Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
September 30, 2002 Monday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 6530 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SUBCOMMITTEE: TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
NUCLEAR SAFETY
HEADLINE: FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY SYSTEM
OVERSIGHT
TESTIMONY-BY: THOMAS L. JACKSON, P.E.,
PRESIDENT- ELECT
AFFILIATION: AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL
ENGINEERS
BODY: Statement of Thomas L. Jackson,
P.E. President- Elect, American Society of Civil Engineers
Before the
Subcommittee on
Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear
Safety Committee on Senate Environment and Public Works
September 30,
2002
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to
provide this statement on "The State of America's Highway Infrastructure" for
the record as the Environment and Public Works Committee examines the
reauthorization of the nation's surface
transportation program.
ASCE, founded in 1852, is the
country's oldest national civil engineering organization representing more than
125,000 civil engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia
who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
engineering. ASCE is a 501(c) (3) non-profit educational and professional
society.
ASCE believes the
reauthorization of the
nation's surface
transportation programs should focus on three
goals:[1]
- Expanding infrastructure investment
- Enhancing
infrastructure delivery
- Maximizing infrastructure effectiveness
In 2001, ASCE released the Report Card for America's Infrastructure,
which gave the nation's infrastructure a grade of "D+" based on 12 categories.
Roads received a grade of "D," bridges a "C," and transit a "C-." The nation's
surface
transportation programs have benefited from an increase
in federal and local funding currently allocated to ease road congestion, to
repair decaying bridges, and to add transit miles. In our role as stewards of
the infrastructure, ASCE developed its first Report Card for America's
Infrastructure in 1998, and the infrastructure scored an overall grade of "D."
Although many Americans were alarmed by these report cards, few were
surprised. Their daily experience had prepared them. They were coping with
traffic congestion and crumbling pavement. Their children and grandchildren were
attending schools so overcrowded the first lunch shift started at 10:15 a.m. or
so old and neglected that the roof leaked whenever it rained.
Indeed,
ASCE's first report card in 1998 did help to prompt action. Soon after its
release, Congress passed the
Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21), P.L. 105- 178, providing record levels of authorized
funding for roads, bridges, and transit. Voters in communities throughout the
United States passed bond initiatives to provide desperately needed funds to
build and restore school facilities.
At the same time, however, growing
frustration with worsening traffic congestion, school overcrowding and the other
burdens placed on our overtaxed infrastructure has led voters to put the brakes
on development by passing initiatives to limit growth.
A. The State of
the Nation's Surface
Transportation Infrastructure
ROADS
According to ASCE's 2001 Report Card, the nation's roads
earned a D+, up from a D- in 1998. The major reason for this is that the
Congress and state and local governments have begun to address the investment
crisis and crumbling infrastructure through the enactment of TEA-21, which
provided $
218 billion for the nation's highway and transit
programs, and additional state and local programs to fund surface
transportation infrastructure. But even at these increased
funding levels, capital investments fall short of needs by 43 billion dollars a
year.
On our highways, nearly 70 percent of peak-hour traffic
experiences congested conditions. And, according to a study by the Texas
Transportation Institute the total congestion "bill" for the 75
areas studied in 2000 came to $
67.5 billion, which is the value
of 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel
consumed.[2] To keep congestion from increasing between 1999 and 2000 would have
required 1,780 new lane-miles of freeway and 2,590 new lane-miles of streets --
OR -- an average of 6.2 million additional new trips per day taken by either
carpool or transit, or perhaps satisfied by some electronic means -- OR
operational improvements that allowed three percent more travel to be handled on
the existing systems -- OR -- some combination of these actions.[3] None of this
took place and congestion increased.
TEA-21 funds, combined with
additional revenues from state and local governments, have begun to make an
impact on road projects in all 50 states. Total highway expenditures by all
levels of government and all expenditure types (including capital outlays;
maintenance; and research, policing and administrative) have increased from
$
93.5 billion in 1995, before TEA-21 was enacted, to
$
111.9 billion in 1999. Additionally, the obligation of federal
funds for roadway projects has almost doubled during this same period from
$
8.6 billion in 1995 to $
16.3 billion in 1999.
Another good measure of the increased attention to our nation's highways is the
miles of federal-aid roadway projects underway. This number has also increased
dramatically from 16,654 miles in 1995 to 29,030 miles in 1999.
