[Senate Hearing 108-350]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-350
SAFETEA: REAUTHORIZATION OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
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
__________
MAY 20, 2003
__________
ON
S. 1072
A BILL TO AUTHORIZE FUNDS FOR FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS, HIGHWAY SAFETY
PROGRAMS, AND TRANSIT PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
92-374 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 20, 2003
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 6
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 4
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 19
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 20
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 10
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska...... 18
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 2
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 8
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 26
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 9
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........... 21
WITNESS
Mineta, Hon. Norman Y., Secretary, Department of Transportation.. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 51
Senator Carper........................................... 42
Senator Cornyn........................................... 52
Senator Jeffords......................................... 33
Senator Reid............................................. 39
Senator Voinovich........................................ 47
Senator Wyden............................................ 53
(iii)
SAFETEA: REAUTHORIZATION OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, the Hon. Christopher S. Bond
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Senators Bond, Thomas, Chafee, Reid, Baucus,
Carper, Wyden, Jeffords [ex officio] and Inhofe [ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The hearing will come to order.
Senator Bond has been delayed. He has indicated for us to
go ahead and get started.
I look forward to hearing testimony from my former
colleague, Secretary Mineta. He and I served together for 8
years in the House. I want my Democratic friends to hear this.
I was so close to Congressman Mineta that I even attended his
fund raisers back when he had Republicans who were running
against him. I was delighted to find out that you had accepted
this appointment. You have done a great job.
I will say the same thing about Mary Peters. I believe that
you are not testifying today. When we had our problem with the
I-40 bridge collapsing, she was there hours afterwards.
Everything went like clock work. We have a great team.
S. 1072, SAFETEA, does do a good job of building on many
key elements of ISTEA and TEA-21. In particular, I am pleased
with your efforts in creating increased flexibility for the
States by eliminating most of the discretionary highway grant
programs, thereby making these funds available to the States
through the core formula grant programs.
As a former mayor and State legislator, I understand the
frustration of State officials in Washington who dictate to
them how to spend their money. Your proposal continues to build
on a very important principle.
I also appreciate the effort you made in addressing a
concern that has been expressed by this committee on several
occasions, that being improvement in project delivery or
environmental streamlining. That is very important to us. Your
ideas are certainly a starting point for the committee's
further discussion on this important issue.
Finally, on an issue that we have heard so much about
during our hearings last year on safety puts some very
interesting ideas on the table with respect to freight movement
and the need to use innovative financing to address the
increasing demand that freight puts on the transportation
infrastructure.
In the 107th Congress I joined Senator Bob Smith in
introducing a private activity bond proposal. I am pleased to
see that you included private activity bonds as a possible
financing tool available to States and local governments.
However, I am not satisfied with the level of funding, as we
discussed before. The primary purpose of Federal spending, in
my opinion, No. 1, is for national defense, and No. 2, on
infrastructure.
As much as it pains me to say this, I believe that SAFETEA
does not provide sufficient funding to maintain our nation's
infrastructure, much less improve it. The Federal Highway
Administration's recent 2002 Status of the nation's Highways,
Bridges, and Transit Conditions and Performance Report states
the following:
``Maintaining the overall conditions in performance of
highways and bridges at current level would require
significantly more investment by all levels of Government. The
average annual investment needs to be 17.5 percent higher.''
Again, the report goes on to say that we do need to have
what I believe is more than is being presented to us today. We
are looking forward to hearing your testimony and to working
with you so that we can come out with a real good bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. My apologies for
arriving late. I am moving a little slower, not due to
congestion but to operations. I appreciate your being here. I
am going to defer to my colleague, the ranking member on the
committee, Senator Reid.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you very much, Senator Bond.
I also want to welcome my former colleague in the House,
Senator Mineta, and my neighbor from Arizona, Mary Peters, to
the committee.
As we meet today, we are preparing for a summer full of
challenges and opportunities as we face reauthorization in the
nation's surface transportation program. The Administration's
reauthorization proposal is an important part of this process.
I agree with the Secretary's testimony, which I have reviewed,
that transportation has an enormous impact on the economy and
our quality of life. And that is an understatement.
I have always been a proponent of infrastructure investment
and economic stimulus and the jobs it creates. Prior to 9/11 I
had legislation that had been unanimously approved by the
National Council of Mayors. It was moving right along which
would have had an infrastructure development program for this
country.
I am impressed every time I recognize that for every
billion we spend on transportation infrastructure we create
47,000 well-paid jobs. TEA-21 reauthorization represents a
tremendous opportunity for us to impact our economy in a
meaningful lasting way. Unfortunately, the Administration's
reauthorization proposal does not take full advantage of this
opportunity. While the bill continues the spirit of its
predecessors, ISTEA and TEA-21, the bill is woefully under
funded. The Administration bill takes the important first step
of identifying problem areas, such as safety and congestion,
but then fails to provide the necessary resource to make a real
and substantial impact in these areas.
Despite a reduction of the fatality rate over the last
decade, far too many people die in traffic accidents each year.
A disproportionate share of these fatalities is on rural roads.
Congestion continues to plague our major metropolitan areas,
causing millions of Americans to lose billions of dollars in
lost time and productivity while they sit in traffic.
Adequately addressing these problems will require a
substantially more Federal investment than the Administration
appears willing to make in its reauthorization proposal. This
bill's proposed funding system does not come close to meeting
the Administration's own cost estimates for system maintenance,
let alone system improvements. The Administration's bill also
would modify certain environmental provisions and project
permitting requirements. TEA-21 and its predecessor prove that
we can advance our national transportation goals while
preserving the environment.
I will not support any provision that undermines essential
environmental protections. We can increase investment in and
improve our nation's surface transportation system in a timely,
thoughtful, and effective way without jeopardizing the
environment. I repeat that a strong twenty-first century
economy requires a well-maintained, well-operated national
surface transportation system. The still lagging American
economy needs a stimulus in jobs created by sustained robust
investment in this system. This investment will benefit every
business, large and small, and improve the quality of life for
every American.
Let me just say that I look forward to working with the
distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Bond, who
has had experience as Governor of one of the largest States we
have in the union, and who understands the importance of this
legislation.
I, of course, also recognize, seated to my left, Senator
Baucus, who has been chairman of this committee, and was
responsible for helping usher in the last two transportation
bills we have. He has wisdom and has helped in working this
bill through the Congress this year. Hopefully we can do it
this year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Reid.
I thank my colleagues for their comments. I share those
views.
We are supposed to have a vote at 2:20 p.m. I am going to
suggest to the chairman of the full committee that we go over
and catch the first of that vote. We will try to keep this
going as long as we can, so we will not have any unnecessary
interruptions. I ask that the members either go early and come
back, or go over late.
I do want to add a few things.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, at some point I would like to
give a statement. When would be an appropriate time?
Senator Bond. Right after my statement.
Senator Baucus. That would be fine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. We will certainly entertain your statement.
I want to thank the Secretary of Transportation, Norman
Mineta, for being here today. We appreciate very much your
bringing a copy of the bill. We have had a bootleg copy of it
for some time. It is nice to finally have the version that OMB
let out.
As I indicated, in February when Federal Highway
Administration Peters appeared before this subcommittee, I was
very disappointed in what I view as the inadequate level of
funding made available. The needs of Missouri fall in line with
the Department of Transportation's 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 would require 65 percent more than is
currently invested. Funding is going to have to be the greatest
area of emphasis in the Senate if we are to achieve our goal of
having a 6-year reauthorization package sent to the President
prior to the September 30th expiration date.
The funding levels assumed in your reauthorization proposal
would make it impossible for our committee to draft a bill. For
this reason, I, along with our chairman and ranking member, and
the subcommittee ranking member, have already concluded that we
will draft our bill at $255 billion, as supported by 79
Senators during our debate on the Senate budget resolution.
I am pleased that the Administration's draft include
spending down the Highway Trust Fund balances, sparring
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.
Two-lane roads with traffic for the interstate are our
major killers. That is a fact of life in Missouri. If you talk
about safety, I can show you the white crosses where somebody
came across a center line on a two-lane highway. They are all
over our State. Wherever we are. We do not have to go far to
find one.
Your proposal continues what I, along with the Senator
Chafee referred to as the Bond-Chafee Revenue Aligned Budget
Authority, RABA, proposal. I look forward to working with the
Administration and this committee to refine the ups and downs
we have seen through RABA and TEA-21.
With the shortfalls of funding in many States throughout
the Nation, the provision to toll the interstate is a tool
which I think is appropriate to have in these fiscally
constrained times. Our States need to be able to add additional
capacity. It appears to me that toll financing is the best
alternative way to enable cash-strapped States to do so.
We have heard in testimony by the Administration that
nearly 43,000 people are killed on our highways and roads each
year. The Administration has proposed a new safety core
program, and even entitled its reauthorization package to
continue their commitments to our motoring public safety.
I am glad the bill reflects our continued commitment,
making not only investments in infrastructure, but also to the
general safety and welfare of our constituents. There have been
many discussions regarding the State infrastructure bank
program. I, too, am happy to see that the Administration is
proposing to continue with the current program as it was
authorized in TEA-21.
I understand that of the five States authorized in TEA-21,
only my State, Missouri, as well as Florida, have agreed to
utilize the funding from TEA-21, and are doing very well with
their infrastructure bank program. Even though the
Administration's draft suggests that these two States would
likely be accepted as pilot States under the Secretary's
criteria, I intend to propose that they be allowed to continue
in the same positive manner in which they have operated over
the previous 6-year authorization.
Research is an area which is very important to our national
interest in maintaining our position and providing cutting edge
technology. The University Transportation Centers, or UTC
programs, provide necessary dollars to this mission in the area
of higher education. I am pleased that the University of
Missouri at Rolla was recognized as a UTC to address national
needs in the areas of transportation infrastructure, focusing
on advanced materials and nondestructive technologies, or NDT.
This involves: One, development, understanding,
manufacturing, and use of new, more durable construction
material and NDT methods. Two, installation processes and
engineering designs. Three, monitoring and evaluation of new
and repaired structures. Four, standardization and code
approval of products and design protocols. And, five, education
and technology transfers.
We certainly want to make sure that we have universities
involved in transportation research. The Administration's bill
contains several environmental provisions as well. Stakeholders
on all sides of the issues tell us that improvements are needed
in the way we develop and review projects and protect air
quality from new and existing projects. The committee is
working with groups as diverse as road builders, environmental
advocates such as Environmental Defense and NRDC, State air
agencies, State transportation agencies, metropolitan planning
organizations, conservation advocates, and managed growth
proponents.
We are working to draw ideas from all stakeholders and
their proposals. We hope to find a balanced approach that will
produce better transportation projects delivered on time and
under budget. We will also ensure a conformity process that is
more efficient and less burdensome, and does more to encourage
air quality improvements and is equally protective of air
quality.
Unfortunately, there are a number of proposals in the bill,
however, that I cannot support. While we face a number of
complex challenges with the movement of freight, I do not think
we should be using highway dollars to help facilitate the rail
industry. The Administration bill proposes a new freight
transportation gateways program which will allow the use of
surface transportation program dollars, as well as national
highway system dollars. This means less dollars for our roads,
despite the ever growing number of needs identified in the
Conditions and Performance Report by the Federal Highway
Administration. I am pleased, at least though, that the
Administration does not include the Highway Trust Fund dollars
for passenger rail or Amtrack. As I stated earlier, I am glad
that we received the Administration's bill and moving forward
with reauthorization.
We have our work cut out for us in drafting a proposal even
at the higher level of $255 billion. The Senate number is
really $231 billion for highways as identified in the final
budget resolution. While $231 billion for highways is higher
than what you proposed today, it will be difficult to address
all the various issues that members of this committee would
like to see done in this reauthorization period without
additional revenue.
I look forward to working with the Administration to draft
a bill that will improve the overall condition of our nation's
highways and congestion. I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Baucus, I would like to give you and Senator Thomas
the opportunity to give opening statements before leaving for
the vote. I recognize you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
moving expeditiously on this bill. This is very important and I
very much hope that we can get a bill passed this year and not
have to resort to an extension of current law, but rather move
and get a bill passed.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to welcome our friend,
Secretary Mineta, a great public servant, whom we have known
for a long time. I personally first met and worked with the
Secretary when I was a member of the other body. I worked with
him very well. In fact, I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we are
both from that infamous Watergate Class. We are very proud of
that. Atlanta is very proud of the contributions that
Congressman Mineta made to that class, rising even further than
most of us. I deeply appreciate all the work that you have
done, Norm, in service to your country.
The same goes for Mary Peters. She works very hard at the
Federal Highway Administration. She does an excellent job,
previously helping on the airline side of things and now with
the highways as the FHA Administrator. I commend you, Mary, for
all that you are doing.
I know that both of you personally work very hard, and
these programs mean a lot to you. You serve our country with
the utmost conscientiousness and good faith. We appreciate that
very much.
I must say that I wish that we were meeting under happier
times. I do not know anybody on this committee who agrees with
your Administration's proposals. As you well know, they are
dramatically under funded. There is no way in the world we can
maintain a highway system at such low paltry levels as
recommended by the Administration.
As you well know, your Administration's own Conditions and
Performance Report indicates that an annual investment of $75
billion in highway and transit capital infrastructure is needed
in order to begin to improve the condition of our nation's
highways, bridges, and transit systems. The Administration's
bill falls woefully short of that number, with $247 billion in
funding over 6 years. That is $201 billion for highways and it
calculates to about half on an annual basis of what the
Department's own needs study recommends. It is extremely low.
I must say, too, if we take a quick trip to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and look at their CPI inflation indicator,
that says that TEA-21's $217.8 billion in authorization in 1998
dollars would be only $246 billion in 2003 dollars. That is a
net growth of $1.3 billion over 6 years in inflation-adjusted
dollars, or just over one-half of 1 percent over 6 years on an
annual basis. I calculate that to come out to an eight-
hundredth of 1 percent increase in real terms that the
Administration is proposing in real terms. Clearly, for fuel,
for contractors, asphalt, aggregate, equipment, salaries,
overhead--you name it. It is going to be much more than eight-
hundredth of 1 percent annually.
This is moving backwards very significantly. Frankly it is
an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment for all of us here in
the committee to receive a proposal by the Administration that
moves so far backwards in terms of the needs that this country
faces in its infrastructure.
We all know that spending dollars for quality
infrastructure increases the competitiveness of our country,
enhances our productivity, and its jobs. In my State of Montana
that is 11,000 jobs. You know the rule of thumb. One billion
dollars translates into 47 million jobs. We get a little over a
quarter of a billion. That translates to 11,000 jobs. Those are
good paying jobs. That is desperately needed in my State.
We in Montana are about 49th in per capita income. We are
hurting. We are a very big State, the fourth largest in the
Nation. We have more Federal highway miles per capita than any
other State in the Nation. This is critically important. For
the Administration to come up here and tell us that we are
going to go backwards in real terms, just makes no sense
whatsoever.
I might also say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your words
that this level is inadequate. Those are also the words of the
chairman of the full committee. I believe they are going to be
the views of virtually everybody in this committee.
I want to help accommodate my good friend from Wyoming. I
will not finish the rest of my statement except to say briefly
that the addition of the two other categories, the basic core
of five categories, is a mystery to me. Why we add off-the-
shelf or safety as a separate category is a mystery. We already
have safety provisions very deeply imbedded in TEA-21, in the
core programs already. The sixth category takes money away from
the five core categories, as paltry as those are currently
financed in the bill anyway. This just does not make any sense
to me.
The off-the-shelf makes no sense to me. What we are really
trying to get at is streamlining generally and to make sure
that these projects are not hung up. There are some projects
off-the-shelf. I see no sense equating a separate category for
off-the-shelf. Rather, our goal is to increase streamlining
throughout all the core programs, not just the off-the-shelf.
You know the history this committee has had with the
Department. It has been very dismal, if I may be blunt. It is
has been dismal because many times over the years we have asked
the Department to come up with some meaningful environmental
streamlining. The Department has come back with the most
complicated charts I could ever imagine. They are the most
complicated things I have ever seen.
Many of us in the Senate believe it is important to direct
the Department to come up with certain dates and deadlines by
which decisions are made, and also to make DOT the lead agency.
There is no lead agency now. This would also make it possible
for States to be able to take over some significant aspects of
the program. Your recommendation contains insignificant
aspects.
I am surprised, too, at the lack of creativity in
financing. Why in the world you do not recommend interest on
the Trust Fund go to the Trust Fund is beyond me. Why in the
world do you not go further in addressing the fuel tax evasion?
That is beyond me. Why in the world do you not address the
ethanol subsidy now subsidized by the Trust Fund. It should be
subsidized by the general fund. That is beyond me.
The consequence of all that is very low funding
recommendation which is way less than this country needs. It
would be a very significant disservice to this country if this
Congress were to adopt the Administration's proposal. We would
be moving backwards.
I hope very much that the Administration understands that
as the Congress works to provide the correct and right levels
of funding. The Administration has to work with us and not work
against us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Baucus.
Senator Thomas?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess we have
all served together, Mr. Secretary, in the House. I will be
very brief because I think you ought to have a chance to say
something. I am pleased that you are here to talk about this
important issue. Certainly all of us agree that more money
needs to be available and we will find a way to do that. I hope
that we can find more flexibility in the CMAQ program, or
flexibility in general. States like Wyoming are much different
than States like New York. We need to have some opportunities
to do that.
I would also be interested in the increase in the cost of
the Administration which seems to be substantially higher.
Since most everything has been said. We are anxious to hear
from you and to move forward and put together a program that
will fit throughout the country and will fit our budget, and we
can do the things we hope to be able to do.
Thank you very much for being here.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Thomas.
I am now going to include in the record a statement by
Senator Warner in which he raises some very useful points. I
hope you will have an opportunity to review that. We certainly
will consider it in this committee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John W. Warner, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia
Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary, I want to join my colleagues in
welcoming you to the committee this afternoon to discuss the
President's proposals for reauthorizing our nation's surface
transportation laws.
It was my privilege to work extensively with many of my colleagues
on TEA-21 as the subcommittee chairman at that time. Today, I remain as
committed today to ensuring that there is adequate funding to meet our
surface transportation needs, to improving the safety of the traveling
public, and to ensuring that our agricultural products and
manufacturing goods can travel efficiently across this country.
We look forward to learning of your proposals, and I certainly have
a few ideas of my own. As you are well aware, many of us, including
myself, have strong views about the funding level that is needed to
maintain an adequate level of service on our nation's highways and
transit systems. This is a matter that we will not resolve today, but I
assure you that I want to have an open dialog with you and the
Department as we continue to examine ways to ensure the viability of
the Highway Trust Fund. I commend the Administration for'taking the
initial step of allowing for the transfer of the 2.5 cents per gallon
tax on gasohol to the Highway Trust Fund.
Mr. Secretary, I want to be clear from the beginning, and I welcome
the opportunity for further clarification, that I have strong concerns
about two major policy issues in the Administration's proposals.
First, current safety programs under the jurisdiction of the
Environment and Public Works Committee are not continued which, in my
view, takes us in the reverse, not forward, in our commitment to
safety. We all know that excessive speed and aggressive driving coupled
with the failure to wear a safety belt causes an intolerably high
number of traffic deaths and injuries. For the first time in a decade,
traffic deaths are on the increase. Alcohol remains a prevalent
problem, particularly for teen drivers. We must ensure that States
remain focused on these problems by funding programs that promote seat
belt usage, and educate drivers of the dangers of drinking and driving.
We must make every effort to have States enact a .08 BAC law, provide
stiffer penalties for repeat drunk driving offenders, and enact laws
prohibiting open alcohol containers in vehicles. For States failing to
meet these minimum Federal standards, the current requirement to
transfer a small amount of funding must be focused on addressing these
problems, and not used for construction.
