<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:90366.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-263
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-366 WASHINGTON : 2004
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area
(202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred eighth congress
first session
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
----------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MAX BAUCUS, Montana
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BOB GRAHAM, Florida
JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska BARBARA BOXER, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 27, 2003
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 1
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 13
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 7
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 3
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 17
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 13
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 9
WITNESS
Peters, Hon. Mary E., Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration................................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 43
Senator Voinovich........................................ 37
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Report to Congress on Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Streamlining Activities During 2002.............. 44
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Christopher S. Bond
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Bond, Voinovich, Thomas, Boxer, Cornyn,
Reid, Jeffords [ex officio] and Inhofe [ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Good morning. It's a pleasure for me to be
able to welcome you here today, Ms. Peters. We appreciate the
opportunity to get your testimony on the Administration's
fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Federal Highway
Administration. I am glad to have my colleagues with me, and we
wanted to get started on time.
Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am very pleased with the
initial report of what is to come from the Administration in
terms of a reauthorization proposal. I look forward to
receiving your proposal so we might be able to work with the
Administration as we develop our mark for this committee. We do
need to work together, because there will be some changes.
As you know, the President's budget request includes $29.3
billion obligation limitation for the Federal Aid Highway
program. This is a $2.5 billion cut to the $31.8 billion that
Congress just passed less than 2 weeks ago in the Omnibus
Appropriations bill. It appears that the Administration has not
heard the resounding support that the Senate has for our
Nation's infrastructure, but, they send up a budget number that
doesn't even reach the 2003 level of funding. My math skills
are a little rusty, but I calculate it as somewhere around an 8
percent cut. When I've had the opportunity to ask some of my
colleagues about their willingness to support a bill that
provides an 8 percent cut, I have found literally not one
single volunteer.
So at the $29.3 billion level, there won't be any bill
passed. I'm deeply honored and appreciate the chance to chair
this subcommittee, to work with our Chairman and ranking
members. But I didn't do it to run into a brick wall. To
illustrate the level of support within the Senate for higher
levels of funding, I circulated a little letter to the Senate
Budget Committee, the Senate Finance Committee and our leaders
saying that $29.3 billion is inadequate to enable Congress to
pass the reauthorization of TEA-21. It says, ``This amount is
inadequate to enable the Congress to pass the reauthorization
of TEA-21.'' We urge you to join us in working to boost highway
funding to address these needs and improve our highway and
transit systems.
I'll have a copy for you, but as you can see, I've only
worked on this a few days and we have 64 signatures. We can get
more, but I think maybe that makes the point. Twenty-nine point
three billion dollars is inadequate even to get a bill out of
the committee, because my own State of Missouri has the third
worst roads in the Nation, 59 percent of its roads are either
in poor or mediocre condition, requiring immediate repair or
reconstruction. Missouri also has the second worst bridges in
the Nation, with 26 percent of its bridges 20 feet or longer
structurally deficient.
I think the needs of Missouri fall in line with the
Department of Transportation's recently released conditions and
performance report, which estimates that the annual Federal
investment in roads must increase by 17 percent per year,
simply to maintain, the Nation's existing highway and bridge
system. Improving the system will require 65 percent more than
is currently invested.
We know in Missouri that inadequate roads not only lead to
congestion--therefore more pollution--they delay, deny and
derail economic development opportunities, but they also kill
people. We have more than one death a day on the highways in
Missouri and I think that a large number of those are directly
attributable to inadequate infrastructure. When you have
traffic, 10, 15, 20,000 cars a day on a narrow, two-lane road,
you're going to have people passing when they shouldn't, and
they run into other people headlong.
I commend the Administration for proposing to spend some of
the balances in the Highway Trust Fund, thereby spurring
economic growth. But I believe we must spend the balances down
even further over the life of the next authorization if we're
to get the jobs, the economic stimulus and the economic
opportunity as well as safety we need.
I do look forward to working with the Administration to
structure a comprehensive reauthorization package to improve
the overall condition of the highways. I will look forward to
your testimony but first, let me call on the ranking member,
Senator Jeffords, for any comments he may have.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:]
Statement of Hon. Christoper S. Bond, U.S. Senator from the
State of Missouri
I would like to thank you Ms. Peters, for testifying before our
subcommittee today on the Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget
request for the Federal Highway Administration.
I cannot say that I am very pleased with this initial report of
what is to come from the Administration in terms of a reauthorization
proposal. However, I look forward to receiving your proposal so that we
might be able to work with the Administration as we develop our
Chairman's mark.
As you know, the President's Budget request includes a $29.3
billion obligation limitation for the Federal-aid Highways Program.
This is a $2.5 billion cut compared to the $31.8 billion that Congress
just passed less than 2-weeks ago in the Omnibus Appropriations bill.
It appears that the Administration has not yet heard the resounding
support that the Senate has for our nation's infrastructure by sending
up a budget number that does not even reach the FY2003 levels of
funding.
To illustrate the level of support within the Senate for higher
levels of funding, I have a letter which has been signed by 63 Senators
and counting to the Senate Budget Committee, the Senate Finance
Committee and our Leaders saying that $29.3 billion is inadequate to
enable the Congress to pass the reauthorization of TEA-21.
$29.3 billion is inadequate to even get a bill out of this
committee. My own state of Missouri has the 3rd worst roads in the
nation, with 59 percent of its major roads in either poor or mediocre
condition, and requiring immediate repair or reconstruction. Missouri
also has the second worst bridges in the nation, with 26 percent of its
bridges 20 feet or longer structurally deficient.
The needs of Missouri fall in line with the Department of
Transportation's recently released Conditions and Performance Report
which estimates that the annual Federal investment in roads must
increase by 17 percent per year simply to maintain the nation's
existing highway and bridge system. Improving the system will require
65 percent more than is currently invested.
I commend the Administration for proposing to spend some of the
balances in the Highway Trust Fund, thereby spurring economic growth
through additional revenue. I believe that we must spend the balances
down even further over the life of the next authorization to create
even greater revenue and jobs.
I look forward to working with the Administration in the coming
months to structure a comprehensive reauthorization package to improve
the overall condition of our nation's highways. Thank you for your
testimony.
Senator Bond. Senator Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to
Senator Reid also for convening this hearing on the President's
proposed budget for surface transportation.
Today's hearing marks the beginning of our committee's
reauthorization process in the 108th Congress. I look forward
to working with each of you and with our Chairman, Senator
Inhofe, on this important challenge.
I also look forward to working with the Administration,
with my good friend the Secretary, Norm Mineta, and with
Administrator Mary Peters, our witnesses for today's hearing.
Pleased to see you here.
To you Norm, get well soon. Send a little message for me,
will you, and get back to the arena. We will need your wise
counsel in the future.
Now to the matter at hand. I am underwhelmed by the
Administration's budget proposal for transportation. It is
inadequate, a step backward, it underfunds transportation at
this time of national economic need, at a time America needs to
create more jobs and invest in infrastructure. The President's
budget is really about priorities and making choices. I think
the Administration is significantly underfunding transportation
while proposing stock dividend cuts to the tune of $390
billion.
Senator Voinovich and others have raised serious concerns
about how the dividend tax cut could negatively affect
construction projects. I share these concerns, as do many on
this committee. The Administration's proposal also lacks vision
when it comes to financing the program. Two arguments should no
longer be operative: we've never done it this way before and
we've always done it this way before. That said, we need to
seek new ways.
The President has called for a national campaign to develop
cars and trucks powered by hydrogen-based fuel cells. I support
this. The President wants this Nation to break its dependency
on foreign oil. We all do, and welcome the air quality benefits
it will generate.
But I recognize such a shift would have implications on the
Highway Trust Fund. As we turn to new sources of energy, we
move away from the traditional funding sources. We need to
consider bold, new measures to finance our surface
transportation program. Fuel taxes have not kept pace with
program needs. We are in a transition, moving from a reliance
on fossil fuel user fees to deployment of a new system. We must
start now to introduce the next generation of financing
techniques for transportation. All options must be on the table
to ensure that our program is adequately funded.
Foreign and domestic corporations are now racing to perfect
vehicles which may run on hydrogen, derived from water. In
addition, right now thousands of electric cars are sold each
month in the country. Toyota plans to sell 300,000 of these so-
called hybrid cars annually by 2005. This will nearly double
the gas mileage and reduce the trust fund receipts nearly in
half for those years.
I understand that these hydrogen fuel cells, or electric
cars, could be on the road in greater numbers in 4 or 5 years,
before our next TEA bill expires. Morgan Stanley predicts that
these sales could grow to 15 percent of all vehicle sales.
While that is bad for the foreign oil cartels, it is great for
American consumers.
Our old funding formulas are becoming obsolete. We need an
approach that distributes funds to solve transportation
problems. Let's not waste time making arbitrary changes to
arbitrary factors buried in outdated formulas. Let's get this
job done on time by working together and addressing the
national need.
I have a proposal for surface transportation renewal that
will build on this principle. My proposal recognizes the need
to grow the program. The 50-State transportation secretaries
believe we need the multi-modal 6-year reauthorization bill
valued at at least $300 billion. I agree.
Spending at this level meets needs and generates millions
of good paying jobs. This committee held 14 hearings last year
with over 100 witnesses from 30 States and 60 organizations.
The hearing record runs to over 1,000 pages. The hearings
produced consensus on four priorities for the future program.
These form my pillars for reauthorization.
First, safety is the first priority. We have made real
progress in highway safety over the last 10 years. According to
the U.S. Department of Transportation, the rate of fatalities
has declined from 1.9 to 1.5 deaths per million vehicle miles.
But the number of fatalities has held steady at roughly 42,000
per year. This number is just unacceptable. We need to expand
the safety program with a particular focus on two-lane rural
roads, where a disproportionate share of fatalities occur.
My second pillar, and perhaps our most pressing national
transportation need, is congestion. Today, over 60 percent of
our population lives in large metropolitan areas. Congestion in
these areas is bad and getting worse. The Texas Transportation
Institute estimates that Americans in metro areas experience
3.6 billion hours of delay annually. Our current efforts
obviously are not working. We need to target congestion,
improve access and enhance mobility.
Third, we must continue our focus on asset management. We
have made progress over the last 10 years improving the
condition of our Nation's highways and bridges. To continue
this positive trend, we must increase our investment in the
system preservation.
Freight and trade is my fourth pillar. Growth in the volume
of goods moved in our country is rapidly overwhelming our
ports, borders, corridors, intermodal terminals. The forecast
for the future is demanding, daunting, with U.S. DOT projecting
that the volume of rate will increase 70 percent by 2020. I
want to see our Nation expand trade capacity through new
partnerships, investments and market financing techniques.
My proposal for reauthorization is simple. I want to
produce a national bill, one that grows the program to keep
pace with the national needs. I want to benefit all States.
Let's create a new, flexible and focused program to address our
national need. Let us focus on solving problems, be it freight
or safety or congestion. Let us not focus on the mode, nor on
the process, nor on the politics. Let us eliminate barriers,
expand flexibility and free State and local officials to solve
problems by applying the right solutions to their particular
area.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and with
all our colleagues to get this job done. I appreciate the help
we have received from the Administration and look forward to
hearing from Ms. Peters today and working with the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Thank you.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from
the State of Vermont
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Reid for convening this hearing
on the President's proposed budget for surface transportation.
Today's hearing marks the beginning of our committee's
reauthorization process in the 108th Congress. I look forward to
working with each of you, and with our Chairman, Senator Inhofe, on
this important challenge. I also look forward to working with the
Administration, with my good friend, the Secretary, Norman Mineta, and
with Administrator Mary Peters, our witness for today's hearing.
Welcome, Mary.
To you, Norm, get well soon and get back in the arena. We will need
your wise counsel in the months ahead.
Now, to the matter at hand. I am ``underwhelmed'' by the
Administration's budget proposal for transportation. It is inadequate;
a step backward. It underfunds transportation at a time of national
economic need--at a time America needs to create more jobs and invest
in infrastructure.
The President's budget is really about priorities and making
choices--and I think the Administration is significantly under funding
transportation while proposing stock dividend tax cuts to the tune of
$390 billion.
Senator Voinovich, and others, has raised serious concerns about
how the dividend tax cut could negatively affect construction projects.
I share those concerns, as do many on this committee.
The Administration's proposal also lacks vision. When it comes to
financing the program, two arguments should no longer be operative:
``We've never done it this way before'' and ``We've always done it this
way before.'' Instead, we need to seek new ways.
The President has called for a national campaign to develop cars
and trucks powered by hydrogen-based fuel cells. I support this. The
President wants this Nation to break its dependence on foreign oil. I
agree, and welcome the air quality benefits it will generate. But I
recognize such a shift would have implications for the Highway Trust
Fund. As we turn to new sources of energy, we move away from our
traditional source of revenues.
We need to consider bold new measures to finance our surface
transportation program. Fuel taxes have not kept pace with program
needs. We are in a transition, moving from reliance on fossil-fuel user
fees--to deployment of a new system. We must start now to introduce the
next generation of financing techniques for transportation. All options
must be on the table to ensure that our program is adequately funded.
Foreign and domestic corporations are now racing to perfect vehicles
which may run on hydrogen, derived from water.
In addition, right now thousands of electric cars are sold each
month in this country. Toyota plans to sell 300,000 of these ``so-
called'' hybrid cars annually, by 2005. This will nearly double the gas
mileage, and reduce Trust Fund receipts nearly in half, for those cars.
I understand that these hydrogen, fuel cell or electric cars could be
on the road in much greater numbers in 4 or 5 years--before our next T-
bill expires. Morgan Stanley predicts that these sales could grow to 15
percent of all vehicle sales. While that is bad for the foreign oil
cartels, it is great for American consumers.
Our old funding formulas are becoming obsolete. We need an approach
that distributes funds to solve transportation problems. Let's not
waste time making arbitrary changes to arbitrary factors buried in
outdated formulas. Let's get this job done, on time, by working
together and addressing the nation's needs.
I have a proposal for surface transportation renewal that will
build on this principal. My proposal recognizes the need to grow the
program. The 50 state transportation secretaries believe that we need a
multimodal 6-year reauthorization bill valued at, at least, $300
billion. I agree.
Spending at this level meets needs, and generates millions of good
paying jobs. This committee held 14 hearings last year, with over 100
witnesses from 30 states and 60 organizations. The hearing record runs
to over 1,000 pages. The hearings produced consensus on four priorities
for the future program. These form my pillars for reauthorization.
Safety is my first priority. We have made real progress on highway
safety over the last 10 years. According to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the rate of fatalities has declined from 1.9 to 1.5
deaths per million vehicle miles traveled. But the number of fatalities
has held steady at roughly 42,000 per year. That number is
unacceptable.
We need to expand the safety program with a particular focus on
two-lane rural roads, where a disproportionate share of fatalities
occur.
My second pillar, and perhaps our most pressing national
transportation need, is congestion. Today, over 60 percent of our
population lives in large metropolitan areas. Congestion in those areas
is bad and getting worse. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates
that Americans in metro areas experience 3.6 billion hours of delay
annually. Our current efforts are not working. We need to target
congestion, improve access and enhance mobility.
Third, we must continue our focus on Asset Management. We have made
progress over the last 10 years improving the condition of our nation's
highways and bridges. To continue this positive trend, we must increase
our investment in system preservation.
``Freight and Trade'' is my fourth pillar. Growth in the volume of
goods moved in our country is rapidly overwhelming our ports, borders,
corridors and Intermodal terminals. The forecast for future demand is
daunting, with the U.S. DOT projecting that the volume of freight will
increase 70 percent by 2020. I want to see our Nation expand freight
capacity through new partnerships, investments and market financing
techniques.
My proposal for reauthorization, then, is simple. I want to produce
a national bill, one that grows the program to keep pace with our
national needs. I want to benefit all states. Let's create a new,
flexible and focused program to address our nation's needs.
Let us focus on solving problems, be it freight or safety or
congestion. Let us not focus on the mode, nor on the process, nor on
the politics. Let us eliminate barriers, expand flexibility, and free
state and local officials to solve problems by applying the right
solutions for their particular area.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, with Senators
Inhofe and Reid, and with all of our colleagues to get this job done.
I also appreciate the help we have received from the Administration
and look forward to hearing from Ms. Peters today and working with U.S.
DOT in the months ahead for a strong America.
Thank you.
Senator Bond. Chairman Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let
me say that Administrator Peters just did a miraculous job out
in Oklahoma when we had our very tragic accident there on I-40.
I'd like to make sure that my fellow members realize that it
took about 3 days, I think, to get the initial funding in there
to get the thing started. I was very familiar with this type of
an accident, with the bridge coming down, because I witnessed
the same thing happening in South Texas about a couple months
before. You were able to get this done in much less time, far
cheaper, you got everything routed around and got the funding.
I want you to know that all of Oklahoma--not just Oklahoma, but
that's a major east-west corridor across the country--we
appreciate the fact that you did really a great job and I
applaud you for it.
Now, that's the good news. The bad news is I agree with
these guys. I do regret that we have to begin by noting we
still haven't received the reauthorization proposal for TEA-21.
As a result, we don't have any way of really thoroughly
assessing what this budget means and where we want to go until
we have it. For I think both the reauthorization proposal and
your budget become less relevant with each week that we don't
have the reauthorization program.
I am pleased to note that the request maintains a link
between highway funding and user fees deposited into the
Highway Trust Fund. That's an essential foundation for the
reauthorization proposal. The proposal sets each year's funding
level from a trust fund $1 billion above that year's estimated
trust fund receipts. An additional $1 billion reflects the
spending of the large cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund.
We've been working on this now since, well, back in the
first early years that I was in the House, some 15, 16 years
ago. We are making progress on this. That's kind of the good
news. But I agree with the Chairman and with Senator Jeffords
that we can do a better job of getting this down and using
these funds.
I do appreciate the fact that you have come forth on the
2\1/2\ cents from the tax on gasohol currently being deposited
in the general fund. I kind of look at that, and always have
said this, Mr. Chairman, it's more of a moral issue. People go
up and they pay money, they expect that money is going to go to
improving the highways and the bridges. I have to remind our
Chairman here that I feel very badly that Missouri has the
second worst bridges in America. But not nearly as badly as I
feel that Oklahoma has the worst bridges in America. So we have
that interest in getting these things done.
I think it's inadequate, the amount of money that we're
talking about. These low investment levels are problematic
because highway needs today are staggering. The 2002 conditions
and performance report published by this Administration
estimates that the annual Federal investment in roads must
increase by 17 percent each year to maintain the Nation's
existing highway and bridge system. I think, you know, we're
not anywhere near there, so what we have is not adequate.
I do want to make a correction in a misquote of me. I was
talking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and they said that I
was not supporting the hydrogen fuel cells. That isn't true at
all. We were actually talking about an ambient air issue at
that time. I do support the research that is there for these,
and I want to make sure the record does reflect that.
So we want to work with you on this. We want the
reauthorization to come through, and we want something that we
can get our hands into. We're going to work hard at this table
to get as substantial an increase over what the President's
budget was when it came in. It may sound funny for a
conservative to say something like this, but conservatives
really believe that Government has certain functions it must
perform. Certainly infrastructure is way up there at the top.
We've got to do a better job than we're doing right now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Thank you Madam Administrator for coming before us to testify on
the President's 2004 budget request. This request contains many good
features. Of course there are some aspects that I feel need attention.
