Testimony of

Michael S. Bronzini, Ph.D., P.E.

Dewberry Chair Professor and Dept. Chair

Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering,
MSN-6C1

The Volgenau School of Information Technology and Engineering

George Mason University

Fairfax, VA 220030

Tel. 703-993-1675

Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

U.S. House of Representatives

January 24, 2007

**Challenges Facing the Future U.S. Surface Transportation System**

The U.S. has a surface transportation system that is the envy of the
rest of the world. The strength of our economy is, in large measure, due
to the advantages wrought by a transportation system that enables
resources to be marshaled from nationwide and worldwide sources at
almost any location at a reasonable cost. Our citizens enjoy
unparalleled mobility. The challenge before us is to build on this
legacy and pass it on to future generations.

Growth in transportation demand currently exceeds growth in system
capacity by several orders of magnitude, producing congestion in both
passenger and freight movement. This severe congestion has the potential
to severely erode the economic and social advantages provided by our
transportation system. Other current challenges include improving system
security in all modes, reducing accidents, increasing energy efficiency,
protecting the environment, renewing the workforce, and finding the
fiscal resources to pay for all of the needed improvements. This
testimony discusses four important factors should be considered as we
formulate plans to meet these challenge: the nature of the
federal-state-local partnership; the continuing need for a national
system; the effects of project earmarks; and the research that is so
vital to the future development of the system.

**The Federal-State-Local Partnership**

The surface transportation system, particularly the highway and transit
system, is planned, built, and operated under the terms of a
federal-state-local government partnership that may be unique among
government programs. This partnership is much more than a formula for
sharing the costs of providing the system. It requires all levels of
government to focus attention on the system, and to develop and maintain
the expertise to carry out their respective roles. The federal
government provides program leadership and oversight, and promulgates
policies and technical standards that ensure uniformity where that is a
virtue, such as in matters of highway design standards. State and local
governments actually build and operate most of the system, which keeps
the direct management of the system located closest to its customers,
the traveling and shipping public. This "on the scene" aspect of how the
system is built and operated ensures that local conditions, which vary
greatly across the country, are given due consideration in the
decision-making process.

Since their enactment motor vehicle fuel taxes have been the lifeblood
of the system funding provided through the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).
Recent trends in vehicle and travel choices and fuel use have called
into question the long-term viability of this funding source, and
alternative system financing mechanisms are under study by the National
Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and others.
In this quest for alternative funding sources, it is important for any
related legislation to respect the essential features of the
federal-state-local partnership. That is, whole or partial abandonment
of past funding practices should [not]{.underline} be accompanied by
abandonment of the partnership that has been so effective.

Why not? This policy choice is related to a second key feature of our
present system---that it is, indeed, a system.

**National Transportation System**

Border-to-border, coast-to-coast travel on the Interstate Highway System
is possible only because those system links through the less populous
states with smaller state tax revenues are funded by highway users at
large, through the HTF mechanism. Left to their own devices and
revenues, rural states might not have the wherewithal and foresight to
provide and maintain the vital links that essentially serve through
traffic and provide benefits to a populace far removed from those links.
Similarly, investment in highway and rail access to coastal ports may
require federal funding because much of the benefit from the investment
accrues to inland states or those on the opposite coast.

A similar phenomenon is at work in the provision of urban transit
services. Beginning with the ISTEA legislation, and continuing in TEA-21
and SAFETEA-LU, metropolitan areas were given more power to determine
the nature of transit investments. This has helped to redress the
problem of rural-urban conflict, and the resulting tendency to underfund
transit, that exists in many state legislatures.

The application of HTF revenues to meet national system needs has
produced the "donor state-donee state" disagreements that have flared up
with each recent surface transportation reauthorization. The arguments
over fiscal equity have largely obscured the basic facts about the need
for a national system, which is the true source of the controversy.