Second, I, like so many others, am frustrated with the length of
time it takes for a highway or transit project to make its way from the
drawing board to construction. This deserves the time and attention
that you have dedicated to this problem by reaching out to all
interested groups. I am concerned, however, with the brief descriptions
that I have seen about the significant changes proposed for Section
4(f) and Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act.
This committee has a long history in ensuring that our nation's
historic properties are protected under Section 4(f). This is not a
duplicative process, but one that compliments Section 106 reviews. It
allows transportation projects to proceed when it has been demonstrated
that there are no other prudent and feasible alternatives. Historic
properties are an important means of telling our nation's history. They
are our outdoor classrooms for students and living treasures to our
past. I remain committed to ensuring that the preservation of our
historic homes, structures, battlefields and open spaces remain on an
equal footing with the ever-increasing demands for transportation
construction.
Mr. Secretary, we are at the beginning of a long process today. We
share many of the same goals and I know that by working together we can
develop a sound national policy that reduces traffic deaths and
injuries, promotes construction while preserving historic sites,
reduces congestion, improves air quality and finances a transportation
system that continues to contribute to the overall health of our
national economy.
Senator Bond. The committee will stand in recess for the
vote.
[Recess.]
Senator Bond. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene the
hearing.
We turn to the ranking member of the full committee,
Senator Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to tell Secretary Mineta how proud I
am to be with him today. I think this has already been
mentioned, but I was one of those few that survived from the
Republican times in the election of 1974. We became good
friends then, and got a lot of good legislation done. It has
been harder since then. I enjoy working with you. You are quite
a help to us all. I appreciate your being here.
I thank Senator Reid for convening today's hearings and the
Administration's proposal to renew the nation's surface
transportation program. I welcome my friend, Norman Mineta.
Over the many months you have been true to your promise to work
closely with the committee. I thank you for that.
In the course of our hearings we heard from many of the
nation's finest transportation minds. It appears, Norm, that
you have also listened to the transportation experts. SAFETEA
contained a number of policy recommendations that are national
in scope. That is essential. Transportation is a national
issue. It connects the Nation, it unites the Nation, and it
must be viewed from a national perspective.
Transportation is clearly our government responsibility. It
provides the public framework from which our economy and our
communities are built. Transportation spending is a powerful
job creator. It stimulates hundreds of thousands of well-paying
jobs. Transportation provides capacity for a global trading
network.
Our neighborhoods, our towns, our cities, and our
metropolitan areas are formed and defined by the transportation
system. In our hearings we learned that our current national
transportation program is sound. The ISTEA policies and the
TEA-21 funding guarantees work. We were advised to carry these
ideas forward.
Mr. Secretary, your bill reflects these same principles.
But regrettably at $247 billion the proposal before us falls
far short. The Secretaries of Transportation from the 50 States
and DOTs have called for a $300 billion program. The cost to
simply maintain our highway system is even greater. That is why
I joined with my colleagues in the committee to commit $311
billion to transportation spending, a 40 percent increase in
the program. We are far from your proposal.
As I said previously, I will not support an under-funded
bill. While a short-term extension prevents problems, it is
preferable to 6 years of under-investment. The need for
investment is national.
Every State in this country has aging roads and bridges in
need for expanding capacity. I want to substantially increase
the program. I want to distribute that increase in a manner
that benefits all 50 States. With a 40 percent increase, every
State should benefit. Our investment in transportation should
enhance our environment.
My record on clean air, clean water, and sound planning is
clear. I will oppose any retreat in environmental protection.
The current national transportation program, TEA-21, expires in
just over 4 months. Today's hearing is an important milestone
in our process. We will need to work diligently and
cooperatively if we are to meet that deadline.
Let me close by commending the Administration for its focus
on safety. Today highway accidents are the No. 1 cause of death
among Americans aged four through 33. These are our young
people, our nation's most precious resource.
I am heartened by your focus on safety. We talked a great
deal about safety in both ISTEA and TEA-21. This time let's
match this rhetoric with real spending. Mr. Secretary, I
believe that we share a common national outlook. There are
areas where we differ, but those differences can be bridged.
I look forward to working with you and your capable staff
on the renewal of the nation's surface transportation program.
I thank Senator Bond very profusely for convening this hearing.
It's a great time, a great place, and great witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Jeffords. We
appreciate your words and also your bringing some interest to
the testimony.
I think there are no further statements to be had. We will
turn finally to the Secretary of Transportation. Again,
welcome, Mr. Secretary. We will make your full statement a part
of the record. If you want to summarize or emphasize something,
please do so.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION ACCOMPANIED BY: MARY PETERS, ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Secretary Mineta. Chairman Bond, Chairman Inhofe, Senator
Jeffords, and members of the subcommittee, let me thank you
very much for this opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Bush Administration proposal to reauthorize our
surface transportation programs.
I want to also congratulate you, Senator Bond, on your
recovery from your surgery.
Senator Bond. I do yours as well, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Mineta. Thank you. Obviously after having gone
for that vote and responded, you are doing the marathon mile
very well.
Before I begin, I would also like to introduce our Federal
Highway Administrator Mary Peters, whom all of you know, who is
going to be here to assist me with any details on questions
that come up.
Senator Bond. Welcome, Ms. Peters.
Secretary Mineta. I would ask that my complete statement be
inserted in the record in its entirety.
Senator Bond. Without objection, so ordered.
Secretary Mineta. Last week, as all of you are aware, I
sent to Congress the Administration's reauthorization proposal,
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2003, otherwise known as SAFETEA. This 6-year,
$247 billion proposal is the largest surface and public
transportation commitment in American history, larger than
ISTEA, and larger than TEA-21. But it builds on the successes
of the landmark legislation, ISTEA, of which I was a principal
coauthor during my days on the other side of this microphone in
the other body, and its successor, TEA-21.
I believe that this reauthorization proposal serves as a
true blueprint for investment in our future, supplying the
funds and the framework for needed investments to maintain and
grow our national transportation system while protecting the
environment for future generations of Americans.
In addition, our proposed legislation places a central
focus on transportation safety, as has been mentioned. Although
we have made improvements in the rates of fatalities and
injuries on our highways, the total numbers remain intolerable,
and they are rising. In the year 2002, nearly 43,000 people
lost their lives on our highways and our roads. These are
numbers that I simply will not accept.
That is why I have challenged the dedicated men and women
of the Department of Transportation to dramatically reduce the
number of injuries and fatalities on our nation's highways,
starting right now.
For the past year-and-a-half, this Department, with the
critical and timely help of this committee, has dedicated
itself to improving transportation security for all Americans.
Faced with the scourge of terrorism, our Department
responded by creating unprecedented partnerships with the
private sector, Congress, interest groups, and Federal, State,
and local agencies. Together we succeeded in decreasing the
dangers of terrorism through new and better technology, more
personnel, improved laws, and increased education.
Mr. Chairman, we are going to do the same thing with car
crashes. This year we are going to take the same passion, call
on similar partnerships, and build the same record of success
through enforcement, education, and engineering. Nothing would
make a greater difference in reducing injuries and fatalities
than to increase the use of safety belts everywhere in America.
If safety belt use were to increase from the present national
average of 75 percent to 90 percent, an achievable goal, 4,000
lives would be saved each year.
We have a moral as well as an economic obligation to
immediately address the problem of transportation safety. The
total economic impact of all motor vehicle crashes exceeds $230
billion each year, a staggering figure. That is why President
Bush and I have made saving lives an essential priority for the
Department and for the reauthorization of TEA-21.
Our bill would improve safety by creating a new core safety
program, consolidating and simplifying the safety programs that
are administered by NHTSA, and by providing new incentive
bonuses to reward States that achieve demonstrable safety
results. Enactment of this bill would be an important step in
reducing highway fatalities and injuries and providing greater
flexibility to State and local governments.
Our nation's transportation system faces significant
challenges in other areas as well, such as congestion, project
delivery, freight movement, and intermodal connectivity.
SAFETEA would create a safer, simpler, and smarter Federal
surface transportation program by addressing transportation
problems of national significance, while at the same time
giving State and local transportation decisionmakers more
flexibility to solve transportation problems in their
communities.
To accomplish all of these goals, SAFETEA calls for a
record Federal investment in surface transportation spending
over $201 billion on highway and safety programs, and nearly
$46 billion on public transportation programs from fiscal year
2004 through fiscal year 2009.
I firmly believe that our proposal provides an excellent
framework in which to tackle the surface transportation
challenges that lie ahead. SAFETEA will help ensure needed
repairs to our roads and bridges. It will ensure that new
transportation projects are completed on budget and on time. It
ensures the continued growth of our nation's economy without
imposing costly new taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say that SAFETEA includes a
strong program for protecting and preserving the environment.
President Bush and I strongly believe that our nation can
successfully improve the efficiency of transportation project
delivery while maintaining the highest level of environmental
protection. Doing so is a key priority for this Administration.
That is why approximately 25 percent of our proposed $247
billion in funding would be invested in programs that will
protect the environment, such as reducing automobile emissions,
expanding bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and promoting
transit programs aimed at relieving congestion and reducing air
pollution.
SAFETEA will also continue the President's successful
emphasis on environmental stewardship. Our proposal will
significantly enhance the ability of Federal, State, and local
agencies to reach agreements for moving forward on
environmentally sound transportation projects, while quickly
discarding those that would harm the environment.
Our proposal funds our nation's transportation
infrastructure needs in a fiscally responsible manner. SAFETEA
continues the funding guarantees of TEA-21 that linked highway
funding with transportation excise tax receipts and redirects
the 2.5 cents per gallon of the general fund gasohol tax to the
Highway Trust Fund. SAFETEA also improves highway
infrastructure performance and maintenance by dedicating an
additional $1 billion a year of Highway Trust Fund dollars over
and above each year's estimated receipts into the Highway Trust
Fund.
Obviously, the total size of the program is, and will
continue to be, a matter of debate. That debate, however,
should not be permitted to cloud a meaningful and necessary
discussion of the many programmatic reforms that are contained
in SAFETEA. Moreover, any proposal that jettisons the important
linkage between tax revenues and spending in an effort to
achieve higher overall funding puts the landmark victory of
guaranteed funding at risk.
My written statement, which has been submitted for the
record, as acknowledged by the chairman, contains a much more
detailed explanation of the programmatic reforms that are
included in our SAFETEA proposal. I hope that you will give
these proposals serious consideration as the committee moves to
develop its version of this legislation.
I would like to conclude by stressing the fact that the
Bush Administration is committed to securing approval of a
multi-year authorization bill this year. I look forward to
working with all of you, and with the Congress, to achieve that
very important goal.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having me here
today. I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
One of the items of interest that jumps out from your
statement is this. A number of my constituents, at least,
believe that the amount of money now set aside for rail highway
crossings and hazard elimination, that the 10 percent satisfied
is not adequate. There needs to be more funding. Apparently
those have all been left out and transferred to this new safety
category.
How can we make sure that these previously identified
priorities will not be overlooked or short-changed by the
States and other implementing agencies?
Secretary Mineta. One of the factors that we have built
into this new legislation is that of flexibility. Again, the
reason we have done that is to be able to allow State and local
transportation leaders to be able to respond to the greatest
needs in their own States and localities.
By allowing these categories to be included in a block-
grant kind of approach, it will allow each State to be able to
address their greatest needs in directing the financial
resources to their areas. We did not want to retain a ``one-
size-fits-all'' kind of a program. This way we feel that there
are some States with priorities that are greater than others in
certain areas so they can direct their resources to those
problem areas.
Some States, as you have indicated, that have rail-highway
crossings, will be able to direct those resources, where under
categorical programs they would still be limited in terms of
the amounts of moneys that are in each of the categories. This
way, with the total funding in a block-grant approach, they can
then exceed the prior funding under any categorical program.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
You have mentioned that your goal for incentive grants is
to get seatbelt usage up to 90 percent. I understand that the
current seat belt usage is about 75 percent. Having had over my
lifetime a little experience with human nature, what are the
States going to be able to do with their incentive grants to
get 75 percent up to 90 percent? It seems to me that that is
going to require some kind of superhuman effort or a gun and a
whip at every corner. How do you think that you can get from 75
percent to 90 percent?
Secretary Mineta. What we have done is to have incentive
grants in the safety program. What we are trying to do is to
encourage States to go from a secondary seat belt law to
primary law. We know, through experience, that with the use of
primary seat belt laws, that the usage goes up and in those
States lives are saved.
Senator Bond. Does the primary seat belt law get it up to
90 percent?
Secretary Mineta. In many instances, the States have
attained 90 percent and those that have gone from secondary to
primary, even though they may not be at 90 percent, have
increased their usage substantially.
What we have are incentive grants for States to go to
primary laws. Then for the demonstrable results that they have
from having primary laws, they would be able to also receive
additional funding.
Senator Bond. Thank you. Would you tell me how your
streamline proposals will be able to spend project delivery
while still protecting the environment and ensuring a thorough
a rigorous NEPA process?
Secretary Mineta. Well, there are many areas in which we
have already starting doing this. As an example, whenever we
have major projects that have been brought to the State local
or regional office--let us say to the Federal Highway
Administration--they will not only have a team that deals with
the environmental laws and issues, at the same time there will
be a Federal team starting to look at it. What we have had in
the past is a sequential operation.
The same thing will be done with the State environmental
process where once the State completes its work, it will not be
the Federal Government just starting theirs. Our Federal
environmental process will start when the State is working on
theirs. It will not be sequential, but concurrent. We will be
able to reduce the time that we would otherwise be utilizing.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Secretary, at our hearing last year
when I asked you about American's great rail systems to relieve
highway congestion, you pointed to innovative financing as the
way to get that job done. You referred me to the Alameda
Corridor Project in California. I have looked into that project
and found it to be innovative in a number of ways. It is a
public/private partnership sponsored by a special purpose
district that is collecting user fees to cover debt service.
By separating grade crossings along a 20-mile stretch of
track, the project has improved freight efficiency, relieves
highway congestion, opened capacity for passenger rail, and
helped to renew their surrounding neighborhoods. It is an
intermodal success story.
But I am not certain whether projects like Alameda will be
eligible for funding under your proposal. Also, under your
proposal it is unclear how future sponsors will retire the debt
incurred through financing, or what revenue stream options are
available. How does this proposal handle the Alameda-type
projects at retirement and revenue stream options?
Secretary Mineta. First of all, as you are very well aware,
TIFIA currently is eligible only for public freight rail
facilities. But what we have in this bill is a great deal of
emphasis on intermodal connectivity. One of the things that we
have in here is some provisions dealing with the freight and
port connectivity, in order to be able to improve the
productivity and efficiency along those major travel corridors.
In terms of financing, besides TIFIA, which has always
existed, we have State infrastructure banks. We also have this
time a new category referred to as private-activity bonds.
These are tax-exempt bonds. They are not under the cap of the
State tax-exempt bond features.
I think that the private activity bond is one that is going
to enable many projects to be financed with this new
instrument. We have the Department of Treasury's clearance on
these private activity bonds.
Senator Jeffords. Late last year I provided a paper to the
Aiken Lecture Series at the University of Vermont on the
advantages of hydrogen technology as a clean and renewable
energy source for transportation. In that paper I highlighted
the enormous potential benefits of this technology. It can be a
totally renewable, never ending, cheap and powerful source of
energy while at the same time saving the environment.
Renewable hydrogen technology produces no acid rain, no
ozone depleting chemicals, no climate change gas, no harmful
pollution, and no dependence on imported fossil fuels. Over
time it can become far less expensive than traditional oil-
based fuels.
In his State of the Union address, the President called on
over $1 billion in research funding so that ``American can lead
the world in developing clean hydrogen-powered automobiles.''
However, we must be clear that hydrogen will provide these
benefits only if produced the right way. Hydrogen produced from
the renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, or
geothermal energy will provide us with a clean energy future
that we seek. Fuel-cell cars and trucks operating on hydrogen
stored on board produce essentially zero pollution. The only
byproducts are water and heat, as you know.
The potential health benefits are staggering since
currently motor vehicles' exhaust cause more air pollution than
any other human activity. Even as far back as the 19th century,
the most famous science fiction writer, Jules Verne, pointed in
his book, The Mysterious Island, that water will be the coal of
the future because water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen and
will ``furnish and inexhaustible source of heat and light as
long as the earth is inhabited.''
Mr. Secretary, how does the Administration's bill address
the significant need for research and development of hydrogen-
powered automobiles and trucks?
Secretary Mineta. We have in our bill, I believe, $55
million for hydrogen technology. What we are planning to do
there is to work very closely with the Department of Energy. In
my discussions with the automobile industry, it is not so much
the development of the vehicle that will be the issue, it will
really be the infrastructure of the fueling facilities
nationally. That is going to be the issue that we are all going
to have to address in terms of trying to advance hydrogen fuel
or hydrogen technology.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Jeffords.
Senator Inhofe?
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
None of the five Senators were here during my opening
statement so I am going to repeat one thing. I am going to be
very complimentary of both the Secretary and the Administrator.
Administrator Peters came out during the tragic collapse of the
I-40 bridge just hours after it happened and worked closely
with our people. I have never seen a job done better or faster.
Former Congressman Mineta and I served together for 8
years. I served under his leadership in the Transportation
Committee. I am so pleased with the great job you are doing. I
do remember, however, back during ISTEA when you were calling
the shots and we were running it over there in the House. We
were devising ways to try to get more money than came down from
the Administration of George I.
We are kind in the same situation right now where we feel
that the funding is not adequate and we are in need. As I said
in my opening statement, quoting from the report that we have,
that the amount of money that we are talking about will just
maintain what we have. I think it is a matter of being somewhat
inadequate.
What do you feel would be the cash balance in the Highway
Trust Fund at the end of 2009 under SAFETEA? Not obligated, but
just the cash balance.
Secretary Mineta. I believe that was $18 billion. 2009 is
$21 billion.
Senator Inhofe. I thought it was considerably less than
that.
Secretary Mineta. That is including the transit account.
Senator Inhofe. I believe I am correct in saying that it is
$10 billion.
Secretary Mineta. $9.9 billion in the highway account.
Senator Inhofe. That is right. At the end of 2009.
Now my question would be: Is that more than just a prudent
balance at that time? Would you speculate on that?
Secretary Mineta. What we were trying to do through the
life of the authorization period was to make sure that we did
not violate the Byrd rule. In order to have that head room
under the Byrd rule, we wanted to make sure that we drew down
against it.
Senator Inhofe. That would be the unobligated.
Secretary Mineta. What we did was to make sure that all the
way through we were observing the Byrd rule.
Senator Inhofe. I am sure that some of my colleagues are
going to get into the funding, so I will not do that. In
response to the question asked by Senator Bond about
streamlining, I thought that language was good. There are so
many safeguards in there. You outlined those again in response
to the question of Senator Bond: Do you think that really
accomplishes the level of streamlining that we need, still with
all those safeguards that are in there?
Secretary Mineta. Like you, I came from local government.
If I had those kinds of flexible arrangements, I think we can
make the dollars go farther and direct the resources to those
areas that we think are the priorities of local government
without having to be told where the money ought to be spent.
Senator Inhofe. In my State of Oklahoma, and under the new
PM.5 standards it is going to put us in a position
where it is going to be difficult in finding some of our rural
areas out of attainment. Now, your CMAQ generally goes to your
congested urban areas. Our concern is what can we do. Does your
proposal offer some latitude to help us in those rural areas
that are coming under what I consider to be an artificially low
PM standards? Do you have any thoughts about that?
Secretary Mineta. You are absolutely correct. CMAQ is not
uniquely an urban program. The nature of the CMAQ program is to
be able to have the program, or to have CMAQ to be used for air
quality in rural areas as well.
Senator Inhofe. It is. However, your funding mechanism is
geared to the population. You do not have the population in
those rural areas, but they still have that problem. I think we
need to address. I know you are trying to do that. We are, too.
