Home | Text of Recommended Actions Adopted by the AASHTO Board of Directors October, 2007

Text of Recommended Actions Adopted by the AASHTO Board of Directors October, 2007

For submission to the National Surface Transportation Policy
and Revenue Study Commission

Development of AASHTO’s Recommendations

Congress created the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission to analyze the Nation’s surface transportation needs, develop a conceptual plan showing how they can be met, and develop revenue recommendations for how to fund them. Congress specifically asked the Commission to consult with representatives of State Departments of Transportation to ensure that their views are considered.

AASHTO established nine task forces to address a wide range of transportation issues and produce recommendations for consideration by the Board of Directors. On October 30, 2006, the AASHTO Board of Directors, meeting in Portland, Oregon, approved the following recommendations for transmittal to the Commission.

I. Interstate Highway System Recommended Actions

I-1. Future Interstate Vision
The U.S. Congress should adopt a national Vision for the continued expansion, maintenance, and operation of an effective and efficient Interstate Highway System. The recommended Vision is:

“An Interstate Highway System, funded at an appropriate level, maintained and preserved in accordance with sound asset management principles, efficiently operated using the latest available technology, and expanded, that will:

Enhance the United States’ competitiveness in a global economy,
Meet the growing interstate travel demand of an increasing population and expanding economy,
Provide personal mobility and safety,
Ensure that the system continues to provide access and connectivity to all areas of the country, and
Support national defense and homeland security.”

I-2. Secure Substantial Funding Increases
The Congress should substantially increase future federal-aid funding for Interstate System preservation, operations and expansion needs as part of a substantially increased Federal-Aid Program. The increase must be substantial because the needs for system preservation, operations and expansion will require major outlays. Funding mechanisms need to be developed that enable States and other project sponsors to invest in these necessary but costly projects. Congress should encourage innovative financing mechanisms and public–private partnerships to leverage federal funding for improvements to the system.

I-3. Ensure Cost-Effective Preservation of the Nation’s Assets
Focus attention on preserving the trillion-dollar investment that has been made over the past 50 years on the roads and bridges that make up the Interstate Highway System. U.S. DOT and State DOTs should jointly undertake a comprehensive study of the needs and investment requirements of the Interstate system bridges and structures. Many of the 55,000 bridges on the system and the 210,000 lane-miles of pavement in the system are reaching 40–50 years of age. They may be at a stage where total replacement or more than routine reconstruction is required. These costs are not taken into effect in today’s bi-annual U.S. DOT conditions and performance reports. U.S. DOT and State DOTs should support research to advance an asset management approach to system preservation.

I-4. Reduce Congestion and Improve Safety Through Real-Time Operation and Management
Optimize the performance of the Interstate System through active management, operation, and enforcement, as well as through improved traveler information and other customer services. Provide tools for State DOTs to support the effective operation and management of the transportation system. Support the deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on the Interstate System to improve safety and performance. Provide flexibility to the States to improve Interstate highway operations through innovative approaches, including the use of managed lanes and pricing (e.g., High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, and exclusive truck lanes. Support the Vehicle/Infrastructure Integration (VII) research program in partnership with the auto industry to improve safety and operations. If agreement to deploy is jointly decided by the public/private partners after research and pilot tests have been performed, then funding for deployment, including private-sector funding, will be sought.

I-5. Improve Emergency Response and Evacuations
Continue to utilize the Interstate System for emergency response and evacuations. State DOTs in consultation with U.S. DOT and the Department of Homeland Security should establish guidance for the enhancement of security and emergency response capabilities on segments of the Interstate System. Establish a joint program between the Department of Justice, U.S. DOT, State DOTs, police and fire agencies to improve incident management and emergency operations at the metropolitan region and state levels. Provide DHS funding for the development and deployment of appropriate physical countermeasures on critical Interstate facilities.

