As the conferees finalize this long-deferred transportation reauthorization, they must keep in mind the priorities that millions of Americans of all political and socio-economic stripes have expressed in polls, town hall meetings, and countless events. Many of these can be found in the bipartisan, compromise bill passed by the Senate and should be preserved during negotiations. MAP-21, the Senate bill, establishes funding levels necessary to preserve and expand our transportation infrastructure while beginning to update federal policy for the 21st century in these following ways:

• Establishing accountability measures for federal investment;
• Consolidating programs and ensuring faster project delivery;
• Taking care of our bridges and roads by prioritizing repair;
• Supporting local control of funds to improve our communities; and
• Protecting transit riders in areas of all sizes from drastic service cuts and fare increases.

Here’s a detailed look at the five things we believe the final conference bill must do.

1. Prioritize repair of roads and bridges, while easing the burden on local communities

The conference report should continue to provide dedicated funds for repair and upkeep – saving money and improving safety – while ensuring that local communities are not left holding the bag maintaining facilities historically eligible for broad federal support.

Our nation’s infrastructure is in dire need of repair. Less than half our road network is in good condition, and more than 69,000 of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient. Poor road conditions not only impose safety hazards, but impose direct costs on drivers: Americans on average pay $335 each year due to rough roads. According to AASHTO, every dollar spent on highway repair can save up to $14 down the road. Both chambers have proposed consolidating the existing Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System and Highway Bridge programs into a single program focused on improving the national highway system (NHS).

The conference report should retain provisions that:

• Provide dedicated funding for repair of existing infrastructure – from Interstate pavement to more local, “off-system” bridges;
• Encourage states to practice “asset management” through financial incentives to properly maintain Interstate highways and bridges on the National Highway System;
• Direct states and regions to use performance measures and establish targets for infrastructure condition;
• Ensure that non-NHS, federal-aid bridges remain eligible for funding under any major highway program; and
• Broadened the number of roads and bridges included in the National Highway System

2. Provide for Local Access to Community-Based Transportation Funding

The conference report should provide dedicated funds to empower regions and local governments to revitalize their communities while building out a full transportation network.

Members in both chambers agree that local leaders—who know the transportation, safety, and economic development needs of their constituents— should have more direct control over funds and projects in their communities. States usually build larger projects that connect local communities, but those projects often need further connections within those communities in order to function well. These larger projects can also sometimes create health, safety or other impacts that local communities are eager to address. Local communities have a wide range of needs for travel solutions that are critical to making the overall system work for everyone.

There also are critical safety needs: Over the last decade more than 47,700 pedestrians were killed in the United States – the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of passengers crashing roughly every month.

MAP-21 consolidates the current Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School and Recreational Trails programs into a new program called “Additional Activities”. The program covers a broad range of eligible projects, including Main Street revitalization, street safety improvements, street and boulevard redesigns, bus stop and rail station access improvements, creating safe routes to schools, recreational trails, among many others. It then creates a grant program so that local communities can apply for these funds to do exactly these kinds of projects (Read about the bipartisan Cardin-Cochran amendment to learn more about this provision.)

The conference report should retain provisions that:

• Continue to provide dedicated funding for activities that promote safer, healthier communities, economic redevelopment and tourism;
• Provide the opportunity for smaller communities to apply directly to the state for funds; and
• Provide funding directly to larger regions for these activities.

This would provide flexibility and funding certainty to local planning entities to ensure that a portion of their gas taxes are used to address the specific transportation needs in their communities, improving health, safety and the bottom line.

3. Allow more local flexibility for public transit funding

The conference report should provide local transit agencies with flexibility to use federal transit funds to keep buses and trains running during tough economic times.

Currently, transit providers in areas over 200,000 in population are prohibited from using federal transit funds for operating costs. While this prohibition may make sense during times of economic prosperity, it can have significant impacts on transit service during economic downturns – just as many citizens are turning to transit to save money and get to work.

