Counties had a major stake in the TEA-21 legislation as they own and maintain 1.7 million miles of highways or 43 percent of the total percent of the road mileage in the United States and 219,000 bridges, 45 percent of the total bridges in the nation. NACo was very pleased with the outcome of the TEA-21 legislation. We had four major objectives, all of which were achieved. We wanted more funding for the highway program; guaranteed funding from the Highway Trust; the program structure of ISTEA retained; and more input for local government officials in the planning and project allocation process. Concerning the last point, TEA-21 includes a provision that requires States to implement a process for including rural local government officials in the development of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). NACo fought hard for this provision and, while not putting rural county officials at parity with urban officials, it does recognize that States must now include rural officials in the important process of developing the STIP which in turn determines those projects that may ultimately be funded.
Expectations on the part of county officials were increased with the size of the Highway Program Going to $175 billion. At NACo we have urged our members to work closely with their governors, State Departments of Transportation, MPO's and other units of local governments to make sure they get a "fair share" of TEA-21 dollars. At a minimum, counties should expect an adjustment of Federal highway and bridge dollars that reflect the percentage increase their State is receiving under TEA-21. Better, it should reflect the level of responsibility for roads and bridges that counties have in a State and the overall condition of the county system in that State.
Since TEA-21 is only 10 months old and reliable information is hard to come by, NACo does not have a lot of detailed information on how TEA-21 is being implemented. For us the key implementation issue is whether the additional funding is flowing to county government and whether county officials are being included in the planning and project allocation process. However, what NACo has done to prepare for today's testimony is to send out a short survey to members of our transportation and telecommunications steering committee regarding implementation of TEA-21 and to talk with associations of counties from states with members on this subcommittee. We received surveys back from 29 States and feedback from 7 State Associations of Counties.
In Racine County, where I have been an elected official for over 18 years, transportation is a big-ticket item in our county budget. Our public works department has a budget in excess of $9 million and is responsible for 400 lane miles of county roads. We have a good relationship with the State born out of necessity since Racine County maintains over 500 miles of State roads, including 72 lane miles of interstate highways. Yes, in Wisconsin, counties maintain the Interstate System. Under TEA-21 Racine County has done well in the Surface Transportation Program and the Enhancement Program Setaside. This is in part due to the high quality of the MPO to which we belong the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. We have also received additional funds because a county trunk highway is on the National Highway System. For rural counties in Wisconsin, my impression this time is they are receiving more money under TEA-21 because of the overall increase in Federal funds to Wisconsin, but their actual percentage of the pie has not gone up.
In Ohio, Mr. Chairman, counties continue to do well under TEA-21. I trust that has something to do with the immediate past Governor being a former county official who had a county engineer as his director of the State Department of Transportation. I am told that under TEA-21, counties share of the STP Program and bridge program have increased by 26 percent. It is obvious in Ohio that elected county officials and county engineers, also elected, have a good relationship with the State.
In Montana, TEA-21 has brought good news for county government. Surface Transportation Program funding is up 60 percent for counties and Bridge Program Funding is expected to increase. While this does relate to increased funding for Montana, I am told that the Montana Department of Transportation is involving and consulting with county officials to a much greater extent. One reason for this is the aforementioned provision in TEA-21 that requires State DOTs to provide for greater involvement of elected rural local officials in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. As I understand it, in Montana a new rural planning process will be implemented shortly.
Let me briefly touch on what we have heard from the other states represented on this subcommittee. In Virginia, only two counties, Henrico and Arlington, have road responsibility and our sources tell us that it is too early to determine the impact of TEA-21 on these counties. Missouri counties expect ultimately to get more funds, but are currently engaged in a battle with the State DOT over bridge funding. Missouri has a substantial number of deficit bridges and counties have depended on the Federal Bridge Program to assist with the high expense of reducing this backlog. Missouri counties are also concerned that there is no planning process in place to obtain input from rural elected officials. In Oklahoma, the expectation is that urban counties will benefit from increased funding in TEA-21 and rural counties will not. There is no rural planning process in Oklahoma. In Wyoming, the state association of counties reports that it is too early to say regarding the effect of TEA-21, though the expectation is for no additional funds. No rural planning process is in place. In New York State, an additional $200 million has been provided for addressing deficient local bridges, though no extra money for secondary roads is provided through the STP Program. Nevada counties are benefiting from TEA-21 with more funding for both urban and rural counties. Florida has a similar situation, though the urban counties expect to do somewhat better than their rural counterparts. Less funding for rural counties is explained by the fact that rural counties have no counterpart to the MPO's. In New Hampshire there are no county roads and in Connecticut and Rhode Island no county governments.
The responses NACo received from surveys completed by county officials in other States varied a great deal, but I will try to put them into several categories.
Respondents from 9 States replied "yes" to the question of whether they felt counties were getting their "fair share" of TEA-21 funds. These included Minnesota, Oregon, Illinois, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida and Montana. Most of these respondents answered either more or substantially more when asked whether they were getting more Surface Transportation Program and/or Bridge Program funding. What each of the respondents also had in common, whether from an urban or rural county, was either a MPO or a rural area planning process. With an inclusive planning process in place, counties both receive more TEA-21 funding and have a higher satisfaction level with the program. Additionally, even urban counties that did not answer in the positive regarding the "fair share" question, did answer "yes" to the question concerning satisfaction with the how the MPO process works in their region.
In some States, such as Georgia and Arkansas, our respondents said it was too early in the process to tell how counties benefit from TEA-21.
Some counties experienced increases in both the STP and bridge program, though the increase was generally viewed as insufficient given the overall increase in TEA-21 funding. This would include Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, and Michigan.
In a number of States, to the question asked about the STP and the bridge programs, our respondents said that one program would get more TEA-21 funds, but not the other. This included California, Louisiana, Nebraska, and New Jersey.
Finally, there are a number of States where our county respondents felt they were not going to be receiving any increased highway funding in TEA-21. This included Kentucky, Tennessee, New Mexico and Rural Counties in Maryland. The comments from these respondents can be generally summarized as the State not believing it has to share any TEA-21 money with the counties and demonstrates no interest in consulting with them regarding the programming of these funds.
Before I conclude my testimony, let me add a few final comments. Our survey is a snap shot of the effects of a new piece of legislation. However, I think there are some results that will stand up to scrutiny. The most important fact is that where there is a planning process in place that includes local officials, whether urban or rural, counties receive more benefits from TEA-21 and are more satisfied with the program. Because the MPO process is required in urban areas, generally urban counties are more satisfied with TEA-21 than rural counties. However, if a State has a process that includes rural officials, the satisfaction level is similar to urban areas. Finally, where states have not instituted a consultation or planning process for rural counties, the counties are generally not receiving much in the way of increases in TEA-21 funds, if any.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) is in the process of developing a regulation to implement the provision I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony that provides for an enhanced consultation process for rural or nonmetropolitan local government officials. NACo is working with FHwA on this regulation. County officials expect this regulation will result in nudging States to engage county officials where such cooperation does not currently exist.
NACo believes TEA-21 is a very good piece of legislation and appreciates very much the contributions made to this major legislation by members of this subcommittee. To Senator Voinovich, we extend our thanks for holding this very important hearing and look forward to working with you and your subcommittee in the future. I would be happy to answer any questions the members of the subcommittee may have.