Home | Executive Summary of AASHTO’s Policy Recommendations

Executive Summary of AASHTO’s Policy Recommendations

In October 2006, the AASHTO Board of Directors adopted a wide-ranging series of recommendations addressing the future of the nation’s surface transportation system.

Overview Recommendations

  • Surface transportation investment needs to be increased to the levels required to keep the U.S. competitive in the global economy and meet America’s 21st Century mobility needs.

  • To meet the Nation’s surface transportation system needs, all levels of government—federal, state, and local—must continue to fund their historical shares of the investment needed.

  • Meeting America’s surface transportation needs for the future will require a strategy which goes beyond just “more of the same.” It will require a multi-modal approach, which preserves what has been built to date; improves system performance; and adds substantial capacity in highways, transit, freight rail, intercity passenger rail, and better connections to ports, airports, and border crossings.

  • Meeting America’s surface transportation needs will also require solutions which go beyond transportation improvements and include policies addressing land use, energy, global climate change, the environment, and community quality of life.

  • AASHTO believes three prerequisites will be required for surface transportation reauthorization to succeed:

    • Development of a compelling vision of the surface transportation system needed for America’s future;

    • Development of a reform agenda to restore a sense of purpose for the Federal Transportation Program; and

    • Development of bold goals that define a strategy for meeting the country’s needs. (These are addressed in the section on the Federal Program.)

Highway Recommendations

  • Near term, 2009–2015:
    Increase federal highway assistance from $43 billion in 2009 to $73 billion by 2015 to restore the purchasing power of the program and provide the the resources necessary to meet national needs for both system preservation and expansion.

    2015 and Beyond:
    Further increase funding toward achieving U.S. DOT’s “Cost to Improve” Goals.

  • Preserve the current 47,000-mile Interstate Highway System so it lasts for at least the next 50 years.

  • Enhance system performance. Advanced ITS technologies and better system management techniques need to be utilized to reduce congestion, improve throughput, and increase Interstate Highway System reliability.

  • Expand capacity to meet future needs. To keep us competitive in the global economy and meet America’s 21st Century mobility needs, we will need to add nearly as much capacity to the Interstate System in Phase II, as we did over the past 50 years in Phase I. The National Defense needs of the transportation system also need to be reassessed.

  • U.S. DOT and State DOTs should jointly undertake two comprehensive Interstate Highway System needs assessments during the period from 2010 to 2013: The first should study the costs of rebuilding or replacing the 55,000 bridges on the system, the 15,000 interchanges, and the pavement foundations for the system’s 210,000 lane-miles. The second should study long-term, system-wide expansion needs of the network, taking into account the global economy, population and economic growth, safety, and national defense and homeland security needs.

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

  • The Federal-aid program should continue to include a network of roads that complements the NHS, and to include a bridge program.

  • Restore the percentage of Federal funding for core programs to the level established in the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Reaffirm the policy that Federal highway and transit funds should be systematically planned and programmed through states and metropolitan planning organizations.

  • Further streamline the environmental review and Federal permitting process; eliminate Federal permitting for non-Federally funded projects; provide for Federal approvals and state accountability at the program, not project, level; and liberalize the use of Federal funds in right-of-way acquisition.

Transit Recommendations

  • Increase Federal transit assistance from $10.3 billion in 2009 to $17.3 billion by 2015 to restore the purchasing power of the program and provide the resources necessary to meet national needs for both system preservation and expansion.

  • By 2030, double transit ridership nationally to meet the needs of those dependent on transit, provide convenient and efficient service which shifts trips from highways to transit, and helps reduce congestion. Preserve the ability to flex highway funding to transit.

  • From 2015 and beyond, transit investment should be increased toward the “cost-to-improve” goal estimated by U.S. DOT.

  • Improve public transportation services to the elderly and special needs populations through better coordination of programs at the federal level and simplification and integration of service delivery at the state and local levels through the United We Ride Program.

  • Intermodel Connectivity—Federal policy should foster development of an intermodal passenger system which improves connectivity for customers. This should be done through connected service between transit, airports, ferryboats, intercity passenger rail, intercity passenger bus, taxis, and other services. It should encourage the development of intermodal terminals which should be treated as community centers. And it should seek to improve access to rural communities.

