<DOC>
[105 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:42369.wais]

                                                S. Hrg. 105-113, Part I
 
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT

=======================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                                AND THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                                 PART I
     FEBRUARY 13 AND 26, MARCH 6, 13, AND 19, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC

                                PART II
                  MARCH 22, 1997--COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO
                 MARCH 26, 1997--KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
                   MARCH 28, 1997--LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
                   APRIL 7, 1997--NEW YORK, NEW YORK
                 APRIL 21, 1997--WARWICK, RHODE ISLAND
                 MAY 7 AND JUNE 6, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                               ----------

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-369 CC                     WASHINGTON : 1999

_______________________________________________________________________
            For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 
                                 20402


               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
                 JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia             MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire          DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho               FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado               RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
                     Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
               J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

           Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                   JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia, Chairman

ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire          MAX BAUCUS, Montana
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho               DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        HARRY REID, Nevada
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                BARBARA BOXER, California

                                  (ii)



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           FEBRUARY 13, 1997
                 TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION ISSUES
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.........    10
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Missouri.......................................................    24
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...    62
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island     9
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...    30
Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho......    12
    Report, Our National Laboratories and Transportation Research    13
Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  York...........................................................    11
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada..........    26
Smith, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.    62
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming.......    25
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
    Letter, to Senate Budget Committee...........................     5

                               WITNESSES

Card, Andrew H., Jr., president and CEO, American Automobile 
  Manufacturers Association......................................    42
    Prepared statement...........................................   107
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........   109
Downey, Hon. Mortimer L., Deputy Secretary, Department of 
  Transportation.................................................    32
    Prepared statement...........................................    63
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........    83
    Report, 1995 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation 
      System: Condition and Performance..........................    84
Kulash, Damian, president and CEO, ENO Transportation Foundation, 
  Inc............................................................    51
    Prepared statement...........................................   211
Pisarski, Alan E., author........................................    45
    Prepared statement...........................................   109
    Report, Commuting in America................................119-169
Rensink, Darrel, president, American Association of State Highway 
  and Transportation Officials...................................    47
    Prepared statement...........................................   205
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........   209

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Reports:
    Commuting in America........................................119-169
    Economic Returns from Transportation Investment.............169-205
    1995 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System: 
      Condition and Performance..................................84-107
    Our National Laboratories and Transportation Research........ 13-22
                                 ------                                

                           FEBRUARY 26, 1997
         ADMINISTRATION'S TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND PROPOSALS
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.........   220
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...   222
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island   219
Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho......   222
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada..........   225
Smith, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.   224
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming.......   224
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of 
  Virginia.......................................................   219

                               WITNESSES

Dittmar, Hank, executive director, Surface Transportation Policy 
  Project........................................................   261
    Prepared statement...........................................   285
Fay, William D., president and CEO, American Highway Users 
  Alliance.......................................................   259
    Prepared statement...........................................   280
Slater, Hon. Rodney E., Secretary, U.S. Department of 
  Transportation.................................................   226
    Prepared statement...........................................   271

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter, to Senator Chafee from Commonwealth of Massachusetts,....   289
                                 ------                                

                             MARCH 6, 1997
                TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.........   296
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada..........   298
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island   291
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of 
  Virginia.......................................................   314

                               WITNESSES

Costantino, James, president and CEO, ITS America................   331
    Prepared statement...........................................   387
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Chafee...........................................   393
        Senator Reid.............................................   392
DeLauro, Hon. Rosa L., U.S. Representative from the State of 
  Connecticut....................................................   291
    Prepared statement...........................................   294
Flanagan, Daniel V., Jr., chairman, Commission to Promote 
  Investment in America's Infrastructure.........................   328
    Prepared statement...........................................   376
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Reid..........   384
Downey, Mortimer, Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation; 
  accompanied by Jane Garvey, Deputy Federal Highway 
  Administrator and Christine Johnson, Director, Joint Program 
  Office, Intelligent Transportation Systems.....................   299
    List of Principles, ITS of America...........................   348
    Prepared statement...........................................   341
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Boxer............................................   352
        Senator Reid.............................................   349
Pfeffer, Gerald S., senior vice president, United Infrastructure 
  Company........................................................   326
    Prepared statement...........................................   370
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Chafee...........................................   374
        Senator Reid.............................................   376
Scheinberg, Phyllis F., Associate Director, Transportation and 
  Telecommunications Issues, General Accounting Office; 
  accompanied by Joseph Christoff, Assistant Director, and Yvonne 
  Pufahl, Senior Evaluator.......................................   316
    Prepared statement...........................................   353
    Report, Urban Transportation--Challenges to Widespread 
      Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, General 
      Accounting Office..........................................   358
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Chafee...........................................   369
        Senator Reid.............................................   369
        Senator Warner...........................................   369
Skinner, Robert E., Jr., executive director, Transportation 
  Research Board, National Academy of Sciences...................   333
    Prepared statement...........................................   395
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Reid..........   398

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Intelligent Transportation Society of America, letter to 
  Secretary-Designate Rodney Slater............................348, 386
                                 ------                                

                             MARCH 13, 1997
                  PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY AND FLEXIBILITY
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.........   416
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Missouri.......................................................   416
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...   422
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island   406
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida.........   421
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  Jersey.........................................................   419
Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  York...........................................................   406
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada..........   423
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of 
  Virginia.......................................................   403

                               WITNESSES

Biden, Jr., Hon. Joseph R., U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Delaware.......................................................   408
    Prepared statement...........................................   410
Donohue, Thomas J., president and chief executive officer, 
  American Trucking Associations, Inc............................   441
    Letter, response to chart used at hearing....................   482
    Prepared statement...........................................   476
    Response to additional questions from Senator Chafee.........   483
Downs, Thomas M., chairman, president and chief executive 
  officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)......   444
    Prepared statement...........................................   486
Huerta, Hon. Michael, Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of 
  Transportation.................................................   424
    Prepared statement...........................................   458
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........   462
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont..   413
    Prepared statement...........................................   414
Loftus, William E., president, American Short Line Railroad......   437
    Prepared statement...........................................   472
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona........   414
Phillips, Karen B., senior vice president, Association of 
  American Railroads.............................................   439
    Prepared statement...........................................   490
Roth, Jr., Hon. William V., U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Delaware.......................................................   404
White, Leslie, chairperson, American Public Transit Association, 
  on Behalf of the Clark County Public Transportation Benefit 
  Area Authority.................................................   434
    Prepared statement...........................................   464
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........   467

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter, Rails to Trails program, Vincent B. Mancini..............   517
Recommendations, American Public Transit Association.......484, 492-512
Statements:
    American Public Transit Association.........................493-512
    Association of American Railroads............................   513
    Midwest Intercity High Speed Rail............................   519
                                 ------                                

                             MARCH 19, 1997
            ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.........   526
Boxer, Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California........   570
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island   521
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida.........   547
Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma........   543
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada..........   544
Smith, Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.........   570
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming.......   526
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of 
  Virginia.......................................................   533

                               WITNESSES

Cooke, M. Michael, chair, Board of County Commissioners, Douglas 
  County, CO.....................................................   564
    Letters to Senators Allard and Chafee.......................635-644
    Prepared statement...........................................   631
Dahms, Lawrence, D., executive director, Metropolitan 
  Transportation Commission......................................   562
    Letter to Representative Shuster.............................   628
    Prepared statement...........................................   626
    Recommendations to amend title 23, U.S.C.....................   630
Dittmar, Hank, executive director, Surface Transportation Policy 
  Project........................................................   555
    Prepared statement...........................................   620
Gardiner, David M., Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, 
  and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency................   527
    Article, The Emission Reduction Potential of the Congestion 
      Mitigation and Air Quality Program.........................   594
    Prepared statement...........................................   582
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........   590
Garvey, Jane F., Acting Administrator, Federal Highway 
  Administration.................................................   523
    Article, Florida Highway Travel Demand--Current and Future...   581
    Letters to Senators Thomas and Graham........................   580
    Prepared statement...........................................   574
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........   578
Hiemstra, Hal, vice president of National Policy, Rails to Trails   552
    Prepared statement...........................................   609
Kenison, Leon, S., Commissioner, Department of Transportation, 
  State of New Hampshire.........................................   557
    Prepared statement...........................................   623
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........   625
Maguire, Meg, president, Scenic America..........................   553
    Prepared statement...........................................   616
Stowe, Timothy S., vice president, Anderson and Associates, 
  Incorporated; on behalf of American Consulting Engineers 
  Council........................................................   567
    Prepared statement...........................................   649
Vidal, Guillermo, executive director, Department of 
  Transportation, State of Colorado..............................   566
    Letter to Senator Chafee.....................................   648
    List, ISTEA reauthorization principles.......................   646
    Prepared statement...........................................   644
Walker, Thomas, executive director, Wisconsin Road Builders 
  Association, on behalf of the American Road and Transportation 
  Builders Association...........................................   549
    Prepared statement...........................................   602
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........   606

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letters:
    Carpenter, Margaret..........................................   640
    Cooke, M. Michael............................................   635
    Danish, Paul D...............................................   637
    Erker, Cynthia...............................................   635
    Flaum, Martin J..............................................   637
    Hollaway, Patricia B.........................................   638
    Jones, Donald K..............................................   638
    Lasater, Gary................................................   640
    Lawrence, Michelle...........................................   638
    Mendez, Jana.................................................   637
    O'Boyle, John R..............................................   639
    Page, Polly..................................................   636
    Stewart, Ron.................................................   637
    Stone, John P................................................   638
    Tauer, Paul E................................................   638
Report, Emission Reduction Potential of the Congestion Mitigation 
  and Air Quality Potential......................................   594
Statements:
    Civil War Trust..............................................   658
    Environmental Defense Fund, by Michael A. Replogle, Federal 
      Transportation Director....................................   652


REAUTHORIZATION OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1997

                               U.S. Senate,
         Committee on Environment and Public Works,
         Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.

                 TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION ISSUES

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room 
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John W. Warner (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Warner, Kempthorne, Bond, Inhofe, Thomas, 
Moynihan, Reid, Baucus, and Chafee [ex officio].

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

    Senator Warner. The subcommittee will come to order. Even 
though our witnesses haven't arrived, I think we'll go ahead 
and get started.
    We recognize the presence of the senior Senator from New 
York, who was the father on the Senate side of ISTEA.
    The purpose of these series of hearings is to enact a 
follow-on piece of legislation.
    This first hearing was intended by the distinguished 
ranking member and myself to discuss the changing 
transportation needs of both commercial traffic and personal 
traveling habits; the anticipated funding requirements for our 
surface transportation system; and the benefits our economy 
receives from our investments in transportation.
    The subcommittee's next hearing will be February 26, where 
we will receive the testimony of the new Secretary of 
Transportation, Mr. Slater. He will present the 
Administration's perspective.
    I look forward to working with him. Speaking for myself and 
I think almost everyone that I know on this subcommittee, we 
have a very high professional regard for the Secretary, and for 
that reason I'm optimistic that we can have a meeting of the 
minds between the goals of the Administration and certainly the 
Senate side of the Congress.
    We are well aware of the amount of work ahead of us, and we 
want to meet a September 30 deadline. We know the consequences 
of not doing that, and I'm hopeful that perhaps we can even get 
a step ahead of it.
    About the level of funding, I was joined by distinguished 
colleagues such as Senator Graham and the distinguished 
colleague from Montana and others to put out a letter saying 
that we feel a level of 26 billion authority for this program 
is a satisfactory level for this year. Fifty-seven Senators 
have joined in that letter.
    Now, we all know what's in the highway trust fund. Even if 
we were to take this sum out, according to my calculations, 
between $5 and $8 million would remain.
    It does not require any more taxes. It does not require $26 
billion trying to readdress this tough issue of the 4.3 cents 
now going to the general fund. It's there.
    Now, when I went through law school there was a very clear 
definition of the word ``trust.'' You are a fiduciary. You hold 
it as a trustee for the benefit of others.
    We have represented to the American public, ``When you pay 
your gas taxes, they come to Washington to a trust fund to be 
redistributed back to you for the purpose of improving your 
existing highway system and road system and possibly adding 
newer sections.
    We should hold to that concept of the trust. If we're not 
going to follow the concept of the fiduciary and the trust, 
then I suggest we rename this the ``jailhouse fund,'' and your 
money is sent and it's locked up.
    So let's just be honest with the American public, and I'm 
going to fight very hard, and I'm very glad six other members 
have joined me in this effort--particularly my distinguished 
colleague from Montana.
    Every statistic shows transportation is a very sound 
investment in the United States. For every dollar invested, 
economists anticipate a return of $2.60. The future of our 
country depends on the ability of the American worker to 
compete in a world market.
    How many times have all of us visited our industrial plants 
and asked the question? I did in Luray, VA, in a plant that 
makes blue jeans--I know that sounds prosaic, but it's an 
important economic entity in that rural community of Virginia. 
As I exited, I said, ``Where do I find the basis for your being 
able to compete with Asia?'' And he simply pointed to a truck 
and he said, ``That order came in this morning. We turned it 
around in 2 hours. It's back on that truck and it's on the 
shelf of the merchant the next morning.''
    That, Senator is turn-around time which makes this company 
competitive with the world's cheap labor markets. I hasten to 
say that the laborers in that plant were being paid a fair wage 
for a good day's work.
    I'm also concerned about safety--safety and structural 
integrity of the present system. I'm going to, I hope, be 
joined by others who impress upon Secretary Slater the need for 
the level of funding over and above what the Administration has 
indicated today.
    As yet, our Budget Committee has not responded to my 
request, joined by others, in giving us a higher level of 
funding, but they haven't said no, so there is hope there.
    Goals for ISTEA--I say ISTEA because I supported ISTEA-I. I 
think it's not wise to name this ISTEA-II because, while I 
intend to work toward preserving many of the strides and 
accomplishments in ISTEA-I, I still feel we can make further 
strides, particularly in the area of lessening the control over 
the expenditure of funds in our States.
    As I mentioned earlier this week, Senator Graham and I put 
in the STEP 21 bill. This legislation responds to America's 
need for a strong national transportation system. STEP 21 is a 
reasonably balanced, multi-modal approach that will increase 
our Nation's mobility and permit American products to 
effectively compete again in the global marketplace. It 
recognizes that all regions of the Nation have significant 
transportation requirements and they're different. They're 
different.
    The program for the first time responds to our 
transportation demands using current needs information. This 
approach will address the inequities that have persisted in the 
funding formulas.
    We won't open that fight here today, but let me tell you 
that is serious business to many of us. I'm heartened by the 
fact that the distinguished majority leader has said to me in 
no uncertain terms that he will support me as strongly as 
possible in trying to get an equitable readjustment of a 
formula which is long since outdated. We all know that.
    If there ever were in the history of the Congress a witch's 
brew that was mixed by the legislators, that's that formula 
using criteria that go back to the days just following the 
conclusion of the Pony Express. The time has come. Fortunately, 
I think there are forces in fair and objective minds in the 
Senate today to rework that formula.
    So we're not retreating in any way from ISTEA. We're 
picking out what I hope will be the strongest parts of that. 
We'll continue to work toward greater flexibility of State and 
local decisionmakers to invest their resources in non-highway 
alternatives such as transit and, indeed, commuter rail.
    Gentlemen, I think I will put the balance of mine in so 
that we can shorten our statements.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senator from the 
                        Commonwealth of Virginia
    I want to welcome Deputy Secretary Downey and our other witnesses 
to the subcommittee today as we continue our work to reauthorize the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--or ISTEA.
    For the information of members on the subcommittee and others, the 
purpose of the first hearing is to discuss changing transportation 
trends, both commercial traffic and personal travel habits, the 
anticipated funding requirements for our surface transportation system 
and the benefits our economy receives from our investments in 
transportation.
    The subcommittee's next hearing will be February 26th, where we 
will be pleased to have Secretary Slater present the Administration's 
proposal for ISTEA reauthorization.
    I look forward to working closely with the Department to devise a 
bill that meets our shared goals of improving the mobility of all 
Americans.
    We are well aware of the very significant challenges ahead of us in 
order to enact new legislation before ISTEA expires on September 30. 
Failing to do so will cause serious disruption in project construction 
and planning as no funds will be provided to states after October 1 
until a new surface transportation law is enacted.
    I am committed to meeting that deadline and will work to ensure 
that the subcommittee reports legislation in a responsible timeframe.
    Certainly, an adequate level of Federal funding available from the 
Highway Trust Fund in the next 5 years is critical to our 
reauthorization efforts.
    We must find ways to begin to meet the significant financial 
demands identified by the Department of Transportation to maintain our 
highways and bridges at their current level.
    I was pleased to work with Senator Baucus and other members of the 
subcommittee on a letter to the Budget Committee requesting $26 billion 
in contract authority for this program. The support of 57 Senators 
indicates the strong bipartisan support for a healthy investment in our 
surface transportation program.
    This level of funding can be supported by the revenues in the 
Highway Trust Fund without depleting the balances. It does not depend 
on transferring the 4.3 cents of the gas tax now going to the general 
fund or other additional revenues.
    As the Highway Trust fund consists of taxes collected on the users 
of the system--American drivers--we must use this revenue to maintain 
our transportation system.
    It is also evident that transportation is a sound investment for 
the American taxpayer. According to DOT, for every $1.00 invested, we 
receive an economic return of $2.60.
    I am concerned that the funding levels proposed in the President's 
budget cannot meet the serious structural, safety and capacity demands 
we have today.
    As the subcommittee begins it's work to reauthorize ISTEA, I remain 
committed to a surface transportation system that:
    <bullet> effectively moves people and goods;
    <bullet> provides for the safety of the traveling public;
    <bullet> fosters a healthy economy; and
    <bullet> ensures a consistent level of performance and service 
among the 50 states.
    These are national priorities that must be met.
    Earlier this week, Senator Graham, a member of this subcommittee, 
and I introduced the so-called STEP 21 bill.
    This legislation responds to our need for a strong national 
transportation program.
    STEP 21 is a regionally balanced, multimodal approach that will 
increase our nation's mobility, and permit American products to 
effectively compete in the global marketplace.
    It recognizes that all regions of the Nation have significant 
transportation needs.
    It is a program that, for the first time, responds to our 
transportation demands using current needs information. This approach 
will address the inequities that have persisted in the funding 
formulas.
    In doing so, we provide a program that acknowledges that sparsely 
populated states with large land areas or states with small populations 
cannot ``go it alone.''
    As Important, STEP 21 does not retreat from the principles of ISTEA 
to provide a surface transportation program that is intermodal, 
responds to our environmental needs, and maintains our commitment to 
safety.
    We continue the flexibility of state and local decisionmakers to 
invest their resources in non-highway alternatives--such as transit or 
commuter rail.
    We continue the important role of metropolitan planning 
organizations.
    We recognize that a full and open planning process stimulates 
public participation--which in turn fosters transportation solutions 
that respond to larger community goals.
    We provide a program that is environmentally sound, recognizing 
that transportation plays an important part in our national commitment 
to improving the quality of the air we breathe.
    STEP 21 also continues the Enhancements program that invests in 
alternative forms of transportation--bike paths and pedestrian 
walkways--and mitigates the impacts of past transportation choices.
    With that brief description of my legislation, I want everyone to 
be clear, however, that I intend for the subcommittee's work to be a 
collective process of ideas.
    I look forward to working with all members of the subcommittee, and 
particularly the Ranking Member, Senator Baucus to draft legislation 
that provides a surface transportation program that can respond to the 
demands of the next century.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Senator Warner. We'll turn to our distinguished chairman 
here for a few opening comments.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                     STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

    Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator Warner, 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I want to thank you 
for holding this first hearing on the reauthorization of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which we did, 
as you remember, in 1990. And I want to pay tribute to Senator 
Moynihan, who was such a tremendous leader in that effort in 
that year.
    I think it's terribly important that we remember what the 
name of that legislation was and what the legislation is we're 
working on today, and that is it's the Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act. It's not a highway bill; it's a surface 
transportation act.
    I believe that what we've got to do is make the most 
strategic possible investments into transportation.
    During the 1950's and 1960's it made sense to build an 
interstate highway system. Today I think we have to be more 
creative. We must carefully plan and allocate limited 
resources. Yes, we seek more resources. We've applied to the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, but who knows how much we'll 
get. And no matter how much we get, it won't be enough.
    It's like a general in the war. He never had enough 
ammunition. And so will be the programs that we're dealing 
with.
    So I'm interested in hearing what our panelists have to say 
about which transportation projects and programs will provide 
the greatest economic benefits in the future.
    Wise transportation investment decisions are largely a 
question of what will generate the most efficient flow of 
people and goods. ISTEA was a major step in reorienting the 
focus on personal and commercial travel. Transportation 
decisions have now become part of a larger planning process--a 
process that recognizes how transportation touches every corner 
of our lives.
    Obviously, we're a different Nation now than we were when 
the interstate system was created. We must maintain the 
strengths of the transportation system we have in place, but we 
must build upon them, too, so I look forward to hearing more 
about these important issues.
    We thank the chair.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Hon. John H. Chafee, U.S.  Senator  from the 
                         State of Rhode Island
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to take part in 
this, the first hearing of the new Congress on reauthorization of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Let me point out that 
ISTEA expanded the focus of national policy, recognizing that the 
individual transportation modes function best as a cohesive and 
interrelated system. It transformed what was simply a highway program 
into a surface transportation program dedicated to the mobility of 
passengers and goods.
    The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on 
transportation trends, funding requirements, and the impact of 
transportation on the economy. Transportation plays a critical role in 
the national and global economy. In the United States, it employs more 
than 12 million people; consumes one of every five dollars of total 
household spending; and accounts for 11 percent of the nation's gross 
domestic product.
    There has been a great deal of emphasis on the level of funding for 
transportation, but minimal attention to the question of which 
transportation investments will yield the highest return in the future.
    Now more than ever, strategic investment in transportation is 
critical. During the 1950's and 1960's, it made the most sense for the 
Nation to build an interstate highway system. Today, we need to be more 
creative. We must carefully plan and allocate limited resources. I am 
interested in hearing what our panelists have to say about which 
transportation projects and programs will provide the greatest economic 
benefits in the future.
    Wise transportation investment decisions are largely a question of 
what will generate the most efficient flow of people and goods. Along 
those lines, we must keep a watchful eye on travel trends as we make 
tough transportation policy choices.
    ISTEA was a major step in reorienting the focus on personal and 
commercial travel. Transportation decisions now have become part of a 
larger planning process. A process that recognizes how transportation 
touches every corner of our lives. Policy makers and planners must be 
flexible in adapting to constantly changing transportation needs.
    We are a far different nation than we were when the Interstate 
System was created. The way we live, the way we travel, and even the 
amount of money we have to spend on transportation all have changed--
and will continue to change. We must maintain the strengths of the 
transportation system we have in place--but we must build upon them, 
too.
    I look forward to learning more about these very important issues. 
Thank you.

    Senator Warner. Senator Baucus.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                        STATE OF MONTANA

    Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to echo your words, as well as the words of the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, in recognizing the 
achievements of the Senator from New York. The distinguished 
senior Senator from New York is the one who amazingly put this 
together.
    I can remember a few years ago watching him put the various 
pieces of legislation together in a way that was very 
accommodating. The various parts of the country were very 
appreciative of his utmost grace and style, as befitting the 
Senator from New York, and I just want to thank him publicly 
here very much for the great work that he did.
    Frankly, he set the stage for us. Most people would agree 
that we have a very good surface transportation program. There 
may be a few wrinkles in it, but essentially it has served us 
very well.
    Let's be reminded about the large portion that 
transportation is of our U.S. gross domestic product. I was 
surprised to see what a large percentage it is when this table 
was given to me.
    Housing is No. 1 in our country, about 24 percent. After 
housing, health care is about 15 percent GDP, and then food 13. 
The next-largest function is transportation. It's huge.
    Frankly, as huge as it is, it's clear that we have a great 
need for more dollars, if we can find them, to maintain our 
current program.
    The Department has a needs assessment, which we all know 
about, but the Department of Transportation needs report states 
that almost $50 billion per year will be needed in order to 
maintain current highway conditions--just to maintain. That's 
not in addition.
    The chairman of the subcommittee mentioned that many of us 
are encouraging the Budget Committee and the Appropriations 
Committees to use the full $26 billion that's available in the 
trust fund for each of the next 6 years. Senator Warner 
mentioned that 57 Senators have signed the letter. Actually, 
there are two more Senators that have signed to it. It's 59 
Senators, at least.
    We should do all we can to maintain the transportation 
needs of our country--the various components of the programs, 
in addition to highways. It's all the different forward-looking 
features of an interconnected transportation system that we all 
are working on, and particularly as begun by the Senator from 
New York.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Warner. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Moynihan from New York, who is the ranking member 
of the subcommittee which is conducting this hearing today--
Senator Moynihan.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, U.S. SENATOR 
                   FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Senator Moynihan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for your generous remarks about the ISTEA. I thank my colleague 
from Montana. I thank Senator Warner.
    As we ask ourselves, ``What do we do now?'' it doesn't do 
great harm to pause a moment and say, ``We've not done so badly 
in the past.''
    We're going to hear testimony this morning that the return 
for the highway investments prior to 1970 was 35 percent. 
That's an aggregate for the private sector of 17 percent. If we 
spend this money well, we get a lot back from it.
    Senator Warner's clothing factory is a good example of a 
highway system that made just-in-time inventory and delivery a 
possibility that has enormously affected the economics of the 
private sector quite apart from the convenience of the roads, 
themselves.
    I would much agree with Senator Chafee that we are dealing 
with the Surface Transportation Act. The era of the 
construction of the interstate system has ended, as it was 
intended to do. We got the job done. And we moved on in this 
last legislation to a more general surface transportation 
concept, and we have a lot to show for it.
    I continue to think that the idea of efficiency in these 
matters is hugely important. There is no such thing as a free 
ride. That idea is taking hold and we're showing results. I 
think $26 billion is absolutely a minimum for highways. I think 
there should be money for transit, too.
    I would just leave one last note, because it was something 
we thought about 5 years ago.
    The magnetic levitation was invented, thought up in 1960 by 
a young nuclear engineer coming back from Brookhaven Lab on the 
east end of Long Island. He was on his way back to MIT for a 
beer party, I suppose. Between the time he slowed down at 
Frog's Neck Bridge and the time he paid his toll he'd thought 
up mag lev. Well, that's what it means to be 28 years old and a 
nuclear engineer.
    It's the most important change in surface transportation in 
history, except the wheel, because it does not rely on 
friction.
    In Japan, in Germany they're roaring ahead with 
development. I think our distinguished chairmen are going to 
have a look at the operation.
    I would hate to accept a world in which things are invented 
in the United States and made elsewhere, and it remains to be 
seen, but it's not to be forgotten.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Warner. Senator Kempthorne.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                       THE STATE OF IDAHO

    Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 
your leadership in the process as you've outlined how we will 
proceed on the reauthorization of ISTEA. I ask to place my 
statement in the record.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Kempthorne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dirk Kempthorne, U.S. Senator from the State 
                                of Idaho
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you are holding this 
hearing today as we begin the reauthorization of ISTEA. It is very 
appropriate that we begin this process by receiving testimony about 
transportation trends for the future and how we will pay for them.
    When I speak with the Director of the Idaho DOT and my State 
legislators about ISTEA the first thing they want to know is if there 
will be more funds available to support the new National Highway 
System.
    They want to know if Congress is going to return more of the gas 
tax dollars collected at the pump to States to build and maintain 
Federal highways.
    The want to know if Congress will continue to recognize and support 
the concept of a ``National'' highway program that benefits all 
Americans regardless if you live in a large urban area or a sparsely 
populated rural western State.
    They want to know if Congress will financially support research for 
the development of new and more efficient modes of travel, alternative 
fuels and vehicles.
    These priorities are my priorities. That is why the testimony of 
these witnesses today is so relevant and timely.
    We must return more dollars of the gas tax ``user fee'' back to the 
States for use on long deferred maintenance instead of building up a 
balance in the trust fund that serves no transportation purpose.
    We must structure ISTEA II so that it fulfills the objectives and 
goals of ISTEA. One while we streamline and improve the original 
program based on its track record of performance. We must never lose 
sight however, of the intent and purpose of the original Federal 
Interstate Highway System which was established more than 40 years ago 
. . . we are one country with one national system of roadways that 
people must be able to depend upon. We cannot allow the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or the National Highway System to 
become programs of have and have-nots, and winners and losers.
    We must be innovative and creative not only in developing 
transportation technology for the future but, also in developing 
creative ways to finance them.
    We are at a critical crossroads of our nation's transportation 
future. We must seize it as an opportunity for success and not let it 
slip away.
    Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to submit for the record a 
report entitled ``Our National Laboratories and Transportation 
Research.'' This is an excellent document which was prepared to address 
the question ``What is the role of our National Laboratories in 
transportation research?'' We are very proud to have one of these 
laboratories, The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
Laboratory, located in Idaho. I am hopeful that members of the 
committee will review this important report.
         Our National Laboratories and Transportation Research
  the civilian and military perspective the energy and environmental 
           perspective the transportation safety perspective
(By David Albright, The Alliance for Transportation Research Institute, 
     The University of New Mexico; Lewis S. Roach, Sandia National 
 Laboratories; Basil A. Barna, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; 
 Adrian Tentner, Argonne National Laboratory Our National Laboratories 
                      and Transportation Research)
Introduction
david albright, the alliance for transportation research institute, the 
                        university of new mexico
    There are challenges we face as a nation that require extraordinary 
means to achieve a solution. Sometimes called ``Grand Challenges'' 
these problems are characterized both by potential impact on society 
and complexity of the problem. Urgent needs of the current 
transportation system, and innovative solutions for sustainable 
transportation in the next millennium, represent a Grand Challenge. A 
meaningful response will require full and effective use of the science 
and technology base of the United States of America.
    The National Laboratories are an essential part of our science and 
technology base. As a result of a half-century of public investment, 
exceptional capabilities are available to support basic research and 
achieve significant breakthroughs. The areas of transportation research 
in which the National Laboratories can contribute the most are those 
which are relevant to their core mission, support their strategic 
objectives, and in which they have accumulated considerable expertise. 
While some laboratories have developed transportation programs, there 
are competencies in each National Laboratory that may help address the 
transportation Grand Challenge.
    Grand Challenges arise periodically in the history of nations. 
Meaningful response to these challenges. or the lack thereof. can have 
a dramatic military or economic impact on the global balance of power. 
Perhaps the prototypical example of a Grand Challenge is the 
development of nuclear weapons during the World War II.
    There are many equally important. albeit less dramatic, challenges. 
Mapping the human genome, forecasting the global climate, and 
maintaining leadership in high-speed computing will have a major impact 
on society and our nation's ability to compete on a global basis.
    In almost all cases, we rely upon the nation's science and 
technology base to lead in solving these problems. While universities 
and free-market resources are an important part of this base, alone 
they may be unable to provide the best solutions. Our system relies 
upon a broadly based research and education mission for our 
universities, and a near-term, competitive mindset for private-sector 
laboratories.
    The need for longer-term, higher risk and higher payoff research 
responding to Grand Challenges was recognized as the fundamental reason 
for the establishment of a National Laboratory System in the United 
States. The National Laboratories have an important function in the 
nation's science and technology base. The laboratories address selected 
problems that require a highly expert, interdisciplinary approach. and 
at its very best is based exclusively on the public interest. In 
addressing these problems, the laboratories have in the past, do in the 
present, and must in the future work closely with universities and 
private industry.
    The triad that composes our nation's science and technology base 
has been tested by time and events. Each leg, whether private sector, 
university or National Laboratory. has its strengths. It is important 
to set national policy in a way that allows each component to serve and 
develop, while constantly seeking improvement. Research consortia 
involving the National Laboratories are a means of fully engaging the 
science and technology base, and are important in addressing the 
transportation Grand Challenge.
    There are several areas in which our present and future 
transportation system can be understood as a Grand Challenge, and in 
which the National Laboratories are critically needed. Military and 
civilian transportation needs and capabilities are inexorably linked--
and this linkage forms the first area. Colonel Lewis Roach. Sandia 
National Laboratories. addresses this area of transportation research. 
Energy and environmental research is the second area in which the 
National Laboratories are critically needed to achieve a sustainable 
transportation system. Mr. Basil Barna, Idaho National Energy 
Laboratory. develops this need. Mr. Barna also made a significant 
contribution to these introductory comments. Safety is the third area 
of transportation research. Dr. Adrian Tentner, Argonne National 
Laboratory, explores this subject and role of the National 
Laboratories.
    These three statements are not intended as exhaustive discourse on 
the ways in which the National Laboratories should support 
transportation. These statements are intended to present a clear and 
compelling basis for the intentional. thoughtful inclusion of our 
National Laboratories in addressing the transportation Grand Challenge.
    The transportation Grand Challenge can be expressed as the civil 
and military, energy and environment, and safety needs of our current 
and future transportation system. While developed in general terms, the 
impact of these needs is felt by each individual and each community 
across the nation. To respond to individual, community, and national 
concerns, our science and technology base should be fully and 
meaningfully employed in transportation research.
                                 ______
                                 
