US - Highways Policy

Issue BackgroundScope of the U.S. Highway Network

The United States has more than four million miles of roadway, of which nearly three million are rural

roads. Almost 97 percent of all roads and streets in the U.S. are under the jurisdiction of state and local

governments. Only 130,000 miles are under the jurisdiction of the federal government, including roads in

national forests and parks, and on military and Indian reservations.

Currently, 65.4 percent of all roads and streets in the U.S. are paved, compared with about 27 percent in

1953. Total road and street mileage has increased approximately 18.3 percent since 1953. Paved

mileage, however, has increased 183 percent.

Approximately 25.4 percent of the nation’s road mileage is eligible to receive federal aid through the

Federal-aid Highway Program. This mileage, however, carries 84.6 percent of total U.S. highway travel.

The 46,931-mile Interstate Highway System, initiated by Congress in 1956 and the largest public works

project in history, is the backbone of the federal-aid system. Initial construction on the Interstate System

is now virtually complete. The Interstate system accounts for just over one percent of the nation’s total

road mileage, but handles 24.5 percent of the nation’s total road travel.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) set in motion the framework for

developing a strategic federal investment program designed to upgrade those existing highways and

bridges that serve a national interest. The law directed the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to designate,

in consultation with the states, a 161,800-mile “National Highway System” (NHS) to serve as the focal

point for future federal highway and bridge capital investments. The NHS designation became law in

November 1995.

The NHS helps focus federal highway funding on international and Interstate routes, as well as on roads

that serve major population centers, ports, airports, and international border crossings. While the NHS

includes only four percent of the nation’s existing highway mileage, it carries 44.5 percent of total

vehicle-miles traveled in this country including 80 percent of all tourist travel and 75 percent of all heavy

truck travel.

Specifically, the NHS includes the 46,931-mile Interstate Highway System, many existing major urban and

rural arterials, the 15,000-mile defense strategic highway network, and strategic intermodal highway

connectors.

The NHS reflects the major demographic and travel changes that have occurred in this country since the

designation of the Interstate Highway System over 50 years ago. Highway travel in the U.S. has increased

as the population has grown, as more women have entered the workplace, and as jobs have been

created outside of urban centers.

Travel on the federal-aid system has risen more than 95 percent since 1980. The greatest growth, over

195 percent, occurred on segments of the Interstate Highway System in urban areas. Travel on all roads

and streets have increased almost 93 percent since 1980.

There are almost 212 million highway users—licensed drivers—in the U.S. They operate over 253 million

motor vehicles: 233 million automobiles and light trucks, 11 million large trucks and buses and over eight

million motorcycles. Annual travel by motor vehicle has reached 2.95 trillion miles—over 11,600 miles

per year per vehicle.

The personal motor vehicle (automobile, light truck, van and motorcycle) is the predominant form of

personal transportation in the U.S. Privately owned vehicles account for 81.5 percent of all personal miles

of travel. By way of comparison, air transportation (commercial and general aviation) accounts for

approximately 11.5 percent of personal travel; public transit accounts for six percent; rail less than one

percent. Walking, biking and other modes such as ferry boats account for the remainder.

Highways and the U.S. Economy

There is a strong relationship between the nation’s economy and travel on the nation’s highway

system. Since the 1930s, growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and vehicle-miles of travel

(VMT) reflect strikingly similar patterns (with the exception of the World War II years).

The efficient movement of food, raw materials and manufactured products from place of origin to

export facilities is key to America’s competitiveness in the world marketplace with a land area of 3.6

million square miles; however, we face transportation challenges unique among the world’s

economically developed nations. For example, according to the U.S. DOT, the average freight trip by

for-hire truck in the U.S. is almost 600 miles in length.

Transportation and transportation-related spending accounts for just under 10 percent of GDP,

while road transportation accounts for 60 percent of all U.S. spending on transportation. In 2007,

trucks handled slightly more than 40 percent of all U.S. freight-ton miles and carried more than 70

percent of all freight shipped in the U.S. by value. Obviously, a very significant portion of the cost of

U.S. goods is directly related to the cost of highway transport. To improve U.S. competitiveness, a

high quality national highway and bridge network is essential.

After housing (33.8 percent), transportation (almost 17 percent) accounts for the largest single

household expenditure. According to U.S. DOT, highways in poor condition cost users as much as

25-30 percent more per mile than highways in good condition. And every one percent increase in

highway user costs adds about $15 billion to the nation’s total highway bill, including increased

vehicle depreciation and maintenance, fuel, oil, and tire consumption. A 2012 study by the Texas

Transportation Institute found traffic congestion due to inadequate capacity introduces billions of

hours of delay on the Interstate Highway System and other principal arterials, compared to

uncongested conditions, adding billions in costs to interstate commerce. According to the study,

congestion in the nation’s 498 largest urban areas costs motorists $121 billion annually in wasted

time and motor fuel. The Federal Highway Administration reported 50 percent of urban Interstate

mileage is congested during peak travel hours.

Highway and Bridge Conditions and Capital Investment Requirements

The U. S. DOT is required by law to prepare a report for Congress every two years that details the

condition and capital investment requirements of the U.S. highway and bridge network. The 2013

Conditions and Performance Report, issued in early 2014, found:

• Twenty percent of the highway mileage in the United States failed to meet the criteria for

acceptable pavement; in urban areas, the failure rate was more than 30 percent.

• As of 2010, 28.4 percent of the Interstate bridges in urban areas were classified as deficient as

were 16.1 percent of Interstate bridges in rural areas.

• Overall, 25.9 percent of the bridges on U.S. roads were classified as deficient.

• The document reports that just maintaining the nation’s 2010 highway and bridge conditions

would require a total annual capital investment by all levels of government of more than $86.3

billion per year in constant 2010 dollars over 20 years.

According to the 2013 report, actually improving the nation’s highways and bridges to meet strategic

economic and safety goals would require a total annual investment of $145.9 billion in constant

2010 dollars over 20 years.

Federal policymakers should recognize that America will need additional highway capacity to meet

transportation demand driven by changing demographics and public and business needs.

Federal surface transportation law should not be used as a tool to advance anti-highway and anti-

growth social policies. Provisions of existing law that support these agendas should be eliminated.

Objectives Guiding Development of the ARTBA Highway Policy

The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) believes the U.S. highway

program must emphasize the following objectives:

• Highway capital improvements should be financed primarily through the collection of highway

user fees. These fees, which should be imposed by government, must be raised as necessary to

provide a continuing source of funding for the highway program.

• Safety must be of paramount concern in the design, construction, maintenance and traffic

operations of the nation’s highway system.

• Critically deficient bridges should be repaired or replaced. Improved rideability and pavement

durability should be program goals.

• The capacity and efficiency of the highway system should be improved as necessary to meet

public demand and physical condition requirements.