I-6. Accommodate Continued Growth Through a State-Determined Federally Aided Strategic Expansion Program
Meet the demand for the international, inter-regional, and interstate movement of people and goods. Accomplish this through a state-determined strategic expansion of the Interstate System in conjunction with complementary upgrades to other connecting and local networks, including enhancements to the multi-modal system. Recommendations I-3 to I-5, even if fully implemented, are not sufficient to meet the future transportation needs of this nation. It is also important to implement recommendation 6 to support the nation’s continued progress.

The U.S. DOT and State DOTs should conduct a comprehensive, long-term study of system-wide expansion needs for the Interstate highway network, taking into account the global economy, population and economic growth, safety, and national defense and homeland security needs. A joint analysis of the improvements required on the 15,000 interchanges on the Interstate System should also be conducted. While such studies would be conducted by the U.S. DOT and the State DOTs, actual decisions on corridors and locations and interchange improvements would be developed through appropriate state and local decision-making processes.

Until such time as a comprehensive study of expansion needs is undertaken, estimates of the magnitude of expansion needs are somewhat speculative. However, based on recent studies and a survey of State DOTs, if adequate funding were made available, over the next 50 years states could add as many as 10,000 miles of new routes in new corridors, 20,000 miles of upgrades to National Highway System routes to Interstate standards, and 20,000 new lane-miles on existing Interstate routes, including exclusive truck lanes and value-priced lanes. As part of the study effort, the U.S. DOT and the states need to identify needs and funding strategies for state-determined strategic system expansion to accommodate growth in long-range interstate traffic, and to connect emerging metropolitan areas to the Interstate.

I-7. Minimize Disruption During Construction and Maintenance
Support programs designed to develop and implement strategies for quicker and better repair and replacement of highway infrastructure (“get in, get out, stay out”) while maintaining needed capacity and safety during construction and maintenance activities. Fund the development of tools to help minimize the impacts of construction on the traveling public. Fund research for advanced materials which last longer and for more flexible Federal approaches which can enable states to lower life-cycle costs. Support improvements to work zone safety. Provide flexible Federal rules that enable innovations in performance and contracting measures that will deliver enhanced quality and longer lasting projects.

I-8. Enhance Efficient Freight Movement
Implementing the previous seven recommendations will improve the nation’s highway infrastructure to enhance truck freight movement by adding appropriate capacity to existing freight corridors, adding new routes to serve emerging trade patterns, and implementing technologies and operating strategies on the Interstate System to improve productivity, including consideration of bottleneck relief, exclusive truck lanes, and making substantial improvements to connectors from the Interstate System to ports, rail terminals, waterways, airports, distribution centers, and pipelines. In addition, it is important to increase funding to states so that states will be able to invest in projects of regional and national significance that will improve the nation’s economic productivity and international competitiveness using the state and metropolitan planning and development processes to determine which specific freight improvements should be deployed. The U.S. DOT and Department of Homeland Security should coordinate and expand technological measures and provide funding to support efficient interstate truck movements, such as electronic information exchange, commercial vehicle information systems and networks (CVISN), and improved border crossing operations. U.S. DOT and State DOTs should support research to determine the needed capacity of highways and rail as part of the nation’s intermodal freight system, including an assessment of the adequacy of intermodal connections to water ports and airports and potential technological improvements. They should also support productivity improvements in all modes including consideration of truck size and weight changes that are compatible with infrastructure preservation and safety on the Interstate System.

I-9. Meet Military Needs
In 1956, the U.S. Congress addressed our national defense transportation needs through the creation of the Interstate and Defense Highway System. As we look forward to the next 50 years, Congress must continue to be concerned with our nation’s security. Measures must be taken to assess the adequacy of the Interstate System and the National Highway System to meet the domestic surface transportation needs of the modern military, including improved transport and rapid deployment capabilities. The assessment should be adequately funded and conducted by the appropriate unit of the Department of Defense (SDDCTEA) and completed by 2008.

II. Non-Interstate Highway System Recommended Actions

II-1. Highway Needs and the Federal-Aid Highway Program Focus
Reaffirm the need to increase investment in preserving, modernizing, expanding and operating the NHS and non-NHS federal-aid highway system routes in order to ensure the continued mobility, reliability, safety, security and performance for an efficiently and effectively functioning total network.