Even
with TEA-21's commitment, our nation must increase annual investment by
$
27 billion at all levels to improve conditions and performance
adequately, according to the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA). An FHwA
report concludes that the nation should be investing $
94
billion a year in its road and bridge system over the next 20 years. However,
this investment level refers only to capital investment and does not include
maintenance, research, policing or administrative expenditures.
In 1999,
the total capital investment by all levels of government was
$
59.4 billion, well short of the needed $
94
billion.
Yet even with this added attention, 58 percent of America's
urban and rural roadways are in poor, mediocre or fair condition, according to
the FHwA.[4] Although this is a slight improvement from previous years,
conditions remain at substandard levels.
The FHwA ranks "poor" roads as
those in need of immediate improvement. "Mediocre" roads need improvement in the
near future to preserve usability. "Fair" roads will likely need improvement.
"Good" roads are in decent condition and will not require improvement in the
near future. "Very good" roads have new or almost new pavement.
Substandard road conditions are dangerous. Outdated and substandard road
and bridge design, pavement conditions, and safety features are factors in 30%
of all fatal highway accidents, according to the FHwA.
Americans'
personal and commercial highway travel continues to increase at a faster rate
than highway capacity and our highways cannot sufficiently support our current
or projected travel needs. Between 1970 and 1995, passenger travel nearly
doubled in the U.S. and road use is expected to increase by nearly two- thirds
in the next 20 years. Growth can be attributed to changes in the labor force,
income, makeup of metropolitan areas and other factors.
While passenger
and commercial travel on our highways has increased dramatically in the past 10
years, America has been seriously under-investing in needed road and bridge
repairs and has failed to even maintain the substandard conditions we currently
have. This is a dangerous trend that is affecting highway safety, as well as the
health of the American economy.
BRIDGES
According to ASCE's 2001
Report Card, the nation's bridges received a grade of C, an improvement from a C
minus in 1998. Almost a third of America's bridges are rated structurally
deficient or functionally obsolete.
In one example from Alabama, a
school bus bringing students to one Washington County school had to stop at a
structurally deficient bridge, let all the kids get off and walk across so the
empty -- and therefore lighter -- bus could safely cross the bridge. The
children then climbed back on the bus and continued their trip. Naturally, this
ritual was repeated on the way home. To avoid this, that bus now drives 15 miles
out of the way.
According to the FHWA, 10.6 billion dollars are required
per year for 20 years to eliminate the current backlog of bridge deficiencies
and ensure acceptable levels of safety. [5]
In 1998, 29% of the nation's
bridges were rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete by the
Federal Highway Administration.[6] While this number remains high, it is a
slight improvement over previous years. In fact, over the last 10 years the
number of bridge deficiencies steadily declined from 34.6% in 1992 to 29.6% in
1998. FHwA's strategic plan states that by 2008 less than 25% of the nation's
bridges should be classified as deficient.[7]
A structurally deficient
bridge is closed or restricted to light vehicles because of its deteriorated
structural components. While not necessarily unsafe, these bridges must have
limits for speed and weight. A functionally obsolete bridge has older design
features and while it is not unsafe for all vehicles, it cannot safely
accommodate current traffic volumes, and vehicle sizes and weights.
TRANSIT
Though transit is not within the jurisdiction of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, it is difficult to completely
discuss the problems facing the nation's surface
transportation
program without mentioning it.
According to ASCE's 2001 Report Card, the
grade for transit declined from a C to a C minus. While transit bus and rail
facilities have improved in recent years and new systems are being built, those
improvements can't keep up with the heavy strain placed on the system by rapidly
increasing ridership, which has increased by 15 percent since 1995 -- even
faster than aviation or highway
transportation. Capital
spending must increase 41% just to maintain our transit system at its present
level of service. But we need to do more than that. Many transit systems were
designed to transport workers from the suburbs to jobs in urban centers -- a
pattern that has now shifted to include suburb-to-suburb commutes as well. In
order to reduce highway congestion and the associated pollution, we need to
build a flexible, coordinated
transportation system.
Improvements like that will require up to 16 billion dollars annually.
For transit there is both good news and bad news. The bad news is that
while investments at both the federal and state/local levels are increasing,
ridership demand is increasing at an even faster rate. The good news is that
increased ridership means increased fare box revenues. However, it means
additional public investment is needed. Yet, the question remains, can
investment keep pace with demand?