Over the last several years as local budgets shrank, more than 90 percent of transit agencies cut service or raised fares. This rule change could help to prevent more of the same.

The conference report should retain provisions that:

• Allow large transit agencies to use federal funds to run buses and trains on a temporary and targeted basis during times of economic crisis; and
• Provide increased flexibility to small bus operators in regions with populations over 200,000.

4. Promote transparency and accountability in the planning process

The conference report should ensure that our limited dollars are spent in smart ways that address multiple issues at once.

Despite growing levels of highway spending over the years, we face severe congestion in almost all major metropolitan areas, rising household costs for transportation, crumbling roads and bridges, and a lack of transportation options for our changing population.

Today, states and regions engage in making “long-range” plans to guide transportation investments and meet future development needs. However, these plans typically lack concrete goals and accountability to ensure that our billions in transportation spending is leading to tangible progress on important goals. We should encourage states to move in this direction – making a commitment to taxpayers that their dollars are being spent in a way that demonstrates performance and accountability.

The conference report should retain:

• Performance measures and targets for infrastructure condition and performance, air quality, congestion, goods movement, and safety;
• Incorporating performance measures and targets into the long-range planning and short-term program- ming processes;
• The ability for regions to undertake scenario planning as a part of the development of long-range transportation plans; and
• Overarching objectives and goals for the national surface transportation program.

5. Ensure the public and local officials have a meaningful voice on projects that affect them.

The conference report should find ways to speed up construction of well-vetted projects without eliminating the ability of local officials and the public to provide input to government bureaucrats on how their tax dollars will be spent.

We all agree that it would be beneficial for transportation projects be constructed faster. However, many efforts to help speed up project construction have been focused on the environmental review process. While the process can certainly be improved, it is imperative that the integrity of environmental protection and public input is maintained. It is not appropriate to exempt potentially multi-billion dollar projects from project reviews or require that massive construction projects be reviewed in a limited number of days as the House has proposed.

Given that only about 7 percent of projects go through a full environmental review process, targeting environmental review clearly is not the silver bullet for speeding up project delivery.

The conference report should: Retain the compromise provisions on project delivery and environmental review from MAP-21. The provisions in HR 4348 will undermine the ability of citizens and local governments to provide input on how state departments of transportation spend tax dollars.

—-

Download this full post as a separate printable document here. (pdf)

“For more than three years, our coalition has worked hard for an updated federal transportation program that meets our needs in the 21st century; that creates jobs and lays the foundation for a rejuvenated economy; that balances the need to keep our highway system strong while augmenting it with other options. We still remain urgently committed to that goal.

“It is with deep disappointment, therefore, that we in the Transportation for America coalition find ourselves compelled to oppose the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act as advanced by House leadership. While we commend Chairman Mica (R-FL) for doing what he can to move a long-term transportation bill forward, the full legislation that is now heading to the floor of the House has significant fatal flaws. The bill:

• Unfairly punishes current and would-be users of public transportation by ending all dedicated funding for public transportation, threatening to degrade further the service and state of repair of our transit systems;
• Leaves Americans with fewer transportation options rather than more, and deeper dependence on oil rather than less;
• Undermines safety and public health and takes resources away from non-motorized forms of transportation;
• Does not go far enough to ensure the state of good repair of our bridges, highways, railways and other systems;
• And undercuts citizens’ ability to raise environmental, health and other concerns about the impact of transportation projects.

“It is our hope that House leaders will hear our concerns, as well as those of the many others across the political spectrum who are as disappointed as we are, and bring forth a dramatically different and improved bill that can create jobs and spur the economy. The time is now for passage of a transportation bill we can all agree on.”

It’s encouraging to hear House leaders say they intend to move forward with adopting a multiyear investment plan for transportation infrastructure that moves away from a 30 percent cut and toward full funding. But attaching the transportation bill to deeply contentious drilling proposals could lead to partisan gridlock and sidetrack long overdue transportation legislation — a stark contrast to the transportation bill marked up in the Senate just last week with a unanimous bipartisan vote.