Highway Financing IssuesSupport of the User Fee Concept

ARTBA believes the cost of building and maintaining highway infrastructure should be borne

primarily by highway users through the imposition of dedicated fees, excises, and tolls. Americans

realize that greater investments in highways and bridges are needed to keep them safe and

efficient. And opinion research shows that a solid majority support dedicated increases in highway

user fees for these purposes. In light of documented, unmet surface transportation needs, highway

user fee revenue should only be used to finance highway, bridge and mass transit infrastructure

capital improvements.

Permanent Extension of the Highway Trust Fund

There will always be a need for federal investment in the nation’s highway and bridge system.

ARTBA supports permanent extension of the federal Highway Trust Fund’s expenditure authority—

and funding sources to support it—to ensure that adequate financial resources are available to meet

the federal role without causing disruption in state highway improvement programs.

Opposition to “Unified” Trust Fund

Proposals to create a single federal transportation trust fund or a “surface transportation trust fund”

should be rejected. Such an entity would promote further diversion of highway user revenues to non-

highway purposes.

Increasing Motor Fuels Taxes to Meet Highway Capital Needs

ARTBA supports increasing the federal motor fuels tax, dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund, to finance

highway and bridge capital improvements necessary to, at minimum, raise the amount of revenue the

U.S. DOT reports is needed just “to maintain existing conditions” and system performance.

State and local governments should at least increase their motor fuel taxes to the level necessary to fully

participate in the federal-aid program.

Indexing Highway User Fees

ARTBA urges all levels of government to index highway user fees-including motor fuels excises to the

Consumer Price Index to assure that these fees rise commensurate with increases in inflation.

This action would help preserve the purchasing power of the highway and bridge improvement program.

Budgetary Protections for the Highway Trust Fund

TEA-21 established historic budgetary protections for the Highway Trust Fund that ensure annual federal

highway and bridge investment will at least be commensurate with highway user fee revenue credited to

the fund’s Highway Account in the prior year. To respect the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund, it is

essential for these protections to continue in the future.

Combating User Fee Evasion

To ensure that all federal transportation user fees are collected as intended, federal and state activities

aimed at combating tax evasion in this area should be continued and expanded. Experience at both the

state and federal levels suggest that even modest resources expended in this effort yield very significant

financial returns. As an example, diesel fuel tax revenues increased by nearly $1 billion in fiscal year

1994, largely as a result of joint U.S. DOT and Internal Revenue Service and state revenue department

efforts. This activity has the potential to add substantial revenues to the trust funds for capital

investments and should continue to receive federal support.

Equal Taxation of Highway Use Energy

ARTBA believes all energy sources utilized to power vehicles that use the nation’s highway and bridge

system should be taxed to pay for system improvements through the Federal-aid Highway Program.

These excises should be equivalent to the energy content value of the tax currently levied on gasoline.

Energy Efficient Vehicles

ARTBA encourages the development and use of more energy efficient highway vehicles.

We caution, however, that there is a direct relationship between fuel efficiency and highway user fee

collections.

As the nation’s highway vehicle fleet becomes more energy efficient, highway user fees must be

appropriately adjusted upward to ensure that the revenue stream necessary for highway and bridge

improvements is not compromised.

Highway Funding Sanctions

ARTBA opposes the concept of linking the availability of federal highway funding to state and local

government compliance with federal mandates of any sort.

Minimum Allocation to States

ARTBA believes the federal government should guarantee that each state will receive back in the form of

federal highway funding at least 90 percent of the highway user fee revenue that it sends to the federal

government.

Authorizations and Appropriations

ARTBA believes Congressional authorizations for the Federal-aid Highway Program should be set at a

level that will ensure full and timely utilization of all revenues collected for the Highway Trust Fund,

including any unexpended balances in the fund. The annual obligation for the highway program should at

least match the level of highway user fee revenue flowing into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust

Fund.

Consistent and predictable federal funding is essential to operating orderly and cost-effective state

highway improvement programs.

Capital Budgeting and Budgetary Treatment of Highway Trust Fund

ARTBA urges the federal government to adopt a capital budget that differentiates between federal

capital investments in public infrastructure and the general day-to-day operating expenses of

government. This accounting procedure is used by most state governments and many other nations.

Such an action would help ensure that highway user revenue is not impounded and that artificial

spending ceilings are not placed on the user-supported “pay-as-you-go” federal highway program. In the

least, since the highway program is self-sustaining and is not responsible for deficit spending, it should be

separated from the federal unified budget and exempted from any general spending caps or other

“across-the-board” deficit reduction measures enacted by Congress or the Executive Branch.

Toll Facilities

ISTEA of 1991 allows the use of federal funds in the development of privately-owned toll facilities. TEA-

21 established a pilot program under which tolls may be collected on three separate interstate highways

(in different states) for reconstructing or rehabilitating a highway that could not otherwise be improved.

SAFETEA-LU retained these programs and created two new opportunities for toll financing to be used on

and off the Interstate System. ARTBA believes state transportation agencies should also be permitted to

use federal funds to develop new toll highways and have maximum flexibility to design and implement

toll-financing solutions.

ARTBA also believes:

• The U.S. Secretary of Transportation should be granted the authority to allow the imposition of tolls

on existing federal-aid highways that have unusually high maintenance, construction or reconstruction

costs. The purpose of this action would be to allow states to use the toll revenue realized to repay bonds

issued to finance these improvements.

• When federal funds are used to finance the acquisition, construction, or reconstruction of a new or

existing toll facility, states should be under no obligation to repay the federal funds so used, or to remove

the toll once the non-federal costs have been recovered.

• Toll revenue generated in excess of the amount necessary to operate and maintain a facility should

only be used for transportation-related purposes.

• Privately operated toll highways may be a viable means of meeting increased traffic demands in some

areas.

Alternate Financing Methods

ARTBA believes the imposition of motor fuel excises at the federal, state and local levels should continue

to serve as the primary funding mechanism for highway and bridge improvement programs. Recognizing

the enormous cost associated with meeting highway capital needs, however, other “non-traditional”

funding mechanisms should be considered for use when appropriate to supplement motor fuels excise

revenue. These could include, although are not limited to, expanded use of toll highways and bridges,

public-private ventures, creation of other financing mechanisms like infrastructure banks and revolving

loan funds, and bond financing for capacity enhancing surface transportation infrastructure projects.

These mechanisms should not be advanced for the purpose of reducing existing levels of highway user

taxes, avoiding necessary increases in highway user fees, or diverting highway user generated revenue to

non-highway uses.

Public-Private Partnerships

While public financing is ARTBA’s preferred method of funding transportation infrastructure

improvements and operation, we recognize that private investment is also necessary if the nation is to

meet its transportation capital needs. ARTBA believes the public interest can be served well through

public-private partnerships in transportation development. ARTBA further believes that public-private

partnerships should be structured so that each sector provides what it can most effectively contribute.

Such recognition of expertise should maximize project success and protect all applicable public interests.

