Transportation Invest In Our Future

Introduction

Contents

Bold Action Needed to Sustain National Competitiveness

National Transportation Policy Study Commission, 1979

AASHTO's Call for Action for the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, 2006

Key Findings

Executive Summary of AASHTO's Policy Recommendations

AASHTO's Surface Transportation Policy Recommendations

Highway Improvements Needed

Transit Improvements Needed

Addressing Rail Needs

Transportation Safety Needs

Transportation Revenue Needs

Recommendations for the Federal Program

Text of Recommended Actions Adopted by the AASHTO Board of Directors

Click here to download the PDF

Home | Recommendations for the Federal Program

Recommendations for the Federal Program

Need for a Strong Federal Leadership Role in Funding and Policy

The American people depend on Federal, state, and local governments and the private sector to deliver a transportation system that will keep us competitive in the World economy and meet our mobility needs. To do so, investment at all levels needs to be increased.

Between 1993 and 2015, construction costs have increased 70 percent. In order to restore the purchasing power of the program so the improvements the country needs can be funded, highway capital investment will have to increase to $162 billion and transit capital investment to $38 billion by 2015. If the Federal government sustains its historical share of national investment at 45 percent, Federal highway assistance would increase to $73 billion by 2015, and federal transit investment to $17.3 billion. For state and local governments to sustain their historical 55 percent share, their highway capital investment would have to increase to $89 billion and their transit capital investment to $21 billion.

That analysis makes two things clear. First, the investment requirements are huge. Second, the only way the nation can meet them is for all levels of government to continue to fund their share. If any one of the three fail to do so, it is highly unlikely that any of them could sustain their own share as well as pick up the difference for another level of government who decided, for whatever reasons, that funding their previous share was too difficult.

So, the first imperative is that the Federal government continue to play a strong leadership role in funding.

The U.S. Department of Transportation and its agencies should play a national policy leadership role in identifying national needs and how to meet them, and to address priority concerns such as the development of a national freight policy, and strategies to reduce traffic fatalities. The development of those policies should be done in consultation with State departments of transportation, and program implementation be done in a partnership with the state and local governments. But what is also becoming clear is that the need for the Federal government to play a strong leadership role in policy has never been greater.

Safety and freight are two areas where this is true. There are certainly more.

Safety—Each year 43,000 citizens are killed on highways in traffic crashes and 3 million are seriously injured. The Federal government needs to play a strong leadership role in improving the safety of automobiles, motorcycles, commercial trucks, buses, trains, and the protection of their occupants. In cooperation with state and local governments, action is needed to improve the safety of facilities, and strengthen laws to improve driver behavior.

Freight—The volume of domestic freight is expected to double in the next 30 years and the volume of international freight entering U.S. ports may quadruple or more. Better coordination is needed of policies, plans and strategies on how to address this amongst all players—federal, state and local governments; carriers including trucking, rail, barges and ships; shippers; and communities. Without adequate leadership from the Federal level it is doubtful the nation can respond in time.

In some cases, what may be needed is deregulation so the Federal government gets out of the way. In other cases what may be needed are new rules, such as the Federal government requirement for seat belts and air bags. In some cases, the Federal government needs to bring sectors together to better integrate services, such as the encouragement of long-haul intermodal rail service. In other cases, in partnership with a regional cluster of states, the Federal government may play a helpful coordinative role in planning a multi-state, truck-only toll facility.

The second imperative is that the Federal government needs to play a strong leadership role in policy.

Federal Program Plays an Essential Role

In a later report, AASHTO plans to outline a Vision and a Conceptual Plan for the surface transportation system the country will need. For the moment, this outline summarizes what the Federal program needs to address.

AASHTO believes Federal policy leadership and Federal funding support are needed to:

1. Connect the Nation to the global economy through a unified system of highways, railroads, waterways, ports, and border crossings; and sustain the growth of jobs and productivity in the U.S. economy by improving transportation system capacity and performance.

2. Provide a strategic transportation network which makes rapid military deployment possible; provide emergency response to natural disasters; and prepare for, prevent if possible, and respond to terrorist attacks.

3. Improve highway and pubic transportation capacity and performance to provide individuals with the mobility required to access jobs, education, health care, recreation and other services.

4. Assure safe vehicle design and operation; improve the safety of transportation facilities; and bring about safer driver behavior through education and enforcement of laws on seatbelt use, drunk driving, and speeding.