We will be working together with you on that, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Mineta. We will be happy to work with you on
that, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
I would submit for the record a statement by Senator
Murkowski who conveys her regrets. She has a Commerce Committee
hearing that is critical to the State of Alaska.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join the other members of the
subcommittee in welcoming Secretary Mineta. I am very interested in his
comments about this important legislation.
As those who have visited Alaska know first-hand, and others have
heard from all the members of the Alaska Delegation, my State lags far
behind the rest of the Nation in surface transportation systems.
Elsewhere in the United States, communities deal with substandard
roads, or deteriorating highways, or congestion. In Alaska, it is
literally not possible to drive to many communities. You cannot drive
where there is no road.
We Alaskans are pretty good at making do. In the winter, we use
frozen rivers as roads, and in other seasons we travel and move our
goods in boats, or in small aircraft, or on 4-wheelers. In fact, many
of us enjoy the sense of being near the wilderness.
But there is a devastating price to be paid.
For most Americans, a serious injury means a quick trip to the
nearest emergency room.
For most Americans, a fire means calling the fire department, and
with any luck, your life and property can be saved.
For most Americans, buying groceries means deciding which
supermarket has the best sales this week.
For most Americans, looking for work means hopping in the car, or
on the bus. But in much of Alaska, daily life is very different. And a
big reason for that is the lack of even minimal transportation options.
To be honest, I think the United States has made a huge mistake by
not freeing Alaskans to contribute more to the national economy either
by building a network of basic roads or by letting Alaskans build them
as most of the country did with a minimum of interference from well-
intentioned but thoroughly stifling regulations.
There are some things I very much appreciate in the
Administration's proposed highway bill. For example, it provides the
States with greater flexibility to move funding between certain
categories of activity. That's both welcome and badly needed, as each
of our States struggle with their own unique issues.
However, I am disappointed in other aspects of the proposal. I do
not think that it adequately recognizes the importance of the
transportation system to the quality of life we seek to make available
to every American, and the need for highway funding levels that respond
adequately to the very real needs being felt in every State.
We all recognize that congestion is a key issue for many of our
roadways. And we all should recognize that traditional methods of
dealing with congestion are not working very well.
We all recognize that safety is a key issue. And we should all
recognize that while encouraging seat belt use is laudable, it would be
even more laudable if we took steps to reduce the potential for
accidents in the first place.
We all recognize the issue of ``road rage'' as one we need to
address. And we should all recognize that we need to make greater
efforts to eliminate the frustrations that cause it, as well as
enforcing the law against those who experience it.
I think we need to rethink our highway and highway-related
programs. Rather than coerce States into uniformly required actions
that ``big brother'' has decided are right for everyone, let's
encourage States to take actions that are right for them.
Maybe with all due respect to the American trucking industry and to
the invaluable role it plays in our lives we need to find another way
to move long-haul goods.
Maybe we need to make it harder much harder for individuals to
obtain driver's licenses by requiring improved training.
And most of all, maybe we need to understand that training,
enforcement, transit programs, and so forth are still only pieces of
the puzzle. If the highway system is overextended, overcrowded, and
over-frustrating, we will not be able to fix it by nibbling around the
edges. This is not the place to cut costs or corners.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Now I call on Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, and Administrator Peters, we welcome you. It
is good to see you both. We thank you for your stewardship and
for your testimony today.
I find that in the State of Delaware that TEA-21 is
generally seen as a success. We want to applaud the
Administration for recognizing this for a little State like
ours and larger States as well. I want to also applaud you for
offering a proposal that maintains many of TEA-21's best
features while placing a new emphasis on improving safety.
At the heart of TEA-21 has been its flexibility and
substantial resources. It appears that these efforts are
actually maintained, at least with respect to flexibility, to
expand that flexibility and to simply program structures so
that our State and other States can further direct and define
the transportation systems that we need in our own locations.
We thank you for that.
I am going to ask you to take off your Secretary's hat, for
a moment, if I could, and put on another hat. Maybe the hat of
a mayor. We are both mayors. I am the Mayor of Wilmington or
Delaware, and you are the Mayor of San Jose.
Secretary Mineta. I was.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I have never been mayor of either of those
towns.
Putting on that old hat of yours, what would you find in
this proposal that would be especially welcoming, and maybe
somewhat troubling?
Secretary Mineta. Well, one of the things that I said early
on, as we were starting to put the program together, is the
whole idea of flexibility. It is to allow State and local
leaders to be able to direct the resources to the problems that
they face and that they are not bound by a categorical program
that has this amount of money, when maybe the needs are this
much.
What we have done, in effect, is to move the programs from
categorical to block grant type programs so that again the
flexibility that was there in TEA-21 is even more broadened in
SAFETEA. This way, instead of having categorical programs, you
have them all in a block grant. Then they can direct their
resources to where they feel their problems are.
I think this takes the progression that we had from ISTEA
to TEA-21, and now a step forward in SAFETEA.
Senator Carper. When you hear from mayors across the
country, or Governors for that matter, in response to what the
Administration is laying out, what concerns seem to be echoed
by a number of them?
Secretary Mineta. Very succinctly--flexibility. They want
to be able to direct their financial resources to where their
programs are. This comes from my experience as mayor. During
the Nixon Administration, San Jose was chosen as one of the
communities to look at the whole idea of a block grant program.
We were told to come up with a list of all the Federal programs
that come to the city of San Jose, and outline what we needed.
Then we would meet with the regional office in San Francisco,
which we did.
During the course of those conversations, I said that I
needed something like $22 million for four community centers.
They said, ``Well, we only have a total of $8 million. We will
give you $4 million for one community center.'' Then later on
they said, ``Why don't you think up $18 million of sewer grant
programs.'' We had not submitted any money or an application
for sewer grants.
I said, ``Well, we do not need any sewer grant moneys. Why
not give me that $18 million and I will build my community
centers.'' But I could not do that under the categorical
approach. That is why SAFETEA gives State and local community
transportation leaders the flexibility to be able to direct the
resources to where they have problems that they want to
address.
Senator Carper. My time has expired. I would like to add
just one last quick point, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to flexibility, I was always troubled as
Governor of Delaware that our Federal transportation dollars
that came to us, CMAQ money, for example, that we could use
that money for congestion mitigation for freight railroads, or
we could use that money for bicycle paths, or we could use that
money for highways. But we could not use that money for
passenger rail, even if that made sense in helping us to
address our congestion mitigation issues. I hope that is one we
could work on resolving at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
Senator Chafee?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary and Madam Administrator.
My State benefits from the new Starts Transit Program.
Under the proposal, the proposed TEA-21, the match is going
from 80/20 Federal/State to 50/50. Do you think this will
hinder transit?
Secretary Mineta. Well, it was in ISTEA that I changed
everything to 80/20 because highways was 90/10 and transit was
75/25. People were making decisions based on where they would
get the most money back. Naturally, that would be 90/10
highway.
In ISTEA I changed everything to 80/20 in order to make
sure that transportation decisions were being made based on
what was going to suit the community the best because both were
80/20.
Under continuing legislation, we have now found that even
though the law is 80/20, that transit is probably somewhere
again in the area of 50/50, and even highways is somewhere
around 47/53, 47 being the Federal share. It has gotten to the
point that because of the competitiveness by localities as they
apply for funds, they want to make the best proposal put
forward. The matching has been dropping by a great deal.
We feel that even though we will be going to 50/50 in law,
in the real world, it has already gotten to 50/50 in terms of
the matching grants.
Senator Chafee. As a follow up on that question, also on
transit issues, the proposal removes the guarantee for about
one-fifth of the transit account, forcing it to compete with
the discretionary account. Could you explain why that is?
Secretary Mineta. As you know, that percentage of the funds
come from general funds, 19 percent, I believe. We were not
able to get the guarantee that is in TEA-21 as it relates to
the 19 percent coming from general funds to the transit
account.
Senator Chafee. Both of the questions are directed at what
originally was trying to direct money toward more mass transit
and away from roads, back in the original ISTEA. Do you sense a
shift away from that commitment?
Secretary Mineta. No, I do not. I see where most localities
are finding that because of congestion, and because of air
pollution, many communities are turning to transit.
I think one of the good things that we have pioneered
within the Federal Transit Administration under the great
leadership of Jenna Dorn, is that instead of everyone having a
light rail system which may be too costly and not efficient for
that community, that we are starting with baby stages, like bus
rapid transit. Then they would be able to graduate, as the
ridership improves, to light rail, or to heavy rail.
But in any event, what we are trying to do is to say, ``You
do not have to go to a light rail system right away as a status
symbol or as the only form of public transit.'' There are other
ways that local communities can get there.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Chafee.
Senator Wyden?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to first tell the Secretary how much we appreciate
his responsiveness. He is working with me right now on
something involving Oregon. I appreciative of that.
Secretary Mineta. Is that this weekend?
Senator Wyden. We got it this weekend. We have a ways to
go, but you have been very responsive. I appreciate it.
Secretary Mineta. Good.
Senator Wyden. I also want to commend Chairman Bond and
Chairman Inhofe for their work on the funding question. Both of
you have really done yeoman work on this issue. That is really
the first issue I want to explore with you, Mr. Secretary.
You say in your written statement that nothing has as great
an impact on our economic development and quality of life as
transportation. I did the math, and the increase in
transportation funding that the Administration is seeking is
one-twentieth the size of the tax cut proposal. That is the
number that compares to the increase in transportation funding
to the tax cut proposal.
I am going to set aside the politics and not go any further
with that. I will ask you how are we going to get this donor
question resolved? This is something that Chairman Inhofe and I
have a great interest in, when the level of funding is
essentially stable. Set aside the comparison to other parts of
the budget. It is something like $218 billion to $247 billion
in terms of the funding increase. That is where you get the $30
billion.
I do not see how we are possibly going to get out this
donor question that concerns people like Chairman Inhofe and
myself, with that level of funding. Can you tell me what your
sense is of how the Administration wants to get at that
question?
Secretary Mineta. Next question?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Mineta. Senator Wyden, you know how sensitive
that whole issue of donor/donee is. What we have done is to
retain the TEA-21 formula, and that is to guarantee the 90.5
percent. There have been proposals like SHARE, and others that
have come forward, but they are very costly in terms of, let us
say, providing 95 percent return to the State of their excise
tax receipts.
What we have done is to frankly leave it in Congress'
hands. We have continued the TEA-21 formula. If there are going
to be any adjustments, we feel that ought to be Congress'
responsibility.
Senator Wyden. I think that a lot of us are very pleased
that Chairman Inhofe is going to have it in hands. He has been
very sympathetic to States like ours. But he has to have
something to work with. That is why I am hoping that as we go
forward we can still get some increases in these dollars.
If you are going to get equity with respect to the donor
States--and for years this has chaffed at the smaller States--
we have to have something that Jim Inhofe and others who have
championed this cause can work with. I tried to set this in the
big picture in terms of how transportation compares with other
accounts. But somewhere along the way we are going to have
address this.
Secretary Mineta. I might add that the reality is that in
the past there has been extra money that has been available to
take care of any of the gross inadequacies of State
allocations. I think in today's fiscal world, that does not
exist. I recall in TEA-21 how all of you were able to make up
the differences in different States. There was additional
revenue that was coming in at the time of TEA-21. There were a
number of holes that were filled up by the financial resources
that were available.
Senator Wyden. I have one last question, if I could, Mr.
Secretary.
Are you looking at any other proposals for new sources of
funds, particularly the issue of bonds? This is something that
I am particularly attracted to. I am anxious to talk with
Chairman Bond and Chairman Inhofe about this. The State
transportation officials, as you know, have outlined a proposal
in this regard. Is that something that you are taking a look
at?
Secretary Mineta. In our proposal, of course, we have the
State infrastructure banks. We have expanded TIFIA. We have
reduced the threshold for TIFIA from $100 million projects down
to $50 million. We have added a private activity bond, which is
a tax-exempt bond. That tax-exempt bond will not be counted
under the State tax exempt requirement. I believe that the
private activity bonds will be an instrument that will be
looked at by States for financing purposes.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.
You might note that Missouri also is a donor State.
Senator Thomas?
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am from Wyoming. The Secretary knows a little about that.
I would just say that some of our smaller population States
with larger miles have a lot of people traveling on those
highways. So there is some justification.
You have talked a lot about flexibility. For a rural State
like Wyoming, what would you say are the biggest benefits in
this bill for States like Wyoming in terms of flexibility?
Secretary Mineta. I think a lot of the legislation that we
have, and programs that we have, probably are geared to urban
areas. What we have here is the flexibility. Regardless of the
size of the State or the density of population, or whatever it
might be, that there is a great deal more flexibility that
transportation leaders in those States and localities will have
in being able to address the fiscal resources to the problems
that they feel are important.
It is not a cookie cutter approach that would apply in
Wyoming, as it might in Connecticut, New York, or California.
But each of the States would be able to pattern the program
based on their needs.
Senator Thomas. That is good. There are different needs,
obviously, in Wyoming than there are in New York. It needs to
be that way.
This is titled, ``Flexibility and Efficiency.'' But I
notice that the money set aside for administrative expense is
approximately three times what it was before. How do you
justify that?
Secretary Mineta. I am not sure what you have in mind.
Senator Thomas. This is the justification for the increase
in administrative checkoff. If there is more flexibility and
less regulation, why would you need more managers?
Secretary Mineta. Because of the nature of the larger
programs.
Senator Thomas. I am pleased that we are moving forward on
this bill. I know it is very difficult. We look forward to
hopefully finding some additional funding.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Thomas.
We have had the Secretary here for almost 2 hours. I am
going to submit the rest of my questions for the record and ask
that you respond to those.
Several of the members may want to ask questions.
Senator Jeffords. I have just one more, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Mr. Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords. The Administration's bill authorizes
funding for surface transportation at $247 billion for highway
and transit programs for 6 years. With this relatively modest
growth in funding over TEA-21, the Administration had to make
some difficult choices in how to best fund the core highway
program.
Could you explain how the Administration decided what
levels and increases to propose for the core highway program?
For example, why does CMAQ see a reduction of over $340 million
in fiscal year 2004 compared with 2003? Why does this program
also recover its 2003 funding levels after fiscal year 2005 and
only grows to $1.6 billion in 2009?
Secretary Mineta. First of all, in terms of CMAQ funding,
the $10 billion for fiscal year 2004 through 2009 is a 9.1
percent increase. This program is flat for the first year. Then
it goes up for the remaining fiscal years.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. That is all I have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Senator Carper, do you have further questions?
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The question I wanted to ask the Secretary, if I could,
deals with the adequacy of funding. Why are the funding levels
that are found in SAFETEA below the minimum levels that are
needed to maintain the current system that is recommended by
the U.S. Department of Transportation's Condition and
Performance Report?
Secretary Mineta. I think there has to be some explanation
about the Conditions and Performance Report. First of all, that
is a snapshot of Federal, State, and local expenditures. It is
not just Federal. It is over a 20-year period. People look at
that report and they say, ``Look what the C&P Report says what
your needs are.'' That does not directly relate to the annual
expenditures under an authorization bill.
That is for the purpose of looking at the adequacy or what
the level of service of the roads, highways, and bridges is.
But it is not directly related to the expenditures, whether it
be under ISTEA, TEA-21, or in this case, SAFETEA. It is more
than just Federal programs. It is more than just during a 6-
year authorization period. The figure that comes out becomes an
average of a 20-year program.
Senator Carper. When we spoke earlier, you spoke of the
flexibility that is inherent within SAFETEA, and the advantage
of States and communities. We appreciate that. I just want to
echo the comments that we have heard from other of our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle with respect to the
adequacy of the resources.
When I was Governor of Delaware, we sought on several
occasions to increase the gasoline tax because we did not want
to have to rely solely on debt to improve our transportation
structure. We raised our gasoline tax by a small amount on one
occasion. It was difficult to convince the legislature to raise
them further in the 1990's when we were really awash in
revenues. It was hard to explain why we should single out one
user fee to raise, that is, the gasoline tax.
Today we find ourselves trying to come out of a recession.
There are any number of arguments that could be made that one
of the best ways to help put people back to work is to hire
them to improve our transportation infrastructure. I am one who
believes that if programs are worth having, we ought to pay for
them. If they are not worth having, then we should not have any
of them. I am a pay-as-you-go kind of Senator, and I was that
kind of Governor and Congressman.
I would also note that as we gather here today we are
importing almost 60 percent of the oil that we use from abroad,
and to the extent that we raise the price of gasoline by a
nickel or so, I think it diminishes, at least a little bit, the
laws of supply and demand and price elasticity. It reduces a
little bit our desire to consume oil and maybe our willingness
to look for more energy efficient ways to travel.
The last question I would like to raise deals with Amtrak.
I would not want to disappoint you and send you home without a
question on Amtrak. This is the year that we have the
opportunity to reauthorize highways, transit, aviation, and
rail, including Amtrak.
How do you think the Administration's plan for Amtrak, when
it is unveiled, will fit in with SAFETEA? Are there specific
programs in SAFETEA that you envision might dovetail with the
Administration's proposal on reauthorizing Amtrak?
Secretary Mineta. We are developing our Amtrak legislation
right now. At this point I cannot say that it has dovetailed
with SAFETEA. Last year I outlined the principles upon which I
think Amtrak's reauthorization legislation should be based. I
am hoping to possibly have that legislation ready for OMB's
perusal in about a month.
We cannot continue where we have been going for the last 30
years. There are a number of reforms that are going to be
needed. If there are going to be increased amounts of funds
that are necessary, it is by all means going to have to require
a great deal of reform by Amtrak.
The Congress did pass in the appropriations bill some
requirements in terms of Amtrak reporting to the Department of
Transportation on certain requirements. Those detailed
financial plans have been very informative to us in determining
the funding for Amtrak as well as a basis for some of the
reauthorization measures that we are now putting together.
Those requirements that Congress imposed have been very
helpful. We are building on those requirements that Congress
imposed.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will just say
we look forward to working with the Secretary and his
Department, including some of the people sitting right behind
him on just that subject in the months ahead.
Thank you very much.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
As a former fellow Governor, I am happy to extend the
courtesy of one out-of-jurisdiction question.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bond. We have enough snakes in the barrel to handle
on this one.
Thank you very much, Secretary Mineta and Ms. Peters.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
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
U.S. Department of Transportation's surface transportation
reauthorization proposal.
Secretary Mineta, welcome. I appreciate your coming here this
afternoon to present the Administration's proposal. I am sure it has
been difficult for you recently, but you are getting the job done, and
the country is lucky to have people like you in public service.
The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the
Administration's reauthorization budget proposal will be adequate to
meet the nation's surface transportation needs over the next several
years. It is no secret that the nation's transportation needs greatly
exceed current investment at all levels of government. That is why I am
especially concerned that under the Administration's proposal, highway
funding would not even reach current spending levels until fiscal year
2007.
I am convinced that transportation investment creates jobs and
would provide a much-needed stimulus to our sluggish economy. For
instance, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that for
every $1 billion in Federal spending on highway construction, 47,500
jobs are created. It is also estimated that every dollar invested in
the nation's highway system generates $5.70 in economic benefits due to
reduced delays, improved safety, and reduced vehicle operating costs.
That's nearly a 6 to 1 return on investment.
A survey by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials shows that State transportation departments
have 2,710 highway and bridge projects, valued at over $17 billion,
which are ready-to-go if funding were made available to them. My State
of Ohio has 228 ready-to-go projects valued at $752 million.
Mr. Chairman, Bureau of Labor Statistics show that average annual
employment in highway construction is down nationwide, as much as 25
percent from peak employment levels over the last 6 years. In Ohio,
employment in highway construction is down 13 percent from 2000 and is
at its lowest level in 6 years. For example, one of Ohio's largest
construction companies recently told me that they have had to lay off
450 employees due to a lack or projects out for bid.
As a member of this subcommittee and its former chairman I am eager
to work on the reauthorization of the surface transportation program.