  Civil/Military Transportation Research and the National Laboratories
              lewis s. roach, sandia national laboratories
    There exists today an unprecedented level of commonality between 
this nation's military and civilian transportation research needs. The 
current view of United States national security centers on both our 
defense and economic security. Transportation, a central element of 
both of these aspects of national security. requires optimization by 
the best available means. The national military strategy has undergone 
a significant change from the cold war posture of containment of the 
Soviet Union utilizing a large standing military force. much of it 
forward deployed in Europe. The military establishment has been reduced 
both in personnel and bases, particularly those abroad, and we now rely 
on the concept of ``power projection'' of forces from the Continental 
United States. The execution of that military strategy places 
exceptional requirements on the nation's transportation system at a 
time of expanding international trade and domestic economic activity 
and increasing passenger traffic and congestion. A robust, high-
capacity transportation system is a common requirement for each of 
these issues. The nation needs a careful focus on the interplay between 
civilian and military transportation requirements so that improvements 
can be made via a closely coordinated transportation research policy. 
The National Laboratories are uniquely positioned to perform 
exceptional service in this national interest.
    Transportation has become the linchpin holding together the means 
of executing the national military strategy. That strategy protects our 
vital national interests with the capacity to respond to two nearly 
simultaneous major re tonal contingencies. Military forces are 
comprised of vast quantities of equipment, supplies. and troops. and 
this assemblage must be moved on short notice to very distant 
locations. The challenge is to project the bulk of this combat power 
with many fewer forward-based forces and limited propositioned 
equipment. This is a significant shift from the cold war era military 
posture. The implications of this shift for the transportation system 
require both policy and technology solutions to ensure successful 
defense of our vital national interests.
Information Technologies
    The current environment of global competition and heightened 
reliance on foreign trade has direct implications on the ability to 
efficiently move goods into and out of the country. Modern 
manufacturing approaches often cause finished goods. individual parts. 
and work in process to be transported into and out of the country 
multiple times. With the widespread application of just-in-time 
logistics, accurate status and carefully moderated flows of material 
are imperative for profitable manufacturing operations. This is true 
whether or not export/import is a feature of the distribution plan. 
Forward thinking transportation companies have realized that providing 
their customers with accurate, timely information flow regarding their 
shipments' status and expected delivery is nearly as important as the 
actual movement of the goods.
    The military has a corresponding information requirement. 
particularly during emergency deployments involving hundreds of 
thousands of personnel and large volumes of equipment moving vast 
distances by multiple modes. Maintaining visibility and control of such 
massive and complicated operations requires new tools somewhat similar 
to those used by commercial industry. The difference is the critical 
synchronization requirements and the multimodal aspects of military 
deployments, which in reality are the disassembly of large forces, 
their transportation over long distances, and their reassembly at 
destination. This causes heightened requirements for not just shipment 
data that tracks individual items in transit. Rather. it envisions the 
roll-up of that data into meaningful information from which is derived 
critical knowledge of the transportation system. Additionally, there is 
a need to anticipate bottlenecks and transportation system capacity 
shortfalls before the impacts occur. along with decision support 
mechanisms to help select corrective actions and model the outcomes for 
validation and execution. Cutting-edge research in this area of 
military logistics requirements could have application to United States 
industrial competitiveness if defense and civilian interests are 
mutually considered.
Infrastructure Development
    The condition and continued development of the nation's 
transportation infrastructure is relevant to the efficient movement of 
people and goods. Several examples illustrating this point impact 
civilian and defense transportation. As foreign trade plays a larger 
role in the United States economy. commercial ports are changing to 
accept the more specialized intermodal cargo flows. The types of port 
facilities that support the military's ship of choice for unit 
deployments--roll on/roll off (RORO)--are characterized by large, open 
spaces for cargo staging and uncluttered waterside space for the large 
ramps these ships lower to the wharf. However, modern container 
terminals often have large equipment blocking access to the waterfront, 
in addition to mountains of empty and loaded containers staked nearby. 
This trend to specialization and development of commercial port 
property may have particular impact on the military as it divests 
itself of military-operated ocean terminals under the 1995 round of the 
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.
    Investment in the upkeep and expansion of our road network is 
necessary in both a growing population and economy. Technology is 
needed that delivers more accurate and precise data for the assessment 
of road and bridge condition and projected deterioration of the 
infrastructure. Dual use technologies that could be focused on 
intelligence collection regarding war time degradation of an opponent's 
transportation network, could also prove effective for performing 
comprehensive assessments of our domestic roads and bridges.
    Such technologies could aid the decisionmaking process for 
federally funded highway projects. Although these decisions are by 
their nature in the political arena, with strong state and local 
influence they benefit by accurate assessments of actual conditions. 
Along certain specific routes, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has 
a critical stake, yet limited influence. The concentration of military 
forces in relatively few major bases places added urgency on having 
solid transportation infrastructure from those bases to the strategic 
seaports of embarkation. Rail is the preferred mode for moving heavy 
and/or oversized equipment: and rail is also preferred for lighter 
wheeled vehicles and accompanying supplies, where the convoy distance 
to the port exceeds a day of road march. However, placing sole reliance 
on rail would be imprudent considering the potential vulnerability of 
fixed rail lines to sabotage.
Transportation System Protection
    A series of catastrophes, some involving transportation, has 
prompted President Clinton in July, 1996, to appoint a commission to 
examine critical infrastructure protection. Although some incidents 
were of natural causes or unintended manmade causes, others included 
suspicious air crashes. mass transit bombings and lethal gassings, and 
railway tampering. Together, they provide painful recognition of our 
vulnerability to domestic terrorism, sabotage, and serious disruption 
to orderly society. Given our military basing policy, with its reliance 
on power projection. providing security to our domestic transportation 
system is imperative to ensure the capability to deploy forces under 
emergency conditions. A comprehensive systems approach to the question 
of infrastructure protection is required to cover the range of 
vulnerabilities and safeguards systems. Examining the major parts of 
the transportation system and building in protections as facilities are 
under design utilizing the concept of surety--the safety. security. and 
reliability of a system--could provide an appropriate framework for 
attacking this challenge. The National Laboratories have historically 
provided the nation's foremost capability in providing a total systems 
view of ``high consequence'' operations. These include nuclear power 
plants, nuclear weapons research and development. air traffic control 
systems, and others. An exceptionally wide variety of science and 
technology disciplines are resident in these institutions.
Civil/Military Cooperation
    Recognition of the degree of military reliance on the civilian 
transportation system is fundamental to understanding the interplay 
between civilian and military transportation research needs. Currently, 
the military ships over 85 percent of cargo via commercial carriers in 
peace time and a higher percentage during contingency operations. Once 
the BRAC process is complete, the only strategic defense seaports in 
the country under day-to-day military control will be the ammunition 
ports. As a result, deployments of military unit equipment will occur 
almost entirely through commercial ports. Maintaining a forward look at 
new commercial technologies and their military implications is a firm, 
continuing requirement.
    With the reliance on commercial transportation comes a sensitivity 
to potential disruption of commercial activity during a large military 
deployment through the transportation system. Given the manufacturing 
industry reliance on just-in-time logistics techniques, in addition to 
reduction in finished goods inventory via responsive transportation 
services, the potential for significant, military-induced economic 
impacts must be considered. In a short notice crisis situation, it 
cannot automatically be assumed that all required commercial 
transportation capacity can be made instantly available. Research on 
potential economic disruptions and effective methods to minimize their 
effects would clearly be prudent.
    Utilizing the civilian transportation industry for military 
strategic lift has been a necessity since World War II. Formal 
agreements with air and ocean carriers? such as the Civil Reserve Air 
Fleet program and the Voluntary Intermodal Shipping Agreement, provide 
heavy supplementation to the limited cargo aircraft and ships under DoD 
control. The arrival of this civilian equipment in a hostile theater of 
operations brings into question the safety of the carrier's equipment 
and personnel. Consideration should be given to a more complete 
integration of commercial conveyances into military communications 
networks. military air traffic control systems, and force protection 
systems such as friendly fire avoidance technology. Recent trends in 
military logistics outsourcing to commercial firms in theaters of 
operation provide additional reason for examination.
Conclusion
    The several areas of overlap in civilian and defense 
transportation, above described, are a subset of potential areas where 
joint technology could be applied to these important national needs. 
Advances arising singly in government or private sectors must be 
examined for crossover application. With further recognition of the 
interrelationship of civilian and defense transportation, actively 
seeking areas of joint research to solve common problems is good public 
policy in a time of declining resources. The development of advanced 
transportation technologies holds the promise of significantly 
contributing to achievements in both the economic and defense 
dimensions of national security.
                                 ______
                                 
              Transportation, Energy, and the Environment
         basil a. barna, idaho national engineering laboratory,
              the challenge of sustainable transportation
    Sustainable transportation for the Nation in the 21st century 
certainly qualifies as a Grand Challenge. The basis of the problem has 
it roots in simple physics. Mobility requires energy. Current energy 
use patterns for transportation result in significant economic. 
national security. and environmental impacts. Even though this is 
recognized. we can't simply replace the system because of the 
investment in the infrastructure. the lack of suitable alternatives, 
and the key role that transportation plays in the development of the 
economy.
    This challenge is made even more complex by a strong interaction 
between the potential technological solutions and the human aspects of 
the problem. Because of this. transportation solutions for the next 
century will be characterized by an integration of both technical and 
political concerns. The nature of this integration will affect the 
quality of life of each individual and community in the nation.
    The wise direction of science base resources to this problem will 
require a fundamental understanding of the relationship that mobility 
has with energy resources, the environment. and the nation's social and 
economic processes. In short, research must treat the system as a 
whole. Perhaps even more importantly, research must be conducted within 
the framework of new partnerships that recognize the importance of 
multiagency coordination and the development of regional solutions that 
result in a national system.
Energy and Environmental Impacts
    Few human activities affect the environment as dramatically as 
transportation. Every highway, every pound of particulate emissions 
from diesel engines. every discarded vehicle tire is part of an 
emerging global problem that is generally not perceived as a series of 
related events. It is time to begin treating these problems as part of 
a larger system so that technology and policy development can be 
steered in a direction that is sustainable and improves the quality of 
life globally.
    Transportation is so integrally woven into the fabric of day-to-day 
life that we rarely see the connections between trucks, barges, 
pipelines, the corner junkyard. and the lingering haze that is part of 
every significant metropolitan area in the world. The political reality 
is that we deal with immediate and easily identified problems such as 
potholes and gasoline prices. The real message is that more efficient 
and environmentally responsive transportation systems must be invented 
or the United States' standard of living will decline as we loose our 
global competitive edge.
    In the time it takes to read this sentence, the nation's 
transportation system will burn over 30.000 gallons of oil. Ninety-
seven percent of the transportation fleet is powered by petroleum based 
fuels, and over 25 percent of America's total energy usage is consumed 
by transportation (Transportation energy data book: Edition 15, May, 
1995). Fueling the economy, the national security and personal freedom, 
this system is one of the fundamental elements of the nation's 
infrastructure.
    Unlike other industries however. transportation is singularly 
dependent on petroleum. This dependence on a single source of fuel, 
much of it imported, adversely affects national security and balance of 
payments. It also creates a situation in which even small gains in 
efficiency can have major payoffs.
    The transportation infrastructure is also chronically overburdened 
as traffic volume is at an all time high. Added to this are new global 
challenges, competition for limited resources, and a need to minimize 
regulatory burden while ensuring its effectiveness. The United States 
can no longer afford the luxury of increasing capacity by just doing 
more of what has been done before.
The Critical Role of Interagency Coordination and Regional Partnerships
    Historically, transportation has not been developed as a system 
that requires integration of diverse individual interests. The science 
base has been focused on many aspects of the problem, but not in an 
integrated fashion. National Laboratories in particular have for the 
most part been utilized to examine energy efficiency, oil imports, and 
the development of enabling technologies in the areas of materials, 
energy storage and conversion, and alternative energy sources.
    While this is not wrong, it does not take advantage of the 
tremendous potential of having the laboratories address the broader 
issues and serve as a resource for development of an integrated, 
optimally efficient national transportation system. It is time to 
utilize the National Laboratories as both regional technology resources 
and as resources that assist in the coordination of research across 
Federal agencies.
    Stronger linkage between the laboratories and the U.S. Department 
of Transportation (US DOT) would compliment the existing laboratory 
missions while providing a powerful tool in developing a sustainable 
transportation system. The US DOT, for example, should have an office 
specifically charged with the purpose of interfacing with the National 
Laboratories. As the success of this approach is proven, the lessons 
learned could serve as a template to expand the coordination to all 
agencies with a transportation role.
    A broader interagency collaboration is not, however, a complete 
solution. If the science base is to be effective in meeting this Grand 
Challenge, research must be conducted in a new and challenging way. To 
this end, the National Laboratories should be utilized to promote 
regional partnerships focused on transportation needs. Such 
partnerships would include state and local agencies, universities, the 
laboratories, and the private sector. In a very real sense these 
partnerships would connect the research with the day-today reality of 
how the Nation achieves mobility, equity and economic development. 
Properly designed, these alliances could demonstrate a major advance in 
how the science base creates national opportunities.
Technical Issues in Transportation--The Role of Fundamental Research
    The Grand Challenge of sustainable transportation will require the 
nation's science base to systematically address the entire scope of the 
transportation system. This approach will transcend traditional 
methods, which tend to focus on solutions for specific aspects of the 
problem such as congestion management, fuel efficiency, and highway 
infrastructure. A truly sustainable transportation infrastructure must 
be based on the relationships between the economy, the environment, and 
future energy supplies.
    Approaching the problem in this fashion requires a broad, 
interdisciplinary skill base that is primarily accountable to the 
public interest. For this reason, the National Laboratories are an 
essential ingredient in achieving a solution. Perhaps even more 
importantly, the laboratory system should be utilized as an instrument 
of synergy for common interests across Federal agencies.
    To accomplish this, fundamental research is needed in these primary 
areas:

    First there must be an effort to develop the tools that allow 
    policymakers to work with the transportation system as an entity. 
    While complex and composed of many diverse but related elements, 
    there is a single purpose to the transportation system: the 
    movement of physical objects and information. (It is important to 
    recognize that people are often transported when the primary 
    objective is moving information.)
    Increase the efficiency of energy conversion methods. While much 
    work is currently underway to increase the efficiency of internal 
    combustion engines and selected alternatives such as electric 
    propulsion, there is a need to better coordinate this development 
    with known problems of congestion, mobility, and pollution.
    Reduce environmental impact from emissions, limited recycling, and 
    waste transportation. Transportation is a significant contributor 
    to the nation's waste stream in the form of emissions and abandoned 
    materials and is also the primary method for relocation of many 
    other waste streams.
    Conduct research to increase the diversity of transportation 
    options and linkage between these options. This is more than 
    intermodalism. It includes new modes and methods of information 
    transfer.
Example of Potential Integration: Freight
    As an example of how an integrated approach can be applied, 
consider the following. While the nation's freight transportation 
system has made improvements in engine efficiencies and aerodynamics. 
the freight sector has not been able to match the strides made in 
passenger transportation. manufacturing, and building energy 
efficiency.
    In large part the gains have been offset by an overall shift away 
from transportation modes that use less energy per ton of freight 
movement. From 1960 through 1993, the ton miles of freight moved by 
rail increased by 193 percent compared to an increase of 309 percent 
for intercity trucking (Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National 
Transportation Statistics, 1993). Since it takes 2.946 BTUs to move a 
ton mile by truck versus 344 BTUs by rail. the overall freight system 
efficiency is heavily dependent on the share of freight for each mode.
    The nation's transportation system has not begun to exploit the 
benefits that can be achieved by technologies that better coordinate 
transportation modes. Even within specific modes. there are significant 
opportunities for greater efficiencies through improved information 
systems, lightweight materials, and better engines. Diesel engines. 
which are the primary power source for rail, trucking, and busses, are 
significant contributors to emissions.
    An integrated approach would establish the measures and tools that 
would allow all modes to be developed as part of a system. In addition, 
commodity flow data would be used to identify areas where high payoffs 
could be obtained from mode shifting or automation technologies.
Needed Actions
    If progress is to be made in answering the Grand Challenge of 
sustainable transportation. action is required in the following areas:

    Utilization of the National Laboratory System he all Federal 
    agencies involved in the nation's transportation system--This means 
    developing new policies that can allow sister Federal agencies such 
    as the US DOT, the U.S. Department of Energy. the U.S. Department 
    of Defense. and the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate 
    research at the National Laboratories.
    Creation of regional transportation research partnerships that 
    strengthen the connection between the National Laboratories and the 
    real needs of the nation's transportation system--State and local 
    transportation agencies would play a lead role in these 
    partnerships and the laboratories would serve as an important new 
    resource for developing local solutions that address the national 
    issues.
    Congressional and executive branch support for developing a 
    sustainable and dramatically improved transportation system--Such 
    support would only arise from a recognition that the existing 
    transportation system and its expected evolution will not 
    effectively compete in global markets in the 21st century.
    Effective involvement of the science base--The National Laboratory 
    System must be given a clear mission and mandate to represent the 
    public interest in basic research. This mission should be defined 
    to compliment the skills of the university and private-sector 
    elements of the nation's science base.
                                 ______
                                 
The Role of the National Laboratories in Ensuring Transportation Safety
               adrian tentner argonne national laboratory
Introduction
    Ensuring the safety of our national transportation system has 
always been one of the most important missions of the U.S. Department 
of Transportation (US DOT). Considerable resources have been allocated 
both by the US DOT and private industry for safety research and the 
development of ever safer vehicles and roads. This sustained emphasis 
on transportation safety and the cooperation of public agencies and 
private industry has resulted in the United States having one of the 
safest transportation systems in the world. But inexorable growth in 
traffic constantly challenges the infrastructure capacity, and new 
solutions relying on advanced technologies are needed to maintain and 
enhance the efficiency of our transportation system. The trend toward 
increased transportation reliance on information technologies and 
system integration applies to all modes of transportation. The US DOT's 
plan for an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), for example, has 
been developed to provide solutions to some of our surface 
transportation problems by combining advanced technologies with 
traditional transportation systems. With the advent of transportation 
systems relying on advanced technologies, new opportunities and 
challenges in ensuring and enhancing the safety of our national 
transportation system stand before us. The convergence of advanced 
sensors, communications, and computing technologies with traditional 
transportation systems promises to create an advanced transportation 
system that will not only reduce traffic congestion and associated 
negative environmental impacts, fuel consumption, and travel times, but 
will also reduce the number of accidents that continue to occur on our 
roadways. At the same time, reliance on many new technologies and 
components will require additional safety research and analysis to 
avoid or minimize new potential risks. The close interaction between 
vehicles and infrastructure through wireless communications. for 
example, will result in a more tightly connected transportation system, 
in which a component failure could have greater adverse consequences 
than in today's system. The planning and design of our future 
transportation system should therefore involve, at an early stage, an 
evaluation of the risks associated with the system. Through the early 
identification of the primary sources of risk, the opportunity exists 
to develop cost-effective approaches to avoid or minimize the risk of 
adverse consequences before system development and deployment.
    The safety analysis of an integrated national transportation system 
is a challenging task, requiring considerable technical expertise and 
resources. The National Laboratories have successfully fed the safety 
analysis and research in the development of other complex technological 
systems of national interest, such as advanced weapons systems, naval 
submarines and nuclear reactors. Today the National Laboratories can 
serve as a valuable resource to US DOT and to the Nation in the 
development and implementation of an integrated safety analysis plan 
that will coordinate the transportation safety research activities of 
the industry, universities, and laboratories as we pursue the 
development and deployment of advanced transportation systems in the 
United States.
Background
    The trend toward increased reliance of our transportation system on 
advanced technologies. stimulated by the national ITS Program, is 
likely to continue and accelerate as we approach the next millennium. 
This trend provides new opportunities for increasing the transportation 
system safety by assisting drivers in making better informed decisions. 
expanding the role of automatic control systems in accident prevention, 
optimizing the management of roadway systems. and providing faster help 
in emergencies through improved communication between the vehicles and 
control centers. Work on many related demonstration projects is 
currently underway' under ITS DOT's leadership. with active 
participation from industry. universities, and National Laboratories. 
The National Laboratories provide a wealth of advanced technologies, 
including sensors, computing, communications. and control technologies 
that can play an important role in increasing the safety and 
reliability of our future transportation system.
    At the same time, the growing interdependency between the vehicles 
and the roadway infrastructure. and the increasing reliance on advanced 
technologies are combining to create a new challenge in ensuring the 
safety of the emerging transportation system. Safety improvements in 
this system will depend upon the accuracy and timeliness of data and 
communications and upon the proper functioning of control systems. In 
addition to the usual safety issues encountered in transportation, 
issues of safety? correctness. security. and fault tolerance of system 
components (software and hardware) become important when automatic 
digital control systems are used.
    Where there is greater reliance on advanced technologies, there is 
also potential for new types of adverse consequences in terms of 
vehicle accidents, misrouting of vehicles. or increased travel times. A 
software error or hardware failure in a vehicle control system. for 
example, could have more serious consequences in an Automated Highway 
System than in today's transportation system.
    To be acceptable to the public. any change in transportation system 
technology must present a very low probability of causing conditions 
worse than would apply without the change. Planning and design of a new 
transportation system should therefore involve, early in the design 
process, an evaluation of the risks associated with the proposed 
system. Through early identification of the primary sources of risk, 
the opportunity exists to incorporate cost-effective improvements that 
eliminate or minimize the risk of adverse consequences before the 
system design is completed. These improvements may be in hardware and 
software component specifications. hardware and software design 
features, operation or maintenance procedures. personnel training, 
contingency planning. means of protecting the system from external 
threats' etc. Fail-safe features should be incorporated at key points 
of vulnerability, which a proper hazard evaluation would identify.
    The National Laboratories have experience addressing the safety of 
large-scale, safety-critical, complex control systems for nuclear 
reactors. weapons systems, and robots used in weapons production and in 
decontamination and decommissioning. Moreover, the National 
Laboratories have long conducted research in computer science and in 
modeling and simulation of complex systems. and they have developed 
tools such as automated reasoning systems and program transformation 
systems that can be used for the development of reliable software for 
safety-critical applications. Several specific areas of expertise 
available at the National Laboratories that could contribute directly 
to the safety of our future transportation system are listed below.
Hazards Analysis and Risk Assessment
    The National Laboratories have experience in hazards analysis of 
complex systems involving hardware, personnel, and procedures. In 
addition, the National Laboratories have capabilities to perform 
computerized fault tree and event tree analyses, including 
quantification of the frequency of key system failures, common cause 
analyses, and human reliability analyses These techniques have been 
used in the design of nuclear reactors and in the assessment of the 
risk and reliability effects of plant modifications. equipment aging. 
procedure changes. and changes in technical specifications. Risk 
assessments estimate the probability of failure of a system and 
determine the most likely contributors to that failure. and they may be 
used to guide the system design with regard to safety-related features. 
Such methods have been applied at the National Laboratories in the 
design phase of systems to evaluate the effectiveness of various design 
options in reducing the risk of accidents, and have also been used to 
assess the safety of existing systems.
Computer Modeling and Simulation
    Computer modeling and simulation have been used extensively at the 
National Laboratories to analyze the behavior of complex systems and to 
explore the effects of alternative designs on system safety and 
efficiency. The use of computer simulation can greatly reduce the need 
for costly and time consuming experiments The National Laboratories 
have a wealth of experience in the use of advanced computational 
methods. high-performance computing architectures. and computer 
simulation environments that integrate hardware and software 
components. They have developed computer models for the analysis of 
large-scale transportation systems and simulation environments for the 
detailed modeling of ITS that could be used in the safety analysis of 
advanced transportation systems.
    The risk assessment process discussed above requires not only an 
estimation of the probability of events, but also an estimation of the 
consequences of these events. This consequence analysis often requires 
an understanding of the physical effects of accidents. which can be 
obtained through a combination of experiments and computer simulation 
of the physical events. The National Laboratories have considerable 
experience in vehicle crash simulation and analysis of accident 
consequences. They have cooperated with private industry in using 
computer simulations for the analysis of crash response of various 
automotive structural components. The use of similar analyses to assess 
the safety of drivers and passengers and the efficiency of various 
roadway safety barriers would be a natural extension of these 
capabilities. The National Laboratories have extensive high-performance 
computing and communications resources that can support such a large-
scale transportation safety modeling and simulation effort.
    Modeling and simulation might also be used to estimate, in real 
time, the severity of specific accidents and to guide the decisions of 
the emergency response team. Several ITS operational tests already 
include plans for making accident information, such as accelerometer 
data, available to the emergency response agencies in real time. In the 
future we can expect to see this data used in a real-time accident 
computer simulation to provide the emergency response team with 
estimates of accident consequences. The National Laboratories' 
capability to integrate real-time data into process simulation codes 
for predicting system response will be valuable in such a system.
System Safety Experiments
    Large-scale experiments and demonstrations are an integral part of 
the safety analysis of complex technological systems and are essential 
in the validation of computer modeling and simulation results. The 
National Laboratories have extensive experience in the design, 
assembly, instrumentation, execution, and analysis of such experiments. 
Experimental teams at the National Laboratories have worked closely 
with computer simulation and analysis teams to minimize the number and 
cost of experiments by using the results of computer simulations to 
guide the design of experiments and to maximize the amount of relevant 
information obtained from each experiment.
Reliable Software and Fault-tolerant Hardware
    In the area of software development, the use of good software 
development practices and tools can provide assistance in producing 
correct software; but only the use of Formal Methods, which prove 
mathematically that a program correctly implements the specified 
system, can provide assurance that the program is correct.
    The National Laboratories are in a position to undertake 
considerable research in developing practical Formal Methods for use in 
ITS control systems. They have developed program transformation systems 
and automated reasoning systems, which can be used to help produce 
correct software from specifications economically. Further whorl; needs 
to be conducted to develop and demonstrate techniques for applying 
these systems to digital control systems. Several National Laboratories 
are currently working jointly on a High-Integrity Software project to 
apply these techniques to such systems.
    Software security is also an important issue that needs to be 
investigated in conjunction with safety. For example, if centralized 
control. or even traffic density information, is provided to vehicles, 
subversion of the communication software could be used to direct 
commercial vehicles to take an out-of-the-way route. where they might 
be attacked and robbed. An important aspect of software security is to 
prove that a program does not have certain properties (such as a ``back 
door'') that permits someone to take over control of the software. 
Almost no research has been done in this area, and the National 
Laboratories, particularly using their background in automated 
reasoning, could take the lead in performing such research.
    The development of fault-tolerant hardware, such as multiprocessor 
fault-tolerant computers, is another area of expertise available at the 
National Laboratories that, combined with reliable software, can play 
an important role in increasing the safety and reliability of advanced 
transportation systems.
System Control and Accident Management
    The National Laboratories have accumulated considerable expertise 
in the areas of automated system monitoring, system malfunction 
diagnosis, and recommendation of system control alternatives in order 
to minimize the effects of malfunctions or accidents. Artificial 
intelligence technologies, including expert systems and neural 
networks, have been successfully applied to malfunction diagnosis and 
accident management for electrical power plants and other complex 
technological systems. The early diagnosis of sensor or system 
malfunction and the recommendation of system management alternatives 
will be an important element in ensuring the safety of an ITS that 
could utilize the advanced computing and analysis methodologies 
developed by the National Laboratories.
Operational Readiness Review
    An important element of system safety is the assurance that the 
system (comprised of hardware. software, personnel, and procedures) is 
fully ready prior to deployment or implementation. Applying formalized 
operational readiness review methods can greatly help to reduce the 
potential for hazards caused by faulty system operation that result 
from failure to recognize that certain components of the system were 
absent, incomplete, or inadequately integrated into the system. The 
National Laboratories have considerable experience in utilizing such 
methods to ascertain the operational readiness of a new process 
facility involving complex arrays of newly designed hardware and 
software, many new procedures, and personnel who may require 
specialized training and qualification.
Conclusion
    Ensuring the safety and reliability of the national transportation 
system presents new challenges resulting from the continuous increase 
in the number of travelers and volume of freight, the increasing 
reliance on advanced technologies and complex components, and the 
increasing interaction between various modes of transportation. A 
tightly coupled transportation system, relying more and more on 
advanced sensors, computing, and communication technologies, requires 
additional research and analysis of system safety, to ensure that 
transportation presents only very low risks to travelers and that fail-
safe features have been incorporated at key points of vulnerability.
    The National Laboratories have considerable expertise and 
experience in the safety analysis of complex technological systems such 
as complex weapons systems, naval submarines, and nuclear reactors. The 
National Laboratories have demonstrated a sustained interest in 
transportation safety research and development in general, and ITS in 
particular, by participating in national and regional advanced 
transportation research activities and operational tests. They are 
working closely with Federal and state transportation agencies, 
industry, and universities in promoting the development and deployment 
of ITS.
    The combined analytical and experimental capabilities of the 
National Laboratories represent a unique resource that can help ensure 
the safety and reliability of our transportation system. This resource 
could, and should, be used by the US DOT in the process of designing 
and deploying increasingly safer transportation systems of the United 
States.
    Senator Kempthorne. I, too, want to salute Senator Moynihan 
for his vision in the development of the first ISTEA. 
Tremendous.
    Mr. Chairman, when I speak to the director of the Idaho 
Department of Transportation and my State legislators about 
ISTEA, the first thing they want to know is if there will be 
more funds available to support the new national highway 
system.
    They want to know if Congress is going to return more of 
the gas tax dollars collected at the pumps to States to build 
and maintain Federal highways.
    They want to know if Congress will continue to recognize 
and support the concept of a national highway program that 
benefits all Americans, regardless if you live in a large urban 
area or a sparsely populated rural western State.
    They want to know if Congress will financially support 
research for the development of new and more efficient modes of 
travel, alternative fuels in vehicles.
    These priorities are my priorities. That's why the 
testimony of these witnesses today is so relevant.
    We must return more tax dollars of the gas tax user fee 
back to the States for use on long-deferred maintenance instead 
of building up a balance in the trust fund that serves no 
transportation purpose. We must structure the reauthorized 
ISTEA so that it fulfills the objectives and goals of ISTEA, 
while we streamline and improve the original program based on 
its track record of performance.
    We must never lose sight, however, of the intent and 
purpose of the original Federal interstate highway system, 
which was established more than 40 years ago.
    We are one country with one national system of roadways 
that people must be able to depend upon. We cannot allow the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or the 
national highway system to become programs of have's and have-
not's, and winners and losers.
    We must be innovative and creative, not only in developing 
transportation technology for the future, but also in 
developing creative ways to finance them.
    We are at a critical crossroads of our Nation's 
transportation future. We must seize it as an opportunity for 
success, not let it slip away.
    Mr. Chairman, in closing I'd like to submit for the record 
a report entitled, ``Our National Laboratories in 
Transportation Research.'' This is an excellent document which 
was prepared to address the question: what is the role of our 
national laboratories in transportation research?
    We're very proud to have one of these laboratories, the 
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 
located in Idaho. I'm hopeful that members of this committee 
will be able to review this very important document.
    Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
    At your recommendation, Senator Kempthorne, it's the 
intention of the chair and the ranking member to hold a hearing 
on this legislation. I believe we're going to do it in your 
State, in Coeur d'Alene, ID, at a date to be determined.
    Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate that 
greatly.
    Senator Reid. How about one in Searchlight, NV?
    Senator Warner. Beg your pardon?
    Senator Reid. How about holding one in Searchlight, NV?
    Senator Warner. If you'll turn it on, we'll come.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Baucus. How about in Montana?
    Senator Bond. And on the way back you can stop off in 
Missouri.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, I have to object. The idea 
of interstate highway system began in the 1939 World's Fair in 
Flushing Meadows, NY, and I think Flushing Meadows is it.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Warner. I remember it, and remember the GM exhibit.
    Senator Moynihan. Futurama.
    Senator Warner. Yes, sir.
    Senator Moynihan. That's correct.
    Senator Warner. In order of the ``early bird'' rule, we'll 
shift to Mr. Bond.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR 
                   FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

    Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    It is a real pleasure to join with you and members of this 
committee as we work on what is a vitally important measure for 
my State. To say that we have made progress is obviously the 
first step, and I do join with the others in commending the 
leaders of this committee, Senator Moynihan and others, who 
have brought us to where we are today to make the United States 
the most mobile society in the world and in history.
    Frankly, we've gone from the horse and buggies on dirt 
roads to the interstate systems that we know can carry such 
heavy volumes of passengers and products.
    To make the case briefly for the hearing in Missouri, I 
would just note that Missouri has long been a leader in 
transportation. In 1808, King's Highway from St. Louis to 
Southeast, Missouri, was the first legally designated road west 
of the Mississippi. In 1919, Missouri was the first State to 
protect and earmark funds for highway purposes. In 1956, 
Missouri became the first State to accept and begin 
construction on the Dwight Eisenhower Interstate Highway 
System, and the first stretch of interstate actually began work 
on Interstate 70 in St. Charles.
    These roads, these highways have been vitally important for 
our State's growth, for convenience, and, most of all, for 
safety of our people.
    The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
provided the road map for our vision to the future, and that is 
easy access for every community of any size to a modern, safe 
road; roads that connect into a grid in the national highway 
system.
    The steps that you have taken in this committee before I 
even joined the committee--when I was merely an officious 
inter-meddler--have enabled us to make tremendous strides in 
transportation.
    I would--I can assure Senator Kempthorne that the questions 
he heard in Idaho about the return, how much money is going to 
come back, how much money is going to be available for badly 
needed roads in Idaho are exactly the same questions I hear in 
Missouri.
    I agree with the chairman, the ranking member, that it is 
time that we put the trust back in trust fund.
    People keep saying, ``What are you doing with the money?'' 
They think we're probably using it----
    Senator Warner. We locked it up.
    Senator Bond [continuing]. For our personal benefit. I 
think that it is time that we get back.
    We are working with the chairman of the full committee on 
means to do that, and I certainly am proud to support your 
efforts on STEP 21.
    We have a long way to go to meet the challenges of the 21st 
century, resolving congestion problems, continuing research and 
development, recognizing the changing demographics, and looking 
at the financing options that are available. These are going to 
be important, as well.
    We've heard from the chair of the subcommittee about the 
importance of good highways for an economy in a globally 
competitive situation, but I want to emphasize a fact that I 
guess I've known before. It was just brought to my attention 
recently that highway, road, and bridge accidents are the 
leading cause of death of children under 18 in my State, and 
good highways, good safe highway systems, roads, and bridges 
are vitally important if we're going to assure that safety.
    Highway authorization funding debates are always exciting. 
There are some who have even talked about taking charitable 
contributions to watch the activities in the highway debates. 
That might be a good way to get some additional funding for 
highways.
    But funding formulas are serious business and we intend to 
work to see the fair and objective Senators who have been 
referred to before have an opportunity to work on some of the 
wrinkles, the few remaining wrinkles in the existing ISTEA 
which include the rate of return for certain of us who have had 
the pleasure of giving as donor States and would like to work 
with our colleagues to even up the playing field.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, the ranking members, and the 
leaders on this committee who have brought us to the point 
where we are today.
    Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
    Senator Thomas.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                        STATE OF WYOMING

    Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall be brief.
    I notice in here the purpose of this hearing is to receive 
testimony, so I will----
    Senator Warner. If you haven't been listening, I gave a 
little testimony in the beginning.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Warner. And I look forward to your strong support.
    Senator Thomas. Yes, indeed, and now it's my turn for a 
little testimony.
    First I must, of course, recognize Senator Moynihan. I 
wouldn't want to be the one who failed to do that, sir.
    Let me just be very brief. I have a statement.
    Forty-four percent of the roads in my State of Wyoming are 
fair to poor, according to the highway assessment, so we have a 
great deal to do. The Federal Government owns 50 percent of 
Wyoming, and so a great many of the roads are on the Federal 
establishment. Yellowstone Park has a deficiency, $250 million 
worth of road funding they believe. They get $8 million a year 
now. That doesn't work well.
    The national highway system, of course, is very important 
to a State like Wyoming, a bridge State where people go 
through. We have not too many folks. We're a small town with 
very long streets, and they're terribly important to us.
    So I look forward to working with you. I'm delighted to be 
on the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of 
                                Wyoming
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. It is 
important that the subcommittee examine our country's transportation 
infrastructure finding requirements because they are significant and we 
should be doing more to meet them. In fact, 44 percent of the roads in 
my State of Wyoming are in fair to poor condition. In addition, the 
State's highway repair and maintenance needs total $50 million per 
year, which is more than the State can address. Those figures do not 
include Wyoming's infrastructure needs in the Federal lands highway 
program. The Federal Government owns 50 percent of the land in my State 
and those roads have substantial funding requirements as well.
    I am also concerned about the infrastructure needs in our national 
parks. I met recently with the Superintendent of Yellowstone National 
Park and discovered that the majority of Yellowstone's road 
structurally deficient. As one of the crown jewels of the national park 
system and host of more than three million visitors annually, this 
situation is unacceptable. In fact, the Park's 10-year plan includes 
$250 million in road funding requirements. However, Yellowstone only 
receives roughly $8 million annually to meet these needs. I certainly 
hope this shortfall is an issue the committee will address during the 
reauthorization of ISTEA.
    I also am pleased today's hearing will focus on the national 
economic benefits of the country's transportation infrastructure. 
Wyoming is a ``bridge'' State; goods are transported from their source 
across Wyoming, and to their final destination. A set of efficient and 
well maintained roads are as important to the cities that export goods 
across the country and around the world as they are to the people in 
Wyoming. The former director of the Wyoming Department of 
Transportation, Don Diller, said last year, ``On I-80 in Wyoming, more 
than 50 percent of the traffic is trucks, and those trucks are not 
serviced in Wyoming. The goods are not manufactured in Wyoming, and the 
economy of Wyoming is not improved by their manufacture. The goods are 
not delivered in Wyoming, but add to the economy of some other area.''
    Again, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you are holding this hearing so 
the subcommittee can explore these important national issues. I look 
forward to working with you to address some of these pressing national 
needs.

    Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
    Gentlemen, should we recognize Senator Reid? I realize 
every now and then we ought to slip over here.
    The lighthouse is on, the searchlight.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                        STATE OF NEVADA

    Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I've sat through a couple of these authorization bills and 
my friend from Missouri says that maybe we could get people to 
pay. Well, I've watched Seinfeld and sat through these. There's 
no comparison.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Reid. I don't think we'd make much money.
    Mr. Chairman, the dynamic flow of commerce and individuals 
is continually subject to change. While our transportation 
policies may not always be able to anticipate these changes, 
they must be flexible enough to accommodate them.
    All of us have varying opinions about the best way to meet 
these changes. I believe there are some areas of common ground 
that all of us can agree, as we establish the framework of 
reauthorizing ISTEA.
    Our transportation policies must recognize the importance 
of providing adequate dollars for improvement and maintenance 
of our infrastructure. The policy should not favor one region 
over another. Funding formulas should provide States with 
sufficient funding to meet the changing infrastructure needs 
they face.
    While some push for devolution, all of us agree that 
Federal regulations have to recognize the need for greater 
flexibility at the State level. Because we have a national 
transportation policy, we must recognize there are often unique 
interstate needs that otherwise would not be addressed but for 
a Federal program. I think we started doing that, and I think 
we did it quite well in the last bill that we passed.
    I believe the unique regional perspectives, though, will 
bring this issue ultimately to a coherent national policy.
    Mr. Chairman, I represent a State that is 650 miles from 
one corner to the other corner. It's a long way. We have in the 
Las Vegas area 5,000 new people moving into that relatively 
small area every month. We have tremendous infrastructure 
problems.
    Because funding formulas are based on old census data, it's 
nearly impossible for States like Nevada to receive the proper 
financing necessary to accommodate this growth.
    I heard my friend from Wyoming say that his State is 50 
percent Federal land. Ours is almost 90 percent Federal land, 
and we have some unique problems because of that.
    Between our interstates, you can fit the States of New 
Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New 
Hampshire, and Delaware. That's just between our interstates. 
We have a lot of territory to cover. That's because of all the 
Federal land and because we're sparsely populated, even though, 
Mr. Chairman, Nevada now is the most urban State in the Union--
more urban than New York, more urban than California, any State 
in the Union. We have almost 90 percent of the people that live 
in Reno and Las Vegas metropolitan areas.
    We have some very unique problems.
    Because the Federal Government owns about 90 percent of the 
lands in Nevada, Nevada receives little or no taxes from these 
lands but still must provide for intercontinental activity 
across these areas. In order for all States to enjoy the 
benefits of our economy, we must be able to build and maintain 
these lines of commerce, and Federal land programs is a source 
of much of the funding for these areas.
    Nevada is a bridge State. Most of the traffic that comes 
across Nevada highways is interstate traffic. We play an 
important role in interstate commerce. But the need for 
improving and maintaining these interstates arises out of the 
damage caused by non-Nevada traffic.
    It's difficult for me to explain to my constituents why 
we're under-funding basic maintenance projects when we see 
firsthand the infrastructure degradation caused by out-of-state 
travel and out-of-state travelers.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, I'll just take a minute. I know that----
    Senator Warner. Take your time, Senator.
    Senator Reid [continuing]. There's almost unanimous 
disagreement with me on this committee. I've tried it before. 
But I'll tell you, we are going to have demonstration projects 
in this bill. There's always everybody that stands up over here 
and says, ``We're not going to have any demonstration 
projects.'' We're going to wind up having them.
    Bud Shuster is the chairman of the committee in the House. 
He has demonstration projects. His members want demonstration 
projects. They're going to wind up having demonstration 
projects, just like the last bill we had.
    I think that we should recognize that there are certain 
areas of this country that we need to go outside the basic 
formula. I think that we have the ability, as much as my State 
director, to determine where there are some needs. So I just 
say that we should be aware of that.
    We are going to wind up in this bill with demonstration 
projects.
    I would also say a couple of members have already mentioned 
that we need more money spent on infrastructure. I say let's 
spend all the money that comes into the highway trust fund 
then. And if people believe this, join with me in my 
legislation.
    I have a bill that has been introduced that says that we 
should spend all of the highway trust fund money doing work for 
surface transportation.
    Finally, I'm concerned that we haven't consistently 
articulated coherent national policy and we need to do that. 
We're doing much better. I think this last bill we passed is 
really a good one.
    I'm troubled, though, sometimes by the budgetary gimmickry 
being played with, as I've mentioned, with the highway trust 
fund. We should get these highway trust fund moneys off budget.
    Our Nation's infrastructure represents a lifeline that 
fuels our economy. When we neglect to adequately provide for 
the health of this lifeline, all of us suffer. Whether it's 
unsafe and degraded roads or pollution caused from over-
congestion, all of us are affected. The price is not only 
inconvenience of traversing a dilapidated infrastructure; 
indeed, the real price is increased costs all of us pay for 
goods and services because of the burdens placed on us because 
of the steady flow of commerce.
    It's similar, I guess, to a cholesterol buildup in the 
arteries. Eventually we have a steep price to pay.
    I also, Mr. Chairman, would like to recognize and pay 
tribute, for lack of a better description, to Senator Moynihan. 
I enjoyed very much 5 years ago working on the legislation. For 
example, Senator Moynihan said in this committee that building 
more roads isn't the answer, and a number of us said ``prove 
it,'' and he did. There have been a number of articles that 
have been written showing just because you have a lot of 
traffic, building more roads isn't necessarily the way to 
handle the problem.
    I think that many of the things that we tried to do last 
time we were unable to do, but I think we have to give some of 
those theories which have now been developed with 5 more years 
of research and development, I think we need to develop some of 
them.
    I believe, Mr. Chairman, that even though our bill was a 
good one, I think we can improve upon it by doing some unique 
things like we tried to do in the last bill.
    So thank you all very much. I look forward to working with 
each of you in the coming months. It's not going to be easy, as 
we all know.
    Senator Warner. Thank you, Senator. Your statement I think 
very forcefully brought home to us the unique qualities of your 
State, and I mentioned in my opening statement that there is a 
strong diversity here and we've got to recognize that. We do 
have our differences, however, on the question of the 
demonstration projects, and I think that what remains of the 
highway trust fund should be a matter that remains on budget.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the State of 
                                 Nevada
    Mr. Chairman, there is little doubt that the issues we will address 
in today's hearing are issues that are of great interest to every 
member of both bodies. Transportation represents a truly national 
concern. All of us have a stake in ensuring that America's 
transportation policies are coherent and efficient. More importantly, 
all of us have a vested interest in ensuring that the goals of our 
transportation policies are capable of being achieved.
    This session of Congress will likely include extensive 
consideration of not only how we finance our national infrastructure 
but also what our transportation policies should aim for as we head 
into the 21st century.
    The dynamic flow of commerce and individuals is continually subject 
to change. While our transportation policies may not always be able to 
anticipate these changes, they must be flexible enough to accommodate 
them. All of us have varying opinions about the best way to meet these 
changes. However, I believe there are some areas of common ground that 
all of us can agree on as we establish the framework for reauthorizing 
the ISTEA.
    <bullet> Our transportation policies must recognize the importance 
of providing adequate dollars for improvement and maintenance of our 
infrastructure.
    <bullet> The policies should not favor one region over another, as 
the steady flow of commerce across State lines is in the nation's best 
interests.
    <bullet> Funding formulas should provide States with sufficient 
funding to meet the changing infrastructure needs they face.
    <bullet> While some push for devolution, all of us agree that 
Federal regulations have to recognize the need for greater flexibility 
at the State level.
    <bullet> Because we have a national transportation policy we must 
recognize that there are often unique interstate needs that otherwise 
would not be addressed but for a Federal program.
    I believe the unique regional perspectives all of us bring to this 
issue will ultimately allow us to forge a coherent national policy. I 
represent a State that just happens to be the fastest growing State in 
the country. We have 5,000 new people moving into the State of Nevada 
every month. Because funding formulas are based on old census data it 
is nearly impossible for Nevada to receive the proper financing 
necessary to accommodate is growth.
    Nevada is also unique in that 87 percent of the land is owned by 
the Federal Government. To appreciate how much land this is consider 
the fact that in the areas in between our interstates, you can fit the 
States of New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Vermont, New Hampshire and Delaware. That's a lot of Federal land. 
Because the Federal Government owns these lands the State of Nevada 
receives little or no taxes from these lands but must still provide for 
intercontinental activity across these areas. In order for all States 
to enjoy the benefits of our economy we must be able to build and 
maintain these lines of commerce, and Federal lands programs is the 
source of much of the funding for these areas.
    Nevada is also a bridge State. Much of the traffic is interstate 
traffic. We play an important role in interstate commerce. But the need 
for improving and maintaining these interstates arises out of the 
damage caused largely by non-Nevada traffic. It is difficult for me to 
explain to my constituents why we are underfunding basic maintenance 
projects when they see firsthand the infrastructure degradation caused 
by out-of-State traffic traveling on our interstates.
    Finally, I am concerned that while we have consistently articulated 
a coherent national transportation policy, we have failed to provide 
the adequate funding necessary to support these policies. Specifically, 
I am troubled by the current budgetary gimmickry being played with the 
Highway Trust Funds. The games being played with the highway trust fund 
are penny-wise and pound-foolish. I have introduced legislation to take 
the highway trust fund off budget and believe this action is necessary 
if we are serious about meeting our transportation objectives.
    Our nation's infrastructure represents the lifeline that fuels our 
economy. When we neglect to adequately provide for the health of this 
lifeline all of us suffer. Whether its unsafe and degraded roads or 
pollution caused from over congestion, all of us are affected. The 
price is not only the inconvenience of traversing a dilapidated 
infrastructure. Indeed, the real price is the increased costs all of us 
pay for goods and services because of the burdens placed on a steady 
flow of the stream of commerce. It's similar to cholesterol buildup in 
the arteries--eventually there is a steep price to pay.
    I look forward to being an active participant in rewriting a bill 
that will allow us to continue into the next millennium as the world's 
foremost economic powerhouse. By providing coherent, efficient and 
flexible transportation policies we will surely rise to the great 
challenges of the 21st century.

    I thank our distinguished colleague for being very patient. 
Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit a 
statement for the record.
    Senator Warner. You go right ahead.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                     THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

    Senator Inhofe. I'll just make a couple comments.
    Certainly I pay tribute to Senator Moynihan, who has 
brought us to the point where we are today and had the vision 
and foresight to look beyond our old scope, and I have been 
here just long enough to remember what that was, having spent 8 
years in the House of Representatives serving on the Public 
Works and Transportation Committee.
    I look around and I see that we have broadened our scope. 
Not many people are aware that we in Oklahoma are navigable. We 
actually have--Tulsa, OK, is the most inland port. I know that 
Mr. Card knows that and a few others maybe are aware of that, 
too. So we have a diverse transportation currently and 
transportation potential.
    In looking at the committee up here, of the nine members 
that are sitting before you today, six of us are donor States, 
and I think this will become a more lively debate.
    I introduced legislation in the past, both in the House and 
in the Senate, to put some bench mark, maybe 80 percent, beyond 
which a State could go ahead and have some money and make the 
decision on a local basis as to whether it would go into mass 
transit or go into roads.
    So I see that there should be differences of opinion, and 
I'd say to my good friend, Senator Reid, I fought that battle 
against the demonstration projects for 8 years, lost it every 
year to Bud Shuster, and I'm not optimistic about winning it 
this time, but I'll still try.
    So I'm looking forward to a very active and beneficial 
debate on this most significant piece of legislation.
    Senator Warner. Thank you, Senator.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
     Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from Oklahoma
    Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today. As we begin 
the important process of reauthorizing ISTEA, the legislation that 
represents the most sweeping change to this nation's transportation 
policy, we need to take the time to examine current transportation 
trends across the United States.
    The fact is that people are becoming more mobile every year. City 
limits are expanding and the population in the Midwest and beyond are 
booming. With urban sprawl, rural travel becomes urban travel and 
highway and transit traffic increase as people move to and from work. 
The passage of NAFTA and the globalization of the economy augmented 
international trade as well, bringing with it an increase in movement 
of foreign goods to all corners of the country. These goods travel on 
our highways, waterways, and railroads.
    Oklahoma maintains all modes of transportation. Just north of 
Tulsa, is the Port of Catoosa, an inland international seaport. Barges, 
with loads of cargo ranging from metal products and building materials 
to wheat, use this port as a gateway to communities further inland. In 
the heart of America, Oklahoma's rails, highways and air space are 
constantly in use.
    But the interstate transportation system is not just about 
Oklahoma. It is about the Nation being interconnected as a unit for the 
free flow of domestic as well as foreign commodities and people. That 
means a truck filled with Oklahoma peanuts can travel quickly and 
efficiently to a customer in Maine.
    The entire transportation industry is estimated to comprise 17 
percent of the United States economy. If for no other reason, we need 
to make sure that our programs are workable, efficient and 
intelligently funded. Transportation has shaped what our nation is 
today, and to continue to operate successfully, the system needs to be 
maintained.
    I was a member of the House Public Works and Transportation 
Committee back when ISTEA was crafted in 1991. I think we did an 
admirable job. However, the changing needs of our nation and its 
transportation system need to be reflected in updated formulas and 
programs. Last year I introduced a bill that would guarantee an 80 
percent return on a State's transit funds. Oklahoma, like other States, 
is classified as a donor State in both highways and transit dollars. As 
we move through this reauthorization process, I will look forward to 
reworking the formulas established under ISTEA to make sure that donor 
States see a fair return on their contributions to the Highway Trust 
Fund and Mass Transit Account. Calculations used in the past served our 
nation for the time, but population growth and movement warrants a new 
approach.
    I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on just how the 
population has shifted and their recommendations on ways to meet the 
new demands as a result.

    Senator Warner. Senator Moynihan, do you wish to have a 
moment or two rebuttal?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Moynihan. I think Senator Inhofe has been there 
with Bud Shuster, and so have I, sir. I'm happy that this year 
it will be you.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Warner. Thanks.
    Well, we'd better get started here. We're having too good a 
time.
    Mr. Secretary, would you join us, please?
    We have very good attendance. We're anxious to get the 
perspectives of the Department, and we recognize that we're 
departing from--should we say some tradition of having the 
Secretary first? But we value you as a professional and what 
you've done. You've made very important contributions to 
transportation in your public service.
    You just proceed. We'll place into the record your entire 
statement, and perhaps you can summarize it so that we can move 
to questions early on.
    Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF HON. MORTIMER L. DOWNEY, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 
                  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Mr. Downey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will summarize 
my statement. My longer statement for the record does deal with 
the three issues that were named as the topics of this hearing 
in detail: infrastructure needs, transportation benefits to the 
economy, and trends in transportation. I'll just try to 
highlight some of the issues.
    This week opens the official debate on ISTEA 
reauthorization. This will be a major challenge, and we look 
forward to working with this committee and with all of the 
Congress in renewing this important legislation.
    Incoming Secretary Rodney Slater and I, our administrators 
from the various modal administrations within DOT, are ready to 
work with you. We'll present our proposal for reauthorization 
in a few weeks, and we look forward to the debate on it and to 
other proposals, as well.
    ISTEA authorized $157 billion for fiscal years 1992 through 
1997, and we certainly should ask what did we get for all that 
money. That investment is producing results, even with many of 
the projects still under construction. But funding was not the 
only benefit from the ISTEA legislation. It changed the nature 
of the transportation planning process. It introduced new ideas 
with respect to intermodalism and technology. It gave us new 
financial choices. And we believe it strengthened the 
partnerships among State and local governments and with the 
private sector.
    The result is that the transportation system is getting 
better. The physical condition of bridges and pavement which 
had been deteriorating has stabilized across the Nation, and in 
many areas actually improved--especially on the National 
Highway System.
    Peak hour congestion in our largest urban areas has 
stabilized, and the rate of highway fatalities has declined 
since the enactment of ISTEA, although not as much as we would 
like to see. It is now steady at 1.7 fatalities per 100 million 
miles traveled.
    The conditions and performance of our transit systems has 
also improved.
    These trends suggest that we are keeping pace with the 
maintenance requirements of our infrastructure system. We have 
stopped the tide of accelerating deterioration. We are seeing 
positive results from our safety programs, and we have begun to 
tie our system together through ISTEA's emphasis on 
intermodalism.
    Despite this progress, though, we are still confronted with 
an infrastructure deficit. Over the long term, to maintain 
current conditions on our highway and transit systems will 
require significantly higher funding from all sources--Federal, 
State, and local governments. That's why over the last 4 years 
we have stepped up the level of infrastructure investment. 
We've averaged $25.5 billion a year for infrastructure in the 
last 4 years. That's 20 percent higher than the preceding 4 
years. We've committed in the 1998 budget to continue that 
level at $25.6 billion, slightly above the average of the past 
4 years.
    Under the Administration's plan, $24 billion would be 
available next year for highway and transit capital, the core 
ISTEA programs, and in our proposed legislation we would 
request authorization levels somewhat above the 1998 proposal 
in hopes that economic conditions and budgetary progress would 
enable us to support higher obligation levels in future budget 
and appropriation actions.
    But we also recognize that Federal grant funding cannot 
meet all of our infrastructure needs. We need to continue 
working with you to develop new financial tools such as the 
State infrastructure banks that we began 2 years ago and 
innovative financing techniques to attract new sources of 
funding from the private sector.
    We need to increase the use of technology to make our 
current infrastructure more efficient and less costly.
    The priority given to transportation investment reflects 
the vital role that transportation plays in assuring America's 
economic prosperity and quality of life. Senator Baucus spoke 
of the significant contribution to the gross domestic product 
of transportation. That's one measure of its importance.
    Another is the fact that nearly 10 million Americans are 
employed in industries that provide transportation-related 
goods and services, and these are good jobs with the highest 
wage level of any sector in the economy.
    Our Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a creature of 
ISTEA, has found that, as a result of greater efficiency in the 
transport systems, Americans now enjoy higher levels of 
transportation output for the same level of input, an overall 
improvement in productivity.
    Another recently completed DOT-sponsored study has clearly 
documented the substantial economic returns on highway 
investments. Senator Moynihan referred to this study, showing 
that the private sector return on investment from improved 
transportation is a substantial one, even higher than the 
investment earned by the private sector on their own 
investments.
    We find, not surprisingly, not all spending is the same. 
Investments in transportation infrastructure pay long-term 
dividends. If the Nation's economy is going to grow in the 
years ahead, we cannot short-change ourselves and under-invest 
in essential infrastructure.
    But to make the right investment choices, we need to take 
account of the factors affecting our transportation system. 
This country is facing major changes in personal and business 
travel, new patterns of freight shipments, regional population 
shifts, fast-growing elderly populations, and teenage 
populations, and an explosion of information technology. All of 
this will change the nature of demand and use of the 
transportation system, and we need to respond to that.
    One of the most significant trends in recent years has been 
simply the increase in travel. U.S. passenger travel has nearly 
doubled in the last 25 years. Much of that has been in the 
highway modes, but we also have stabilized public transit. It 
is no longer declining, and elements of it, like commuter rail 
and light rail, have increased appreciably.
    Many different factors have contributed to the growth in 
travel: demographic and labor force changes, income growth, and 
changes in the makeup of metropolitan areas. Much more of the 
travel in America is suburb-to-suburb, less of it is suburb-to-
downtown.
    Our population trend changes will also affect the demand 
for transportation services.
    The number of Americans over age 65--today there are 33.5 
million such Americans. That number could increase by over 50 
percent, and that will require public transportation and 
highways to be more user friendly with better signing, facility 
modifications, and other improvements.
    With respect to freight movement, again there has been 
substantial change. To gain better knowledge of that, our 
Bureau of Transportation Statistics worked with the Census 
Bureau to re-initiate a commodity flow survey so we have 
measures of what is going on in the freight system. We find 
that the system continues to be dominated by trucks, especially 
for short-distance movements. We find that flexible forms of 
transportation such as express and inter-modal movements are 
increasingly important.
    While there are economic and social benefits to increased 
travel and freight transport, at the same time there are costs 
in terms of safety and environmental harm, and these challenges 
must be met in future legislation.
    Transportation injuries and deaths still impose a 
substantial drain on the economy.
    Taking into account the current level of Federal and State 
highway programs, projected increases in miles traveled would 
mean that the number of Americans killed in crashes would 
increase. A conservative estimate projects up to 51,000 deaths 
a year by 2005, compared to about 41,500 last year. We should 
not allow this to happen. We need to reduce the fatality rate. 
We need to reduce the actual number of traffic fatalities.
    The key to much of this is improving our behavior on 
highways: increasing safety belt usage, increasing child safety 
seat use, reducing drunk driving, and increasing compliance 
with the established traffic laws.
    We will propose in our legislation tools to achieve these 
goals. We also will propose changes with respect to 
environmental protection so that we can strengthen our efforts 
to mitigate the effects of transportation on the economy.
    We cannot achieve these key national priorities linking 
Americans to jobs, health care, and education without efficient 
transportation, and the challenges we face in the areas of 
safety and the environment do not stop at State borders.
    ISTEA was visionary legislation, and its central elements--
intermodalism, flexibility, inter-governmental partnership, a 
strong commitment to safety, environmental protection, enhanced 
planning, and strategic investment--should be preserved and 
should be the foundation for the next surface transportation 
reauthorization.
    With those tools, we should be able to respond to these 
trends and the challenges, and, in partnership with our 
partners in the States and in local communities and with the 
private sector, I believe that we at the Federal level can play 
a leadership role in meeting these challenges.
    Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement, and I would be 
pleased to answer your questions.
    Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
    You're familiar with this document?
    Mr. Downey. Yes.
    Senator Warner. I'm just going to read a little bit.
    ``In 1994, an estimated $49.9 billion in highway and bridge 
capital investment would have been required from all sources 
just to maintain the 1993 conditions and performance.''
    Now, I would hope that your Department--and I would like to 
request the Secretary, in his testimony, to provide this 
committee with some charts showing one curve, the amount that's 
needed to maintain the current system in a safe and effective 
and economic manner, just maintenance. Then, if we are to 
increase the funding, what funding increase would be required 
to enhance this system?
    For example, this goes on to say, ``An estimated 68.2 
billion would be required in 1994 to provide a higher quality 
of service on highway and bridge systems.''
    Do you want to take a look at that? It's the second 
paragraph there.
    Now, we need to show to the American public just exactly 
what's going on. I'm not trying to fault the Administration or 
fault the Congress. I just want to get the facts out there. 
We're the trustees. They're paying the dollars in.
    In my judgment, this curve is going to show a downward 
trend as to what's needed just to maintain the current system, 
when, in fact, much of the public thinks that the payment of 
this significant tax is improving what they already have.
    So could you convey that to the Secretary?
    Mr. Downey. Mr. Chairman, I will. And, in fact----
    Senator Warner. Would you like to comment a little bit on 
it?
    Mr. Downey. Yes, sir. The Conditions and Performance Report 
is a departmental document. It's an analysis we do at the 
request of the Congress every 2 years. We will be submitting a 
new one later in 1997.
    I think it sets----
    Senator Warner. I think it's due out in about April or May.
    Mr. Downey. Yes.
    Senator Warner. But we're going to be well along in our 
legislative work on this particular piece of legislation.
    Mr. Downey. I think its findings will be similar to the 
1995 findings. It will indicate how additional resources will 
be needed over time to maintain the performance of the system. 
It will also point to the progress that we have made. We 
believe it will show that with some good choices that have been 
put in place, we are holding our own, but that we could, in 
fact, with that additional investment, achieve good returns to 
the economy. I think that's the conclusion of the combination 
of the studies that we have done.
    And the Conditions and Performance Report suggests that 
greater investment--Federal, State, local, and private--would 
pay returns to the economy.
    Senator Warner. Well, you're not the one to--you've got to 
salute and march off with your budget figures from OMB, as 
approved by the President, so we're not going to get into that 
debate today.
    But you're very articulate. You say we do need more. You 
recognize that. The other professionals recognize it. I think 
everyone around this dais recognizes that. So who, when, and 
where is going to make the decision to begin to turn this curve 
around?
    Well, I'm suggesting it has to be made here by the 
Congress, and we put in place steps to do it.
    Let's talk about--to what extent can you--and if you're not 
able to deal with this, do ask the Secretary to include it in 
his--where are our major trading partners in terms of their 
transportation system and their level of expenditures?
    We need a comparison in this country, because we're in a 
day-by-day struggle around the world to remain competitive and 
to make our economy strong.
    Mr. Downey. On that point, I would--we'd be pleased to 
provide that kind of an analysis. I think the point it will 
make is that our trading partners are investing heavily in an 
effort to catch up.
    Senator Warner. Catch up.
    Mr. Downey. And they recognize that they need to catch up.
    One study that I'm familiar with showed that in India, 
where wage levels are such that their product could be very 
competitive, they suffer a 30 percent disadvantage immediately 
after the product leaves the factory because their 
transportation system is so far below the efficiency of ours.
    So the efficiency of our transportation system, as it 
exists today, is clearly a competitive advantage for this 
country, and other countries are investing heavily because they 
want to catch up.
    Senator Warner. My last question--here in the metropolitan 
area in Washington, our analysis shows that many, many people 
are spending up to an hour behind the wheel in transportation. 
This, of course, contributes to gridlock, but it's a loss of 
their time from other productive activities--namely, their job 
or their family, both equally important.
    Do you foresee that the Administration will be forthcoming 
in some solutions as to how to rework that problem in this 
bill, legislative solutions?
    Mr. Downey. I think there will be proposals, both proposals 
that are nationwide in scope but can also be put to work in 
this region, things like intelligent transportation systems, 
improvements in traffic flow. We will also have proposals for 
some of the specific needs of this region such as the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge, and our continued commitment to the METRO 
system.
    Senator Warner. Yes. I hadn't intended to get into the 
bridge situation. That's very important to this Senator, and it 
seems to me another day and another time to get into that.
    My distinguished colleague.
    Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Downey, you said other countries are trying to catch up 
with us, and I think to some degree that's true. At least it's 
my understanding that Japan spends about four times what we do 
as a percentage of gross domestic product, and I suspect that 
maybe some European countries spend more as a percent of their 
GDP than we.
    But we shouldn't help them catch up by, at best, running in 
place, or perhaps even spending less.
    As I look at the Administration's budget, the highway 
budget, highway portion only, looks like the request is $500 
million less than currently we're spending.
    Are we going to help other countries catch up?
    Mr. Downey. We certainly don't want to help them catch up. 
I think our budget for 1998 should sustain the level of 
investment we're currently putting in place, and hopefully 
maintain the performance of the system. But over time we are 
going to need to invest more.
    We believe some of the aspects of our budget, especially 
the Federal credit program and the State Infrastructure Bank 
program, will allow us to make some of those strategic 
investments in major new projects that will, in fact, sustain 
our advantage against these other countries.
    Senator Baucus. When will the Administration submit a bill?
    Mr. Downey. I hope within a few weeks.
    Senator Baucus. As you know, we have another hearing, I 
think the 26th of this month.
    Mr. Downey. Yes.
    Senator Baucus. It doesn't sound like your bill will be 
ready by that hearing.
    Mr. Downey. We know of the date of that hearing and 
certainly are working toward being ready.
    Senator Baucus. Yes. Could you just convey back to OMB, or 
whomever, we've got to get cracking here.
    Mr. Downey. I will do that.
    Senator Baucus. OK. I appreciate that.
    Your comments on proposed turn-back legislation submitted 
by some Members of Congress--I'm very much opposed to that. I 
think it undermines the Federal nature of the program. I think 
it's very short-sighted. I don't think we should fall victim to 
the excessive States' rights claims. I mean, it sounds good. 
It's good for home consumption. But, frankly, I think it's a 
disservice to the national character of the program.
    Your thoughts on the economic or the safety or mobility 
implications of that legislation if it were to be enacted?
    Mr. Downey. Certainly it would be a major shift from what 
has worked well over the last 50 to 75 years, which has been a 
national system of partnership between the Federal Government 
and the State governments. We are concerned about the concept 
of breaking that system apart with the turn-back proposal.
    Were that to fall into place, there's no assurance that at 
the State levels the taxes would be reenacted at their present 
amounts.
    There's no assurance that in a State-only approach to our 
transportation system we would get the linkages that we need, 
the common safety standards that we need, or the applications 
of technology that, in fact, have made our system better.
    We gave some thought to this concept in putting the 
Administration's proposal together before we decided on the 
course we have in place. We said, ``Should we consider a turn-
back? Should we consider other options?''
    Our endorsement of the present approach, with some 
modifications to make it work better is, in our view, the best 
way to go.
    Senator Baucus. So you rejected the turn-back?
    Mr. Downey. We rejected turn-back.
    Senator Baucus. Could you give the committee some more 
reasons why you rejected it?
    Mr. Downey. There are safety considerations.
    Senator Baucus. What are some of them?
    Mr. Downey. The considerations of making the system 
consistent across the country in areas of signage, in areas of 
civil design, and in some of the incentives that we can put in 
place.
    We are not supportive of mandates on some of the safety 
issues, but we think there are incentives that can be put in 
place to assure that people who drive in this country, wherever 
they might be, will have the same degree of protection and 
concern for drunk drivers, for safety belt use, and the like.
    I think there is a lot to be gained from a national system. 
This is a single society. People have mobility. People learn to 
drive in one State but move to another. People travel. I think 
a single system from both a safety standpoint and an economic 
standpoint is critical to the Nation.
    Senator Baucus. I appreciate that.
    I'm a little concerned, as I think some are, that the 
President's budget submission generally is just sort of a 
maintenance budget. It's clear we have to work to balance the 
budget, but it just seems to me that, as we drive toward a 
balanced budget, we have to still be more creative to look for 
ways to meet our Nation's needs, and whether that's additional 
revenue, tax revenue, or whether it's additional private 
financing techniques, or whatever it is, I think we're being a 
little bit pedestrian in our approach to infrastructure needs 
in this country, generally--particularly surface 
transportation.
    I just urge you and others in the Administration, as I'm 
urging all of us here in the Congress, to be a little more 
creative than I think we are being as we attempt to grapple 
with all of these.
    Mr. Downey. Certainly, as we work on this bill that's 
something we would be looking to explore--to see if there 
aren't new ways to do it.
    I was with the President last week when he met with the 
Governors, who raised this same issue, and his message to them 
was, ``I want to work with you on all of the priorities in the 
budget, and the outcome will be what makes sense for the 
American people.''
    Senator Baucus. I think it's clear we want to work 
together, but the challenge or the charge here is to be more 
aggressive, more creative to come up with something more 
quickly.
    Senator Warner. Senator Baucus, thank you very much.
    Senator Thomas.
    Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Downey, I'm kind of new at this. You had 24 pages in 
your statement. Here's part of it: ``We cannot achieve other 
key national priorities linking Americans to jobs, health care, 
without efficient transportation. The challenge we face is in 
safety, environment. Do not stop. Significant challenge is 
ahead.''
    We all agree with that, but if you were to say in four 
things what is it we ought to be doing this year, what would 
they be? I'm afraid I don't quite understand, from all of your 
statement, what it is you think are the priorities.
    Mr. Downey. From the standpoint of legislation, the key 
priority is reenactment of the Federal surface transportation 
program, a piece of legislation that has been known as ISTEA 
over the last 6 years, whatever it will be known as in the 
future.
    I think it's important to reenact that, and to do it in a 
timely way.
    Senator Thomas. What does that mean?
    Mr. Downey. To hopefully have it in place by the 1st of 
October.
    Senator Thomas. OK.
    Mr. Downey. The States need that lead time to put their 
programs in place, and we'd like to get started on implementing 
it.
    Within that piece of legislation I think it's important to 
create a climate in which good investment decisions can be made 
so that State and local areas can pick the projects that are 
most important and get on with them, connect them up in a 
useful way.
    That's one of the reasons why we supported the National 
Highway System legislation, because it will concentrate a 
significant portion of the dollars on a small portion of the 
system that carries the majority of inter-city and local 
traffic, particularly commercial traffic.
    The third priority, which really is first in terms of 
importance, is safety. The legislation and the way we implement 
the program really has to focus on safety. We are very 
concerned by the fact that the rate of traffic fatalities, 
while it had declined substantially over the past decade to 15 
years, has now leveled out. If we don't do something about that 
rate, increasing population and increasing travel will mean an 
upturn, a significant upturn in traffic deaths.
    Senator Thomas. So what's the solution to that?
    Mr. Downey. Solution is construction, better vehicles, and 
behavior-related measures such as increasing the rate of safety 
belt use, and decreasing the rate of drunk driving.
    Senator Thomas. So your main interest would be in 
construction? You're not really in charge of safety belts, are 
you?
    Mr. Downey. Through our programs, we have had a role in 
increasing use of safety belts, and we would propose continuing 
that, working through the States on both legislation and 
enforcement, to ensure that the public travels safely.
    And then the last piece is technology. We'd like to invest 
in new technology to make these transportation systems work 
better.
    Senator Thomas. You indicated in one of the reports, I 
think on page 3, 50 billion would have been required at all 
levels of government to maintain current conditions--only 70 
percent of what was needed in 1993. Is that still the case?
    Mr. Downey. We have--as I said to the chairman, we have not 
completed the 1997 report, but I think it will be in that 
range. It may be a little--it should be a little bit better, at 
least at the Federal level, and we hope that State and local 
governments have followed through with some additional 
investment.
    We are still probably below that level----
    Senator Thomas. So generally you're still saying----
    Mr. Downey [continuing]. To maintain systems----
    Senator Thomas [continuing]. The combined resources would 
only provide 70 or 75 percent?
    Mr. Downey. From 70 to maybe 75 percent of the long-term 
need.
    Senator Thomas. I see.
    Mr. Downey. If we continue at that pace, we will see 
physical deterioration, and, as traffic grows, performance 
would degrade. You would have additional congestion and delays 
and inadequate performance.
    Senator Thomas. Finally, would you comment on what would be 
your solution to the public land roads like national parks, 
specifically? How do you think we should deal with those 
backlogs?
    Mr. Downey. We will propose in our legislation continued 
Federal funding for the national park roads and other Federal 
land roads. The Federal Highway Administration carries out 
those programs. We think they should continue to play an active 
role.
    Senator Thomas. Would you care to guess, if the others are 
75 percent funded, how would you say the national parks are?
    Mr. Downey. I would like to provide that for the record.
    Senator Thomas. Please.
    Mr. Downey. I think we do have an analysis of that.
    Senator Thomas. All right, sir. Thank you.
    Senator Warner. Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Downey, I'm the chairman of the subcommittee called 
Clean Air, Property Rights, Wetlands, and Nuclear Safety. As 
you know, right now we're looking at--we've had two hearings so 
far concerning the changes in the national ambient air quality 
standards, and it has become quite contentious.
    During your analysis of the future transportation needs, 
did you take into consideration any potential changes in these 
standards?
    Mr. Downey. We have been working with the Environmental 
Protection Agency on the new standards. Of course, they are the 
lead agency and would establish the standards.
    Working with them, we have identified what the potential 
impacts would be on States, counties, municipalities, what 
additional populations and areas might, under those standards, 
fall into non-attainment. And we will propose in our 
legislation additional allocations of funding to those areas to 
help them build the transportation system changes that will be 
needed to help reach attainment.
    Senator Inhofe. Well, what kind of transportation systems 
could you build that would help reach attainment if you find 
that an area is out of attainment?
    Mr. Downey. For example, we have found in the existing non-
attainment areas that measures to improve traffic flow, which 
are really short-term in their benefits, measures to improve 
public transit use, measures to encourage land use development 
that would have less travel associated with them, all can 
contribute.
    Some urbanized areas have experimented with freight 
movement improvements to reduce the use of trucks and increase 
the use of rail.
    All of these have individually fairly small impacts on air 
quality, but they do help toward achieving the air quality 
goals, and we'd like to continue that approach.
    Senator Inhofe. Part of what we're talking about here today 
is trying to project into the future what our future needs are 
going to be. Of course, we had a little discussion with Senator 
Baucus. I didn't agree with some of his analyses about where 
these decisions are best made.
    But it would seem to me that if you're looking at some 
massive changes, as have been proposed by the Administration, 
that you would have either as into your plan now or as an 
alternative should those become a reality as to what the future 
needs would be throughout the country on the transportation 
system.
    I'm wondering if, first of all, you have plugged that into 
your current analysis. And second, if not, are you coming up 
with a stand-by plan to take those things into consideration?
    And if the second answer is yes, would that have an effect 
on what you would feel the needs would be around different 
parts of the country?
    Mr. Downey. In our proposed legislation we will have some 
responses. Some of them will be, as you described, stand-by.
    We don't fully understand yet when the impacts of some of 
these changes would occur, and certainly we at the Federal 
level would not be designing the transportation system changes. 
That would happen at the State and the regional level through 
the metropolitan planning organizations, through State 
governments, in the inter-connection of the air quality 
implementation plans and their transportation plans.
    But we would be prepared to work with the States in the 
event that changes have to be made.
    Senator Inhofe. I'm really thinking about an allocation of 
funds and preparing for the future as we step into this next 
age, and what we're doing right now is very, very significant, 
but I wanted to kind of explore a little bit where we would go; 
what effect, if those were to pass, that would have on the 
overall plan in terms of use on the system and in terms of 
deterioration.
    In other words, I could see, quite frankly, a shift in 
funding if non-attainment areas were mandated to car pooling or 
some alternative means of transportation, as you just 
suggested, that could very well work--have a negative effect as 
to how projects were funded in the future.
    And if you haven't gotten into it, I would, because it 
would have very, very serious, serious, serious effects on 
future transportation needs from location to location.
    Mr. Downey. When we submit our legislation, I think there 
will be some reference and----
    Senator Inhofe. What I'd like to see----
    Mr. Downey [continuing]. And we will be working with EPA on 
implementation plans.
    Senator Inhofe. Well, by the time you submit your 
legislation I have an idea that we'll pretty much know where 
that's going to go, and in which case we ought at least to have 
an alternative plan as to how it would be affected as a result 
of adopting that change in standards.
    Senator Kempthorne [assuming the chair]. Senator Inhofe, 
thank you very much.
    Mr. Downey, I noticed on different occasions during this 
testimony you've referenced, of course, safety, and you've 
talked about seat belt usage, and, of course, the objective to 
lower fatalities. I've not heard you make any reference to the 
current air bags and air bag standards. Is there a reason 
you've not referenced that?
    Mr. Downey. Only that that's not really part of the ISTEA 
legislation insofar as this committee is involved, but it 
certainly is a concern. We are aware of your interest and your 
concern. I know Secretary Designate Slater is, as well, and 
will be responding to you.
    Senator Kempthorne. All right. Mr. Downey, thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Downey. Thank you.
    Senator Kempthorne. I'd like to call the next panel 
forward.
    Before the next panel begins, I'd just note for the record, 
Mr. Downey, that Federal motor vehicle safety standard 208 
dealing with air bags was modified in ISTEA, so it certainly 
does pertain here.
    OK. With that, I'd like to welcome our next panel of 
distinguished guests. We have: Mr. Andrew Card, who is the 
president and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers 
Association; Mr. Darrel Rensink, who is the president of the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials; Mr. Alan E. Pisarski, who is the author of 
``Commuting in America,'' and Mr. Damian Kulash, who is the 
president and CEO, ENO Transportation Foundation, Incorporated.
    Welcome all of you.
    With that, Mr. Card, if you'd please give us your opening 
comments.