In support of these pursuits, we recommend:

• Federal and state transportation agencies should be encouraged to develop and fund proposals for

using a public-private partnership approach to construction, improving and operating highway

transportation projects when public funding is inadequate or not available for such projects.

• When federal or other public funding is involved, public-private venture projects should be

constructed in cooperation with applicable federal and state transportation agencies and in accordance

with all relevant laws, including those applicable to competitive bidding for construction contracts.

• Federal funds should be permitted to be used as loans or matching funds for all public-private

partnership transportation projects with a dedicated revenue source.

• Appropriate types of tax incentives, such as arbitrage relief, public benefit bonds (which would be

suitable investments for 401(k) and other employee benefit plans), private activity bonds, and volume

cap flexibility should be considered to facilitate the private financing of private and public-private federal-

aid transportation infrastructure projects.

Proposals have been suggested that would establish federal and/or state revolving loan structures, or so-

called “Infrastructure Banks,” to leverage funding for capital investment. While ARTBA encourages the

development of innovative financing mechanisms as additive funding sources for transportation

infrastructure investment, given the existing shortfall in highway and bridge capital investment relative to

identified needs, such “banks” or loan programs should not utilize Highway Trust Fund revenues to pay

for non-highway programs or investments.

State participation in such programs should be optional. States must also be assured that non-

participation will not adversely affect their federal highway apportionment and that total “traditional”

federal highway program funding is not reduced to accommodate such financial structures.

Highway User Fee Exemptions

To assure equity in taxation and maximize receipts to transportation trust funds so that highway capital

needs can be met, ARTBA urges all levels of government to eliminate exemptions from the motor fuel

excise and other highway user fees. Along these lines, non-transportation policy objectives should be

pursued through federal General Funds. Limited Highway Trust Fund revenues should be preserved for

and fully invested in transportation improvements.

Federal-Aid Highway Program IssuesThe Role of the Federal Government

ARTBA believes the federal government has a major role to play in the development and maintenance of

an efficient national highway and bridge network for the following reasons:• The vast majority of Americans and U.S. businesses choose to use motor vehicles as their preferred means of transportation.• The U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to regulate commerce among the states and with other nations.• A national, coordinated system of well-maintained highways and bridges with intermodal linkages must exist in support of interstate commerce and commercial export.• The Constitution also requires the federal government to provide for the national defense. To meet this responsibility, the federal government should ensure that efficient transportation facilities are available to expedite emergency military and industrial mobilizations and support civil defense needs and activities.• The efficient movement of people and commercial goods across state lines is key to sustaining a strong national economy and maintaining a high quality of life for all Americans.• Highway safety is a major national public health issue.For these reasons, ARTBA believes the federal role should include adequate provision of financial, technical and research assistance to the states for highways and bridges. Working in full cooperation with the states, the federal government should also assume the lead role in developing and promoting uniform standards and guidelines for highway and bridge design, maintenance and operations. Consistent and predictable federal funding is essential to operating orderly and cost-effective state highway improvement programs.

The Role of State and Local Governments

State and local governments are the owners and managers of the nation’s highway and bridge

network. ARTBA believes:

• States should be responsible for project planning, management, and environmental analysis and

should assume partial responsibility for financing development of a uniform, nationally coordinated

highway system.

• Once a federally-assisted highway or bridge has been constructed, states should have lead

responsibility for maintaining them in good, safe condition.

• Highway durability and safety should be top priorities for the states.

In pursuit of these goals, states should make every effort to incorporate state-of-the-art design standards

and products in their highway and bridge plans.

Joint Federal-State-Local Responsibilities

The highway improvement program must operate as a true partnership between the federal, state and

local governments to best serve national interests and user/financial supporters. All levels of

government must diligently monitor transportation improvement needs and continue to dedicate motor

fuel excise revenue to highway improvements.

Maintenance of Effort

A key component of financing highway and bridge improvements is the partnership between federal,

state and local governments to develop and maintain the nation’s surface transportation network. A

commitment to appropriate transportation investment among all parties is critical. To ensure increased

federal highway and bridge investment results in more total funds for transportation improvements, a

“maintenance of effort” provision should be enacted that makes increased apportioned federal funds

contingent on individual state highway investments being continued at least at their prior year levels.

Competitive Bidding System

The practice of awarding highway construction contracts to the lowest responsible bidder in open

competition with other interested and eligible firms has helped ensure integrity in the bidding process. It

has also saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. ARTBA staunchly supports the free enterprise

system of open competitive bidding for highway projects.

“Union-Only” Labor Agreements

A provision should be added to federal law that prohibits the use of union-only project agreements on

federal-aid highway projects. Such agreements are counter to the free enterprise system of open

competitive bidding.

Davis-Bacon Act

ARTBA supports reform of the Davis-Bacon Act. This law requires the payment of local “prevailing

wages” on federal-aid transportation projects and addresses other labor-related issues. ARTBA believes

Davis-Bacon reform should include, but not be limited to:

• Full implementation of the helper regulations; changing the Act’s payroll reporting requirements from

weekly to monthly; and

• Exempting from the Act’s requirements employees of off-site batch plants and suppliers, and truck

drivers who spend only an incidental percentage of their time at the work site in the course of delivering

materials from off-site locations.

• The threshold for application of the Act should be $500,000.

Qualifications-Based Selection

To assure state-of-the-art, high quality projects, contracts for professional services such as transportation

planning, design and construction management, should be procured by Qualifications Based Selection

procedures. Contracts for these services should be based on salaries and overhead in accordance with

Title 48 (Federal Acquisition Regulations), Sec.15.901 (c).

Application of FARS to Professional Services Contracts

To assure equitable compensation and fair competition, federal surface transportation law should

require:

(a) the use of Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) cost principles in audits conducted on engineering

and design service contracts or subcontracts “funded in whole or in part” with federal-aid highway or

transit program funds;

(b) that recipients of federal funds accept the results of pre-award audits that meet the following

criteria-were established in accordance with FAR cost principles; were conducted within one year of the

current contract negotiations; and were not under dispute.

Further, compensation for these contracts should be determined on the basis of FAR cost principles

without modification or limitation.

Highway Safety

ARTBA believes that building safety into the highway system should be a top priority of transportation

policy makers, planners and appropriators at all levels of government. More than 32,000 people were

killed in motor vehicle accidents on U.S. roads during 2011. Highway-related deaths and injuries cost

America an estimated $230 billion per year. Clearly, highway safety should be a paramount public health

interest.

The good news is that experience has proved that emphasizing safety features in the design,

construction, reconstruction and operation of highway facilities does save lives. The U.S. highway fatality

rate has dropped 75 percent since 1970, from 4.5 per hundred million vehicle miles traveled, to 1.1.

ARTBA strongly encourages and supports:

• The continuation of highway safety-related federal-aid categorical programs for hazard elimination

and safety improvements at rail-highway grade crossings;

• Federal financial support for driver education programs;

• Requirements that mandate any reconstruction project should contain, as a component, restoration of

safety features to enhance the level of safety performance.

