
incentives are provided. Many inter-city
rail routes, for example, have proven this and incredible progress in ridership
has been realized.
Revenue Sharing
Formulas May Not Be the Answer
Almost
all highway assistance is provided to states based on a formula. Exceptions include the recently enacted
trade corridor/border crossing, intelligent transportation system deployment,
and transportation community and system preservation programs that are
allocated on a national discretionary basis each year. Other exceptions are the regional Surface
Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality programs where
project selection is the responsibility of metropolitan planning
organizations. About two-thirds of
transit assistance is provided to transit operators on a formula basis through
their metropolitan planning organizations.
About one-third is allocated on a national discretionary basis annually
to start new and bus capital projects.
Federal assistance must be directed
toward solving problems in proportion to their severity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Encourage and
Promote Flexible Funding Approaches
Most federal
transportation programs pay for specific solutions; e.g., new highway lanes or
transit new starts, rather than the best overall transportation solution for a
given corridor. While ISTEA and TEA-21 included flexible funding programs
like the surface transportation program and Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality
programs with broad program eligibility, most federal assistance is still provided
on a mode-specific basis to existing road and transit providers. Furthermore in the first four years of the
CMAQ program, it has managed a mere 57% obligation rate. This rate is troubling and is the worst of any
of the core programs in T-21 suggesting that even when Congress provides tools
to the states for metropolitan needs it has not merited enough attention to
address the problem.
It is my
belief that addressing congestion in the most strategic and effective way
demands a comprehensive approach encompassing everything from improving
operations to managing growth. Federal,
state and local governments can no longer afford to view investments in
metropolitan infrastructure in separate, distinct elements particularly when
transportation infrastructure at the metropolitan level is far more complex and
inter-modal then at the state or federal levels. The very nature of a global economy and the need for our nation’s
metropolitan economies to stand up against their competitors around the world
by definition necessitates comprehensive, strategic planning and ultimately
targeted investments. Funding must be
predicated on the notion that metropolitan governments in partnership with
their constituents are most familiar with residential growth patterns,
commercial development needs, freight mobility and the many other demands on
local metropolitan areas. These demands
must be dealt with in a cohesive fashion that allows for optimum flow and
efficiency.
Creation of
a Metropolitan Transportation System
Mr. Lomax’s research has consistently
shown that roadway congestion can be quantified through various research
indexes to identify our nation's significant problem areas. According to his research, rush-hour travel
in five regions -- Los Angeles, San Francisco-Oakland, Seattle-Everett, the
Washington DC metro area and Las Vegas -- takes 50 percent more time than
non-rush hour travel. Additionally, he
indicates that drivers in the largest
metropolitan areas spend about half of their driving time stuck in traffic, far
more than drivers in medium and smaller sized metropolitan areas. This work of identifying our nation’s
significant problem areas must be advanced further.
I believe Congress should take the
next step of calling for in the upcoming reauthorization the creation of a
metropolitan transportation system that geographically defines the boundaries
of metropolitan areas within which federal transportation funds will be
targeted. Similar in concept to the
federal highway system or interstate systems, planning and investments for major
highways, regional arterials, bus and subway routes, local and inter-city rail,
freight corridors, ferries, and other transportation modes such as air travel must
be carried out as part of a comprehensive metropolitan transportation
system. Congestion relief is of such an
urgent and immediate nature, that a step of this magnitude is necessary and
warranted. Some of this work has
already been accomplished through the work of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations. We must find ways of
furthering this work and aggressively infusing such metropolitan systems with
the kind of strategic resource allocation that is needed.
Creation of a
Metropolitan Congestion Program
Finally,
I it is time for Congress to create a Metropolitan Congestion Program that
would funnel federal dollars directly to the metropolitan transportation
system. This Metropolitan Congestion Program should be sized at a minimum equal
to the National Highway System Program which this year received nearly five
billion dollars under T-21. I
acknowledge the need for the next reauthorization bill to be crafted in a way
that does not perpetuate a multiplicity of programs and perhaps this
metropolitan program would encompass other programs in the current
reauthorization bill originally intended to address congestion. However, at the local level, metropolitan
organizations and governments in major urbanized areas are suffering from the
lack of tools at their discretion. In
fact metropolitan sub-allocations under T-21 are smaller as a percentage of
total funding as compared to levels under ISTEA.
While land
use, permitting and many other functions that involve growth planning,
residential and commercial development are primarily the responsibility of
these governments we are handcuffed by the lack of balance in matching
infrastructure investments to support development planning. Transportation dollars that are funneled ultimately
to local areas lack the clarity, transparency and precision in investment
decisions that metropolitan governments are most appropriately situated to
provide. I strongly advocate that the
right and ideal place is in the metropolitan areas.
Over the
past several months, I have begun to partner with colleagues around the country
to form a metropolitan congestion coalition. The magnitude of these changes
require the kind of bold, decisive leadership that our citizens deserve. The purpose of this coalition is to bring
together metropolitan elected officials and business leaders in metropolitan
areas to address these ideas for the reauthorization of TEA-21. We have to date
been successful in our initial discussions around the country because the need
is so evident. I have no doubt that you
also recognize this need and I am hoping to partner with you during this
reauthorization cycle.
I respectfully urge this committee to consider where
transportation problems are most severe and the associated socio-economic
consequences then to direct available federal assistance to those areas
proactively. In metropolitan areas and
at all levels of government public resources are scarce. This only emphasizes the importance of
greater discretion in funding decisions.
We have strong decision-makers in every metropolitan area who are first
responders and are on the frontline helping to lead the economic engines of
this nation. The depth of this
leadership capacity must be further utilized to propose and implement solutions
that enhance vitality and energy in these regions. Congestion cannot be allowed
to stand in the way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee, for giving me this opportunity to share with you my views on
the reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program.