Table Of Content

/c^3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995 Y 4. AP 6/1 : T 68/4/995/ PT,3 HEAKINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BOB CARR, Michigan, Chairman RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota TOM DeLAY, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina RALPH REGULA, Ohio RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania Delacroix Davis III, Richard E. Efford, Cheryl L. Smith, and Linda J. Mum, Subcommittee Staff PART 3 Page DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Federal Highway Administration 1 Federal Transit Administration 649 RELATED AGENCY: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority .. 897 f jut 2 199^ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BOB CARR, Michigan, Chairman RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota TOM DELAY, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina RALPH REGULA, Ohio RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania Delacroix Davis III, Richard E. Efford, Cheryl L. Smith, and Linda J. Mum, Subcommittee Staff PART 3 Page DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Federal Highway Administration 1 Federal Transit Administration 649 RELATED AGENCY: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority .. 897 Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 79-406O WASHINGTON 1994 : ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044407-1 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi, JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania Vice Chairman JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana NEAL SMITH, Iowa C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, IlUnois RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana TOM BEVILL, Alabama JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARD PORTER, lUinois CHARLES WILSON, Texas HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JOE SKEEN, New Mexico MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia JULIAN C. DIXON, California TOM Delay, Texas VIC FAZIO, California JIM KOLBE, Arizona W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina DEAN A. GALLO, New Jersey STENY H. HOYER, Maryland BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada BOB CARR, Michigan JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois RON PACKARD, CaUfornia RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland JIM CHAPMAN, Texas JAMES T. WALSH, New York MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carohna DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma NANCY PELOSI, CaUfornia HENRY BONILLA, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, CaUfornia GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia NITA M. LOWEY, New York RAY THORNTON, Arkansas JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON, Florida JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts ED PASTOR, Arizona CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida Frederick G. Mohrman, Clerk and StaffDirector (II) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE- LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995 Tuesday, March 8, 1994. FEDERAL fflGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES U.S. GENERALACCOUNTING OFFICE KENNETH M. MEAD, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, RE- SOURCES, COMMUNITY,AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDIVISION GARYJONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MIRIAM ROSKIN, EVALUATOR, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRA- STRUCTURE ISSUES FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION RODNEYE. SLATER, FEDERAL HIGHWAYADMINISTRATOR JANE F. GARVEY, DEPUTYFEDERAL HIGHWAYADMINISTRATOR LOUISE F. STOLL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PRO- GRAMS, OFFICE OFTHE SECRETARY E. DEAN CARLSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GEORGE S. MOORE, JR., ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINIS- TRATION DENNIS C. JUDYCKI, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SAFETY AND SYSTEMAPPLICATIONS GEORGE L. REAGLE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MOTOR CAR- RIERS gloriaj. jeff,associateadministratorforpolicy john a. clements, associate administrator for research and development anthony r. kane, associate administrator for program development Opening Remarks Mr. Carr. The Committee will come to order. Today we are going to discuss programs and activities ofthe Fed- eral Highway Administration. In terms of the total program re- FHWA sources and outlays, the is the largest element of the De- partment ofTransportation. The FHWA budget for fiscal year 1995 is approximately $20 billion in budgetary resources, representing more than 50 percent of the total requested by the Department. Obviously, with a program that large, there are many issues to be explored. We will start today with testimony from the General Accounting Office, presented by Mr. Kenneth Mead, the Director for Transpor- (1) tation Issues in the Resources, Community and Economic Develop- ment Division. We value his observations and analysis. And follow- ing the GAO testimony and any related questions, we will hear from the officials of the Federal Highway Administration, led by Rodney Slater, the Administrator, making his first formal appear- ance before the Subcommittee, but he has been very helpful to us since he has come on board. And Mr. Mead, of course, we are always delighted to see you. You have given this Committee so much advice and counsel over the years, particularly in the area ofthe Federal Aviation Adminis- tration and, at our request, we have asked you to take a look at the entire Department. We understand what a workload increase that is for you, but we appreciate the time and attention you give to this Committee's concerns. Mr. Mead. GAO Statement Mr. Mead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say it is a customary start at these affairs to say thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I guess it is deja vu from last year. You get into these appropriations cycles and the hearings can get rather intense, but thank you for your remarks. With me today is Gary Jones, our Assistant Director for Surface Transportation Infrastructure, and Miriam Roskin on my left. Mir- iam has mastered the ins and outs of how demonstration projects work in the Highway Trust Fund and that is a complicated area indeed. I will cover four issues today. First is the $400 million imbalance FHWA in the fiscal year 1995 budget; second, a demonstration project tracking system that flows from the number of issues that developed last year; third, life-cycle costing; and, fourth, the proposed National Highway System. FHWA BUDGET IMBALANCE I would like to turn first to the budget imbalance. The Adminis- tration's budget for the Federal Highway Administration proposes full funding of $18 billion for the core highway programs, like the National Highway System. But full funding is contingent on zero- ing out most highway demonstration projects by the device of rescission. This would rescind budget authority of about $3 billion through fiscal year 1995. A problem exists, though, because the Administration did not send forward the documents needed to execute the rescissions in the very budget that it proposed. As it stands, without the $3 billion rescission, the annual outlay levels imposed to control the defi- cit will be exceeded by $406 million. The