Highway reconstruction is increasingly being done under traffic conditions. The safety of industry

employees and motorists in these construction work zones is of special concern to ARTBA. In any

highway construction site, effective traffic control plans should be implemented, traffic control devices

and other appurtenances should be properly maintained. ARTBA supports federal encouragement of

training, education and voluntary certification programs for personnel responsible for traffic control at

highway construction sites.

Experience has shown that public awareness programs aimed at motorists can help to reduce the number

of accidents in these work sites. ARTBA encourages the U.S. DOT and all state transportation

departments to initiate and/or continue these programs.

ARTBA’s highway safety policy is more fully developed in the Intermodal Transportation Safety Policy

section.

Support of Unit Pricing

To help avoid contractual misunderstandings, to the extent possible, bid proposals for Federal-aid surface

transportation contracts should be required to use unit pricing. This would give the contractor a much

better understanding of the actual work and project-related activities (i.e., lead health and safety

programs) that he or she is being asked to perform. It would also serve to enhance work zone safety

activities.

Highway Quality

The American highway and bridge network stands as testament to the high quality construction and

design work of ARTBA members. Most U.S. highways and bridges provide service well beyond their

anticipated design life and traffic usage. We recognize, however, that the pursuit of quality and an

improved highway product is never ending. ARTBA supports the goals of the “National Highway Quality

Initiative,” which it helped develop in 1992 in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration,

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and other interested national

organizations.

Policy makers and the public must recognize that highway durability and the quality of highway

construction, while certainly linked, are not necessarily synonymous. Highway durability is directly

related to public owner agency decisions regarding pavement design life, materials specifications,

allowable vehicle weights and routine maintenance. Most of these decisions are directly related to the

level of public investment government is willing to make in a highway project both initially and over time.

ARTBA believes highway users are willing to pay more to build increased durability into our roads and to

ensure routine preventative maintenance because such investments will save tax dollars over the long

term. We encourage state and local governments to make durability a top priority as they develop

highway project specifications.

Similarly, we encourage the federal government to provide the states with the financial resources

necessary to build a 40- to 50-year design life into the NHS as routes on it that have reached the end of

their original design life are reconstructed.

The Interstate Highway Program

Initial construction of the 46,931-mile Interstate Highway System, initiated in 1956, is virtually

completed. The federal focus should now turn to maintaining this multi-billion dollar investment that is a

keystone of the U.S. economy and provides all Americans with unparalleled mobility.

The Interstate System carries traffic loads far exceeding those projected when the system was originally

planned almost four decades ago. And much of the system has exceeded its original 25-year design life

and needs very significant repair and rehabilitation.

According to the U.S. DOT’s 2013 report to Congress on the condition and investment requirements of

the nation’s highway and bridge network, only 63.2 percent of urban Interstate highways and 73.8

percent of rural Interstate highways are in good or excellent condition. The same report says that 28.4

percent of the bridges of the urban Interstate System and 16.1 percent of the rural Interstate bridges are

deficient and in need of repair or replacement.

The Interstate System is the central highway network within the 161,801 mile NHS that became law in

November 1995.

ARTBA believes a national financial commitment should be made now to dramatically upgrade pavement

durability on the Interstate Highway System to enhance serviceability and save tax dollars over the long

term. We suggest that a systematic repair, replacement, rehabilitation and reconstruction program be

initiated by 2025, with the goal of replacing existing pavement on the entire Interstate System with

pavements that have a 40- to 50-year design life.

Several Western European nations have demonstrated that such durability can be achieved with

adequate public investment in materials and routine maintenance using U.S.-derived construction and

design techniques and equipment. ARTBA supports an increase in federal highway user fees for this

purpose.

Traffic congestion on the urban portions of the Interstate System is having an increasingly negative effect

on the movement of commercial goods. It also is a contributing factor in motor vehicle-related air

pollution. This congestion is the result of an ever increasing U.S. driving population and significant

changes in the American workplace that have occurred since the Interstate Highway System was

originally planned (increased number of women in the work force, growth in service and light

manufacturing industries, “just-in-time” delivery and warehousing, etc.). Transportation and air quality

planners should give very serious consideration to building capacity improvements to the Interstate

System in these areas as part of a joint economic/clean air strategy.

National Highway System

The 161,801-mile NHS is critical to the national economy, defense and American quality of life.

Although it represents only four percent of the nation’s highway mileage, the NHS handles 44.5 percent

of the nation’s highway traffic. The NHS helps focus future federal highway funding on international and

Interstate routes, as well as on roads that serve major population centers, ports, airports, and

international border crossings.

Specifically, the NHS includes the 46,931-mile Interstate Highway System, many existing major urban and

rural arterials, the 15,000 mile strategic defense highway network, and strategic intermodal highway

connectors. The NHS reflects the major demographic and travel changes that have occurred in this

country since the designation of the Interstate Highway System nearly 40 years ago.

Much of the NHS is in need of major repair or replacement. According to the U. S. DOT’s 2013Conditions

and Performance Report, a $41.2-billion investment in constant 2010 dollars per year over 20 years is

needed just to maintain 2010 highway and bridge conditions on the NHS. Of that amount, $18.3 billion in

constant 2010 dollars is attributed to its Interstate highway portion. To improve NHS conditions, U. S.

DOT says an annual investment of $68.6 billion in constant 2010 dollars over 20 years is necessary.

ARTBA urges Congress to ensure that the NHS is adequately funded to meet the capital needs identified

by the U.S. DOT. ARTBA supports an increase in the federal motor fuels excise for this purpose. Assuring

adequate funding to maintain the NHS as a first-class transportation network should be a priority of

surface transportation program reauthorization legislation.

Bridges

The U.S. DOT’s 2013 report to Congress on the condition and investment requirements of the nation’s

highways and bridges shows that 25.9 percent of the 604,500 bridges in the United States are either

structurally or functionally deficient. The report says $106.4 billion is required to eliminate the backlog of

bridge deficiencies through replacement, rehabilitation or major widening.

ARTBA encourages Congress to significantly increase federal funding for bridge repair and replacement

and continue discretionary funding for high-cost bridge projects. Proper investment should be made on

individual projects to ensure that the highest quality materials and state-of-the-art technologies are used

on federal-aid bridges.

ARTBA believes the federal government should establish uniform bridge inspection standards so that

bridge funding priorities can be established.

The choice between whether to rehabilitate or replace a structurally deficient bridge should be based on

careful inspections and detailed cost comparisons that consider safety, future maintenance,

environmental and social impact, and operational costs. Such studies, design services and bridge

inspections should utilize professionally qualified engineers.

We also encourage the federal government to take the lead in developing and coordinating a national

information system that would catalogue and share technical experiences and expertise in the areas of

bridge repair and rehabilitation.

Bridge Preservation

Actions or strategies that prevent, delay or reduce deterioration of bridges or bridge elements, restore

the function of existing bridges, keep bridges in good condition and extend their life. Preservation

actions may be preventive or condition-driven.