I am certain we will be able to work cooperatively to address my
concerns.
I regret that I must begin by noting that we still have not
received your reauthorization proposal for TEA-21. As a result, we have
no way of thoroughly assessing your budget request. It is simply a
bunch of numbers with no policy behind them. I must also add that both
your reauthorization proposal and your budget request become less
relevant with each week that we do not have your reauthorization
proposal.
The House and Senate Budget Committees are well on their way
drafting the Budget Resolution that will lay out the budgetary
framework for reauthorization. One of my greatest concerns is that the
President's budget request did not include firewalls for highways, but
I understand that your reauthorization proposal will likely include
them. I suggest that you move ahead on this immediately to help ensure
firewalls are included in the Budget Resolution.
With that said, I will turn to the specifics of the
Administration's 2004 budget request for Federal-Aid Highways. This
request is a reasonable starting point. I think it contains some very
good ideas. But it is only a starting point.
I'm very pleased to note that the request maintains the link
between highway funding and the user fees deposited into the Highway
Trust Fund. That is an essential foundation for any reauthorization
proposal. The proposal sets each year's funding level from the trust
fund $1 billion above that year's estimated trust fund receipts. The
additional $1 billion reflects a spending of the large cash balance in
the Highway Trust Fund that has accumulated from unspent highway user
fees. Unfortunately, the cash balance in the trust fund remains too
high under the President's proposal. We need more responsible cash
management in light of the existing needs. I would like to see the cash
balance spent down significantly below the $14.8 billion average under
the President's request.
I am also pleased that the President's budget request returned the
2.5 cents from tax on gasohol currently deposited into the general fund
back into the Highway Trust Fund. The gas tax is a true user fee and it
simply does not make sense that any of it is deposited anywhere except
the Highway Trust Fund. Cars burning fuel blended with ethanol take up
the same amount of space and cause as much wear and tear on the roads
as cars burning gasoline. They should pay the same amount into the
Highway Trust Fund. Therefore, I will work to ensure that the subsidy
on ethanol is paid for out of the general fund rather than the Highway
Trust Fund. This would result in an additional $1.5 billion a year
available for investment in highway infrastructure.
As I said, this budget request is a starting point. Unfortunately,
the investment levels are too low when compared to the system's needs.
The 2004 request of $29.3 billion would be a $2.5 billion cut from
2003. Highway investment would not get back to the 2003 level until
2007 under the budget request. In fact, the 2009 requested funding
level would be $2 billion less than if we simply grew the program at
the rate of inflation. We need a highway funding level that will
improve safety, congestion, and economic growth.
These low investment levels are problematic because highway needs
today are staggering. The 2002 Conditions and Performance Report
published by this Administration estimates that the annual Federal
investment in roads must increase by 17 percent simply to maintain the
nation's existing highway and bridge system. Improving the system will
require 65 percent more than is currently invested. TEA-21 was a great
step forward in terms of improving our nation's highway safety and road
conditions. We need to build upon this success, not take a step
backward. It would be irresponsible to cut highway funding to such a
great extent.
The budget request does provide a couple of highlights of what we
can expect to be included in the Administration's reauthorization
proposal. From what I've seen so far, there are some very good ideas
included. I look forward to hearing more detail on these policies.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to working with you on
reauthorizing TEA-21.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do have great
sympathy for Oklahoma, knowing that you have the worst bridges
in the Nation. I should have extended my sympathies to my
Oklahoma friends for the humble Missouri basketball team last
night beating the brains out of the third ranked Sooners.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. I meant to bring that up, but since we were
talking about the close bonds of friendship and comradery, I
thought I should extend that.
Senator Inhofe. I only hope that they drive carefully over
the bridges on the way home.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. They're going back to Oklahoma, and we don't
fare so well in Soonerville.
Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting
this hearing this morning.
I'd like to welcome Administrator Peters to this hearing
today. It's comforting to me as a former Governor to know that
we have somebody in your job that's got experience on the State
level and understands the great partnership that we have had
over the years between your agency and the highways' directors
throughout the United States.
Mr. Chairman, as the infrastructure built in the 19th and
20th century reaches the end of its useful life, we are now
faced with the question of how to fill current requirements and
make improvements to our infrastructure that will best serve
the Nation in the 21st century. It's no secret that this Nation
has an aging transportation infrastructure. According to FHWA's
2002 conditions and performance report, the average annual
investment level needed to make improvements to highways and
bridges is projected to be $106.9 billion each year through
2020. This level of investment is required for system expansion
and does not include the cost of routine maintenance.
This amount is 65 percent higher than the $64.6 billion of
total capital investment spent by all levels of Government in
2000. In Ohio, the costs to improve the State's infrastructure
are high. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge that carries
Interstate 75 across the Ohio River into Kentucky is in need of
replacement within the next 10 years at a cost of $500 million.
I've got a picture of this bridge. This is a double decker
bridge that runs I-75 and I-71 across the Ohio. It was built in
1963. It has too many cars going over it right now and trucks.
It's going to have to be replaced for sure within 10 years,
probably before that time. We're talking at least $500 million
just to take care of that bridge.
The average annual investment level necessary to maintain
the current condition and performance of highways and bridges
is projected to be $75 billion through 2020. Again, this level
of investment does not include the cost of routine maintenance.
This amount is 17.5 percent higher than capital spending in
2000. If we had continued to ignore the upkeep and allow the
deterioration of our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in
commerce and reduce protection for public safety, health and
environment. We forget that roads and bridges are so important
to the economic vitality of our Nation, and particularly I
understand that, where Ohio is located, we're within 500 miles
of 60 percent of the population. If we don't have the bridges
and roads, we are in deep trouble in terms of our economy.
The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the
Administration's budget proposal and upcoming reauthorization
will be sufficient to meet our needs. I am concerned that under
the Administration's proposal, and I share my colleagues'
concern, that funding will not even reach current levels until
fiscal year 2007. That's unacceptable.
In 1998, Congress recognized the importance of the Nation's
transportation system with the enactment of TEA-21. It
increased 40 percent Federal investment in highways and
transit. Under that, Ohio received about 23 percent more in
funding. As chairman of the National Governors Association, I
was involved in negotiating TEA-21 and lobbied Congress to
ensure that all Highway Trust Fund revenues were spent on
transportation. We all lobbied for that.
I also fought to even out Ohio funding, highway funding
fluctuations and to assure a predictable flow of funding to the
States. TEA-21 has achieved that goal because we have this up
and down situation which made it almost impossible for us to
move forward in a logical fashion with the funding for our
responsibilities.
However, more recently, as evidenced by last year's
negative revenue aligned budget authority, RABA, of $4.4
billion, we need a better way to smooth that out. That's
another thing that we'll be interested in hearing you talk
about today. I think that we need to also understand that the
money that was in the 2003 budget, the appropriations that we
just took care of, that we're borrowing some of the money right
now to take care of funding that, because the money isn't in
the Highway Trust Fund.
I would like to make it very clear to you and anybody else
that I am a fiscal hawk. My feeling is this, that we should not
borrow money to take care of our highway needs, that we need to
face up to them and if we need additional money, then we're
going to have to raise that money in order to get the job done.
TEA-21 also dedicated nearly all highway gas taxes to
transportation funding and guarantees that the States will
receive at least 90.5 percent. There are many of us that feel
we're not getting our fair share as donors. We'd like to see
that bumped up to 95 percent. Again, I understand that if we do
that from a practical point of view, we're going to have to
have more money to take care of guaranteeing those States that
would be hurt by that taking place.
Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement here. I'm not going
to read the rest of it, but just to say that I look forward to
working with you. You have heavy responsibilities. I know it's
difficult to be in the position you are, because you get the
word from OMB and the rest of them, you've got to do certain
things. But we really expect you to level with us in terms of
what the needs are and then let us work on trying to convince
OMB that we're going to need additional dollars to take care of
the job that needs to be done.
I appreciate the fact also that you're recommending that
2.5 percent for ethanol be put in the Highway Trust Fund.
That's very important, I've been trying to get that done for 3
years around here. It means $50 million to the State of Ohio,
and I thank you for that.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. Your
full statement will be included in the record. I appreciate
your submitting that. When the questions come around, I will
ask that we put on the lights so everybody has a shot at the 5
minutes. I appreciate also your kind comments and your previous
lobbying support for the Bond-Chafee proposal in TEA-21. For my
colleagues' information, we will be going on my best guess at
what the early bird rule was, and the next to come in at the
opening of the hearing was Senator Thomas.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the
State of Ohio
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing today on the
Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) fiscal year 2004 budget
request.
Mr. Chairman, as the infrastructure built in the 19th and 20th
Centuries reaches the end of its useful life, we are now faced with the
question of how to fulfill current requirements and make improvements
to our infrastructure that will best serve the Nation in the 21st
Century.
It is no secret that this Nation has an aging transportation
infrastructure. According to FHWA's 2002 Conditions and Performance
Report, the average annual investment level needed to make improvements
to highways and bridges is projected to be $106.9 billion through 2020.
This level of investment is required for system expansion and does not
include the costs of routine maintenance. This amount is 65.3 percent
higher than the $64.6 billion of total capital investments spent by all
levels of government in 2000.
In Ohio, the costs to improve the state's infrastructure are high.
For example, the Brent Spence Bridge that carries Interstate 75 across
the Ohio River into Kentucky is in need of replacement within the next
10 years at a cost of about $500 million.
The average annual investment level necessary to maintain the
current condition and performance of highways and bridges is projected
to be $75.9 billion through 2020. Again, this level of investment does
not include the costs of routine maintenance. This amount is 17.5
percent higher than capital spending in 2000.
If we continue to ignore the upkeep, and allow the deterioration of
our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in commerce and reduced
protection for public safety, health, and the environment. In my view,
it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that funding levels are
adequate and efficiently allocated to our nation's priority needs.
The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the
Administration's budget proposal and upcoming reauthorization proposal
will be sufficient to meet the nation's transportation needs. I am
concerned that under the Administration's proposal, highway funding
would not even reach current spending levels until fiscal year 2007.
In 1998 Congress recognized the importance of the nation's
transportation system through the enactment of the 6-year
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21
increased by nearly 40 percent Federal investment in highways and
transit. Under TEA-21, Ohio received a 23 percent increase in
transportation funding.
As Chairman of the National Governors Association, I was involved
in negotiating TEA-21 and lobbied Congress to ensure that all Highway
Trust Fund revenues were spent on transportation. I also fought to even
out highway funding fluctuations and assure a predictable flow of
funding to the states. TEA-21 achieved this goal with record,
guaranteed levels of funding.
However, more recently, as evidenced by last year's negative
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) calculation of $4.4 billion, we
need to find a better way to smooth out the effects of fluctuating
trust fund receipts for the long-term without adding to the Federal
budget deficit.
TEA-21 also dedicated nearly all highway gas taxes to
transportation funding and guarantees that states will receive at least
90.5 percent of their share of their contribution to the highway
account of the Highway Trust Fund. One of my top priorities for TEA-21
reauthorization is to increase Ohio's minimum share to at least 95
percent. This increase in Ohio's rate of return would generate an
additional $140 million in transportation revenues for the State of
Ohio, realizing that the states that have to give up that funding will
have to be taken care of.
While TEA-21 has enabled states and localities to improve the
condition of deteriorating and unsafe highways and to increase capacity
and performance, the system is still aging, and in need of additional
investment.
As a member of this subcommittee--and its former chairman--I am
eager to work on the reauthorization of the surface transportation
program. I understand that certain groups are talking about funding
levels of up to $60 billion a year, which is supported by the
Performance and Conditions Report I mentioned earlier.
The short- and long-term viability of the Highway Trust Fund to
meet our transportation needs is an issue that will be discussed in the
coming months. In the short-term, we will have to determine the annual
funding level the Highway Trust Fund can sustain and still meet its
obligations. With our country's finances already in the red, I do not
think we can expect that additional resources outside the Highway Trust
Fund will be available for highway projects.
In fact, in fiscal year 2002, we suffered a budget deficit of $317
billion. In other words, we spent the entire $160 billion Social
Security surplus and then had to go out into the private markets and
borrow an additional $158 billion.
According to OMB's numbers, even though we kept discretionary
spending down in fiscal year 2003 and the President's fiscal year 2004
budget keeps discretionary spending to an increase of 4 percent, we
will still suffer budget deficits of close to half a trillion dollars
($468 billion and $482 billion, respectively) in each of fiscal years
2003 and 2004. This does not include what would happen if there is a
war.
We must plan for the future based on the principle that the highway
program is a fully user-fee based system that pays its own way. I will
not support borrowing more money for highways and have my children and
grandchildren pay for it. I believe everyone on this subcommittee
should support that position.
I am pleased the Administration's budget request proposes that all
revenue from gasohol taxes be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund
rather than the General Fund of the Treasury, something many of my
colleagues have asked for these last few years. This fix would provide
Ohio with an additional $50 million a year in highway funding. I urge
my colleagues to support the Administration's proposal.
Mr. Chairman, another of my priorities for reauthorization is to
enact an environmental streamlining provision which will actually
expedite the project delivery process. I am disappointed with the
implementation of the environmental streamlining provisions included in
TEA-21, and I regret that we may have wasted an opportunity to realize
the benefits of the expedited process that we envisioned 5 years ago.
In addition, as Chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, I will be
looking closely at the effectiveness of conformity and the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ).
Finally, I would like to thank Administrator Peters for testifying
this morning on her agency's budget request for fiscal year 2004. I
hope the Administrator will also share with the committee the
highlights of the Administration's reauthorization proposal and when
that proposal might be sent to Congress for its consideration.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look
forward to working with you in the coming weeks and months on this
reauthorization.
Senator Bond. Senator Thomas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
am not a member of this subcommittee, but I was a member when
this TEA-21 was passed, so I'm very much interested in it.
Certainly it's an issue that our State is very much interested
in. It has an impact over the whole country, and particularly,
many times, the States that have relatively small populations
but lots of miles, interstate highways and so on.
So I just agree with the members here this morning, this
money has been collected for this purpose, it's there, we ought
to have it out. Our director of transportation indicated the
other day that just keeping up with the environmental
streamlining of what needs to be done in the highways is a 10
percent increase. So that's very much of an interest to us.
Certainly this is an economic matter, not only good highways,
but I can't think of a quicker way to get money into the
economy than this way.
So I'm just here to say I support what we're doing. I want
to work with you on this. I think it's one of the most
important issues we have before us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator. Now, Senator
Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with Senator Thomas that when we're talking about
stimulating the economy and doing something we need to do, this
is it. So I'm so appreciative that you've held this hearing. I
ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in the
record.
Senator Bond. Without objection.
Senator Boxer. I'd like to put this on the record using the
5-minute rule. TEA-21 authorized $31.8 billion for fiscal year
2003, yet the Administration's budget does not ask for that
level of funding until 2007. So we're talking about a gap here.
I haven't given it a name yet, it's a highway gap, I guess
you'd say. It means less money for our States in those years.
I wanted to show you a chart about congestion in my State.
This is how many hours are lost, Mr. Chairman, in Los Angeles,
this is per year, 136 hours per year due to congestion, San
Francisco-Oakland 92 hours, San Jose 74 hours, what we call our
Inland Empire, some of you have been there, I think, east of
Los Angeles, 64 hours, and San Diego, 51 hours. So we are
really talking about a tremendous loss.
For example, if you look at the families of the Los
Angeles, parents of a Los Angeles family, that's 136 hours they
could be spending time with their kids or volunteering at a
neighborhood charity or many other worthwhile endeavors or
frankly, something they may want to do just to help themselves,
take a class, read a book, relax. The only good that comes out
of it, I guess you might say the oil companies make some
profit, because they're burning oil. The fuel, the fuel that's
lost is enormous in those periods.
But I also wanted to make the point that we are trying our
best to reduce congestion. We have a lot of Californians that
are using other forms of transportation. Public transit carries
over 1.2 billion passengers a year. I would say that when we
realize that our population is going to go up to 50 million
people from 35 million in the year 2020, we have a lot of work
to do to keep people going in transit, but also to keep up with
the highway needs.
I'll also make a quick point that 40 percent of our
Nation's imported goods come through California ports. I know
many of you have visited those ports. Again, there's terrible
local congestion around those ports. We really need to look at
those ports and move the goods through. Because what happens
is, Mr. Chairman, it affects people in your State and all over
when they have to add on more costs and it means more expensive
goods to our people.
So we have issues and I know that our Chair is very much in
favor of doing the most that we can. I want to add my voice to
that and do whatever I can to help get a good bill through. I
know, Ms. Peters, that you are going to do your best within the
constraints you are given. But I hope that you will become an
advocate. Because when we authorized TEA-21, it was after
careful consideration, and by the way, quite bipartisan, one of
the areas where it's quite bipartisan. We can't have a
circumstance where we're not going to get the funding we need
today until 2007. I hope we can work together to do better.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from
the State of California
Mr. Chairman, good morning. I want to thank you for holding this
hearing today.
With TEA-21 expiring this year, the President's Federal Highway
Administration fiscal year 04 budget is a glimpse into the
Administration's reauthorization proposal, which the Administration
says is on its way. But, if this budget accurately reflects the TEA-21
proposal, it is not even close to adequate.
TEA-21 authorized $31.8 billion for fiscal year 03. Yet, the
Administration's budget does not ask for that level of funding until
fiscal year 2007. For the 4 years in between, it will be less money for
our states.
For my state of California, this funding is desperately needed. Our
economy and our transportation system need the help.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute, Los Angeles and
the San Francisco-Oakland region are ranked No. 1 and 2 for the worst
roadway congestion in this country. California has two more cities in
the top five with San Jose ranked four and San Diego ranked five. The
Inland Empire of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties is ranked 12 and
Sacramento is ranked 13.
What does this congestion translate to? [Indicate table--Shown at
end of statement] Delays--in the Los Angeles area: 136 hours per year,
on average per driver, in peak hours. San Francisco-Oakland drivers put
up with 92 hours of delays, and San Jose drivers endure 74 hours of
delays. Inland Empire drivers are delayed by 64 hours, and San Diego
drivers are delayed by 51 hours a year.
What it really means--outside of the aggravation that Californians
face sitting for these long hours in traffic is that in Los Angeles
parents don't get to spend an additional 136 hours with their children.
Congestion is expensive. The total cost of traffic congestion in
California was $21.7 billion in lost time and fuel in 2000.
Congestion will not get better over time. California's population
is expected to increase from 35 million people today to 50 million
people by 2020. We need to make great strides in our transportation
system.
Californians are trying to reduce congestion. More Californians are
using alternative forms of transportation. Public transit carries over
1.2 billion passengers a year in California.
Transit ridership is up in California. The number of miles traveled
annually by transit passengers grew by 20 percent between 1997 and
2001. The number of annual passenger trips was up 14 percent. In the
San Francisco Bay Bridge corridor, 38 percent of all trips are on
transit. Thirty percent of all trips into central Los Angeles are on
transit.
At the same time, we need to get them assistance to relieve
congestion. But, our congestion also stems from goods movement, which
is not just a California problem.
Forty percent of all the nation's imported goods come through
California ports. Thirty-five percent enter through the ports of LA--
Long Beach. Many of the goods that are shipped by truck leave Los
Angeles and go through Riverside and San Bernardino counties. This
causes terrible local congestion. At the same time, this impacts the
rest of the country by adding to the price of all of the goods that
come from the port.