In the run up to SAFETEA-LU some parties called into question the
continuing need for a federal role in surface transportation, arguing
that the completion of the Interstate Highway System made this obsolete.
While the system is largely complete and maintenance and operations
needs will become the predominant features of the surface transportation
program, it is still true that there is a national interest in
preserving a viable interconnected and interoperable
[system]{.underline}. This principle must be firmly ensconced in any
future federal legislation.

**Legislative Earmarks**

Another reason that the need for a continuing federal role has been
questioned is that the amount of earmarked funding has increased
exponentially over time. This has removed much of the policy context for
the spending provisions, or at the very least has made it very difficult
to carry out national policy directives. Earmarks have the effect of
diverting transportation funds to projects that may not meet local or
national needs as effectively as other projects. The degree to which the
earmarked projects are effective is not fully known, because often these
projects have not been subjected to the same degree of analysis as those
in the normal programmatic funding stream. Earmarks also undermine the
faith of the public in the integrity of the program.

Earmarking has had an especially deleterious effect on the research,
development and technology (RD&T) portion of the program. It is a
fundamental principle of scientific research that peer review of
competitive proposals is the best tool for ensuring effective
application of research funds. Earmarking not only interferes with the
peer review process, but it also threatens the ability of the program to
meet national needs. In SAFETEA-LU, for example, the total amount of
earmarked Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) RD&T funds exceeded the
total FHWA RD&T authorization, thus totally eliminating that agency's
ability to follow its strategic technology investment plan. As with
other types of earmarks, RD&T earmarking calls into question the
scientific merits of the funded projects and agencies.

Eliminating or better controlling earmarks must be a feature of future
legislation if the goal of providing an effective national system is to
be pursued. It is important to realize that one reason for the increase
in earmarking, beyond their obvious political appeal, is the perception
that normal funding processes are not meeting state and local high
priority needs. In the RD&T program earmarking is partially a response
to the difficulty of new institutions or researchers getting their
proposals funded, since the more established players tend to control the
selection process. Another reason for earmark popularity is the
perception that project selection criteria have moved off-center to meet
social goals, rather than maintaining emphasis on programmatic goals.
Thus any action to control earmarks should also address the potential
abuses in project selection that engender the earmark response.

**Research as a Priority**

Investment in development of new technology has been a driving force for
many successful companies, such as IBM, General Electric, and Microsoft,
but RD&T funding has always been a relatively small part of federal
surface transportation spending. It is even less of a priority for most
states, and is virtually nonexistent at the local level. Despite this
modest funding, it is true that research advances have been a major
factor in the success of the U.S transportation enterprise. Examples of
this payoff include improved pavement materials and methods, safer
roadsides, and reduced vehicular emissions. That part of the research
that is conducted at universities has the added benefit of contributing
to the education of future transportation leaders. Given the multiple
benefits, RD&T should receive much more attention and support in future
surface transportation programs.

One area of RD&T that has seen diminishing resources in recent years is
development and maintenance of effective information resources. This
reduced support has threatened several long-term data series, such as
the National Household Travel Survey, the Vehicle Inventory and Use
Survey, and the Commodity Flow Survey. Most would agree that reliable
and timely data provide the foundation for nearly all transportation
system decisions, but it is often difficult to build effective
constituencies for data programs. One of the reasons is that the actions
required to produce the requisite data must occur many years in advance
of when the data and resulting information are actually needed for
decision support. More attention to and support of transportation data
and information programs would have long-term benefits for virtually all
other parts of the U.S surface transportation program.

Biography

Dr. Bronzini earned his Ph.D. in civil engineering at the Pennsylvania
State University. He has been engaged in transportation research,
education, and consulting for 40 years, during which he has worked on
every mode of transportation, with significant emphasis on marine and
intermodal systems. He has held professional positions at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Penn State, the University of Tennessee, CACI,
Inc., and Georgia Institute of Technology. He was appointed the first
holder of the Dewberry Chair in Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure
Engineering at George Mason University in 1999, and Department Chair in
2006. He is a registered professional engineer and a National Associate
of the National Academies.