Non-NHS Highways and Bridges

While the focus of the federal program should be providing adequate resources to maintain a first-class

NHS, ARTBA also supports a strong federal commitment to helping meet non-NHS highway and bridge

needs.

Surface Transportation Program

ISTEA of 1991 created the Surface Transportation Program (STP) to serve as the funding mechanism for

non NHS routes that were previously on the federal-aid Primary, Secondary and Urban systems. Greater

financial support for these highways is necessary to meet identified capital needs. Upgrading STP routes

must remain a priority to help reduce urban congestion and improve rural mobility.

Intermodality

ARTBA believes it is essential that highway transportation be integrated with other transportation modes

to serve the nation’s defense, enhance its competitiveness in world markets, and improve mobility for all

Americans.

We support and encourage efforts to improve highway access to ports, airports, rail lines and terminals.

Flexibility in Use of Federal Highway Funds

ARTBA believes state and local governments should be given the flexibility to allocate their share of

federal funding within the framework of the Federal-aid Highway Program as they see fit, providing that

national highway needs within their state are met. Providing flexibility to transfer highway program

funds to non-highway activities, however, raises concern.

Shifting limited highway funds to other purposes delays needed highway and bridge capital

improvements. With the U.S. DOT reporting $326 billion in backlogged highway and bridge investment

needs, Highway Trust Fund Highway Account dollars should be earmarked exclusively for highway and

bridge improvements.

State and Local Decision-Making Authority

Congress has given state transportation departments and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO’s)

broad authority and responsibility for planning, prioritizing and developing highway and bridge projects

that qualify for federal aid. In carrying out these responsibilities, it is essential that states continue to be

allowed to streamline federal program requirements, particularly in the area of project oversight where

certification is required.

The Planning and Project Selection Processes

ISTEA created new responsibilities in the areas of project selection and funding. Implementation has

affected significant shifts in the decision-making roles of state and local governments. Congress should

examine where the process has worked and where difficulties have been encountered and make

appropriate adjustments.

Modification of Financial Constraint Provisions

Federal requirements that strictly limit state Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs) and State

Transportation Implementation Plans (STIPs) to current resources should be modified to allow for the

delay or cancellation of programmed projects. States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)

should be permitted a reasonable level of over-programming to assure that all available federal funding is

utilized. ARTBA also believes that constraining MPO plans to current resources is inappropriate and

counterproductive. MPO plans should define workable solutions to projected needs and be used to

define funding needs, regardless of current revenues.

Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Streamlining

Rigorous cost-benefit analysis should be required for any federal regulation that impacts transportation

development. In general, regulations resulting from ISTEA of 1991 were overly prescriptive, resource

intensive, and have added great cost to highway projects and program administration for little benefit.

ISTEA provisions ripe for such analysis are those dealing with metropolitan planning regulations and the

management systems ostensibly required to deal with traffic congestion, public transportation and

intermodal systems. Congress, with input from state and local government, the private sector, and the

public, should aim to eliminate or streamline existing regulations.

Partnering

ARTBA believes the partnering process should be implemented on all highway projects-from conception

through construction. It is essential that partnering includes the project’s design engineers, contractor,

subcontractors, and public owner.

Systems Management

The pavement, bridge, public transit, safety, intermodal and congestion management systems mandated

by ISTEA of 1991 should be encouraged, but made voluntary. In the least, the reauthorization legislation

should exempt unpaved roads from the pavement management system. In regard to other management

systems, a similar, narrower scope of applicability should be developed by the U.S. DOT in cooperation

with the responsible state and local agencies.

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program

The goals of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program should be to attract certifiable DBE

firms, to enable and assist them to grow and develop within the safe harbor of the DBE program, and to

graduate them into the broader, unsheltered market as financially viable and technically proficient

construction companies. The DBE program should use the rate at which DBE firms successfully graduate

into the unsheltered construction market as its primary metric.

The periodic re-justification for the compelling need for DBE programs does not justify the lack of a time

limit on how long a DBE firm may remain certified. Longevity in the program is a function of either a

failure to “narrowly tailor” the program or the lack of business development and technical assistance or

both.

Long-standing programmatic issues should be fixed. These include how goals should be set, over

concentration and reverse discrimination within the meaning of 49 CFR §26.7(a), the meaning of

“unreasonably high price” and “commercially useful function,” making “good faith effort” less subjective,

making certification databases user friendly, and measuring and reporting DBE capacity.

Incentive/Disincentive Clauses

ARTBA supports the inclusion of incentive/disincentive clauses in highway construction contracts. This

practice rewards contractors who utilize good management practices and innovative techniques and

technologies to deliver contracted work prior to deadline. It also reduces inconvenience to the highway

user caused by construction activity.

Warranting and Guaranteeing Highway Work

ARTBA believes quality construction is essential to the success and credibility of the U.S. highway

program. ARTBA also believes that the nation’s highway and bridge network stands testament to the

high quality of the industry’s craftsmanship relative to the level of public investment in the program (See

“Highway Quality” policy statement). Policy makers must understand, however, that the Federal-aid

Highway System is owned and operated by public agencies on behalf of the taxpayer.

Final payment to a contractor for work conducted is not made until the public owner agency has

inspected and certified that the project has been built to the specifications that it set forth. Further,

highway contractors do not have control over the myriad elements that affect the durability of a highway

project (i.e., level of public investment made, initially and in routine maintenance; specification of design

and materials that must be used in construction; traffic volume and allowable weights; etc.). For these

reasons, ARTBA believes it is unreasonable for government to require a contractor to warrant or

guarantee a highway project and will oppose such initiatives.

Privatization of Highway/Bridge Maintenance

To maximize the federal investment, Federally-aided highways and bridges must be adequately

maintained. Experience has shown that contracting out highway and bridge maintenance activities to

private-sector firms can save tax dollars and improve efficiency. Surface transportation law should

encourage greater use of contracting out for the maintenance of these structures.

Research and Development

Every effort must be made to ensure that highway users receive maximum benefit from every dollar

invested in highway capital improvements. To help achieve this goal, greater emphasis must be placed

on public and private highway research and development programs and technology transfer activities

that can bring new products, techniques and ideas quickly into the field. In support of these goals, ARTBA

urges:

• Expanded federal support and involvement in highway-related research, particularly in the areas of

safety, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and pavement durability;

• Continued federal support for the Local Technical Assistance Program, which serves highway

technology transfer centers across the nation, and university transportation centers that facilitate

regional solutions to transportation challenges;

• Implementation, where appropriate and practical, of products and techniques developed by the

Strategic Highway Research Program; and

• Federal government encouragement through special tax incentives and other means of private sector

research and development projects that have the potential to improve the quality, durability, safety and

operation of our highways and bridges.

Federal Highway Program Accountability

To respect the integrity of highway user fee revenues and the trust of U.S. taxpayers, the federal highway

program should be as transparent as possible. As such, the U.S. DOT should fully report how Highway

Trust Fund revenues are spent and quantify the nation’s surface transportation needs on at least a

biennial basis.