 STATEMENT OF ANDREW H. CARD, JR., PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN 
              AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Card. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's good to 
be with you.
    I was pleased you referenced FMVS 208 as being part of 
ISTEA. I happen to have been secretary when the mandate under 
that provision of ISTEA took effect, and I had to put forward a 
notice of proposed rulemaking on the current air bag 
technology.
    My name is Andrew H. Card, Junior. I am the president and 
chief executive officer of the American Automobile 
Manufacturers Association, whose members are Chrysler 
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors 
Corporation. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today 
in the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act, known as ISTEA.
    The automotive industry has a keen interest in and a unique 
perspective on a safe and efficient highway system. Good roads 
are vital for both the production and the use of our products.
    The automotive industry sells mobility. Some years ago a 
former GM chairman characterized the role of the industry in 
this way: we may think we sell cars and trucks, but what we are 
really selling is mobility. Our cars and trucks must be well-
designed and well-built, but if they cannot be used efficiently 
and enjoyably, they will be of no more value than a canoe in a 
desert.
    While our customers need good roads for the safe and 
efficient use of our products, we, as manufacturers, must also 
have good roads to build and distribute our products.
    Global economic competition has changed the way we conduct 
every aspect of our business, and that includes how we use our 
highways.
    U.S. maps may show that Interstate 75 goes from Sault Ste. 
Marie to Key West, and that Interstate 95 runs from Maine to 
Florida; however, for America's car companies, these roads 
extend directly from our 276 manufacturing facilities to 
Europe, to South America, to Asia, and beyond.
    In order to compete in our global economy, AAMA member 
companies have instituted quality control and lean 
manufacturing processes to reduce costs and increase 
productivity. These improvements have resulted in a significant 
change in the auto industry's material delivery network. Auto 
manufacturers now ship the majority of their parts and 
components just in time to meet very precise production 
schedules.
    The data dramatically illustrates this change. In a decade, 
just-in-time deliveries have increased, on average, from 25 
percent to 95 percent of all deliveries. For example, at one of 
our member companies 32 plants operate on just-in-time 
inventory system. That means that throughout every single 
working day about 2,500 trucks travel more than one million 
miles on the Nation's highways delivering parts and components 
to those 32 plants just at the point they're needed in the 
production process.
    At another one of our member companies' plants, one typical 
plant receives and unloads an average of 120 truck loads of 
components, parts, and supplies daily.
    The plant then ships approximately 480 vehicles, one-half 
of its daily production, directly to dealers using 60 haul-away 
trucks.
    An additional 480 vehicles leave the plant site loaded on 
multi-level rail cars destined to rail unloading ramps located 
in major market areas. Upon arrival, the rail cars are unloaded 
and the 480 vehicles are delivered to dealers by another 60 
haul-away trucks.
    Finally, at another plant trucks pick up parts at suppliers 
within a 30-minute window and deliver them to the 
manufacturer's plant under the same time constraints. The 
objective is to have no more than 2 hours' inventory on the 
line at any one time.
    It is clear that any disruption in highway service, such as 
congestion or bad roads, will cause disruption in the 
manufacturing cycle. That results in production loss, sales 
loss, and even sometimes job loss.
    As Henry Ford put it, ordinarily money put into raw 
materials or into finished stock is thought of as live money. 
It is money in the business. It is true. But having a stock of 
raw material or finished products in excess of requirements is 
waste which, like every other waste, turns up in high prices 
and low wages.
    Just-in-time was a goal in the 1980's, but in the 1990's it 
is truly a necessity in order to be internationally 
competitive.
    Mr. Chairman, I would now like to address some specific 
issues related to ISTEA. I want to compliment Senator Moynihan 
in the role he played in developing the original ISTEA 
legislation.
    Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Card, I tell you what. The reason 
you've seen an absence is there's a vote that is currently 
taking place.
    Rather than have you have to rush so that we would dash 
off, I'm going to take a brief recess, because out of courtesy 
to all of you gentlemen we want to hear what you have to say, 
so, rather than having the time clock pushing us, I'm just 
going to recess and I'll be back in just a few moments.
    Mr. Card. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Kempthorne. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Senator Kempthorne. Again, for those of you on the panel, 
we appreciate your indulgence here.
    Mr. Card, you were about ready to get specific.
    Mr. Card. I'm trying to get specific.
    Senator Kempthorne. All right.
    Mr. Card. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Baucus, good to see you, and thank you for the 
accommodations you gave me when I was Secretary of 
Transportation.
    As you said, Mr. Chairman, we would now like to get into 
more of the specific issues related to ISTEA.
    One of the most critical responsibilities for Congress in 
the reauthorization process is to provide adequate funding for 
the highway program. We all know that there is a need. I think 
that's indisputable. We also all know that there is money in 
the highway fund, in the highway trust fund, and that money 
should be spent. I think that is the simple approach that we 
should use to address all of the debate over this very 
important ISTEA legislation.
    I know the subcommittee is very well aware of the problems 
associated with our surface transportation infrastructure. In 
fact, subcommittee members signed--and I was pleased to see 
that, the letter that Senator Warner mentioned, now with 59 
Senators--signed a letter to the Budget Committee chairman 
urging the committee to provide a $6 billion increase in 
highway funding for fiscal year 1997.
    AAMA's members strongly support the objectives of that 
letter, and we sincerely appreciate the efforts that were put 
into getting that letter with so many signatories on it.
    As a global industry, the automobile industry also believes 
that the future U.S. competitiveness must address global 
transportation trends. With the national commitment in some 
major overseas markets to advanced surface transportation modes 
and ITS systems, we know that more must be done if we're going 
to remain competitive.
    In this context, the automobile industry supports the 
development of ITS in a mix of both vehicle and highway 
technologies which are designed to assist all roadway users in 
the smooth movement of traffic in congested areas.
    I note that the debate over ISTEA will not only center 
around the size of the pot--I think the most important part of 
the debate is the size of the pot--but it will also center 
around how that pot would be allocated.
    I know that the CMAQ program is of particular concern and 
will come up in the debate.
    GM, Ford, and Chrysler are very, very interested in being 
partners as we address the problems of congestion mitigation. 
We also know that we have societal responsibilities to help 
improve air quality.
    I feel personally that the CMAQ program is in desperate 
need of reform, but the goals of CMAQ are very important for us 
to remember when we consider ISTEA.
    Congestion mitigation is important not only because it 
relates to what happens to individual travel, but also to the 
commerce of America. Congestion does slow down just-in-time 
delivery and we would like to work with you to reform the CMAQ 
program to best reflect the needs of the transportation system.
    ITS would be one area where we think it makes sense for us 
to work together on advanced technologies to help mitigate 
those problems, but America's car companies truly believe that 
maintaining and improving our Nation's highway system must be 
one of the national priorities.
    If we are to compete effectively in the 21st century, our 
transportation must be up to the competition and up to the 
challenge.
    We will work with you. We would welcome the chance to work 
with you as you craft the next ISTEA, and our goal is to 
reauthorize an ISTEA that is good for America and good for 
American workers so that they can compete in markets around the 
world.
    With that I say thank you, and I'd be glad to answer any 
questions that you might have.
    Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Card, thank you very much.
    Senator Kempthorne. Let me turn to Mr. Pisarski. Your 
comments, please?

    STATEMENT OF ALAN E. PISARSKI, AUTHOR OF ``COMMUTING IN 
                           AMERICA''

    Mr. Pisarski. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, it's an honor 
to be here at this first Senate hearing on ISTEA 
reauthorization. I recall with great pride that I participated 
in the first Senate hearing at the inception of ISTEA 6 years 
ago.
    My focus today will be on commuting trends, their economic 
and demographic determinants, and their implications for our 
transportation future.
    I should say that the other members of the panel were all 
participants in the development of the document ``Commuting in 
America.'' AASHTO led and chaired the 14 public agencies that 
participated in its development and support of ISTEA. One of 
the funders was Mr. Card's group. The ENO Foundation was the 
publisher. The Department of Transportation was very important 
in developing the information that I used in my document.
    I'll be referring to some of the graphics here. I think 
that may be the simplest way to get through some of the 
material.
    In the early work of ``Commuting in America'' back in the 
1980's we talked about three booms in America with respect to 
commuting--the worker boom, the automobile boom, and the 
suburbanization boom.
    I'm going to talk a little bit about the virulence of those 
trends, whether they have persisted into the present and how 
will they develop out into the future, and also I would like to 
discuss some emerging trends that are important for us to focus 
on.
    With respect to workers, the main point is that the great 
boom in population and workers with the advent of women joining 
the labor force in extensive numbers, with the baby boomers 
joining the labor force, is at an end. This big surge that we 
felt of commuters in the 1970's and into the 1980's is behind 
us. It's kind of like a python that swallowed a pig. It's 
working its way through the system, as the baby boomers age, 
and so the large numbers of workers that were added in that 
period are very much behind us.
    We will be having steady additions to the labor force out 
into the future, but not of extraordinary scale that we saw in 
the past.
    With respect to the automobile boom, the dramatic shift to 
the single occupant vehicle is, in a sense, almost complete. We 
saw a tremendous surge to the single occupant vehicle, 
basically at the expense of all alternatives. Car pooling, 
transit, walking--all of the other alternatives declined in 
both share and in absolute numbers as the population shifted to 
the single occupant vehicle.
    That trend has stabilized at very high levels. We've got 
saturation effectively in auto ownership in America, and 
saturation with respect to driver's licenses, with some 
important exceptions that I'd like to mention later.
    The third part of the booms of the past that I want to look 
at is one that has retained its virulence and will grow in the 
future, and that is the shift of the population to our suburbs.
    Suburbanization continues at a very strong pace, in terms 
of population, workers, and jobs. This is still a dominant 
force. I would say there's no end in sight with respect to the 
shift to the suburbs.
    What we've seen is about two-thirds of job development 
going into our suburbs, and the dominance of the new 
circumferential kinds of commuting, the suburb-to-suburb 
commute.
    Other patterns that I think are of significance are inter-
metropolitan commuting, where more and more we're seeing people 
moving from areas like Baltimore to Washington, moving from one 
suburb of a metropolitan area to the suburbs of another 
metropolitan area.
    Another factor is so-called ``reverse commuting'' that I 
think is important for us to consider. The President mentioned 
in his State of the Union Address the importance of central 
city workers and getting them to the jobs that are more and 
more located in our suburban areas. In fact, we had greater 
growth in reverse commuting than we did in commuting within our 
central cities in the last 10 years.
    Among forces of change that are emerging and that are going 
to be critical in commuting, the first of these is immigration. 
Immigration is now a dominant factor in national population 
growth trends. Our overall population growth is at very low 
levels, about the same as our depression years. But about 40 
percent of our population growth is in immigrant populations. 
The big difference is when we add one to our population with a 
new birth, we get a commuter 20 years later. When we add one to 
our population by immigration, we get almost instant commuters.
    About 80 percent of immigrants come to the United States at 
working age. Of course, one of the reasons they're here is to 
join the labor force and to join the commuting stream.
    Where will they go? Where will they work? Where will they 
live? That's going to be a very important set of factors in how 
commuting patterns develop.
    The final point that I'd like to focus on is ethnic and 
racial patterns. I mentioned earlier that we had something like 
saturation with respect to driver's licenses and auto ownership 
in America. That's misleading. When we get closer to the 
information, what we find is that, although we have only 11 
percent of our households in America without automobiles that 
breaks into about 7 percent of the white, non-Hispanic 
households without vehicles, but in the black population we're 
talking about 30 percent of households without vehicles, and in 
Hispanic populations we're talking about 20 percent of 
households without vehicles, and in our central cities those 
numbers are considerably higher.
    With respect to driver's licenses, the same thing is true--
that we have saturation in the sense of 96 percent of white 
male non-Hispanics of driving age have driver's licenses. But 
within the black population, black males have 80 percent 
driver's licenses, black women 70 percent.
    So a lot of our growth in the future, the future automobile 
buyers, the future participants in commuting patterns are going 
to be coming from racial minorities and ethnic minorities in 
the future. This is going to be one of the patterns that we're 
going to have to focus on.
    One of the patterns that we've seen grow is the immense 
pressures of time on people, and we are seeing their reaction. 
One of the reasons so many people, particularly women, shifted 
to the single occupant vehicle was the immense pressures of 
time. Although actual travel times did not increase that much, 
what we've seen is a shift into something we call ``trip 
chaining,'' where more and more people, instead of just going 
to work and coming home, are making stops on the way to work 
and are making stops on the way home, particularly women.
    This kind of ties the work trip together with the whole 
social pattern of the household and has immense influence on 
traffic patterns. There's good news and bad news in that 
pattern, as you might suspect.
    I think I'd like to stop there, Senator, and would be 
delighted to answer any questions if I can.
    Senator Warner [resuming the chair]. Thank you.
    Senator Warner. I'm sorry I wasn't here for the entire 
testimony, but I shall read it. I appreciate it very much.
    Mr. Pisarski. Thank you, Chairman.
    Senator Warner. All right. We'll have our next panelist 
now. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DARREL RENSINK, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF 
           STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

    Mr. Rensink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Darrel 
Rensink. I am the president for the American Association of 
State Highway and Transportation Officials and director of the 
Iowa Department of Transportation.
    On behalf of AASHTO, I am pleased to accept your invitation 
to testify on issues relative to reauthorization of the surface 
transportation programs.
    As members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
you are well aware of both the benefits from and the need for 
transportation as we head into the 21st century. So, what I am 
about to say will come as no surprise. However, the importance 
of transportation for this Nation's future requires that we 
focus our attention directly on transportation.
    America's transportation network has played a major role in 
our Nation's economic success. Just as in our Nation's past, 
our future is greatly dependent on how well we support our 
transportation system. The legislation you will be considering 
is, therefore, very important to the people of America as we 
rapidly approach the 21st century.
    Perhaps no other Federal investment has such far-reaching 
implications or influences the daily quality of our lives as 
does our transportation systems. It serves all of our citizens 
daily in traveling to their jobs, day cares, and markets, in 
providing goods to wholesale and retail outlets, in traveling 
to recreational activities, and in a wide range of activities 
in which we all participate.
    Most importantly, transportation is the backbone for our 
State, national, and international economies. Transportation is 
our Nation's economic engine, which is built on an efficient 
transportation system, a key component to our global 
competitiveness.
    Industry, much of which now rely on ``just-in-time'' 
delivery of raw materials, must have an effective and efficient 
transportation system.
    I recognize that a central point of the debate on 
reauthorization will be funding formulas and the distribution 
of funds among the States.
    As the director of the Iowa Department of Transportation, I 
understand the importance of Federal funding for my State's 
highway and transit programs, and I also understand that the 
discussion of formulas is important. However, as the debate 
begins, we must remember that without transportation there is 
no State or national economy, there is no quality of life, 
there is no economic development, and therefore there is no 
future.
    We must evaluate the discussion of transportation beyond 
the funding formulas and focus on the importance of 
transportation to our Nation and its citizens.
    Our Nation has thrived largely in part, due to 
transportation and its systems, which we currently enjoy and 
often take for granted. People and freight would not move if it 
were not for our highways, railroads, airports, and waterways 
that we now have in place.
    Just as important are the transportation services provided 
by the transit systems and the trucking or motor carrier 
industry.
    The Interstate System and the National Highway System are 
the two most visible components of our transportation system 
and serve as the backbone of our transportation infrastructure. 
We must not reduce our commitment to maintaining this backbone, 
our Nation's primary economic foundation.
    I often hear that to compete in the global economy we need 
a good transportation system. I believe that concept is 
included in my formal testimony submitted to your committee. 
However, competing in the world economy is not good enough. As 
it is in sports, we can compete and still lose.
    We cannot afford to lose when it comes to our 
transportation systems. This Nation must be the leader, and to 
lead we must have a transportation system second to none. To be 
in the forefront, we must invest in our transportation systems.
    In my remaining comments today I will touch on AASHTO's key 
recommendations and respond to the themes you have stated for 
this hearing.
    AASHTO agrees that the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act was landmark legislation. It improved our 
ability to provide better transportation for the Nation in many 
ways. The planning and decisionmaking processes for surface 
transportation were changed by ISTEA, moving decisionmaking the 
States and local governments and emphasizing State and local 
cooperation, intermodal planning, and public participation.
    Greater flexibility was provided in utilizing Federal 
funds, allowing States and local governments to better target 
resources to match State, local, and citizen priorities.
    AASHTO's support for ISTEA doesn't mean that there are not 
areas for improvement. The detailed policy recommendations for 
reauthorization which were provided to the committee identify 
areas where the Association believes changes could be made.
    You asked that we respond to three areas: future 
transportation trends, transportation benefits to the economy, 
and infrastructure funding requirements.
    Mr. Chairman, looking at the trends for transportation, it 
is clear that it continues to play a major role in the well-
being of this Nation. This role is demonstrated by the growth 
in the number of drivers, vehicles, and passengers on our 
highway and transit systems, and the reliance of industry and 
economic development on the availability of efficient 
transportation.
    An example, just-in-time production, is one of the most 
significant trends in U.S. manufacturing in recent years. This 
trend has allowed many businesses to sharply reduce or 
eliminate inventories.
    In 1990, just-in-time manufacturing accounted for 18 
percent of U.S. production, by 1995, this percentage had 
increased to 28 percent. However, just-in-time production and 
the resulting reduction in inventories require dependable and 
efficient transportation facilities. These trends will continue 
placing an ever-increasing demand on our systems.
    The benefits to the economy--Mr. Chairman, throughout the 
history of our Nation, transportation has been a key driving 
force in building and maintaining our economy. A copy of a 
report prepared by AASHTO and FHWA, entitled, ``The Economic 
Importance of Transportation, Talking Points and References,'' 
has been provided to your committee.
    Industry estimates that logistic and transportation costs 
account for 20 to 25 percent of the value of a product on the 
shelf. This results in a direct relationship between what our 
citizens pay for products and the cost of transportation.
    In addition to the efficiency and production benefits for a 
manufacturing sector, investments in transportation are also 
important for job creation and employment mobility.
    The Federal Highway Administration's most recent report on 
job generation for highway investment finds that $1 billion of 
investments in the Federal highway program supports more than 
42,000 full-time jobs.
    Also, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 
every dollar invested in the highway system will return more 
than $2.60 in benefits to the economy.
    As indicated in the few examples shown above, investing in 
the Nation's transportation facilities is important to ensuring 
long-term economic growth.
    Mr. Chairman, you also requested testimony on 
infrastructure funding requirements. Simply described, our 
needs for investments to adequately support the Nation's 
surface transportation systems are well documented and far 
exceed the current investment levels.
    AASHTO analyzed the investment requirements of our 
transportation systems based on information received from the 
U.S. Department of Transportation. This analysis is detailed in 
our report, ``The Bottom Line: Transportation Investment Needs, 
1998 to 2002.'' Copies of this report have also been provided 
to the subcommittee.
    To summarize the report, over the next 5 years total 
highway investment needs to maintain the current conditions and 
performance capabilities are $264 billion, an additional 
investment of $94 billion is needed to improve the condition 
and performance of this essential system, for a total 
investment need of $358 billion over 5 years.
    Transit needs to maintain and improve are identified at $39 
billion and $33 billion, respectively, for a total of $72 
billion over 5 years.
    While the estimated amounts to maintain and improve our 
highway and transit systems are daunting, significantly more 
funding is being collected from highway users but is not 
available for transportation.
    If we could access all the funds now flowing into the 
Highway Trust Fund and the 4.3 cents per gallon now used to 
support the general fund programs, we could at least maintain 
the current conditions of our surface transportation system.
    AASHTO and the National Governors' Association share this 
recommendation to fully use highway user fees for 
transportation purposes. We commend you, Senator Warner and 
Senator Baucus, and the 55 Senators who joined you in writing 
to Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
seeking a higher highway program level. We also commend 
Senators D'Amato and Moynihan for their similar letter urging 
higher transit funding levels.
    So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, AASHTO believes that there 
will be no more important legislation before the Congress for 
the future of America than the reauthorization of our surface 
transportation program. We must either meet our investment 
needs or face a decline in American mobility as we enter the 
21st century.
    During your hearings and during the debate on 
reauthorization, you will receive testimony from many groups, 
individuals who are interested and concerned about 
transportation and its funding. As you prepare your list of 
witnesses, I hope you will hear from the users of 
transportation systems, including the members of industries 
that rely on transportation for their financial future. This 
includes: General Motors, Sears, Wal-Mart, Federal Express, 
United Parcel, only to name a few. These companies recognize 
the true importance of transportation to our economy and our 
future.
    We have provided you with AASHTO's recommendations for your 
authorization and stand ready to provide any further 
information which would be of assistance as you move forward in 
the legislative process.
    Mr. Chairman, I have one more thought. As a State 
transportation official, I have been bothered by some time that 
transportation is not higher on the national agenda, the 
public's radar screen. Other activities and issues such as 
welfare reform, health care, crime, budget deficit, and 
education have occupied higher positions on the national 
agenda. These are all important issues, and I don't want to 
downplay their importance, but at a time when good news seems 
hard to come by, transportation is good news.
    Because of this concern and to further the cause of 
transportation, as President of AASHTO I have initiated 
discussions between AASHTO and the National Governors 
Association to plan and convene a National Transportation 
summit to be held this spring or summer. Its purpose is to 
bring together State, Federal, and local officials, along with 
the users of the transportation system, to bring attention to 
the importance of transportation for the future of this Nation.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Again, thank you 
for the invitation to present our views, and I would be pleased 
to respond to questions now or in writing.
    Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
    Senator Warner. I would hope that that meeting could be 
held in a timeframe that the work product and recommendations 
can be taken into consideration by this subcommittee, and, 
indeed, the Congress as a whole. I commend you for your 
testimony.
    Mr. Rensink. Thank you very much.
    Senator Warner. Thank you.
    Now, Mr. Kulash.

      STATEMENT OF DAMIAN KULASH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ENO 
                TRANSPORTATION FOUNDATION, INC.