In TEA-21 reauthorization, we need to have a substantial program to
solve the grade crossing problem and the number of trucks that drive
from our ports through the state to the rest of the country.
Mr. Chairman, the Administration's budget shows us that we, as a
subcommittee, have a lot of work this year.
Thank you.
______
The Number of Hours People Waste Sitting in Traffic*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Per person over a year during peak times. Source: Texas
Transportation Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles: 136
San Francisco-Oakland: 92
San Jose: 74
Inland Empire (San Bernardino/Riverside Counties): 64
San Diego: 51
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.
With that, finally, Ms. Peters, we're ready for your
presentation. I know it's not a great introduction, but we do
appreciate your being here and we do look forward to working
with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify
today in support of President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget
request for the Federal Highway Administration. It's a budget
that provides the foundation for the Administration's
reauthorization proposal for surface transportation programs.
I will briefly summarize my written statement and ask that
you enter the full written statement in the record.
Senator Bond. Without objection, it will be so entered.
Ms. Peters. Thank you, Senator.
Funding levels in the 2004 budget reflect the difficult
choices that are facing the Administration as President Bush
seeks to balance domestic needs and international
responsibilities, as well as homeland security. The requested
$29.3 billion obligation limitation establishes a prudent basis
for a sustainable highway program, provides for responsible
program increases over a 6-year reauthorization period, and
continues the traditional linkage of highway spending and
Highway Trust Fund revenues. The President's 6-year
reauthorization proposal outlined in the 2004 budget provides
an overall increase of 19 percent above the 6 years of record
level investment under TEA-21.
In developing the proposal and the budget, Secretary Mineta
urged all of us at the Department to focus on one profoundly
important goal: saving lives. As was mentioned earlier, more
than 42,000 people are killed annually in traffic accidents.
That's 115 people each day. Another sad fact about this is that
more than 30 of those people who die each day are under the age
of 25.
We have worked very closely with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, our Motor Carrier Administration
and the Rail Administration to design a Federal safety program
that is comprehensive and complementary and that can build on
existing State programs. The President's budget would make a
meaningful investment in this comprehensive safety program. We
will work with State and local authorities to invest the
Federal dollars where they have determined the greater needs
are, and where there is the greatest potential for reducing
crashes.
To improve both safety and mobility, we will be working
with the States for more efficient project delivery, improved
system performance and increased program accountability. By
simplifying and consolidating programs and through increased
flexibility for the States, we will provide transportation
programs that operate more efficiently and are easier to
implement.
The President's budget also proposes a new program, $1
billion each year for the Infrastructure Performance and
Maintenance Program. This program will quickly address
congestion, traffic bottlenecks and pavement conditions. We
build on TEA-21 and maintain guaranteed funding, budgetary
firewalls and RABA adjustments to link highway spending to
Highway Trust Fund receipts. We do anticipate in our
reauthorization proposal proposing a modification to RABA to
smooth out the peaks and valleys, as was mentioned earlier.
State and local governments need the certainty and the
predictability of transportation funding that these mechanisms
will provide and allow them to build long range programs. To
increase revenues more than $600 million a year, the budget
proposes that all gasohol taxes be deposited into the Highway
Trust Fund. An additional $1 billion per year in obligation
authority, above the estimated receipts of the Trust Fund,
would also be made available to the program I mentioned
earlier. This would set spending at a level that keeps the
Highway Trust Fund balance relatively constant during the
reauthorization period and sufficient to meet program outlays.
We believe this is a prudent course for this Nation at this
time.
We will continue to encourage States to employ innovative
financing tools to better leverage the Federal funds and
encourage more private sector investment in infrastructure.
Innovative financing has proven especially useful to advance
intermodal projects that are so important for the efficient
movement of freight.
Stewardship requires that we ensure the Nation's resources
are used wisely to solve our Nation's transportation problems.
FHWA will continue to work with States to better integrate
planning, environmental review, and project delivery, and to
emphasize program level and major project oversight and
accountability. We will continue to focus on streamlining
delivery of transportation projects to improve safety and ease
congestion, balancing that with the need to improve communities
and protect the environment.
Within today's constrained budget environment, President
Bush's 2004 budget request makes a substantial commitment to
ensuring a safe and efficient transportation system, and
provides the basis for a program that can be sustained and
expanded over the 6-year authorizing period.
Mr. Chairman and members, thank you so much for the
opportunity to testify before you today, and I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Ms. Peters.
We've been joined by the ranking member of the
subcommittee, who was out partying late last night at the big
Capitol sleepover. Senator Reid, you have many important
responsibilities. We appreciate your being here.
Do you have an opening statement that you wish to----
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. I do, Mr. Chairman, but I don't think it's
fair for me to come in late. I appreciate the opportunity to
see again our friend from Arizona. But indicate, my only point
is, we need more money. You bring a tough message here for us.
I know you've got a job to do with the Administration, as much
you can do about it. But we really need more money, and you
have to take this message back. This is not a partisan issue.
This is an issue that we all feel strongly about. Anything you
can do to help us in that regard, you should.
I ask unanimous consent that my statement be made part of
the record.
Senator Bond. Without objection, thank you very much,
Senator Reid.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada
Good morning. I want to extend a special welcome to Administrator
Peters and thank her for joining us this morning.
I also want to extend her my sympathies for once again being sent
here to defend a budget proposal that grossly underfunds the nation's
surface transportation needs.
One year ago, we sat in this same room to discuss the President's
proposed 27 percent cut in fiscal year 2003 highway funding.
Today we are here to discuss yet another proposed cut in highway
funding for fiscal year 2004, the first year in the Administration's 6-
year reauthorization proposal. This is unacceptable.
Last year the Administration hid behind RABA, this year there is no
excuse.
The Administration proposes a fiscal year 2004 funding level of
$29.3 billion. This is over $2 billion below the fiscal year 2003
enacted level.
Despite the Administration's rhetoric, this budget request does not
provide an adequate foundation for any reauthorization proposal of the
nation's surface transportation program.
Unfortunately, the proposal does not improve in the out years.
Under the current Administration proposal, the highway program funding
level would not reach the current fiscal year's program level until
2007, and then only with a modest increase.
The President's proposed funding level for fiscal year 2009, the
last year of the reauthorization proposal, is $34 billion.
The most recent Federal Highway Administration Conditions and
Performance report estimates Federal investment necessary just to
maintain our highway infrastructure will be at least $34 billion per
year. Given that report, I think any responsible, adequate
reauthorization proposal should start with a fiscal year 2004 funding
level of at least $34 billion.
I have heard countless times that this budget represents a
balancing of priorities. Sadly, it appears this President has shifted
the balance in favor of tax cuts we cannot afford and to the detriment
of highways and other domestic priorities. The American people deserve
better.
I cannot understand, given the current state of our economy, why we
would want to cut highway spending. For every $1 billion of
infrastructure spending we create over 42,000 well-paid private sector
jobs.
Administrator Peters, I applaud your efforts to place additional
emphasis on the national problems of safety and congestion. While the
rate of roadway fatalities continues to decrease, we are still losing
far too many lives on our nation's roadways, a disproportionate share
of those fatalities on rural roads.
In addition to the personal tragedy associated with traffic
accidents, accidents cost an estimated $137 billion per year in
property loses, loses in market productivity, and medical costs. We can
and must do better.
Additionally, congestion continues to plague our nation's urban
centers. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates this year
residents in the top 75 metropolitan areas will lose more than 3.6
billion hours due to traffic congestion and $67 billion in wasted time
and fuel.
In Nevada, the fastest growing state in the union, we are working
to address congestion problems in innovative ways.
In conclusion, I look forward to working with Senator Bond and my
other EPW colleagues and with you, Administrator Peters, to craft a
reauthorization proposal that adequately maintains and improves our
nation's surface transportation system.
I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Senator Bond. Administrator Peters, when can we expect to
get the Administration's proposal for reauthorization?
Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, we are working very hard to get
that proposal cleared through the administrative review
process, and hope to get it to you very soon.
Senator Bond. Thank you. We've heard various figures from
FHWA regarding the Highway Trust Fund balance estimates. At the
time of the budget release, FHWA assumed $17.1 billion in
balances at the end of the next reauthorization period in 2009.
We're now hearing a revised estimate of $14.5 billion. Can you
tell us what the actual number is, why it keeps changing, and
also why there is a minimum balance? There's an $8 billion
balance required under TEA-21. From the people who have worked
on it, they tell me that they don't think that you need to have
that much of a balance. So I'd like to know what you project
the balance to be, and what is the minimum you think it must
be.
Ms. Peters. I will address those questions, and thank you.
At the end of fiscal year 2002, the cash balance in the highway
account of the Highway Trust Fund was just over $16 billion. If
we look at the proposed period of reauthorization and what the
budget would be, what the balance would be, rather, under the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget, the highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund is anticipated to drop from approximately
$16 million at the onset of the period to $14 million at the
end of 2009.
Senator Bond. You're saying billion, aren't you, with a B?
Ms. Peters. I'm sorry, yes.
Senator Bond. We're in Washington, here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. If you're talking millions, nobody pays
attention.
Ms. Peters. I'm sorry, sir.
Senator Bond. That's all right. Now everybody's listening.
Ms. Peters. In terms of a minimum balance in the account,
sir, we believe that approximately $8 billion is an appropriate
balance in the account. I have to tell you that that is not
based on science, it's based on a level where it reflects
approximately one quarter of a year's deposits into the Highway
Trust Fund. It's a figure that was arrived at in the past
working with the committees in Congress.
Senator Bond. I talked with a man who apparently came up
with that SWAG figure, and his latest guess is that it's about
$3 billion. We need to work with you on that. Why do you
project the balance going down to $14 billion in 2009?
Ms. Peters. Actually, we believe if we take into account
the fiscal year 2003 appropriations level, the level that was
just passed as you all mentioned earlier, the highway account
balance will actually drop to about $10 billion by the year
2009. The $14 billion figure was based on the President's
budget proposal prior to the passage of the 2003 Budget Act.
We believe that will happen because we will spend down the
balance, not only through the program that I outlined just a
few moments ago, the additional $1 billion a year, but also the
inflation rate of the account and expenditures out of the
account during that period of time.
Senator Bond. We'll work with you on that.
My understanding that the conditions and performance levels
cited in the report as a benchmark are based on fiscal year
2000 data and that the total investment levels are expressed in
2000 year dollars. Is that correct?
Ms. Peters. That's correct, sir.
Senator Bond. It's one of my understandings also the key
assumption is that the rate of traffic growth in the country
will actually decrease over the next 6 years, growing at a rate
of only 2.01 percent, rather than the range of 2.5 percent,
which has been the case. Is that correct?
Ms. Peters. Sir, I want to look at my staff to make sure
I'm getting the numbers exactly accurate. That is correct.
We have seen much more substantial growth in the past few
years. We see that leveling off a bit in the future, not
decreasing, but leveling off.
Senator Bond. If the committee were to assume that annual
inflation will run at the next 6 years at the level suggested
in the President's budget, apply those increases plus actual
inflation increases since 2000 to the investment requirement
number cited in the condition and performance report, if we
were to assume the Federal share of capital investment remains
at about 43 percent each year of the reauthorization, I believe
you'd come up with a Federal capital investment requirement for
highways and bridges that must average about $45 billion per
year over the next 6 years just to maintain the safety we had
in year 2000, the traffic congestion and fiscal conditions of
the system. That wouldn't do anything to get rid of the
backlog. Is that a reasonable ball park number based on those
assumptions?
Ms. Peters. It is, sir.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much. That answers my
questions, and I want to jump out of order and ask the ranking
member on the committee, since we didn't hear his opening
statements, to let him have first round of questions.
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to butt
in here.
One question I'd like you to comment on, it's somewhat
involving Arizona and Nevada, but what do you see as the future
of the Boulder Dam, I'm sorry, the new bridge over the river,
the Colorado River?
Ms. Peters. Sir, again, we do see that being built. I
certainly share the goal of getting that built. In fact, we're
meeting later today with officials from Nevada, the DOT and
Arizona DOT to talk about the provisions that were in the 2003
Appropriations Act and to look at some of the financing
mechanisms that might be available to that bridge. It is an
important link.
Senator Reid. I think, Madam Administrator, this is an
example of how we're going to have to look at new ways of
financing projects. This is a huge project. This was authorized
when Bob Broadbent was head of the Bureau of Reclamation in the
early 1980's, and we still haven't done anything about it.
As you know, traffic backs up there for miles and miles.
It's not a problem just involving Arizona and Nevada. It's a
problem that involves the whole country. Because commerce is
stopped. I do believe that we should use this as a model to see
what we can do to come up with financing that is not anything
that is going to cost the Government any money, but a way of
getting projects built and keep budget constraints as they
should be.
I know that there's Nevada people back here, and I hope
that you work with them and the Arizona officials to come up
with a program there. Just for those of you who simply are not
aware of what I'm talking about, the dam, Boulder Hoover Dam
was built, as we know, and completed in the early 1930's. The
bridge over the river comes right across the top of the dam. It
is terribly prone to a terrorism attack, an accident. With 9-
11, truck and bus traffic has been stopped over this and it has
caused huge amounts of additional cost to haul commerce now in
that part of the country.
In addition to that, since the early 1930's, people are
traveling a lot more. I'm not joking when I say traffic can be
backed up for 15 or 20 miles trying to get over that river. So
we have authorized a new bridge to go over the river. We have
appropriated a little bit of money, but keep in mind that the
burdens upon Arizona and Nevada are tremendous, because this is
very, very difficult, mountain terrain to get to the river.
The States of Arizona and Nevada have been burdened with
trying to figure out a way to pay for their entrances to the
bridge. The bridge alone is going to cost $300 million to $400
million, just the bridge itself over the river. It's a problem
that we've had for decades there, and I hope that with your
experience in Arizona, you'll be able to do some good things
there.
Mr. Chairman, I came late and I don't want to take other
people's time. I have a number of important questions. I would
ask permission to submit these for the record and have the
Administrator answer these within the next 2 weeks.
Senator Bond. We'll be happy to submit them, and thank you
very much, Senator Reid. I'm looking forward to working with
you on this. I know you have heavy responsibilities on the
floor. But we'll find the time when we can work on this.
Now, the one who is also the earliest bird, the Senator
from Ohio. He has a particular smile. Did you just get some
good news, Senator?
Senator Voinovich. Yes, I just found out about 5 minutes
ago that I have a new granddaughter.
Senator Bond. Congratulations.
[Applause.]
Senator Voinovich. No name yet----
Senator Boxer. I thought the name was Kit.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. Eight pounds, 13 ounces. Big baby.
Senator Bond. Mom doing well?
Senator Voinovich. Yes.
Senator Bond. Congratulations.
Senator Voinovich. I'd like to start out with kind of a
provincial question. Bring that picture back here. First of
all, I'd like to thank the Department for the wonderful
cooperation that we've had on the bridge over the Maumee River.
Senator Reid. You've been hanging around Kent Conrad too
long. Visual aids.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to request that you convene
a meeting fairly soon with the two Senators from Ohio and the
two Senators from Kentucky to talk about some common sense way
that we can approach this challenge. Because this bridge is not
only important to Kentucky and Ohio, but it's a major bridge on
I-75, 71.
If we don't do this thing right, down the road we're going
to have some very, very severe problems. I've always found that
if you get started early enough and develop a plan that you'll
be able to be successful. So I would urge you to do that.
Ms. Peters. We will do so.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Second of all, I'm not going to ask you to explain this
here, because it would take you probably, or maybe you couldn't
explain it. But all of us are puzzled about how our estimates
of what was in the Highway Trust Funds were so far off. Then we
got the news, I did from Mitch Daniels about the fact that the
money wasn't there. I'd like to have somebody explain what
happened and how you intend to remedy the situation, so we
don't end up with the same kind of situation that we had last
year.
Second of all, and I will ask this question, I want to
compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You're talking
about an increase in funding. The issue is, is it increase in
funding over what TEA-21 provided or is it an increase, and
what does it look like in terms of the appropriation that we
had, the recent appropriation that we passed, I think it was 31
point something or the other. My gut is that your percentage
increase is over what TEA-21 provided, rather than this most
recent appropriation that we had in the Omnibus Appropriations
bill. Could you comment on that?
Ms. Peters. Senator, that is accurate. The comparison I
made was with what TEA-21 provided, over the life of TEA-21,
versus what's been proposed in the President's budget. As to
the balance in the Highway Trust Fund, sir, we would be happy
to work with you and your staff and provide more documentation,
more background in terms of what the actual balance is in the
Trust Fund, both currently and what it's projected to be.
But, I do assure you that the Administration's proposal
proposes that every dollar that goes into the highway account
of the Highway Trust Fund----
Senator Voinovich. I understand that. But the fact is that
the increase is, isn't it over the TEA-21 number rather than
the last number that we passed in the Omnibus Appropriations
bill?
Ms. Peters. That's correct.
Senator Voinovich. So if you take that bill, it's a lot
less of an increase than what you talk about here in your
testimony.
Ms. Peters. Again, we were looking at the guaranteed level
of funding under TEA-21 with the RABA adjustment. So that's
what we were looking at, versus the most recent budget. Yes,
sir.
Senator Voinovich. Isn't it true, again, I have a tough
time figuring out what the balance, in the trust fund, there
isn't any money in the trust fund. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Peters. There are obligations against the money.
Senator Voinovich. Obligations. But there is no money, and
there is no such thing as, there's no money in the trust fund.
It's a piece of paper that says we have this amount of money in
the trust fund. But there's no money in it. If we were going to
take the money out of it right now to do anything, it's money
that we would have to borrow. Because we're in a deficit
position in terms of the Federal budget. Is that correct?
Ms. Peters. Correct.
Senator Voinovich. I think that to be realistic, you know
and so do the people that work with you closely, that we don't
have enough money. I'd like to, and if you feel comfortable,
have you raised the issue that, with the burden that we have, I
gave you the statistics, $109 billion a year and $79 billion
for maintenance that we're just so far off from what we can do
that we do need more money.
How do you answer that question? I know you're in a
difficult position. But let's get real. We have this terrific
challenge and if you really look at this, it's really not even
in the real world. How are you going to deal with that?
Ms. Peters. Senator, I reconcile it by saying this, that we
do have a Highway Trust Fund and we do have some very important
legislation that has been enacted in the past. The President's
bill, the President's proposal, rather, budget proposal,
adheres to the principle that moneys that go into the Highway
Trust Fund, particularly into the highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund, should then go back out and be spent. So,
it's all determined, then, by how much money we expect will go
into that account over the life of the next authorization
period and what we can afford to spend from that account, using
current funding mechanisms and with the addition, as I
mentioned, of the----
Senator Voinovich. I understand that. But you know and I
know and everyone at this table knows that that's not enough
money. The Administration says, we wouldn't support any
increase in revenue. Now that's again not realistic. In
addition to that, we have numerous construction jobs all over
this country today. I hope this economy gets better, but we may
be back to a public works program. I'm taking too much of your
time. But has anybody ever sat down and figured, if you pumped
in another $10 billion or so into all these projects that are
all over the country the impact that it would have on the
economy and jobs? Has anybody asked you that question ever?