While the Speaker’s press conference this morning was very short on details about the length or price of the bill, they did make it clear that their intent is to try and cover the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund through expanded oil drilling and exploration. That plan would certainly face immediate opposition from Democrats and moderates in the House and Senate.

There are serious questions, however about the amount of funding that could be raised over the next five years through this approach. As Sen. James Inhofe — the Republican co-sponsor of the Senate’s bipartisan bill – has noted, it is unlikely drilling-related revenues would come close to closing the existing transportation funding gap, and would not be available for several years. (New oil drilling could bring in perhaps a billion dollars over the life of the energy bills, and not for several years, according to recent scoring by the Congressional Budget Office. The shortfall is well over $50 billion over the life of this bill.)

In his response, Sen. Inhofe made it clear that expecting new oil drilling revenues to pay for an immediate multi-year transportation bill isn’t a realistic funding solution for this bill.

“While Speaker Boehner’s idea may be a long-term revenue source for transportation infrastructure,” Inhofe said, “we need to focus on the immediate problem of how we will fund a multi-year highway bill. …If this is how the House is able to move the bill forward then I applaud them. But we need money now for transportation; we can’t afford to wait.”

Calling the transportation bill an “important Republican jobs initiative”, Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, offered his priorities for authorization in a statement:

“It is my hope to mark up in the coming weeks a solid blueprint for the future of America’s transportation that will do the following: significantly streamline the process for projects by cutting red tape and unnecessary federal paperwork; consolidate duplicative federal transportation programs; provide flexibility, authority and responsibility to states and local governments to move transportation projects forward; and increase the ability to leverage financial resources and encourage more private sector participation in building infrastructure.”

Transportation for America has long advocated for the idea of tying the bill to an “oil fee” in the past. Our proposal was quite different, though, designed to ensure that any additional revenue from a fee on oil would increase the efficiency of the transportation system and help give people expanded options that can reduce the nation’s oil dependency. This idea received majority support from the public in a poll of ours, and two-thirds of those polled supported if it came with a cut in the tax at the pump.

Because details of the bill have not been released, it’s unknown whether any new revenue would be applied to a sound investment strategy. We look forward to an opportunity to review the draft legislation and will continue to work with transportation leaders in the House and Senate to see that a bill gets enacted as soon as possible.

The American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act will be H.R 7, a number reserved for one of the Speaker’s bills, when it moves sometime before the end of the year, according to the timeline presented today.

The committee markup was short, as compared to a typical markup of such a large bill, but that was a testament to the work done behind the scenes by Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus and Vitter to get consensus among the four of them on the major policy points.

At the markup, a single package of amendments, known as a manager’s amendment, agreed to ahead of time by the four key Senators, was approved by a unanimous voice vote. No other amendments were voted on, though many others were filed.

After that amendment package was approved, Senators took turns talking about other amendments that they had drafted but weren’t formally proposing, in order to preserve the bipartisan vote and also because the four committee leaders made it clear they would oppose any other amendments, effectively ensuring no amendments would pass — a process known as “offer and withdraw.”

Senators talk about their amendment, offer it, and then note that they’re not calling for a vote and withdraw the amendment. The idea behind this is to indicate the Senator’s desire to continue to push an issue and work with the Committee to find ways to incorporate concepts into the final bill as it moves to the floor.

There were a few smart, notable amendments offered in that way, and a handful of others that were not offered. Sen. Gillibrand talked at length about a program that would help train low-income workers, but we’ll be talking more about those amendments in the days and weeks to come as the bill moves forward.

Here’s a summary list of the amendments that were approved in the manager’s package. Some other small changes to the bill were made in an amendment written and approved by the four committee leaders, but that text is not yet available. Additional explanatory notes from T4 America are in italics.

(Amendment data derived in part from Transportation Weekly and Jeff Davis.)