disconnect between the $3 billion and the $406 million is due to the slow spendout rate for highway programs. Well, there are four basic options to deal with this problem. As- suming t—hat a rescission letter is not forthcoming from the Admin- istration and we have no r—eason to believe that a rescission letter will in fact be forthcoming the first option is to request higher DOT outlay levels from the full Appropriations Committee than are assumed in the President's budget. That would result in nontrans- portation reductions elsewhere. Well, that is the option recommended by the Budget Committee, which through a set of outlay assumptions and cuts elsewhere in the budget, would eliminate the subcommittee's $400 million problem. Now, if the Budget Committee recommendation, which we have not seen in writing, Mr. Chairman, is not accepted by the full Ap- propriations Committee, then the subcommittee will have to resort to more painful solutions and there are basically three ofthem. The first is to fully fund core highway programs and demonstration projects by making sizable reductions in other transportation programs, like Amtrak, mass transit and aviation. There might be some room for movement in those other accounts, but being famil- iar with them, I know that the knife cannot go too deep there ei- ther. A second option is to fund the demonstration projects but reduce highway obligations for the core programs, like the National High- way System, by up to $2.7 billion. That would translate into about $400 million in outlay savings in fiscal year 1995. And a final but fairly complicated one is to place a severe obliga- tion limitation on demonstration projects, coupled with eliminating the fiscal year 1994 bonus for timely obligations. In the highway programs, states get a bonus ifthey obligate all their money. Well, obviously, these options can be used individually or in com- bination. And I hope you do not have to resort to the more painful ones that I outlined. TRACKING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS This subcommittee's interest in ensuring that demonstration projects are a sound investment illustrates the continuing need for accurate project-specific information on the projects. Actually, there are about a thousand ofthese projects out there now. FHWA does not currently track the financial and construction status of individual demonstration project authorizations. Projects authorized under ISTEA collectively account for well over $6 billion. Tracking demos cannot be ignored because, as we have pre- viously noted, demos can run into problems that cause them to lan- guish or never get started at all. To identify such problems, though, FHWA is currently designing a system to better capture informa- taigoinngonanidndwievidhuaavlepbreojeenctwso.rTkhinegdweivtehloFpHmeWnAt oofntiht.is tool is encour- We have identified several areas to further enhance the system. One is to capture information on the reasons for delays. The second is to require periodic updates ofthe information in the system. Once the system is up and running, which is now scheduled for August 1994, this subcommittee and the Public Works Committee will be in a far better position to make judgments about the future ofthose projects. LIFE-CYCLE COSTING I would like to comment on life-cycle costing. In my frame of ref- erence, the issue really can be illustrated by the 14th Street Bridge, and whether you make repairs that will last for a relatively short-duration or whether you make repairs that will last for a longer period oftime. In any event, nearly $50 billion is needed now and will be annu- ally through 2011 just to maintain the condition and performance of the Federal-aid system. That investment is nearly double what we outlay each year, which is in the neighborhood of $26 billion. Life-cycle costing could be used to help ensure that dollars spent are spent in the most cost-effective way. Selecting a project or repair technique based on the lowest initial cost may save dollars in the short term, but that decision could end up costing more over the life of the project. And what life-cycle costing is all about is requiring an analysis of costs over the life ofa project, notjust the initial costs. States sometimes are overlooking the life-cycle analysis device when evaluating pavement rehabilitation strategies. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) did a survey last year, Mr. Chairman. Thirty-eight States responded. Of the 38, 11 said they do not use life-cycle cost analysis in making highway investment decisions. Also, when life-cycle analysis is performed, the assumptions used vary widely among the States. For example, some States will in- clude the cost of maintenance in doing their analysis and others will not. We think FHWA needs to provide technical guidance on when life-cycle analysis should be performed and how to do it. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM I would like to close with a few remarks on the National High- DOT way System. In December, unveiled the proposed National Highway System of about 159,000 miles. Congress must approve the designation of the National Highway System. The National Highway System is going to handle about 40 percent of all vehicle miles traveled, and 70 percent ofall truck traffic. Ninety-eight percent of the 159,000 miles is already built and it represents about 4 percent ofthe public road mileage in the U.S. We think DOT and the States did a good job in designing the system. We have two refinements that in our judgment could strengthen it further. First, as you know, a well-maintained and preserved system ought to form the foundation of the NHS, which in turn will support a myriad of other NHS goals, like clean air, congestion relief, economic development, tourism, trade and so forth. But those NHS goals may remain barren unless you estab- NHS lish performance expectations for the system. One possible expectation relates to pavement condition. Forty-six percent of noninterstate urban highways are considered in good condition. That means that over 50 percent are considered in less than good condition. Now, is that acceptable or not? Do we want it to be better than that? I think so, and that is why we are sug- gesting to the Department that they establish performance expectations. The other recommendation we are making relative to the NHS NHS is that Congress consider conditionally approving the as sub- mitted by DOT and reserve for itself the right to approve the final designation. The reason for this recommendation is that a principal purpose ofthe NHS was to link major transportation systems with our major highway systems. That has not been done yet. Over the next two years, DOT is going to be about the task of identifying We DOT those Hnkages. feel that after the linkages are finalized, could submit to the Congress the additional 6,000 miles or so that they are going to recommend be designated. We will be glad to take any questions, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement ofKenneth Mead follows:] UnitedStatesGeneralAccountingOffice r^/iC) Testimony BeforetheSubcommitteeonTransportation, CommitteeonAppropriations, UnitedStatesHouseofRepresentatives ForReleaseonDelivery SURFACE E^xpecteZdat TEIANSPORTATION March8.1994 Environment Tight Budget Sound Investment Requires Strategy StatementofKennethM.Mead, Director,TransportationIssues, Resources,Community,andEconomic DevelopmentDivision GAO/T-RCED-94-146