Ms. Peters. Sir, no one has----
Senator Bond. Senator, we'll take that as a rhetorical
question. I think that was a powerful statement. Let me turn to
Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Jeffords. I commend the Administration on its stand
on making safety its No. 1 priority. Secretary Mineta, like his
predecessors, has worked to focus the Transportation Department
on improving operations and reducing the number of lives lost
on our roadways. While the fatality rates overall keep going
down overall, I am alarmed by the increase of fatalities in the
rural areas. In my mostly rural State, Vermonters mostly travel
rural, two-lane roadways as part of the routine, part of their
lives.
I would like to see resources that can be used by State and
local officials to address the real safety problems on the
rural roads of America. Will the Administration's proposal
assist in improving safety on these roadways?
Ms. Peters. Senator Jeffords, yes, we will. What we are
looking at in terms of where we want to spend the money in the
safety program is to work with States to determine where the
greatest need is, where the most crashes are occurring. As you
said, in largely rural States, many of those crashes are
occurring on rural, two-lane sections of road. We will work
with States to make improvements where they can get the best
benefit from the investment of funds.
We're also working with our National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to consolidate some of the funds so that States
have more flexibility to spend that money where they can make,
again, the biggest difference with it.
As I've talked with Dr. Runge at NHTSA, about some of the
problems that we're facing, this two-lane rural problem aside,
we're hitting up against some hard core folks who just simply
won't wear their seat belts. We believe that there's tremendous
potential for saving lives if we can just get more people to
buckle up. In fact, we believe that we could save as many as
9,000 lives a year by that simple act.
So, we're looking at safety from a very comprehensive
standpoint. But I do recognize your point, and the point that
was made by several other members of this panel as well, that
rural two-lane sections of road do have the highest incident
rate.
Senator Jeffords. Despite the record level of investment
that TEA-21 has not been able to keep pace with the growing
demand for transportation, the performance of our
transportation system is rapidly eroding. It is easy to see
what congestion is doing to our lives. The average rush hours
in most community averages 5.3 hours, and 7 to 8 hours a day in
larger communities.
In the year 2000, a trip that would take 20 minutes during
non-peak hours would require 30 minutes if taken during peak
hours. These longer trips weigh on our Nation's productivity
and reduce our quality of life. I would like to see the next
bill target resources toward fighting congestion. What does the
Administration propose to address this congestion problem?
Ms. Peters. Senator, again, I think you make a very
excellent point. In fact, when I first had the opportunity to
come to the Federal Highway Administration, I asked that we
focus our efforts on three priority areas. We certainly share
the position that congestion is one of those.
Safety and environmental stewardship are the other two
areas that I have focused on. We're working on a number of
fronts to try to relieve congestion, working with our State and
local partners, understanding the types of congestion that
we're dealing with, whether it's recurring congestion or it's
spot congestion. Recurring congestion is most often just a
capacity issue, there isn't enough capacity. Non-recurrent
congestion, however, occurs because there are crashes, there
are breakdowns in the roadway system where we have to take it
out of service, or it's under construction.
Some of our efforts include: programs to get longer-life
pavement so we don't have to go in as frequently; incident
management systems so we can clear incidents more quickly, and
get the roads back into working order; and using technology to
help us improve the throughput of our transportation systems.
We have a very active effort in working with other State and
local governments to improve congestion.
Senator Jeffords. To date, 86 percent of our highways
provide an acceptable ride quality, according to U.S. DOT,
compared to 82 percent in 1993. The percent of deficient
bridges dropped from 33 percent in 1994 to 28 percent today.
These numbers show that with the proper investment levels, we
can improve the condition of our transportation system. I am
concerned that all the gains we are beginning to see in the
condition of the transportation system may fall back under
current budget proposals.
Help me understand how the Administration's budget will
keep pace with the needs of our aging infrastructure with fewer
resources available.
Ms. Peters. Sir, I think the way the Administration's
budget can help us do that is to help us invest our money as
wisely as we can. I'd like to clarify a couple of things about
the condition and performance report. First of all, it's based
on scenarios. It wasn't meant to be, as I said, a
recommendation. It is a very good report and I'm very pleased
with the report, but it was based on several scenarios. It
reflects, as was mentioned earlier by Senator Bond, the level
of investment by all Government: Federal Government, State
government and local government. The report does not predict or
state at what level Federal, State and local should invest.
We certainly recognize that there are constraints on the
Federal budget, as well as significant constraints on local
budgets and State budgets as well. The cost to maintain and the
cost to improve were based on scenarios and based over a long
period of time. The report doesn't lend itself to year-to-year
comparisons.
Further, and I think probably among the most important
things that I would talk about today, the C&P report doesn't
consider competing demands in an economy. It says that if we
had the money to spend to improve or to maintain a system to
certain levels over a 20-year period of time, that would be the
amounts we would spend. But again, it does not envision
competing demands for funds, competing demands such as fighting
the war on terrorism, competing demands such as protecting our
homeland. Those are other issues that this Administration is
having to work out within the context of the budget.
Senator Jeffords. Transportation is one of the great
drivers of our Nation's economy. Nearly 7 million businesses
rely upon the U.S. transportation network to conduct business
and engage in interstate commerce, etc. Transportation is a
significant share of the U.S. gross domestic product. As we try
to stimulate the economy, we have to ensure the means of
conducting business. We need to expand freight capacity.
How does the budget advance the effort to expand freight
capacity?
Ms. Peters. We have a number of efforts within the budget,
and more that we will be able to reveal to you, when we get our
reauthorization proposal over here, soon in terms of dealing
with those issues.
As Senator Boxer mentioned as well, when you have
intermodal connectors, when you have ports, either water ports
or land ports, and intermodal facilities, those are areas where
we're really seeing chokepoints on our system right now. As has
been mentioned, this adds to the cost of goods and it has a
detrimental effect on our economy.
So, we will be focusing some very specific efforts on
freight and freight connectors in our reauthorization proposal.
We have continued the funding for our ports of entry, our land
ports of entry, our connections with Mexico and to try to make
Canada improvements in those areas. But, we do recognize it as
an area that hasn't achieved as much attention in the past as
it should. It will be an area that we will emphasize even
further, both within the context of how we apply the budget and
again within our reauthorization proposal.
Senator Jeffords. I have one more question. In your
testimony, you highlighted the role of the congestion
mitigation and air quality program, CMAQ, in advancing projects
that reduce emissions. How does your proposal for fiscal year
2004 treat this program? I'm concerned that you may be
proposing to reduce CMAQ funding.
Ms. Peters. Sir, we do recognize the importance of CMAQ
funding, and I know you and I have had an opportunity to talk
about this several times. I would ask that you reserve judgment
until our reauthorization proposal is here and we look at the
funding over time.
We have made a very strong effort to maintain the funding
of our core programs over the 6-year period of the
reauthorization. When we are able to get more details to you, I
believe you will see we have maintained that commitment.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Jeffords. We in
Missouri are very jealous of that 82 or 86 percent figure of
good condition highways, because our highway conditions are
rated 59 percent poor or inadequate. So we're at about half the
level nationally of acceptable roads.
But that's for another day. Turning now to questions from
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Peters, you said a couple of times, and I know it's
very heartfelt, that there are other priorities, such as
homeland security, that are basically taking money away from
this. Mr. Chairman, I can make a very easy argument that having
a good highway system is part of protecting our homeland.
Because the first thing they tell you is, you may have to
evacuate, you may have to get out. If you're sitting on a road
and you can't move, because normally it's so congested, I would
argue that to be able to move on our highways is something that
you could say should fit into a homeland security plan.
I would also say that the Golden Gate Bridge, using it as
an example, has been cited as a terrorist target. With the help
of our State, our local people and Tom Ridge has spent a lot of
time, though not money yet, talking about the best ways to
protect this landmark, it seems to me an irony that a lot of
the bridges in California that are targeted right now that have
Coast Guard around them and the rest are not seismically
retrofitted. I know years ago we amended our laws so that
seismic retrofit and other hazards fit into the bridge program.
So when my colleagues are working on the bridge program,
I'd like to work closely with you on this. Because we're
getting just a trickle of funding for the Golden Gate Bridge
retrofit. We need to do better than that.
I was interested, Senator Bond, to learn that Missouri got
the first contract under the 1956 interstate----
Senator Bond. I-70 through St. Charles and it is something
that would bring to mind the traffic jams in Los Angeles if you
try to travel it now, as I do, twice a week. So we're very
proud of it, but time to do something.
Senator Boxer. Right. I was going to lead into that by
saying that as I looked at the top 85 cities out of the
thousands of cities that we have, and I'm mentioning this to
you, Ms. Peters, because you're going to see a lot of us have
very intense interests. Because as it turns out, the members of
this committee, many of us, our cities are on this list. Just
to give you some idea, we've got several cities in Missouri,
we've got several cities in Portland, in Florida, Las Vegas is
on the list, Oklahoma is on the list with two cities. New York
is on this list with several cities, Oregon with several
cities, Providence is on the list. Even Anchorage, AK is on the
list. Vermont I didn't see. But it says, soon will be on the
list----
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. So bottom line is, there's a personal, I
mean, as Senator Bond pointed out, he knows it first hand, I
know it first hand, when I'm trying to go some place in Los
Angeles. When I ask my staff, how long will it take us to get
there, they say anywhere between 15 minutes and 1 hour and 15
minutes, something is wrong.
So I'm just making rhetorical comments here. But I want to
support what Senator Voinovich said. It was alluded to by
Senator Thomas. We all know the economy's got problems,
everyone's got different ways to stimulate the economy. The
President's idea is tax cuts. He feels that's going to do it.
But I would respectfully say, and his $600-plus billion tax
cut plus add on interest on the debt, it comes perhaps to about
a trillion, there's got to be $10 billion to meet this terrible
need that we have. I would say going back to the founding of
the program, when you read a little history, it's interesting,
President Eisenhower first saw the need for an interstate
system in 1919.
But then he went--oh, listen, he participated then in the
U.S. Army's first transcontinental motor convoy, which took 62
days to get from Washington, DC. to San Francisco. Sixty-two
days to go across the country. He got very interested in this
after World War II, when he became President. This was his
landmark, one of his landmarks. He also did the National
Defense Education Act, which I think was one of the greatest
visions of any President.
But the bottom line here is, it took them 62 days. I don't
want to see it start to take a long time to go across the
country or within a State, because of congestion. We need to do
more. We just can't rest on our laurels that our forefathers
and mothers were so adept at addressing.
The last point I make, it's confusing about the money, and
I want to make sure I've got it straight. So if you'll bear
with me and tell me if you think this is accurate. In 2002 and
2003, the appropriators, all of us appropriated $31.8 billion
for this purpose. In 2003, as you well remember, we had to add
some money to it in the end in the omnibus. So it was flat
funded between 2002 and 2003, and in 2004 you're suggesting
$29.3 billion. In 2005, $30.3 billion, and in 2006, $31.3
billion. So you're still below, without even adding inflation
for that period, you're below where we are today. Am I correct
in that?
Ms. Peters. Senator Boxer, yes, you are correct.
Senator Boxer. OK. I just wanted to make sure, because I
believe it's unrealistic. I agree that you couldn't have a
better stimulus than building the roads. It's a stimulus not
only immediately for the people who go to work and the effect
of that and the businesses that will supply all the equipment
and everything we need to build the road. But it's also going
to move the traffic, it's going to address the ports and the
rest.
So I just think we're, I hope we're going to have strong
bipartisan help. I hope you will make the case, as you talk to
folks at OMB and to the President and the folks who make these
budgetary decisions, I hope you'll let them know how strongly
many of us feel on both sides of the aisle that this is an area
that's a stimulus for our economy, a necessity, and it's a
bipartisan, I think, strong support. It's the strongest support
I've seen in a while around here. We've been pretty divided,
but I think we're pretty united on this.
Will you let them know we feel this way?
Ms. Peters. Senator Boxer, I certainly will, and Mr.
Chairman and others, I will carry the message back. I would
like to add that what the Administration has tried to do,
again, as we acknowledge, between competing demands, is hold
true to the principles of the Highway Trust Fund, and that the
money that goes into the Trust Fund will be spent out of the
Trust Fund. It is true that that money, our projections of the
money that will go into the Trust Fund over the coming years
and then what would be spent out of the Trust Fund is lower
than the 2003 appropriations level.
But it's also important that we look at the sanctity of the
Trust Fund, the balance of the Trust Fund and what the Trust
Fund will allow us to afford within existing funding
mechanisms, and again, adding the 2.5 cents in. This
Administration does not feel that this is the appropriate time
to raise taxes. So we have not proposed raising taxes. But we
have adhered very closely to the principles in the Fund.
But I hear and understand your concerns, your collective
concerns.
Senator Boxer. How is it the President's cutting taxes and
I think one thing I think about is doing a little better mix.
They call it an economic growth package. This could be part of
that. I don't think it's going to hurt the top 1 percent to get
a little less of a tax cut. It's a different philosophical view
from even my colleagues here.
Last point I'd make, you've also said sanctity of the Trust
Fund a number of times. Think about the whole purpose of the
Highway Trust Fund, in addition to the sanctity of The Fund.
There's really the idea that was brought here by a Republican
president that we've got to keep people moving.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.
Senator Voinovich. I'm just going to drive this home again.
According to your statistics, FHWA's 2000 conditions
performance, the average annual investment level needed to make
improvements to highways and bridges is projected to be $106.9
billion per year. Statistics are that to just do the
maintenance, maintain the current condition, and performance is
another $75.9 billion each year through 2020.
The question I have is, What does the Administration intend
to do about this, or are they just going to abdicate any
leadership role and leave it up to us to decide what we need to
do in order to meet this challenge that we have for our
country?
Ms. Peters. Senator, you make a very good point. Several of
the things that the Conditions and Performance Report tells us
are that we have invested wisely in the past and that the money
that was invested as a result of TEA-21 has resulted in an
overall increased performance in our system, rather, improved
condition of our system. It does point out, however, and this
was a point that was made by several of you, that the operating
condition of the system is not going to continue to improve
and, in fact, will deteriorate absent future funding.
That's why we are, within the context of the President's
proposal, sir, focusing money directly at the areas that we
think will make the best difference.
Senator Voinovich. I understand that. But logic tells you,
you're going to the Governor and you're saying to him, ``Here
is what the needs are and here's what we're doing, and yes,
we're spending what's there and we're doing it as wisely as we
can.'' But logic will tell you, it doesn't get the job done.
The question is, Is the Administration going to take any
leadership role in handling the challenge that we have in this
area, based on your own numbers, or are you going to leave it
in the hands of the Congress to come forward and solve the
problem for the Administration?
Ms. Peters. Senator, the Administration believes that we
have put forward a prudent, responsible budget for this time.
Senator Voinovich. I think that it's not adequate to get
the job done. It just defies logic.
The other question I'd like to ask is, the Nation's
transportation system contributes to economic revitalization.
Do you have any idea of how many jobs are provided by $1
billion investment in highway infrastructure?
Ms. Peters. Yes, I do, sir, approximately 47,500 jobs are
created by every billion dollars invested.
Senator Voinovich. So that if we--$10 billion would be
470,000 jobs?
Ms. Peters. That's correct.
Senator Voinovich. That's a lot of jobs. You ought to give
some thought to that. So should the Administration.
Do I still have some time?
Senator Bond. Well, Senator, I've kind of made all of my
points. If you haven't made any, we'd be delighted to hear
those.
Senator Jeffords. I've made all my points.
Senator Bond. If you have any points you haven't made?
Senator Voinovich. Well, I do, if you don't mind.
Senator Bond. Sure, sure.
Senator Voinovich. One of my priorities in another
committee is governmental affairs, and that's in improving the
Federal workforce. I have the oversight of Government
management and Federal workforce. Recently I met with Inspector
General Ken Mead to discuss workforce issues and how getting
the right people in the right jobs would help improve project
delivery and project oversight and management.
I also understand that language was included in the Omnibus
Appropriations Conference Report directing you to prepare and
submit a strategy to Congress by May 15 on how the agency will
improve large management and oversight. I look forward to
working with you on this.
In your testimony you state that FHWA's budget would permit
to hire 12 additional employees dedicated to oversight and
major projects over $1 billion in cost. What will you do to
ensure that you have the right people in there to get the job
done? What steps are you taking to develop a multi-disciplinary
staff at your department as directed by the bill?
Ms. Peters. Senator, I think the recommendation, I know the
recommendation, will be fulfilled in terms of our report to
Congress. We're doing a number of things to ensure that we are
getting the right mix of people and the right number of people
to look at our major project oversight, what we call
megaprojects. We have, as you indicated, requested 12
additional staff. We would like to have at least one staff
person for every major project. Some very large projects, we'd
like to have two people assigned to those projects.
What we forecast, we currently have 14 projects that are
over $1 billion. We expect that number to grow to 20 by 2004
and 30 by 2007. Some of the projects that you all have
mentioned here today are among the important projects,
rebuilding our interstate system in our urbanized areas, major
interchanges between States, things like that.
We completed our stewardship and our oversight policy in
June 2001, and that includes a risk assessment. I've instructed
each of our division administrators, and Federal Highway is
fortunate that we have a division administrator in every State,
to conduct risk assessments with the local State officials on
the megaprojects, on the major projects.
On our oversight and management of the improvement
projects, we put guidance out to our field in October 2001. We
have fully staffed and trained the team as it exists today. We
recognize that that can't be all engineering expertise.
Engineering still is important in our fulfilling our
responsibilities, but understanding complex financial
opportunities to finance these projects, understanding
insurance issues, such as owner-controlled insurance, are all
part of the responsibilities of this team now. It isn't just
about engineering any more at all.
In the report that we will submit to you later this year,
we will detail how we're bringing in that multi-disciplined
cadre of personnel to make sure that we are managing these
projects from a holistic sense, not just from an engineering
sense.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I must say that it's just 12
individuals. But finding those individuals, there are different
kinds of talents and skills that you ordinarily have in the
Department. I make one other suggestion to you. It's my
understanding from talking to Mr. Mead that that there are
several States that are doing a very, very good job in the
oversight of projects, and they've got some very good people.
Perhaps one of the things you could do would be to find the
best practices that are out there and conduct a major seminar
program throughout the country to try and train some of the
local people in terms of what they need and how they deal with
the big picture on some of these projects so that you can
enhance what you're doing here in Washington with some very
good people out there in the States. So often they're more
close to it on an every day basis than anyone you could
possibly hire here in Washington to look over their shoulders.
Ms. Peters. Senator, I think that's an excellent
suggestion. As a former Governor, when someone who had broad-
based responsibilities, you can understand, you can have best
practices in different areas.
I have asked my deputy, Rick Capka, who is retired from 29
years with the Corps of Engineers and has extensive experience,
to take this on as part of his direct portfolio and to report
to me what and how we are doing to ensure that we are bringing
in that proper diversity of experience and that we're
attracting the right people into these positions and looking at
best practices, sharing best practices. He's working very
actively with AASHTO and with Director Stephens from the State
of Nevada and others to try to find out where those best
practices are, bring them in and share those with other States.
I certainly will pass on your guidance to him, sir, and if
you'd like to have a more comprehensive briefing, I will ask my
deputy to come over and sit down and go over the other things
we are doing in this area.
Senator Voinovich. I'd really like that, and I'd also like
to know what impediment you're finding in terms of hiring and
bringing these people on board. I'd also like to know anything
that's standing in the way of your keeping some of your good
people. Because in so many agencies, we've got folks that are
right on the edge of retirement that we can't really afford to
lose, because we need their skills and knowledge and
institutional knowledge.