“The bipartisan passage of the MAP-21 bill in the Senate EPW Committee this morning provides a significant opportunity to move forward on a long overdue authorization of federal transportation policy with full funding to ensure we invest in America’s infrastructure. Key reforms in the bill would place a stronger emphasis on repairing and rebuilding our roads and bridges, while instituting performance measures that will help hold agencies accountable for the maintenance and operations of our transportation network.

“We will work with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe and the rest of the Committee to ensure that there is dedicated funding that prioritizes bicycle and pedestrian projects, strong workforce development provisions and smart transportation planning reforms. We are eager to address these issues so we can put the full strength and weight of our coalition behind the bill as it moves forward in order to make the most of our federal transportation dollars, put people back to work and deliver the transportation system that Americans need.”

We’ve prepared a short few pages on what MAP-21 means for the federal transportation program. This top-line analysis is a bit on the wonky side, but hopefully it’ll be helpful if you’ve been trying to summarize the 600 pages of bill text.

One of the most visible changes MAP-21 makes is to restructure seven core highway programs and 13+ formula programs into just five core highway programs. This graphic below illustrates those changes. Read on for the full summary, which you can also download here. (pdf)

Click to enlarge the graphic.

MAP-21 consolidates numerous FHWA programs into five core programs. The new program structure is as follows.

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP): ~$20.6 billion

This new program focuses on repairing and improving an expanded National Highway System (NHS). The NHS is expanded from ~160,000 miles to ~220,000 miles. States are required to develop asset management plans and as a part of these plans establish performance targets for the condition of roads and bridges and the performance of the system. In addition, the program includes provisions to hold states accountable for the repair of Interstate pavement and NHS bridges by requiring that they spend a certain amount of funding on the repair of those facilities if they fall below minimum standards established by USDOT.

Transportation Mobility Program (TMP): ~$10.4 billion

TMP replaces the existing Surface Transportation Program (STP) and allows states and regions to invest flexible dollars in a broad set of highways, transit projects, freight rail projects, and bicycle and pedestrian projects, as well as other activities like travel demand management. Fifty percent of these funds are suballocated to areas in the state based on their population. While this percentage is lower than the current 62.5 percent, the absolute amount of funding to be suballocated will remain the same due to an increase in program size.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): – $2.5 billion

Funding is provided to states to improve safety for all road users on all public roads. A road user is defined as both motorists and non-motorized users. States are required to collect extensive data on crashes and create a database containing information on safety issues for all public roads including identification of hazard locations. (8% of all funds in this program are set-aside for data collection.) States must also develop a strategic highway safety plan using the data collected. If states do not develop a strategic highway safety plan within a year using a process approved by USDOT, they are required to spend additional funding on safety projects. States are also required to develop performance targets on fatalities and serious injuries.

Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ): ~$3.3 billion

In the CMAQ program there are two pots of funding – one that funds typical CMAQ projects and another “reserved” fund.

CMAQ pot. Funds are provided to states and tier I Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to address the impacts of the transportation system on national ambient air quality standards. In states with non-attainment or maintenance areas, 50 percent of the funds are suballocated to tier I MPOs based on the area’s status with national ambient air quality standards. Funds cannot be used to construct new travel lanes except for HOV or HOT lanes. USDOT is required to develop performance measures for air quality and congestion reduction. Tier I MPOs that receive funds under this program are required to develop a performance plan that outlines baseline conditions, targets for each of the performance measures developed by USDOT, and a description of projects to be funded, including how those projects will help meet the targets.

“Reserved” pot. This pot of funding is equal to the amount of funds provided for the Transportation Enhancements set-aside in FY09. Eligible activities under this pot include the following: transportation enhancements, safe routes to school, recreational trails, environmental mitigation, and certain types of road projects (including street redesigns and HOV lanes). States are allowed to use these funds for CMAQ projects (the first pot) if they build up an unspent balance of year and a half worth of funds.