As Chairman of the National Governors Association, I was involved in
negotiating TEA-21 and lobbied Congress vigorously 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. TEA-21), which increased by nearly 40 percent Federal
investment in highways and transit. Under TEA-21, Ohio received a 23
percent increase in transportation funding.
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 the minimum share for the 26 donor
States to at least 95 percent. This increase in the rate of return
would generate an additional $60 million or more in transportation
revenues for the State of Ohio.
Tomorrow, Senator Carl Levin and I, along with House Majority
Leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Baron Hill will announce the
introduction of our legislation to increase donor States' minimum rate-
of-return to 95 percent. Currently, there are over 120 cosponsors of
the House bill and 18 cosponsors of the Senate bill.
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. However, I support the principle that the highway program
is a fully user-fee based system that pays its own way. I am reluctant
to borrow more money for highways.
I am pleased the Administration's bill proposes that all revenue
fromform 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. I also understand the Finance
Committee has proposed a way to resolve the remaining 5.2 cent per
gallon ethanol tax incentive by no longer penalizing States that
consume ethanol-blended fuel. These two solutions would increase Ohio's
gas tax receipts by an additional $160 million annually.
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 am
looking closely at the provisions in the Administration's bill dealing
with transportation conformity and the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Program (CMAQ). I am pleased to be participating in the
discussions and drafting of these important planning and environmental
provisions of the EPW Committee's reauthorization bill.
Secretary Mineta, thank you for testifying this afternoon on the
Administration's SAFETEA bill. Despite the lateness of the proposal and
disappointing funding levels, I believe the Administration should be
commended for developing a proposal that makes saving lives a top
priority. A total of 8,417 people died on Ohio's highways from 1996 to
2001. I hope over the life of the next reauthorization bill this figure
can be substantially reduced.
As a former Governor I believe States should have maximum
flexibility to use their highway dollars to meet their own unique
transportation needs. I am interested in hearing about the
Administration's proposals that would allow certain States to use their
highway funds as a block grant as well as proposals that would allow
certain States to assume some of the responsibilities of the Secretary
under Federal law to help streamline the project delivery process. Mr.
Secretary, I know one State that could do the job.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look
forward to working with you on reauthorization in the upcoming weeks
and months on this reauthorization.
__________
Statement of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation
Chairman Bond, Senator Reid, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Administration's proposal to reauthorize our surface transportation
programs--the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2003, or ``SAFETEA.''
Nothing has as great an impact on our economic development, growth
patterns, and quality of life as transportation. This is equally true
at the national, State, and local levels. A safe and efficient
transportation system is critical to keeping people and goods moving
and cities and communities prosperous. Reauthorization will supply the
funds and the framework for investments needed to maintain and grow our
vital transportation infrastructure.
In addition to improving the quality of our lives and enhancing the
productivity of our economy, our proposed legislation seeks to place a
central focus on transportation safety. Although we have made
improvements in the rates of fatalities and injuries on our highways,
the total numbers remain intolerable, and they are rising. In 2002,
nearly 43,000 people lost their lives on our highways and roads.
Families are destroyed and promise is lost.
The economic costs are unacceptable as well. The total annual
economic impact of all motor vehicle crashes exceeds $230 billion, a
staggering figure.
For these reasons, the President and I have made saving lives an
essential priority for the Department and for the reauthorization of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Nothing
would make a greater difference in these numbers than to increase the
use of safety belts everywhere in America.
If safety belt use were to increase from the national average of 75
percent to 90 percent--an achievable goal--4,000 lives would be saved
each year. For every 1 percentage point increase in safety belt use--
that is 2.8 million more people ``buckling up''--we would save 250
lives, suffer significantly fewer injuries, and reduce economic costs
by hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
We have a moral, as well as an economic, obligation to address
immediately the problem of transportation safety. The Bush
Administration is committed to reducing highway fatalities, and our
bill offers proposals to increase safety belt use and to take those
actions that can make the achievement of this goal possible.
Our proposals include creation of a new core funding category
dedicated to safety within the Federal-aid highway program. This new
category will increase visibility and funding beyond the current safety
set-aside provisions. We are also seeking to consolidate and simplify
the safety programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). This proposal will enhance the capacity and
flexibility of States to use Federal grants and their own funds to
improve safety. Incentive bonuses will reward those States that achieve
demonstrable safety results. Enactment of this bill would be an
important step, we believe, in reducing highway fatalities and
injuries, and providing greater flexibility to State and local
governments to use these funds consistent with a comprehensive
strategic highway safety plan.
Our Nation's transportation system obviously faces significant
challenges in other areas as well, such as congestion, timely project
delivery, freight efficiency, and intermodal connectivity. Our proposal
will create a safer, simpler, and smarter Federal surface
transportation program by addressing transportation problems of
national significance, while giving State and local transportation
decisionmakers more flexibility to solve transportation problems in
their communities.
SAFETEA calls for a record Federal investment in surface
transportation, spending over $201 billion on highway and safety
programs, and nearly $46 billion on public transportation programs,
from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009.
These funding levels would be achieved by: 1) continuing the
financial guarantees of TEA-21 that linked highway funding with the
receipts generated by transportation excise taxes; 2) redirecting to
the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund the 2.5 cents per gallon
of the gasohol tax currently deposited in the General Fund; and 3)
dedicating an additional $1 billion a year of Highway Trust Fund
dollars over and above each year's estimated receipts into the Highway
Trust Fund to improve highway infrastructure performance and
maintenance.
Thanks in large part to the hard work of many of you and your
predecessors, SAFETEA builds on the tremendous successes of the
previous two pieces of surface transportation legislation. Both the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), a
bill with which I am proud to have played a role, and TEA-21, provided
an excellent framework to tackle the surface transportation challenges
that lie ahead.
ISTEA set forth a new vision for the implementation of the Nation's
surface transportation programs. Among other things, ISTEA gave State
and local officials unprecedented flexibility to advance their own
goals for transportation capital investment. Instead of directing
outcomes from Washington, DC, the Department shifted more of its focus
to giving State and local partners the necessary tools to solve their
unique problems while still pursuing important national goals. SAFETEA
not only maintains this fundamental ISTEA principle, it goes further by
giving States and localities even more discretion in key program areas.
TEA-21's financial reforms have proven equally significant. By
providing certainty, predictability, and of course, increased funding,
TEA-21 paved the way for State and local transportation officials to
undertake strategic transportation improvements on a record scale.
TEA-21 achieved this by reforming the treatment of the Highway
Trust Fund to ensure that, for the first time, spending from the
Highway Trust Fund for infrastructure improvements would be linked to
tax revenue. The financial mechanisms of TEA-21--firewalls, Revenue
Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), and minimum guarantees--provided
greater equity among States in Federal funding and record levels of
transportation investment. SAFETEA maintains the core TEA-21 financial
structure, while moderating the wide swings in program levels that
resulted from the RABA mechanism.
The total size of the program is and will continue to be a matter
of debate. As that debate progresses, it should not be permitted to
cloud a meaningful and necessary discussion of the many programmatic
reforms contained in SAFETEA.
The following are the major programmatic elements of the
Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Nation's surface
transportation program:
Creating a Safer Transportation System
President Bush and this Administration are committed to fostering
the safest, most secure national transportation system possible, even
as we seek to enhance mobility, reduce congestion, and expand our
economy. These are not incompatible goals. Indeed, it is essential that
the Nation's transportation system be both safe and secure while making
our economy both more efficient and productive.
While formulating the Department's reauthorization proposal, the
Federal Highway Administration and NHTSA came together on a different
approach to addressing the Nation's substantial highway safety
problems. Under that approach, States would receive more resources to
address their own, unique transportation safety issues; would be
strongly encouraged to increase their overall safety belt usage rates;
and would be rewarded for performance with increased funds and greater
flexibility to spend those funds on either infrastructure safety or
behavioral safety programs.
SAFETEA establishes a new core highway safety infrastructure
program, in place of the existing Surface Transportation Program safety
set-aside. This new program, called the Highway Safety Improvement
Program, will more than double funding over comparable TEA-21 levels.
In addition to increased funding, States would be encouraged and
assisted in their efforts to formulate comprehensive safety plans.
In an attempt to make our grant programs more performance-based, we
have proposed a major consolidation of NHTSA's Section 402 safety
programs. Two important elements of this revised Section 402 are a
General Performance Grant and a Safety Belt Performance Grant. The
Safety Belt Performance Grant rewards States for passing primary safety
belt laws or achieving 90 percent safety belt usage rates in their
States. Any State that receives a Safety Belt Performance Grant for the
enactment of a primary safety belt law is permitted to use up to 100
percent of those funds for infrastructure investments eligible under
the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Also, States can receive
additional grants for improving their safety belt use rates. Any State
that receives a General Performance Grant for the achievement of
various other safety performance measures is permitted to use up to 50
percent of those funds for activities eligible under the new Highway
Safety Improvement Program.
Overall, this groundbreaking proposal offers States more
flexibility than they have ever had before in how they spend their
Federal-aid safety dollars. It would reward them for accomplishing
easily measurable goals and encourage them to take the most effective
steps to save lives. It is exactly the kind of proposal that is needed
to more effectively tackle the tragic problem of highway fatalities.
SAFETEA also provides increased funding for commercial vehicle
safety and research programs in order to enhance the quality,
stability, continuity, and uniformity of State commercial vehicle
safety and enforcement programs. In addition, our proposal expands and
improves safety auditing of ``new entrant'' motor carriers.
Simplifying Programs by Expanding State and Local Flexibility and
Improving Project Delivery
The President and I strongly believe that Federal transportation
programs must be simpler. This belief is manifested in two types of
proposals that appear throughout SAFETEA: 1) those that increase State
and local flexibility and 2) those that seek to increase the efficiency
of transportation project delivery.
As the successes of ISTEA and TEA-21 have shown, State and local
decisionmakers have the greatest capability to address State and local
transportation problems. SAFETEA continues this principle and expands
upon it. The Federal Government should facilitate and enable State and
local transportation decisionmakers, but it is also in a position to
bring multiple States to the table in addressing regional issues, and
to take a proactive lead in areas of national concern.
The President and I believe that we can and must protect our
environment while improving the efficiency of transportation project
delivery, consistent with the President's Executive Order on
Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project
Reviews.
SAFETEA eliminates most discretionary highway grant programs and
makes these funds available under the core formula highway grant
programs. States and localities have tremendous flexibility and
certainty of funding under the core programs. Unfortunately,
congressional earmarking has frustrated the intent of most of these
discretionary programs, making it harder for States and localities to
think strategically about their own transportation problems.
SAFETEA also establishes a new performance pilot program under
which States can manage the bulk of their core formula highway program
funds on a performance basis, cutting across the programmatic lines by
which the Federal-aid highway program is normally structured. Under the
pilot program, States would work with the Department to develop and
meet specific performance measures that reflect both State and national
interests.
Public transportation programs would undergo a significant
restructuring under SAFETEA in an effort to make them more effective
and responsive to customer and grantee needs. Under that restructuring,
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs would fall under three
major areas:
Urbanized area formula grants, which would include the
current formula grants as well as formula Fixed Guideway Modernization
funding;
Major Capital Investments, which would broaden the
current New Starts program to include non-fixed guideway corridor
improvements, such as Bus Rapid Transit; and
State-Administered Programs, including the Rural, Elderly
and Disabled, Job Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom
Initiative programs. The Job Access and Reverse Commute and New Freedom
Initiative programs would be supported through flexible formula grants
to the States.
As with the highway program, the restructuring of FTA programs
includes shifting discretionary grant programs to formula programs and
merit-based funding programs. Funds from the heavily earmarked bus
discretionary program will be shifted to four different areas: (1) the
Urbanized area formula program; (2) the Rural formula program; (3) the
newly expanded New Starts program; and (4) Performance incentive
grants. Consistent with the bill's strong overall customer orientation,
SAFETEA also proposes a new performance incentive program that rewards
increased transit ridership.
SAFETEA will give communities the flexibility to choose less
expensive major transit investment alternatives, while ensuring that
all projects meet New Starts financial and project justification
criteria. This is accomplished by:
Expanding the New Starts program to include non-fixed
guideway corridor-based transit systems;
Eliminating the $25 million New Starts funding threshold,
making all projects seeking New Starts funds subject to the evaluation
criteria established in law; and
Simplifying the evaluation process for projects
requesting less than $75 million in New Starts funds.
SAFETEA also would promote independence and opportunity by
enhancing programs that serve our most vulnerable populations. For
example, SAFETEA----
Increases relative funding levels for rural formula
programs to assist the 40 percent of rural counties that have no public
transportation, especially since one-third of residents in all rural
communities are transportation-disadvantaged;
Implements the transportation provisions of the
President's New Freedom Initiative by creating a stable and reliable
source of funding to States for community-based solutions that address
the unmet transportation needs of persons with disabilities;
Makes the Job Access and Reverse Commute program a stable
and reliable source of formula funds in every State to help meet the
employment-related transportation needs of welfare recipients and other
low income individuals. Currently, JARC is a heavily earmarked
discretionary grant program;
Sustains the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities
formula program to help meet the needs of these transportation-
disadvantaged individuals; and
Ensures a more coordinated and cost-effective approach to
meeting the needs of transit-dependent persons by (1) requiring
communities to develop a local prioritized project plan to serve
elderly persons with disabilities and low-income individuals, which
must be honored by States as they make decisions about suballocating
State-administered funds; and (2) making mobility management an
eligible expense.
We all know that it takes far too long to take a transportation
project from concept to completion, and this Administration is
committed to streamlining this process. Projects that were cutting edge
while in the concept stage too often end up turning into ``catch-up''
projects after years of delay. The Department has made great strides in
addressing those delays related to environmental review, including
better coordination during the environmental review process, and other
improvements that have resulted from implementing the President's
Executive Order on Environmental Stewardship that was issued last fall.
However, certain legislative changes are necessary. In the
environmental review area, SAFETEA provides a menu of solutions, all of
which should help reduce the time it takes for a sponsor to deliver a
transportation project. These include:
Strengthening the provisions of current law that
establish timeframes for resource agencies to conduct environmental
reviews and make decisions on permits;
Improving the linkage between the transportation planning
and project development processes;
Simplifying the processing of Categorical Exclusion
approvals;
determinations as to whether a possible project alternative is
feasible and prudent;
Resolving the current overlap between Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and ``section 4(f)'';
Establishing an exemption for the Interstate Highway
System as an historic resource, unless the Secretary deems an
individual element worthy of protection under the National Historic
Preservation Act. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the
Federal Highway Administration are working to achieve the objective of
this section through an administrative exemption, using a provision of
the regulations that implement Section 106. If we are able to make
progress toward such an administrative solution, we will advise
Congress that this additional legislation is no longer needed.
Providing for timely resolution of outstanding legal
disputes by establishing a 6-month statute of limitations for appeals
on the adequacy of projects' environmental impact statements and other
environmental documents; and
Expanding the ability of States to provide Federal-aid
highway funds to resources agencies to expedite the environmental
review process.
While making the environmental review process more efficient,
SAFETEA also offers important proposals to protect and enhance the
environment. Those proposals include:
Revising the CMAQ program to better address the new air
quality standards;
Continuing a major emphasis on improving public
transportation;
Revising the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane provisions
to encourage the use of cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles;
Encouraging the active consideration and implementation
of context-sensitive design principles and practices in all federally
aided transportation projects; and
Establishing a new Transportation, Energy, and
Environment program to carry out a multi-modal energy and climate
change research program.
Each year, there are over 900 million visits to national parks,
forests, and wildlife refuges. Through our Federal Lands Highways
program we provide 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, we are proposing a
significant funding increase for the Park Road and Parkways Program.
Three hundred million dollars would be authorized for fiscal year 2004,
and a total of $1.890 billion would be authorized over the 6-year
period, to improve these roads. And, in support of the President's
National Parks Legacy Project, a new Federal Lands Transit Program
would be established.
The transportation planning process has become overly burdensome as
well. To address this problem, SAFETEA proposes the following:
Combining the long-range metropolitan transportation plan
and shorter term Transportation Improvement Program into a single
document;
Aligning the transportation and air quality planning
horizons for purposes of transportation conformity; and
Creating a single set of requirements applicable to both
highway and public transportation planning.
Making the Federal Transportation Program Smarter
The President has urged every Federal agency to be more results-
oriented, guided not by process but performance. In the context of
transportation, that means: using Federal surface transportation
programs to increase the efficiency with which people and goods move
throughout the transportation system; expanding innovative financing
options; enhancing operational capacity; rewarding grantees that meet
important, measurable goals; promoting a seamless system in which
different transportation modes are efficiently connected; and
increasing oversight and accountability to ensure large Federal
investments are being protected.
Recent estimates indicate that Import/Export Freight Tonnage could
double by 2020 and Domestic Freight Tonnage could increase by about 70
percent over that same period. International trade now comprises over
25 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and is expected to rise
to one-third in less than 20 years. The days when trade issues could be
ignored as irrelevant to overall U.S. wealth creation are long gone.
Ensuring efficient global supply chains therefore becomes of
paramount importance for the world economy as manufacturing industries
respond to a growing goods trade through the implementation of just-in-
time manufacturing. Moreover, end products are increasingly comprised
of component parts being shipped from all over the world. As a result,
the container, by far the most popular means to transport cargo, takes
on heightened significance.
Through the implementation of sophisticated logistics policies to
manage massive numbers of containers, an inventory management
revolution is currently taking place that we must be very careful to
protect and promote.
The goal of linking production decisions to the shifting pace of
consumer demand that seemed elusive just 20 years ago is suddenly very
attainable. With it comes the even more elusive hope of smoothing out
business cycles. The ability to actually move freight quickly across
various modes of the transportation system, however, is the linchpin of
this revolution. The benefits attributable to dramatically lower
inventory costs and increased liquidity for businesses that do not need
to spend capital on unused inventory can be severely compromised by an
inefficient transportation system.
Although carriers and shippers are by and large private entities,
their financial health is inextricably linked to the health of public
transportation infrastructure. As a result, cooperation between the
private sector and government must be improved through an increase in
public-private partnerships. The United States, with the most vibrant
and dynamic private sector in the world, is unique in its lack of
private sector involvement in transportation infrastructure. In
addition to improving the overall condition of the Nation's surface
transportation network, SAFETEA specifically targets the capacity and
efficiency of the Nation's freight system by:
Establishing a National Highway System (NHS) set-aside to
fund highway connections between the NHS and intermodal freight
facilities, such as ports and freight terminals;
Expanding Surface Transportation Program (STP)
eligibility to include freight connector projects;
Continuing the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) and allowing rail freight projects to
qualify for TIFIA credit assistance;
Lowering the TIFIA program's project threshold from $100
million to $50 million; and
Expanding the availability of tax-exempt private activity
bonds to include highway projects and freight transfer facilities.
While virtually every other industry in the world has gone through
a technological revolution, transportation still lags behind in the
area of technology deployment. Our proposal continues to foster the
research, development, and implementation of Intelligent Transportation
Systems technologies but places a much greater emphasis on using these
technologies to improve the performance and operation of transportation
systems and motor vehicles in a way that directly benefits
transportation customers.
These technologies can be particularly effective in the
implementation of innovative demand management strategies. SAFETEA
provides more resources to expand capacity, but also provides new tools
to States and localities to manage existing capacity more rationally.
Our proposal would allow States to establish user charges on Federal-
aid highways, including the Interstate System, to improve these
facilities. It would also allow States to permit Single Occupancy
Vehicles (SOVs) on HOV lanes, so long as time-of-day variable charges
are assessed on SOVs for such access.
Despite their critical role in the surface transportation system,
intercity buses have been largely a ``forgotten mode.'' SAFETEA
addresses this anomaly by establishing requirements to improve
intercity bus access to significant intermodal facilities. Our proposal
also authorizes a $425 million grant program to fund capital
improvements related to such access.