Ms. Peters. You're very correct, sir. One of the things
that keeps me awake at night is the number of our senior
employees with a lot of experience and institutional knowledge
that will be retirement eligible in the next decade.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich.
As I said, Administrator, we very much appreciate your
coming here. We've heard your arguments I think you've heard
the voices of people representing roughly 50 million Americans
at this table. This is, as I think Senator Thomas said earlier,
a matter of great importance. It doesn't matter whether you're
from the east coast or the Midwest or the west coast or the
Southwest, good highways, roads and bridges are absolutely
essential to our economy.
We do really look forward to working with you. There are
some obvious differences of opinion. But that's what this
system is all about. I think you see a bipartisan, biregional
or omniregional agreement that this is a priority. We look
forward to working with you, and hope that we can make a case
that OMB will understand.
So for the ranking member and the Senator from Ohio, thank
you. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statments submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Mary E. Peters, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of President Bush's Fiscal Year
(FY) 2004 Budget proposal for the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). We are looking forward to working with this subcommittee and
with Congress to achieve the goals outlined in the fiscal year 2004
budget request--a budget request that provides the foundation for the
Administration's reauthorization proposal for surface transportation
programs.
Funding levels in the 2004 budget reflect the difficult choices
currently facing both the Administration and Congress. The President's
budget seeks a balance in addressing domestic needs, meeting our
international responsibilities, and protecting against terrorist
attacks at home. The requested $29.3 billion obligation limitation for
the Federal-aid Highway program establishes a prudent basis for a
sustainable highway program, provides for responsible program increases
over the 6-year reauthorization period, and continues the traditional
linkage of highway spending and trust fund revenues. When the
President's 6-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal
outlined in the fiscal year 2004 budget request--including highways,
highway safety, transit, and motor carrier safety--is compared to the
6-years of record-level investments under the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) for these programs, the proposal reveals
an overall increase of 19 percent.
Transportation is essential to America's security, economic
prosperity, and quality of life, and our highways and freight
connectors are the critical links in the Nation's intermodal
transportation system. With today's global economy, it is more
important than ever to have the infrastructure necessary for seamless
transitions between modes of transportation, so that people and cargo
can move effectively and efficiently. Moreover, highway infrastructure
investment is an excellent investment for the Nation in normal times
and, in a recovering economy, can play an important role in economic
revitalization. The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget request
proposes a responsible and substantial investment in our Federal-aid
Highway Program.
primary goal: safety
While maintaining our high-quality highway network and improving
its operation presents a significant challenge, the greatest challenge
facing the Department of Transportation, and specifically the Federal
Highway Administration, is making our highways safer. On release of the
fiscal year 2004 budget request, Secretary Mineta commended the
substantial resources proposed for transportation safety improvements
and reaffirmed safety as his top priority for transportation. Secretary
Mineta has urged all of us at the Department to focus on a simple but
profoundly important goal: Saving Lives. This has been a key
consideration in developing both the 2004 FHWA budget request and our
reauthorization proposal.
Forty-two thousand people are killed annually in traffic
accidents--that is 115 people killed each and every day, including
about thirty Americans under the age of twenty five. We must, and we
are, finding new opportunities and developing new technologies for
saving lives. We are aggressively advancing the activities and projects
that we already know prevent accidents, and that reduce fatalities when
accidents do happen. For example, thousands of lives could be saved if
every vehicle occupant would only buckle-up. The President's budget
request will make a meaningful investment in a comprehensive safety
program--roadway, driver, and vehicle--to strengthen our partnership
with States and the public for these vital safety efforts.
simpler and smarter programs
Secretary Mineta has further challenged the Department to create
not only a transportation system that is safer for all Americans, but
transportation programs that operate smarter and are simpler to
implement as well. While safety must be a consideration in every
transportation investment, efficient movement of people and goods is
the purpose of our surface transportation system.
At FHWA we will work to achieve a safer surface transportation
system by placing the greatest emphasis on reducing accidents and
saving lives. First and foremost we will be safety advocates. We will
fulfill our mission of improving mobility through more efficient
project delivery. By simplifying and consolidating programs and, in
some areas, through increased flexibility for States, needed safety and
mobility projects can be delivered sooner. By focusing on improved
system performance and increased program accountability, smarter
investments can be made for increasing both safety and mobility.
The FHWA fiscal year 2004 budget request includes the budgetary
foundation for the Administration's proposal to reauthorize the
Federal-aid Highway Program for the next 6 years. I would like now to
highlight for you some of the priority areas in our funding request
and, in the process, share with you some of the principles that guided
our 2004 budget proposal and are central to our reauthorization
proposals as well.
safety
Flexibility. First, while the basic framework for national
transportation systems may be established at the Federal level, we
believe that local problems are best solved at the local level. We will
continue to encourage State and local agencies to adopt a strategic
approach to address highway safety when setting priorities among
projects, and we believe that State and local authorities should have
increased funding flexibility to invest their safety dollars where they
have determined that needs are greatest and there is the greatest
potential for accident and fatality prevention. This is the formula for
smarter program investments, not only in safety but for mobility as
well.
Data Improvement. Because crash data is the foundation for making
better decisions to achieve more cost effective safety improvements, we
will continue to encourage general improvements to State accident data
collection and analysis systems, including a targeted analysis of
causal factors at high-crash locations. Better data will mean smarter
investments and lives saved.
Comprehensive and Collaborative. A comprehensive and collaborative
safety program is a smarter program. FHWA has been working closely with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to ensure that under this budget, and in our
reauthorization proposal, we have designed comprehensive and
complementary Federal safety programs. These collaborative efforts can
translate into consolidated and simpler processes for State and local
agencies to obtain and effectively invest Federal safety funds. These
efforts also provide a way to coordinate successful techniques from all
aspects of safety and have the greatest impact on reducing highway
deaths and injuries.
Infrastructure Investment. Investments for safety cut across
program lines in our budget request. Improvements in system conditions
and operations benefit safety as well as mobility, and States may, and
do, use Surface Transportation (STP), Interstate Maintenance (IM),
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (HBRRP), and National
Highway System (NHS) funding for safety-specific improvements.
Construction programs contribute to safety by improving unsafe roadway
design and operations, improving the condition of bridges, and removing
roadway hazards. Signing and pavement improvements can enhance the
safety of existing and new facilities for all users of the highway
system. Safety can be built into every interchange upgrade,
intersection redesign, or new facility through safety conscious
planning and design.
Research and Technology Investment. Transportation research and
technology is crucial to the future of our highway system. FHWA is
proposing to step-up its investment in transportation research and
technology (R&T) programs for fiscal year 2004, requesting a total of
$404 million. R&T benefits all of our programs, including safety, in a
variety of ways.
Infrastructure R&T is focused on ``the Infrastructure of the
Future''--breakthrough technologies to reduce the need for repairs and
replacement of our highway pavements and bridges. It is a fresh, bold
approach to fulfill the need for a safe, efficient, effective, and
reliable highway infrastructure. The program will emphasize the concept
of ``Get In, Stay In, Get Out, and Stay Out,'' for the development and
deployment of highway infrastructure with significantly improved life
cycle cost, major extensions in life, and substantial extensions of the
maintenance and rehabilitation cycle. The Infrastructure R&T effort
will be concentrated in the technical areas of asset management,
bridges, and pavements to achieve its goal. That goal is to develop and
deploy the tools and technology to reliably produce 50-year performance
pavements, 100-year performance bridges, and a holistic asset
management process for infrastructure investment and re-investment
decisionmaking. The program will include our partners and stakeholders
to provide direction and input throughout the R&T process. Breakthrough
technologies such as pre-fabricated bridges and pavements will be used
to improve highway condition while reducing lane closures and
congestion. Safety, mobility, and user satisfaction will be improved
through development and deployment of better technologies for
durability, smoothness, low noise and safe surface friction levels, and
ability to withstand natural hazards and terrorist threats.
Safety R&T funds will help us identify opportunities for safety
improvements, provide States with tools to better focus their safety
investments, and permit development and deployment of safety
technologies. In fiscal year 2004, FHWA is focusing its safety research
and technology program on three high accident areas:
(1) Roadway departures. Activities to address this problem include
refinement of an Interactive Highway Safety Design model, improvements
for driver visibility, and increased crashworthiness of road and
roadside safety features. Initiatives for fiscal year 2004 include
development of a countermeasure evaluation tool to prevent two-lane
rural road crashes, work to improve the retroreflectivity of pavement
markings and highway signs, and promoting increased installation of
skid-resistant pavements, center-line and edge-line rumble strips, and
improved roadway safety hardware.
(2) Intersections. A comprehensive intersection analysis program
will identify safety problems and opportunities, and implement cost-
effective countermeasures. Initiatives planned for fiscal year 2004
include implementation of the National Intersection Safety Agenda,
deployment of leading-edge traffic signalization technologies and
practices, safety training for State and local personnel, evaluation of
techniques to promote speed reduction at intersections, safety
evaluations of intersection treatments, and refinement of roundabout
designs to enhance safety for all users including pedestrians with
disabilities.
(3) Pedestrians. The FHWA works in cooperation with NHTSA on
developing and evaluating comprehensive countermeasures and appropriate
tools and technology to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians,
including pedestrians with disabilities. Countermeasures and tools
range from integrating pedestrian and bicyclist issues in the planning,
design, operations, and maintenance of roadway facilities, to
implementing key recommendations from our partners and customers.
New initiatives for fiscal year 2004 include automatic pedestrian/
bicyclist counting devices, modeling of decisionmaking at intersection
crossings, and investigation of the implications of reduced vehicular
sound on pedestrians with visual impairments.
In addition, the FHWA conducts a number of safety research projects
which contribute to multiple objectives, including: work on speed
management to encourage wider adoption of safe travel speeds
appropriate for road and travel conditions; safety management to ensure
that resources are allocated to assure maximum returns in reducing the
severity and frequency of crashes; work on human-centered systems to
incorporate human factors considerations into all aspects of highway
design; work zone safety improvements; and a variety of safety outreach
efforts.
Funding requested for the Department's Intelligent Transportation
Systems program will not only advance our core mission of mobility, but
will support technological solutions for safer vehicles, drivers, and
roadways. The 2004 ITS program would continue the Intelligent Vehicle
Initiative and the Commercial Vehicle Operations Program, and continue
the development and implementation of technology for systems
reliability and congestion reduction. Funds requested for the System
Management and Information Program will increase the availability of
real-time information about travel conditions, benefiting both safety
and mobility.
Also funded under R&T, our training and education programs focus on
delivering the skills the transportation community needs for timely
implementation of the many new technologies as they become available.
funding resources
The 2004 budget proposal for highways builds on the successes of
prior legislation and will maintain guaranteed funding, budgetary
firewalls, and Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) adjustments that
link highway spending to Highway Trust Fund receipts. These guarantees
and adjustments will be refined in our legislative proposal, but we
believe the concepts are important to retain to provide State and local
governments with the certainty and predictability in transportation
funding crucial to their programs, and to better align highway spending
with highway use.
To further assure that every dollar collected into the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund during the 6-years covered by the
reauthorization period would be obligated and eventually spent, the
President's Budget for fiscal year 2004 links highway program funding
levels for each year to the current projections of Highway Account
receipts for that same year, rather than the method under TEA-21 which
linked funding to prior year receipts.
The 2004 budget also proposes, to augment Trust Fund receipts, that
all revenue from gasohol taxes be deposited directly in the Highway
Trust Fund, rather than the current practice of diverting 2.5 cents per
gallon to the General Fund. If enacted, this one change would add more
than $600 million of available funding to the Highway Trust Fund for
each year of the authorization cycle. All of this additional funding
would go into the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. This is an
important step toward meeting our Nation's transportation needs during
a period when finding additional resources for highways will test our
ingenuity.
The President's budget request does not propose any new gasoline
taxes.
The President's budget also proposes a new program--the
Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance Program--intended to quickly
address congestion, traffic bottlenecks, and pavement conditions. The
proposal would add an additional $1 billion per year over the 6-year
reauthorization period in obligation authority above estimated
receipts. The President's budget request will have the effect of
spending at a level that keeps the Highway Trust Fund balance
relatively constant and sufficient to meet program outlays. This
proposal has been carefully evaluated and we believe it is prudent and
responsible for the Nation at this time.
We will continue to encourage the States to employ innovative
financing tools for more private sector investment in infrastructure
and to better leverage our Federal transportation dollars. The 2004
budget requests funding to continue the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance Innovation Act program (TIFIA) at the 2003 level. Innovative
financing has proven especially useful to advance the intermodal
projects that are so important for efficient movement of freight.
freight movement
Effective freight transfer networks are crucial to our economy. In
addition to encouraging States to use innovative financing methods and
core program funds to address freight gateway and freight intermodal
connector needs, we will work with other DOT agencies on more effective
planning, improved data, multistate coordination, and infrastructure
and operational improvements for these networks.
Freight movement carries many homeland security ramifications which
must be properly integrated into an overall freight movement network to
avoid adversely impacting operational efficiencies. Some of these
concerns would be addressed with funding requested for ITS research and
deployment. This research will focus on container security and the
development of a ``smart container'' that will reduce the
vulnerabilities that have been previously identified in the supply
chain, and complement other container security initiatives in which the
Department is involved such as Operation Safe Commerce. Joint tests are
being proposed with partnering nations.
Proposed investment of $47 million in fiscal year 2004, for cross-
border safety inspection infrastructure at our southern international
borders, will not only address highway safety and national security
concerns, but should improve the flow of freight at border chokepoints.
This investment will be the last installment of a 3-year effort
totaling $150.3 million.
system condition and performance
As mentioned above, our proposal unveils a new $1 billion
Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance initiative specifically
aimed at addressing immediate highway needs and at projects that can be
implemented quickly. Totaling $6 billion over the authorization period,
this funding will target projects that address traffic congestion and
bottlenecks, and improve pavement conditions. The idea is to promote
projects that result in immediate benefits while avoiding long-term
commitments of funds; that is, projects that can be undertaken and
completed within a short timeframe. States would be required to
obligate funds in the first half of each fiscal year. Funds not
obligated during this period would be withdrawn and redistributed to
States with projects ready to go.
Only highway projects for system preservation, preventive
maintenance, or operational improvement that are already eligible under
the Interstate Maintenance Program, the National Highway System
program, and the Surface Transportation Program would be eligible. It
is anticipated that these projects would improve highway system
condition and performance. Safety will benefit as well from these
system improvements coming online quickly.
program and financial stewardship
Stewardship requires that we ensure that the nation's resources
entrusted to us are used to wisely solve our nation's transportation
problems. Stewardship requires that we continue to find ways to meet
our highway responsibilities to the public by efficiently delivering
the very best in safe, secure, operationally efficient, and technically
advanced highway facilities, while complementing our nation's many
other vital public and community needs. It requires unquestioned
corporate and individual integrity. This is a priority for the
Department and the Federal Highway Administration.
With the funds requested for fiscal year 2004, FHWA will
specifically focus on process improvements to ensure that challenging
transportation solutions are provided as promised--on schedule and
within budgets. We will work with the States to ensure new and expanded
approaches to integrating the planning, environmental review, and
project delivery processes, along with greater emphasis on program
level and major project management oversight. We have requested
additional administrative resources, including staffing, for these
purposes.
Oversight. The availability of adequate administrative resources is
necessary to ensure that the American public is getting the full value
from its investment of highway user fees, by providing the level of
oversight and stewardship necessary to deliver the Federal-aid Highway
Program in an efficient and effective manner. It should be emphasized
that the cost to taxpayers for the stewardship of the Federal-aid
Highway Program is about 1 percent of the cost of the programs that the
FHWA oversees. We believe this represents responsible taxpayer value.
The funding requested for fiscal year 2004 will permit FHWA to hire 12
additional employees dedicated to oversight of major projects (projects
of over $1 billion in cost), providing at least one project oversight
manager for each megaproject. In addition, we will work with States to
ensure financial and project plans are adequate and in place before a
project is started and that performance can be evaluated, in an effort
to maximize each Highway Trust Fund dollar spent. With the
administrative funding requested, we further propose to improve the
security of our critical information systems and upgrade our
information technology infrastructure.
An oversight program will be established which is responsive to all
areas related to financial integrity and project delivery. Risk
assessment tools will be used to focus on critical program areas and
resources will be allocated accordingly.
environmental stewardship
FHWA is committed to fulfilling its environmental stewardship
responsibilities. Continued progress in streamlining the delivery of
transportation improvement projects will improve safety and ease
congestion, but must be balanced with the need to protect communities
and the environment. Funds requested for 2004 will allow us to continue
to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
reduce on-road mobile source emissions. Through Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding we will advance
transportation projects that reduce emissions--projects that also
reduce traffic congestion.
Support for air quality and climate research will advance our
understanding of the relationship of surface transportation to the
emerging areas of fine particulate emissions, toxic air emissions, and
regional haze. With this knowledge, the transportation community can
develop mitigation tools and technologies to reduce such emissions.
Each year over 900 million people visit National parks, forests,
and wildlife refuges. Through our Federal Lands Highways program we are
providing funding to maintain and responsibly improve access to these
areas. Because a substantial maintenance backlog has built up in our
system of Park Roads and Parkways, the President's budget requests a
$135 million funding increase, for a total of $300 million for fiscal
year 2004, to improve National Park Service roads.
NHS, STP, and Federal Lands funds can support programs that reduce
the social and environmental impacts of transportation improvement
projects. FHWA will promote strategies that emphasize environmental
values at the systems planning level, as well as the project level. We
will seek to improve our ability, and that of our partners, to design
and manage programs and projects that protect and improve the
ecological quality of the larger watershed in which Federal-aid highway
projects are located. Wider use of watershed and ecosystem level
approaches that enhance, restore, and preserve aquatic and upland
ecosystems will serve to maximize benefits while expediting the
environmental review process.
Environmental Streamlining. Efficient environmental review
processes will continue to be a priority. The President's budget will
advance efforts to cooperatively establish realistic project
development timeframes among the transportation and environmental
agencies. Working together to adhere to those timeframes requires
greater resource commitment, but is critical to success. An example of
what can be achieved through early inter-agency coordination and big-
picture, corridor decisionmaking early in the planning and review
processes is the tiered environmental review for the 200-mile I-70
project in Missouri, which is expected to be completed in approximately
4 years rather than the 6 to 7 years often required for complex
corridor studies.
In order to meet the intent of the President's Executive Order on
Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Reviews, we
will intensify efforts currently underway that focus on solidifying
interagency partnerships. To this end, we have already identified seven
priority projects for closer attention, including the Chittenden County
Circumferential Highway in Vermont. This highway's status as a priority
project ensures that resolution of project issues is treated as a high
priority for both agencies, resulting in expedited reviews and
increased communication between the agencies.
emergency relief
Another key component of the fiscal year 2004 budget that impacts
safety, security, and mobility is a proposal for increasing mandatory
Emergency Relief (ER) funding from $100 million per year to $200
million. Historically, the $100 million per year authorization for the
ER program has been inadequate to fund all the requests, and
supplemental appropriations have been provided by Congress when large
backlogs developed. The proposed increase will enable FHWA to respond
more quickly to the urgent needs of the States and local communities.