  • Federal policies should encourage the integration of transportation and land-use planning and should encourage transit-oriented development.

  • Reduce the number of public transit program categories and increase the states’ flexibility in the use of federal resources.

 

Rail Recommendations

  • Establish a National Rail Transportation Policy. Intercity passenger and freight rail are critical components of the nation’s surface transportation system. States are developing intercity passenger rail corridors to ease congestion, improve air quality and provide improved personal mobility options. Freight rail capacity has decreased over the past 20 years while demand for freight capacity in all modes has increased dramatically. Freight shippers in many states have expressed serious concerns about their transportation options that may seriously compromise the system’s ability to support our national economic growth. Current rail capacity is not sufficient to meet passenger or freight needs.

  • It is imperative that the Commission develop and recommend a national rail policy that addresses institutional roles, passenger and freight capacity, and new, non-Highway Trust Fund funding and financing options. This policy must be developed in partnership with Federal and state governments and the railroads.

  • Existing Federal programs that increase capacity and efficiency in freight-rail transportation, such as the railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program, should be continued. The current eligibility of freight-rail for receiving funding assistance through the federal highway programs such as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and the highway-rail crossing program should be preserved. Incentives for new investment in freight-rail infrastructure by rail companies, such as investment tax credits, 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, the freight-rail industry, and shippers should develop a description of the freight-rail system needed for the 21st Century as a framework for rail policy and investment.

  • Provide funding needed for Amtrak to continue operation of current services and not interrupt vital commuter services until a long-term national program for intercity passenger rail service is established.

  • Establish a sound passenger rail partnership between the States and the Federal government and then move forward with plans to expand service. States will continue to support existing rail service, as well as take the lead in planning and developing new, expanded and enhanced regional passenger rail corridor services. However, there must be a federal-state funding partnership similar to existing highway, transit and aviation programs.

Safety Recommendations

  • 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.

  • Along with other highway core programs, increase the funding of the FHWA, NHTSA, and FMCSA highway safety funding programs, broaden their eligibility and flexibility, and simplify and consolidate the grant application processes, especially for the NHTSA grant programs.

  • Continue the requirement that states have a comprehensive strategic highway safety plan consistent with their long-range transportation planning and short-range programming processes.

  • 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.

Revenue Recommendations

  • The Commission should urge Congress to provide revenues sufficient to preserve funding of the highway and transit programs at the levels authorized by SAFETEA-LU in order to avert a funding crisis in FY2010, which could require an $18 billion cut in the highway program and a $3 billion cut in transit by 2012.

  • Congress should provide the revenues necessary by 2015 to restore the purchasing power of the highway and transit programs. There are three alternative scenarios AASHTO would recommend that the Commission consider. Under the scenario which fully restores purchasing power by 2015, highway assistance would increase to $73 billion and transit to $17.3 billion.

  • Congress should create an impartial board called the Transportation Revenue Advisory Commission (TRAC). Its mission would be to review periodically whether the rates of Federal fuel taxes and other fees supporting the Highway Trust Fund need to be adjusted. Once the Commission’s recommendations on rate adjustment are made, after an established review period, the recommendations would take effect unless Congress voted to reject them. The TRAC’s technical reviews of the funding levels needed would build on the work of the SAFETEA-LU Commissions.

  • From resources outside the Highway Trust Fund, additional Federal government financing should be provided for freight-related investments, including freight gateways, connectors, corridors, and border crossings. With state involvement, incentives for new investment in freight-rail infrastructure by rail companies through Federal investment tax credits and depreciation adjustments should be developed. Federal funding should be provided to states for participation in public-benefit rail improvements. Revenue measures such as dedicating 5 percent of customs fees to transportation freight projects and providing assistance, financed through tax credit bonds, should be enacted

  • Federal policies should enable and encourage the capitalization of highway and transit improvements through innovative finance mechanisms and through public–private ventures supported by tolls and other revenues. Federal limitations on the ability of state and local governments to raise revenues should be removed.