Evasion of Federal fuel taxes is a serious and growing problem that
requires an equally serious Federal response. This has been, I know, a
major concern of Congress. SAFETEA reduces legal loopholes and
dedicates more resources to a collaborative governmentwide enforcement
effort. If we are successful in curbing fuel tax evasion, it has the
potential to increase resources for investment in the transportation
system.
Last, but certainly not least, our proposal strengthens stewardship
of Federal funds without treading on State prerogatives or creating red
tape. Increased accountability will ensure that every dollar spent will
yield the maximum benefit in terms of lives saved, reduced congestion
or increased mobility. These proposals include:
Requiring that project management plans and annual
financial plans be submitted for all Federal-aid projects costing $1
billion or more;
Requiring that annual financial plans be prepared for all
projects receiving $100 million or more in Federal-aid funds;
Establishing minimum cost-estimating standards in order
to provide more reliable and consistent project cost expectations;
Strengthening the Department's suspension and debarment
policies to prevent contractors from continuing to defraud the
government; and
Allowing States to share in monetary recoveries from
Federal fraud cases.
This legislative proposal builds upon the principles, values, and
achievements of ISTEA and TEA-21, yet recognizes that there are new
challenges to address. We urge Congress to reauthorize the surface
transportation programs before they expire on September 30, 2003. Any
delay would cause uncertainty and likely reduce infrastructure
investment at the State and local levels at a time when such investment
is particularly critical.
Finally, let me return to the subject of safety. For the past year
and a half this Department, with the critical and timely help of this
committee, has dedicated itself to improving transportation security
for Americans. Faced with the scourge of terrorism, our Department
responded by creating unprecedented partnerships with the private
sector, Congress, interest groups, and Federal, State, and local
agencies. Together we succeeded in decreasing the dangers of terrorism
through new and better technology, more personnel, improved laws, and
increased education.
We are going to do the same thing with car crashes. We cannot
ignore the deaths of 43,000 Americans each year and the thousands more
who are injured. This year, we are going to take the same passion, call
on similar partnerships, and build the same record of success through
enforcement, education, and engineering. Why? Because it is the right
thing to do--and we have the will and the ability to do it.
Last year, Congress gave my Department 36 mandates to improve
transportation security. I gave the people in my Department one. My
mandate was to find a way to meet every one of the 36 congressional
mandates. They did.
Now I have given my Department another mandate: Dramatically reduce
the number of Americans killed and injured by car crashes.
If we succeed, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives will be saved
and serious injuries reduced each year. And the futures of thousands of
our fellow citizens will be better secured. It is a mandate that I ask
this committee and this Congress to join our Department and this
Administration in achieving.
Thank you, again, for giving me the opportunity to testify, and I
look forward to working with Congress to pass this legislation.
______
Responses of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. The Administration's bill authorizes funding for
surface transportation--$247 billion for highway and transit programs
for 6 years. With this relatively modest growth in funding over TEA-21,
the Administration had to make some difficult choices in how to best
fund the core highway programs. Could you explain how the
Administration decided what levels and increases to propose for the
core highway programs? For example, why does CMAQ see a reduction of
over $340 million in fiscal year 2004 compared to fiscal year 2003? Why
does this program only recover its fiscal year 2003 funding levels
after fiscal year 2005 and only grow to $1.6 billion in 2009?
Response. The overall funding level for programs funded from the
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund was based on the following
principles: (1) No increases to highway user taxes; (2) redirecting to
the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund the 2.5 cents per gallon
of the gasohol tax currently deposited in the General Fund; (3)
maintaining a link between Highway Account receipts and program levels;
(4) drawing down the balance of the Highway Account to a prudent level
that can be maintained. This approach established the resources
available each year to fund the core highway formula and other
programs.
SAFETEA would reduce the number of discretionary grant programs and
redirect the resources that would have otherwise funded such programs
to the core programs. SAFETEA creates a new performance based core
safety program with significantly higher funding than the current
safety set-aside within the existing Surface Transportation Program. We
consciously chose to maintain the relative balance among the remaining
core programs. Over the 6-year authorization period, the remaining core
programs each would grow at about 9 percent compared to their TEA-21
authorization levels. Because of the interaction of the funding levels
for the core programs and the minimum guarantee calculation, it was
necessary to stage the increases for each program separately rather
than having each grow smoothly at the same rate each year.
It is true that CMAQ funding does fall back some $330 million in
fiscal year 2004. However, the option exists for other Federal-aid
highway and transit programs to be used for CMAQ-eligible projects
through the flexibility provisions of existing laws that support the
transfer of funds among programs. For example, SAFETEA proposes $46
billion in transit funding, which could be available to help offset the
shortfall in the first year. Statutes demand that CMAQ funds be
invested only in projects that contribute to air quality. However,
other funding programs, like the much larger Surface Transportation
Program, may be invested in many such endeavors if the State and
metropolitan planning organization so desire.
Question 2. During our hearing process, we heard that
transportation project costs are increasing. We have all read the
newspaper stories or seen the television exposes about highway project
costs spiraling way over budget. SAFETEA requires project management
plans and annual financial plans for all Federal-aid projects costing 1
billion dollars or more. It also requires annual financial plans for
all projects receiving $100 million in Federal-aid funds. How will
project management and financial plans help rein in project costs?
Response. Current law requires financial plans for all Federal-aid
projects costing $1 billion or more. This requirement has already
proven to be an effective tool in helping States effectively manage how
large projects will be financed while considering impacts on other
transportation projects in their States. It has also placed a spotlight
on increases in project costs and the origins of such increases. Thus,
specific efforts can be undertaken to evaluate future actions that may
increase costs and to address these proactively to minimize or
eliminate such increases. Financial plans appear to enable States to
better control cost growth.
SAFETEA proposes to add a requirement for project management plans
for all of the $1 billion-plus Federal-aid projects. The project
management plan lays out a State's proposal for effectively managing
the scope, costs, schedules, and quality assurance on a project and
identifies the role of the State DOT leadership in this effort. A clear
understanding in this regard before construction on a project begins is
expected to have a significant benefit for controlling cost growth
during construction.
The SAFETEA proposal to require the development of financial plans
for all projects receiving $100 million or more in Federal-aid funding
is expected to extend to these mid-cost range projects the benefits
that we have already seen on the $1 billion-plus size projects. These
financial plans would not be submitted for approval or acceptance but
would be available to the Secretary upon request.
SAFETEA also calls for the Secretary to develop minimum standards
for estimating project costs. Many of the problems concerning cost
growth are related to project estimates, from the early planning phase
through the construction. We expect that better estimating will lead to
far less fluctuation in costs throughout the project development
process. Further, SAFETEA will require the Secretary to periodically
review the State's practices for estimating project costs, awarding
contracts, and reducing project costs. States will also be required to
determine that subrecipients of Federal funds have sufficient
accounting controls and project delivery systems.
Question 3. The Administration's bill proposes changes to Section
4(f) protections, changing the role of resource managers and public
involvement in the decisionmaking process. Yet virtually no major
transportation project has been stopped by Section 4(f) lawsuits in
recent decades. Why is a statutory change required in this well-settled
area of law? Are there best practices in implementation of Section 4(f)
that might be more widely adopted under current law?
Response. We do not view the law on Section 4(f) as being well
settled, but as continually evolving over the past few decades.
Early cases, originating with the Supreme Court's decision in
Overton Park v. Volpe, 402 U.S. 402 (1971), provided a very strict
interpretation of Section 4(f). In Overton Park, the court established
a high standard for compliance with Section 4(f), holding that the
Secretary may only reject an avoidance alternative if it would present
``unique problems'' or require costs or community disruption of
``extraordinary magnitude.''
This standard was stringently applied in subsequent cases. For
example, in Louisiana Environmental Society v. Coleman, 537 F.2d 79
(5th Cir. 1976), the Fifth Circuit determined that displacements of
homes and businesses were not ``unusual'' factors in highway
construction. Therefore, the Court found that the Secretary erred in
rejecting an alternative as imprudent, even though it would have
displaced 377 single family homes, 1508 persons, 21 businesses and two
churches, in order to avoid building a bridge that would take only 18
acres of air space and less than one acre of lake bottom of a 9,000
acre lake (thus the lake surface would remain essentially the same).
The Court reasoned that, for the statute to have meaning, Congress must
have intended for ``prudent'' to mean more than a balancing of
advantages and disadvantages. This means that the Secretary could not
consider that the overall values of the recreational lake at issue
would not suffer to any significant degree, nor could he compare the
relatively small adverse effects to the lake with the huge community
impacts associated with an avoidance alternative. The Secretary could
only consider whether the lake would be affected and whether there were
any alternatives that could avoid such impacts. (Even though, after 11
years of court proceedings, we ultimately won this case on other
grounds, the Court's holdings relating to prudence is still good law in
the Fifth Circuit, and continues to limit the discretion of the
Secretary in reflecting costly avoidance alternatives.) See also Druid
Hills Civic Association v. FHWA, 772 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1985), which
expressly adopted the Fifth Circuit's approach in Louisiana
Environmental Society; and Stop H-3 Association v. Brinegar, 533 F.2d
434 (9th Cir. 1976), where the Ninth Circuit found that even an
alternative that presented a ``safety risk of some magnitude'' did not
pose a ``unique problem'' that warranted the Secretary's finding that
it was imprudent.
However, more recent cases, beginning with Eagle Foundation v.
Dole, 813 F. 2d 798 (7th Cir. 1987), have interpreted Section 4(f) and
the Overton Park decision less stringently. In Eagle Foundation,
plaintiffs challenged the routing of a segment of highway through a
wildlife reserve and a historic farm. The Seventh Circuit held that, in
determining what is prudent, the Secretary's ``inquiry calls for
judgment, balancing, and for the practical settlements of disputes on
which reasonable people will disagree,'' and that a ``prudent judgment
is one that takes into account everything important that matters.'' The
Court noted that the Supreme Court's use of the term ``unique
problems'' in Overton Park was merely for emphasis, and was not
intended to replace ``prudent.'' The Court further concluded that the
harm caused by an alternative could be aggregated in determining
whether it is prudent: ``It would be imprudent to build around the park
if the Secretary were convinced that the aggregate injuries caused by
doing so exceeded those caused by reducing the size of the park.'' The
Court characterized the Secretary's inquiry as ``whether it is worth $8
million to build around the [4(f) property] in light of the other
benefits and drawbacks of each course of action'' and stated that ``The
absolute comparison-Is it worth $8 million to avoid Napoleon Hollow-is
what matters.'' 813 F.2d at 808. The Court ultimately upheld the
Secretary's conclusion that the aggregate costs of the alternatives-
including safety concerns, endangerment of eagle roosting sites, and an
additional cost of at least $8 million-were sufficient reason to find
them imprudent. See also Hickory Neighborhood Defense League v.
Skinner, 910 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1990), where a similar balancing test
was used to determine that the cumulative adverse impacts of the
avoidance alternative-i.e., impeding access to two hospitals, routing
through a quiet residential neighborhood, traffic operational
difficulties due to sharp turns and inadequate cross-walks-made it
imprudent; and see Committee to Preserve Boomer Lake Park v. Skinner, 4
F.3d 1543 (10th Cir. 1993), where the Tenth Circuit describes the term
``prudent'' as involving a ``common sense balancing of practical
concerns.''
This evolving case law has meant that different legal standards are
applicable in different areas of the country. In the Fifth, Ninth or
Eleventh Circuits, the older, more stringent case law still applies to
the Secretary's decisions. However, in the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth
Circuits, the Secretary may apply a balancing approach in making a
Section 4(f) determination. The disparity in these court decisions has
made it difficult to find a workable national standard to use in
reaching determinations of whether an alternative is prudent and
feasible, and has created uncertainty regarding the appropriate
standard of law to apply. In order to establish more national
uniformity, this provision would clarify factors the Secretary shall
consider in making section 4(f) determinations. The factors that we
have selected are consistent with the factors considered in the more
recent cases that have taken a balancing approach in evaluating Section
4(f) determinations.
The fact that not many recent Section 4(f) cases have actually
stopped highway projects merely means that Federal transportation
agencies have been correctly applying the applicable 4(f) standards.
However, complying with Section 4(f)-particularly in areas where the
more stringent interpretations of Section 4(f) apply results in
significant delays in project development. (Based on a study
commissioned by FHWA, we found that projects involving Section 4(f)
issues took on average about five to 7 months longer to complete than
other projects.) In addition, even when the transportation decision is
upheld, Section 4(f) lawsuits have in the interim resulted in
significant project delays.
FHWA continues to solicit and publicize best practices for
expediting the full spectrum of environmental processes from our
division offices, legal staff, and State and local partners through our
website devoted to Streamlining. During 2001, recent 4(f) innovations
highlighted include a new programmatic 4(f) evaluation for projects
that result in ``net benefits'' for the protected resource, be it
parkland, wildlife refuge, or historic site, and a programmatic
agreement that allows the Ohio DOT to determine applicability of
Section 4(f) to a particular case. Another programmatic 4(f) evaluation
for historic roads is under development. The FHWA held a series of
meetings among the division leadership and the legal staff to identify
additional issues in implementing Section 4(f) and to suggest creative
solutions.
Unfortunately, the innovative approaches identified for
implementing Section 4(f) address very limited applications and don't
go far enough in eliminating duplications between the Section 4(f) and
106 processes. Nor do such creative approaches avoid conflicts between
resolutions of adverse effect negotiated under the Section 106 process
to the satisfaction of all parties, including the State Historic
Preservation Officers and other preservation advocates, and the outcome
sometimes forced by the inflexibility of Section 4(f). And ultimately,
innovative solutions must still stay within the bounds of the law; the
strict language of the statute and of some of the court decisions
continue to limit the types of innovative approaches that we can try.
Question 4. Please describe the resources and the guidance that
your agency is going to provide in fiscal year 2004, assuming the
budget is satisfied, to States and communities to help them demonstrate
conformity with the PM2.5 standard?
Response. U.S. 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, U.S. DOT and EPA, have embarked on a number of
activities to prepare areas for this challenge:
1. Revise transportation conformity regulations--U.S. DOT is working
closely with EPA to revise the EPA's conformity rule for the
implementation of the new ozone and fine particulate standards.
EPA's 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--U.S. 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 2004, U.S. 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. The courses are: Estimating Regional Mobile
Source Emissions and 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).
Question 5. A recent GAO report revealed that, by a significant
margin, air quality officials fear that reducing the frequency of
conformity determinations for transportation plans and programs under
the Clean Air Act will have a negative effect on the States' ability to
attain clean air standards. The report also reveals an EPA statement
that nearly half of conformity lapses between 1997 and 2002 were due to
insufficient time or staff resources or administrative and technical
difficulties.
Did you factor this information into your decision whether to alter
conformity deadlines in the Administration's bill, and what does your
bill do to address staffing and resource issues within the resource
agencies at the State or Federal level?
Response. In the GAO report entitled ``Federal Planning
Requirements for Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could
Potentially Be More Efficient and Better Linked,'' survey results
showed that between 30 percent to 40 percent of State air quality
planners responding to GAO's survey supported the proposal to require
less frequent updates of the transportation plan or the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) while close to 40 percent were not sure or
had no opinion and about 30 percent of them did not support this
change. When asked if the proposals would have a negative effect on
their ability to meet air quality standards, only about 30 percent of
air quality planners said they thought that less frequent updates of
the transportation plan or TIP could have a negative effect.
During the course of SAFETEA development, the Department conducted
a number of outreach sessions with various stakeholders and considered
other information such as the MPO survey conducted by the SEPW staff
and MPOs' conformity implementation experience shared directly with us.
Our stakeholders indicate that opportunities remain to improve the
transportation conformity process and to strengthen the linkages
between the transportation and air quality planning processes. One of
the concerns raised among transportation agencies (even some air
quality agencies agreed) was that transportation plans and State
implementation plans (SIPs) are not synchronized with one another due
to different planning horizons and update frequencies. This sometimes
causes ``lapses'' in conformity, often disrupting the transportation
funding process. While transportation plans have very long planning
horizons and have to be updated frequently, most air quality plans have
comparatively shorter planning horizons and are updated less
frequently. Our stakeholders indicate that conformity lapses have
occurred because areas could not complete the complex, comprehensive
transportation planning and conformity processes within the required
timeframes, even though they met their emissions budgets. Data
collection, model development, public outreach, and consensus building
can all take a considerable amount of time and resources. MPOs also
face other daily challenges of ever-increasing congestion,
transportation needs due to economic growth, protection of water
quality and other environmental resources, efficient freight
management, safety, and security. Many MPOs expressed the frustration
that the transportation conformity process is driving the
transportation planning process. So instead of fulfilling the original
intent of transportation conformity of ensuring planned transportation
activities to be consistent with the area's clean air goal,
transportation agencies are spending their limited resources to ``chase
the conformity clock'' and paying less attention to other important
planning elements such as considering alternative land uses, and
developing new analytical tools.
Many of our stakeholders have suggested bringing the planning
horizons and frequency of updates of both the transportation plans and
air quality plans much closer together. Some have suggested a shorter
planning horizon, and less frequent updates, while others have
suggested a longer air quality planning horizon.
Based on the above findings, the Administration proposes the
following conformity-related changes in SAFETEA:
1. Combine metropolitan long-range transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs into a single transportation
plan. A primary objective is to ensure better consistency between
what has been known as the metropolitan long-range transportation
plan and the identification/prioritization of specific
transportation projects/project phases into what has been known as
the TIP. Since current law requires the TIP to be consistent with
the long-range transportation plan, the rationale behind this
proposed change is to reduce the number of actions or products
generated by the metropolitan transportation planning process, such
as those related to plan/program development or revision, public
involvement, and fiscal constraint. This will require only one
conformity determination for the plan, instead of separate
conformity determinations for transportation plans and TIPs.
2. Limit transportation conformity to the first 10 years of the
transportation plan, the latest year in which the SIP contains a
motor vehicle emissions budgets, or the completion date of a
regionally significant project, if the project requires approval
before the subsequent conformity determination, whichever is
longer. This section was added to better integrate the
transportation planning and air quality planning processes, and to
ensure that the most cost-effective mitigation strategies are
incorporated into these processes. This proposal would more closely
align the transportation and air quality planning horizons for
purposes of transportation conformity. Currently, transportation
conformity must be determined for the entire 20-year planning
horizon of metropolitan long-range transportation plans. On the
other hand, air quality SIPs usually cover a much shorter timeframe
(10 years or less). Nevertheless, long-range transportation plans
must conform to these SIPs for the full 20 years of the plan. This
mismatch in timeframes does not provide for an integrated planning
process in the out-years to select the most cost-effective
strategies for controlling emissions, nor does it allow for the
consideration of emissions reduction strategies across different
sources of emissions.
SAFETEA proposes to re-define the transportation planning horizon for
purposes of conformity to be the longer of: (a) the first 10 years
of the metropolitan Transportation Plan; (b) the latest year in the
air quality SIP that contains a motor vehicle emissions budget; or
(c) the completion date of a regionally significant project that
requires approval before the next conformity determination.
In practice, this means that for areas with SIP planning horizons of
less than 10 years (which is the case for most areas),
transportation conformity determinations would cover a minimum of
10 years. In cases where air quality agencies develop a longer-term
SIP with emissions budgets that extend beyond 10 years, the
conformity determination would cover the corresponding, longer time
period. This approach would ensure that a coordinated and
integrated transportation and air quality planning process is
utilized in developing the SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets and
in determining transportation conformity. This provision also is
intended to encourage the development of longer-term SIPs in areas
that anticipate extended air quality problems. The SAFETEA proposal
also recognizes that MPOs may desire to extend their conformity
analyses to include certain transportation projects with completion
dates that may extend beyond the minimum timeframe. For example, if
a project sponsor wanted an approved environmental document for a
proposed regionally significant project that would not be completed
for 15 years, the Transportation plan conformity analysis would
need to cover the 15-year period so that the proposed project's
emissions would be reflected in a Transportation Plan conformity
determination prior to the Federal approval of the NEPA document.