In 2000 Americans took more than 9
billion trips on transit, and transit ridership increased by 4.5% over 1998.
This continued a trend that marked the fourth straight year of ridership
increases, and amounted to a 15% increase since 1995.
Transit funding is
growing, but at a slower pace. Total spending for mass transit in 1997 was
$
25.1 billion. The federal share was $
4.4
billion, state and local governments contributed $
13.2 billion
and operating revenue provided the rest. For FY 2000, the federal investment
increased to $
4.56 billion and to $
6.2 billion
for FY 2001. Total spending from all sources on transit capital projects for FY
1997 was $
7.6 billion.
The federal government invests
$
7.66 billion annually in mass transit capital improvements.
However, according to the Federal Transit Administration an additional
$
10.8 billion is needed to maintain current conditions and
$
16 billion to eliminate identified deficiencies. Capital
spending on transit needs to increase 41% to reach $
10.8
billion annually.
Even with the increased investment, many people in the
U.S. have little or no access to transit at all. The Federal Transit
Administration reports that 25% of the nation's urban population does not have
pedestrian access to transit. In addition, 30% of the nation's non-metropolitan
counties have no transit service at all. This can prevent those without motor
vehicles from participating in the economy, places the financial burden of
automobile ownership on many low income families, and adds unnecessary
automobile trips to our nation's congested streets and highways.
There
are substantial benefits to the taxpayer in exchange for public investment in
transit infrastructure. Transit provides basic mobility for those lacking a
motor vehicle or who are unable to drive. It promotes location efficiency and
reduces other infrastructure costs by encouraging dense, multi-purpose,
pedestrian-oriented urban development. Transit is more energy efficient on a
per-person basis than the automobile. Finally, and perhaps most important, it
provides an environmental benefit. By reducing passenger car traffic transit
reduces air, noise, and water pollution precisely where those reductions are
needed most, in major urban areas.
The U.S. Department of
Transportation reports that:[8]
* Investment in transit
continues to increase, including increased federal funding through TEA-21.
Transit system route miles show a 10-year increase of 44.2% in rail service and
10.4% in non-rail service. * In 1997, there were 149,468 transit vehicles; 9,922
miles of track; 2,681 stations; and 1,179 transit maintenance facilities in the
U.S. * There were 156,733 non-rail route miles of transit service in 1997. *
Transit system capacity, measured in vehicle revenue miles, increased by 19.7%
from 1987 to 1997, while non-rail increased 17.1%. * The average condition of
urban bus vehicles was 3.1 on a scale of 5.0 or adequate, largely unchanged for
the past 10 years. Sixty-three percent of urban bus vehicles are full-sized
buses whose average condition has remained steady at 3.0 for the last decade. *
The average condition of rail vehicles was 4.0 or good. This is down slightly
and caused by heavy ridership in major urban areas.
According to the
Department of
Transportation, the estimated average annual
investment required to maintain the same physical conditions and operating
performance of the nation's transit systems as in 1997, by replacing and
rehabilitating deteriorated assets and expanding capacity to accommodate
expected transit passenger growth, is $
10.8 billion. The cost
to improve conditions and performance is estimated to be $
16
billion.[9]
B. Expanding the Investment in the Nation's Surface
Transportation Programs
Establishing a sound financial
foundation for future surface
transportation improvements is an
essential part of the
reauthorization of the surface
transportation program. TEA-21 provided record funding levels
to the states and significant improvements have been made to our nation's
infrastructure. In spite of these notable efforts, the nation's surface
transportation system will require an even more substantial
investment. United States Department of
Transportation (DOT)
data reflects the fact that an investment of $
50 billion per
year would be needed just to preserve the system in its current condition. With
funding as the cornerstone of any attempt to reauthorize TEA-21 it is imperative
that a variety of funding issues be advanced as part of ASCE's overall strategy.
ASCE supports total annual funding of $
40 billion to
$
50 billion for the federal-aid highway program. To achieve
this level, ASCE supports an increase of six cents per gallon in the federal
user fee on gasoline. This would raise approximately $
10.2
billion a year, of which an estimated $
8.4 billion in new
revenues would be available in direct financing for federal-aid highway projects
annually. The remainder --approximately $
1.8 billion annually
-- would be directed to federal transit programs. These increases are
desperately needed.
ASCE supports the following goals for increasing our
infrastructure investment.