For example, ER funding permitted FHWA to provide an initial allocation
of $3 million to Oklahoma just a week after a barge accident last year
caused the collapse of the I-40 bridge. This initial funding and a
followup allocation of $11.9 million, provided the Oklahoma State
Department of Transportation resources to minimize interruption of a
critical Interstate route, and to provide for reconstruction. The
current estimate of remaining ER needs related to the I-40 bridge
catastrophe is $15.2 million. Our 2004 budget request to double the
annual authorization level for ER will allow us to continue to meet
such needs.
conclusion
Within today's constrained budget environment, President Bush's
2004 budget request makes a very substantial commitment to ensuring a
safe and efficient Federal transportation system for all Americans. The
funding requested in 2004 will help improve transportation safety;
enhance national security; maintain and improve our transportation
infrastructure, and increase its operational capacity; reduce
environmental degradation; and improve the quality of life for all our
citizens. Secretary Mineta and all of us at the Department of
Transportation look forward to working with Congress to enact the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget in order to provide a viable
transportation system to support a strong America.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Responses of Mary Peters to Additional Questions from Senator Voinovich
Question 1a. Your testimony states that Secretary Mineta has made
safety his top priority for transportation. You also state that in the
President's budget request and reauthorization proposal, you have
designed comprehensive and complementary Federal safety programs.
How will the Administration's reauthorization proposal reflect the
Secretary's interest in safety?
Response. The Administration's reauthorization bill has not yet
been finalized, pending resolution of remaining comments that developed
during the inter-agency clearance process. Until the content of the
bill is finalized, we are unable to provide a definitive response to
this question. However, we are making every effort to expedite
completion of the bill, and look forward to discussing our proposal
with you as we continue to work together through the reauthorization
process. As I noted in my testimony, increased policy emphasis, greater
visibility, and more resources to implement the Department's safety
programs are important considerations.
Question 1b. Do you envision creating new programs or consolidating
or making changes to existing programs?
Response. The Administration supports quick delivery of safety
programs to save more lives. Program simplification and consolidation
are strategies considered for achieving more efficient program
delivery. A comprehensive and complementary, data-driven approach to
safety is also important to coordinate successful techniques from all
aspects of safety that will have the greatest impact on reducing
highway deaths and injuries.
Question 1c. Will State and local governments be provided
additional flexibility in the manner in which funding for safety
programs may be used?
Response. State and local flexibility to invest safety dollars
where the needs and the potential for crash reductions are greatest is
an important consideration in structuring future safety programs.
Improved crash data collection and analysis systems are also key to
smarter investments that save more lives.
Question 2. As the Interstate system reaches its 50th anniversary,
many States like Ohio are facing the high costs of reconstructing their
Interstate highways.
How does FHWA's budget and reauthorization proposal address the
special needs of States with an aging Interstate system?
Response. The Administration's reauthorization bill has not yet
been finalized, pending resolution of remaining comments that developed
during the inter-agency clearance process. Until the content of the
bill is finalized, we are unable to provide a definitive response to
this question. However, as I described in my testimony, the
Administration has announced a $6 billion initiative called the
Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance Program (IPAM), which is
designed to assist States in addressing congestion mitigation and
maintenance projects that are ready to be constructed. While this
program is not restricted to the Interstate system, we expect that
States will advance many Interstate projects with these additional
funds.
Question 3a. According to your testimony, in fiscal year 2004, FHWA
is focusing its safety research and technology program on high accident
areas.
How does FHWA work with State and local governments to ensure our
roads are as safe as possible?
Response. The FHWA provides a key leadership role in working with
State and local governments to improve safety on America's roads by
providing technical support, training, and information on the latest
and more successful practices, policies, and emerging technologies. We
equip State and local decisionmakers to make the right decisions based
on their particular safety problems and resources. Our aim is getting
the right information to the right State and local people at the right
time--that is, getting these ``tools for life'' to the front line on
time.
The major national activity underway is the implementation of the
AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan and related tools. The Plan
outlines a comprehensive, integrated approach to significantly reduce
deaths and injuries on the roads of the Nation. This Plan was developed
by a group of experts from public and private safety organizations. It
addresses the highway safety problem on several fronts, including
engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services and
provides strategies and actions to substantially reduce the frequency
and severity of crashes. FHWA has a key responsibility in the transfer
of technologies and tools resulting from the Plan.
We also work with State and local agencies in the development,
testing, and evaluation of emerging safety technologies and tools. For
example, we have test and evaluations underway for speed management
techniques, as well as a new software package used to assess the safety
implications of alternative roadway designs and alignments for rural
two lane roads.
FHWA is working with the many highway safety national organizations
and State and local agencies to provide this life-saving technical
support, training, and information. These organizations include Local
Technical Assistance Program centers, the American Public Works
Association, the National Association of County Engineers, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers, the Governors Highway Safety
Association, as well as State and local departments of transportation.
Question 3b. What is the most pressing roadway safety problem
facing the Nation? What can be done to address the problem?
Response. The roadway safety problem is a significant problem for
the Nation. Nearly 43,000 people are killed on America's roads each
year. On an average day, 117 people lose their lives on our highways,
and traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans from
1-year to 34-years old. Traffic crashes cost our Nation over $230
billion dollars per year, yet most Americans don't see highway safety
in these terms. Traffic crashes always affect the ``other guy'' and
until the tragedy strikes close to home the general attitude of the
public borders on complacency. Improving highway safety starts with the
personal responsibility of drivers, with steps as simple as wearing a
seat belt, and goes on from there to involve stakeholders in both the
public and private sectors. We need to do a much better job of
informing those who are unaware of this major public health issue, and
working collaboratively with those who are aware, to bring the death
toll down. Public awareness campaigns and active partnerships with
State and local safety programs that provide comprehensive approaches
to safety are very important. We also need the leadership of our
decisionmakers to emphasize the importance of improving safety and to
provide direction for future efforts.
We have another important challenge to overcome in combating this
National safety ``epidemic.'' A more comprehensive and strategic
approach to highway safety is needed to allow Federal, State, and local
safety programs to use the tools, practices and insights that will save
the most lives. Better safety data is needed to help safety
organizations identify their State's or community's most significant
safety needs and the areas with the highest safety payoffs. At the
Federal level, we can provide the flexibility for a comprehensive and
strategic approach to safety, based on better crash data systems and
the use of a wider range of resources, tools, and effective practices.
Question 4. Will the Administration's reauthorization proposal
propose that any of the program funding not currently distributed by
formula be distributed by formula?
Response. The Administration's reauthorization bill has not yet
been finalized, pending resolution of remaining comments that developed
during the inter-agency clearance process. Until the content of the
bill is finalized, we are unable to provide a definitive response to
this question. However, we are making every effort to expedite
completion of the bill, and look forward to discussing our proposal
with you as we continue to work together through the reauthorization
process.
Question 5a. How important are Intelligent Transportation Systems
to enhancing mobility? What success has been achieved to date as a
result of ITS projects?
Response. Intelligent Transportation Systems are essential to
enhancing mobility as demand for highway travel by Americans continues
to grow as population increases. Construction of new highway capacity
to accommodate this growth in travel has not kept pace. Between 1980
and 1999, route miles of highways increased 1.5 percent while vehicle
miles of travel increased 76 percent. The Texas Transportation
Institute estimates that, in 2000, the 75 largest metropolitan areas
experienced 3.6 billion vehicle-hours of delay, resulting in 5.7
billion gallons in wasted fuel and $67.5 billion in lost productivity.
Traffic volumes are projected to continue to grow. The volume of
freight movement alone is forecast to nearly double by 2020.
The ITS Program has seen a broad number of successes related to the
deployment of ITS systems and the benefits provided by those systems.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Joint Program Office for
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS JPO) has been actively
collecting such information from evaluations of implemented ITS
initiatives in order to understand the impact of ITS on the operation
and safety of the surface transportation network, and to share lessons
learned from past implementations with other U.S. cities and States
considering the implementation of ITS. The following are some examples
drawn from studies summarized in the database:
<bullet> In September of 2000, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority
(NJTA) completed their evaluation of the E-ZPass electronic toll
collection system. Toll plaza delay was reduced by approximately 85
percent for a total savings of 2,091,000 vehicle-hours per year.
Passenger car delay was reduced by 1.8 million hours per year; truck
delay was reduced by 291,000 hours per year. Sixty-five percent of this
benefit, or 1,344,000 vehicle-hours, was time saved by travelers with
E-ZPass, while the remaining 35 percent of the benefit was the 747,000
vehicle-hours saved by other motorists using the toll facilities. There
were corresponding reductions in energy consumption and harmful
emissions.
<bullet> In the spring of 2000, a transit signal priority system
was implemented on a 2.1 mile section of Rainier Avenue in King County,
Washington. The King County DOT found the system decreased bus travel
time variability by 35 percent and reduced the number of signal-related
stops by 50 percent for buses with signal priority.
<bullet> In Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, freeway traffic
performance was measured with and without the use of ramp meters.
During the 6-week shutdown of the ramp metering system there was a 28
percent increase in freeway travel time, a 7 percent reduction in
freeway speeds, a 14 percent reduction in peak period throughput, and a
26 percent increase in peak period crashes on the freeways.
When the ability to add new roadways is constrained, 21st century
operations enabled by the 21st century technologies of ITS are key to
enhancing mobility and relieving congestion in America.
We also want to note that our sister agency, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is providing a lead role in the
Department-wide ITS initiative administered by the ITS Joint program
office. NHTSA is working closely with the vehicle manufacturers to
advance the availability of crash avoidance technologies on vehicles.
These technologies are designed to assist drivers under hazardous
situations and to help them avoid impending crashes.
Question 5b. How does ITS help homeland security readiness?
Response. A major objective of homeland security readiness is being
ready to respond to and recover from an attack on the Nation. Whether
or not the attack directly strikes the transportation infrastructure,
transportation is always the method through which we respond, and by
which we work during recovery. ITS has a critical role in enabling us
to respond and recover effectively. ITS can provide instantaneous
detailed information and the capability to manage the surface
transportation network during the crisis. Thus, it facilitates the
ability of our responders such as police, fire, and hazardous materials
and emergency medical personnel, to reach the scene quickly, and with
the greatest knowledge about the scene. It also facilitates our ability
to get the ill and injured away from the scene, and possibly to get the
larger community far enough away that they are no longer at risk.
Similarly, historical traffic flow data from ITS systems provide
important input to the process of planning for disasters. Quality
plans, accurately reflecting transportation capabilities and needs, are
essential to readiness. The same traffic data also provides the basis
for ``What-if '' analysis, making those emergency management plans
flexible so that they can deal with a broad range of hazards, and can
handle the many locations where a disaster might strike.
Question 6. Your reauthorization proposal would link highway
program funding levels for each year to the current projections of
Highway Account receipts for that same year, rather than the method
under TEA-21 which linked funding to prior year receipts.
How exactly would that work? When would the projections be made?
Would they be able to be revised and how would this affect highway
spending in a given year?
What will the Administration propose to avoid the drastic
fluctuations in highway spending such as that which occurred last year
as a result of a negative RABA calculation?
Response. The Administration's reauthorization bill has not yet
been finalized, pending resolution of remaining comments that developed
during the inter-agency clearance process. Until the content of the
bill is finalized, we are unable to provide a definitive response to
this question. However, we are making every effort to expedite
completion of the bill, and look forward to discussing our proposal
with you as we continue to work together through the reauthorization
process.
Question 7a. Your proposal would add an additional $1 billion per
year over the 6-year reauthorization period in obligation authority
above estimated receipts. This essentially equates to a $1 billion per
year spend down of the ``balance'' of the Highway Trust Fund.
Would these extra billion dollars require the Federal Government to
borrow more money to pay for this extra investment?
Response. Borrowing would not be necessary. For the Federal-aid
Highway Program, obligations do not translate immediately into outlays.
Like other capital programs, the highway program outlays slowly.
Obligations in excess of anticipated revenue will slowly decrease the
balance in the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. However,
considering projected levels of income and obligation, we estimate that
balance will be approximately $10 billion at the end of the 6-year
reauthorization period. We consider this balance to be safe and
prudent.
Question 7b. How would the funds be distributed? What strings would
be attached? What types of projects would benefit?
Response. The Administration's reauthorization bill has not yet
been finalized, pending resolution of remaining comments that developed
during the inter-agency clearance process. Until the content of the
bill is finalized, we are unable to provide a definitive response to
this question. However, we are making every effort to expedite
completion of the bill, and look forward to discussing our proposal
with you as we continue to work together through the reauthorization
process.
Question 8. Other than depositing all of the Federal excise tax
collected on ethanol-blended fuels into the Highway Trust Fund, which I
strongly support, does the Administration support any additional
measures to increase revenues?
Response. The Administration will not propose any increases to the
highway-related excise taxes that are deposited in the Highway Trust
Fund. It will, however, continue its support for improved fuel tax
collection efforts.
Question 9. How has FHWA streamlined the delivery of transportation
projects in the absence of regulations implementing the environmental
streamlining provisions contained in TEA-21? What will the
Administration be including in its reauthorization proposal to
streamline the environmental review process?
Response. FHWA has pursued a multi-faceted strategy for
implementing environmental streamlining in the absence of regulations.
As directed in the Fiscal Year 2003 DOT Appropriations Act, FHWA
submitted to Congress on April 11, 2003, a report on Environmental
Streamlining accomplishment. This report discusses the actions taken
under Executive Order 13274 and FHWA's Vital Few Goals effort to raise
visibility and create a sense of urgency for environmental
streamlining, solidify interagency partnerships, reengineer the
environmental review process, issue guidance to enhance process
predictability, evaluate the performance of environmental streamlining,
institutionalize dispute resolution, support State environmental
streamlining efforts, and share information on best practices.
The details of the Administration's reauthorization proposal in the
environmental streamlining area have not yet been finalized.
Question 10a. Last year the Transportation Research Board completed
its study of the effectiveness of the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Program (CMAQ).
Has FHWA reviewed the report? Are there any findings in the report
that you especially believe would inform the debate on whether to make
changes to the program in the reauthorization bill?
Response. The CMAQ study was released in April 2002. Under the
National Academies of Sciences (NAS), the Transportation Research Board
(TRB) prepared a comprehensive and detailed report chronicling the
program's first ten years. We have reviewed the report with
considerable interest and continue to do so. We regularly use the
research and the valuable support information it carries.
The FHWA is committed to improving the CMAQ program, through
legislative or other means. We have reviewed the TRB study with such
enhancement of CMAQ in mind. For example, we agree that CMAQ has value
and should be continued and that air quality improvement should remain
its primary focus. The exact changes that will be contained in the
Administration's proposal for reauthorization have not been finally
decided, but will likely address many of the report's recommendations.
Our thoughts on the rest of the NAS recommendations are provided below.
Interagency Consultation. As noted in the NAS report, we have
encouraged interagency consultation, under our current CMAQ Program
Guidance, in the project selection process and many areas have
responded by including State and local air pollution control officials
in project selection. In the interests of local flexibility and
decisionmaking, we have not required any specific make-up of these
local project selection committees.
All Pollutants/New Air Standards. The report specifically notes the
new data showing fine particulates (PM<INF>-2.5</INF>) as having
serious human health impacts. That is our understanding as well. The
current focus of the program is on those EPA-regulated pollutants that
can be affected by transportation-related measures. While EPA has not
yet designated any areas as being in nonattainment of its new standard
for fine particulate matter or under the 8-hour ozone standard, there
may well be justification for including these areas in the CMAQ
apportionment formula. Failure to do so could restrict funding in
States whose nonattainment populations have grown substantially.
Other pollutants suggested in the NAS report may not be as
applicable to mitigation under the CMAQ program. For example,
transportation contributes just 2 percent to sulfur dioxide, and no
standards have yet been set for air toxics. As such, it may not be
worthwhile to pursue funding for SO<INF>2</INF> reduction since
transportation sources represent such a small component of total
SO<INF>2</INF>. Similarly, without standards and nonattainment
designations, we may not be able to target control strategies and areas
to address air toxics in reasonable ways.
Scrappage Programs. The report specifically mentions vehicle
scrappage programs, which are statutorily ineligible under current law,
as well as public-private projects, diesel programs and freight, all of
which are eligible and have been funded by the CMAQ program. With the
exception of scrappage programs, it is not clear what else might be
funded under the program that is not already eligible.
Support for Operations. The use of CMAQ funds for operational
support is being evaluated by the Department to determine whether
eligibility for such funding should be continued and, if so, for how
long. The use of CMAQ for operations must be considered very carefully
because CMAQ funds are used for transit projects, inspection and
maintenance programs, as well as highway projects, and the combined
operational needs of transit operators and the State and local highways
agencies is about $32 billion annually, many times larger than the $1.8
billion of CMAQ funding apportioned to the States in FY2002. In further
discussions with the NAS panel, it is clear that this recommendation
carried the requirement that further air quality benefit be
demonstrated. We are not sure that such a demonstration can be made
under existing EPA procedures since operating support does not yield
further emission reductions toward attainment. Our CMAQ guidance has
allowed CMAQ funds to be used for operations for 3 years after the
initiation of a new activity that benefits air quality. After a 3-year
startup period, we expect ongoing operations to be funded from other
sources, so as to free-up CMAQ funding for initiating new, beneficial
air quality projects, rather than being tied up in perpetuity for
maintaining an ongoing level of operations.
Land Use. The NAS panel recommended that we consider the use of
CMAQ funds for land use strategies leading to long-term reduction in
future mobile source emissions. But as also noted in the report, the
potential for land use strategies to reduce congestion or vehicle
emissions is complex and unclear. An important consideration is that
CMAQ funding is derived from the Highway Trust Fund and must be used
for ``transportation'' projects that assist attainment. Some land use
strategies may not be reasonably considered transportation. Those that
are, may already be eligible for CMAQ funding. At least one proposal
for transit-oriented development has been determined to be eligible for
CMAQ support. Further, it may be difficult to demonstrate an emission
reduction that assists attainment of the standards.
Project Selection. The panel recommended that we develop more
rigorous procedures for selection and evaluation of CMAQ projects in
the context of local air quality and congestion problems. While we
support performance-based approaches, there is concern about balancing
the needs of the local decisionmakers against the strictures of a
federally required project evaluation and selection process.
Project Evaluation. Finally, the NAS provided two recommendations
to encourage more evaluations of funded projects by States and
localities, and to undertake a national level, targeted program of
evaluation. We will currently allow CMAQ funds to be used for
evaluation purposes of a CMAQ-funded project. We even require it for
experimental pilot projects. We are evaluating just how something more
might be accomplished. One of the problems is that a high quality
evaluation, including before and after studies, can cost as much as the
transportation improvement being evaluated according to a recent NCHRP
report. State and local jurisdictions might prefer to spend that money
doing another project.
We find the recommendation for a national level evaluation program
to be an interesting prospect. The CMAQ program has funded more than
$11 billion thus far; some funding might be justified to make sure that
the program investment is optimized. It seems unlikely that State and
local programs will have the ability to undertake such a program and
the Federal Government may be the only entity that could provide such
assessments and disseminate the results nationally.
Question 10b. Will your reauthorization proposal propose changes to
the CMAQ program? If so, what changes are you proposing?
Response. Regarding any recommended changes to the program, as
mentioned above, our proposal remains in development.
Question 11. Will you be proposing any changes to conformity and
transportation planning? Do you think any reforms are necessary? Have
you been working with EPA on these issues?