    Mr. Kulash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Warner. Thank you.
    Mr. Kulash. You've heard from the other witnesses and you 
certainly know from your own work about the tremendous 
importance of transportation to the economy.
    Some of those linkages are very obvious. Transportation is 
clearly very important to the industries that make heavy use of 
it. The site-specific benefits of transportation--of 
investments made in one place versus another--are brought to 
your attention in all the decisions you make.
    What may not be so obvious is the effect that 
transportation has on the economy, as a whole. We got some new 
and important evidence on that this past year in an analysis 
done by M. Ishaq Nadiri of New York University.
    In my testimony on page 4 there is a graph in there that 
shows what he found, and it is striking. This analysis examined 
the return to the Nation's economy, as a whole, of the 
investments made in the capital stock over the period 1950 to 
1990.
    In the early years of this period, Prof. Nadiri found a 
very striking return. The returns were something in the order 
of 30, 35 percent, and some years even higher. That means that 
a dollar put into this program repaid itself within 3 years, 
before the period of the authorization was even over--a very 
stunning return.
    In more recent decades, these returns have fallen ending 
the period at about the same level as private investment, 
namely down around 10 percent.
    I think that pattern is very surprising, in two respects. 
No. 1 is how large the returns were when the investment was 
working at its peak. I think it's surprising also at how big a 
difference there has been over the decades in terms of what 
those returns have been between the 1950's, for example, and 
the late 1980's.
    To figure out what led to those patterns and whether they 
have implications on today's investments, we at the ENO 
Foundation convened a forum of economists and industry 
representatives and others to see if there was a rationale for 
which investments worked and which did not.
    The bottom line of our discussions was that these large 
returns came about because of network effects. A network effect 
is a type of consequence over and above the site-specific 
benefits of transportation. A network effect comes about 
because you create growing room in the economy to allow 
entirely new businesses to spring up--things that didn't happen 
before.
    We've heard about some of those network effects from the 
other witnesses today, with their very impressive statistics on 
just-in-time, on other industries such as catalog stores that 
have come into business, intermodal freight operations, 
relocations to central plant, and ability to achieve new 
economies of scale there.
    Such consequences show up in many, many companies across 
the Nation. One thing that the Nadiri analysis pointed out was 
that they occur throughout every sector of the economy, not 
just the big highway using communities.
    Which programs now will have these sorts of network effects 
today and create growing room for the economy now? There is a 
lot of speculation about this. No one really knows. But I think 
there are four areas that warrant specific consideration in 
this regard, the interstate highway system certainly being one.
    The very large returns realized during the 1950's and 
1960's happened to coincide with the era when the interstate 
system was built. If we disinvest in this system now, either 
functionally or physically--by letting the condition 
deteriorate, or by letting congestion defeat the function--then 
the disinvestment could trigger negative returns at the same 
rates, some very high rates, that our early investment showed 
positive returns.
    The national highway system--like the interstate system, 
would target the investment around those roads that are most 
heavily used, most vital to the economy. Investments here might 
similarly show larger than normal returns.
    The Nadiri analysis did separate out non-local roads, and 
found that even though the pattern for the entire highway 
investment had come down in recent decades to the level of the 
private sector return, the investment on non-local roads, a 
system that is probably roughly equivalent to the national 
highway system, was still about 50 percent higher than that 
private sector return. That means it's around 15 percent or so, 
not the same as the high rates found in the 1950's but not bad, 
either.
    Another promising area are investments to fill intermodal 
gaps. The intermodal feature of ISTEA did open a new focus on 
these gaps. Since the formation of the Department of 
Transportation there has been one policy statement after 
another that alludes to the need for integrated national 
transportation system. That has always been much easier to say 
than to do.
    One of the reasons that it has been difficult to do is that 
the specter of such a large Federal role came off like a 
command and control structure imposed on this large system. 
This was very scary to the many economic interests that depend 
on the transportation system and find it working well.
    Intermodalism, by not trying to be a command and control 
structure for the whole transportation network, but by 
concentrating only on the worst points of coordination of the 
overall system--namely, those points of contract between the 
modes--is a way of achieving better efficiency out of the whole 
transportation network without a greatly expanded Federal 
presence.
    Finally, the greater coordination capabilities that are 
offered through intelligent transportation systems also are an 
area that may create economic growing room through systems 
improvements in transportation.
    So as you go into the reauthorization cycle and look at 
which programs can do the most to fuel the Nation's economic 
performance, the very large differences we've seen in the past 
certainly point out that this is a significant area, that some 
investments are much, much better than others.
    I recognize there are many other social concerns that you 
must take into concern as you reauthorize the bill, but the 
economic returns are too big to ignore. They're much bigger 
than the site-specific benefits, and selecting investments that 
fuel the Nation's economy ought to be one of the top priorities 
as you move forward.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
    We'll now proceed with questions.
    First, Mr. Secretary, we welcome you back again. You've 
been before our committee many times.
    Mr. Card. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Warner. We value highly your insights into this 
problem.
    Now, I want to talk a little bit about intermodalism. We 
want very much--I'm speaking for myself--very much to have this 
bill incorporate and advance those concepts that were put into 
ISTEA.
    Now, what can we do, in your judgment, to make further 
strides toward intermodalism which brings in efficiencies--not 
only cost, but I think transportation.
    Mr. Card. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that it would be 
good to look at the choke points in our transportation system 
today, and that's where we should target some of the 
opportunities for greater efficiency.
    We clearly have a choke point, if you will, at the Mexican 
border. The bulk of our transportation network has been east-
west, not so much north-south. However, because of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, we are finding a lot more 
commercial traffic moving north-south, and we do have some 
intermodal choke points, specifically at the Mexican border, 
and I think it would be good to facilitate greater 
interconnectivity at our border, and that should not just be 
with regard to truck traffic or motor vehicle traffic, but also 
with regard to our rail traffic.
    Also, the disputes of the past that use to rage between 
highways and railroads have lessened somewhat over the last 
several years because of ISTEA, and that's because we now have 
a closer working relationship in the movement of goods from 
railroads to our highways and highways to our railroad systems.
    So my counsel would be that you ask the Department of 
Transportation to help identify particular choke points in our 
transportation network.
    While congestion was an object of significant discussion 
during the original ISTEA debate, congestion mitigation relief 
really hasn't materialized the way we had hoped it would now 6 
years into ISTEA.
    During my testimony I talked about our belief that 
congestion mitigation is a proper and appropriate goal under 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. 
Unfortunately, some of the programs that were instituted under 
the CMAQ program did little to mitigate congestion, and we have 
found that congestion actually increased over the last 5 years 
rather than decreased.
    I think that there should be a recognition of the role of 
highways and highway construction in congestion mitigation. 
There was a--I think a knee-jerk presumption that congestion 
mitigation would mean no highways and no interchanges and no 
off-ramps, and I hope that that would be something that could 
be done so that congestion mitigation would also include the 
ability to spend money to better use our highway networks.
    If you have other particular questions, I'd be glad to try 
to respond.
    Senator Warner. President Rensink, I raised the report here 
earlier, the 1995 Conditions and Performance Report, and in it 
it reflects that in that particular fiscal cycle 46.9 billion 
was contributed by States and 23.4 billion by local 
governments. This compares to 18.2 billion provided by the 
Federal Government in that particular cycle.
    Now, I perceive that the Congress is trying to put more and 
more responsibility--and I'm very much a part of that movement 
here in the Congress--onto the States, wide range--welfare, may 
well end up in the medical area, also.
    Given that, do you think that, if we're held to this level 
of just the 20 billion, that the States can increase their 
revenue portions to the highway problem? Or should Uncle Sam 
awaken to the fact that we're sending enough down to the States 
already and maybe it's now our responsibility to increase the 
highway and not to lessen theirs but at least recognize that 
their dollars are being stretched in many different directions 
as a direct consequence by the Congress?
    Mr. Rensink. Mr. Chairman, the States have a good history 
and are proud of the fact that on many, many occasions they 
stepped up to the plate to provide transportation resources. We 
are proud of the partnership that we've had with the Federal 
Government in making our transportation system what it is 
today. It has been a good partnership. It has worked out well.
    Each State, in some unique or distinct way, has its own 
capacity to do things and/or to raise revenues.
    I'm quite sure, Mr. Chairman, that States are aware and 
support some of the events and objectives that are set out here 
in Washington, as you look at balancing a budget, etc.
    But I also believe that before States are going to come 
back and carry a big bat and step up to the plate, that they're 
expecting some answers from Washington concerning the 
unobligated balances that are in the trust fund, as well as the 
4.3 cents that currently is being directed toward general fund 
and deficit reduction purposes.
    Certainly States are going to be ready to do their share. 
But at this point, given perhaps some of the difficulties that 
some would have in taking a heavier share, that they would 
expect Washington and the Federal Government to look at those 
two situations I just referenced.
    Senator Warner. Have you had the opportunity to consult 
with the National Governors Association? And, if not, would you 
undertake to explore that? It would be very helpful----
    Mr. Rensink. Yes, we have been.
    Senator Warner [continuing]. If the Governors across the 
United States would come in and support the concept of moving 
up to hopefully the 26 billion.
    Mr. Rensink. Mr. Chairman, in my remarks I referenced our 
partnership with the Governors, through the National Governors 
Association at a national summit on transportation. More 
recently, when they were in Washington at their annual winter 
meeting, we were pleased that the National Governors 
Association did appoint a special task force on transportation. 
It is the intention of AASHTO to partner very closely with them 
in looking at these issues including the 4.3 cents and the 
trust fund balance. We plan to work with them very closely.
    Senator Warner. Well, working with them is fine, but, mind 
you, this train is out of the station, this bill, and it's 
moving.
    I think the likelihood of having significant impact on this 
bill from organizations such as yours--you've made your 
contribution today, but the NGA has got to come in a timely 
fashion.
    This is a very, very significant undertaking to present to 
the President and to the Congress, as a whole, the necessity to 
increase significantly this highway funding.
    I'm pleased that the gentlemen here at this table are with 
me on that, but we need all the help we can get.
    Mr. Rensink. We're ready to help.
    Senator Warner. Fine.
    Now, this is fascinating, and I must tell you I've got to 
go back and rethink some things here, but we want to take this 
into consideration.
    Given the significant trends in this area, do you think 
they're going to continue to move more strongly in this area--I 
mean, this pattern of particularly the female worker and the 
need to stop coming and going, which we understand fully? What 
should we be putting in this bill to recognize this trend and 
begin to facilitate that mode of transportation?
    Mr. Pisarski. Well, first, sir, there's no question that 
these patterns are going to continue. I think they're getting, 
in fact, more virulent. They're getting stronger.
    Senator Warner. Let me make sure, you said more pronounced 
and stronger?
    Mr. Pisarski. Yes. More pronounced in the future.
    One of the things, the new technologies that are coming 
along--computers, telecommunication--are pushing us toward 
greater potential dispersal of the population, greater 
dependence on these kinds of flows.
    And I think the kinds of patterns that we're going to see, 
the immense pressures of time, particularly on women, are just 
the factor that, in effect, drives all of these patterns.
    Senator Warner. Chances are they're working both parents, 
or the household, both of them are gainfully employed, 
sometimes in three jobs, some having two jobs.
    Mr. Pisarski. One of the keys here is that 70 percent of 
the workers in the country are in households with two or more 
workers, and so we don't have the kind of Ozzie and Harriet 
situation of the past of the sole worker getting in the car in 
the suburbs and going downtown.
    It's much more a case of people having, in effect, 
competing activities where they have to make arrangements for 
the household, for children, for their other activities, and 
balance their entire household requirements.
    So I think that set of factors is going to be very much a 
part of our future.
    With respect to the response to the system, I'd say there 
are two things. I mentioned that there's kind of good news and 
bad news in this. The good news is, from an air quality point 
of view, you have fewer cold starts because people make the 
rounds rather than make individual trips, and they are bunching 
the trips together, and so we don't have go home, go back, go 
home, go back. That's kind of good news.
    The bad news is that this is not a kind of pattern that 
transit can respond to. It's not a kind of a pattern that car 
pooling can respond to. And it also tends to pull into the peak 
period those other activities that--going to the supermarket, 
stopping at the dry cleaners--that historically we didn't put 
in the peak periods.
    So now we've got some people competing with the commuter in 
the peak period.
    The response of the system--we're going to have to have a 
highly flexible system. I think the ability of transit to 
respond to this and to the suburb-to-suburb commute is going to 
demand a tremendous amount of flexibility, and the historical 
notion of suburb-to-center-city is just not going to help us.
    Senator Warner. One last question to you. Have you done any 
analysis on HOV lanes? We're trying that more and more in this 
greater metropolitan area.
    Mr. Pisarski. One of the things we've seen is almost a 
complete collapse of car pooling, quite astonishingly so.
    What has happened is the big car pools have just about 
dissolved. They're about half of what they were years ago.
    Senator Warner. By ``big'' do you mean three or more?
    Mr. Pisarski. Three, four, five, six. You still see them in 
the very long trips, West Virginia to Washington, trips like 
that, but most car pooling today is husband/wife car pooling, 
parent and child car pooling. It's a family activity rather 
than an association of neighborhoods or co-workers.
    It's increasingly internal to the household, so it's not 
really car pooling in the sense that I think of those terms.
    Car pooling has a big advantage when there's heavy 
congestion on the main roads and you can put something like the 
HOV lanes on 395, but there is a penalty to car pooling, 
itself. Basically there's a chart in ``Commuting in America'' 
that says that for each person you add to the car pool you add 
5 minutes to the travel time, and so the congestion on the 
alternative routes has got to make it worth that extra 5 
minutes for each person to make car pooling worth people's 
while.
    Senator Warner. That's an interesting statistic.
    My time has expired.
    Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have just one basic question of Mr. Card.
    Mr. Secretary, I was wondering what the big three can do to 
help my little campaign here on the Budget Committee and 
Appropriations Committee to increase our appropriations. You've 
got a lot of folks behind you and a lot of power.
    I'm remind of--who was it? One of GM's former chairman, 
``What's good for GM is good for the country.''
    Mr. Card. Senator, I prefer to think I only have three 
members--GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
    Senator Baucus. Right.
    Mr. Card. And they have a lot of momentum behind them, and 
I'm subject to that momentum several different times.
    We definitely support Senator Warner's letter that all of 
you signed, along with 58 of your colleagues. That is a very 
important step. You have given us something that we can point 
to that would allow us to go forward and encourage others to 
support the position that you've taken.
    AAMA will go on record and will try to solicit support from 
others to the cause that you've so appropriately identified.
    It's very important that the pot of money available to meet 
our surface transportation needs be as large as possible. It's 
a pot of money that, quite frankly, belongs to the users, and 
the users have put their money in that pot and they've told us 
to take good care of the money, to spend it wisely, but to 
spend it.
    We would like to work with you to make sure that all of 
Congress understands that responsibility, so I pledge to work 
with you, and we can talk about particular strategies that 
might be important.
    Senator Baucus. Thank you. I'd encourage you to kind of 
send the message back up the pipeline. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
    Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Card, when Secretary Slater was before this committee 
for his confirmation hearing, one of the points that he made, 
which I appreciated, was that safety was his No. 1 priority.
    As you know, I have a great interest in motor vehicle 
safety, and particularly in the issue of air bag safety. As you 
know also, I've placed a high priority on the elimination of 
the current unbelted testing standard because it results in the 
manufacturing of air bags that are too aggressive, that are 
causing the deaths of children, small-statured people, 
particularly women.
    As you're also aware, on December 4 of 1996, I petitioned 
the Department of Transportation to include in their proposed 
rule changes an immediate moratorium on the unbelted test.
    Your organization has been on record several times in 
support of the proposal, and as recently as January 30 of this 
year, when you stated in a letter to NHTSA,

    The immediate elimination of the present FMV SS208 
unrestrained dummy test remains the single-most direct action 
that would allow manufacturers to quickly initiate air bag 
design changes that can further reduce the injury risks related 
to air bag inflation.