5. Improve energy efficiency by reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and dependence on foreign oil.

6. Develop the system in a manner that is compatible with the natural environment, and enhances community health and quality of life.

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Role and Relationship with State DOTs

The Federal-Aid Highway Program is, and should continue to be, a state administered, Federally assisted system. Together, FHWA, the States and their local governments have built the finest system of highways in the world. The partnership between the State DOTs and FHWA is one of the most effective in government. Because AASHTO works so closely with FHWA we have outlined some recommendations on how we believe our partnership could work even more effectively in the future. At this point, we have not done the same for the Office of the Secretary or other modal administrations. If requested by the Commission, we would be happy to do so.

State DOTS need FHWA to be a strong and unequivocal advocate for the capacity, preservation and operational needs of the nation’s highway system. It needs to play a policy leadership role in the areas of safety, security, congestion, finance, project delivery, environmental stewardship, freight, intermodal connections, and operations.

It needs to provide strong technical leadership on research, deployment of advanced technologies, design standards, and quality assurance programs in consultation with AASHTO, delivery of the Federal Lands Highways Program, and administration of the Highway Trust Fund. Its role of stewardship should be focused equally on State DOT accountability for Federal funds and compliance with federal laws; and FHWA’s own deliverables, such as liaison with other Federal agencies to expedite project approvals, and facilitating the delivery of service by states and local governments.

FHWA and U.S. DOT, more broadly, need to take a fresh look at how they can administer the Federal-Aid Highway Program in ways that facilitate the delivery of service on a timely basis. Today the average time to complete a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) record of decision on a major highway project is six years, and to complete construction of the facility is nine years or more. States lose credibility with the public and fail to meet national needs through such a protracted process. Achieving compliance with the complex array of Federal laws is daunting. An unswerving commitment from our federal partner is needed to expedite this process. The Secretary’s “Highways for Life Initiative,” and the President’s Executive Order on Environmental Streamlining are examples of strong leadership that U.S. DOT has provided in the recent past. They are commended for what has been achieved. What is needed now is still more.

What is needed on a constant basis is for U.S. DOT to commit itself to help states deliver projects as fast as possible, and to enlist other Federal agencies in this approach. What is at stake are economic and social objectives for the country just as important as the environmental objectives states are being asked to achieve. It is essential to work together to achieve all of these, but on an expeditious basis which delivers transportation improvements when communities need them.

One facet of the relationship which would help achieve these common objectives is for FHWA to deal with State DOTs as their governmental partners rather than treat them as stakeholders. Ours is a Federally assisted, state-administered program that works best when we proceed as partners. Similarly, there is general consensus that the role of FHWA oversight will be more effective if it focuses on program delivery, and delegates project delivery to the states.

Funding projects needed by states and localities through Federal assistance is crucial. Forty-five percent of highway capital investment nationally comes from Federal assistance. Funding a project with Federal resources is also enormously complex, time-consuming and costly. In order to maximize the delivery of service to communities, only those projects that receive direct Federal aid should be subject to Federal rules, procedures, and oversight. Projects funded through non-Federal resources should be administered under state laws.

Recommended roles for the Federal Highway Administration:

1. Advocacy for the capacity, maintenance, and operational needs of our nation’s highway system;

2. Policy leadership on safety, security, congestion, finance, project delivery, environmental stewardship, freight, intermodal connections, and operations.

3. Technical Leadership on research, deployment of advanced technologies, design standards and quality assurance programs in consultation with AASHTO, delivery of the Federal Lands Highways Program, and administration of the Highway Trust Fund.

4. Stewardship focused equally on State DOT accountability for Federal funds and compliance with Federal laws; and FHWA’s own deliverables, such as liaison with other Federal agencies to expedite project approvals, and facilitating the delivery of service by states and local governments.

Recommended relationship with State DOTs:

5. Limits to Federal Role—Except as explicitly required by Congress, federal requirements and Federal oversight should be limited to projects receiving direct federal aid.

6. States are governmental partners not just stakeholders. States should be treated as the partners, on whom the Federal government depends to own, plan, design, build, operate and maintain the Federal-aid highway system.

7. Programmatic—FHWA should focus its efforts on program delivery and delegate project delivery to the states.

Planning and Project Delivery Are a State and Local Roles

The American people depend on Federal, state, and local governments and the private sector to deliver a transportation system that will keep us competitive in the World economy and meet our mobility needs.