Response. The Administration is still in the process of finalizing
its legislative proposal. FHWA is committed to continuing the progress
made over the last thirty years in reducing motor vehicle emissions and
supports the goals of the Clean Air Act's transportation conformity
provisions. However, we also recognize that additional improvement in
the coordination of the transportation and air quality planning
processes can be achieved. Some stakeholders indicate that there remain
opportunities to improve the transportation conformity process. They
cite the fact that transportation plans and SIPs are not synchronized
with one another due to different planning horizons and update
frequencies.
Although final decisions have not been made on approaches to
address the conformity and transportation issues in the Administration
reauthorization proposal, FHWA has been in consultation with EPA on the
formulation of final positions on specific transportation conformity
issues.
Question 12. How does FHWA's budget and reauthorization proposal
promote intermodalism? How important is intermodalism to the Nation's
transportation system and economic viability?
Response. Intermodalism is a public policy theme expressed in both
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991
and the current authorizing legislation, the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The U.S. freight transportation network
moves a staggering volume of goods and people each year. It is a
necessity, not a luxury.
Over 15 billion tons of goods, worth more than $9 trillion, were
moved in 1998. Trucks carried about 71 percent of the tonnage and 80
percent of the total value. In 2020, the U.S. system is expected to
handle almost 26 billion tons valued at nearly $30 trillion. That is
roughly a 70 percent increase in tons and much more than a doubling in
value.
No one mode of transport will be able to accommodate the
anticipated growth of freight tonnage. If a State doesn't have good
transportation, it is less competitive. If the United States doesn't
have a strong transportation system, we are less competitive in a
global economy. In many cases, the demand for trucking along corridors
that expect significant growth will place additional burdens on States
and communities striving to support both freight movement while
improving safety and community liveability.
Perhaps we have been too successful. The system has been so
reliable that many businesses depend on just-in-time delivery. But
congestion, delayed infrastructure repairs, and other factors threaten
the system and add cost. Excess travel time costs freight carriers
between $144 and $192 an hour.
The Administration understands these issues. Therefore, intermodal
improvements are an important part of our surface transportation
emphasis for 2004 and out years. We are encouraging States to use
innovative financing methods and core program funds to address
intermodal improvements within freight gateways and to the
transportation infrastructure that connects these gateways to the
Nation's mainline transportation networks.
For example, proposed investment of $47 million in fiscal year
2004, for cross-border safety inspection infrastructure at our southern
international borders, will not only address highway safety and
national security concerns, but should improve the flow of freight at
border chokepoints. This investment will be the last year of a 3-year
effort totaling $150.3 million.
Every modal administration within the U.S. Department of
Transportation is working on improving linkages and connectivity to
other modes so that the traveling public, as well as freight carriers,
can more efficiently reach their destinations. The Administration's
reauthorization bill has not yet been finalized, pending resolution of
remaining issues that developed during the inter-agency clearance
process. Until the content of the bill is finalized, we are unable to
provide a definitive response to this question. However, we are making
every effort to expedite completion of the bill, and look forward to
discussing our proposal with you as we continue to work together
through the reauthorization process.
While the focus of FHWA's intermodal efforts are in the area of
more efficient freight movement, our fiscal year 2004 Intelligent
Transportations Systems (ITS) Program budget does contain a significant
transit component. In fiscal year 2004 we proposed a $7 million Transit
ITS Program that would focus on passenger security, integrated transit
system operations, coordination of public transportation delivery, and
electronic fare payment.
Question 13. Should the States have more or less flexibility to use
their Federal highway funds to meet their own unique transportation
needs?
Response. The highway program should be focused on solving
transportation problems and, as such, should eliminate barriers, expand
flexibility, and free State and local officials to solve problems by
applying the right solutions to their particular area, while remaining
mindful of important national goals. Increased flexibility will require
increased accountability.
Question 14a. As a member representing one of the 13 member States
of the Appalachian Regional Commission, I am very interested in
addressing the remaining cost to complete the Appalachian Development
Highway System, which is estimated to cost $4.5 billion. What does
FHWA's budget provide for the Appalachian Development Highway System
and what will be included for the system in the reauthorization
proposal?
Response. The Administration's reauthorization bill has not yet
been finalized, pending resolution of remaining issues that developed
during the inter-agency clearance process. Until the content of the
bill is finalized, we are unable to provide a definitive response to
this question. However, we are making every effort to expedite
completion of the bill, and look forward to discussing our proposal
with you as we continue to work together through the reauthorization
process.
The Federal Highway Administration has worked very closely with the
Appalachian Regional Commission and the State Departments of
Transportation to develop a new cost-to-complete estimate for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). Since these State-by-
State estimates are the basis of apportioning the funds among the
Appalachian States, they will enable the apportionment of funding to be
more accurately distributed according to remaining needs.
__________
Responses of Mary Peters to Additional Questions from Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Please compare the funding proposed for CMAQ in the
administration's fiscal year 04 Budget with that appropriated by
Congress for the program for fiscal year 2003. How do the two numbers
compare? Please explain any proposed change in program funding.
Response. Our draft proposal remains in development. Discussion of
fiscal year apportionments is ongoing, and any detailed discussion of
these estimates would be premature. However, the President's budget for
fiscal year 2004 anticipates a decline in CMAQ funding. Despite a
decrease in this single year, we anticipate that the funding for the
CMAQ Program will grow consistent with the growth in the other core
highway programs fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009. We expect that this
very temporary drop in annual CMAQ resources will be more than offset
over the life of our proposal.
Question 2. Please describe the resources, guidance, and funds that
DOT will use and provide to the States and communities in fiscal year
2004 for ensuring that they will be prepared to demonstrate timely
transportation conformity in the event of possible new nonattainment
designations under the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter
standards.
Response. DOT and EPA have worked closely in providing technical
assistance to areas to address conformity and transportation air
quality issues. In anticipation of the number of new areas designated
nonattainment for the first time that have no previous conformity
experience, DOT has embarked on a number of activities to prepare areas
for this challenge:
1. Revise transportation conformity regulations--DOT is working
closely with EPA as they revise their conformity rule for the
implementation of the new ozone and fine particulate standards. Their
goal is to complete the rulemaking process before April 15, 2004, the
anticipated date upon which EPA will finalize the new ozone
nonattainment designations. We believe this will allow newly designated
nonattainment areas to fully utilize the 1-year conformity grace period
in meeting conformity requirements.
2. Continue existing training courses--DOT has developed a well-
received basic transportation conformity training course. The course
was offered 6 times during fiscal year 2002. The course offerings were
attended by about 230 people representing both public (Federal, State,
and local governments) and private sectors of both transportation and
air quality disciplines. In fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, DOT
anticipates offering this training course through the National Transit
Institute in about 10 cities. A number of workshops and tailored
seminars also have been provided by our field resource centers,
primarily focusing on emissions modeling, transportation conformity,
and the CMAQ program. In addition, FHWA will continue to provide
training in MOBILE6, EPA's current emissions factor model, in fiscal
year 2004.
3. Provide new training opportunities--FHWA's National Highway
Institute will be launching 2 new training courses in fiscal year 2004
which will be very helpful to areas in preparing for their conformity
analysis. (a) Estimating Regional Mobile Source Emissions and (b) The
Implication of Air Quality Planning on Transportation.
4. In May 2002, FHWA launched a Transportation Conformity Community
of Practice (CoP) website to allow for sharing of best practices, free
exchange of ideas and discussions on topics related to conformity among
practitioners. The CoP website can be accessed at: http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/aqupdate/index.htm
______
Report to Congress on Federal Highway Administration Environmental
Streamlining Activities During 2002
Federal Highway Administration, April 2003
executive summary
This report responds to the Congressional direction contained in
the report accompanying the Consolidated Resolutions Appropriations,
2003, P.L. 108-7, Division I, the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations, 2003. The conference report language
is contained at page 1262 of House Report 108-10. It states, ``FHWA
streamlining--The conferees direct the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
report, not later than April 15, 2003, summarizing FHWA's streamlining
efforts, as proposed by the House. The report should include specific
examples of FHWA activities that help streamline the environmental
process.''
The Federal Highway Administration pursued a multi-faceted strategy
for implementing environmental streamlining during 2002. This report
summarizes accomplishments in the following areas:
<bullet> Raising visibility and creating a sense of urgency,
<bullet> Solidifying interagency partnerships,
<bullet> Reengineering the environmental review process,
<bullet> Issuing guidance to enhance process predictability,
<bullet> Evaluating the performance of environmental streamlining,
<bullet> Institutionalizing dispute resolution,
<bullet> Supporting State environmental streamlining efforts,
<bullet> Sharing information on best practices,
<bullet> Rulemaking.
A particularly important development during 2002 was President
Bush's issuing Executive Order 13274, ``Environmental Stewardship and
Transportation Infrastructure Review.'' This executive order and the
followup implementation efforts have created a new energy among the
Federal agencies involved in environmental streamlining for
transportation projects. The Federal Highway Administration has taken a
major role in the interagency task force created by the executive
order. This new venue promises to be an effective tool for forging
ahead together on a broad agenda of environmental streamlining and
environmental stewardship initiatives.
introduction
As directed in the report accompanying the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2003, the
Federal Highway Administration submits this status report on
environmental streamlining to the Congress.
During 2002, the Federal Highway Administration pursued
environmental streamlining on multiple fronts. While building on
earlier efforts to advance a broad based interagency agenda, FHWA also
took aggressive steps to heighten the visibility of environmental
streamlining and to create a specific performance based set of
expectations for implementing environmental streamlining. Of particular
note are (1) the issuance of a new executive order addressing
environmental streamlining and FHWA's role in its implementation and
(2) the development of a targeted performance-based agenda on
environmental stewardship and environmental streamlining as part of
FHWA's Vital Few Goals effort. The following sections of this report
provide details on these and other efforts to advance environmental
streamlining.
raising visibility and creating a sense of urgency
Executive Order. On September 18, 2002 President Bush signed
Executive Order 13274, ``Environmental Stewardship and Transportation
Infrastructure Project Review.'' This executive order establishes an
interagency task force to explore environmental stewardship
opportunities, improve environmental review processes, and oversee
specific projects on a priority list selected by the Secretary of
Transportation. The executive order is multimodal in scope and has a
strong positive effect on environmental streamlining for the highway
program. FHWA was an active participant in the discussions that led to
the issuance of the executive order and has taken a lead role in
implementing many of the activities under the executive order. The
executive order has raised the visibility of environmental streamlining
among high-level officials in the executive branch agencies. This
raised visibility is evidenced by reports from the interagency task
force agencies that environmental streamlining in transportation
projects has been placed as an on-going agenda item for executive and
senior staff and they are actively seeking ways to promote program
efficiencies in the field.
The Department of Transportation has thus far convened an
organizing meeting for the interagency task force (on November 22,
2002) and two regular meetings (January 30, 2003 and March 4, 2003).
Progress to date has focused on selection and oversight of projects on
the priority list. Secretary Mineta selected 13 projects for the
priority list; of these 10 are highway projects. Designation of these
projects has already begun to create a greater sense of urgency among
field staff of the various agencies to resolve outstanding issues.
Further details on the executive order and implementation activities
can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/eo13274.htm.
FHWA Vital Few Goals. In conjunction with FHWA's performance
planning efforts under the Government Performance and Results Act, FHWA
Administrator Mary Peters launched an effort that identified and
articulated Vital Few Goals, priority areas for FHWA action on a
nationwide basis. Environmental stewardship and environmental
streamlining is one of the three Vital Few Goals. During 2002, FHWA
developed a specific set of agencywide performance expectations for the
environmental stewardship and environmental streamlining Vital Few
Goal. These performance expectations focus on improving the quality and
timeliness of the environmental review process and on clearly
demonstrating environmental stewardship accomplishments. For example, a
study of the timetable for environmental reviews was conducted in 2002
and a followup assessment will continue in 2003. FHWA has put in place
a process for generating and monitoring project schedules to keep
projects moving and on track for timely completion. More information on
this effort is available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/strmlng/
essovervw.htm.
solidifying interagency partnerships
Executive level interagency task force. The interagency task force
created under Executive Order 13274 has provided for the first time a
continuing forum for engaging executive representatives of the Federal
agencies most involved in environmental streamlining. While the focus
of the task force's work so far has been oversight of the designated
priority projects, the task force has begun crafting a broader agenda
that also looks at systemic changes in environmental review policies
and procedures and at environmental stewardship opportunities. FHWA has
played a prominent role in the review of nominated projects for
selection by the Secretary, in the management of selected projects and
in shaping the agenda for the interagency task force.
National environmental streamlining action plan. Working through a
staff level Federal interagency workgroup, in 2002 FHWA developed a
national action plan which outlines activities to streamline
environmental initiatives including: expedited reviews, flexible
mitigation, cross-training, evaluation measures, and dispute
resolution. The items on the action plan will lead to reduced
timelines, improved interagency coordination, enhanced environmental
outcomes, and cost savings. The action plan is available at www.
fhwa.dot.gov/environment/strmlng/actionplan2.htm.
Field level environmental summits. The FHWA Eastern, Southern, and
Western Resource Centers held regional conferences in 2002, bringing
together representatives from Federal, State, and local transportation,
planning, and resource agencies, local governments, Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs), transportation and environmental
organizations, tribes, and consultants to discuss relevant issues and
identify opportunities for improvement. Results of the summits were
distributed via the Successes in Streamlining Monthly Newsletter
(September 2002). The sharing of solutions and integration of efforts
found within each regional conference advances streamlining through an
emphasis on process improvements.
Interagency training on environmental streamlining. The Federal
interagency workgroup has collaborated in organizing a series of
environmental streamlining workshops aimed at getting field staff of
each Federal agency aligned with the national agenda. FHWA sponsored
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers workshop held in September 2001, the
Environmental Protection Agency workshop in December 2002, and a
combined Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service workshop to be held in May 2003. These workshops have been a
good forum for sharing the national vision, identifying issues that
cause interagency conflict, and sharing innovative practices from
around the country. Furthermore, they have promoted the concepts of
coordination and process efficiencies in the environmental review of
transportation projects.
reengineering the environmental review process
Nationwide Section 4(f ) evaluation. FHWA and the Federal Transit
Administration published for comment in the Federal Register on
December 18, 2002 a proposed nationwide Section 4(f ) evaluation for
net benefits. Once finalized, this will allow for expedited processing
of situations in which the transportation agency and official with
jurisdiction over the Section 4(f ) property can agree that the
proposed mitigation package actually results in a net benefit to the
property. This will lead to enhanced environmental and cultural
resource outcomes while reducing environmental review times.
U.S. Coast Guard exemption from Section 4(f ). FHWA worked with the
U.S. Coast Guard to review changes in agreements, policies, and
operating procedures brought about by the Coast Guard's move to the
Department of Homeland Security. While most of the processes will
remain unchanged, the Coast Guard has determined that Section 4(f )
will no longer apply to bridge permits issued by the Coast Guard. The
Coast Guard Office of Bridge Administration has notified Coast Guard
district offices of this change and has developed a transition
strategy.
Ohio programmatic Section 4(f ) evaluation. Ohio is the only State
that has implemented a Section 4(f ) programmatic evaluation that
allows the State transportation agency (ODOT) to decide whether
programmatic Section 4(f ) evaluations apply to projects. The FHWA Ohio
Division, which retains its legal Section 4(f authority, will receive
and may review each ODOT decision. Finalized in September 2002, the
Ohio DOT has recently conducted the in-house training needed to make
the new process fully operational. The FHWA-ODOT Section 4(f )
programmatic evaluation has been estimated to save the FHWA Ohio
Division 80 hours of staff time per project, which can be used to
monitor the Section 4(f ) process and conduct Section 4(f ) training.
It has also resulted in reduced project delivery time for ODOT. If
successful, FHWA will promote it as a model for other States.
Kentucky historic preservation programmatic agreement. Kentucky
FHWA, following the lead of a successful Vermont programmatic
agreement, has entered into a similar programmatic agreement with the
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), the State Historic Preservation
Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This
agreement sets out the coordination responsibilities for all parties
and delegates most of the day-to-day activities for Section 106
consultation to the KYTC. The programmatic agreement streamlines the
Section 106 process by giving KYTC the primary authority to identify
historic properties and assess effects, thus reducing the time required
for multiple agency review and sign-offs.
issuing guidance to enhance process predictability
Reimbursement of Resource Agencies. Through the active
encouragement and participation by FHWA, many State DOTs are using
interagency funding agreements to hire additional staff at State and
Federal resource agencies. On February 26, 2002, FHWA issued guidance
on funding eligibility, model agreements, and ensuring accountability.
This guidance, titled ``Interagency Guidance: Transportation Funding
for Federal Agency Coordination Associated with Environmental
Streamlining Activities'' can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
strmlng/igdocs/index.htm.
Interagency staff funded in accordance with this guidance are
dedicated to reviewing transportation projects and making permit
decisions. As of August 2002, over half of all State DOTs fund or
provide over 160 dedicated transportation positions nationwide.
According to some reports, funded positions have had a measurable
impact in reducing the time it takes to complete environmental reviews
on specific projects, while helping State DOTs develop quality
transportation and environmental solutions at less cost. In South
Carolina, for example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review of
Section 404 permits was reduced by 30 percent for most projects, and
State Historic Preservation Office Section 106 review time was reduced
from 30 to 7 days for most projects.
Interagency collaboration and conflict management. On December 31,
2002 FHWA issued guidance on interagency collaboration methods. This
guidance, ``Collaborative Problem Solving: Better and Streamlined
Outcomes for All,'' is one element of FHWA's national dispute
resolution system and presents strategies for interagency collaborative
problem solving by identifying issues that may arise during the
transportation project development and environmental process reviews
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related laws.
The guidance document can be found at http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/
ReNepa.nsf/.
Indirect and cumulative effects. On January 31, 2003 FHWA issued
interim guidance that focuses attention on the existing NEPA
requirements specific to indirect and cumulative impacts and represents
an initial step in FHWA's overall strategy to address the indirect and
cumulative impacts policy, guidance, and training needs of the agency.
The guidance serves as an information tool for both FHWA Divisions and
State DOTs and will lead to an increased understanding and improved
efficiency by assisting them in negotiating reasonable bounds on impact
analyses with resource agencies. The interim guidance is at
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/qaimpactmemo.htm.
evaluating the performance of environmental streamlining
Study of Timeliness of EISs since the Passage of NEPA. FHWA has
supported two major inquiries into the question of ``How long does the
environmental process for transportation projects take?'' The first,
entitled ``Evaluating the Performance of Environmental Streamlining:
Development of a NEPA Baseline for Measuring Continuous Performance,''
examined the durations of 100 transportation projects from the 1970's,
1980's, and 1990's, measured from the start of the environmental
process to the completion and approval of each project's Final
Environmental Impact Statement. For these 100 projects, the average
length of time for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA was 3.6 years
(approximately 43 months). The study report is available at
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/strmlng/baseline/index.htm.
Following the above ``Baseline Study,'' a second investigation was
conducted, and is currently in its concluding stages. This ``phase II''
study examined over 240 transportation projects from across the country
whose EISs were completed between the years 1995 and 2001. The study's
preliminary results show an average time for EIS completion of 5.1
years (approximately 61 months), or a gain of 18 months over the
average time for the projects prepared examined in the initial Baseline
Study.