- A 6 cent increase in the user fee with one
cent dedicated to infrastructure safety and security. These new funds should be
distributed between highways and transit using the formula approved in TEA-21.
- The user fee on gasoline should be indexed to the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) to preserve the purchasing power of the fee.
- The
Transportation Trust Fund balances should be managed to
maximize investment in the nation's infrastructure.
- Congress should
preserve the current firewalls to allow for full use of trust fund revenues for
investment in the nation's surface
transportation system.
- The
reauthorization should maintain the current
funding guarantees.
- Congress should stop diverting 2.5 cents of the
user fee on ethanol to the General Fund, and put it back into the Highway Trust
Fund.
- Make the necessary changes to alter the Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA) to decrease the volatility of the estimates from year to year
and ensure a stable user fee based source of funding.
- The current
flexibility provisions found in TEA-21 should be maintained. The goal of the
flexibility should be to establish a truly multi-modal
transportation system for the nation.
First to be
addressed is the issue of raising the user fee on motor fuels. While the gas tax
is an important element of the current revenue stream feeding the Federal
Highway Trust Fund, it continues to erode in value due to its inherent inelastic
nature. Two strategies must be advanced to remedy this condition. First, raise
the gasoline user fee by six cents. This would provide a much needed infusion of
funding towards the $
50 billion per year need. In tandem with
raising the motor fuel tax, ASCE believes that it is important to shore up the
weakness of the motor fuel tax and its inability to retain value over the long
term by adding a provision to the law that would index it based on the Consumer
Price Index (CPI). This would allow the rate to adjust and reflect the current
economic conditions of the nation.
As the needs of the users change so
must the priorities of the nation's
transportation owners and
operators. Safety and security have always been important but have been driven
to the top of the priority list by events of the last year. In response to this
important need, ASCE is advancing the position that one cent of the proposed six
cent increase in the motor fuel tax be directed towards safety and security
projects as deemed appropriate by the
transportation agencies
administering the funds.
Important provisions of TEA-21 are embodied in
the principles of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) and firewalls. RABA
was established to ensure that the Federal Highway Trust Fund revenues would be
spent in accordance with the rate at which they were deposited into the fund.
Over the life of TEA-21 it has allowed states to construct many projects with
these additional monies that would have otherwise languished in the trust fund.
In addition, with the establishment of firewalls on the Federal Highway Trust
Fund, a condition was created wherein the states could count on their funds in a
long term investment strategy. This has eliminated the fear that some major
projects would fall victim to various budget strategies at the national level.
Any
transportation legislation must have two
fundamental philosophies to build upon. First is the issue of equity. Some
measure of equity was accomplished through the establishment of minimum
guarantees. This provision of TEA-21 raised the return to the states to a
minimum level in order to bring greater equity to the donor/donee situation that
exists across the country. In addition, a commitment to spend the maximum amount
possible from the Federal Highway Trust Fund was an important part of this
legislation. Positive, proactive management of the trust fund balance will be
essential to addressing the critical
transportation needs
facing our nation today.
Innovative Financing
Even with
increases in the gasoline user-fee, it is likely that tax-based revenues will
not be sufficient to keep pace with the nation's
transportation
needs.
There is a compelling need for enhanced funding, to a large
extent through user-oriented fees that have been demonstrated to be a
well-accepted and equitable source of infrastructure financing. In the case of
surface
transportation, federally sponsored studies demonstrate
the need for higher levels of investment. An additional challenge is to convince
our citizens and our elected leaders that we must either "pay now" or "pay
later", and that paying now is much more cost-effective and prudent in the long
run.
Innovative financing techniques can greatly accelerate
infrastructure development and can have a powerful economic stimulus effect
compared to conventional methods. This is the current approach in South
Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, where expanded and accelerated
transportation investment programs have been announced.
Innovative financing techniques, including toll road-based funding, figure
heavily in several of these state programs.
The innovative programs in
TEA-21 have been a good start, but more needs to be done to expand their scope,
and new programs or approaches must be introduced. We must find new and
innovative ways to finance the critical
transportation
infrastructure needs of the nation.
ASCE supports the innovative
financing programs and advocates making programs available to all states where
appropriate. Additionally, the federal government should make every effort to
develop new programs.
ASCE supports the following changes to enhance the
existing programs:
Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
- The TIFIA process for review,
approval and negotiation is regarded as burdensome, and could be streamlined.