National Freight Program: ~$2 billion

USDOT is directed to establish a primary freight network consisting of 27,000 miles of key freight corridors. States can use funds for highway projects that improve freight movement with a focus on the primary freight network and key rural freight corridors. A state may use up to 5 percent of funds for rail or maritime projects subject to certain conditions. USDOT must also develop a National Freight Strategic Plan, which will analyze performance and conditions on the primary freight network, identify bottlenecks, estimate future freight volumes and identify best practices for mitigating impacts of freight movement on communities. USDOT shall publish a Freight Condition and Performance Report on a biennial basis. States must establish performance targets and report on progress every two years.

Other key components

TIFIA program – $1 billion. MAP-21 expands the TIFIA program from $122 million to $1 billion and modifies the program from a competitive application process to a rolling application process. Provisions have been added that allow for applicants to enter into master credit agreements to provide funding for a suite of projects at once. In addition, there are modifications that make it easier for public transportation agencies with dedicated revenue sources to apply for TIFIA loans.

Planning and Performance. MAP-21 creates performance measures for conditions on the National Highway System (NHS), NHS performance, safety, freight, congestion mitigation and air quality. As part of the development of the plan, states and large MPOs shall analyze the baseline conditions for the performance measures and establish performance targets for each performance measure. The plan must include the future performance of their transportation system with regards to these performance measures including whether or not they will achieve their performance targets. Large MPOs may undertake scenario planning as a part of the development of their long-range plans. Smaller MPOs are required to develop long-range plans and USDOT will establish rules that provide for the standards they must meet regarding the performance measures required for the larger MPOs.

Statewide transportation improvement programs (STIPs) and metropolitan transportation improvement programs (TIPs) must include performance measures and targets used in assessing the existing and future performance of the transportation system. A system performance report must include progress toward achieving state performance targets.

Project Delivery. MAP-21 includes numerous provisions intended to accelerate project delivery. Most of these provisions relate to administrative actions to be taken by USDOT. There are also provisions that relate to expanding the types of projects that can be undertaken through a categorical exclusion (a more limited environmental review). In addition, it allows for the earlier acquisition of right-of-way.

It’s a good time to remember that this committee is responsible only for what’s known as the “highway” title of the bill. While it does contain a funding amount, proper details on revenue and revenue sources are the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, and any information about rail or transit will come from what the Banking Committee, when they write that title. So this is just one part of the full bill — albeit the part that sets policy for spending the majority of the money.

Check back later today for more information, or follow us on twitter. This bill is scheduled for a markup in committee in two days, on Wednesday, November 9th.

• EPW press release
• MAP-21 bill text (600 pages, pdf)
• MAP-21 bill summary (pdf)

Here’s what the the EPW committee pulled out as highlights in their bill summary document.

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) reauthorizes the Federal-aid highway program at the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline level—equal to current funding levels plus inflation—for two fiscal years.

MAP-21 consolidates the number of Federal programs by two-thirds, from about 90 programs down to less than 30, to focus resources on key national goals and reduce duplicative programs.

Eliminates earmarks.

Expedites project delivery while protecting the environment.

Creates a new title called “America Fast Forward,” which strengthens the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program (TIFIA) program to leverage federal dollars further than they have been stretched before.

Consolidates certain programs into a focused freight program to improve the movement of goods

At the end of September, if Congress doesn’t act, the transportation bill will expire. This bill provides funding for highway construction, bridge repair, mass transit systems and other essential projects that keep our people and our commerce moving quickly and safely. And for construction workers and their families across the country, it represents the difference between making ends meet or not making ends meet.

If we allow the transportation bill to expire, over 4,000 workers will be immediately furloughed without pay. If it’s delayed for just 10 days, it will lose nearly $1 billion in highway funding — that’s money we can never get back. And if it’s delayed even longer, almost one million workers could lose their jobs over the course of the next year.