  • Congress should take a three-phase approach to increasing revenues to the levels needed. In Phase 1, Congress should take action in FY2009 to preserve highway and transit funding at the full levels authorized by SAFETEA-LU. In Phase 2, Congress should restore the program’s purchasing power. In Phase 3, from 2015 and beyond, Congress should increase the program funding toward the “cost-to-improve” goals, estimated in U.S. DOT’s Conditions and Performance Reports. For the 10 years after 2015, the fuel tax can be adjusted through indexing, periodic increases, or by changing it to a sales tax. From 2025 on, the tax should be supplemented or replaced with a vehicle miles traveled tax.

Federal Program Recommendations

  • To meet the nation’s surface transportation system needs, the Federal government needs to play a leadership role in funding and in policy.

  • The Federal program’s purpose should be to support the national vision and funding for a surface transportation system that improves America’s economic competitiveness; strengthens the National Defense; gives the states the opportunity to provide needed mobility; and improves safety, energy efficiency, and environmental compatibility.

  • FHWA’s role should include advocacy for the nation’s highway system, policy, and research leadership in the delivery of the Federal-Aid Highway Program, and stewardship focused equally on state accountability and action by FHWA to facilitate the delivery of service by state governments. FHWA should focus its efforts on program delivery, delegate project delivery to the states, and treat State DOTs as their governmental partners.

  • Federal Program Structure—The Federal highway program should continue to be apportioned to the states and delivered through the core programs: Interstate Maintenance, Bridge, National Highway System, Surface Transportation System, Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality, and Safety. The program’s funding guarantees and firewalls should be retained. The percentage of funding apportioned to the states and delivered through the core programs should be restored to the level achieved in ISTEA. There is a legitimate need to continue some National Programs, such as the Federal Lands Program. However, nationally significant needs should be funded through cooperative multi-state efforts, rather than through Congressional earmarks. Program categories for the transit program should be consolidated and flexibility in their use increased.

  • State and Local Government Roles—The responsibility for transportation planning and project delivery should remain with State departments of transportation together with metropolitan planning organizations, cities, counties, and transit agencies. Federal highway assistance should be focused on a strategic network of nationally significant highways that meets national goals, including the Interstate System, the National Highway System, and a limited system of arterials and collectors. Federal transit assistance should meet the needs of both urban and rural areas. Federal oversight should be limited to projects receiving direct Federal assistance. Program categories for Federal highway and transit funding should be simplified and made more flexible so that each state and its local governments can use the resources to best meet the needs of their communities.

  • There is Federal interest in sustaining the ability of the private-sector truck and freight-rail system to meet national freight needs. Our national competitiveness requires us to ensure the trucking industry has access to a highway system with the safety, capacity, and reliability needed. Other transportation modes, such as rail and river freight complement the highway network. Federal policies should assist these modes by preserving the current eligibility of freight rail for funding assistance through Federal programs and should expand assistance through concepts such as investment tax credits to facilitate capital improvements. A strong Federal funding role is needed to sustain a national intercity passenger rail system. Limited government assistance may be required to sustain regular intercity bus service in some rural markets.

  • Reform Agenda

    • Restore the percentage of the program apportioned to the states and delivered through core highway programs from 83 percent in SAFETEA-LU to 90 percent as was the case in ISTEA.

    • Address nationally significant needs through multi-state efforts in coordination with U.S. DOT, using state apportioned Federal funds, matched by state funds, and/or other locally provided funds.

    • Minimize administrative cost and delay.

    • Simplify program categories and increase flexibility.

    • Reduce transit program categories and increase state flexibility in their use.

    • Strengthen the focus of the Federal highway program on the National Highway System.

  • Bold Goals for Surface Transportation

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

    • Supplement state and local revenues through alternative financing options: tolling, public–private ventures, and alternatives to fuel taxes.

    • Double transit ridership over the next 20 years.

    • Preserve today’s 47,000-mile Interstate Highway System, so it lasts for at least the next 50 years.

    • Add nearly as much capacity to the Interstate Highway System over the next 50 years as was built over the past 50 years.

    • Reduce annual highway fatalities by 10,000 each decade.

    • Reduce congestion and energy consumption; improve air quality.

    • Establish a National Rail Transportation Policy.

    • America’s transportation system must provide superior performance to keep us globally competitive.

    •  

Next Page >>