Recycled Materials

Federal surface transportation law should encourage, but not mandate, the use of recycled materials in

federal-aid highway projects when it is economical and technologically feasible and applied research has

provided adequate assurance that human health, safety, the environment and pavement quality are not

compromised. Design criteria should not be lowered to allow the use of recycled materials.

Promotion of Innovative Technologies and Materials Testing

To accelerate the introduction of better materials and more efficient designs, equipment and

technologies into transportation development, states should be given the latitude to test new and

innovative technologies on Federal-aid highway projects without prior approval from the FHWA.

Bridge Formula/Truck Weights

ARTBA believes the current federal bridge weight formula should be replaced with the formula developed

by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI-HS20). Such an action would be consistent with the findings of

the Transportation Research Board that the current federal bridge formula is “unnecessarily restrictive,

particularly in regard to specialty hauling vehicles.” ARTBA also supports initiation of a special permit

program for specialty hauling vehicles that would permit them to exceed federal axle weight limitations

and be exempt from bridge formula requirements when operating on the Interstate Highway System, as

long as they do not exceed 80,000 lbs.

Heavy Trucks

The accommodation of heavy truck traffic results in greater costs to maintain existing facilities and the

need to provide increased structural strength on new and rehabilitated roads and bridges. There is a

need to complete the necessary research on effective methods to reduce the damaging effect of heavy

truck traffic on the highway system and to better utilize the greater capacity of our modern highways and

bridges.

Use of Highway Right-of-Way

ARTBA encourages the use of highway right-of-way for public transportation purposes as long as such use

does not limit highway use.

Border Infrastructure

ARTBA supports and encourages initiatives that will improve highway infrastructure along the U.S.-

Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders.

Addressing Traffic Diversity

Highways must be designed and constructed in ways that assure the maximum safety and efficiency

possible for all highway users, recognizing the vast differences that exist in the size and weight of motor

vehicles that must share the road. Provisions must also be made on roads and streets for pedestrians,

bicycles, mopeds and motorcycles, buses and other high-occupancy vehicles.

Pay-for-Performance Contracts

It has been suggested by some that a “pay-for-performance” approach be used in contracts for Federal-

aid highway work. The concept seeks to tie payment to contractors for work already performed to

specification to, among other things, the durability over time of highway pavements-something

contractors have little control over. (See ARTBA “Highway Quality” policy statement for extended

discussion of this situation.) ARTBA believes this concept would inject subjective judgments into the

open competitive bidding process and cause contractors serious financial problems. For these reasons,

we oppose “pay-for-performance” contracts.

Require Payment of Prejudgment Interest

When a contractual claim on a federal-aid surface transportation project is found in favor of the private-

sector architect, engineer, or contractor, the owner agency should be required to pay them prejudgment

interest on damages, or otherwise provide an equitable adjustment for costs incurred as a result of the

claim or change order.

Require Owner Agencies to Pay Damages for Delays

Currently, owner agencies are permitted to charge contractors for engineering costs associated with

Federal-aid surface transportation project delays caused by the contractor. Federal law should require

owner agencies to compensate contractors for costs associated with project delays caused by owner

decisions or inaction. These costs include those associated with idle labor and equipment.

Addressing Latent Defects

Highway contractors are paid for work that has been certified by the government owner agency to have

met contractual project specifications. Contractors should not be held responsible or financially liable for

subsequent problems or latent defects that could be caused by many reasons beyond their control, i.e.

inadequate owner agency design or materials specifications; weather; unanticipated traffic volume and

loads; unenforced truck weight restrictions. ARTBA opposes the use of the latent defect clause by an

owner agency that extends potential liability beyond state statutes of limitations, state statutes of

repose, or warranty provisions as applicable.

Hours of Service

ARTBA believes construction vehicle drivers should be exempt from the hours of service requirements if

they operate their vehicles within 100 miles of their home base.

U.S. DOT Training Requirements

ARTBA believes the U.S. DOT mandated training requirements create an undue hardship on the

construction industry and should be repealed.

Owner Controlled Insurance Programs

The management of a construction company and work site is ultimately responsible for placing its

employees in as safe an environment as possible. Owner controlled insurance programs (OCIPs),

however, remove the contractors from the insurance claims process and hinder the direct interaction

between contractors and injured employee, thereby impeding the claims process. ARTBA opposes the

use of OCIPs on transportation construction projects, since such policies are not in the best interests of

the contractor, the employees, the public owner, or the individual citizen.

Design-Build

The transportation construction industry is continuously looking for new and better ways to achieve its

objective of delivering a high caliber product that meets the nation’s transportation infrastructure needs.

Inherent in this process is the desire to provide value without sacrificing service or quality. The low bid

system of procurement has historically succeeded in achieving these objectives in a competitive, open,

cost-effective, efficient and fair manner. In order to expedite project delivery, while still achieving the

highest quality of transportation projects, many have implemented alternate delivery methods. These

alternate methods range from procurement to financing to construction practices.

ARTBA continues to support and promote the low bid procurement process as the most favored project

delivery system for most projects, which includes awarding professional services contracts through the

qualification-based selection process, and construction contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. There

may be well-defined projects that are suited for alternative procurement methods, offering the industry

the opportunity to implement flexibility in project delivery methods.

Such projects might include the need for unusual and/or innovative financing arrangements, certainty in

pricing and/or scheduling, a need to address specific technical challenges, or other special

circumstances. Public owners should carefully consider the use of the appropriate delivery system,

making sure that project’s needs are consistent with the delivery system being utilized. The estimated

contract amount of a project should not be the determining factor of whether or not a project is suited

for design-build or other alternate procurement methods.

Public owners should continue to make every effort to let projects through the traditional low bid

system. ARTBA is firmly dedicated to advocating reforms that will shorten the project delivery time

under the traditional low bid system.

The use of the alternate procurement methods by public owners should not be mandated by the federal

government; state and local authorities should be allowed maximum flexibility in determining their own

procurement methods. If public owners opt to use alternate procurement methods, they should

consider the following elements as part of their procurement process:

A two-step procurement system where bidders on a project are qualified through a preliminary screening

process, whether it be a pre-qualification process, a surety bond-based system, or an arrangement

whereby a bidder demonstrates understanding of the technical requirements of the project, or any

combination thereof. Such a system should be based solely on well-defined, objective, measurable

criteria relevant to the project’s size, value, duration, technical features and complexity. T he pre-

qualification criteria and how the various requirements will be evaluated and what weight they will have

in the final determination of the qualification shall unambiguously be communicated to the

proposer/bidder in advance of bid preparation and shall be tailored to encourage participation by all

qualified contractors and designers.

Because the use of the alternate procurement method requires more resources in the preparation of the

proposal/bid than the traditional low bid system, public owners should pay a fee to each unsuccessful but

responsive and competitive proposer/bidder for their preparation work. This fee should be based on the

size of the project and the complexity of the proposal/bid process. This should not necessarily imply that

the owner will then “own” any ideas, concepts or innovations that the team has developed.