    Would you elaborate on your support of my efforts to get 
this standard changed?
    Mr. Card. Thank you, Senator Kempthorne.
    The automobile industry--and I would point out that it's 
the world's automobile industry, it isn't just the domestic 
manufacturers, but all of the manufacturers of automobiles 
throughout the world--believes that bringing a less-aggressive 
air bag into the marketplace as quickly as possible would help 
to mitigate problems associated with air bags.
    At the same time, all of the world's manufacturers also 
recognize that the most optimal design criteria that we could 
bring to our vehicles for safety would come with a presumption 
by the Government that the occupants of a car are wearing their 
safety belts.
    Clearly, the unbelted test requirement that is currently 
the regulation at the Department of Transportation results in 
overly aggressive air bags, and it restricts the ability of the 
automobile industry to design their vehicles in an optimal 
fashion to meet the safety requirements of the occupants.
    We have a goal to do no harm to any of the occupants in the 
car. We feel that that is our paramount concern. Clearly, our 
objectives are to do no harm to those who are properly buckled 
up. When people are buckled up, you can better judge their 
location in the vehicle. They also recognize that the safety 
systems in the automobile or truck today include the crumple 
zones in the structure of the vehicle, the safety belt, and the 
air bag. They are not separable systems. They work as a system.
    Yes, we fully endorse an effort to eliminate the unbelted 
regulation. We compliment you, Senator Kempthorne. But I would 
point out that it is incumbent upon the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration to move as expeditiously as 
possible to allow us to bring less-aggressive air bags into the 
marketplace, and they can do that by approving the sled test 
protocol and approving that rule such that we can begin to 
bring less-aggressive air bags into the marketplace in a matter 
of 6 to 9 months.
    Senator Kempthorne. OK. I agree with you that they should 
approve the sled test, and we are in agreement that that is an 
incremental step and that they should then proceed with 
eliminating the unbelted test. That is the ultimate most direct 
route.
    Mr. Card, I know, because of your background as former 
Secretary of Transportation, it has to be as upsetting to you 
as it is to myself, and I'm sure to the Chairman, that we have 
a standard, a Government standard, that was predicted would 
kill children, and today there are at least 32 dead children 
because of that Government standard.
    Do you see any reason why the Administration would need to 
slow down implementing the sled test as it moves forward to 
issue a proposed rulemaking change that would do away with the 
unbelted test?
    Mr. Card. Senator Kempthorne, there is absolutely no reason 
why the Government should not be able to proceed quickly with a 
sled test protocol that would allow for depowered air bags.
    There is now a consensus among the safety community, the 
world's manufacturers of automobiles, and I'm going to say even 
regulators, that the sled test protocol is the quickest way to 
allow for a depowered air bag to come into the marketplace.
    At the same time, no regulation should be held up while the 
debate goes on about the question of unbelted test 
requirements.
    It's imperative that the Government move quickly with the 
sled test proposal so that less-aggressive air bags come into 
the marketplace. That is a transition to a better policy, we 
think, that would be a test protocol recognizing belted 
occupants.
    But let's get the interim solution out there as quickly as 
we can, while we work together to get a better solution. The 
better solution would be a belted test requirement and advanced 
technology.
    Senator Kempthorne. All right. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Chairman, I would just add to that the chairman of the 
National Transportation Safety Board also agrees that we should 
do away with the unbelted standard, and so I'm doing all that I 
can with the Department of Transportation so that they will 
issue that proposed rule change.
    It is appalling to me that March of last year, before the 
Commerce Committee, the administrator of NHTSA testified that 
there are 15 dead children because of that standard. Ten months 
later that administrator testified there were now 32 dead 
children because of that standard.
    I do not understand the reluctance of NHTSA to move forward 
so that we no longer risk the lives of kids.
    Enough said on that topic. I'm going to pursue it.
    To all of the other members of the panel, I appreciate 
greatly the information you have provided. I'm going to have to 
excuse myself because of another hearing that I will be going 
to, but it is very helpful as we now move forward in the 
reauthorization of ISTEA, and I can tell you that we're in 
extremely capable hands with Chairman Warner, who has fashioned 
an appropriate process that will be inclusive so that we're 
going to come up with an excellent reauthorization.
    I thank all of you.
    Senator Warner. I thank the Senator, and I look forward to 
supporting you in your endeavors on resolving this air bag 
thing.
    Senator Kempthorne. Thank you very much.
    Senator Warner. I'm going to have one last question to the 
president here, and I've got to tell a little story to try and 
frame it.
    Eighteen years ago I was privileged to be elected to the 
U.S. Senate. I was anxious, after my re-election, to get back 
to my State and visit and thank the people. And I expect my 
colleagues have this experience.
    Anyway, there was a big parade in this community that 
prides itself in being the peanut capital of the world.
    Don't you folks leave yet. It's a good story.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Warner. It's the peanut capital of the world.
    So I arrived down there, brand new U.S. Senator, and all of 
us who have gone to the parades, there's the big marshaling 
area on the high school grounds, and we were all there, and the 
cars had all been placed in order.
    You don't have to put all this in the record.
    I started looking for my car, thinking that I'm the U.S. 
Senator, I'm going to be in the head of the parade.
    Well, I found my car, and it was behind the sheriff and the 
mayor and three or four State legislators, so I didn't become 
indignant but I decided to figure out just exactly what was the 
formula by which these cars were located.
    It was a particular State legislator ahead of me with whom 
I'd had some encounters with--it so happens he's of the other 
political persuasion--and I was somewhat indignant about that 
man particularly.
    I found out that that parade was ordered in terms of what 
those folks had done for the community, and several of those 
legislators had gotten a new road for that community, and 
that's what decided the position in the parade.
    Now, I'd just as soon be omitted parades in my next term, 
but anyway, I'll be down there.
    But the point of this story is that people contend that in 
our interstate system, Mr. President, we're falling into some 
poor condition because the States are putting too great a 
percentage of their assets into new highway construction rather 
than maintaining what's in place.
    Do you have any comments on that?
    Mr. Rensink. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I've got all 
the available data to respond, at least as it pertains to other 
States, but I can speak to my own State as it relates to the 
interstate system and other parts of the primary system, and 
the priority that we give to maintenance versus capacity.
    It can be tempting and sometimes very tempting to defer 
from and to move away from maintenance, be it on the interstate 
or any other parts of the primary, to respond to the pressures 
that we all face as DOT directors in our individual States for 
some expansion programs, some new roads, something new that you 
can put a ribbon across and cut. It's got that flavor that it 
seems to be a dollar better spent.
    What I've tried to do in my State, and something that I 
certainly hope we can do throughout the industry, is to create 
an awareness that a dollar spent for maintenance is a dollar 
that's just as valuable and just as important as a dollar for 
new capacity.
    Senator Warner. I'm glad to hear that, because we're going 
to have to look at various options. I'm the last here to want 
to try and put more directives to the States, but for every 
State legislator to get his or her new road at the expense of 
the maintenance, we've got to do something about that.
    Mr. Rensink. We agree.
    Senator Warner. And I thank you.
    I want to ask Mr. Kulash the wrap-up question here. With 
the limited resources to invest in a large network of highways 
and transit systems with growing needs, how can we be sure to 
make the right investments so that taxpayers receive the same 
high rate of economic return that we experienced in building 
the interstate system?
    Mr. Kulash. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that is possible. 
The very high rates that we got from the interstate system were 
wonderful. I'm not sure that equally high rates could be 
achieved today, but it is important to try to target Federal 
investments on those programs that can produce the best 
returns, and these are the ones that make the national network 
stronger.
    You described very graphically how most political leaders 
see the investment in the road system. They see what's in their 
back yard. What they don't see is how an investment that gets 
rid of a bottleneck in St. Louis benefits somebody who's 
growing oranges in Florida and benefits a manufacturer in 
California who is shipping cross-country.
    Those are the network effects--they are created by 
improvements that make the whole system perform better; not 
just by weighing what has an immediate district benefit for us.
    These network effects were most apparent following the 
Nation's investment in the interstate. Keeping the interstate 
in good repair, making sure that the developing bottlenecks on 
the interstate are somehow dealt with, is certainly a high 
priority.
    The national highway system has that potential, as well.
    The whole intermodal area offers a potential to produce 
national transportation benefits, not just highway benefits, 
that have those same network features.
    As you're aware, even though ISTEA created the capacity to 
start to deal with intermodal investments, without sufficient 
funding they're in competition with other priorities. As a 
result, there has been some disappointment at the small amount 
of money that has actually found its way into intermodal 
projects. Using intermodal investments to improve the national 
transportation system is a question of both money and how 
responsibility for this activity is structured within the 
Department.
    Finally, intelligent transportation systems also have the 
potential to offer these kinds of benefits.
    Senator Warner. Well, I thank you very much, and I thank 
the panel, as a whole.
    We've had an excellent hearing today, and we've got a 
tremendous challenge facing the Congress, and we're fortunate 
to have the expertise that each of you brings to the resolution 
of these issues.
    The subcommittee stands in recess until the call of the 
chair. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, 
subject to the call of the chair.]
    [The prepared statements of Senators Smith and Boxer, and 
other material submitted for the record, follow:]
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of 
                             New Hampshire
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this first in a series of 
hearings on reauthorization of our major surface transportation law, 
otherwise known as ISTEA. I was a proud supporter of this legislation 
in 1991 and continue to support its goals today.
    ISTEA represented a revolutionary change from past transportation 
legislation and a shift toward an integrated, intermodal transportation 
system to promote efficiency and economic growth. Some of its major 
provisions included: greater planning authority for State and local 
governments, increased research for innovative technologies such as 
intelligent vehicle highway systems, and funding for environmental 
protection activities.
    A reauthorized ISTEA should continue to recognize regional 
differences, but at the same time, recognize that our transportation 
system is a national system. Certainly, every State wants to get its 
``fair share,'' and we will need to balance each State's needs with the 
needs of the Nation as a whole.
    While there is some merit to having various funding programs, we 
should refrain from creating any new funding categories or setasides, 
and allow for maximum flexibility between the various programs. It is 
also important that we reduce or eliminate any onerous mandates or 
sanctions on the States.
    From New Hampshire's perspective, it will be important to ensure 
that small States continue to receive adequate funding for their 
infrastructure needs. New Hampshire strongly supports certain programs, 
such as the Bridge Rehabilitation, Scenic Byway and Recreational Trail 
programs, that other States may not utilize as much. The strength of 
ISTEA is that it recognizes these varying needs and provides States 
with the flexibility to direct funding as they see appropriate.
    There are many challenges before us as we take steps toward a 
balanced budget--something I have fought long and hard for. Our needs 
will always outweigh our resources. But, we also have to recognize how 
critical transportation is to our economy and social well-being.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you in 
this reauthorization process.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the State 
                             of California
    I want to thank Chairman Warner and Sen. Baucus, our ranking 
member, for beginning our ISTEA hearings early this year. We have a lot 
of work to do.
    Now is the time that we make ISTEA a solid blueprint for surface 
transportation policy into the next century.
    Transportation is an increasingly major concern for the people of 
California. The Bay Area survey recently found a third of the residents 
surveyed last fall cited the most important problem is transportation, 
surpassing crime as the region's chief worry.
    Our system is running at over-capacity. While California has 
finally emerged from economic recession--jobs growth is up and 
international trade is flourishing--our continued recovery is 
jeopardized by the strains on our transportation system.
    Cargo handled by the Los Angeles International Airport--already the 
third busiest cargo airport in the world--may nearly triple into the 
next century. Expansion at San Francisco International Airport could 
add up to 75,000 cars on peninsula highways. California has identified 
about $1 billion of transportation infrastructure improvements needed 
to adequately serve future commercial vehicle traffic crossing the 
California-Mexico border as a result of NAFTA.
    Trade-related jobs now surpass aerospace jobs in Los Angeles. The 
Los Angeles Customs district is the largest in the country. More than a 
billion tons of cargo move out of, into and within the State every 
year. A survey of shippers and carriers reported last year that 
congestion was the key issue limiting their ability to provide 
efficient transportation. This freight-related congestion, as well as 
the explosion in single-occupant vehicles, impacts our consumers and 
air quality as well. Lack of grade-separated railroad crossings cost 
consumers in travel time and shippers in efficiency. And, those idling 
cars and trucks are spewing poisons into our air.
    As I said, we have a lot of work to do, and I look forward to 
working my colleagues to fashion a revitalized ISTEA that encompasses 
the economic benefits of a safe and efficient transportation system.
                                 ______
                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Mortimer L. Downey, Deputy Secretary of 
                             Transportation
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, members of the committee: Good 
afternoon. Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon to testify 
about reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). I welcome this opportunity and I am 
excited by the prospects for building on ISTEA. It seems we have all 
been talking about this subject a great deal. At DOT, we have done 
extensive public outreach over the past year. We have heard from all 
parts of the transportation community, in all regions, at all levels of 
government, as well as from the private sector. The response has been 
heartening. It is now 1997, the year of decision, when we must move 
from generalities to specifics. Armed with a wealth of information and 
viewpoints, we can now get down to the business of developing 
successful legislation. On behalf of incoming Secretary Rodney Slater, 
and the Administrators of DOT's operating Administrations, I want to 
express our willingness to work closely with this committee and, of 
course, with all the others in Congress.
    This week opens the ``official'' debate on ISTEA reauthorization in 
the 105th Congress. I think we all recognize how big a challenge this 
year will be. It is time for the discussion to get down to real terms 
with real solutions in the context of a real deadline, September 30, 
the expiration of the current authorization. We know we will not all 
agree on every aspect of the next bill--what I have been referring to 
as ``NEX-TEA''--but I believe we can reach consensus in a way that 
builds on the important themes of ISTEA: intermodalism, planning, 
flexibility, safety, environmental protection, investment and 
innovation.
    In a few weeks, we will present to you the product of our 
deliberations, the Administration's proposed reauthorization bill. It 
will reflect our firm belief that ISTEA has been a success and that the 
next authorization cycle should continue its programs and policies. 
Because of ISTEA, including its innovative programs authored by this 
committee like the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality improvement 
(CMAQ) program, our transportation system is getting better and we are 
addressing its environmental impacts. We, along with our old and new 
partners in State and local governments and in the private sector--both 
in industry and labor--are making good choices. Within the context of a 
balanced Federal budget, we are making progress on most of our most 
pressing infrastructure needs.
    I noted the goal of a balanced Federal budget--a goal shared by the 
President and Congress. The theme of ``balance'' may be a useful one to 
remember during 1997. In fashioning a successor to ISTEA, we will have 
to achieve a balance among competing interests, between requests and 
available resources, between short-term and long-term solutions, 
between donor and donee States, between demands for greater mobility 
and higher productivity and the costs of such activity to our 
environment and to safety. This bill will also weigh the balance of 
power and responsibilities among levels of government. Achieving a good 
balance will not be an easy task, but it is a task that has been made 
easier by the record already established under ISTEA. ISTEA has given 
us both a foundation and a blueprint for the future.
    As we begin the legislative process, I want to reemphasize that the 
Administration's long-term vision of the Nation's transportation system 
is spelled out in our DOT Strategic Plan. It envisions a ``seamless'' 
intermodal transportation system that effectively ties America together 
and links it to the world--a system that will provide safe, efficient 
and environmentally friendly movement of people and the products they 
use. And it is always important to underscore that we need a 
transportation system equipped to meet our national security needs--to 
respond to disasters, and to move people and goods, for both military 
and civilian purposes, in times of national emergency.
    Today, you have asked me to address three topics: infrastructure 
funding needs, transportation benefits to our economy, and trends in 
transportation. In addition, I would like to briefly mention how the 
President's budget proposal will respond to our needs. I believe it 
demonstrates the Presidents continued commitment to transportation 
priorities and will allow us to build that bridge to the 21st century.
                          infrastructure needs
    ISTEA authorized a total of $157 billion over the period of fiscal 
years 1992-1997. The appropriations process over that period actually 
made $145 billion available for ISTEA programs. We all should ask 
``What did we get for that money?'' That investment is producing real 
results, even with many of the projects still under construction.
    The physical condition of bridges and pavement, which had been 
deteriorating, has stabilized and, in many areas, actually improved. 
This is especially true on the 161,000-mile National Highway System 
(NHS), our premier national and regional network of principal routes 
that provide the greatest economic, defense, and personal mobility 
benefits. Peak-hour congestion in our largest urban areas has 
stabilized. Also, the rate of highway fatalities has declined, although 
not as much as we would like to see. These trends suggest that, while 
the successes of ISTEA may not make the daily headlines, overall, we 
have kept pace with the maintenance requirements of our infrastructure 
system; we have stopped the tide of accelerating deterioration of the 
system; and most importantly, we have begun to tie our transportation 
system together through ISTEA's emphasis on intermodalism.
    And this success has extended to transit nationwide. In the last 4 
years we have helped buy nearly 26,000 new buses and nearly 600 new 
rail cars for State and local transit agencies. Most of these meet 
requirements that they be accessible to persons with disabilities. We 
have also helped to fund more than 100 miles of new transit lines, 
serving more than 100 new stations, and our data show improved 
conditions and performance of our transit systems.
    We are making progress. According to the Department's 1995 
Conditions and Performance Report: *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The 1995 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System 
Condition and Performance Report of the Secretary of Transportation to 
the U.S. Congress (Comm. Print 104-30, March 1996). This report 
compares 1993 data with data for 1991. The Department's 1997 report 
will be published later this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <bullet> The number of structurally deficient bridges has dropped.
    <bullet> The amount of pavement in poor condition has stabilized at 
a manageable level.
    <bullet> The percent of transit fixed facilities and rolling stock 
in good condition has increased.
    <bullet> Since 1984, the passenger-mile weighted average speed 
improved by about 10 percent on our Nation's transit systems.
    <bullet> Well over half of all riders report wait times of 5 
minutes or less. Fifty-one percent of transit trips involve one or more 
transfers.
    <bullet> Less than one-third of all transit trips involve standing 
for at least part of the trip.
    <bullet> About 25 percent of all transit users report trip times of 
10 minutes or less.
    Over the long run, to maintain current conditions on our highway 
and transit systems, it will require significantly higher funding from 
all sources--Federal, State, and local governments. Our most recent 
report to Congress suggests the shortfall may be as high as 40 percent. 
To improve conditions to optimal levels based on economic and 
engineering criteria would require us to double our current capital 
investment in highways and transit.
    President Clinton recognizes the importance of sound infrastructure 
to America's prosperity and international competitiveness, and he has 
addressed infrastructure needs even as he has reduced the budget 
deficit. That is why he, drawing on ISTEA resources, increased 
investment in highways, transit systems, airports, and other 
infrastructure to an average of $25.5 billion over the past 4 years, 
more than 20 percent higher than during the previous 4 years.
    Federal grant funding cannot meet all of our infrastructure needs, 
and so 2 years ago we created the Partnership for Transportation 
investment, which has cut red tape, produced new financial tools, and 
attracted new sources of funding. That has accelerated over 70 projects 
worth more than $4 billion, including $1.2 billion in increased 
investment above and beyond that available through conventional 
financing. These projects have moved an average of 2 years ahead of 
schedule, saving interest and inflation costs and producing benefits 
faster. The `97 budget built on this progress by providing $150 million 
in seed money for the first State Infrastructure Banks, or SIBs, which, 
thanks to action by this committee, were established under a pilot 
program under the NHS Act. SIBs will leverage private and other public 
funds through a variety of new financial strategies. The new budget 
proposes to expand this effort by providing another $150 million in 
seed money for SIBs, and $100 million for a new Federal Credit Program. 
The Credit Program will be similar to the SIBs in its support of 
innovative financing, but it will fill a different need--the support of 
projects which, by virtue of their magnitude or multi-state benefits, 
are of national significance but which might not fit into the programs 
of individual States. That will enable us to make loans and apply other 
financing arrangements for such projects.
    We can also invest in intelligent transportation technologies that 
will make our current infrastructure more efficient--and less costly. 
Indeed, we believe that as much as two-thirds of the new capacity that 
we will need in the coming years in our Nation's most congested 
corridors can be provided by intelligent transportation systems and at 
much less cost than for normal construction.
    The challenges before us are national in scope, and they require 
national solutions. Traffic congestion and bottlenecks in major trade 
centers like Los Angeles and Chicago not only impose delays on local 
commuters and regional freight, they also interfere with the speedy and 
reliable cargo movements essential to enhance our global 
competitiveness. Efficient mass transit systems are essential for our 
regional economies to compete with business centers around the world, 
and to assure that all our citizens have access to health care, 
education, and job training. And the members of this committee are well 
aware of the significance that we, as a Nation, have placed on 
improving the environment and upgrading safety. These challenges cannot 
be solved on a piece-meal basis, but rather require coordinated 
national strategies, in partnership with State and local governments, 
industry, labor and other transportation customers.
    Also national in scope are the public roads that serve the 
transportation needs of national parks, forests, tribal lands, and 
other areas under Federal jurisdiction. We propose spending $512 
million in fiscal year 1998 to support efforts coordinated by FHWA's 
Federal Lands Highway Program to develop necessary transportation 
infrastructure on Federal lands that protects natural resources, serves 
tourism, provides access for Native Americans, and supports economic 
development in rural areas.
    President Clinton's proposed Fiscal Year 1998 budget for the 
Department of Transportation reflects the President's commitments both 
to balancing the budget by 2002 and to a safe, secure, and efficient 
transportation system--one which supports economic growth while 
preserving our natural environment. Therefore at a time when the 
overall Budget is decreasing, the President has protected 
infrastructure by requesting a steady discretionary spending level of 
$25.6 billion.
    For example, our highest priority within DOT is improving the 
safety and security of our transportation system. Although it is 
already the safest in the world, much of what we do is aimed at making 
that system even safer--even as travel growth and demographic changes 
create new challenges. That is why we want to raise direct Federal 
safety spending by $200 million--to $2.9 billion, a record 7.5 percent 
of our total budget. A major focus will be on reducing highway crashes, 
which account for nine of every ten transportation fatalities. About 
41,500 travelers died in such crashes last year, a slight reduction 
from 1995. This toll is far too high and we must redouble our efforts 
to reduce it.
    In order to cut the fatality rate, we have to focus not only on 
making safer cars and safer roads, but also on working to assure that 
drivers do their part. We need increased education and enforcement, and 
to do that we want to raise highway safety spending by NHTSA by 11 
percent--to $333 million. While the details of our efforts will be 
included in our ISTEA reauthorization bill, I can tell you that our 
plan includes:
    <bullet> $9 million for a new occupant protection grant program to 
encourage States to increase safety belt use, the single best way to 
protect a vehicle's occupants;
    <bullet> a $9 million increase--to a total of $34 million--in 
funding to help States enact tough drunk driving laws;
    <bullet> $8 million for a new research and education program to 
reduce air bag risks for children and small adults, while still 
preserving the benefits of air bags for all motorists; and,
    <bullet> $2 million for a pilot program for pre-license drug-
testing, as the first step in launching the President's new initiative 
to combat drug-impaired driving.
    Along with a greater emphasis on safety, the President has also 
indicated his continuing commitment to infrastructure investment. The 
fiscal year 1998 budget proposal of $25.6 billion--slightly above the 
average of the past 4 years--would sustain the current investment that 
has produced significant results in terms of the performance of our 
transportation system. Under the Administration's plan, $24 billion 
could actually be obligated next year for highway and transit capital. 
Under ISTEA's successor bill, we will be proposing higher authorization 
levels for fiscal year 1998 and subsequent years in case the 
Administration's economic growth and deficit projections prove too 
conservative, as they have in the recent past. If the budget situation 
were to improve in future years in this manner, we would look toward 
increasing the obligation levels. We will work with Congress on NEX-TEA 
funding issues this year, and each year, through the normal budget and 
appropriations process.
    As part of the President's Budget, we propose to support Amtrak--
including improvements for the Northeast Corridor--from the Highway 
Trust Fund. That includes $767 million in fiscal year 1998--$344 
million for operating and $423 million for capital, an increase of $27 
million over last year's level minus one-time costs. The Administration 
will work with Congress, Amtrak management and labor, State 
governments, and other interested parties in the coming year to develop 
an affordable long-range plan that eliminates Amtrak's dependence on 
Federal operating subsidy.
    As part of a comprehensive plan to increase flexibility and improve 
efficiency in transit, we hope to integrate formerly disparate formula 
capital, formula operating, discretionary bus, and fixed-guideway 
modernization grants into a streamlined Formula Programs account. For 
urbanized areas over 200,000 population, we plan to replace transit 
operating assistance with increased capital funding and a more flexible 
capital assistance definition that would include preventative 
maintenance. Areas under 200,000 population--those most dependent on 
Federal assistance for operating costs--would be able to use their 
formula grants for all transit expenses, including operating 
assistance. Also, transit providers in any size area would be eligible 
for a new Access to Jobs and Training program that targets Federal 
transit assistance to low-income individuals, including current and 
former welfare recipients.
    Moreover, in the future, we are looking to technology to provide 
many of the improvements we need in safety and efficiency. That's why 
we want to increase investment in transportation research and 
development by 9 percent, to $1 billion. That includes $250 million for 
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which apply advanced computer 
and communications technologies to travel. About $150 million will fund 
research, development, and technology transfer activities, and $100 
million is for grants to encourage State and local governments to begin 
to invest in the integrated, intermodal deployment of the electronic 
infrastructure necessary to support ITS services. These include 
regional traffic information services and coordinated traffic control 
on both freeways and arterial streets.
    Finally, transportation, like all human activity, affects the 
natural environment, and we have an obligation to mitigate its impacts. 
That is why we're proposing a 5 percent funding increase in our 
environmental programs--to $1.53 billion. Much of this would be for 
CMAQ which State and local governments use to cut pollution through 
transit projects--traffic flow improvements--and alternatives such as 
ridesharing. CMAQ funds would be authorized at $1.3 billion a year, up 
30 percent from their level under ISTEA.
    I believe this budget will allow us to continue to improve our 
transportation networks.
                  economic benefits of transportation
    This committee is well aware of the vital role that transportation 
plays in assuring America's economic prosperity and quality of life. 
From the colonial post roads and canals that expanded our frontiers, to 
the railroads and Interstate Highways that linked a growing country, to 
the transit systems that made possible the development of our great 
cities and provided important linkages in rural areas--America's 
economic progress has always been closely tied to advances in 
transportation. And this progress has accrued to all those 
participating in this vital industry, including those engaged in its 
construction and operation.
    And along the way, transportation became more than just a means to 
prosperity--it became a big economic player in its own right. One 
measure of transportation's role in the economy is its contribution to 
the gross domestic product (GDP). In 1995, the portion of the GDP 
attributed to transportation-related demand was $777.2 billion, or 10.7 
percent of overall GDP. Thus, transportation ranks fourth among 
economic sectors in its share in GDP, not far below health care and 
food. Nearly 10 million Americans are employed in industries that 
provide transportation-related goods and services, and these are good 
jobs--with the highest wage level of any sector of the economy.
    We find that, as a result of greater efficiency in our transport 
systems, Americans now enjoy higher levels of transport output for the 
same level of input, an overall improvement in productivity.
    As our national economy becomes more fully integrated and as 
America increasingly becomes part--of a larger global economy, 
transportation will only become more important to our standard of 
living. Logistical innovations such as intermodalism and flexible 
`just-in-time'' delivery systems have been essential in maintaining our 
productivity advantage worldwide against other countries that compete 
on the basis of lower wages. This process continues to accelerate and 
translates into tower costs for businesses and for consumers, who pay 
less at the checkout counter as a result. In 1990, 18 percent of 
production was just-in-time; by 1995, it was 28 percent. In this and in 
other ways, transportation continues to contribute to our growing 
productivity.
    Under ISTEA, Americans got more for their transportation dollars 
because ISTEA provided a strategic investment framework. It did so 
through stronger planning requirements and through programs, such as 
the National Highway System, that focused resources on roads of high 
national priority; it also provided for completion of the Interstate 
construction program. And ISTEA's authors had the vision to create the 
Surface Transportation Program, which provided unprecedented 
flexibility to State and local officials in determining transportation 
solutions that meet the unique needs of their communities.
    We all know that investments in transportation systems and 
infrastructure can have a powerful effect on business activity. Until 
recently, however, our information about the economic consequences of 
such investments has been largely anecdotal. This is no longer the 
case. A recently completed DOT-sponsored study--and, I might add, the 
most carefully done study ever undertaken on this subject--has clearly 
documented the substantial economic returns on highway investments. As 
comprehensive as this study is, it is important to understand one other 
fact about it: the authors examined the economic returns on highway 
investments; they did not attempt to estimate the consumer benefits of 
highway investments, a major component of the public benefits.
    The DOT study estimated how increased spending on highways lowered 
costs to those private companies that rely on highways. The results of 
the study are dramatic: between 1950 and 1989, the authors estimated 
that the average rate of private sector return on highway investments 
was 28 percent, a figure substantially higher than the average rate of 
return on investment earned by the private sector during this 40-year 
period (13 percent or so). While the rate of return on highway 
investments varies depending on the time period or highway system, the 
rate of return for total highway capital for the most recent period 
studied (1980-1989) was comparable to the average rate of return earned 
in the private sector (11 percent or so).
    Other nations do not have the transportation infrastructure that we 
sometimes take for granted in the United States. It is transportation 
that has set us apart from the rest of the world. The Economist 
recently tracked the slow travel of Wrigley's chewing gum on a 1,000 
mile trip from a factory in China's Pearl River delta to a consumer in 
Shanghai--a trip that took several months and involved freighters, 
trucks, tricycle carts and bicycles. Most manufacturers in Asia could 
not even imagine ``just-in-time'' production; an Indian exporter's cost 
advantage over western competitors is eroded by around 30 percent, 
simply because of costs and delays in transportation. Gridlock is 
common in parts of Asia--for goods and for people. Greater Jakarta, for 
example, is home to 16 million people, and it has no subway. The annual 
cost of gridlock in Bangkok is estimated at $3.2 billion.
    Many nations around the world have also identified large 
infrastructure investment requirements, although the financial capacity 
to make the necessary investments varies by country. In Japan, 
transportation capital investment by the government, as a proportion of 
Gross Domestic Product, is about four times that of the United States. 
And our European allies invest at a rate substantially above ours. 
Asian governments hope to invest upwards of one trillion dollars on 
infrastructure by the century's end, half of which will be for 
transportation-related infrastructure. European governments are 
spending even more on a continent-wide system of high-speed rail and 
motorways. Our global competitiveness hinges on the efficiency of our 
transportation system--in part because of the very size of our Nation: 
in Japan, the average journey from manufacturer to the export shipping 
point is 50 miles; in the U.S., it is about 450 miles. We are examining 
transportation improvements, particularly in north-south corridors and 
along our borders with Mexico and Canada, that will facilitate enhanced 
trade resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). 
Another significant factor in freight movement has been the shift to 
east-west-Pacific-oriented flows, affecting not only the size and 
direction of rail traffic, but causing ports in Los Angeles and Long 
Beach to increase their market share. On a broader scale, it is 
critical that we assure that our connections across the country--to 
ports, airports and major transportation facilities--effectively link 
us to our global partners.
    The benefits of an efficient, interconnected national 
transportation system are clear. It is therefore vital that we 
understand the factors that contribute to and affect the performance 
of-that system. While it may not make for the most dramatic testimony, 
I believe it is important to understand recent trends in transportation 
so that we may make the best choices for the future.
                         transportation trends
    The United States is facing major changes in personal and business 
travel, new patterns of freight shipments, regional population shifts, 
fast-growing elderly and teen populations, and an explosion of 
information technology. Across the Nation, there are growing demands 
for speed and efficiency, especially from businesses, but also from 
individuals struggling to preserve time for family and community 
alongside demanding work lives. Congestion and pollution are two 
problems that are increasing. Both present new challenges for the 
transportation community and force us to devise innovative solutions 
for dealing with them. We must meet the demand for increased mobility 
for all our citizens--rich and poor, elderly and young, disabled and 
able-bodied, in urban and rural areas--to ensure their full 
participation in community life. Let me outline a few aspects of 
current trends in transportation that will direct our future policy 
decisions on ISTEA reauthorization.
    Much of this information is from the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics (BTS) which, as you all know, was established by ISTEA. 
Their work of compiling, analyzing, and disseminating information on 
the nation's transportation systems will lead to a better understanding 
of the performance of the transportation system and the potential for 
its improvement.
Passenger Travel
    Between 1970 and 1995, U.S. passenger travel nearly doubled, 
growing by an average of 2.7 percent a year. Annual passenger miles of 
travel per person averaged 17,200 miles in 1995--nearly 6,000 miles 
further than in 1970. Automobile travel grew by almost 1 trillion 
passenger-miles, reaching 2.8 trillion passenger-miles in 1995, 
overshadowing all other modes in absolute terms. Passenger travel in 
light-duty trucks (including pickups, sport-utility vehicles, and 
minivans) grew nearly fivefold over this period raising concerns over 
the fuel efficiency of the light-duty fleet. With regard to public 
transportation, over the past 15 years, transit travel has remained 
relatively stable. However, passenger-miles traveled on commuter rail, 
light rail and demand-responsive services have increased appreciably.
    Many different factors have contributed to the growth in travel, 
including demographic and labor force changes, income growth, and 
changes in the makeup of metropolitan areas:
    <bullet> In the quarter of a century between 1970 and 1995, the 
U.S. population grew by nearly 58 million people. More than 16 million 
people immigrated to the United States during this period. A high 
proportion were working-age adults who have joined the labor force and 
live in metropolitan areas. These factors have influenced urban travel 
demand.
    <bullet> Baby boomers and women poured into the workplace. The 
civilian labor force grew by 59 percent, from 83 million in 1970 to 132 
million in 1995. More people working means more people commuting, and 
more travel. In 1990, employed persons with licenses drove an average 
of 15,280 miles compared with 8,048 miles for people with licenses who 
are not employed.
    <bullet> The number of households increased by 53 percent, nearly 
twice as much as the increase in population would suggest. The reason: 
household size decreased from 3.14 people in 1970 to 2.65 people in 
1995. Smaller households mean fewer people to share responsibilities 
for shopping, recreation, and child care, and thus more travel per 
household.
    <bullet> The number of automobiles and light trucks grew from 107 
million in 1970 to 191 million in 1994. This increase is partly related 
to income growth. Rising income also generates demand for long-distance 
travel, especially international travel.
    Changes in development patterns also have affected travel. In 
metropolitan areas, the locations where people live, work, and shop 
have become more dispersed, and travel and dependency on private 
vehicles have increased. Metropolitan areas grew from 140 million 
people in 1970 to 189 million in 1990, but between 1980 and 1990, the 
central cities lost half a million people, while the suburbs gained 
17.5 million. Between 1970 and 1990, the suburban share of metropolitan 
population rose from 54 percent to 62 percent, and during the second 
decade of this period, the suburban share of jobs rose by almost the 
same proportion, from 37 percent to 42 percent.
    Shifts in the location of jobs have changed travel patterns. 
Suburb-to-suburb commutes in 1990 accounted for 44 percent of all 
metropolitan commutes, while suburb-to-downtown made up only 20 
percent. As metropolitan areas expanded and low-density suburbs spread 
into rural areas, mass transit struggled to provide the same level of 
service as in higher density city cores. Thus, private vehicle trips 
soared, as they offered the most direct connections for many suburb-to-
suburb commutes by occupants.
    Although the increase in mobility over the last quarter of a 
century has brought major benefits to American society, not all share 
fully in the benefits. For example, for many Native Americans, 
inadequate transportation infrastructure has hindered economic 
progress, health care, jobs, and schools in Indian Country. This must 
change. President Clinton has proclaimed a government-to-government 
relationship with American Indian Nations to foster Indian self-
determination and economic independence. Investment in the future of 
Indian Country, including investment in infrastructure, will ensure 
long-term dividends to our partners in this special relationship. The 
jobs created through this investment may provide some of the most 
impoverished areas of the United States an opportunity for economic 
prosperity.
    In addition, as many available jobs have shifted to suburban and 
exurban areas, low-income workers who cannot afford to live in those 
communities or own a car are often left with inadequate resources to 
reach their places of employment. Alternatively, they cannot find work 
because the travel times involved are prohibitive. Also, if welfare 
reform is to be successful, low-income inner city residents must have 
the means to access jobs in suburban communities. Efforts such as our 
Department's fiscal year 1998 $100 million access to jobs initiative, 
and HUD's Bridges to Work initiative, will contribute to enhancing 
welfare-to-work opportunities.
    Mobility for older Americans and people with disabilities is a 
critical and growing need that must be addressed. The elderly are the 
fastest growing component of the U.S. population, with nearly 13 
percent of the population over the age 65. The number of Americans over 
age 65--33.5 million in 1995--could increase by over 50 percent by 
2020. The majority of these individuals are accustomed to independent 
mobility in self-operated vehicles. The aging of the population will 
require important modifications to the transportation system to make it 
safer for those with less keen eyesight, hearing and responses. 
Adjusting our public transportation systems to bring them into 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act is a mandate that 
must be fully implemented to serve better the needs of elderly persons 
and persons with disabilities. Public transportation and highways must 
be made more user-friendly through better signing, facility 
modifications and other improvements. We will have to give increased 
attention to mobility alternatives for these segments of our 
population, as their mobility may be a significant social, economic, 
and health concern. Appropriate and acceptable approaches to achieving 
these objectives will have to be addressed in ISTEA reauthorization.
    Traffic congestion in the nation's 50 largest cities costs 
travelers more than $40 billion annually. Without a strategy that uses 
multi-modal solutions to this problem, delays are likely to increase 
over the next two decades as travel nationwide increases by a projected 
60 percent. These delays translate directly into growing costs to 
business and ultimately are passed along to consumers.
The Movement of Freight
    Freight transportation grew substantially between 1970 and 1994 in 
all land modes and air cargo. The ton-miles carried by Class 1 
railroads increased 57 percent, while ton-miles carried by oil 
pipelines increased 41 percent. Using vehicle-miles of travel by 
combination trucks as a surrogate for ton-miles, freight transportation 
by truck increased 210 percent. The number of commercial motor carriers 
has also increased from 180,000 in 1989 to over 400,000 in 1996. The 
biggest relative growth was in air cargo ton-miles, which increased 434 
percent.
    This growth has been uneven, responding to general fluctuations in 
the economy. In response to the need for better data on freight 
movements, BTS worked with the Bureau of the Census to conduct the 
Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) in 1993. Results from the CFS (with 
adjustments by BTS) show that the nations freight transportation system 
carried more than 12 billion tons of goods, generating a total of 3.6 
trillion ton-miles in 1993.
    The CFS confirms the dominance of trucks in our nation's freight 
transportation system, especially for shipping distances under 500 
miles. Trucks moved nearly three-quarters of the value and just over 
half of the weight of all shipments. In terms of ton-miles, the split 
among truck, rail, water, and pipeline is more even because of the 
greater distances large shipments move in the nonhighway modes. Growth 
in truck use has been particularly dramatic. According to the Bureau of 
the Census Truck Inventory and Use Survey, the number of trucks used in 
for-hire transportation increased by 24 percent between 1982 and 1992. 
Vehicle-miles grew even faster: for-hire trucks traveled approximately 
58,000 miles per vehicle in 1992 compared with 46,000 miles in 1982. 
Also, the truck fleet appears to be getting heavier as well as 
traveling farther.
    Fast, flexible forms of transportation have become more important 
in recent years. In 1993, parcel, postal, and courier services carried 
more than 9 percent of the value of shipments of processed or 
manufactured goods that were measured by the CFS. When shipments 
carried by more than one mode are added to moves by parcel and courier 
services, intermodal freight exceeded 208 million tons, valued at about 
$660 billion. In particular, about 41 million tons, valued at $83 
billion, moved by the classic intermodal combination of truck and rail. 
Assuming 50,000 pounds of payload per truck, this means that more than 
1.6 million large trucks were diverted from our nation's highways for a 
major part of their trips.
    Intermodal shipments tend to be high in value: goods shipped by 
parcel, postal, and courier services have an average value of $14.91 
per pound, while truck-rail intermodal shipments average $1.02 per 
pound. Although these numbers are far less than the $22.15 per pound 
average for air and air-truck shipments, they are significantly higher 
than the 34 cents per pound for truck-only shipments and the less than 
10 cents per pound for railroads, water transportation, and pipelines.
    The importance of interstate transportation was also demonstrated. 
Much of the freight was shipped over long distances. According to CFS 
data, out-of-state shipments accounted for 62.3 percent of the value of 
all shipments in the U.S. By weight, out-of-state shipments accounted 
for 35.3 percent. These figures do not fully reflect certain categories 
of shipments (such as imports from foreign countries) that were out of 
the scope of the survey. Hence, the above figures on out-of-state 
shipments are probably conservative. Another indication of the 
significance of interstate travel is that 49 percent of the vehicle 
miles traveled by for-hire trucks in 1992 were outside their base 
State.
    Freight transportation has changed in response to many factors. We 
are moving lighter goods, either because traditional products like 
automobiles are being manufactured with lighter materials, or because 
the economy is emphasizing inherently light products such as consumer 
electronics. Just-in-time logistical systems have placed new demands 
for faster and more reliable service to support manufacturing, 
wholesale, and retail. The combination of toll-free telephone numbers 
and overnight parcel delivery services has allowed small retail 
establishments to serve national and international markets, resulting 
in more growth for carriers specializing in small shipments.
    International trade will probably continue to place increasing 
demands on the domestic transportation system. Although overall global 
economic growth rates are likely to be uneven, economic growth in 
regions such as Asia, the Pacific Rim, and Latin America may continue 
to be significant. This growth will provide new markets for U.S. 
products, and be the source of both imports and tourists to be carried 
on the domestic U.S. transportation system.
    As I noted earlier, NAFTA has added a north-south focus to 
traditional concern with east-west freight movements for international 
shipments. Based on information from the BTS Transborder Surface 
Freight Dataset, collected through the Census Bureau, $273.56 billion 
in goods moved by surface transport between Canada and the United 
States in 1995, an increase of 10.2 percent from 1994. In terms of 
value, 74 percent of this trade move by truck, 22 percent by rail and 4 
percent by pipeline in 1995.
    In 1995, $96.36 billion in goods moved by surface transport between 
Mexico and the United States, an increase of 6.4 percent from 1994. In 
terms of value, 85 percent of this trade moved by truck in 1995; 
virtually all the rest moved by rail.
    Finally, although transborder land crossings are important, most 
international trade moves in and out of the United States through 
ports. Seaports handled international cargo valued at $619 billion in 
1995, compared to $49 billion in 1970 (in current dollars).
Safety
    We have made great safety progress in the face of increasing 
travel. Even so, transportation injuries and deaths still impose a 
substantial drain on the U.S. economy, along with emotional devastation 
for surviving family members and friends. Transportation accounts for 
roughly half of the accidental deaths in the United States, as it has 
for at least 25 years. And approximately 95 percent of transportation 
deaths resulted from crashes involving motor vehicles. These crashes 
are the leading killer of America's youth. Yet the reduction in the 
highway death toll is one of the great success stories of the last 
quarter century. Had the 1969 death rate--five fatalities per 100 
million vehicle-miles traveled (vmt)--persisted, more than 120,000 
people would have died from motor vehicle crashes in 1995, nearly three 
times the actual number of fatalities. Not only the death rate, but the 
absolute number of deaths from crashes involving motor vehicles has 
declined dramatically.
    Nevertheless, a close look at recent statistics allows little room 
for complacency. As I noted earlier, about 41,500 lives were lost last 
year on our nation's highways. These deaths are only part of the 
picture; crashes result in costly injuries, productivity losses, lost 
travel time and increased congestion, placing a huge burden on our 
economy--an estimated $150.5 billion in 1994. The cost of medical 
treatment alone is estimated to be more than $14 billion a year. The 
American taxpayer pays more than one-quarter of that amount to cover 
the Medicaid and Medicare costs associated with these injuries. The 
American taxpayer also has to make up for the lost tax revenue 
resulting from injuries and fatalities, estimated at nearly $8 billion 
a year.
    Taking into account the current level of Federal and State highway 
safety programs, projected increases in miles traveled will mean that 
the number of Americans killed in crashes will increase; a conservative 
estimate projects up to 51,000 deaths a year by 2005. This must not 
happen. We must reduce the fatality rate, and reduce the actual number 
of traffic fatalities. Improvements in vehicle and highway design will 
help. But the key is to improve our behavior on the highways by 
increasing safety belt and child safety seat use, by reducing drunk 
driving, and by increasing compliance with established traffic laws. 
Greater community involvement, and public and private sector leadership 
will lead directly to improved traffic behavior. National research and 
development also will continue to play a critical role in developing 
more effective countermeasures and delivery systems.
    Over a year ago, DOT began to develop an Action Plan to Reduce 
Highway Injuries and Related Costs. We are assisting States in setting 
and evaluating their performance goals and providing a wide range of 
technical and financial assistance to assure that States have the 
tools, such as adequate data, to identify their problems and pursue the 
best strategies to resolve them. The Action Plan is an ongoing effort 
of the Department directed toward saving lives and taxpayer dollars. 
That plan, together with the safety measures I noted earlier that are 
included in our budget plan, will help communities respond effectively 
to these safety problems.
Environment
    Transportation, like all human activity, also affects the natural 
environment. Because of its enormous size, it is inevitable that our 
transportation system will have some undesirable environmental impacts. 
Many, but by no means all of these impacts, stem from reliance on 
fossil fuels, especially petroleum. Because transportation energy use 
is increasing and domestic oil production continues to decline, U.S. 
reliance on imports is likely to continue. Gains from past 
technological change and fuel economy standards have tapered off.
    Transportation activities can affect the quality of surface and 
groundwaters. Under some circumstances water quality may be affected 
when oil, fuel, and other chemicals emitted or dropped from vehicles is 
washed from highways by rainfall. These contaminants can eventually 
reach streams, lakes, or groundwater. The movement and storage of fuels 
and other substances used for transportation also has the potential to 
cause water quality problems.
    With regard to air pollution, the effort to control vehicle 
emissions has been an environmental success story. Far less pollution 
is emitted from cars and trucks today than 25 years ago. These dramatic 
improvements in air quality would never have occurred without a strong 
Federal role. Coordination between transportation and air quality 
planning has improved. More than one-quarter of the areas that did not 
meet ozone standards in 1990, and a few areas not meeting carbon 
monoxide standards, have met air quality goals. The Environmental 
Protection Agency has reclassified these areas as in attainment. 
Nevertheless, many large cities continue to have problems meeting air 
quality standards and compliance will continue to be a significant 
challenge. Transportation officials must continue efforts under ISTEA's 
successor and the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollutant emissions from 
transportation.
    Moreover, the United States continues to be the world's largest 
producer of greenhouse gases--both absolutely and on a per capita 
basis--and transportation accounts for 32 percent of U.S. carbon 
dioxide emissions, the key emission from anthropogenic sources. This is 
of ongoing concern because, as vehicle miles traveled and single 
occupancy vehicle rates continue to increase, transportation is the 
fastest growing sector for greenhouse gas emissions. The threat posed 
by global climate change must continue to be addressed through efforts 
to encourage travel in higher occupancy modes such as mass transit and 
carpools, to help reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled.
    Finally, efforts to mitigate environmental impacts and improve air 
and water quality, to protect open space, wetlands, and wildlife 
habitat, and to support other options that reduce the need for travel, 
such as pedestrian-friendly developments, must be continued and 
strengthened through programs such as CMAQ and transportation 
enhancements and through comprehensive and integrated transportation 
planning. Transportation planning decisions should also take into 
account efforts to redevelop ``brownfields,'' particularly urban areas 
that have been abandoned or underutilized due to contamination risks.
                lessons learned and the challenges ahead
    ISTEA marked a turning point in developing an interconnected 
national transportation system, and its successor should be based upon 
that same vision. The question is: how do we get there, in an era of 
tight budgets? We believe ISTEA has provided a solid framework for us 
to build upon. The successor to ISTEA must retain the core elements 
that have made ISTEA such a success in just a few short years.
    While we can be justly proud of the national progress made under 
ISTEA, there are still significant challenges ahead--ones that will 
require fresh thinking and creative solutions--and continue to require 
Federal investment and guidance. If we are to maintain our quality of 
life and remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must 
aggressively meet the challenge of continued growth while mitigating 
unwanted safety and environmental affects.
    As ISTEA's Declaration of Policy specifically acknowledged, we 
cannot treat our transportation infrastructure as a collection of 
individual modes competing with each other. We need to see our 
transportation facilities as a national system, with each mode 
complementing the others, and working together as a whole for the 
benefit of all users. ISTEA brought us closer to that goal, in several 
ways. First, it gave State and local governments the responsibility for 
planning all aspects of their State and regional transportation 
systems, and gave them more funding flexibility to pursue the goal of a 
more efficient, integrated transportation system. Second, ISTEA created 
mechanisms for funding projects connecting the different components of 
our transportation system. Through the CMAQ program--the flexible, 
environmentally oriented category in ISTEA--we have, for example, 
funded an innovative truck-rail transfer facility in Stark County, 
Ohio, and projects in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, 
designed to unsnarl traffic and improve rail and truck access to the 
commercial waterfront. These projects--which help reduce vehicular 
congestion, improve safety and air quality, and provide better access 
into the port area so we can accommodate the increased volume of 
trade--show that there does not have to be a tradeoff between jobs and 
the environment.
    In regard to Indian reservation roads, ISTEA implemented our 
special government-to-government relationships by establishing a policy 
of consultation with tribal governments concerning the development of 
transportation systems for Indian reservations. For years, a lack of 
transportation infrastructure ``chilled'' economic development on 
Indian reservations. But ISTEA has begun to address reservation 
infrastructure needs and we need to continue to include tribal 
governments as partners in this effort.
    In Miami, efforts are underway to plan a transit facility, known as 
the Miami Intermodal Center, to link Miami International Airport to the 
Port of Miami, a major cruise ship center. This is a good example of 
how the private sector and all levels of government--city, county, 
State and Federal--together with officials from different modes of 
transportation--the air, maritime, port, transit and highways--can work 
together to accomplish mutual goals.
    Sound transportation systems cannot be created without the 
involvement of those affected. ISTEA brought new players to the table. 
The goal was to make the process of setting transportation priorities 
more informed and more inclusive. And State and local governments are 
responding. Efforts have been made throughout the country--in Atlanta 
and Boise to name a couple of leading examples. Also, Federal land 
management agencies and tribal governments are increasingly involved in 
statewide and metropolitan transportation planning.
    And a more inclusive process does yield results--in the form of 
better, more feasible and more publicly acceptable plans. The plans 
being developed by States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations 
(MPOs) through the ISTEA processes are more viable. The fiscal 
constraint requirements ISTEA applied to these Transportation Plans 
mean they reflect the reality that planning requires hard choices based 
on available funding.
    The comprehensive planning and public participation requirements 
established by ISTEA help to assure that a full range of social, 
economic, and community impacts are taken into consideration as 
investment decisions are being made. They connect transportation 
decisions with other community concerns--land use, environment, and 
quality of life--to make communities more livable. There should be no 
question of turning back. ISTEA's successor must continue to guarantee 
that investment decisions are the product of a systematic, inclusive 
planning process--an informed political decision.
    In order to meet the transportation challenges of the 21st century, 
we will have to draw upon the talents and creativity of all levels of 
government and the private sector. In the past 3 years, we have taken 
major steps in that direction. For example, in Glendale, California, a 
public-private partnership of the Glendale Transportation Management 
Associates, Nestle USA Inc., and Commonwealth Land Title took on the 
challenging question: how can private companies help clean the air? In 
June 1993, in a program partly supported by CMAQ funds, Nestle and 
Commonwealth Title began rewarding employees who voluntarily chose 
alternatives to driving alone. An evaluation of this demonstration 
program found that, with a modest investment of startup funds, the 
average vehicle occupancy increased by approximately one-third, 
suggesting the possibility of achieving dramatic reductions in the 
number of vehicles clogging the roads of the Los Angeles basin.
    ISTEA strengthened the traditional Federal-State partnership and 
expanded it to include local governments, metropolitan planning 
organizations, and the private sector. Post-ISTEA legislation should 
build upon these successful relationships. We also need to bring in all 
the resources and talent available.
    Finally, cleaner, safer, and more efficient transportation has 
often come because of new technologies--some entirely new, such as the 
automobile, and some that have made previous advances safer or more 
efficient, such as seat belts. Continued development and use of 
advanced technology are vital if such progress is to continue. Under 
ISTEA, there is a renewed emphasis on applying technology that will 
close the gap between the state-of-the-art and the state-of-the-
practice. And a reauthorized ISTEA must harness technology to serve a 
new century, through intelligent transportation systems, high speed 
rail, magnetic levitation, and other new technologies. By emphasizing 
deployment of technologies such as ITS, we can translate innovation 
into improved safety, system capacity, efficiency and travel time. 
Investment in research and development has been expanded, both through 
increased funding and through new partnerships with the private sector.
                               conclusion
    ISTEA is visionary legislation, and its central elements--
intermodalism, flexibility, intergovernmental partnership, a strong 
commitment to safety, environmental protection, enhanced planning and 
strategic investment--should be preserved. These elements should serve 
as the foundation for the next surface transportation reauthorization. 
Over the course of the next several months, all parts of the 
transportation community, from both public and private sectors, will 
examine the merits of ISTEA and debate the details of the new 
legislation. I look forward to that debate.
    Efficient national cargo movement is key to our ability to benefit 
from expanding trade opportunities. Truckers and other freight 
operators need national uniformity in both facilities and regulatory 
standards. We cannot achieve other key national priorities--linking 
Americans to jobs, health care and education--without efficient 
transportation. And the challenges we face in the areas of safety and 
the environment do not stop at State borders.
    There are significant challenges ahead with a lot of work to do. In 
partnership with our colleagues in the States and local communities, 
and with the private sector, I believe that we at the Federal level 
have a leadership role in meeting those challenges.
    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I look forward 
to working with you and other committee members on reauthorization of 
these important surface transportation programs. Clearly, we can all 
agree that investment in our nation's transportation infrastructure is 
vital to preserving our competitive advantage throughout the world and 
to maintaining the well being of our citizens. I will be happy to 
answer any questions.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

     Responses of Mortimer Downey to Questions from Senator Chafee
    Question 1a. According to a Department of Transportation (DOT) 
study, the rate of economic return on highway investments has declined 
somewhat over the last decade.
    Do you foresee this slightly downward trend continuing in the next 
century?
    Response. The rate of return on highway investment has declined 
over the last decade in part because a larger share of total highway 
investment has been devoted to improving highway conditions and a 
smaller share to improving the capacity and performance of the highway 
system. Industry thus has not realized the kinds of improvements in 
highway accessibility and levels of service that it did during the 
period when the Interstate System was under construction. Recently, 
FHWA and its partners have focused much greater attention on 
incorporating freight considerations into the highway planning process 
to identify the types of highway and intermodal transportation 
investments needed to improve the efficiency and level of service of 
freight transportation. Increased funding for the National Highway 
System (NHS), the backbone of national surface transportation systems, 
should also contribute to providing the transportation services needed 
by an increasingly dispersed economy. Furthermore, as State and local 
transportation agencies accelerate the implementation of intelligent 
transportation initiatives, the performance of highway and related 
transportation systems can be expected to improve significantly, 
allowing industry greater opportunities to reduce overall logistics 
costs thereby increasing their productivity. We cannot expect the kinds 
of economic returns that we realized during the Interstate construction 
era, but technological innovations such as ITS and adequate funding for 
the NHS should slow and perhaps reverse declines in the rates of return 
on highway and intermodal transportation investment.

    Question 1b. If highways alone no longer yield the highest rate of 
return, where in the area of transportation should we direct limited 
resources?
    Response. We are not aware of any comparative analysis of highway 
investment versus other infrastructure or alternative government 
programs currently available to answer your question.