- TIFIA projects have a minimum eligibility threshold of
$
100 million and consideration could be given to lowering this
to $
50 million to expand the pool of projects.
- TIFIA
loans could be "fully subordinated". Current TIFIA legislation is written to
subordinate TIFIA loans to other creditors. However, in the event of
liquidation/default, the TIFIA loan advances to parity status with other
creditors. This is known as the "springing lien" provision. It is thought by
some that this has limited the availability of other credit. The issue is
controversial, with pros and cons on both sides, but reform should be seriously
considered.
State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs)
- With the
exception of five states (Texas, Rhode Island, Florida, Missouri, and
California), TEA-21 did not permit further capitalization of SIBs with federal
funds. It is felt that this has suppressed SIB activity.
- Federal
regulations still apply to loan funds that are repaid to the bank, encumbering
SIB funded projects with federal regulatory requirements.
Grant
Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs)
- Increase the flexibility of
GARVEE bond repayment methods. For example, utilize the total apportionment
amount as a source of repayment (i.e., all funding categories), so that no
particular funding category is overburdened.
New programs for
consideration as part of the next
reauthorization are:
- Increased use of user fees, tolls, value pricing, and HOT lanes.
- Possible indexing of highway trust fund motor fuels tax to inflation.
- Establishing a true multimodal funding program (i.e., funds can be
used interchangeably for rail, highway, freight, intermodal facilities, etc.).
- Tax credit bonds, private activity bonds, and tax-exempt bonds for
privately developed projects.
Long-term Viability of Fuel Taxes for
Transportation Finance
ASCE supports the need to
address impacts on future surface
transportation funding and
believes that provision should be made in the next surface
transportation authorizing legislation to explore the viability
of the most promising options to strengthen this funding. In particular, the
impacts of fuel cell technology should be studied as well as how to create a
mileage based system for funding our nation's surface
transportation system as this technology comes to market and
lessens the nation's dependence on gasoline as a fuel source for automobiles.
Fuel taxes have long been the mainstay of
transportation infrastructure finance, but their future is now
uncertain. In many states, there is a strong reluctance to raise fuel taxes, and
some state legislatures have even reduced taxes to compensate for the sharp
increase in average gasoline prices over the last two years. Many localities and
states are supplementing or replacing fuel taxes with other sources, such as
sales taxes and other general revenue sources. There is also a growing trend to
use additives to gasoline for environmental reasons. The most prominent
additive, ethanol, enjoys a federal exemption from fuel taxes that reduces
federal and state trust fund revenues by some several billion dollars annually.
Looking ahead, a slow but steady increase in fleet efficiency--perhaps due to
increased market penetration by electric, fuel cell, or hybrid technologies-
-would reduce the revenue per mile of use generated by users. Whereas
cleaner-burning fuels and increased fuel efficiency are desirable policy goals
in their own right, particularly in regard to global warming, they may reduce
the reliability of fuel taxes in the future.
A helpful first step in
this process will be the
Transportation Research Board's
recently initiated Study on Future Funding of the National Highway System, which
will describe the current policy framework of
transportation
finance and evaluate options for a long-term transition to sources other than
fuel taxes. The goals of the study are to: (1) determine the extent to which
alternatives to fuel taxes will be needed in the next two decades or so; (2)
analyze the pros and cons of different alternatives in terms of political
feasibility, fairness, and cost; (3) suggest ways in which barriers to these
alternatives might be overcome; (4) recommend ways in which the efficiency and
fairness of the fuel tax could be enhanced, and (5) recommend, as necessary, a
transition strategy to other revenue sources. The study's first task, to be
summarized in an interim report, will provide one or more scenarios to
illustrate the time span during which petroleum- based gasoline availability and
cost might reduce fuel tax revenues. The interim report has been requested to
provide insight to those parties involved in the development of the surface
transportation reauthorization legislation, particularly with
regard to projections of fuel tax revenues during the next
reauthorization cycle. The study will also provide estimates of
trends in expenditures for
transportation infrastructure from
sources other than the fuel tax.
C. Life Cycle Cost & Surface
Transportation Design
The use of Life-Cycle Cost
Analysis (LCCA) principles will raise the awareness of clients of the total cost
of projects and promote quality engineering. Short-term design cost savings
which lead to high future costs will be exposed as a result of the analysis. In
the short-term the cost of projects will increase; however, the useful life of a
project will increase, and there may be cost savings in operations and
maintenance over the long term.