II-2. Roles and Responsibilities
Design and administer the federal-aid highway program recognizing the states as owners and partners – not as stakeholders – and respect the rights of states to determine projects for federal funding; to design consultative processes, and to allocate funding to their greatest needs.

II-3. Funding
Increase federal-aid highway funding, restore the percentage of federal funding for core highway programs to the level established in ISTEA, consolidate highway funding categories, maximize funding flexibility, place greater federal emphasis on the NHS by increasing the federal share and the percentage of federal program funding, require any earmarked projects to be derived from state and/or metropolitan long-range transportation plans and capital improvement programs, and provide general funds to address security and emergency response needs.

II-4. Efficiency and Acceleration of Project Delivery
Further streamline the environmental process; reduce or eliminate federal permitting for non-federally funded projects and reduce the regulatory burden associated with federally funded projects; provide for federal approvals and state accountability at the program, not the project, level, consistent with the statewide transportation planning process; support and encourage the use of new technologies, advanced materials and design, contracting and construction methods; and liberalize the use of federal funds to allow parallel development of design, right-of-way acquisition and environmental processing.

II-5. Advanced Technology and Emergency Management
Accelerate system-wide deployment of best available technology on new highway facilities and retrofitting the current system; and support the development of uniform protocols to advance interoperability and technical, operational and institutional capabilities for all-hazard emergency management while providing states adequate time and funding to transition to technological advances.

III. Transit, Intercity Passenger Rail and Bus Services Recommended Actions

Long-Term Vision: There will be an integrated transportation system that is responsive to market demand for travel. There will be sufficient financial resources to enable transportation investments to achieve freight and passenger mobility objectives irrespective of mode.

III-1. Increase funding and funding flexibility for transit, passenger rail, ferry, and intercity bus services
Efficient, safe, environmentally sound and adequately funded public transportation is essential to supporting mobility alternatives for people in both urban and rural areas.

III-2. Improve mobility options for the general public, the aging and special needs populations in rural and urban areas
Remove barriers and mandate coordination at the federal level for all agencies involved in funding of transportation services to support and enhance the mobility of the general public and the aging and special needs populations to ensure that adequate and affordable mobility options are provided to meet the increasing demand.

III-3. Data sharing/coordination between service providers and emergency
responders
Ensure that agencies developing security and emergency response plans seek and include the involvement of public transit, intercity bus, intercity rail and ferry providers; and provide adequate funding from General Funds from the Department of Homeland Security to support preparation and response activities for emergency situations and to enhance security measures.

III-4. Intermodalism—funding and linkages
Federal policy and funding should encourage development of integrated passenger transportation systems, including rural and intercity systems, that are coordinated, connected and enhance personal mobility.

III-5. System Delivery, maintenance, and expansion
Invest resources to maintain and improve transit, rail, and ferry asset condition and operating performance. Support the development of mobility options that address multiple travel needs.

When states and localities invest in service, they will participate in decision making for planning, programming, and operations in order to meet comprehensive surface transportation needs.

Improve, simplify and expedite project delivery.

III-6. Integrated Planning
As transit plays an increasingly important role in our nation and as energy sources become scarce, more options are needed to better address mobility, accessibility and economic efficiencies.

III-7. Addressing needs of Intercity Passenger Rail
As critical elements of both rural and urban transportation networks, intercity passenger rail must be provided a sustainable and permanent funding stream, that is supported by federal and state, and private-sector resources.

III-8. Addressing needs of Intercity Bus
National policies and funding programs should create synergies among public transportation modes and providers and should increase their focus on the role of intercity bus as part of an integrated transportation system.

IV. Safety Recommended Actions

IV-1. National Agenda for Highway Safety
Establish a Presidential Commission to assist in the development of a national strategic highway safety plan designed to drive down fatal and disabling injuries on the nation’s highways. Emphasis should be placed upon increased awareness of the seriousness of the problem among national leadership, and a multi-cabinet and multi-agency commitment to action.

