The National League of Cities represents 135,000 mayors and city council members from cities and towns across the country that range in population from the nation's largest cities of Los Angeles and New York o the smallest towns. Over 80 percent of NLC's members are considered small towns, with populations under 20,000. At this time, may I ask that the full statement of my testimony be submitted to the record for this hearing?
The National League of Cities is especially grateful to the Senate for passing TEA-21 legislation. This legislation will assist our cities and towns in preparing our infrastructure systems for the 21st Century. TEA-21 represents a continued partnership of federal, state and local governments seeking the goal of modernization of infrastructure , which is critical to sustaining our cities and towns and the commerce of the nation. TEA-21 has continued the direct decision-making role that local governments have in determining TEA-21 projects and allowed programs to be flexible for local needs. Additionally, TEA-21 has created a national transportation policy framework that includes federal money for intermodal transportation including mass transit.
In my testimony today I will present some concerns that have already surfaced, but at this point in TEA-21's implementation it is still very early to fully report on how implementation is going and what long-term concerns local governments have. We welcome the opportunity to develop a partnership with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Subcommittee, to address these issues as they surface over the course of the year. I would respectfully ask that the state and local government associations be able to report any other concerns in six months, as more implementation will have occurred at that time.
The leaders of our cities and towns have just begun to see the direct impacts of TEA-21's implementation. TEA-21 is fully investing new and future transportation dollars at guaranteed levels that will ensure that the highway and transit funds will be spent at specific levels, and not spent on other unrelated programs and projects. The thirty percent of federal funding that is guaranteed for transportation infrastructure funding will prevent local governments from having to raise taxes or cut services since the funding is now guaranteed by the "firewall." This enables our cities and towns to focus on other needs within our communities that are vital to the infrastructure of our constituents' lives like police and fire protection.
In my own region of Southern California, innovative projects are being considered for funding as a result of TEA-21's passage. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is seeking $2 million for a Magnetic Levitation (MagLev) Transportation Technology Deployment. Funding would assist in conducting an extensive review of the feasibility of MagLev technology in an urban, intra-regional setting. SCAG will be focusing on a corridor between Los Angeles International Airport and March Air Force Base, with intermediate stops at Union Station in Los Angeles and Ontario (California) International Airport. The proposal is a unique opportunity to link airport travel and goods movement demand with daily urban transportation needs, thus addressing multiple issues of serious concerns within the Greater Los Angeles metropolitan region.
While TEA-21 is working within our communities, we still have some concerns that could be addressed or clarified. Equity is an important issue for our nation's cities and towns. As much TEA-21 funding as possible should go directly to local elected officials to decide how to use this money. Rural areas should not be pitted against urban areas. All local leaders should be playing a determining role in deciding how the money will be spent.
Getting the Funding to Cities and Towns
There was a lot of initial excitement about the additional funding levels that TEA-21 provided, but that excitement has been tempered by the lower appropriation levels in the federal budget and the use of the first year's additional dollars by state governments to fund state projects and projects overruns.
In some of our cities, particularly those whose states control the flow of TEA-21 funding to local governments through Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's), the MPO's for large urban areas are losing portions of their funding. Our cities have let us know that is the case in Connecticut, Florida, and Indiana. Apparently, in these states, when TEA-21 money has been allocated, the money has been given to the state to hold until the MPO has made a decision about how to spend the money. The City of Hartford, who participates in the Connecticut Capital Regional Council of Governments for transportation and infrastructure decision-making, reported to us that a portion of the TEA-21 funds slated for the Hartford region was siphoned out by the state. We need assurance that cities and towns are able to get the money that is specifically allocated for their use. TEA-21 is aimed at local decision-making, so we need to prevent these funds from being intentionally diverted so that a state may not siphon off funds supposed to be used for cities.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations also pose another challenge to cities and towns, especially smaller cities and towns. The process for competing for federal funds through the local metropolitan planning organization is very difficult. It is difficult for a city to duplicate the scoring process. A project may have significant local importance, however, when modeled on a regional basis it cannot compete. The variables used by the state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning agencies to determine allocation of funding are usually based on vehicle miles of travel and population. The number of accidents per vehicle mile of travel would provide additional documentation of the transportation need in the community. In addition, this process does not assist cities in funding "one-time very expensive" transportation projects. It would be helpful if there was a way that flexible funding could be accessed to address special one time projects and smaller city needs.
One of the merits that NLC supported when TEA-21 was being considered was that TEA -21 would provide a more open and expansive process aimed at involving more people in the process of deciding how the federal transportation dollars are to be spent in each state and region. While the concept is good, it has been difficult and impractical to implement based on the fact that the public's transportation needs greatly exceed the available funding from the federal, state, and local levels. Sometimes the objectivity in project funding decision making is replaced with more subjective issues of fairness and equity. We are left facing difficult decisions. Is it fair that state departments of transportation or the largest cities and counties get the majority of the federal dollars every year? Shouldn't we spread the money around to a few more governmental units, even if the benefit is not realized by the greatest number of people? While local leaders are left to make the decisions, they often blame the federal government for not providing enough funding. Better guidance and commitment to projects by Congress would be even more helpful to local leaders faced with tough decisions.