As a refresher, we’re currently on the 7th extension of the 2005 transportation bill (which incidentally expired exactly 700 days ago today in September of 2009.) The current extension of federal law expires at the end of September, leaving only a narrow window of time for the House and Senate — currently far apart on policy and funding levels — to come together on a new long-term transportation bill.

A “clean” extension would mean extending the old policy without making policy changes or tweaks — changes that don’t have time to be properly considered or debated. T4 America Director James Corless said in our statement earlier today:

Extending the gas tax and the current law that allocates transportation funds ought to be the bipartisan no-brainer it has been historically. To play politics with the extension would deliver a gratuitous shock to a struggling economy and to families relying on infrastructure-related paychecks.

Extending the old policy is urgently needed, but it’s still a band-aid. The bigger need will still remain: passing a robust, long-term transportation bill with updated policy and purpose that matches the needs of the 21st century in America. Corless continued:

Beyond that, the President is right to urge Congress to break the gridlock and adopt a fully funded, long-term authorization that will protect and create jobs while supporting a full-fledged economic recovery. To be most effective, the updated transportation bill needs to ensure timely project approvals, as the President noted; but more importantly, it needs to set clear priorities to avoid misspending our precious dollars. Those priorities should include holding states and localities accountable for smart investment strategies and for repairing and updating existing infrastructure, while expanding the network to provide more convenient, safe and affordable travel options for all Americans.

Rep. John Mica, the chair of the House committee responsible for writing the bill, released his own statement expressing his support for passing an extension, in which he said, “I will agree to one additional highway program extension,” seemingly acknowledging the reality that it will extremely difficult to pass a full six year bill in the short month of September.

The bigger questions still lingering from all of this news today are whether or not the extension will be “clean” — without policy riders of any kind — and what impact this will have on the long-term transportation bill being considered by each chamber. The House draft bill has already been released, and rumor has it that the Senate is planning to release theirs in just a few weeks. But the two versions are far apart on funding and length for certain, and possibly with regard to policy.

Stay tuned, September will be a busy month. The legislative calendar will get rolling when Congress gets back in session on the day after Labor Day.

“Extending the gas tax and the current law that allocates transportation funds ought to be the bipartisan no-brainer it has been historically. To play politics with the extension would deliver a gratuitous shock to a struggling economy and to families relying on infrastructure-related paychecks.

Beyond that, the President is right to urge Congress to break the gridlock and adopt a fully funded, long-term authorization that will protect and create jobs while supporting a full-fledged economic recovery. To be most effective, the updated transportation bill needs to ensure timely project approvals, as the President noted; but more importantly, it needs to set clear priorities to avoid misspending our precious dollars. Those priorities should include holding states and localities accountable for smart investment strategies and for repairing and updating existing infrastructure, while expanding the network to provide more convenient, safe and affordable travel options for all Americans.”

The outline indicates that the full bill cuts overall transportation funding by 35 percent and removes the requirement to spend a small fraction on bike and pedestrian facilities. The current balance between highway and transit funding will be maintained (according to comments at yesterday’s briefing) and the outline proposes several key reforms and includes performance measures and accountability.

Here is our short analysis of the 22-page outline released yesterday — though details such as funding levels for programs or specific performance measures were not included in the outline, limiting the analysis.

While it’s more critical than ever to very clear about the goals of a bill of this size, the outline says little about what the federal transportation program should accomplish. In our view, a bill this small would need to be constrained to three key goals:

1. Maintaining our system of existing highways and bridges, which is quickly approaching its mid-life crisis;
2. Providing more options such as public transportation, van pools and safer streets for bicyclists and pedestrians; and
3. Promoting accountability through meaningful performance measures and a more strategic approach to transportation planning.

Hit the jump to read the full analysis

Funding

The outline indicates that spending will be limited only to the revenues deposited into the highway trust fund. Assuming this level is in line with Rep. Ryan’s budget figures this would mean a 35% cut in FY2012 from FY09 highway funding levels. This would result in the loss of approximately 630,000 jobs in FY12 according to the FHWA. Over 6 years, a $230 billion bill represents a 19.5% cut from the $286 billion in the last transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU), not accounting for the impact of inflation.