IV-2. Highway Safety Funding
Along with other highway core programs, increase the funding, broaden the eligibility and flexibility of the FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA highway safety funding programs, and simplify and consolidate the grant application processes, especially for the NHTSA grant programs. Reform the prescriptiveness of several of the safety programs, for example the Safe Route to Schools Program. Ensure that highway safety funding is used for safety purposes and that the spending is performance-driven to address the states’ needs identified in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP). Increase federal surface transportation program apportionments, enabling states to improve road conditions, which will improve safety and save lives.

IV-3. Strategic Highway Safety Plan Continuation
Continue the requirement that states develop and implement a comprehensive strategic highway safety plan consistent with their long-range transportation planning and short-range programming processes.

IV-4. Federal, State and Local Laws and Ordinances, Enforcement, and Adjudication
Establish an interagency coordinating committee to recommend model statutes and best practices to the Congress and the States on ways to drive down fatalities through education, more effective state and local laws, and through rigorous enforcement and adjudication of those laws. The U.S. Department of Justice would lead this effort in partnership with NHTSA, FHWA and FMCSA.

IV-5. Provide Performance Based Incentives for State Results Including Enactment of New Laws
Develop incentives that reward states for their positive actions including the possible enactment of State laws that have been proven to be effective in reducing fatalities and disabling injuries.

IV-6. Data Collection and Data Sharing
Support the development of a national data warehouse, and encourage individual statewide data sources that address and encompass the issues of collection, quality, management and linkage.

IV-7. Safety Improvements in Vehicles
Incorporate technical safety improvements in vehicles more expeditiously through federal incentives, and regulatory, research and development initiatives.

IV-8. Safety Research Development and Technology
Enhance the level of funding for safety research development and technology, and expand the coordination between research entities.

V. Multimodal Freight Systems Recommended Actions

V-1. Federal Assistance for Freight Improvements
U.S. DOT should work closely with the states and the private sector to implement the freight provisions contained in SAFETEA-LU. In collaboration with states and the private sector, the federal government should develop a foundation of data and analysis that maps and quantifies global and domestic supply chain patterns and how they affect demands on the transportation system. This should be used to support more informed public and private decisions about investment in freight transportation. The federal government should provide support to multi-state/regional investment banks to finance improvements to regionally and nationally significant freight projects, where costs are in a single state, but benefits accrue to several states. From resources outside the Highway Trust Fund, additional federal government financing should be provided for the “national benefits” share of freight-related investments, including in freight gateways, connectors, corridors and border crossings.

V-2. Highway Freight Improvements
The federal government should increase apportioned funds to states for investment in highway system capacity to support economic growth and international competitiveness. It should encourage the private sector to invest in operational and capacity improvements that can relieve freight bottlenecks and improve the flow of goods and services. The federal government should also provide support for state efforts to relieve critical freight chokepoints through investment in projects such as truck lanes and intermodal connectors. States, in collaboration with the freight transportation industry and the federal government, should investigate the feasibility of regional adjustments in truck size and weight in particular corridors that demonstrate important economic benefits and meet safety, pavement/bridge impact and financing criteria.

V-3. Rail Freight Improvements
Existing federal programs that increase capacity and efficiency in freight rail transportation, such as the railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program and the highway-rail crossing program, should be continued. Incentives for new investment in freight-rail infrastructure by rail companies should be created and federal funding from revenues outside of the highway trust fund should be provided to states for participation in public-benefit freight-rail projects. The federal government, in collaboration with states and the freight-rail industry, and business shippers should develop a description of the freight-rail system needed for the 21st century as a framework for rail policy and investment.

V-4. Water Freight Movement: Ports and Waterways
Resources available through the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should be used for their legislated purposes. The federal government should provide additional resources and support state initiatives to integrate planning and investment for water transportation with surface transportation, to address the landside demands generated by ports and the underutilized potential of the inland waterway system to relieve congestion on the roads.

VI. Revenue and Finance Recommended Actions

This recommendation was based upon information available in October, 2006. References in the body of the full report have been updated to reflect the information made available in the President’s budget proposal for FY2008.