Federal assistance represents approximately 45 percent of capital investment and 22 percent of highway investment overall. Approximately 45 percent of transit capital investment is provided through Federal assistance. It represents about 18 percent of overall transit spending. Federal assistance is crucial to both highways and transit. Its use is also enormously complex and time-consuming. To be most effective, Federal aid should be focused on a strategic network of highways that help meet national goals, with the balance funded and administered by states and local governments under state law. Consistent with meeting national goals, each state and its local governments should have the discretion to determine where best to invest that state’s share of federal assistance on the portion of the network deemed federally eligible. Federal transit oversight should similarly be limited to expenditures directly involving federal dollars.

In 1991, Congress delegated the responsibility for transportation planning and project programming to State departments of transportation and to metropolitan planning organizations. Congress determined that states and local governments were in the best position to assess local needs and to set priorities for investment. The responsibility for planning and investment programming should continue to be assigned at the state and local government levels.

To provide effective access to the World economy, there are corridors of national significance that cross state lines. The need for and alignment of these corridors should be assessed through a Federal–state partnership. In consultation with the Federal government, planning, funding, and implementation should be accomplished by the State DOTs affected through multistate compacts, such as those of the I-95 Corridor Coalition which includes the states from Maine to Florida served by Interstate 95.

Private Sector Partnership Role

Much of the service provided on the surface transportation system is provided by the private sector. This includes the trucking industry, the motor coach industry, taxis, and other providers on the highways. And it includes the freight rail and intercity passenger rail. Financing and facility management are sometimes provided privately.

An effective partnership is required between the private sector and government to meet the country’s needs.

Steps to a Successful Reauthorization

AASHTO believes that three steps need to be taken for the reauthorization of the next highway and transit program to succeed: first, development of a compelling vision of the surface transportation system needed for America’s future; second, development of a “reform agenda” to restore a sense of purpose for the Federal transportation program; and, third, development of bold goals that define the country’s transportation needs.

• Vision
  AASHTO, together with a broad cross-section of the transportation industry, is developing plans for a national conference to be held in May 2007, the purpose of which is to develop consensus around a national vision for the surface transportation system. Based on what develops through that conference and the work of nine policy working groups preparing input for it, AASHTO plans to prepare a report for the Commission entitled, A Conceptual Plan to Ensure That the Surface Transportation System Will Continue to Serve the Needs of the United States. We hope to complete that report mid-year.

• Reform Agenda
  AASHTO believes a “reform agenda” is needed to restore a sense of purpose for the federal transportation program.

Reform Agenda:

1. Restore the percentage of the program apportioned to the states and delivered through core highway programs from 83 percent in SAFETEA-LU to 90 percent as was the case in ISTEA.
   Apportioning Federal assistance to the states to be delivered through core programs is a sound approach and should be retained. It will help restore public confidence to know that the funds apportioned to the states and distributed through these programs are systematically programmed by states and local governments, who are in the best position to determine priorities that give taxpayers the best value for their dollars.

2. Address nationally significant needs through multi-state efforts in coordination with U.S. DOT, using state-apportioned Federal funds, matched by state funds, and/or other locally provided funds.
   Increasing apportioned funds to states and then having them join with adjacent states to cooperatively plan and build needed projects which benefit multi-state areas, is a more effective approach than Congressional earmarks or nationally allocated funds.

3. Minimize administrative cost and delay.
   Reduce the time required for project review and approval of Federally funded projects. State DOTs are already responding to community and environmental concerns through more flexible designs, environmental stewardship, and context sensitive solutions, making it appropriate that regulatory relief be provided.

4. Simplify program categories and increase flexibility.
   States and localities can get more value for the Federal dollar and produce improvements faster if the complexity of Federal highway and transit programs is reduced, and if state governments are given more flexibility in how to put those dollars to work.

5. Consolidate public transit program categories.
   Reduce the number of public transit program categories and increase the states’ flexibility in the use of Federal resources.

6. Focus on the National Highway System.
   The Federal-aid program should strengthen its focus on the National Highway System by increasing the proportion of core highway funding dedicated to the NHS to the highest of the six core programs. In cooperation with the Federal government, the NHS should be expanded by a state-determined strategic process designed to meet the nation’s growing mobility needs.