3. Require a regional emissions analysis for the last year of the
transportation plan, for informational purposes only. SAFETEA
section 6001(a) adds a new section 5203(g)(4) to title 49, U.S.C.,
and contains a proposal for regional emissions analysis to be
performed for the last year of the metropolitan Transportation
Plan, assuming the conformity analysis is not performed for the
entirety of the Transportation Plan. These analyses are intended to
be informational only and serve as input into future updates of the
air quality SIP or the Transportation Plan. If this analysis were
to indicate that there are potential long-term air quality issues,
such issues could be more effectively addressed through an
integrated transportation and air quality planning process and
future updates of the air quality SIP and/or metropolitan
Transportation Plan.
4. Revise the required frequency of transportation plan updates and
conformity determinations from three to 5 years, except when the
MPO chooses to update the plan more frequently or changes to the
SIP trigger a new conformity determination as provided for in the
conformity rule. The proposed legislation encourages (and provides
sufficient time to develop) comprehensive Transportation Plans that
consider a diverse array of issues, while giving the MPOs and State
DOTs discretion in updating Transportation Plans more frequently
than the proposed 5-year timeframe, if dictated by changing
regional or State issues. Any major change to the Transportation
Plan within the 5-year update cycle, however, will result in a new
conformity determination. In addition, SAFETEA would retain the 18-
month conformity ``triggers'' of the current transportation
conformity rule associated with SIP actions, i.e., a conformity
determination on the Transportation Plan is required if a related
SIP action occurs. So an MPO could only go 5 years without updating
its conformity determination on the transportation plan if there
are no major changes to the transportation plan or to
transportation related provisions of an air quality plan during the
5-year period. Together these factors will ensure that
transportation plans remain in conformity with air quality plans,
thereby not compromising air quality goals.
To address the staffing and resource issues, SAFETEA (section 1505)
establishes a planning capacity initiative, a $20 million per year
program, to strengthen metropolitan and statewide transportation
planning practices and process including the integration of
environment and planning. The goal of this program is to improve
public ability to respond to transportation challenges in
metropolitan areas through sharing of information and good
practices, peer-to-peer exchange, and other technical assistance,
training and education programs.
Question 6. In his State of the Union Address, the President called
for over $1 Billion for hydrogen research. SAFETEA contains $54 Million
for hydrogen research. What happened to the rest of the President's
proposal?
Response. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush
recognized our need to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. For
nearly half a century, transportation has accounted for about one-
fourth of total U.S. energy use and currently accounts for two thirds
of U.S. oil consumption. The development of a marketable hydrogen
vehicle, as the President has proposed, will greatly reduce the
nation's dependence on foreign oil. We will accomplish this mission by
developing technology and infrastructure for commercially viable
hydrogen fuel cells to power cars, trucks, homes and businesses free of
air pollution or greenhouse gases. Today, more than ever, we must
pursue a clean, safe, and secure energy future.
Although the Department of Transportation plays a vital role in the
development of a marketable hydrogen vehicle, much of the current
research is at a very basic level, with a focus on hydrogen storage,
fuel cell dependability, and size or weight issues. The Department of
Energy conducts this basic research on hydrogen energy; DOT is involved
in applying, demonstrating, and deploying the new technology. DOT is
also responsible for the safe transportation of hydrogen, regardless of
how it is transported, and so will play a large role in developing the
codes and standards, and promoting safe infrastructure necessary to
support a hydrogen economy. Because most of the initial work will be in
basic research, the majority of the funding for the President's
Hydrogen Initiative is included in the energy bills currently before
Congress.
Question 7. Section 1103 of SAFETEA includes a provision to add new
language to Section 104 of title 23. Subsection (r) would provide
funding, up to $14,000,000 in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, ``for the
preferred option determined by a study for highway access near the
Executive Office complex.'' Please explain this provision.
Response. Section 330 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 DOT
Appropriations Act provided $11.1 million (prior to the .65 percent
rescission) of which $6.1 million was designated for streetscape and
security improvements on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White
House, Jackson Place, and Madison Place. The remaining $5 million was
designated for a transportation study to address traffic problems in
the immediate vicinity of the White House. The study will develop
transportation alternatives in response to the street closings and
restrictions in the vicinity of the White House and Executive Office of
the President complex.
Section 1103(d) of SAFETEA would provide $41 million over the
authorization period for the preferred option determined in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) upon completion of
the transportation study discussed above. The funds would be used to
finalize transportation actions in accordance with NEPA and carry out
preliminary engineering, preliminary and final design, and other pre-
contract award activities in preparation for project implementation.
These activities are projected to run through fiscal year 2010.
Construction would not begin until sometime after the SAFETEA
authorization period.
______
Responses of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Questions from
Senator Reid
Question 1. According to the Department of Transportation, the
population living in nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act ozone
and PM2.5 standards will increase in the next few years,
possibly two-fold. Given this analysis, I expected to see a significant
increase in CMAQ funding so that hard-pressed counties will have the
resources to comply with the law.
Given this extreme need, can you explain your decision not to
significantly increase the CMAQ funding?
Response. Over all SAFETEA funding level for programs funded from
the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund was set based on the
resources available from the Highway Account. The resources available
were determined based on the following principles: (1) No increases to
highway user taxes; (2) redirecting to the Highway Account of the
Highway Trust Fund the 2.5 cents per gallon of the gasohol tax
currently deposited in the General Fund; (3) maintaining a link between
Highway Account receipts and program levels; (4) drawing down the
balance of the Highway Account to a prudent level that can be
maintained.
The Administration wanted to maximize State flexibility by
concentrating funding in the core programs. One aspect of this was to
reduce the number of discretionary grant programs and redirect the
resources that would have otherwise funded such programs to the core
programs, including CMAQ. We consciously chose to maintain the relative
balance among the remaining core programs of TEA-21. Over the 6-year
authorization period, the remaining core programs each would grow at
about 9 percent compared to their TEA-21 authorization levels. Because
of the interaction of the funding levels for the core programs and the
minimum guarantee calculation, we had to stage the increases for each
program separately rather than having each grow smoothly at the same
rate each year.
Our SAFETEA proposal includes a CMAQ funding level that rises 9.1
percent over the life of the bill when compared to TEA-21
authorizations. This is commensurate with increases projected for other
major Federal-aid programs including Interstate Maintenance, 9.2
percent; National Highway System, also 9.2 percent; Bridge, 9.1
percent; and the Surface Transportation Program, 9.0 percent. Given the
difficult funding choices put before the Department with a growing list
of national priorities, we considered 9 percent as reality-based
growth.
While the program does fall back some $330 million in fiscal year
04 to provide funding for the new Safety Program, we should point out
that other Federal-aid highway and transit programs can participate in
many CMAQ-eligible projects through the flexibility provisions of
existing laws that support the transfer of funds among programs. For
example, SAFETEA proposes $46 billion in transit funding, which could
be available to help offset the shortfall in the first year. By law,
CMAQ funds may be invested only in projects that contribute to air
quality. However, other funding programs, like the much larger Surface
Transportation Program, may be invested in many such endeavors if the
State and MPO so desire.
Question 2. In the Administration's bill, you propose to continue
the State Infrastructure Bank Pilot Program. Currently, this pilot
program applies the requirements of title 23 to all projects financed
in whole or in part or assisted by the State Infrastructure Bank. Does
the administration's reauthorization proposal maintain that practice?
Response. The Administration's reauthorization proposal applies
Federal requirements to all projects assisted by the State
Infrastructure Bank.
Question 2(b). Also, several States have expressed interest in
participating in the State Infrastructure Bank program, including my
State of Nevada. Can you also please discuss your decision to limit the
program to no more than five States?
Response. The Administration wants to maintain a five-State pilot
similar to the one authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21). The applications for this pilot will be
evaluated based on criteria established by the Secretary which would
include: the State's ability to provide non-Federal funds to capitalize
the bank; the existence of State enabling legislation that allows for
full State Infrastructure Bank participation; the State's strategy for
encouraging non-Federal repayment sources from project sponsors; the
amount of Federal funds the State will commit to the bank as a
percentage of Federal apportionments; the State's eligibility under
TEA-21; and the State's past experience with a State Infrastructure
Bank including the TEA-21 pilot program.
Question 3. The administration's proposal suggests a major change
to the current Federal lands highway program. This is of particular
interest to me since 87 percent of Nevada's land is Federal land. One
proposed change would eliminate the current Public Lands Highways
discretionary program that funds much of the road work done on Federal
land in Nevada, replacing it with, among other things a Recreational
Roads program.
I noticed the administration has made a concerted effort to do away
with most discretionary programs. Some of these discretionary programs
serve an important function, even with earmarks. I am concerned that,
in an attempt at reform, the administration may be overreaching. I
think the Public Lands Highway discretionary program is one example.
How can I be confident that this change to the Federal lands
program will not adversely affect Nevada?
Response. SAFETEA calls for a record Federal investment in surface
transportation, spending over $201 billion on highway and safety
programs. The proposed elimination of the discretionary categories will
provide more funding for the ``core'' highway programs. This change
would give States more flexibility to determine priorities and direct
funding to those priorities.
The proposed Recreation Roads category included in SAFETEA will
provide $50 million for each fiscal year 2004 through 2009. This
category will provide funding for public roads owned by the U.S.
Government that provide access to museums, lakes, reservoirs, visitors
centers, gateways to major wilderness areas, public use areas,
recreation, and historic sites. Recreation Roads funds would be
allocated to five agencies as follows:
-6 percent to Bureau of Reclamation
-6 percent to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-10 percent to Bureau of Land Management
-10 percent to Military Traffic Management Command
-68 percent to Forest Service
The Secretary, from time to time, may adjust the percentage of
recreation road funds to each agency. With 87 percent of Nevada being
Federal lands, this new category will provide additional funds to
Federal Land Managing Agencies in the State for transportation needs.
Question 4. The Bureau of Land Management oversees the great
majority of Nevada's Federal lands. In the past, the Federal Highway
Administration's relationship with the BLM has not been as effective as
its relationship with other Federal land resource agencies, especially
in Nevada. What is being done to improve that relationship?
Response. The Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) was established
to provide funding for a coordinated program of public roads and
transit facilities serving Federal and Indian lands. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) did not participate in the FLHP because their roads
were not considered public roads. The BLM has recently established a
``public road'' category, which will allow them to participate in the
FLHP. Under SAFETEA, BLM would receive funds from the Recreation Road
and Safety categories.
Question 5. The Federal Highway Administration's 2002 Conditions
and Performance report estimates 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 cost
significantly more. As you have pointed out, safety continues to be an
urgent concern. In metropolitan areas across the country, congestion
only gets worse.
In fact, the administration's proposed funding level for fiscal
year 2004 is $2 billion below the fiscal year 2003 level. The
administration's bill will not reach current funding levels until
fiscal year 2007 and then only with a modest increase. This is simply
unacceptable.
This country needs sustained, robust investment in our
transportation system and the economic stimulus and jobs that
investment provides.
Given the pressing needs of our nation's transportation system and
our struggling economy, can you please explain how our constituents can
have any confidence in the future condition and performance of our
surface transportation system given the administration's proposed level
of investment?
Response. SAFETEA calls for a record Federal investment in surface
transportation, spending over $247 billion on highway and transit
programs from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009. The
Administration's proposal marks a 19 percent increase over the
guaranteed amounts provided in TEA-21. The Federal-aid highway program
size is set at a level that the expected level of Highway Account
revenues (from current taxes and the redirection of 2.5 cents per
gallon of gasohol) can sustain and that will allow the maintenance of
prudent cash reserves in the Highway Account.
The ``2002 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges and Transit:
Conditions and Performance'' report to Congress (C&P report) focuses on
the impacts of investment by all levels of government combined over 20
years, not just the Federal investment. The report indicates that
capital investment by all levels of government would need to increase
by 17.5 percent above base year 2000 levels in order to reach the
``Cost to Maintain Highways and Bridges'' level. The C&P report also
indicated that this difference would shrink to 11.3 percent over the
2001 to 2003 period, due in part to higher Federal funding levels in
the latter years of TEA-21. Further shrinkage of this ``gap'' will
depend on the level and types of Federal, State, local government, and
private highway investment over this period.
The term ``Cost to Maintain Highways and Bridges'' identified in
the 2002 C&P report describes a level of investment at which future
conditions and performance would be maintained at a level sufficient to
keep average highway user costs from rising above their 2000 levels. It
thus represents a more ambitious target than simply maintaining the
physical condition of the infrastructure.
SAFETEA proposes a sustainable level of infrastructure investment
that provides funding increases for all core program categories, and
establishes carefully targeted new programs, including one to address
immediate improvements in system conditions and operations. SAFETEA
will protect the American taxpayer's equity in transportation
infrastructure.
Question 6. As part of this reauthorization, the administration is
proposing a new Surface Transportation System Performance Pilot
program. As you may know, in Nevada, we have done an excellent job of
maintaining the condition of our National Highway System roads. In
fact, we have some of the best roads in the country. This did not
happen by accident. The Nevada State Department of Transportation has
made tough, informed choices and focused maintenance resources on those
routes with the highest traffic volume.
How would this new performance pilot program benefit a State like
Nevada that has managed its transportation assets well?
Response. SAFETEA builds upon the vision of ISTEA and TEA-21,
giving State and local officials even more flexibility to advance their
own goals for transportation capital investment. Instead of directing
outcomes from Washington, DC, the Department continues to shift more of
its focus to giving State and local partners the necessary tools to
solve their unique problems while still pursuing important national
goals. Increased flexibility to address individual circumstances,
needs, and priorities benefits all States.
One new initiative in flexibility is SAFETEA's proposed performance
pilot program, which would allow up to 5 pilot States to manage the
bulk of their core formula highway program funds on a performance
basis, cutting across the programmatic lines by which the Federal-aid
highway program is normally structured. Pilot States would work with
the Department to develop and meet specific performance measures that
reflect both State and national interests.
This program gives States more flexibility to make effective
investments by focusing on program outcomes rather than program
categories.
This program is a test, to determine whether allowing States to
assume certain responsibilities can lead to more efficient execution of
the Federal-aid Highway Program. No separate funding is provided--it is
an experiment in the management and use of a State's regular Federal-
aid highway apportionments.
While this way of doing business may not be an effective tool for
one State, it could be just the answer for another. Collectively, our
overall, interconnected surface transportation system and all of its
users reap the benefits.
Question 7. I have always been a strong supporter of MAGLEV. I
think it is a mode of transportation that can bring substantial benefit
to certain areas of the country. In the past, we have made modest
investments in the technology to prepare MAGLEV for deployment. Today
there are regions of the country ready to deploy the technology.
However, I did not see any mention of MAGLEV in the Administration's
bill. Can you discuss what you envision as the future of MAGLEV in this
country and why the administration chose to leave it out of this
reauthorization proposal?
Response. Maglev is an exciting technological concept that still is
in the developmental stage. Investment in maglev implementation may be
appropriate at some point in the future, but the issue that the
Administration faced in developing the SAFETEA proposal is whether
maglev is ready for application to the transportation challenges facing
this country today. We concluded that it was not. With the exception of
a relatively short airport shuttle being developed in Shanghai, and
test facilities in Germany and Japan, our knowledge of maglev is
derived from paper studies and projections, not from practical
experience. While even the proponents of maglev agree that construction
of a relatively short demonstration such as the one underway in China
will be expensive, we cannot make an informed judgment about the final
construction and live cycle costs of a maglev system designed to meet
real transportation needs in everyday revenue service and, thus, how
investment in maglev would compare to alternative investments designed
to meet the same transportation needs. Given the limited funding
available for transportation, and the many legitimate transportation
needs that are competing for that limited funding, the Administration
did not believe that maglev was a sufficiently high priority to be
included in SAFETEA.
______
Responses of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Questions from
Senator Carper
Overall Funding Levels
Question 1. In your testimony, you cite the great impact of the
transportation system on our economy and overall quality of life.
Additionally, you cite the many challenges facing our transportation
system, from maintaining our existing infrastructure to relieving
growing congestion and providing for huge growth in freight traffic.
How do we adequately address these challenges given the limited
resources that SAFETEA proposes?
Response. SAFETEA is a plan, not just for the amount of Federal
funding to be spent for surface transportation infrastructure, but for
the way we will spend the funds. This investment will lead not only to
safer highway transportation, but also to simpler and smarter delivery
of Federal highway programs as well. At the Federal level, we will
address transportation problems of national significance, while giving
State and local transportation decisionmakers more flexibility to solve
the unique transportation problems of their communities. New
flexibilities in infrastructure financing will increase opportunities
for private-sector investment in highway facilities. Refinements in
program administration and environmental review processes will make
project oversight more effective and project delivery more efficient.
And, we are focusing our transportation research efforts on improving
today's highway system performance, and anticipating and developing
options to deal with future challenges.
SAFETEA calls for a record Federal investment in surface
transportation, spending over $247 billion on highway and transit
programs from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009--a 19 percent
increase over the guaranteed amounts provided in TEA-21. This is a
sustainable level of infrastructure investment that provides funding
increases for all core program categories, and establishes carefully
targeted new programs, including the Infrastructure Performance and
Maintenance and Freight Gateways programs to specifically address
congestion and freight issues. However, it is essential to consider the
many programmatic reforms contained in SAFETEA, as well as the total
size of the program.
Question 2. Generating 47,500 jobs for every $1 billion in
investment, transportation investment would seem to be one of the best
economic stimulators available. Would you agree? If so, shouldn't we be
spending more, not less, on transportation in these difficult economic
times?
Response. Funding levels in SAFETEA reflect the difficult choices
currently facing both the Administration and Congress, seeking a
balance in addressing domestic needs, meeting our international
responsibilities, and protecting against terrorist attacks at home.
Still, SAFETEA calls for a record Federal investment in surface
transportation, spending over $247 billion on highway and transit
programs from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009. The
Administration's proposal marks a 19 percent increase over the
guaranteed amounts provided in TEA-21. The proposed levels provide for
a sustainable highway program, responsible program increases over the
6-year reauthorization period, and continue the traditional linkage of
highway spending and trust fund revenues.
The Administration opposes raising gas taxes at this time when many
American families that depend on their vehicles, and businesses that
rely on affordable ground transportation, are facing challenging
economic circumstances. Tax cuts, rather than increased spending, are
proposed to stimulate the economy. Therefore, the Federal-aid highway
program size is set at a level that the expected level of Highway
Account revenues (from current taxes and the redirection of 2.5 cents
per gallon of gasohol) can sustain and that will allow the maintenance
of prudent cash reserves in the Highway Account.
Within today's constrained budget environment, SAFETEA makes a very
substantial commitment to ensuring a safe and efficient Federal
transportation system for all Americans. It 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.
Rail
Question 1. While I applaud the Administration for including
several new programs and initiatives that provide resource to States
for intermodal investment, including freight and passenger rail,
overall, SAFETEA offers the status quo on rail development by simply
extending the current Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure
Financing (RRIF) loan program and reauthorizing ``with some changes''
the Swift Act High Speed Rail planning and research grant programs. Do
you believe these programs are adequate to address the many rail needs
our States have?
Response. Rail programs have traditionally been the subject of
their own separate authorization legislation and not incorporated into
the legislative antecedents of SAFETEA. The Administration believes
this is appropriate and will be addressing the major rail needs through
separate legislative proposals for the reauthorization of the Federal
Rail Safety Act and for Intercity Passenger Rail Service.
Question 2. How will the Administration's plan for Amtrak fit with
SAFETEA? Are there specific programs in SAFETEA that you envision
dovetailing with the Administration's proposal?