Streamlining the process for obtaining funding is important to our nation's cities and towns. The complexity and project requirements of TEA-21 adds a dollar cost to project development. In Rochester, Minnesota, the city felt forced to hire an engineering consulting firm just to manage the TEA-21 process, but that means extra money for the city that could be poured into the project, instead of a consultant's fees. In Rochester, Minnesota, federal funding has meant a cost of at least 10 percent more to plan, design, and construct a highway under the federal funding guidelines.
Another problem that we have heard is that small and large cities alike are having trouble obtaining the local match for project implementation. TEA-21 does incorporate dollars to assist with the operations and maintenance for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), but cities like Dallas, Texas are having trouble implementing the project because of the additional manpower that is necessary.
As our cities and suburban regions grow, land-use and sprawl become increasingly more of an issue for city leaders to address. NLC supports placing a greater focus on the relationship between land use and transportation planning. The first step has been made with the new grant program, Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, but land-use must be a part of any future TEA-21 consideration. Cities can no longer continue to add more roadway capacity because the demand will never be met. Now and in the future, land use changes will have to address the transportation problems in a community. Smarter and more efficient ways to commute and utilize our roads and transit system are increasingly a facet of addressing growth.
Cities are on the cutting edge of developing ways to address this issue. It is as simple as one of the projects that Alliance, Nebraska (population 9,716) is planning with its TEA-21 funds. Alliance is planning a pedestrian walkway through the parks system that can be used to transport people by bicycle or foot to their jobs, the shopping areas, and their neighbors.
Highway Safety
Tea-21 provides approximately $2 billion for highway safety programs and provides several other incentives to keep our nation's highways safe. I am please to report to you that NLC's Transportation and Infrastructure Services Policy Committee will be examining NLC's policy on highway safety, including hazardous materials transport over the course of this year. I am sure that the Steering Committee will have additional recommendations for TEA-21 to incorporate after their studies are complete. As, our nation becomes more dependent on the transport of goods from place to place in this global economy, we need to make sure that our highways are safe and our local emergency personnel are equipped, prepared, and trained to deal with accidents involving hazardous materials.
Welfare to Work
Cities are the economic engines of the states. Projects that are funded with TEA-21 dollars can help local economies with jobs, economic development, and enhancing the quality of life in cities. An enormous number of dollars are being pumped into local economies and that is helping to address the problem of geographic displacement of jobs and the impact that this has on unemployment, welfare recipients, and low income earners.
The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program that was included in TEA-21 guaranteed $75 million in funding in a 50 percent matching grant program to provide transportation assistance to people to get to the jobs. A disproportionate number of low income, unemployed and underemployed persons live in large urban areas, while a large number of jobs, including TEA-21 projects are centralized in suburbs and rural areas. At least 2/3 of new jobs are in the outer suburbs. This grant helps former recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds and low income people get to the better paying jobs to support their families without displacing them.
While these grants have contributed to the lowering of the national unemployment percentage, our cities and towns need more assistance. We need to get people to the jobs - whether it is from suburb to suburb, big city to suburbs or rural towns, or suburbs to rural towns. A disproportionate number of low income persons do not have cars and they rely on public transit to get them to their job. We need to help them to utilize transportation systems we now have in place and to build new transportation system to expand access to employment.
Greater commitment in the form of funding is needed for this program, but we would not necessarily want to see other TEA-21 programs and projects cuts by effort to increase funding to the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program.
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Program
Another area that additional funding commitments are necessary for is the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. The CMAQ funds are allocated to urban and suburban areas that have been deemed as "non-attainment" of Clean Air Act goals. CMAQ funds are designed to be spent on regional projects to help improve air quality.
A clear demonstration that more funding is needed is the inclusion of additional funds toward this program and other Livable Community initiatives in the President's Budget for FY 2000. NLC does not agree with taking gas tax revenues from TEA-21 projects to be allocated to CMAQ, because it would violate the TEA-21 law. But, NLC does support the idea of assuring our nation's cities and towns that there are adequate funding sources that can be tapped into to deal with smog and other air quality problems to make our communities safer and cleaner.
CMAQ is even more important as suburban areas are rapidly growing, and Smart Growth proposals are part of local, state, and federal planning initiatives. For example, the New York City Council advocates increased levels of funding through CMAQ and other environmental transportation programs to support transit ridership and the use of clean fuels. The air is better in the Big Apple these days, but more needs to be done. Beefing up the commitment to CMAQ means addressing transit needs and promoting an environmentally friendly city.
While it is difficult to make decisions on how to allocate funding, NLC asks that in future consideration of reauthorization of TEA-21 a higher level of commitment be placed on CMAQ funding.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I greatly appreciate your leadership on these issues and look forward to working with you as TEA-21 implementation occurs. We are appreciative of the continued support of the role of local governments in transportation. I also appreciate the opportunity to testify and would be happy to answer and questions that the subcommittee may have at the appropriate time.