Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
March 19, 2002 Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2251 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
HEADLINE: TRANSPORTATION ACCESS, DEMAND AND FLEXIBILITY
TESTIMONY-BY: C. KENNETH ORSKI,, EDITOR/PUBLISHER OF
AFFILIATION: INNOVATION BRIEFS
BODY: 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.
LOAD-DATE: March 22, 2002