VI-1. Preserve Safetea-lu Funding
The highway program’s funding faces an immediate crisis. Current revenue at the Federal level is estimated to be inadequate to provide for SAFETEA-LU obligations through 2009. It is estimated that a dramatic 25 percent reduction in SAFETEA-LU highway program funding levels (obligations), from $43.6 billion to $32.4 billion ($11.2 billion), may be necessary in fiscal year 2009 due to HTF Highway Account shortfalls if no additional revenue is provided.

Revenues sufficient to preserve full funding of SAFETEA-LU authorizations must be provided promptly. In order to ensure a minimum acceptable Highway Account balance (i.e., enough to cover outlays and support SAFETEA-LU program growth levels), this essential fix requires the infusion of up to $5 billion in 2009 – equivalent to a three (3) cent Federal fuels tax increase in 2009 (assuming the current HTF revenue allocations between the Highway Account and the Mass Transit Account are maintained).

VI-2. Funding and Financing Principles
Adopt a series of funding and financing principles that will assure the stability and appropriate growth in the surface transportation programs. These principles are set forth in the section entitled “Funding and Financing Principles” of this summary.

VI-3. Funding and Financing Policy Considerations
The following funding and finance considerations are recommended by AASHTO for adoption: inflation neutrality, broader base, user-pay correlation, collection ease and efficiency, and external impacts as described in the section entitled “Funding and Financing Policy Considerations” of this summary.

VI-4. Funding Scenarios
Address underinvestment in the next authorization period by restoring purchasing power lost since 1993 and targeting program levels to move toward meeting the needs in the highway and public transportation programs.

Scenario Summary

table 2

Scenario 1: Modest Restoration of Purchasing Power
Scenario 1 proposes to identify revenues sufficient to support a modestly higher level of capital investment during 2010–2015 for both highways and transit, based on average annual program growth during SAFETEA-LU. Under this scenario, the surface transportation programs can grow at 6.3 percent a year (approximately the SAFETEA-LU average annual growth rate of 3.8 percent in addition to inflation).

This scenario requires additional HTF annual revenues of about $15 billion – equivalent to a five (5) cent Federal fuels tax increase in 2010 (on top of the 2009 revenue increase of 3 cents). In addition, in order for transit spending to keep pace with highway program growth, this scenario requires additional General Fund contributions for public transportation programs of about $7 billion during 2014–15 to ensure MTA solvency through 2015. By 2015, the investment generated by this scenario closes about 21 percent of the current $27 billion highway annual funding gap and about 38 percent of the current $7 billion transit annual funding gap.

Scenario 2: Gradual Restoration of Purchasing Power
Scenario 2 assumes revenues equivalent to a Federal fuels tax increase of 11 cents phased in (at about 1.8 cents per year) from 2010–2015. This results in additional HTF revenues of about $9 billion in 2010 for both highways and transit, increasing to over $27 billion by 2015 (on top of the 2009 revenue increase of 3 cents). It supports 8 percent annual growth in surface transportation programs in that time period (again assuming increased GF contributions for public transportation) while gradually returning the purchasing power of the Federal fuels taxes to their 1993 levels by 2015. Under this scenario, the enhanced investment closes about 44 percent of the current $27 billion highway annual funding gap and about 59 percent of the current $7 billion transit annual funding gap by 2015.

Scenario 3: Immediate Restoration of Purchasing Power
Scenario 3 assumes the identification of another $19 billion per year for the HTF for both highways and transit—equivalent to an increase in the Federal fuels tax of seven (7) cents in 2010 (on top of the 2009 revenue increase of 3 cents). This infusion fully restores the purchasing power of the Federal fuels taxes immediately at the 1993 levels. With this additional revenue, the surface transportation programs can grow at 9 percent per year (again assuming increased GF contributions for public transportation). This more aggressive scenario enables about 59 percent of the current $27 billion highway annual funding gap and about 73 percent of the current $7 billion transit annual funding gap to be closed by 2015.

The following table identifies potential revenue mechanisms and their revenue generating capacity that could be employed, either individually or in combination, to provide the additional funding associated with these scenarios.