    Question 2. For obvious reasons, the term ``intermodalism'' is used 
repeatedly in the context of surface transportation policy. Indeed, 
your testimony emphasizes the goal of a ``seamless'' intermodal 
transportation system. There are countless examples of ``intermodal 
connectors'' with respect to freight, but intermodalism with respect to 
passenger travel is overlooked at times.
    Can you share some specific examples of how intermodalism is 
working to move people more efficiency?
    Response. Although the term ``intermodalism'' refers to a well 
defined segment of the freight industry, its meaning is less precise 
when applied to passenger transportation. Fundamentally, intermodalism 
is about designing solutions which make the most sense for the 
passenger--regardless of mode.
    The goal of ``seamless transportation'' refers to one common 
definition of intermodalism: improving connections between the modes. A 
trip that requires a passenger to change modes typically is slower, 
less convenient, and less reliable than one where no change is 
required: the more changes, the greater is the delay and inconvenience. 
Easing and, where possible, eliminating the barriers which complicate 
intermodal passenger travel improves the efficiency and capacity of the 
overall transportation system. The Department is helping to fund a 
variety of such initiatives. We are also encouraging State and local 
institutions needed to facilitate passenger intermodalism to engage in 
the cooperative efforts which make this goal a reality.
    The Department supports a number of initiatives to encourage and 
foster passenger intermodalism. In Albany, New York, the State spent 
Federal Highway Administration funds to build park and ride lots in the 
congested I-87 ``Northway'' Corridor to link with the regional transit 
operator's buses, which are being funded by our Federal Transit 
Administration. In Miami, Florida, the eight-mile long South Dade 
Busway provides the city's Metrobuses with an exclusive connection to 
the city's rapid transit network. FHWA funding provided 80 percent of 
the cost of the project to extend the transit system to the suburbs.
    Around the country, numerous intermodal terminals are being 
planned, built and/or rebuilt using a variety of ``modal'' funding 
sources to link rail, bus, and taxi services. Examples include 
Richmond, Virginia's Union Station linking intercity and intracity rail 
services as well as bus services; Dallas, Texas's Union Station linking 
Amtrak, taxis, and the city's new light rail system; and Baltimore's 
Pennsylvania Station linking intercity and intracity rail as well as 
commuter rail and bus services. St. Louis, Missouri is developing its 
own plans for a new intermodal center. New York City's Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority is developing a farecard which will allow 
commuters to use either bus or subway services.
    Good intermodal connections improve system capacity by providing 
travel alternatives. In San Francisco, California, the extension of the 
Bay Area Rapid Transit system to San Francisco International Airport is 
seen as providing an alternative to highway access. By doing so, BART 
is helping to relieve access constraints that threaten the airport's 
ability to service the region. In Houston, Texas, a regional mobility 
program incorporates freeway improvements, transit and carpool lanes, 
park and ride lots, and a regional travel information system. Since the 
program began, transit ridership has increased significantly, as have 
average highway speeds.
    Finally, in addition to these activities, the Department's 
reauthorization proposal, NEXTEA, will seek to foster intermodalism by 
increasing the ability of State and local governments to flex Federal 
funds for publicly owned, and certain privately owned, transportation 
facilities. This flexibility will allow State and local governments to 
improve connections that often are the bottlenecks impeding regional or 
local mobility. Coupling this flexibility with innovative financing is 
expected to give the public sector additional tools and potential 
sources of revenues that otherwise would not be available under 
traditional grant programs.
 1995 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System: Condition 
                            and Performance
Introduction
    This pamphlet provides a summary of the 1995 Status of the Nation's 
Surface transportable System: Condition and Performance Report to 
Congress (C&P Report). It is the latest in a series of biennial reports 
that track changes in transportation physical and operating 
characteristics, finance, and usage patterns. Also included are 
estimates of capital investment required from all sources to meet 
specified levels of system performance in future years. The current 
report combines information about our highway, bridge, transit, and 
maritime systems.
    This report is the second in the C&P Report series that combines 
documents satisfying statutory requirements for the Department of 
Transportation to provide Congress with information on the condition, 
performance, and capital investment requirements of the Nation's 
highway and transit systems. For the first time in the report series 
history, information is provided on maritime infrastructure. Maritime 
reports are not, however, statutorily required.
    This report is in keeping with the Department's commitment to a 
truly intermodal perspective of the Nation's transport system. 
Combining modal information provides a valuable intermodal perspective 
as we seek to make the best use of each mode in satisfying our Nation's 
needs. We will continue the expansion of modal coverage in this report 
series to provide the breadth of information needed to deal with our 
increasingly complex transportation requirements.
    The report finds that personal and freight transport demands on our 
systems are at an all time high and are expected to increase with 
population and economic growth, but at a slower rate than experienced 
in past decades. While the U.S. population has increased 1.16 percent 
annually since 1980, the number of trips per person and miles per trip 
have increased about three times as fast. Reasons for the per capita 
increases include changes in trends related to employment; the number, 
size, makeup, and location of households; the number of licensed 
drivers; and the number of household vehicles.
    The physical condition of the surface transportation system has 
generally been stable, with States and local governments investing at 
rates approximately equal to the cost of maintaining the physical 
plant. Improved highway conditions have, to some extent, resulted in a 
significant decline in highway fatality rates over the past decade.
    In contrast, highway system performance has been declining; this is 
reflected in various measures of congestion. The quality of transit 
performance has improved with increases in average speed, reductions in 
wait tunes and number of transfers as well as reductions in trip times.
    Although all units of government and private industry are currently 
investing at record levels to maintain transport services and 
efficiency, demands continue to outpace investment. In 1994, an 
estimated $57.2 billion capital investment would have been required 
from all sources just to maintain 1993 conditions and performance on 
our Nation's highway, bridge, and transit systems. In 1993, all levels 
of government actually invested $40.5 billion in these systems.
    An estimated $80.0 billion would have been required in 1994 to 
provide a higher level of service by correcting sting and accruing 
deficient highway, bridge and transit conditions. The highway component 
of this estimate based on a new procedure that focuses on the services 
that the system provides to the users rather than on physical condition 
of the infrastructure. All highway improvements included in this 
estimate generate direct r and agency benefits in excess of the initial 
cost of the improvement.
                                 ______
                                 
                         document organization
    This document provides a summary of the 1995 Status of the Nation's 
Surface Transportation Conditions and Performance Report to Congress. 
It is presented in two parts. The first contains material on highway 
and transit facilities, the second covers the maritime industry.
    Part I begins with a discussion of highway and transit system and 
user characteristics:

  <bullet> Who uses the system?
  <bullet> Why do they use it?
  <bullet> What does the system need in order to meet current and 
    future personal transportation requirements?
  <bullet> What does the system look like?

    The second chapter provides information on highway and transit 
finance:

  <bullet> Who pays for the system?
  <bullet> Where do the revenues come from?
  <bullet> How are highway and transit funds spent?

    The third chapter provides an indication of how well the highway 
and transit systems are working:
  <bullet> In what physical condition are the Nation's highway and 
    transit systems?
  <bullet> How much congestion are highway users facing?
  <bullet> How has the transit system been performing?
  <bullet> How safe is the highway system?
  <bullet> What has been the impact of highway transportation on the 
    quality of our environment?

    The next chapter provides estimates of the investment required, by 
all units of government, to either maintain or improve the condition 
and performance of the highway and transit systems over the next 20 
years. These estimates are expressed as average annual requirements, 
that is the 20-year investment total divided by 20 years. The final 
chapter in Part I provides a linkage between the 20-year investment 
estimates and actual recent capital outlays by all units of government 
for highway, bridge, and transit capital improvements.
    Part II summarizes information describing the maritime system. 
Material is also provided on system condition and performance. This 
section does not provide estimates of future investment requirements.
    Readers will note that this summary contains a number of boxes 
labeled ``Drawing Conclusions.'' This convention is intended as a 
vehicle for providing background information that may be useful in 
interpreting the report's statistical information.
                               __________
                      PART I: HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT
                        1993 System Report Card
                                highway
System Characteristics
    Highway vehicle miles traveled reached 2.3 trillion (up 2.2 percent 
per year since 1989); highway passenger miles reached 3.9 trillion (an 
increase of 2.3 percent per year since 1989).
    The extent of rural center-line mileage declined since 1983 due 
primarily to the expansion of Federal-aid urban area boundaries based 
on the periodic census.
Conditions and Performance
    Pavement condition improved throughout the 1980's and continued to 
do so into the early 1990's. However, because the States are 
transitioning to a new method of rating pavements, it is impossible to 
determine if overall pavement condition changed in 1993 relative to 
prior years.
    The severity of congestion (as measured by the percent of travel 
congested in the peak hour) increased through most of the 1980's, but 
stabilized between 1989 and 1991. The 1993 data indicates that the 
severity of congestion has continued to remain relatively constant. 
However, the change in urban area boundaries shifted a number of 
formerly rural highway sections into the urban category--diluting 
congested urban mileage. In urban areas, the extent and duration of 
congestion has increased steadily since 1983.
    Highway safety has improved since 1983; the overall highway 
fatality rate has declined steadily from 2.58 fatalities per 100 
million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1983 to 1.75 per 100 million 
VMT in 1993, with the Interstate system continuing to be, by far, the 
safest system.
    Since 1990, the percent of deficient bridges has decreased. In 
1994, bridges classified as either structurally or functionally 
deficient accounted for 24 percent of Interstate bridges, 28 percent of 
other arterial system bridges, and 28 percent of collector system 
bridges.
Finance and Investment Requirements
    All levels of government provided $88.5 billion for highway 
programs. The Federal Government provided $18.2 billion; the States, 
$46.9 billion; and counties, cities, and other local government 
entities funded the remaining $23.4 billion.
    The $88.5 billion provided for highway programs was distributed as 
follows:

  <bullet> Capital investment: $39.0 billion
  <bullet> Noncapital expenses: $41.9 billion
  <bullet> Debt retirement: $5.2 billion
  <bullet> Reserve: $2.4 billion

    Of the $39.0 billion invested in capital improvements, $34.8 
billion was for projects intended to improve the physical condition or 
performance of the system. The remaining $4.2 billion was spent on 
improvements that were not triggered by condition or performance 
deficiencies (e.g., environmental mitigation and expenditures for 
economic development).
    Federal funds accounted for $17.1 billion of the $39.0 billion in 
capital outlay, or 44 percent.
    In 1994, an estimated $49.9 billion in highway and bridge capital 
investment would have been required from all sources just to maintain 
1993 conditions and performance. Actual capital investment in 1993 (the 
latest year for which expenditure data is available) was 70 percent of 
what was required to maintain conditions.
    An estimated $68.2 billion would have been required in 1994 to 
provide a higher quality of service on highway and bridge systems. Not 
all existing and accruing highway deficiencies would have been 
eliminated, but those highway improvements that generated direct 
benefits in excess of the initial cost would have been made.
                                transit
System Characteristics
    A total of 508 local public transit operators provided transit 
services in 316 urbanized areas. An additional 5,010 local and regional 
organizations provided publicly accessible transit services in rural 
and small urban areas.
    On rail, transit patronage was 17.9 billion passenger miles (up 0.7 
percent per year since 1983); on bus systems, transit patronage was 
18.4 billion passenger miles (down by 0.5 percent per year since 1983).
Conditions and Performance
    Between 1984 and 1992, the percent of transit maintenance yards, 
maintenance buildings, stations, and bridges in good or better 
condition improved significantly. However, one-third or more remain in 
less than good condition. As of 1992, 76 percent of rail cars were in 
good or better condition.
    The perception of quality among customers and potential customers 
is an important determinant of transit use, often more important than 
the fare levels:

  <bullet> Since 1984, the passenger-mile-weighted average speed 
    improved by about 10 percent.
  <bullet> Well over half of all riders reported wait times of 5 
    minutes or less. About 80 percent of riders wait no longer than 10 
    minutes. Fifty-one percent of transit trips involve one or more 
    transfers.
  <bullet> Twenty-nine percent of transit trips involve standing for at 
    least part of the trip.
  <bullet> About 25 percent of all transit users report trip times of 
    10 minutes or less, and nearly 76 percent of transit trips were 
    reported to take less than half an hour.
Finance and Investment Requirements
    Total transit revenue, from all sources, was $22.6 billion. Public 
funding for transit was $15.5 billion. The Federal share of this 
support was $3.3 billion, the State and local share was $12.1 billion. 
Fares and other system-generated revenue accounted for $7.1 billion.
    Of the $22.6 billion in funding provided for transit, $21.7 billion 
was expended for capital investment and operating requirements. Capital 
investment accounted for $5.7 billion and $16.0 billion was spent to 
satisfy operating costs (the remainder was placed in reserve).
    Overall, Federal funds contributed only 6 percent to meeting 
transit operating costs, while contributing just under 42 percent of 
transit capital expenditures.
    In 1994, an estimated $7.3 billion in transit capital investment 
would have been required from all sources just to maintain 1993 
conditions and performance. This level of investment included a $5.1 
billion requirement in system preservation and $2.2 billion to expand 
capacity. Capital investment in 1993 was $5.7 billion, or 78 percent of 
what was required.
    An estimated $11.8 billion was required in 1994 to provide a higher 
quality of service on transit systems. Of the $11.8 billion investment 
requirement, $7.1 billion would have been spent on system preservation 
and $4.7 billion would have been used to correct capacity deficiencies.
                               __________
        Chapter 1: System Description and Usage Characteristics
    The United States enjoys an extensive surface transportation system 
that includes 3.9 million miles of roads, 576,000 bridges, and over 
166,000 route miles of transit.
    In 1993, the number of vehicle miles traveled on highways reached 
2.3 trillion, up 3.4 percent per year since 1983. On rail, transit 
patronage was 17.9 billion passenger miles in 1993, up at an annual 
rate of 0.7 percent from 1983. On bus systems, transit patronage was 
18.4 billion in 1993, down by 0.5 percent per year since 1983. In 1993, 
total highway passenger miles traveled (PMT) reached 3.9 trillion, up 
at an annual rate of 2.3 percent since 1989 (the first year that 
highway PMT statistics were available).
    The interaction of complex societal forces over the last two 
decades has resulted in important changes in the Nation's travel-
trends. These changes will place new demands on our transportation 
system in the future.
    A major trend noted is the transition to a service economy and the 
associated increase in the flexible labor force. Commuter trips will be 
increasingly spread over a longer day, with a sizable minority of 
travelers having variable work schedules.
    A number of important demographic trends may also impact future 
travel patterns and service requirements. For example, the significant 
growth in the number of married women who work outside the home 
suggests large numbers of commuters who may need to drive alone due to 
their need to balance multiple responsibilities such as dropping 
children at day care on the way to work or grocery shopping on the way 
home.
    Finally, rapid suburbanization of the population and employment has 
important transportation implications. In general, the lower the 
density of a community, the fewer concentrated origins and destinations 
and the fewer corridors of high density demand. These kinds of patterns 
require decentralized transportation facilities and services.
                       classification by function
Highway
    The 3.9 million miles of public roads and streets in the United 
States are functionally classified as arterials, collectors, and local 
roads, depending on the type of service they provide. These major 
systems are further subdivided into both rural and urban areas. Exhibit 
1-1 provides an overview of the system and displays mileage and travel 
system and displays mileage and travel shares by functional 
classification.
            Arterials
    The arterial system, which includes the Interstate as well as the 
recently designated National Highway System, provides the highest level 
of mobility, at the highest speed, for long uninterrupted distances. 
These facilities generally have higher design standards than other 
roads, often with multiple lanes and some degree of access control.
            Collectors
    Collectors provide a lower level of mobility than arterials at 
lower speeds and for shorter trips. Collectors are usually two-lane 
roads that collect and distribute travel to and from the arterial 
systems. They provide the highest degree of mobility for a variety of 
local travel requirements.
            Local Roads
    The majority of public road and street mileage is classified as 
local. Local roads provide the access between residential and 
commercial properties and the higher functional systems. These roads 
and streets provide a high level of access to abutting land but limited 
VMT.
Transit
    All public transit services in the United States may be 
functionally classified according to the public policy purposes served 
by individual trips: low-cost mobility, congestion management, and 
supporting livable metropolitan areas. Exhibit 1-2 provides an 
organizational overview and displays trip shares by functional system.
            Low-Cost Mobility
    All transit systems in the United States devote a portion of their 
services to providing low-cost mobility for people who, for reasons of 
low income, youth, old age, or disability, do not or cannot operate 
personal motorized transportation. The most important characteristic of 
such services is the provision of regular access to as many 
destinations in the service area as possible for a fare that passengers 
from low-income households can afford.
            Congestion Management
    Transit services that are competetive with the automobile most 
effectively serve the congestion mitigation function. The most 
distinctive characteristic of these transit services is consistently 
rapid door-to-door travel speeds encouraging a large proportion of 
people who own automobiles to choose transit thereby avoiding the 
unreliability and delays of congested highways.
            Livable Metropolitan Areas
    Transit services that provide motorized access to and from 
pedestrian oriented and multiple purpose central business districts and 
communities serve the function of supporting livable metropolitan 
areas. The most distinctive characteristic of these services is design 
for pedestrian access rather than access by automobile. Transit's role 
in supporting a livable metropolitan area is strongest where pedestrian 
access to transit and to other services via transit enable households 
and businesses to function with reduced use of automotive transport. 
Although most such areas are very large cities, communities with very 
large college campuses exhibit similar characteristics.
                       system extent and capacity
Extent
            Highway
    In 1993, total National public road and street mileage was 3.9 
million miles. Exhibit 1-3 compares current (1993) mileage with 1983 
mileage. The share of total miles in rural areas decreased slightly, 
from 83 percent to 79 percent.
            Bridge
    In 1994, there were more than 576,000 bridges on our Nation's 
highways, compared to about 573,000 bridges in 1984.
            Transit
    In 1993, 508 local public transit operators provided transit 
services in 316 urbanized areas. An additional 5,010 local and regional 
organizations provided publicly accessible transit services in rural 
and small urban areas. In 1993, there were 129,317 total transit 
vehicles, 7,439 miles of rail track, 2,271 rail stations, and 1,172 
maintenance facilities. Route miles of transit rail grew 15.7 percent 
from 1983 to 1993, or 1.5 percent per year. Nonrail transit includes 
buses, ferry boats, vans, and other conveyances, which in 1993 reached 
158,799 route miles, an annual increase of 2.0 percent since 1983.
                          drawing conclusions
    Comparison of previous year data with the 1993 data used in the 
current C&P Report has the following difficulties:

  <bullet> Expansion of the urban area boundaries as a result of the 
    1990 census resulted in reclassification of certain rural highway 
    facilities to urban, causing miles and travel to shift from rural 
    to urban classification.
  <bullet> The States have reclassified certain U.S. Forest Service 
    roadways to nonpublic roadways (which are not included in the 
    National statistics).
  <bullet> As a prelude to designation of the National Highway System, 
    the States functionally reclassified their roads.
Capacity
    Highway and transit capacitor comparisons are found in Exhibit 1-4. 
In 1993, there were .1 million lane miles of highways in the Nation. 
Over the Midyear period from 1983 to 1993, lane mileage increased 0.2 
percent annually. Transit rail and bus capacitor is defined as the 
average number of miles traveled by each vehicle multiplied by the 
number of vehicles, expressed as standardized ``bus equivalent 
vehicles.'' In 1993, transit rail capacitor consisted of 15,945 rail 
passenger vehicles providing 1,564 million bus equivalent vehicle 
miles, an annual increase of 2.2 percent since 1983. Transit bus 
capacitor, from 1983 to 1993, increased 1.5 percent annually.
                 aggregate and per capita travel growth
    The 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey shows that in 
1990 Americans made 250 billion personal trips in a car or truck, or by 
bus, train, subway, or airplane, or by walking, biking, or riding a 
motorcycle. In 1990, Americans took over 91 percent of work trips and 
over 87 percent of all trips in a car or truck or other personal 
vehicle and only 2 percent to 4 percent of all trips in a bus, subway, 
or train. However, the transit share is much higher in urban areas, 
particularly the largest areas.
    In 1990, Americans made 72 percent more person trips and traveled 
65 percent more person miles than they had in 1969. This remarkable 
growth in travel is a function of aggregate travel growth and per 
capita growth.
    Aggregate travel growth is related to total growth in the U.S. 
population; as the population increases the aggregate number of trips 
made and miles traveled increases, even if no one person takes more 
trips or travels farther than before. However, as shown in Exhibit 1-5, 
from 1969 through 1990 the total number of trips taken by all Americans 
increased over three times as fast as the population. It is clear that 
other factors, in addition to population growth, account for much of 
the increase in total trips.
    In 1990, the average trip length for all purposes was 9.4 miles 
compared to 8.7 miles in 1983, while the average commute increased to 
10.7 miles from 8.5 miles, or a 26 percent increase.
Highway Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
    Highway VMT comparisons are found in Exhibit 1-6. In 1993, total 
highway VMT reached 2.3 trillion. For the 10-year period from 1983 to 
1993, total travel increased at a compound annual rate of 3.4 percent. 
Travel growth in urban areas outpaced rural areas. However, as noted 
earlier, part of this growth is the result of expanding urban 
boundaries, i.e., rural travel becoming urban travel.
Highway and Transit Personal Miles Traveled
    On rail, transit patronage was 7.9 billion passenger miles in 1993, 
up at an annual rate of 0.7 percent from 1983. On bus systems, transit 
patronage was 8.4 billion in 1993, down by 0.5 percent per year since 
1983. In 1993, total highway passenger miles reached 3.9 trillion, up 
at an annual rate of 2.3 percent since 1989 (the first year that PMT 
statistics were available). Person miles of travel trends are provided 
in Exhibit 1-7.
                    personal travel characteristics
    While almost all indicators of travel are up, there is substantial 
diversity within aggregate travel trends. There are important 
differences in the travel patterns of men and women, the young and the 
old, those in urban and rural areas, and among those of different 
racial and ethnic backgrounds.
    Changes in travel patterns during the last two decades result from 
the interaction of complex societal forces that constrain and shape how 
American households organize all aspects of their lives. In order to 
recognize the demands that will be made on the Nation's transportation 
systems in the future, we must recognize how American households 
respond to the pressures created by these linked forces, and how their 
responses lead to wide variations in individual and aggregate travel 
patterns.
                            economic trends
    In the next decade most job growth will be in service rather than 
production industries. Retail trade will soon replace manufacturing as 
the second largest source of total U.S. employment, generating over 5 
million jobs by 2005.
    A key component of the service sector is the flexible labor force, 
which contains as much as one fourth of all American workers. The 
flexible labor force is characterized by temporary employment, variable 
work schedules, workers with multiple employers, and work weeks of less 
than 40 hours.
    In addition, the change to a service industry has brought 
Reconcentration of employment sites, creating a wide variety of 
dispersed work destinations. Industries do not need to be near one 
another or in a central area, average firm size is smaller, and firms 
are less likely to locate along heavily traveled corridors.
    These changes have substantially altered the trip patterns of many 
workers, who are now traveling at different hours, along different 
routes, and on different days of the week than comparable people two 
decades earlier. Commuter trips are now spread over a longer day, with 
a sizable minority of travelers having variable work schedules.
                           demographic trends
    The major societal trends highlighted in Exhibit 1-5 appear to have 
affected certain groups in society differentially.
Ethnic Diversity
    Large and growing numbers of the U.S. population are from different 
cultural, racial, or ethnic backgrounds. For reasons ranging from 
differing cultural norms to varying employment opportunities and income 
levels, these groups appear to have distinct travel patterns.
The Elderly
    American society is rapidly aging. In 1990, more than one fourth of 
the entire population was over age 60. By the first decade of the next 
century almost half of all elderly people will be over age 75, and 
almost 5 percent of the entire U.S. population will be over age 80.
    A number of factors related to the aging of society have profound 
implications for our Nation's transportation system. First, there are 
larger numbers of elderly drivers today. Between 1983 and 1993 the 
increase in licensing among both older men and women was substantial. 
As a result the elderly are driving far more than they did two decades 
ago.
    Second, the travel patterns of older people are strongly influenced 
by residential patterns. Because most older people age in the places 
they lived while working, elderly people are concentrated in low 
density or rural areas, where alternatives to automobile transportation 
are limited.
    Third, there are central city concentrations of older people with 
special needs. Those elderly people who live in the central cities of 
metropolitan areas are more likely to be members of ethnic or racial 
minorities or women living alone.
    One of the major implications of the aging of society is that there 
will be fewer younger workers available to pay for, or to directly 
provide, services for the rapidly growing number of seniors who require 
assistance. The overall level of care required by our aging population 
is much more physically and psychologically demanding than that needed 
four decades ago, in part because of the increased number of cognitive 
diseases among the growing number of people older than age 80.
Women
    Today women account for close to half of those in paid employment. 
There has been significant growth in the number of married women who 
work outside the home as well as the participation of women with 
children, many with very young children.
    The ways in which salaried women balance their domestic and 
employment responsibilities impact the modes they choose, the hours 
they travel, the routes they take, and how they organize and combine 
their out-of-home activities. For example, because they retain multiple 
responsibilities when they enter the paid labor force, women often 
``link'' trips together, dropping children at day care on the way to 
work or going grocery shopping on the way home.
    Women with children often have to make trips solely to meet the 
needs of their children and therefore may be less able to use 
alternative modes. Many workers report that they must drive alone 
because they need access to a car immediately before and after work to 
accomplish their child care needs and are concerned that they might be 
faced with a family emergency during the middle of the work day.
               population movements and land use patterns
    Over the last three decades, the United States has experienced 
large shifts in employment and population that have resulted in rapid 
suburbanization of the population and employment as well as 
concentration of poverty in central cities. At the same time, local 
land use regulations have interacted with these factors to continue to 
increase the expansion of single purpose neighborhoods and low density 
communities.
    These patterns all have strong implications for how, where, and how 
often people travel. The majority of Americans today live and work in 
metropolitan areas with low density land use and housing patterns. In 
general, the lower the density of a community the fewer concentrated 
origins and destinations and the fewer corridors of high density 
demand. These kinds of patterns require decentralized transportation 
facilities and services.
                               __________
                          Chapter 2: Financing
    All levels of government provided $88.5 billion for highway 
programs. The Federal Government accounted for 21 percent; the States 
53 percent; and counties, cities, and other local government entities 
funded the remaining 26 percent.
    In the past two decades (since 1973), the Federal share of highway 
funding has gradually dropped from 28 percent to 21 percent. 
Alternatively, the percentage of highway receipts contributed by local 
governments has steadily increased during the same period, increasing 
from 19 percent in 1973 to 26 percent in 1993.
    Ihe $88.5 billion in highway revenues does not include revenues 
collected from highway users but used to finance transit and other 
nonhighway activities. For example, State highway user revenues from 
motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle fees, and tolls actually generated 
$46.1 billion in revenues in 1993, but only $36.7 billion was actually 
used to fund highways.
    The $88.5 billion provided for highway programs was distributed as 
follows:

  <bullet> Capital investment: $39.0 billion
  <bullet> Noncapital expenses: $41.9 billion
  <bullet> Debt retirement: $5.2 billion
  <bullet> Reserve: $2.4 billion

    During the past two decades, in constant (1970) cents per unit of 
travel, total expenditures have dropped from 1.88 cents per vehicle 
mile of travel (VMI) in 1970 to 1.12 cents per VMT in 1993, a 40 
percent reduction.
    Total transit revenue, from all sources, was $22.6 billion. Public 
funding accounted for slightly over two-thirds and system-generated 
revenue (e.g., fares, advertising, etc.) accounted for almost one-
third.
    Of the $22.6 billion in funding provided for transit, $21.7 billion 
was expended for capital investment and operating requirements. Capital 
investment accounted for $5.7 billion and $16.0 billion was spent to 
satisfy operating costs.
                     funding by level of government
Highway
    In 1993, all levels of government provided $88.5 billion for 
highway programs. The Federal Government funded $18.2 billion; the 
States, $46.9 billion; and counties, cities, and other local government 
entities funded the remaining $23.4 billion. The Federal share of 
funding for highways increased dramatically between 1956 and 1960 
following passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 and the 
establishment of the Highway Trust Fund. However, since 1960 there has 
been a gradual trend downward in the Federal share of funding. The 
percentage of highway receipts contributed by local governments has 
been steadily increasing over the past several decades. For example, as 
illustrated in Exhibit 2-1, the local share of highway funding has 
increased from 19 percent in 1973 to 26 percent in 1993.
    While the Federal Government provided 21 percent of the funding for 
highways in 1993, its direct share of actual total expenditures was 
only $0.9 billion, or less than 1 percent. This is because almost all 
of the funds that the Federal Government provides for highways are 
transferred to the States under the Federal-Aid Highway Program for 
State and local governments to expend. Most of the remainder is spent 
on federally owned roads and research.
Transit
    Public funding for transit in 1993 was $15.4 billion. The Federal 
share of this support was $3.3 billion, remaining at about the same 
level in current dollar terms since 1985. The State and local share was 
$12.1 billion in 1993.
    The state and local share of transit assistance has climbed 
steadily since reaching a low of 45 percent in 1980. This is due to a 
reduction in Federal operating assistance in the 1980's, an increase in 
State and local assistance over the same period, and a continued 
increase in transit service provided.
                   sources of public sector financing
Highway
    The $88.5 billion provided for highway programs in 1993 came from a 
number of sources including highway user charges, property taxes and 
assessments, general funds, investment income, other taxes, 
miscellaneous fees, and bond issues. Exactions, development fees, and 
special district assessments provided additional revenue.
    At the Federal level, motor fuel and motor vehicle taxes are the 
primary source of funds for highways. Motor fuel and motor vehicle 
taxes also provide the largest share, 72 percent, of highway funds at 
the State level.
    Over one-third (36 percent) of highway funding at the local level 
is provided through the General Fund. Investment income and bond issue 
proceeds account for 32 percent. Property taxes, assessments, and other 
fees contribute almost 24 percent. The remainder (7 percent) is 
provided by highway users (motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and 
tolls).
Transit
    Federal support for transit comes from two sources: the Mass 
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and the General Fund. The 
Transit Account now receives 2.0 cents per gallon of Federal motor fuel 
tax receipts.
                          drawing conclusions
Funds Collected for Highways but Spent for Nonhighway Purposes
    The highway revenues cited in this report do not include revenues 
collected from highway users but used to finance transit and other 
nonhighway activities. For example, State highway user revenues from 
motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle fees, and tolls actually generated 
$46.1 billion in revenues in 1993. However. only $36.7 billion was used 
to fund highways.
    Although local governments I actually raised $2.4 billion from 
highway user taxation, only $1.7 billion was expended for roads and 
streets. The difference in highway user revenues went for a variety of 
highway purposes.
                  capital and noncapital expenditures
Summary of Expenditures
    Of the $88.5 billion in funding provided for highways in 1993, 
$86.1 billion was expended for highway programs and $2.4 billion was 
placed in reserve. Of the total highway expenditures, $80.9 billion 
went for current expenditures and $5.2 billion was used for debt 
retirement.
    In constant (1970) cents per unit of travel, total expenditures 
dropped from 1.88 cents per vehicle mile of travel (VMI) in 1970 to 
1.12 cents per VMT in 1993.
    Of the $21.7 billion expended for transit in 1993, $5.7 billion was 
expended for capital and $16.0 billion was for operating costs.
Capital Expenditures
            Highway
    All levels of government spent over $39.0 billion on highway 
capital improvements. Of total expenditures, capital outlay represented 
53 percent in 1973 and 48 percent in 1993. In constant (1970) cents per 
unit of travel, capital outlay dropped from 1.04 cents per VMT in 1970 
to 0.56 cents per VMT in 1993, a 46 percent decline.
    Of the $39.0 billion spent on capital outlay in 1993, State and 
local governments spent $38.7 billion, including $17.1 billion in 
Federal funds. Federal direct expenditures were $0.3 billion. Federal 
funds accounted for 44 percent of total highway capital outlay in 1993, 
down from a high of 56 percent in 1980.
    State and local governments supplied 55 percent of all funds for 
highway capital improvements in 1993. With the exception of the period 
from 1976 to 1986, the State and local government share has been 
consistently more than 50 percent.
    Exhibit 2-5 summarizes the distribution of highway capital outlay 
by improvement type and functional system for nonlocal roads.
    Capital outlay on all local roads was $7.1 billion in 1993. Local 
roads have the highest level of spending per unit of travel of all the 
functional systems. Improvement type data, however, are not available 
for this functional class.
Transit
    While Federal capital assistance has remained relatively stable 
between 1988 and 1993, the level of State and local contribution to 
transit capital assistance has grown. Thus, investment in transit 
capital assets, both for existing and new systems has increased from 
$4.1 billion in 1988 to $5.7 billion in 1993. Federal capital 
assistance levels in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 were substantially 
higher than in past years.
    The largest single component of transit capital expenditures in 
1993 was rail facilities, reflecting a general preponderance in capital 
investment for facilities. Rolling stock accounts for just 27 percent 
of transit capital expenditures. This is due primarily to the greater 
investment required for rail facilities, which includes the rights of 
way, track, and structure over which the service operates. Bus 
facilities, while far more numerous, can be much simpler and require 
less substantial investment.
Noncapital Expenditures
    Since 1956, in both current and constant dollars, spending for non-
capital highway expenditures has increased. The noncapital share of 
expenditures for highways was $41.9 billion in 1993, or 52 percent of 
highway expenditures.
    Constant dollar growth from 1960 through 1993 for the noncapital 
category of expenditures was 122 percent compared to a 60 percent 
growth in total expenditures for both the capital and noncapital 
categories. In constant dollars, 1993 maintenance and traffic services 
expenditures were 78 percent higher than in 1960. Exhibit 2-6 
demonstrates the increase in the proportion of total highway 
expenditures directed toward noncapital requirements. A total of $22.9 
billion was spent by State and local governments in 1993 to keep all 
highways, roads, and streets in 1993 to keep all highways, roads, and 
streets in serviceable condition. The maintenance and traffic services 
share of total expenditures was 26 percent in 1960 and 28 percent in 
1993.
    Other noncapital highway expenditures include administration, 
highway law enforcement and safety, and interest on highway debt. The 
relative share of these other noncapital expenditures to total 
expenditures has increased from 12 percent in total expenditures has 
increased from 12 percent in 1960 to 24 percent in 1993. In constant 
dollars this category of spending has increased dramatically (216 
percent) since 1960.
Transit
    Operating (noncapital) expenditures increased significantly between 
1983 and 1992, from $8.4 billion to $16.0 billion. Most of the 
percentage increase took place between 1983 and 1986. From 1987 to 
1993, the annual increase in operating expenses, in real terms, was 
less than 1 percent The earlier increases result, largely, from more 
complete reporting of costs, particularly in the rail transit sector as 
well as from significant increases in service supplied.
    Although real operating costs per unit of service have remained 
relatively stable in recent years, expenditures per unit of travel have 
increased due to a decline in the rate of service utilization. 
Specifically, real operating costs per passenger mile increased 31 
percent from 1983 to 1993, an average annual increase of 3 percent. The 
decline in service utilization rates can largely be explained by the 
increase in real fares of 41 percent during this period, an annual rate 
of an annual rate of 4 percent.
                               __________
                 Chapter 3: Conditions and Performance
    Because of investment targeted to system preservation, our 
highways, bridges, and transit systems are in better physical shape 
than they were a few years ago, and they are safer than ever:

  <bullet> The number of structurally deficient bridges has dropped.
  <bullet> The amount of the pavement in poor condition has stabilized 
    at a manageable level.
  <bullet> The percent of transit fixed facilities and rolling stock in 
    good condition has improved.
  <bullet> The overall highway fatality rate has declined steadily from 
    2.58 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 
    1983 to 1.75 per 100 million VMT in 1993, with the Interstate 
    system continuing to be, by far, the safest system.

