US

- Highways Policy

Issue Background
Scope 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 nations 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 nations total road mileage, but
handles 24.5 percent of the nations 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
nations 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 userslicensed driversin 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 milesover 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 nations economy and travel on the
nations 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 Americas competitiveness in the
world marketplace with a land area of 3.6 million square miles; however, we face
transportation challenges unique among the worlds economically developed
nations. For example, according to the U.S. DOT, the average freight trip by forhire 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 nations 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 nations 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 nations 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 nations 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 antihighway 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 nations 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 Issues

Support 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 nations highway and
bridge system.

ARTBA supports permanent extension of the federal Highway Trust Funds

expenditure authorityand funding sources to support itto 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 funds 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 nations
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 nations 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 costeffective 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-today 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 ARTBAs 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.
mechanisms

While ARTBA encourages the development of innovative financing

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 Issues

The 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 nations 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-theart 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 nations
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 Acts payroll reporting
requirements from weekly to monthly; and
Exempting from the Acts 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.
ARTBAs 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 multibillion 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. DOTs 2013 report to Congress on the condition and
investment requirements of the nations 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 nations highway mileage, the NHS
handles 44.5 percent of the nations 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.
DOTs 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. DOTs 2013 report to Congress on the condition and investment
requirements of the nations 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 nations 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 nonhighway 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 (MPOs) 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 projects 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 nations highway and bridge
network stands testament to the high quality of the industrys 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
nations 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
nations 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 welldefined 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 projects
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

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 projects 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

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 bidders 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 Americas
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 nations 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

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. Americas 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.
ARTBAs 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. ARTBAs 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 ARTBAs vision requires a paradigm shift on two parallel tracks:

1.

The focus of reducing incidents on Americas 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 shouldnt. 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 Americas 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 Administrations 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 nations 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 systems 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 Transportations IntelliDrive program.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Americas 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)