When the cost of a project is estimated
only for design and construction, the long-term costs associated with
maintenance, operation, and retiring a project, as well as the cost to the
public due to delays, inconvenience and lost commerce are overlooked. The
increasing use of bidding to select the design team has resulted in a pattern of
reducing engineering effort to remain competitive, with the result of higher
construction and life cycle costs.
ASCE encourages the use of Life-Cycle
Cost Analysis (LCCA) principles in the design process to evaluate the total cost
of projects. The analysis should include initial construction, operation,
maintenance, environmental, safety and all other costs reasonably anticipated
during the life of the project, whether borne by the project owner or those
otherwise affected.[10]
D. Integrated Truck and Highway Design[11]
Truck sizes and weights need to be viewed in the context of major
changes in cargo movement caused by the deregulation of the truck, railroad and
aviation industries. Changes are continuing and will have profound impacts on
the highway industry. Thus, while the use of larger and heavier trucks improves
the productivity of the trucking industry and reduces the cost of transporting
commodities, such vehicles also affect highway safety and accelerate
deterioration of highway pavements and bridges.
History documents a
continuing trend toward larger trucks and smaller passenger vehicles along with
significantly increasing truck volumes. The safety issue and highway pavement
and geometric design aspects of mixing large trucks and smaller passenger
vehicles will continue to be a subject of importance to highway administrators
and designers.
State limits for weights may not differ from the federal
maximums on the Interstate system except where "grandfather" provisions allow
heavier combinations. Realistically, these trucks must also use highways which
are not a part of the Interstate system for access. Many miles on the National
Highway System do not meet the standards to qualify for the designated highway
network. There are many miles of state and local roads which are even more
deficient in meeting the standards of geometric and structural capability.
States should balance the need for access to widely dispersed industrial and
commercial sites with the need to protect inadequate road segments.
Increases in truck sizes and weights impact negatively on the structural
life and geometric adequacy of the present road network. Users of the
transportation system, both the general public and the trucking
industry, will experience reduced service levels, delays, increased vehicle wear
and operation costs and reduced safety. These negative impacts must be balanced
against productivity gains and reduced commodity costs. Highways can be designed
and constructed to accommodate various truck sizes and weights. Additional
maintenance can be provided to sustain the pavements, capacity and safety of the
system. Trucks can be designed to reduce axle loadings, enhance productivity and
improve safety. Truck safety can also be enhanced through improved inspection,
enforcement and operator safety programs.
Thus, highways and trucks can
be designed and operated to improve their interaction, protect the highway
investment and enhance safety. Industry and government cooperation in research,
testing and evaluation can identify ways to improve trucking efficiency and
safety while protecting the public investment in the highway system.
The
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) supports a program where[12]:
- Truck and highway design should be coordinated through joint research
activities, such as in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP), and others. ASCE urges Congress, the Federal Highway Administration,
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the state
transportation agencies, and the trucking industry to form
these strong cooperative relationships.
- New and reconstructed roadways
should be structurally, geometrically, and environmentally designed to support
modern truck sizes and weights, and to insure the safe operation of the system.
- Truck designers should consider the effects of vehicle configuration
and suspension systems on pavement and bridge performance. Manufacturers should
also consider the effects of these factors on the safe operation of the vehicle
in mixed traffic.
- Industry and government should ensure that trucks
meet legal size and weight limitations and are safely maintained and operated.
E. Intermodal Facilities
TEA-21 continues a surface
transportation program with flexible funding for highway,
transit and other modal facilities. Traditional
transportation
practice inhibits attainment of a truly intermodal process because of customary
approaches and philosophies that support the modal orientation of agencies, the
lack of connections among modes, the inequities in federal matching ratios for
different modes, and the consolidation of funding for multimodal projects.
A primary emphasis of passenger intermodalism is to facilitate
connections between the private automobile and other access modes and public
transportation systems. For example, park-and ride facilities
provide critical connections for mass transit commuters using automobiles for a
portion of their trips.
The movement of freight from origin to
destination is increasingly multimodal. Most freight is carried by trucks for
final delivery, making planning the connections between highways and other modes
critical to efficient freight movement.
TEA-21 continues to highlight
intermodalism. Increased intermodalism is accomplished by statewide and
metropolitan planning organizations, management systems and compliance with the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Federal regulations explicitly state
that "each State ... carry out a continuing, comprehensive, and intermodal
statewide
transportation planning process," and that
metropolitan
transportation plans and programs shall "lead to
the development and operation of an integrated intermodal
transportation system that facilitates the efficient, economic
movement of people and goods."