Response. The Administration's proposal for the future of intercity
passenger rail service will be included in separate legislation that
will soon be transmitted to Congress. One aspect of that proposal will
be an enhanced role for the States in making fundamental decisions
about intercity passenger rail services important to them. SAFETEA
proposes amending the existing planning provisions of the Swift Rail
Act to authorize Federal financial assistance to the States to permit
them to undertake the analyses necessary for them to make informed
decisions with regard to intercity passenger rail and to identify where
such service deserves their support.
Question 3. In your testimony, you discuss letting the States have
maximum flexibility to make transportation investments. Why doesn't
this flexibility include funding Amtrak services?
Response. The transportation needs currently eligible under the
programs being reauthorized in SAFETEA exceed the available resources.
The Administration does not wish to exacerbate this situation by adding
Amtrak and related programs which, in some versions of Senate
legislation could exceed $4.5 billion per year, to the list of projects
competing for those limited resources. Intercity passenger rail and
Amtrak will be the subject of a separate legislative proposal.
Transit
Question 1. The investment levels for transit recommended by
SAFETEA defer the necessary investment needed to meet the system
preservation requirements identified in DOT's own ``Conditions and
Performance Report.'' Won't deferring these expenses simply add to the
cost of maintaining and improving our transit services in the years to
come?
Response. SAFETEA proposes to make $46 billion available over the
6-year authorization period, a 28 percent increase over the $36 billion
under TEA-21. We believe this level of Federal investment will keep us
on target to maintain--and even improve--the conditions and performance
of our Nation's transit assets.
The DOT's Conditions and Performance (C&P) Report makes long-term
projections of investment needs and reports a single ``average annual''
investment requirement from all sources for the entire 20-year period
(2001-2020). The 2002 Report estimates that the average capital
investment needed to maintain transit conditions and performance is
$14.8 billion annually.
Using the average annual investment requirement ($14.8 billion)
reported in the C&P Report, a total of $88.6 billion of transit
investment would be required to maintain transit conditions and
performance over the 6-year reauthorization period. This figure
includes investments from all sources--Federal, State, and local.
Historically and most recently in 2001, State and local governments
moneys account for approximately half of all capital investments in
transit. Assuming that this share is maintained, the Federal investment
in transit that would be required for the 6-year reauthorization period
would be $44.3 billion--less than the $46 billion provided by SAFETEA.
Thus, the $46 billion investment proposed by SAFETEA would, in fact,
permit us to maintain transit conditions and performance.
Question 2. SAFETEA proposes the elimination of the guaranteed
funding/firewall protection of the general fund contributions to the
Mass Transit Account of the Trust Fund. Why is this and doesn't this
directly counter your previous statement that ``The minimum guarantees
and the budgetary firewalls have created confidence among grantees
regarding Federal funding . . . [and are] . . . an extremely important
aspect of program delivery for State and local officials.''
Response. Transit programs are currently the only Federal programs
that receive guaranteed general funds. We are confident that transit
programs can effectively compete for general funds with other programs
if they are not included within budgetary firewalls. Furthermore, given
the potential for changes in national priorities (like those we saw
after September 11, 2001), it did not seem appropriate or advisable to
tie the hands of future Congresses or future Presidents with general
fund firewalls. Funds paid into the Mass Transit Account are intended
to be used solely for a specific purpose and are appropriately
guaranteed.
Question 3. Where needs significantly exceed available funding as
in our current transit program, the ability to shift money from one
need to another is no substitute for additional resources into the
program. While I am supportive of State flexibility, I think it needs
to be accompanied by adequate resources. Could eliminating specific
transit program funding categories and pitting competing programs
against one another without adding more resources lead to lower funding
for important, but perhaps less popular or glamorous, programs? How
would we prevent this?
Response. In a constrained fiscal environment, flexibility can help
maximize the use of available resources. We have not, however,
eliminated specific transit program funding categories, with the
exception of the bus capital program, for which the funding has been
incorporated into the urbanized and nonurbanized area formula programs
to increase those stable and predictable sources of capital funding for
buses and bus facilities, and into the New Starts program to provide
capital investment for major non-fixed guideway corridor improvements
such as Bus Rapid Transit. Funds for Fixed Guideway Modernization are
allocated on the same basis as under current law but are incorporated
into the urbanized formula program to provide grantees with more
flexibility. We have retained the flexibility provided in current law
to transfer funds between the urbanized and nonurbanized programs.
In the State-administered programs, we have retained the existing
formula for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities program, made the
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program a formula administered by the
States, and proposed the New Freedom Initiative as a State-administered
formula program to support transportation enhancements for persons with
disabilities beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The funds allocated to the States for each of these programs must
be used for the intended purpose. The requirement under each of these
State programs that projects be selected from locally developed
coordinated human service/public transit plans will ensure that local
communities examine the whole range of community transportation needs
and existing transportation providers and services. The States will
then competitively allocate the program funds to fill gaps identified
by local communities in both urbanized and rural areas.
We believe that formularizing these transit programs promotes sound
decisionmaking at the local and State level so that the ``important,
but perhaps less popular or glamorous'' projects can be considered on
their merits.
Question 4. Why does SAFETEA allocate more resources to the highway
program over transit, thus upsetting the historic 4 to 1 ratio between
the two programs when we see equally high demand for both types of
investment? Shouldn't we grow both programs equally? Or perhaps subject
the highway programs to a 50 percent non-Federal match to spread
Federal highway funding to more beneficiaries in the face of such high
demand? If that makes sense for transit, why not consider it for
highways?
Response. I believe that the allocation of resources between
transit and highway funding in SAFETEA is quite similar to the
situation in TEA-21. For the 6-year period covered by SAFETEA, the mass
transit program authorizations constitute 18.4 percent of the total
authorizations. Under the 6-year period covered by TEA-21, mass transit
constituted about 18.8 percent of total authorizations and 17.4 percent
of the guaranteed funding.
I would like to clarify the Administration's proposal to decrease
the maximum Federal New Starts share to 50 percent. The New Starts
match provision actually limits the portion of the project that can be
funded from New Starts funds to 50 percent. The total Federal share may
still be up to 80 percent. For instance, a New Starts project could be
funded as follows:
50 percent with Federal New Starts funds
30 percent with other Federal funds, including certain
highway (typically CMAQ or STP funds) formula funds
20 percent non-Federal funds
The formula programs for both highways and transit would continue
to have the same match rate: 80 percent Federal--20 percent non-
Federal.
It is important to distinguish the New Starts program from highway
and transit formula programs. The New Starts program is a discretionary
program and provides funds over and above the formula funds each State
receives. Changing the New Starts share to 50 percent reflects the
realities of the competitive nature of the program. The Federal Transit
Administration has long encouraged project sponsors to ``overmatch.''
In evaluating New Starts applications, one of the statutory criteria is
the local financial commitment and a sponsor's proposal to overmatch
can enhance a project's standing in the competition for a full funding
grant agreement. The overall Federal New Starts share today is 49
percent.
The current effective Federal share for highway capital investment
in the U.S. is only 40 percent, with many highway projects being funded
entirely by State and local government resources. The comparable
Federal share for transit capital projects is 47 percent.
Conformity, Environmental Streamlining, and CMAQ
Question 1. SAFETEA proposes several changes to the current
conformity planning process. Can you discuss these and address claims
that these changes might reduce accountability of transportation
planners for air quality?
Response. During the course of SAFETEA development, the Department
conducted a number of outreach sessions with various stakeholders and
considered other information such as the MPO survey conducted by the
SEPW staff and MPOs' conformity implementation experience shared
directly with us. Our stakeholders indicate that opportunities remain
to improve the transportation conformity process and to strengthen the
linkages between the transportation and air quality planning processes.
One of the concerns raised among transportation agencies (even some air
quality agencies agreed) was that transportation plans and State
implementation plans (SIPs) are not synchronized with one another due
to different planning horizons and update frequencies. This sometimes
causes ``lapses'' in conformity, often disrupting the transportation
funding process. While transportation plans have very long planning
horizons and have to be updated frequently, most air quality plans have
comparatively shorter planning horizons and are updated less
frequently. Our stakeholders indicate that conformity lapses have
occurred because areas could not complete the complex, comprehensive
transportation planning and conformity processes within the required
timeframes, even though they met their emissions budgets. Data
collection, model development, public outreach, and consensus building
can all take a considerable amount of time and resources. MPOs also
face other daily challenges of ever-increasing congestion,
transportation needs due to economic growth, protection of water
quality and other environmental resources, efficient freight
management, safety, and security. Many MPOs expressed the frustration
that the transportation conformity process is driving the
transportation planning process. So instead of fulfilling the original
intent of transportation conformity of ensuring planned transportation
activities to be consistent with the area's clean air goal,
transportation agencies are spending their limited resources to ``chase
the conformity clock'' and paying less attention to other important
planning elements such as considering alternative land uses, and
developing new analytical tools.
Many of our stakeholders have suggested bringing the planning
horizons and frequency of updates of both the transportation plans and
air quality plans much closer together. Some have suggested a shorter
planning horizon, and less frequent updates, while others have
suggested a longer air quality planning horizon.
Based on the above findings, the Administration proposes the
following conformity-related changes in SAFETEA:
1. Combine metropolitan long-range transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs into a single transportation
plan. A primary objective is to ensure better consistency between
what has been known as the metropolitan long-range transportation
plan and the identification/prioritization of specific
transportation projects/project phases into what has been known as
the TIP. Since current law requires the TIP to be consistent with
the long-range transportation plan, the rationale behind this
proposed change is to reduce the number of actions or products
generated by the metropolitan transportation planning process, such
as those related to plan/program development or revision, public
involvement, and fiscal constraint. This will require only one
conformity determination for the plan, instead of separate
conformity determinations for transportation plans and TIPs.
2. Limit transportation conformity to the first 10 years of the
transportation plan, the latest year in which the SIP contains a
motor vehicle emissions budgets, or the completion date of a
regionally significant project, if the project requires approval
before the subsequent conformity determination, whichever is
longer. This section was added to better integrate the
transportation planning and air quality planning processes, and to
ensure that the most cost-effective mitigation strategies are
incorporated into these processes. This proposal would more closely
align the transportation and air quality planning horizons for
purposes of transportation conformity. Currently, transportation
conformity must be determined for the entire 20-year planning
horizon of metropolitan long-range transportation plans. On the
other hand, air quality SIPs usually cover a much shorter timeframe
(10 years or less). Nevertheless, long-range transportation plans
must conform to these SIPs for the full 20 years of the plan. This
mismatch in timeframes does not provide for an integrated planning
process in the out-years to select the most cost-effective
strategies for controlling emissions, nor does it allow for the
consideration of emissions reduction strategies across different
sources of emissions.
SAFETEA proposes to re-define the transportation planning horizon for
purposes of conformity to be the longer of: (a) the first 10 years
of the metropolitan Transportation Plan; (b) the latest year in the
air quality SIP that contains a motor vehicle emissions budget; or
(c) the completion date of a regionally significant project that
requires approval before the next conformity determination.
In practice, this means that for areas with SIP planning horizons of
less than 10 years (which is the case for most areas),
transportation conformity determinations would cover a minimum of
10 years. In cases where air quality agencies develop a longer-term
SIP with emissions budgets that extend beyond 10 years, the
conformity determination would cover the corresponding, longer time
period. This approach would ensure that a coordinated and
integrated transportation and air quality planning process is
utilized in developing the SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets and
in determining transportation conformity. This provision also is
intended to encourage the development of longer-term SIPs in areas
that anticipate extended air quality problems. The SAFETEA proposal
also recognizes that MPOs may desire to extend their conformity
analyses to include certain transportation projects with completion
dates that may extend beyond the minimum timeframe. For example, if
a project sponsor wanted an approved environmental document for a
proposed regionally significant project that would not be completed
for 15 years, the Transportation plan conformity analysis would
need to cover the 15-year period so that the proposed project's
emissions would be reflected in a Transportation Plan conformity
determination prior to the Federal approval of the NEPA document.
3. Require a regional emissions analysis for the last year of the
transportation plan, for informational purposes only. SAFETEA
section 6001(a) adds a new 5203(g)(4) to title 49, U.S.C., and
contains a proposal for regional emissions analysis to be performed
for the last year of the metropolitan Transportation Plan, assuming
the conformity analysis is not performed for the entirety of the
Transportation Plan. These analyses are intended to be
informational only and serve as input into future updates of the
air quality SIP or the Transportation Plan. If this analysis were
to indicate that there are potential long-term air quality issues,
such issues could be more effectively addressed through an
integrated transportation and air quality planning process and
future updates of the air quality SIP and/or metropolitan
Transportation Plan.
4. Revise the required frequency of transportation plan updates and
conformity determinations from three to 5 years, except when the
MPO chooses to update the plan more frequently or changes to the
SIP trigger a new conformity determination as provided for in the
conformity rule. The proposed legislation encourages (and provides
sufficient time to develop) comprehensive Transportation Plans that
consider a diverse array of issues, while giving the MPOs and State
DOTs discretion in updating Transportation Plans more frequently
than the proposed 5-year timeframe, if dictated by changing
regional or State issues. Any major change to the Transportation
Plan within the 5-year update cycle, however, will result in a new
conformity determination. In addition, SAFETEA would retain the 18-
month conformity ``triggers'' of the current transportation
conformity rule associated with SIP actions, i.e., a conformity
determination on the Transportation Plan is required if a related
SIP action occurs. So an MPO could only go 5 years without updating
its conformity determination on the transportation plan if there
are no major changes to the transportation plan or to
transportation related provisions of an air quality plan during the
5-year period. Together these factors will ensure that
transportation plans remain in conformity with air quality plans,
thereby not compromising air quality goals.
Question 2. I understand that SAFETEA provides a role for air
quality agencies in the prioritization of CMAQ projects. Is this role
mandated or is it voluntary? Do you believe having input from air
quality agencies will help States to select projects that deliver the
maximum air quality benefits?
Response. The transportation community values the input of air
quality agencies in phases of the planning and project development
processes related to the CMAQ program. Indeed, we have inserted in our
SAFETEA proposal that ``the Secretary shall encourage States and [MPOs]
to consult with'' these very organizations. In addition to this
voluntary role, air quality agencies are an integral part of the
interagency consultation procedures that drive the transportation
conformity process.
State environmental and air quality officials are not strangers to
highway and transit project development and, along with transportation
professionals, are able to contribute to the selection of effective
emission-reducing projects. While transportation planners and other
officials are best able to assess the full range of project development
issues, such as project planning, detailed specifications and design,
scheduling, fiscal programming, and other factors, air quality
professionals have an important and unique perspective and these
contributions are valued.
Question 3. Given SAFETEA's inclusion of the new standards for
ozone and particulate matter in the CMAQ formula, what are the
anticipated funding needs for this program? Does SAFETEA envision
significantly increased CMAQ funding?
Response. We view the increase in CMAQ funding submitted with our
SAFETEA proposal as a realistic gain for the program in the midst of
difficult fiscal choices and mounting national priorities. Spanning the
life of the SAFETEA bill, the CMAQ program increases more than 9
percent over TEA-21 authorizations. In addition, the program gains
considerably from 2005 to 2009, in part to offset the drop in levels
projected for 2004. We are confident that these increases in CMAQ
funding-certainly commensurate with the other Federal-aid programs-will
help areas subject to the new ozone and particulate matter standards
with planning and implementing emissions-reducing transportation
projects.
______
Responses of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Questions from
Senator Voinovich
Question 1. SAFETEA proposes a $1 billion a year program to fund
``ready-to-go'' projects. Would this funding be included under the
scope of the 90.5 percent minimum guarantee program? Do you propose any
other changes to the scope of the minimum guarantee program?
Response. The Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance (IPAM)
program, a $1 billion per year program designed to fund ready-to-go
projects, would be included as an element in the calculation of the
minimum guarantee program under the Administration's SAFETEA proposal.
Also included would be the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
The HSIP takes the place of the 10 percent safety set-aside from the
surface transportation program, which is part of the minimum guarantee
calculation under current law. One program, metropolitan planning,
would be removed from the calculation of minimum guarantee so that the
metropolitan planning set-aside may be applied to the minimum guarantee
program.
Question 2. Your proposal would establish a pilot program under
which States could manage a bulk of their core formula highway funds as
a block grant. Could you explain this proposal in greater detail?
Response. SAFETEA would establish a new highway pilot program
intended to test the concept of a performance-based management approach
in the obligation of Federal funding under the Federal-aid Highway
Program. Federal-aid highway program funds would continue to be
distributed among all States (including pilot States under this
program) according to legislated apportionment formulas. However, under
this pilot, up to five States could manage the bulk of their core
formula highway program funds on a systematic, performance basis across
the programmatic lines by which the Federal-aid highway program is
normally structured. States would work with the Department to develop
and meet specific performance measures that reflect both State and
national interests. This program gives States more flexibility to make
effective investments by focusing on program outcomes rather than
program categories. Another benefit of this program is that it would
authorize the Secretary to assign, and a State to assume, some or all
of the Secretary's responsibilities under Federal laws or requirements.
The State would be deemed to be a Federal agency to the extent the
State is carrying out the Secretary's responsibilities under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), title 23 of the United States
Code, or other Federal law. This program would test whether allowing
States to assume such responsibilities can lead to more efficient
execution of the Federal-aid highway program. No separate funding is
provided. This program is an experiment in the management and use of a
State's regular Federal-aid highway apportionments.
Question 3. One of my top transportation projects is the Euclid
Corridor Transportation Project, a Bus Rapid Transit project in
Cleveland, Ohio. This is a project that I became involved with well
over 20 years ago, and I will ride the Euclid Corridor. What changes
have you proposed to the New Starts Program that would help this
project proceed to the construction phase?
Response. In the Annual Report on New Starts for fiscal year 2004,
the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority's (GCRTA) proposed
Euclid Corridor Transportation Project (ECTP) was rated ``low'' for
cost-effectiveness. The ``low'' rating is primarily due to the
relatively high cost of the project compared to the estimated
transportation benefits. FTA measures cost-effectiveness by comparing
the costs of the project against the transportation benefits generated
by the project. Costs include the sum of: (1) capital costs, annualized
to an equivalent annual payment over the life of the project; and (2)
annual operating and maintenance costs. Benefits are the faster travel
times and other improvements in service characteristics for new and
existing transit riders, expressed in terms of hours of travel time
savings. Consequently, the cost-effectiveness measure expresses the
relative costs and benefits of the project in terms of cost per hour of
travel time savings.
FTA is working with the GCRTA to re-evaluate the ECTP with the goal
of improving the project's cost-effectiveness rating. The re-evaluation
will consider ways to improve cost effectiveness in three dimensions:
generating transportation benefits; identifying the likely impacts of
the project on economic development; and reducing the project's capital
costs.
Since several of the Administration's recommendations for the
reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century--
the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act of 2003'' (SAFETEA)--are already part of the project (e.g., the
ECTP's requested New Starts share is 50 percent), SAFETEA would not
have a direct impact on the ECTP. However, the cooperative effort
between the Federal
Transit Administration and the GCRTA to improve the ECTP's cost
effectiveness rating via the quantification of potential economic
development benefits attributable to the project within the Euclid
Avenue Corridor will help to strengthen the case that the project would
contribute directly to the area's economic development and
redevelopment efforts. Moreover, this effort would provide an expanded
measure of the benefits that would contribute directly to the
recalculation of a better cost-effectiveness result for the ECTP.
Question 4. SAFETEA proposes a number of changes to the
environmental streamlining provisions of TEA-21. With respect to
timeframes for resources agencies to conduct environmental reviews and
make decisions, your proposal stops short of establishing specific
deadlines in law. If mutually agreed upon deadlines cannot be
established, do you see a need for default deadlines?
Response. SAFETEA does not establish specific timelines by law
because it would be setting very arbitrary deadlines that could result
in more time spent in additional processes when those deadlines where
not met. The environmental review process for any project may involve
many other Federal and State agencies, each with their own reviews that
need to be satisfied. There are so many parameters that could possibly
be involved in the review process that only become known during a
thorough scoping process. One size does not fit all for the
environmental review process for surface transportation projects.