The bid selection process should be open and objective, well defined, on the public record and as isolated

from political influence as possible. The bid price should be the most significant factor in determining the

final bid selection. There also should be a process whereby, upon request of any unsuccessful bidder, the

project owner will provide detailed information as to that bidder’s scoring against the criteria.

Roadway Safety

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, approximatelyu 35,000 people die and

nearly three million are injured each year on America’s roadways. The U.S. Department of Transportation

indicates that poor road conditions and obsolete road designs are a factor in about 14,000 highway

deaths each year. Americans tolerate this carnage under the misimpression that it is unavoidable. That

is not true. Prioritizing investments in improved roadway design, construction and operation can save

thousands of lives every year.

This is a public health crisis that demands a new paradigm. One key factor jeopardizing travellers is the

inadequate capacity in our basic roadway infrastructure. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, since

1982, the U.S. population has grown 24 percent. During that same period, vehicle miles of travel rose by

74 percent; yet, total U.S. road capacity has increased by only 6 percent. More cars crowded together on

roadways frustrate drivers into shortening following distances and adopting more aggressive driving

styles. Demographic factors suggest that roadway safety challenges will mount dramatically in coming

years unless officials at all levels of government are able to take dramatic action to reverse current

trends. The U.S. Administration on Aging estimates that the number of older drivers in the U.S. will

double between the years 2000 and 2030-one in five Americans will be age 65 or older. While elderly

people safely use the nation’s roadways every day, studies indicate clearly that physiological changes

related to aging (e.g., declining vision, physical fitness, etc.) make these highway users much more

vulnerable to injury in a crash. To allow this growing segment of the population to travel safer and longer,

the Federal Highway Administration has published a list of guidelines and recommendations for roadway

safety improvements that would better accommodate the needs of older drivers.

Providing a safer roadway system for all Americans must be a top public policy priority. ARTBA members

are committed to a goal of developing a “zero-fatality” roadway infrastructure environment.

“Vision Zero” Policy Premise

ARTBA operates from the premise that users will always make errors. Distractions, impairments,

drowsiness and other factors will lead to driver mistakes. Design, construction and operation of the

transportation network should emanate from this premise, allowing for the development of a more

“forgiving” roadway system.

This requires a new paradigm. America’s basic road safety strategy today is aimed at reducing human

error. Most federal efforts focus on reducing the number of crashes by improving motorists’ behavior.

ARTBA turns that premise around by accepting the fact that some motorists will inevitably make

mistakes. They pay for their mistakes with their lives – or the lives of innocent victims in other vehicles.

On all major routes-and others to the extent practicable-our roadway system must anticipate user error

and be designed, constructed, equipped, and operated to forgive the errant user.

Severity vs. Frequency

In conjunction with reducing fatalities, ARTBA believes our transportation system must be improved to

reduce the severity of incidents. In some situations (such as the use of roundabouts), a possible increased

rate in the frequency of accidents is a viable trade-off for a decrease in the severity of injuries. We need

to prioritize the quality of human life and health above the rate of traffic incidents.

ARTBA’s policy does not remove responsibility from the system user to operate his or her vehicle in a safe

and courteous manner. All transportation users have an obligation to follow laws, standards and customs

that promote safe and efficient use of the system. At the same time, funds must be provided in order to

give system owners greater opportunity and the ability to properly operate their systems.

To date, U.S. policy accepts the fact that we have an imperfect system and we try to reduce the unsafe

consequences of that system. ARTBA’s safety goal is developing a transportation system that contains

zero predictable crashes with severe consequences, beginning with the major networks and following

with all other roadways to the extent practicable.

Paradigm Shift

The ARTBA’s vision requires a paradigm shift on two parallel tracks:

1. The focus of reducing incidents on America’s transportation system must be viewed a reducing severity

of injuries as opposed to reducing the number of crashes.

2. The policy anticipates user errors and emphasizes design, construction and maintenance of a system that

will be “forgiving” of errant behavior.

This change in philosophy is warranted because system users do not have all the relevant information

necessary to make critical decisions related to their safety and the safety of other users. For example,

drivers are repeatedly reminded: “speed kills,” but that problem is not just speed but kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy causes the damage in a collision or a crash, yet users are blind to it. Users tend to feel safe

when they shouldn’t. If the transportation system looked dangerous-and hazards were visible in a

manner which users could appreciate-reliance on improved user behavior would be warranted. The

design and operation of America’s transportation system must compensate for this information gap and

systematically seek to eliminate such invisible hazards.

Advocacy

Using its division and federation structure, which uniquely represents the spectrum of organizations and

individuals involved in transportation construction, maintenance and operations, ARTBA will endeavor to

improve roadway safety through involvement in legislative, regulatory, industry, and consensus

processes, including:

1. Monitoring and analyzing conditions that could substantially affect the design and function of the U.S.

road network;

2. Engaging in a dialogue between government, private sector businesses and academia to apply systematic

corrective procedures to prevent road accidents that result in death or serious injury;

3. Cooperating with other organizations (public and private) and individuals to improve safety on the

transportation network;

4. Initiating research and development within the transportation construction sector and monitoring

research on the importance to safe transportation network operations.

Priority Areas

While the zero-fatality approach may take years to achieve, there are several focus areas:

Improving roadway work zone safety for all roadway users through public information, materials

development, use of high-quality temporary traffic control devices, promoting unit bid pricing for

providing, installing, moving, replacing, and maintaining traffic control devices and safety systems,

increasing use of positive protective measures between motorists and workers, and for the provision of

law enforcement, and ensuring proper deployment of workers, work zone safety equipment,

technologies and strategies;

Supporting continuation of categorical funding for safety construction, such as the Highway Safety

Improvement Program and Rail-Highway Grade Crossing programs;

Encouraging roadway owners, designers, constructors, and other industry employers to make worker

safety a high priority within their individual firms;

Developing, distributing, and providing safety and health training and education materials to assist

industry members with their statutory obligations to provide a work place that is safe from recognizable

and preventable hazards.

Designing and operating roadways to meet the needs of older drivers, particularly by considering the

current recommendations and guidelines in the Federal Highway Administration’s “Highway Design

Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians;”

Increasing funding levels of safety research programs and promoting development and implementation

of new technologies that will significantly reduce the number and severity of crashes in a cost-effective

manner;

Using road safety audits to identify high hazard locations, and increased funding for the development and

implementation of affordable and effective safety interventions;

Advocating increased funding at all government levels to improve the design, construction, maintenance

and safety-conscious operations of new and existing transportation infrastructure;

Improving the quality of infrastructure design, construction, maintenance and operations in order to

provide the highest possible roadway safety conditions on a timely, cost-effective basis;

Creating a federal program to dedicate funds for safety improvements on hazardous two-lane, rural

and/or low-volume roadways;

Improving procedures and processes for collecting, organizing, tabulating, analyzing and disseminating

data regarding the safe and efficient operation of the transportation network;

Assisting ARTBA members, network owners and operators to educate personnel and implement safe

construction, operation and maintenance procedures to reduce the potential for tort liability;

Funding research and information dissemination on the safe transport of hazardous materials;

Encouraging uniformity and quality in the design, testing and deployment of traffic control devices.