The ``phase II'' NEPA Baseline Study contains an examination of a
number of variables effecting the NEPA EIS process for their impact to
the process's delivery time. The results of this investigation are
forthcoming.
A collection of 8 case studies of projects that completed their
EISs in less than 3 years has been completed as a presentation of a
number of ``best practices'' that can contribute to an effective
delivery of a project's NEPA process. The case studies will soon be
available on the FHWA environmental streamlining website.
Creation of an automated data system to track timeframes for EISs
and EAs. FHWA developed and implemented an internal environmental
document tracking system (EDTS) for Environmental Assessments (EA), and
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) to support FHWA's environmental
streamlining performance expectations under the Vital Few Goals. EDTS
will aid FHWA's ability to monitor project progress between major
milestones, and to accurately determine the total processing time from
initiation of an EIS and EA to the approval of the final decision
document. The system was implemented in 2002; data entry in each of the
FHWA division offices is ongoing. The ability to accurately track the
length of time required to complete the NEPA process is an essential
component of the environmental streamlining performance measure and
will assist FHWA identify some of the factors that may affect the
efficiency of NEPA project delivery.
Perception survey of transportation and environmental agency staff.
FHWA has contracted with the Gallup Organization to conduct a survey of
personnel in both transportation and resource agencies from around the
Nation. The purpose of the survey is to ascertain the perceptions of
key participants in the transportation project development process,
and, by means of applying scientifically reliable and valid survey
methods, explore how stakeholders in the process view the quality of
the environmental work and services performed by their counterparts.
The Gallup Organization will utilize its expertise in the field of
survey research to: measure the performance of agencies involved in
environmental streamlining in order to provide a benchmark for agencies
to gauge their own performance and that of the project development
process itself; and to focus on areas where improvement may be needed.
The survey is partially complete; results are expected in the summer of
2003.
institutionalizing dispute resolution
Partnership with Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
The 1998 Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act created IECR,
which is part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. IECR helps Federal
agencies and other involved parties manage and resolve Federal
environmental, natural resource, and public lands disputes by providing
services such as case consultation, conflict assessment, process
design, facilitation, and mediation. More information on IECR can be
found at their web site at www.ecr.gov.
FHWA partnered with IECR to meet the mandate set forth in Section
1309(c) of TEA-21 to create dispute resolution procedures as part of a
national environmental streamlining initiative. FHWA and IECR have been
working effectively together since 1999 to develop and implement the
four components of the dispute resolution system, described below. The
dispute resolution system is intended to assist the agencies to quickly
and effectively focus on the pertinent project issues, save time, and
avoid the costs of potential litigation.
Roster of qualified neutral facilitators. As part of the FHWA/IECR
collaborative partnership, a transportation roster was created that is
comprised of dispute resolution professionals with experience in NEPA
and transportation projects. The roster is managed by the U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, with financial support
by FHWA to help cover administrative costs. These professionals can
provide services such as conflict assessment, facilitation of
interagency partnering agreements, design of conflict management
processes, and mediation of disputes. Project sponsors contact IECR to
access the transportation roster, and then negotiate contracts and pay
for the costs of the transportation roster members' services directly.
Recently, FHWA and transportation sponsors have used the transportation
roster to provide facilitators for three of the priority projects
designated under Executive Order 13274.
Guidance on interagency conflict management. This FHWA guidance,
described above under the ``guidance'' heading, offers a range of
optional tools agencies can use to manage conflicts and resolve
disputes during the transportation project development and
environmental review processes. It also constitutes the key reference
document used in the interagency workshops described below.
Interagency conflict management workshops. The FHWA dispute
resolution system includes a series of customized facilitated
interagency workshops in each of the 10 standard Federal regions. The
workshops were developed during 2002 and will be held from May to
December 2003. Skills gained at the workshops will help practitioners
from the various agencies to better identify environmental review
issues, negotiate timeframes and work through disagreements using
interest based negotiating.
Section 1309 elevation procedures. Based on recommendations from an
IECR facilitated process, FHWA designed an elevation procedure to
operationalize the dispute resolution provision of section 1309 of TEA-
21. Under the elevation procedure, the Governor, the FHWA Division
Administrator or the FTA Regional Administrator may initiate the
process of elevating disputes to the Secretary of Transportation. The
elevation procedure is currently being finalized for issuance as a
Department of Transportation order. A draft of the elevation procedure
is at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/strmlng/npdjan22.htm.
supporting state environmental streamlining efforts
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO)'' Center for Environmental Excellence.'' AASHTO launched the
Center in 2002 with technical and financial assistance provided by
FHWA. The Center's mission is to assist AASHTO's member organizations
with implementing environmental stewardship into their various
practices and procedures, and promoting innovative streamlining of the
project delivery process. AASHTO expects that the results of this
assistance will be beneficial to State transportation agencies and also
supportive of FHWA's work in protecting and enhancing the environment.
Florida Department of Transportation's ``Efficient Transportation
Decision Making (EDTM) Process.'' FHWA provided leadership, technical,
and financial support to FDOT for use in continuing the development of
this model for involving Federal and State agencies in the
transportation development process. The EDTM process will link land
use, transportation, and environmental resource planning through early
and continuous agency, general public and Native American involvement
in planning, project development, and environmental decisions. It uses
the latest in information technology to facilitate timely comments from
participating agencies and to maintain a record of coordination.
Currently, the Master Agreement for the EDTM and a number of agency
agreements have been, or are being, finalized. Several of the agency
agreements have been co-signed by Florida's Secretary of
Transportation, the FHWA Division Administrator, and the heads of the
respective agencies. Materials in the form of guidance and procedural
manuals are in the final stages of completion. Training in the EDTM for
four of seven FDOT districts began in February 2003 and will be on
going until all districts have completed the training course. The EDTM
process is planned to begin implementation during the summer of 2003.
North Carolina Department of Transportation's ``Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP).'' NCDOT, in partnership with the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wilmington District, is developing
the EEP for the purpose of changing the way agencies consider and apply
mitigation for impacts to wetlands throughout the State. FHWA has
supported the development and implementation of the EEP.
To date, EEP-related activities include the organization and
creation of a ``core staff,'' as per agreement between NCDENR and
NCDOT; continuing the development of methodologies for Watershed Needs
Assessment and functional assessment for streams and wetlands; further
development of elements of the EEP education/outreach plan, including
the EEP web-page, newsletter, and the Policy-Process-Procedure manual.
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's ``Historic Preservation Work
Group.'' During June of 2002, AASHTO, the National Council of State
Historic Preservation Officers, the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, and other stakeholders including FHWA convened a
conference on Historic Preservation in Lexington, KY. A part of the
conference's agenda was concerned with streamlining the historic
preservation review process for transportation projects. As a result of
this and other conference matters, a problem-solving historic
preservation workgroup was established with the Kentucky Transportation
Cabinet (KYTC) serving as the lead State. FHWA contributed funding to
assist the KYTC in this role and staff to participate in the effort.
The historic preservation work group has identified several issues for
exploration, including the use of geographical information systems for
the establishment of a national database for historic properties.
Texas Department of Transportation's ``Environmental Streamlining
Pilot Project for the I-69 Corridor Study.'' The I-69 Corridor Study is
a priority corridor, identified as such in both the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The Texas portion of the corridor is
also a priority project under Executive Order 13274. Approximately
1,000 miles of the I-69 corridor are located within Texas, confronting
a diversity of social, economic, and environmental issues. The Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) plans to concurrently advance 14
independent segments of the Corridor through the project development
decisionmaking process, each with a separate environmental impact
statement.
Because of the complexity of the concurrent project development
process, FHWA has provided environmental streamlining funds for support
and assistance of the Streamlining Pilot Project. TxDOT and FHWA, in
collaboration with other Federal and State agencies, have been
developing methodologies and practices for streamlining the
transportation and environmental decisionmaking process for the
Corridor projects. The products of the Pilot Project include the
following materials, activities, and procedures:
1. Geographic Information System (GIS) inventory of environmental
resources--the baseline database is close to completion; when finished,
baseline assessments for screening and prioritizing of resource
concerns in the Corridor segments can commence.
2. Establishing an Environmental Leadership Group--The Group's
charge is to create an interagency scoping team whose purpose is
identifying and ranking ecological resources across the State. The
prioritization of these resources has led to increased collaboration
among transportation and resource agencies in managing ecosystems. In
the case of I-69, the Corridor Technical Advisory Committee and the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department have identified specific tracts of
property for use as sites for planning and implementing mitigation for
project--related impacts.
3. Coordination with Stakeholders--Participation in the Pilot
Project by various agencies and interested parties, including the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Native American groups, is an important
element of the Project's success. Several funding agreements between
these parties and FHWA/TxDOT have been prepared in coordination with
and support of the I-69 Process Manual, a special document developed to
guide the environmental review process for the 14 corridor EISs.
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities' ``Habitat
Connectivity GIS Database & Mapping.'' Habitat fragmentation caused by
highway development is a serious concern in many parts of the United
States. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, many critical habitat
corridors coincide with major transportation facilities. Alaska's
highways, while fewer in comparison to those in the Lower 48, are
mostly two-lane with low traffic volumes. These types of highways
generally place limited restrictions on the movement of large mammals.
As traffic increases, these two-lane highways are being upgraded with
wider shoulders, passing lanes, and additional driving lanes. These
features can result in serious harm to wildlife by creating obstacles
to migration.
Working in conjunction with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the
U.S. National Park, Fish & Wildlife, and Forest Services, the Alaska
Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Game, and the Alaska
Railroad Corporation, the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (ADOT&PF) is developing a geographical information system
(GIS) database for use in mapping wildlife habitats. The database and
habitat mapping will be used for assessing the potential effects of
transportation projects (specifically the Parks Highway corridor) on
habitat connectivity, and for addressing appropriate mitigation
measures early in the project development process. FHWA has provided
funding support for this application of technology for streamlining the
transportation project development process.
Montana Department of Transportation's ``Evaluation of Wildlife
Crossing Structures on U.S. Highway 93, Phase I.'' The Montana
Department of Transportation (MDOT) is conducting an evaluation of
wildlife crossing structures and fencing along the U.S. 93 corridor
located in the Flathead Indian Reservation. In partnership with the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), the Western
Transportation Institute (WTI) of Montana State University, and FHWA's
Montana Division, MDOT will identify and evaluate the data related to
pre- and post-construction highway impacts on resident fish and
wildlife populations in and around the highway corridor. The purpose of
the evaluation is to better manage measures for mitigating the highway
facility's impacts to the corridor's wildlife resources. This will
allow future mitigation discussions to be science based and will allow
the parties to work together to develop the most cost effective
mitigation packages.
FHWA has provided funding and technical support to assist the
funding of Phase I of the Evaluation. This phase is concerned primarily
with pre-construction data collection and the finalization of the plan
for the Evaluation. Among the on-going activities are the following:
1. Partnering between MDOT personnel (research manager, district
biologist), the CSKT tribal biologist, and the ecology/wildlife
departments/GIS center of Montana State University, University of
Montana, and Salish Kootenai College.
2. WTI attendance at U.S. 93 Technical Design Committee meetings
re: wildlife crossings and fencing design issues for use in a case
study.
3. Continued communication with MDOT maintenance crews (data
collection on animal carcasses killed in collisions with vehicles.
4. Continued development of motion- and heat-trigger photo
monitoring techniques.
5. Establishment of pre-construction field methods and development
of handbook for field methods and protocols.
Wyoming Department of Transportation's ``Geographic Information
System Database on Material Sites.'' The Wyoming Department of
Transportation's (WYDOT) Geology, Central Laboratory, and Contract &
Estimates programs maintain three separate sets of information (in
three different formats) regarding all of the gravel pits and quarries
that WYDOT utilizes. This effort will unify the databases into one
format that is also compliant with WYDOT's GIS format. Simplifying the
access to gravel and quarry pit information is expected to improve the
timely performance of analyses regarding the impacts of projects upon
whatever resources (wetland, habitat, endangered species,
archeological) may be located at particular proposed/existing pit area.
Indiana Department of Transportation's ``Streamlining
Initiatives.'' FHWA has partnered with Indiana Department of
Transportation (INDOT) on various activities for implementing
environmental streamlining techniques in INDOT's project development
process. There are four separate streamlining activities:
1. Development and presentation of a technology transfer workshop
on stream and roadway design issues;
2. Streamlining the issuance of the Sec. 404 Permit/401
Certification for the I-70/Six-Point Rd. project;
3. Preparation of a Wetland Banking Instrument (WBI) for a wetland
restoration project;
4. Preparation of an updated Public Involvement Procedures manual.
In addition to actively partnering on this multi-faceted effort,
FHWA has also contributed financially. The technology transfer workshop
is scheduled for July 2003; the remaining activities are expected to
issue products during the first half of 2003.
Washington Department of Transportation's ``Environmental Permit
Streamlining Act.'' In May 2001, Washington State passed the
Environmental Permit Streamlining Act (EPSA), designed to reform
transportation permitting by streamlining environmental permit
decisionmaking. FHWA is a (non-voting) member of the Transportation
Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee (TPEAC), created by the
Act to oversee the permit process. FHWA has provided funding assistance
to help the Washington Department of Transportation (WsDOT) to
implement various elements of the Act.
WsDOT has engaged the natural resource agencies and State
decisionmakers in order to work cooperatively to establish common
goals, minimize transportation project delays, and develop consistency
in the application environmental standards. Four projects have been
proposed initially by WsDOT to begin the implementation of the EPSA;
three of the projects fund the work of TPEAC subcommittees, while the
fourth, ``Cost Benefit Information'', has been selected for its utility
in developing performance measures critical to the TPEAC process.
Progress on three of the projects is as follows:
1. Watershed-Based Stormwater Alternative Mitigation Pilot
Project--An interdisciplinary, technical team has been selected to (a)
complete the draft watershed-based mitigation methods for the SR 522
project, and (b) document all results, including applicability to other
States/agencies.
A summary report that describes the transportation project,
identifies a list of watershed-based mitigationsites suitable for use
for the SR 522 project, and, if possible, compares this watershed-based
approach to mitigation with more traditional methods, has been
produced. (go to www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/streamlineact/watershed
docs/methods.pdf )
2. TPEAC One-Stop Subcommittee--This subcommittee is to develop a
recommendation for a one-stop permit process. A request for proposals
for the selection of a consultant services has been issued to assist in
this task.
3. TPEAC Planning Subcommittee--This assemblage of 20+
representatives of local, resource, transportation, DOTs, and other
agencies meets monthly--so far. Products of the subcommittee may likely
include interagency agreements for addressing growth and development
between transportation and natural resource agencies.
Oregon Department of Transportation's ``Collaborative Environmental
Transportation Agreement on Streamlining (CETAS).'' The Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) has developed CETAS in response to
Section 1309 of the TEA-21 as a coordinated environmental review
process for the development, design, and construction of highway
projects in the State. The CETAS process is aimed at integrating NEPA
into the transportation planning process by allowing Federal and State
resource and regulatory agencies to provide their input, and
subsequently their concurrence, to the development of purpose and need
as projects are identified in the planning phase. FHWA has provided
financial support for this initiative because it represents a State
streamlining activity that can be used on a national basis for
implementing the environmental streamlining provisions of TEA-21.
To date, ODOT and their Principle Investigators met to review
project development process and timelines, and to determine sources of
data for evaluation. Criteria were set for selecting 5 projects for
investigation. Data on costs, time and environmental outcomes will be
used to develop the methodology for CETAS.
Colorado Department of Transportation's ``Shortgrass Prairie
Advanced Mitigation Initiative.'' The Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) has initiated a unique public-private partnership
with The Nature Conservancy, as well as a number of State and Federal
resource agencies, and FHWA, for the development of procedures designed
to protect the prairie ecosystem while streamlining the consultation
process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. FHWA has
provided technical and financial support for this effort.
To date, a Biological Assessment for the various species identified
by the Initiative is being readied for submittal to the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service; requirements for both baseline and annual reporting
have been finalized; and a recommendation for CDOTs conduct of a
conservation banking program has been developed.
sharing information on best practices
FHWA Environmental Streamlining web site. The FHWA Environmental
Streamlining web site assists local, State, and Federal agencies in the
implementation of environmental streamlining by providing information
about a variety of initiatives including pilot efforts, process
reinvention, alternative dispute resolution, and guidance materials.
The web site is continuously updated to reflect the most current
information. In 2003, the web site will offer a database of over 14,000
State environmental streamlining practices. The web site provides
practitioners with easy access to current streamlining efforts, thereby
assisting agencies with capacity building of their professionals. This
web site can be found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/strmlng/
index.htm.
``Successes in Streamlining'' monthly electronic newsletter.
``Successes in Streamlining'' is a monthly Federal Highway
Administration newsletter highlighting current environmental
streamlining practices from around the country. An electronic
newsletter is sent to over 1,100 subscribers each month and is provided
on the environmental streamlining web site. Newsletter topics have
already been identified for the remainder of fiscal year 2003. The
newsletter allows local, State, and Federal practitioners to learn
about effective approaches to environmental streamlining.
Re: NEPA community of practice website. Re: NEPA, the Federal
Highway Administration's online NEPA ``community of practice'' provides
an open exchange of knowledge, information, and ideas concerning the
National Environmental Policy Act, related environmental issues, and
transportation decisionmaking. By providing a forum for exchange of
ideas and experience, Re: NEPA provides transportation environmental
practitioners with the opportunity to better understand the NEPA
transportation decisionmaking process and to promote a better, more
agreeable, and solution oriented process that balances transportation
needs with concern for the social, economic, cultural and natural
environment. A special forum on environmental streamlining provides a
focus for the latest ideas and events relating to environmental
streamlining. The address for Re: NEPA is http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/
ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/home.
Domestic scan tour on environmental commitment implementation. FHWA
sponsored a scan tour during 2002 to see first hand how State
transportation departments were ensuring that environmental commitments
were implemented during the construction phase of highway projects. The
tour visited seven State DOTs to review successful State processes,
procedures, and methodologies for fulfilling environmental commitments
made in the NEPA and environmental permitting process. FHWA sponsored
this effort in recognition of the importance of this highly visible
area in building or destroying trust with resource agencies and to
underscore the benefits of effective commitment compliance systems in
building a track record that supports environmental streamlining and
environmental stewardship. The results of the domestic scan will be
available by summer 2003 and will be presented at numerous industry
meetings, as well as via brochure, report, CD-ROM, and the
environmental streamlining web site.
rulemaking
Withdrawal of proposed environmental impact rules. In September
2002, FHWA and FTA issued a Federal Register notice withdrawing the
proposed transportation planning and environmental impact rules
published as a notice of proposed rulemaking on May 25, 2000. The
notice indicated that FHWA and FTA officials believed that it would be
prudent to wait for the outcome of legislative reauthorization to see
what further regulatory changes are needed. To this end, FHWA has been
actively working within the Administration to develop draft legislation
that further promotes and builds upon the environmental streamlining
successes achieved to date.
summary
In summary, FHWA has aggressively pursued opportunities for
environmental streamlining within its own program and performance, in
its collaboration efforts with project sponsors and resource agencies
and through partnership with other national entities such as AASHTO and
IECR. Furthermore, with the implementation of the executive order, FHWA
believes new opportunities for increased awareness and action on
streamlining will come through process improvements identified by the
executive order interagency task force. FHWA stands ready to leverage
these opportunities to our collective advantage and buildupon the
successes of the past year.
<greek-d>