Question 5. Could you outline the specific changes you purpose to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f),
which protects public lands? How will these changes expedite the
project delivery process?
Response. Section 4(f) was enacted in 1966 during the peak of the
Interstate highway construction program, and at a time when highway
construction threatened major urban parks and historic districts.
Today's highway program is oriented much more toward preservation and
modernization of existing facilities. We believe that the strict rules
imposed by Section 4(f) are no longer necessary and in many cases cause
unwarranted delays in the implementation of critical highway and
transit projects. SAFETEA proposes to change Section 4(f) in three
important ways to make it more in line with the impacts of today's
highway and transit programs and to expedite project delivery:
First, SAFETEA would clarify the factors for determining
what is prudent. This change would resolve the current inconsistency in
court interpretations regarding what is meant by ``prudent'', which has
made the implementation of Section 4(f) difficult and has sometimes
resulted in decisions that were not in the public interest. The
proposed changes would provide clearer guidelines by which to make
Section 4(f) decisions, reducing deliberations over ``gray'' areas of
the law and making it easier to conduct a Section 4(f) analysis. It
would also facilitate internal reviews by setting forth a clear
standard by which to evaluate the adequacy Section 4(f) determinations.
Second, SAFETEA would allow the existing Section 106
process to substitute for the 4(f) process when an agreement is
reached. This would eliminate duplication between the application of
Section 4(f) and the Section 106 process, thereby streamlining the
process.
Finally, SAFETEA would allow States to use highway funds
to pay for historic preservation resources in order to expedite the
process. This would ensure that enough resources are provided to
carefully consider the impacts of highway and transit projects on
historic resources, while at the same time expediting the reviews
required under Section 4(f) and Section 106.
Question 6. SAFETEA proposes to allow States to assume the
responsibility of the Secretary for determining whether certain
activities are categorically excluded from requirements for
environmental assessments of environmental impact statements. Why did
the Administration limit this delegation of the Secretary's
responsibilities to the States to only categorical exclusions and not
extend the authority to environmental assessments or environmental
impact statements?
Response. A ``categorical exclusion'' (CE) is defined in
regulations as ``a category of actions which do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. . .
.'' Most surface transportation projects qualify as categorical
exclusions (e.g., over 91 percent of Federal highway construction
projects are classified as categorical exclusions). These kinds of
projects present a low risk of harm to the environment. This section
would allow some of the Department's responsibilities relating to these
kinds of projects to be assumed by the State. Delegation of CEs would
streamline the environmental review process, thereby expediting project
delivery, without any substantial risk to the environment. Projects
that do not qualify as a categorical exclusion involve more significant
risks to the environment, requiring more expertise in evaluating the
risks and greater interaction with other Federal agencies. We believe
that those circumstances warrant a continued role by the Department of
Transportation.
The pilot program in Section 1801 of SAFTEA does provide for
delegation of a broader range of responsibilities, including a
delegation of U.S. DOT's responsibilities relating to other categories
of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Protection
Act (NEPA), such as environmental assessments or environmental impact
statements. This pilot program will give us an opportunity to assess
the benefits and risks of greater delegation beyond CEs. States and
other project sponsors already have a significant role in the
development of highway and transit projects that are not defined as
CEs. For example, under NEPA, States are permitted to draft the
environmental impact statement for transportation projects, so long as
U.S. DOT conducts an independent evaluation. States and other project
sponsors also play a major role in selecting transportation projects
through the transportation planning process.
Question 7. How will the environmental streamlining provisions
contained in SAFETEA expedite the project delivery process?
Response. SAFETEA contains several environmental streamlining
provisions that will expedite the project delivery process:
Section 1602
Clarifies that the project sponsor has the authority to
request Federal agencies to cooperate in the establishment of time
periods for environmental reviews. This will allow project sponsors to
determine when a time schedule is needed to ensure that project reviews
and decisionmaking are conducted in an efficient, expeditious manner.
Gives State Governors the authority to initiate the
dispute resolution process (in addition to Federal agencies) if
timetables are not being met or substantive issues are not being
resolved. This adds another avenue for resolving any impasses that have
occurred in the project development process.
Establishes a new statute of limitations of 180 days for
legal challenges to Federal agencies decisions made in connections with
the issuance of permits, licenses, or approvals for surface
transportation projects is established. There is currently no uniform
statute of limitations that applies to the decisions of Federal
agencies relating to highway construction and mass transit projects. By
default, legal challenges relating to highway construction or mass
transit projects are subject to the general 6-year statute of
limitations that applies to Federal decisions. This has allowed legal
challenges to proceed even though they were filed years after Federal
approvals were granted, and in some cases not until transportation
projects were well under construction. This new statute of limitations,
while still providing adequate time for filing a lawsuit, will prompt
timely resolution of outstanding legal disputes or appeals on the
adequacy of projects' environmental impact statements and other
environmental documents, and on all other Federal decisions on
projects.
Expands the ability of States to provide Federal-aid
highway funds to resources agencies to pay for additional resources to
expedite the environmental review process.
Section 1603
Simplifies the processing of Categorical Exclusion
approvals by allowing some of the Department's responsibilities
relating to these kinds of projects to be assumed by the State. Most
surface transportation projects qualify as categorical exclusions
(e.g., over 91 percent of Federal highway construction projects are
classified as categorical exclusions). These kinds of projects present
a low risk of harm to the environment. This section would remove the
Department's involvement in individual project reviews (although
retaining an oversight role), eliminating an additional layer of review
and approval. This would streamline the environmental review process,
thereby expediting project delivery, without any substantial risk to
the environment.
Section 1604
As explained more fully above, in response to question 5,
this section will clarify the legal standard applicable to
determinations under Section 4(f) as to whether an alternative is
feasible and prudent; eliminate the current duplication between Section
4(f) and Section 106; and allow States to use highway funds to pay for
historic preservation resources in order to expedite the review and
consultation process.
Section 1607
Establishes an exemption from Section 4(f) and Section
106 processes for the Interstate Highway System as an historic
resource, unless the Secretary applies Section 106 to individual
elements. If the Interstate System were to be designated as an historic
property, it is conceivable that every action taken to maintain,
improve, or upgrade the Interstate System could be considered an
undertaking subject to review under Section 4(f) and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, which could unnecessarily delay
needed transportation projects and improvements.
Section 1801
Establishes a surface transportation system performance
pilot program pursuant to which the Secretary would be authorized to
assign, and a State to assume, some or all of the Secretary's
responsibilities under any Federal law or requirement, including
environmental laws. Under this pilot program, the Department's
involvement in individual project reviews could be significantly
reduced (although it would continue to retain an oversight role), thus
eliminating an additional layer of review and approval.
Section 1815
Allows some of the Department's responsibilities relating
to the transportation enhancements and recreational trails programs,
established under ISTEA and continued under TEA-21, and the
transportation and community and system preservation program,
established under TEA-21, to be assumed by the State. This section
would reduce the Department's involvement in individual project reviews
for these types of projects (although retaining an oversight role),
eliminating an additional layer of review and approval.
Section 6001
Improves process efficiency by combining the long-range
metropolitan transportation plan and shorter term Transportation
Improvement Program into a single document.
Improves the coordination between the transportation
planning and project development processes by clarifying the linkage
between transportation planning and the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process. Specifically, it authorizes the use of planning
information and analyses in appropriate circumstances to facilitate
streamlining of the NEPA process, and to clarify the manner in which
planning studies can be utilized in the NEPA process. To the extent
that the transportation planning process has included procedures
similar to those required under NEPA, this new subsection will allow
the U.S. DOT to rely on the studies produced in the planning process.
Improves process efficiency by aligning the
transportation and air quality planning horizons for purposes of
transportation conformity.
______
Responses of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Questions from
Senator Baucus
Question 1. I notice that the TIFIA program will now be expanded to
include eligibility for private rail projects.
With such a deficit of funds for highways how can you see fit to
include eligibility for another mode that does no even contribute to
the Trust Fund? Did you consider transferring the 4.3 cents freight
rail fuel tax to the Trust Fund?
Response. A major feature of our bill is to establish a new Freight
Gateways program. The purpose of this program is to institutionalize
freight considerations and needs into the traditional transportation
development process and increase investments for intermodal
improvements at our major freight gateways and connectors.
This program broadens the flexibility of States and metropolitan
planning organizations in meeting today's complex freight challenges
through a combination of eligibility changes, innovative finance
emphasis and targeted investment.
SAFETEA would expand the capacity and efficiency of the Nation's
freight system by:
Dedicating a portion of NHS funds for highway connections
between the NHS and intermodal freight facilities, such as ports and
freight terminals;
Allowing STP funds to be used for publicly owned
intermodal freight transportation projects that address economic,
congestion, security, safety, and environmental issues associated with
freight transportation gateways;
Expanding TIFIA eligibility to include both public and
privately owned intermodal facilities, including rail; and
Expanding the availability of tax-exempt private activity
bonds to include highway projects and freight transfer facilities.
We believe that this program, particularly the changes proposed for
TIFIA, will leverage significant private sector investment to improve
the movement of freight into and through major trade transportation
gateways and hubs and to improve the transportation infrastructure that
connects these gateways to the nation's mainline transportation
networks. The overall effect will be to relieve highway congestion
related to high levels of truck traffic. The 4.3 cents per gallon
Federal fuel tax paid by the railroads goes directly toward paydown of
the national debt.
Question 2. In your proposal, there is funding for States for fuel
tax enforcement measures. I commend you for this. The funding is cut by
75 percent between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. Why is that?
Response. Our funding proposal for fuel tax compliance is divided
into several categories. Each fiscal year from 2004 through 2009, there
is funding set aside for States, intergovernmental enforcement efforts,
and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). State and intergovernmental
enforcement project funding remains constant at $4.5 million and $2
million, respectively, per fiscal year throughout the life of the
legislation. The IRS would receive a base amount of $4.5 million per
year, and additional amounts for startup costs for the development of
new enforcement tools.
The majority of the IRS funding will be to support three automated
systems. The automated fuel tracking system mandated in TEA-21 is
nearing completion and will be fully operational within a year.
Operation and maintenance expenses along with some minor updates are
scheduled for the out years. Funding to complete the system is included
in the amount of $10.5 million proposed for fiscal year 2004. Costs to
operate and maintain as well as to provide minor updates are included
in the proposed funding of $4.5 million for each of the fiscal year
2005 through 2009.
The second system focuses on development, operation, and
maintenance of an electronic data base and registration system for
pipelines, vessels, and barges, and their operators. The third system
focuses on the development, operation, and maintenance of an electronic
data base of heavy vehicle highway use tax payments. These systems
would be built from the bottom up. The remaining funds proposed for IRS
use will provide for the startup of these systems. Funding in the
initial year will get the projects started and on track to move forward
in the following years.
Question 3. Why did you abolish the public lands discretionary
lands program?
Response. SAFETEA calls for a record Federal investment in surface
transportation, spending over $201 billion on highway and safety
programs. The proposed elimination of the discretionary categories will
provide more funding for the ``core'' highway programs. This change
would give States more flexibility to determine priorities and direct
funding to those priorities.
______
Response of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Question from
Senator Cornyn
I was interested to read the Administration's provisions on the
Corridors & Borders programs to separate them and fund each at $496.5
million over 6 years. I commend these provisions as a first step to
make the Corridors & Borders programs more efficient and effective
tools. As you are well aware, in recent years the majority of the
funding for these two programs has been congressionally earmarked to
the ``National Corridor Planning and Development'' side of that
account.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and I have begun work on additional
provisions for these programs. Our ideas include focusing the Corridors
program to eligible corridors connecting to a border between the U.S.
and Mexico or the U.S. and Canada. We believe by focusing these
Corridor projects on areas of increased NAFTA trade, highway dollars
will be spent more effectively.
Mexico is our second largest trading partner at $247 billion in
2000. Trucks make 4.5 million trans-border trips a year through 27
official crossing points. About 70 percent of all U.S.-Mexico trade
passes through Texas with the total volume growing by 30 percent a
year.
Question. As international trade traffic increases, can you share
with us other proposals the Administration is considering to address
the transportation challenges faced by border States?
Response. The Administration recognizes the potential for
significant increases in our already large cross-border trade with
Canada and Mexico during the period covered by SAFETEA.
In addition to the Border Planning, Operations, and Technology
Program and the Multi-State Corridor Planning Program (both of which
are funded at $76.5 million a year in fiscal year 2004 and $84 million
a year thereafter and both of which are based on TEA-21 programs that
were funded from a single source at $140 million per year) the
Department has a number of other proposals to address the noted
challenges.
One is the Border Enforcement program under Motor Carrier Safety
Grants, funded at $32 million in fiscal year 2004, increasing to $36
million in fiscal year 2009. Funds would go to States that border
Mexico or Canada to carry out commercial motor vehicle safety programs,
related enforcement activities, and projects at the border.
In addition, the Department continues to be involved in a wide
range of programs with our State partners that include efforts to make
standards more compatible, improve inspection capabilities and leverage
our shared resources more efficiently in order to assist the border
States in accommodating the increased levels of cross-border trade.
The Department also has a leadership role in a border planning
coordination program on the southern border and a similar role in a
border planning coordination program on the northern border. The
Department created these programs administratively. The two programs
involve DOT, FHWA, States, other Federal agencies (e.g., GSA, Customs),
as well as the equivalent agencies in Canada and Mexico.
The Department also continues to coordinate operations and
infrastructure improvement programs with the Department of Homeland
Security.
______
Responses of Hon. Norman Y. Mineta to Additional Questions from
Senator Wyden
Question 1. Until my home State of Oregon passed the Oregon
Transportation Investment Act (OTIA), our State was getting to the
point where it was having a hard time coming up with the State funding
needed to match the Federal transportation dollars. With declining
State revenues from the economic downturn and 38 States projecting
budget deficits, won't it be a problem for a number of States to come
up with local matching funds for transportation projects, especially if
Congress were to increase the funding levels in TEA-21 reauthorization?
Response. Our surface transportation proposal, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003
(SAFETEA) would provide $201 billion for highway and highway safety and
$46 billion for public transportation, for a total of $247 billion from
fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009.
The State and local share of total transit capital funding averaged
about 52 percent from 1993 to 2001. A State and local funding share of
this general size or even lower would be sufficient to meet the
matching requirements for the Federal transit program proposed in
SAFETEA. The minimum non-Federal share is 20 percent for most transit
capital projects.
Over the past 10 years, the State and local share of total highway
capital funding averaged about 58 percent. A State and local funding
share of this general size or even lower would be sufficient to meet
the matching requirements for the Federal highway program proposed in
SAFETEA. The minimum non-Federal share is 10 percent for Interstate
projects and 20 percent for most other projects, although certain
safety projects are eligible for 100 percent Federal funding.
Matching requirements for transit and highway programs have
flexibility provisions built in to help grantees get past any temporary
cash shortfalls. We know of no case where a grantee has failed to
obligate transit or highway funds due to a lack of non-Federal match.
Federal Highway Administration policy currently allows relief for
States experiencing a temporary shortage of matching funds. Using a
process called tapered match, a State may receive Federal funds for 100
percent of the costs incurred on a project up to the Federal share of
the project. The State share would not be required until the end of the
project. Since large projects may be under construction for several
years, the State can request tapered match on the projects that best
meet its budget needs. The Federal Transit Administration has adopted a
similar approach. SAFETEA would expand matching flexibility by allowing
the value of donated services provided by local government employees to
be credited to the non-Federal share of transportation projects
receiving funds made available under title 23, U.S.C.
Question 2. You say in your written testimony that the
Administration is committed to streamlining the process for moving
transportation projects from concept to completion and that the
Administration's SAFETEA proposal would ``strengthen the provisions of
current law that establish timeframes for resource agencies to conduct
environmental reviews and make decisions on permits.'' How will those
provisions be strengthened and how will the timeframes be set? Will
they be set by transportation officials, by environmental officials or
jointly?
Response. Section 1602 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA)--Efficient
Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking--would replace the
streamlining provisions of section 1309 of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century with for more effective provisions for
achieving environmental streamlining on highway construction projects.
First, the new environmental review section would clarify the
section's dual purpose of expediting project delivery and protecting
the environment. In addition, provisions would encourage the use of the
``Enlibra'' principles, as initially developed by the Western Governors
Association and adopted by the National Governors Association (Policy
Statement NR-1), to the extent practicable in the development of
highway construction and public transit projects. Used together, these
principles establish a sound basis for interaction among Federal,
State, and local governments and tribes in developing policies and
making decisions with respect to the environment.
Second, Section 1602 of SAFETEA would retain the current
requirement regarding coordinated environmental reviews but would
clarify that such reviews may apply to a particular project or may
apply to an entire class of projects or to a program. Section 1602
would also clarify that local agencies and federally recognized tribes,
in addition to Federal and State agencies, may participate in memoranda
of understanding, where appropriate, to establish cooperatively
developed time periods for review. We expect that these jointly
developed review timeframes will help maintain project schedules, and
thus save time and minimize cost increases.
Third, Section 1602 would clarify that the project sponsor has the
authority for initiating the coordinated environmental review process
for projects. In addition, while time periods would be established by
the Secretary and the affected agencies, the establishment of time
periods would occur only when requested by the project sponsor. The
latter change gives a greater role to project sponsors in developing
the time periods. Since negotiating time periods can itself take a
substantial amount of time, Section 1602 would provide project sponsors
with the flexibility to request establishment of time periods only
where such time periods would be most effective. Section 1602 would
also clarify that the Secretary may extend the time for review upon any
good cause shown, including project delays that may not have been due
to environmental reviews.
In addition to our legislative proposal, the Department of
Transportation will continue to track and report the amount of time
that it takes to complete the environmental review process on federally
assisted highway construction and public transit projects.
The Department also continues to work with our Federal partners to
implement Executive Order 13274, Environmental Stewardship and
Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews, to promote responsible
environmental stewardship and common sense streamlining in
transportation projects.
Question 3. Mr. Secretary, you say in your written testimony that
you and the President have made saving lives an essential priority for
reauthorization of TEA-21. Oregon's Highway 22 in Polk County is one of
the more hazardous highways anywhere. Reader's Digest called it the
``Highway of Death''. What will the Administration's SAFETEA proposal
do to reduce fatalities on Highway 22 and other dangerous highways?
Response. SAFETEA more than doubles the funds available to improve
the safety of dangerous roads like Highway 22. It creates a new core
safety program that is performance-based and data-driven. It provides
States support for improving their crash data systems to help them
target their investments to the highest payoff safety needs where the
greatest reductions in fatalities can be achieved. Safety improvement
priorities would be set through a State strategic highway safety plan
that takes a comprehensive approach to safety based on a collaborative
process that relies on input from major State and local safety
stakeholders. SAFETEA's safety program provides States more flexibility
to address their highest safety needs and provides funding for safety
improvements on all public roads.
Highway 22 with its high fatality and injury rates has already been
identified as one of the top safety priorities in Oregon. Under the new
``core'' safety program, improvements to Highway 22 would remain a high
priority based on crash statistics alone. Seven of the highway segments
in Polk County are significantly above the State average for similar
rural non-freeway State highways. The segment from the connection with
Highway 150 eastbound to the Marion County Line has a crash rate nine
times the State average.
The Oregon Department of Transportation has provided a crash
history of Highway 22 (see attached) and has identified a number of
future actions to improve safety within the Highway 22 Corridor. The
safety improvements identified would be eligible under SAFETEA,
including the extension of medians to prevent cross-over crashes, left-
turn refuges at major intersections, construction of grade-separated
crossings, and installation of rumble strips and durable striping to
help drivers avoid run-off-the-road crashes. In addition, SAFETEA
significantly increases Federal funding for these improvements. The
State's ability to finance critical safety improvements to Highway 22
and other dangerous roads would be greatly enhanced by a safety
``core'' program similar to SAFETEA's.