• Bold Goals
  AASHTO believes bold goals are needed to define the country’s transportation needs.

Bold Goals Needed to Define Future of Surface Transportation

1. Federal Revenues—Restore the purchasing power of the program by increasing Federal highway funding from $43 billion to $73 billion, and transit funding from $10.3 billion to $17.3 billion by 2015.

2. Supplement State and Local Revenues Through Alternative Financing Options—Over the next 10 years, increase the percentage of highway revenues generated by tolling from 5 percent to 9 percent, triple the amount of highway capital investment financed by public private ventures, and support the development of potential alternative revenue sources to fuel taxes.

3. Double Transit Ridership Over the Next 20 Years.

4. Preserve Today’s 47,000-Mile Interstate Highway System, So It Lasts for at Least the Next 50 Years.

5. Add Nearly as Much Capacity to the Interstate Highway System Over the Next 50 Years as Was Built Over the Last 50 Years—To accommodate impending growth in population and traffic over the next 30 years and to sustain our economic competitiveness, initiate the next phase of the Interstate System (sometimes referred to as “Corridors of Commerce”), adding 10,000 miles of new routes on new alignments, adding 20,000 lane miles to existing Interstates, and upgrading 20,000 miles of NHS routes to Interstate status. Correct bottlenecks, improve intermodal connections, upgrade interchanges, and create exclusive truck lanes.

6. Reduce Annual Highway Fatalities by 10,000 Each Decade—This can be achieved through safer vehicles, safer roadways, improved occupant protection, stronger state laws, stronger enforcement, advanced technology, and faster assistance to crash victims.

7. Reduce Congestion and Energy Consumption; Improve Air Quality—The strategy to minimize congestion, energy consumption, and improve air quality should include measures that enable states to: a) double transit ridership and significantly increase intercity passenger rail service; b) improve system performance through technology and better management of operations; c) manage demand through better linkage of transportation and land use; and d) construct new facilities to address growing traffic and promote efficient movement of vehicles.

8. Establish a National Rail Transportation Policy—Intercity passenger and freight rail are critical components of the nation’s surface transportation system. States are developing intercity passenger rail corridors to ease congestion, improve air quality and provide improved personal mobility options. Freight-rail capacity has decreased over the past 20 years while demand for freight capacity, in all modes has increased dramatically. Freight shippers in many states have expressed serious concerns about their transportation options which may seriously compromise the system’s ability to support our national economic growth. Current rail capacity is not sufficient to meet passenger or freight needs.
   
   It is imperative that the commission develop a national rail policy that addresses institutional roles, passenger and freight capacity and new, non-Highway Trust Fund funding and financing options. This policy must be developed in partnership with Federal and state governments and the railroads.

9. Performance—The American transportation system must provide superior performance to keep us globally competitive. Constantly changing demands are being placed on the system. Ultimately, evaluation of success must be in terms of what the system can deliver in condition, safety, and performance.

Conclusion

Many have observed that the last time America had a national vision for transportation was when the Interstate System was launched in 1956. What the country’s national leadership asked for then was a national system of direct, high-speed highways that would link principal metropolitan areas, agriculture and industrial centers, serve national defense, and connect with Canada and Mexico. The system was designed to reach all sections of the country and provide a network that would attract and serve greater traffic volumes than any previous system. It has meant far more to our economy and way of life than its designers could have imagined. While that vision served the country well for the period from the 1950s to the 1990s, circumstances have changed so dramatically it is no longer adequate for what is needed in the 21st Century.

Since 1950, our population has increased by 130 million, highway travel has increased five-fold, our metropolitan population has increased from 85 million to 225 million, and we have gone from an industrial economy that was largely self-contained, to one that is high-tech and service-based in an increasingly competitive global economy.

What it will take to meet America’s surface transportation needs for the future will require a different approach than was taken in the past. It will require a multi-modal and an intermodal approach, which includes the need to preserve what has been been built to date; the need to improve system performance; and the need to add substantial new capacity in highways, transit, freight rail, intercity passenger rail, and better connections to ports, airports, and border crossings. It will also require solutions which go beyond transportation improvements alone and include policies addressing land use, energy, global climate change, the environment, and community quality of life.

 

Next Page >>

 

© American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved.
444 N Capitol St. NW — Suite 249 — Washington, DC 20001
About AASHTO | Legal Information | Privacy Policy | Copyright Notice