Transportation Options

Mica’s outline proposes to eliminate the small percentage of funds that is dedicated to providing safer ways to walk and bicycle, though Mica has said states would not be prohibited from investing federal funds on bicycle and pedestrian projects. The outline also says that, “States will be provided flexibility to spend funding on projects they choose.” However, states typically have not been able to invest most federal transportation funds on freight or passenger rail. Will the flexibility provided in the proposal extend to both transit and rail?

Public Transportation

Chairman Mica and committee staff verbally indicated that transit will maintain its historic 20/80 percent share of the transportation program – though with less money overall in this smaller bill. The outline says that the proposal will increase funds for rural and suburban transit but is does not say where these funds will come from or, said differently, who will lose funds. It also notes that the New Starts process will be streamlined to cut project development in half but does not describe how this will be accomplished. In addition, Committee staff indicated that the proposal will modify the New Starts evaluation criteria to reward projects with private-sector partners.

Performance Measures

House committee staff confirmed that states will be held accountable for decisions through performance measures, which could be a significant step forward – depending on how the measures work. If these measures only consider congestion and mobility, for example, will states be required to build larger highways without consideration of equity and environmental impacts? It is important that these performance measures are connected to improved system performance. If they are not, these measures simply become a tool to highlight the impact of past decisions, both good and bad.

State of Good Repair

It is unclear how the House proposal will address our nation’s growing highway and bridge repair needs to help save taxpayers dollars. With less money to spend, it is especially important that we prioritize repair and rehabilitation of the existing transportation network. Currently almost 12% of our bridges are in need of repair and close to 50% of our major highways are rated below “good” condition.

Focus on Limited Number of Highways

The outline says that the highway program will focus on “Interstate Highways and the National Highway System.” While it is unclear exactly what this provision means, it could result in a significant reduction in flexibility for states and regions. Today, states and regions can invest federal funds in a number of major highways. If funds were restricted to routes on the National Highway System it would reduce the number of highways states can invest in by 83.5%. A restriction of this nature would result in Washington pre-determining the best solution for local communities across the country.

Program Consolidation

The outline indicates that the proposal will consolidate and eliminate nearly 70 of the existing 100 transportation programs. Consolidation of the transportation programs can help improve performance if it is done right. With increased flexibility states and regions should be given increased responsibility to demonstrate that they are using taxpayers’ funds in a wise manner that reduces congestion and pollution while improving economic development and quality of life

Leveraging Federal Resources

The outline says the proposal will expand the TIFIA federal loan program, a program that provides credit assistance for infrastructure projects by providing loan security to encourage private investment. This expansion should ensure that transit can meaningfully participate in any new financing options, include a regional program focus, and include incentives for regions to help themselves (such as in the enhanced TIFIA program outlined in Los Angeles’ 30-10 Initiative). In addition, it will be key to find ways to encourage private sector participation in transportation projects, including partnering with developers to help advance transportation projects.

Project Delivery

The outline contains several provisions related to accelerating project delivery, focusing on reducing the environmental review process. While the environmental review process can be improved, it is imperative that the integrity of environmental protection and public input is maintained. Only 7% of projects go through a true environmental review process (environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement). If the intent is to speed up the completion of transportation projects, other processes outside NEPA should be targeted for improving project delivery, like design-build or delegation of design exceptions to state engineers.

Rail and Amtrak

The proposal does not provide any specific funding for high-speed rail. It will make high-speed rail an eligible project under the existing Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program that provides loans for rail projects. However it is not clear what revenue sources can be used to repay these loans. The proposal says that Amtrak’s operating funds will be cut by 25 percent in the first two years. In addition, the proposal puts limits on Amtrak’s use of federal funds. It is unclear what these limits are and what activities would not be allowed.