Increasing the funding levels for Congestion Relief to significantly reduce the number of bottlenecks on

our nation’s congested corridors by adding new capacity, making more efficient use of existing

transportation facilities and by utilizing new technologies, through the use managed lanes, reversible,

contraflow lanes, moveable medians, HOV and special use lanes.

Advocating federal funding for a Roadway Safety Hardware Asset Management System wherein states

would be required to survey and identify currently installed highway safety hardware on the National

Highway System and develop an implementation plan for updating the system’s safety hardware to meet

currently accepted standards.

Advocating the enactment of national and state performance standards for highway safety programs and,

in order to ensure accountability toward achieving results, encouraging that states be required to

obligate additional available Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds where state

highway safety targets have not been met.

Encouraging the increased use of- and funding for Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies to

improve safety and relieve congestion, including variable messaging signs, traffic signal priority systems,

real-time information systems, and the application of vehicle to infrastructure connectivity under the U.S.

Department of Transportation’s IntelliDrive program.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMAmerica’s transportation system is facing a number of unique challenges that need to be addressed in the

next surface transportation authorization bill. We are in the midst of extraordinary pressure to identify

new methods of financing our transportation system and reducing traffic fatalities, while at the same

time finding innovative solutions to combat congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

Solving these challenges will require transportation agencies and private sector partners to use all of the

tools at their disposal, including multimodal operational strategies, intelligent transportation systems

(ITS), and a new customer-focused culture within our public agencies to help prevent crashes before they

happen, reduce traffic congestion and freight bottlenecks, provide more effective incident and

emergency response, reduce energy use and emissions, and enable innovative 21st century financing

options.

Policy Position on Operations & Management Program

To assist state and local agencies in achieving greater transportation system performance, ARTBA

believes the next authorization bill should provide dedicated funding and incentives for public agencies

and private sector partners to deploy smart technologies and invest in operational improvements that

will prevent traffic crashes and fatalities, reduce gridlock, preserve the environment, and create a

smarter, more efficient multimodal transportation network. To that end, ARTBA supports the $3 billion

per year Operations and Management program requested by the American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

This new program would provide funding for investments to improve system performance by enhancing

operations. Examples of eligible activities include: real time system management, traveler information,

emergency response, improving travel reliability, reducing traffic delays by using managed lanes,

reversible lanes and dynamic lanes, implementing roadway operating condition technologies, signal

timing and synchronization, intersection and street improvements, snow and ice monitoring and

management technology, incident management, commercial vehicle operations, work zone safety and

mobility strategies that include lane reconfiguration with positive protection, demand management, and

access management. States should be encouraged to program funds for low-cost, rapid deployment

projects designed to reduce delay and improve reliability.

In crafting the language that defines the Operations and Management program, Congress should include

the following recommendations:

States should be encouraged to program Operations and Management funds for low-cost, rapid

deployment projects designed to reduce delay and improve reliability. These projects would have

accelerated environmental review.

Operations and Management funds should be used to connect and integrate operations centers along

connected corridors and to support management of emergency response functions as part of operation

centre responsibilities.

Eliminate any time restrictions on use of title 23 federal highway funds for operations & maintenance

costs.

Provide increased flexibility to use road pricing as a congestion management strategy.

Background

Congestion can be “recurring” or “non-recurring.” Recurring congestion exists primarily as a result of

capacity constraints on the existing system, which is what we often see on a daily basis in locations where

demand exceeds capacity (e.g., rush hour). Non-recurring congestion typically occurs as the result of

traffic crashes, special events, and/or inclement weather. It is not necessarily a daily occurrence, but

often occurs relatively frequently – e.g., on a high-volume road with many traffic incidents. Non-recurring

congestion makes up roughly half of all congestion.

Congestion is not an insurmountable problem. As documented in a recent report, NCHRP 20 24A, Task 3:

Effective Strategies for Congestion Management, there are many effective strategies that can make a real

difference. State and local governments are already doing many of these things – e.g., installation of ITS,

geometric bottleneck improvements, introduction of managed lanes, etc. Many strategies can be

implemented quickly and at relatively low cost, provided that there is funding available and institutional

barriers can be overcome.

Funding for congestion relief comes from several of the core federal programs. There is no single

“congestion relief” program, nor does there need to be. However, there is a need for a heightened focus

on operational improvements and low cost capital investments that can help to avoid or relieve

congestion. A new Operations Program would help to ensure targeted funding for operations, while

retaining the flexibility to use funding from other programs for operations as well.

Not all roadways face congestion issues, and in fact many rural roadways instead face a far greater

problem: safety. Examples include single vehicle run-off crashes, localized weather hazards, construction

events, and unexpected non-recurring congestion resulting in secondary crashes (crashes in the back-up).

The Operations and Management program eligibility includes solutions that are applicable to both

congestion and safety problems, and therefore benefit both urban and rural environments.

Simply put, the focus on systems operations and management for non-recurring incidents, for safety, and

emergency management in large and small urban and rural areas is essential to making more efficient use

of the existing system and delivering the performance demanded by the travelling public and our

economy.

Examples of systems operations and management

Traffic Signalization and Control (new signal installation, signal re-timing, signal hardware upgrades, signal

interconnection, and demand-responsive signal system)

Intersection and Street Improvements (intersection/street widening, lane assignment changes,

installation of turn lanes, bus loading bays)

Bottleneck Removal (re-striping, installation of signage, addition of lanes, reduction of merging and

weaving)

Planned Special-Event Management (traffic management plans, signal timing plans, and dynamic lane

assignments)

Access Management (turn lanes, driveway closures)

Traffic Management (traffic management centres; surveillance; variable message signs, ramp metering,

network surveillance, surface street control; freeway, arterial and management; value pricing, electronic

toll collection)

Managed Lane strategies that include HOV, HOT, reversible lanes, dynamic lanes, moveable medians and

special use lanes to provide congestion relief

Commercial Vehicle Operation (electronic clearance, weigh-in-motion, HAZMAT management, truck-only

lanes)

Incident Response and Emergency Management (integrated incident management systems, emergency

routing, roadway service patrols, disaster traveller information)

Information Systems (traveller information systems, national 511 system, road weather information and

management systems, variable message signs)

Work Zone Management that include safety & mobility strategies that enables lane reconfiguration with

positive protection to enhance safety

Demand Management (flexible work hours/work weeks, telecommuting, car/vanpooling, land use policy,

pedestrian and bicycling, restrictions on freight delivery times, managed lanes, road/area wide/corridor

pricing)