TEA-21 and the CAAA have changed the way
transportation plans have been developed from a mode by mode to
an intermodal basis.
Programs of the federal, state and local
governments should maintain and strengthen the TEA-21 provisions and funding
mechanisms to consider a wide range of multimodal options and new technologies
in the development of
transportation plans, programs and
projects.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) supports the
vision of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA- 21) in the development of "a National Intermodal
Transportation System that is economically efficient,
environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation to compete in the
global economy and will move people and freight in an energy efficient manner."
Support for partnerships among the federal, state and local governments, with
various citizens, groups and firms from the private sector are essential to
further the intermodal goals of TEA-21.[13]
F. Operations and
Maintenance of the Nation's Surface
Transportation
Infrastructure
There is a clear and present need for an increased focus
on
transportation operations and maintenance at all levels --
federal, state, regional, and local. This need is based on several factors:
- An aging
transportation infrastructure.
-
Growing congestion and incident problems are causing
transportation system performance to be a top priority in many
areas of the country.
- Capacity constraints and costs of new
construction are forcing us to look at alternative solutions and place a premium
on maintaining and improving the existing
transportation
system.
- Customers desire travel choices, better information, and
increased reliability to meet their mobility needs.
- An efficient and
responsive
transportation system is critical to meeting
homeland security priorities.
An increased focus on
transportation operations functions can enhance performance of
the
transportation system, for example:
- Routine
traffic and transit operations;
- Public safety responses;
-
Planned construction disruptions;
- Incident management;
-
Network and facility management;
- Traveler and shipper information; and
- Bicycle and pedestrian mobility.
The Department of
Transportation should encourage local matching and innovative
funding. The federal government has a role in exploring and promoting best
practices related to innovative funding for operations and maintenance.
ASCE supports a strong federal role in the nation's
transportation system and strongly endorses federal leadership
in increasing the focus on
transportation operations and
maintenance, thereby enhancing the performance of and preserving our investment
in the
transportation system.
Reauthorization
of TEA-21 should accomplish the following regarding Operations and
Maintenance:[14]
- Support and assist homeland security initiatives.
Transportation operations and homeland security share many of
the same goals and functions. Resource sharing (e.g. communications
infrastructure, traffic control centers) and joint planning are appropriate.
Transit security and preparedness, international border security, asset security
and tracking, vulnerability assessment, planning, and creation of system
redundancy are important
transportation priorities for homeland
security.
- Support and assist state and local agencies. Beyond
establishing
transportation operations and maintenance as a
national priority, the Federal role should be to support and assist state and
local entities in accomplishing related goals. This includes support of research
and development, provision of tools, promotion of best practices, and
enhancement of education and training at all levels.
- Provide flexible
funding. Flexible funding approaches are important components to supporting
operations and maintenance needs. Expanding funding eligibility for operations
and maintenance programs, enabling direct funding to local and regional
operating agencies, public-private partnerships or outsourcing, and simplifying
and clarifying federal funding processes are important actions.
-
Recognize that the private sector has much to offer in management and technical
skills in operations and maintenance. Public-private partnerships may provide
enhanced operations and management programs.
- Specific programs. In
addition to flexible funding, several programs should be considered for targeted
funding:
- Homeland security initiatives related to
transportation - Incident management programs
-
Implementation of infostructure for data collection and management
-
Provision of real-time information to and from customers
- Support for
regional cooperation and partnerships
- Programs to alleviate
bottlenecks.
G. Conclusion
As Congress grapples with the
reauthorization of the nation's surface
transportation program ASCE recommends that the following
concepts guide the process:
- Expanding infrastructure investment.
- Enhancing infrastructure delivery.
- Maximizing infrastructure
effectiveness.
Unless we act now, the problem will only get worse
because road use is expected to increase by nearly two-thirds in the next 20
years.
The lack of adequate investment in America's infrastructure has
left us with a vast backlog of deteriorated facilities that no longer meet our
nation's increasing demands.
To remedy America's current and looming
problem, ASCE estimated in 2001 a $ 1.3 trillion investment in all categories of
infrastructure over the next five years and called for a renewed partnership
among citizens, local, state and federal governments, and the private sector.
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2002