    However, highway congestion continues to worsen. More travelers, in 
more areas, during more hours are Acing high levels of congestion and 
delay than at any point in the history of the country. This means we 
are more susceptible to massive traffic backups as a result of 
accidents and even minor incidents.
    The quality of transit service has improved:

  <bullet> Since 1984, the passenger-mile weighted average speed 
    improved by about 10 percent.
  <bullet> Well over half of all riders report wait times of 5 minutes 
    or less. Fifty 1 percent of transit trips involve one or more 
    transfers.
  <bullet> Less than one-third of all transit trips involve standing 
    for at least part of the trip.
  <bullet> About 25 percent of all transit users report trip times of 
    10 minutes or less.
                           system performance
Highway Performance
    Highway performance refers to the quality of service provided to 
system users. Highway operating performance, on a given facility or 
system, is a function of the quality of traffic flow. ``Congestion'' is 
a term often used to describe poor highway performance. There are 
substantial costs to the economy of the Nation as a result of 
congestion. A report by the Texas Transportation Institute, Roadway 
Congestion Estimates and Trends--1990, March 1993, estimated the total 
cost of congestion for the 50 urban areas studied at $43.2 billion. 
Delay accounted for approximately 85 percent of this amount, while 
excess fuel consumption accounted for 15 percent. Eight of the top ten 
urban areas had total congestion costs exceeding $1 billion.
    While there is no widely accepted definition of congestion, 
congestion has three attributes: severity, duration, and extent. These 
three attributes affect system reliability. The severity of congestion 
refers to the magnitude of the problem, measured primarily by the 
average overall travel speed, travel time delay, or the maximum length 
of a queue behind a bottleneck. The extent of congestion is defined by 
the geographic area, the portion of the population, or the portion of 
total travel affected. The duration of congestion is the length of time 
that the traffic is congested. This report presents an assessment of 
severity. However, data to quantify the duration and extent of 
congestion are currently unavailable. A discussion of daily vehicle 
travel per lane mile is provided to give the reader a sense of travel 
density.
Peak-Hour Severity
    The volume to service flow ratio (V/SF) may be used as a measure of 
severity. The V/SF is the ratio between the volume of traffic actually 
using a highway facility during the peak hour and the theoretical 
capacity of that facility to accommodate the traffic.
    A V/SF of greater than 0.80 indicates the beginning condition of 
congestion. This level is a cost effective level of operation, but 
small increases in traffic beyond this point will generally cause 
operational problems.
    Beyond a V/SF of 0.80, delay increases rapidly and system 
reliability is impaired because of an increase in nonrecurring delay. 
In general, as the traffic flow and density increase, any interruption 
is increasingly likely to cause disruption to the smooth flow and 
create a stop-and-go situation, resulting in lower throughput.
    A V/SF of 0.95 or higher indicates the onset of severe congestion. 
Vehicle operating costs, fuel consumption, emission, and aggravation 
increase dramatically. Commuting time increases, worker productivity is 
lost, and trip quality declines.
    The percentage of daily peak-hour urban travel in 1993 occurring 
under congested or highly congested (near stop-and-go) conditions is 
presented in Exhibit 3-1. It is noteworthy that of the peak-hour travel 
on Interstates and other freeways and expressways that is congested to 
some extent, 77 percent is occurring under severely congested 
conditions.
    Due to changes in urban area boundaries and reclassification of 
some rural facilities, it is difficult to assess trends related to 
peak-hour congestion. However, the percent of peak-hour travel on urban 
Interstates with V/SF ratios greater than 0.80 increased from about 55 
percent to about 70 percent between 1983 and 1989, and has remained 
relatively constant since that time.
                          drawing conclusions
Congestion
    ``Congestion'' is a term often used to describe poor highway 
performance. However, there is no widely accepted specific definition. 
It results from the inability of an individual highway section or 
system to accommodate adequately the volume of traffic that attempts to 
use the facility or system.
    The results of congestion are interruptions in the traffic flow, 
delay, increased travel time, increased fuel consumption, increased 
vehicle emissions and reduced air quality, increased user costs, 
increased cost of goods transport with resultant increased costs to the 
consumer, increased aggravation to the driver, and other effects.
    The perception of what constitutes congestion varies from place to 
place. What may be perceived as congestion in a city of 300,000 
population may not be considered congestion in a city of 3 million. For 
that reason, this report does not attempt to specifically define 
congestion. instead, it looks at the peak-hour volume of--raffic 
relative to the calculated capacity.
Nonrecurring Delay
    Incidents such as vehicle breakdowns and accidents, including minor 
fender benders, have the potential to create nonrecurring delay. Where 
congestion levels exceed volume to service flows of 0.80. the 
likelihood: of nonrecurring delay increases significantly. High levels 
of nonrecurring delay result in system unreliability and are the 
economic reason that high levels of congestion should be avoided.
    Questionable system reliability can severely restrict the adoption 
of advanced production and distribution techniques. Justin-time 
delivery is only one example of many innovative practices that depend 
on the efficiency and reliability of highways. Although the absolute 
amount of time taken for a trip is important, what is more important is 
the assurance that the time for the trip will not be outside a 
specified range.
Highway and Bridge Data Sources
    The highway information on condition and performance is based on 
data supplied by State highway agencies via the Highway Performance 
Monitoring System (HPMS) and the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) data 
bases. The HPMS data is a: updated annually and includes information 
about pavement. roadway cross-section, alignment, and usage for more 
than 110,000 sample sections of arterial and collector highways 
nationwide. The NBI contains records on each of approximately 575,000 
bridges and is updated continuously.
Calculating Capacity
    The volume to service flow ratios (V/SFs) reported in the current 
1995 C&P Report are consistent with the capacity calculation procedures 
presented in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209 
of the Transportation Research Board.
    The 1985 HCM was revised in 1994 to reflect the increased volumes 
of traffic that are now being accommodated by freeways and, to a lesser 
extent, by other roads. Current research shows that more traffic can 
move through a freeway lane per hour than ever before because drivers 
have become willing to travel at closer headways (less than 2-second 
intervals) and at higher speeds at higher rates of flow than 
previously.
    The new HCM suggests a capacity increase of 10 percent to 15 
percent on freeways and means that less highway mileage and s travel 
will be reported as occurring under congested conditions than is 
currently reported using the old procedure.
    It is anticipated that the 1995 HPMS data furnished by the States 
and reported in the 1997 C&P Report will reflect the new capacity: 
calculation procedures.
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel per Lane Mile (DVMT)
    There has been a consistent increase in travel relative to the 
capacity of the highway system to accommodate the travel. Exhibits 3-2 
and 3-3 illustrate the changes in DVMT per lane mile for each 
functional system, from 1983 to 1993.
    These exhibits demonstrate the continuing increase in travel 
density on the higher functional systems, particularly the Interstate. 
DVMT per lane mile on the rural Interstates increased an average of 3.6 
percent annually. On the urban Interstates, travel per lane mile 
increased 2.6 percent annually.
    This increase in travel relative to the slower increase in supply 
of highway capacity suggests increasing congestion on the higher 
functional systems in the urbanized areas. Rural travel has not yet 
saturated the facilities to the degree that has occurred in the large 
urbanized areas. The greatest extent of congestion on highways in the 
rural category often occurs on those highways adjacent to urban areas 
or on facilities with heavy recreational travel.
Transit Performance
    The perception of quality among customers and potential customers 
is an important determinant of transit use, often more important than 
the fare levels.
User Travel Speed
    One of the most important dimensions of transit performance is 
speed of service, as perceived by the user. Overall speeds have 
improved since 1984 for both rail and bus service. Average rail speed 
improved from 24.8 miles per hour in 1984 to 26.3 miles per hour in 
1993. Bus speed, on average, was 12.9 miles per hour in 1984 and 13.7 
miles per hour in our in 1993.
Transfers and Waiting Times
    The latest data (1990) indicates that the majority of transit users 
do not spend much time waiting for service. Well over half of all 
riders (59 percent) reported wait times of 5 minutes or less. About 80 
percent of riders wait no longer than 10 minutes.
    The need to transfer between transit vehicles en route to one's 
travel destination also influences transit patronage. Fifty-one percent 
of transit trips involve one or more transfers. In addition, 
approximately 17 percent of transit trips involve a transfer from a 
private vehicle, e.g., park-and-ride situations.
Available Seats
    The presence of standees, even one or two, tends to convey a sense 
of crowding. This is especially true from the perspective of those who 
must stand. Passengers often consider a vehicle to be crowded when it 
is operating with a load factor above seated capacity but still 
significantly below full capacity. As shown in Exhibit 3A, 29 percent 
of transit trips involve standing for at least part of the trip.
Travel Times
    According to data collected in 1990, about 25 percent of all 
transit users reported trip times of 10 minutes or less, and nearly 76 
percent of transit trips were reported to take less than half an hour.
                            system condition
Highway Conditions
            Highways
    Highway physical condition is a function of pavement condition, 
lane width, alignment, drainage adequacy, and other measures that 
relate to the road's physical integrity or level of safety. Pavement 
conditions degrade because of normal use and weathering, increases in 
traffic or vehicle sizes and weights, as well as levels of maintenance 
and capital spending.
    Pavement rated as poor usually requires vehicles to travel more 
slowly than the posted speed limit, with more acceleration and 
deceleration to avoid potholes or other sections of bad pavement. 
Vehicle slowdown and rough pavement driving reduces fuel efficiency, 
wears out brakes and shock absorbers more quickly, and can lead to more 
frequent front end alignments.
    Exhibit 3-5 shows the 1993 mileage and travel distribution by 
category of pavement condition as well as the percent of unpaved 
mileage.
    Pavement in poor condition requires immediate improvement, usually 
reconstruction, to restore serviceability. Reconstruction involves 
removing and replacing paving material down to (and perhaps including) 
the subbase.
    Mediocre pavement is expected to need improvement in the near 
future, generally within the next 5 years, depending on pavement 
design, environmental factors, and traffic loading. Pavement rated as 
mediocre can be improved by pavement management programs. The life of 
the highway surface for these pavements can be prolonged with lower 
cost, 3R types of pavement improvements (resurfacing, restoration, and 
rehabilitation).
    Pavement in fair condition will likely need improvement in the 5? 
to 10-year horizon. The pavement in good condition will not likely need 
improvement for 10 years to 15 years or more.
    The pavement information for the higher functional systems is, for 
most States, based on the International Roughness Index (IRI) pavement 
rating system. Ratings for the lower order functional systems reflect, 
for the most part, Pavement Serviceability Rating (PSR)-based 
assessments. However, to some extent, the distribution of pavements by 
condition rating reflects a mixture in each functional system of the 
PSR and IRI procedures.
            Bridge
    The proportions of bridges that are classified as being 
structurally or functionally deficient are found in Exhibit 3-6. In 
general, the higher functional systems have fewer deficient bridges.
    A structurally deficient bridge is not necessarily unsafe or one 
that requires special posting for speed or weight limitations. It is a 
bridge that is designated as needing significant maintenance attention, 
rehabilitation, or sometimes replacement. Some of these bridges are 
load-posted so that heavier trucks will be required to take an 
alternate, longer route.
    Functionally deficient bridges are those that do not have the lane 
widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances adequate to seine the 
traffic demand; or the waterway of the bridge may be inadequate and 
therefore allow occasional flooding of the roadway,
                          drawing conclusions
Assessing Pavement Condition
    Pavement condition evaluations have in the past been based on the 
Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) system. However, a transition is 
being made to ratings based on the international Roughness Index (IRI). 
This change from PSR to IRI invalidates any comparison of 1993 pavement 
condition data with that of preceding years. Several years of 
measurements using the IRI procedure are needed to define a trend.
    IRI is an objective measure of pavement roughness developed by the 
World:Bonk, and is accepted as a standard in the pavement evaluation 
community. It has been adopted as the measurement of pavement roughness 
by FHWA because (1) it uses a standard procedure and can be replicated, 
(2) it provides a consistent measure across jurisdictional lines and 
diverse functional systems, (3) it is an objective measurement, and (4) 
it is consistent with accepted worldwide pavement roughness measurement 
procedures.
    The PSR measure is more subjective, and its application was subject 
to variation among jurisdictions and over time in the same 
jurisdiction, so it was difficult to compare accurately the trends in 
pavement.
                           transit conditions
Bus and Paratransit
    Vehicle age is used as a surrogate for condition and provides the 
basis for evaluating bus and Paratransit fleet conditions.
    Exhibit 3-7 displays urban bus and Paratransit vehicle conditions, 
in terms of the percentage of fleet in excess of the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA) guideline age for each type of vehicle.
    There is a significant number of overage vehicles of all types in 
the rural Section 16 and Section 18 fleets. The Section 16 fleet 
includes all vehicles owned by private nonprofit human service agencies 
that are recipients of Section 16 funds, not just those acquired with 
FTA funds.
            Bus Maintenance Facilities
    According to transit operators, more than half (57 percent) of 
urban bus support facilities are in ``good or better:'' condition for 
their current mission. The remaining facilities are categorized as 
``adequate'' (18 percent), ``substandard'' (14 percent), and ``poor'' 
(10 percent).
    Of those facilities owned by rural operators, 74 percent are 
reported to be of adequate size and 68 percent adequately equipped. Of 
leased facilities, 61 percent are reported to be of adequate size and 
55 percent are considered to be adequately equipped.
            Rail
    The areas reported to be in most need of improvement in 1984 have 
improved significantly. Maintenance yards went from only 17 percent in 
good or better condition to 64 percent, and maintenance buildings went 
from only 28 percent to 52 percent. Also, stations improved 
significantly from 29 percent to 66 percent, and bridges from 33 
percent to .61 percent. ' A substantial portion of rail infrastructure 
is still in need of investment to return it to good condition. Most 
significantly, over 73 percent of elevated structures need major 
investments. In addition, overhead (43 percent), third rail (41 
percent), and maintenance facilities (48 percent) also have significant 
shares in less than good condition, requiring major investments.
                          drawing conclusions
Minimum Transit Asset Age Requirements
    For the purpose of managing the Federal investment in transit, the 
Federal Transit Administration (ETA) has established minimum require 
meets for the period of time an asset must remain in mass transit 
service before it will be considered eligible for funding of a 
replacement. These guidelines are based on such factors as industry 
practices, manufacturer recommendations, and studies of the tradeoff 
between capital investments and operating costs. On this basis. the 
following are the minimum useful life guidelines for vehicles used in 
bus and paratransit service: =

  <bullet> Standard Full Size Transit Bus: 12 years
  <bullet> Medium Duty Transit Bus: 10 years
  <bullet> Small Transit Bus: 7 years
  <bullet> Urban Paratransit van: 4 years
                             highway safety
    A significant improvement in highway safety occurred during the 
period from 1983 through 1993. The overall highway fatality rate 
declined steadily from 2.58 fatalities per 100 million in 1983 to 1.75 
fatalities per 100 million in 1993. Accident and fatality rates are 
affected by many factors other than highway condition and performance, 
including weather conditions, occupant protection use, number of 
intoxicated drivers, extent of police exposure, law enforcement, 
vehicle speed variations, and driver performance.
               selected highway environmental indicators
    The environmental consequences of transportation arise from both 
construction and usage. Indices of performance pose both conceptual and 
practical challenges. However, an initial set of categories has been 
identified and includes air quality, water quality, wetlands, energy, 
noise, land use and open space, threatened and endangered species, and 
community impacts.
    Progress is being made in each of these categories. As an example, 
there has been significant progress in reducing the overall levels of 
four major transportation-related air pollutants over the last decade.
    Transportation sources are credited with most of the emissions 
reductions during the decade, even though travel increased by 33 
percent. Improvements in air quality are attributed to Federal limits 
on gasoline volatility; replacement of older cars with newer, less 
polluting ones; and increased usage of unleaded gasoline.
                               __________
                   Chapter 4: Investment Requirements
    Investment requirement estimates are developed for two scenarios. 
The Cost to Maintain conditions and performance provides the cost to 
keep the system functioning at its current level. The Cost to Improve 
conditions and performance provides the cost to bring the system up to 
a specified level of condition and performance.
    The average annual Cost to Maintain overall 1993 highway, bridge, 
and transit conditions and performance, for the period 1994 through 
2013 is estimated at $62.7 billion. The average annual Cost to Improve 
highway, bridge, and transit conditions and performance is $86.8 
billion over the same period.
    Seventy percent of the highway and bridge investment reported as 
necessary to either maintain or improve conditions and performance 
would be required in urban areas where about 55 percent of the cost 
would be directed to capacity expansion.
    Somewhat over half of the investment necessary to either maintun or 
improve transit conditions and performance would be required to correct 
rail deficiencies; the remainder would be directed to the bus system. A 
significant portion (85 percent) of total transit investment 
requirements would be spent in areas having populations greater than 1 
million.
    The investment requirements provided above reflect the adoption of 
policies, within the most populous urbanized areas, to locally manage 
and satisfy future travel demand given environmental, fiscal, and 
social constraints.
    The highway component of the Cost to Improve scenario was developed 
using a new simulation model, the Highway Economic Requirements System. 
This procedure uses marginal benefit/cost analysis to optimize highway 
investment. All highway improvements selected for implementation 
generate direct user and agency benefits in excess of the initial cost 
of the improvement.
                          analytical overview
Investment Scenarios
    Total capital investment required from all sources to achieve 
certain specified levels of overall condition and performance on the 
Nation's highway, bridge, and transit systems is provided for two 
scenarios: (1) the Cost to Maintain current conditions and performance 
and (2) the Cost to Improve current conditions and performance.
    Both scenarios are implemented over a Midyear beginning in 1994 and 
include the cost to selectively repair pavement, bridge, and transit 
deficiencies; eliminate unsafe conditions; and add capacity.
    Under the Cost to Maintain scenario, some facilities will get 
better and some will get worse but overall system condition and 
performance will stay the same throughout the analysis period. In 
contrast, under the Cost to Improve scenario, overall system 
performance is improved by correcting existing and accruing system 
deficiencies.
Methodology
    The centerpiece of the highway investment requirements estimation 
procedure is the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), which 
includes a comprehensive national data base and sophisticated 
investment/performance simulation models.
    The HPMS data base provides information describing the current 
state of the highway system in terms of condition and performance.
    The coordinated simulation models--the Analytical Process (AP) and 
the Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS)--simulate investment 
decisions and estimate the resulting level of system condition and 
performance. The AP was used to evaluate the Cost to Maintain scenario. 
This approach is founded on engineering principles. That is, 
engineering standards determine deficiency levels for various system 
attributes and potential improvement options are identified and 
considered for implementation based on engineering judgment and 
practice.
    The HERS was used to evaluate the highway Cost to Improve scenario. 
This marks the beginning of a significant transition from the 
traditional engineering-based approach to one that incorporates 
economic considerations. The Cost to Improve investment requirements 
estimate now incorporates an economic efficiency test that each 
candidate improvement must pass before being selected for 
implementation.
    The highway Cost to Improve scenario is now referred to as the 
Economic Efficiency scenario to highlight its economic component.
    Where the traditional engineering-based analysis systematically 
implements all appropriate improvement options identified, regardless 
of economic merit, HERS evaluates each potential improvement to assure 
that direct user and agency benefits generated by the project will 
exceed the initial cost of the improvement.
    Bridge investment requirements for both the Cost to Improve and 
Cost to Maintain scenarios are estimated using an engineering-based 
procedure, analogous to the HPMS AP. The bridge investment requirements 
do not reflect explicit benefit/cost considerations.
    For both scenarios, the transit analysis is based on current 
infrastructure extent and condition and an estimate of the cost of 
system preservation and added transit capacity required to satisfy the 
objectives of each scenario. Explicit benefit/cost procedures are used 
to validate service level assumptions and certain unit costs.
                          drawing conclusions
Investment Requirements
    Estimates of investment required to either maintain or improve the 
Nation's highway, bridge, and transit systems over the next 20 years 
are intended to serve as benchmarks for policy development.
    The Cost to Improve highway, bridge, and transit conditions and 
performance suggest the upper limit of appropriate national investment, 
based on either engineering or economic criteria. Alternatively, the 
Cost to Maintain conditions and performance estimates provide a sense 
of the lowest reasonable level of investment; investment at levels less 
than the Cost to Maintain benchmark will result in system 
deterioration.
    The investment scenarios do not represent comprehensive alternative 
national investment policies. No policy priorities have been assumed 
regarding either the strategic importance of individual facilities, 
classes of facilities, or mode of transportation. In actual practice, 
however, State and local transportation agencies do target.
The Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS)
            An Overview
    An important goal of highway capital investment is to reduce the 
total cost of transportation, including costs occasioned by public 
agencies as well as highway users. User costs vary according to highway 
physical conditions and system performance, and these factors are 
directly affected by the level of highway investment.
    The HERS model estimates the national highway investment required 
to achieve a specified user cost level or the user cost level resulting 
from a given level of highway investment. Its simulation procedure 
assumes that project-level selection practices will optimize (given 
varying constraints) the relationship between public investment and 
direct user costs.
    The HERS uses as input the HPMS data base and employs benefit/cost 
analysis (BCA) to evaluate the attractiveness of potential highway 
improvements that have been identified to correct deficient prototype 
sections. The BCA decision rule is straightforward: invest only when 
benefits exceed costs.
    In the current version of HERS, benefits include reductions in 
direct user and agency costs. Highway user benefits are defined as 
reductions in travel time costs, accidents, and vehicle operating 
costs. Agency benefits include;reduced maintenance costs and the 
residual (salvage) value of a project. Costs refer to expenditures 
associated with implementing the project such as design, right-of-way 
acquisition, and construction.
    For each alternative, a time stream of constant-dollar costs and 
benefits is estimated for the lifetime of the project. Future benefits 
are measured relative to the base, or do nothing alternative, and 
discounted to allow for the opportunity value of resources with respect 
to time.
    When analyzing the Economic Efficiency Investment scenario, the 
HERS corrects all system deficiencies having associated improvements 
that generate direct user and agency costs exceeding the initial cost. 
Investment beyond that indicated by the Economic Efficiency scenario 
includes projects having negative net benefits. Investment short of 
this point is a ``second best'' alternative because constraints, such 
as funding exclude some project:s having benefits greater than costs.
    When funding is not available to achieve ``optimal'' spending 
levels, HERS will prioritize economically worthwhile potential 
improvement options according to relative merit (that is, benefit/cost 
ratios) and select the best set of projects. Subsequent editions of the 
C&P Report series will include the results of such analysis.
            Limitations
    An intensive, independent review of HERS in 1994 indicated that, 
while the model was fundamentally sound, it could be improved by 
consideration of a number of issues.
    Static System. The current version of the model does not consider 
network interactions, new construction on new alignment, traffic 
diversion, or induced travel. Many of these limitations are a function 
of the data base, which consists of statistically sampled discrete 
highway sections.
    Inefficient Pricing of Facilities. Because highways (and 
transportation in general) are not efficiently priced, highway users do 
not consider the marginal costs--increased travel times--they impose on 
all other drivers using the facility. Future versions of HERS will have 
the capability of simulating the impact of alternative pricing 
strategies.
    Direct User Costs. While the direct benefits included in the 
current version of HERS constitute the major impacts of highway 
improvements, the HERS accounting is not comprehensive. Most 
significantly, externalities (e.g., changes in air quality) and 
''real'' As opposed to pecuniary) productivity improvements (e,g., 
benefits from improved system reliability) arising from system 
improvements are not addressed. Work is under way to incorporate 
externalities into the HERS framework.
    Uncertain Value of Travel Time. One of the most significant 
benefits associated with many highway improvements is travel time 
savings. Although much research has been conducted in this area, there 
is still disagreement on the proper values that should be applied to 
the various types of travel: commercial, commuting to work, and 
personal. Future editions of the C&P Report will include detailed 
results of sensitivity analysis.
Travel Growth Assumptions
    For the current 1995 C&P Report, the travel forecasts underlying 
the highway and transit investment requirements for the 33 most 
populous urbanized areas (UZAs) are derived from the Metropolitan 
Planning Organization (MPO) planning process. Highway travel growth 
projections for facilities outside these areas are based on state-
supplied, facility-specific forecasts as provided in the HPMS data 
base.
    Social, fiscal, and environmental concerns are most pronounced in 
these areas and transportation modal alternatives are more prevalent as 
well. For example, approximately 90 percent of transit ridership occurs 
in the 33 most populous UZAs.
    The MPO highway and travel forecasts must be in conformance with 
Clean Air Act requirements and consistent with the fiscal capability of 
the area to implement the proposed transportation investments.
    Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the divergence from historical 
patterns implied by adoption of MPO travel growth assumptions. Highway 
travel is projected to increase at a dampened rate (1.5 percent 
annually) relative to past experience. The growth rate would naturally 
decline in the future as the VMT base grows; however, the MPO forecast 
implies a sudden shift to a lower rate.)
    Alternatively, transit travel growth trends are assumed to shift 
from a continually constant level of travel to one in which travel will 
grow at a compound annual rate of 2.4 percent. These trends are 
consistent with MPO plans that seek to reduce highway travel through 
various demand and supply oriented measures that encourage higher 
transit use.
    However, without significant and widespread demand-shaping 
policies, which have yet to be implemented in any American city, it is 
not likely that the MPO forecasts will be achieved. To the extent that 
actual future experience exceeds the highway travel forecasts, the 
resulting investment requirement estimates may be understated. 
Analogously, the degree to which the transit travel forecasts are not 
realized, the estimates of future transit investment requirements may 
be overstated.
           additional assumptions and procedural improvements
    The data base, as well as the associated models are under 
continuous review. Procedures are routinely developed, external to the 
models, to keep the investment requirement estimation procedures 
consistent with current information. Efforts to incorporate these 
external procedures into the model structure are underway but may take 
several years to complete.
    Exhibit 4-3 provides an overview of the external revisions to the 
model inputs and outputs that were implemented for the current report.
                        investment requirements
Cost to Maintain Conditions and Performance
            Highway and Bridge
    The average annual Cost to Maintain overall 1993 highway and bridge 
conditions and performance on existing arterial, collector, and local 
systems through 2013 is estimated at $54.8 billion.
    Under this strategy, the overall miles of roadway in poor or 
mediocre condition would remain essentially unchanged over the analysis 
period. System performance would be maintained at its current level on 
most rural and many urban miles.
    The current total number of structurally deficient and functionally 
obsolete bridges would also remain about the same.
            Transit
    The average annual Cost to Maintain current transit conditions and 
performance, for the period 1994 through 2013, is estimated at $7.9 
billion.
    This level of investment would maintain facilities and equipment in 
their current state of repair and expand service to meet the demand 
increase forecasted by the MPOs.
    At this level of investment, transit vehicles would be replaced at 
about the current rate, which is slightly slower than what is generally 
regarded as optimal. Existing rail systems would be maintained in about 
their current condition, with no major improvements. Transit operators 
would meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
(ADA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).
Cost to Improve Conditions and Performance
            Highway (Economic Efficiency)
    Under this scenario, system deficiencies are identified and any 
investment that creates positive net benefits is considered worthwhile. 
Implementation of this scenario resulted in an average BCR of greater 
than 2.6. Some improvements resulted in BCRs significantly higher than 
2.6 and some were lower; no improvement was implemented that had a BCR 
of less than 1.0.
    The average annual Cost to Improve highway conditions and 
performance for the period 1994 through 2013 is, given Economic 
Efficiency standards, $65.1 billion.
            Bridge
    The Cost to Improve bridge conditions scenario provides cost 
estimates for achieving and maintaining predefined Minimum Condition 
Standards for physical conditions on bridges that are currently 
deficient or expected to become deficient at some point during the 
analysis period. This scenario represents a significant improvement in 
nationwide bridge conditions.
    The modeling procedure used to develop the investment estimates for 
this scenario does not employ economic considerations in the evaluation 
of potential improvements.
    The Cost to Improve bridge conditions for the period 1994 through 
2013 is $8.9 billion annually.
            Transit
    The average annual Cost to Improve transit conditions and 
performance is estimated at $12.9 billion for the analysis period.
    Of the total annual investment requirements, $7.9 billion 
represents the Cost to Maintain current conditions and performance, 
$2.0 billion to correct existing deficiencies, and $3.0 billion to 
improve transit service levels in terms of system speed, comfort, and 
convenience. These estimates reflect investment requirements imposed by 
the CAAA and the ADA.
    At this investment level, sufficient capacity would be available to 
provide transit patrons with seats for all but those trips occurring at 
the peak of rush hours. In addition, wait times and the need to 
transfer would be reduced. Finally, the backlog of deferred rail and 
bus modernization and rehabilitation requirements would be eliminated.
       schematic: development of highway investment requirements
Adjustments to the Highway Performance Monitoring System Analytical 
        Process and Highway Economic Requirements System Simulated 
        Investment Requirements
    1. The analysis of 1994-2013 highway and bridge investment 
requirements began with an assessment of the 1993 Highway Performance 
Monitoring System (HPMS) data base. The States provide section-specific 
estimates of future travel at the end of the analysis period.
    2. The first major adjustment was to revise the HPMS State-supplied 
travel forecasts in the 33 most populous urbanized areas to reflect MPO 
planning considerations. This adjustment resulted in less highway 
travel being projected over the 20-year analysis period and therefore 
lowered capacity requirements, especially in the most populous 
urbanized areas.
    3. In the face of increasing congestion, many drivers will adjust 
their schedules to make more intensive and efficient use of available 
highway capacity. Therefore. peak travel periods will extend for longer 
periods of time and in more locations. To reflect this phenomenon a 
spreading of the peak was simulated, resulting in lower capacity 
requirements.
    4. The model-based results were adjusted to reflect the latest 
edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). which assumes a larger 
number of vehicles per lane per hour are now being accommodated than in 
the past [effectively increasing capacity). The impact of this 
adjustment was a reduction in projected capacity requirements.
    5. Where appropriate, capacity enhancements other than constructing 
additional lanes were simulated. Such enhancements include freeway 
surveillance and control, High Occupancy Vehicle facilities, ramp 
metering, incident management, signalization improvements, traffic 
channeling, and restriping existing pavement. The impact of 
implementing an aggressive Transportation System Management program 
reduces the requirement for additional lane miles of capacity.
Investment Requirements Added to the Model-Based Estimates
    6. To incorporate the basic infrastructure requirements in 
expanding suburban areas, the expected population growth in and around 
urbanized areas is translated into basic network infrastructure. 
Incremental metropolitan expansion requirements are estimated at $8.5 
billion per year (beyond estimates for increased demand on existing 
facilities).
    7. The HPMS data base does not contain condition and performance 
information for the approximately 2.7 million miles of roads 
functionally classified as local. Local road investment requirements 
are estimated at $1.0 billion per year, based on a Department of 
Agriculture study.
    8. The military relies on the highway system for peacetime movement 
of military shipments, as well as for wartime or emergency mobilization 
and deployment of military units. For these purposes, a subset of 
Interstate and other principal arterial systems has been accorded 
certain design specifications in order to accommodate large and heavy 
military vehicles. Capital requirements necessary to achieve these 
specifications, above and beyond what would normally be required to 
accommodate nonmilitary traffic, are estimated at $30 million annually.
    9. In their HPMS submittal, the States are no longer required to 
provide information on rural minor collectors. The investment analysis 
of rural minor collectors was based on information included in the 1992 
HPMS data base.
                               __________
        Chapter 5: Investment Requirements Versus Capital Outlay
    In 1994, $57.2 billion in capital investment would have been 
required, from all levels of government, just to maintain 1993 
conditions and performance on our Nation's highways, bridges, and 
transit systems. This estimate includes $34.8 billion in system 
presentation and $22.4 billion to expand capacity to prevent increased 
congestion.
    In 1994, $80 billion would have been required to provide a higher 
quality of service. This estimate includes $50.7 billion for system 
presentation and $29.3 billion for expanded capacity. Under this 
scenario, highway deficiencies would not be eliminated, but those 
highway improvements that generated a benefit/cost ratio of one or 
greater would be made.
    Currently (1993), all levels of government spend $40.5 billion 
annually on highway and transit capital investment triggered by 
condition and/or performance deficiencies. Highway investment accounted 
for $34.8 billion and transit investment accounted for $5.7 billion.
    Just to maintain current conditions on our highway and transit 
systems will require 41 percent higher funding than Federal, State, and 
local governments are currently investing. To improve conditions to 
optimal levels based on economic and engineering criteria would require 
us to double our current capital investment in highways and transit.
    Investment by all units of government has never been sufficient to 
maintain overall system condition and performance. However, highway and 
transit systems have not fallen apart because the States are investing 
strategically so that the most important deficiencies are addressed. As 
a result of overall disinvestment, highway system performance continues 
to decline. Motorists now face more congestion, in more places, for 
longer periods of time, than at any point in history. Maintaining the 
highway and transit infrastructure at an acceptable level will become 
increasingly difficult unless adequate funding is provided.
    Investment estimates are developed for a 20-year analysis period. 
To provide linkage between these 20-year investment estimates and 
actual current year investment, this section offers a comparison of 
1994 investment requirements and actual recent capital outlays by all 
units of government. This analysis requires that only 1993 
disbursements related to condition and performance deficiencies (as 
opposed to total capital outlay) be compared to investment required in 
1994 (in contrast to the average annual requirement).
    It was reported earlier in this pamphlet that a total of $38.7 
billion was spent by State and local governments on highway and bridge 
capital improvements in 1993. However, not all of this spending was 
occasioned by condition and performance deficiencies.
    Of the $38.7 billion in capital expenditures, $34.8 billion was 
spent to correct condition and performance deficiencies. The balance 
was spent on capital improvements intended to satisfy other objectives 
such as environmental impact mitigation or economic development. 
Exhibit 5-1 provides a comparison of total capital outlay with that 
portion invested to correct condition and performance deficiencies.
    Because of projected increases in highway and transit travel over 
the 20-year analysis period, the investment requirement estimate for 
any given year (except the midpoint) will be different than the average 
annual investment requirement reported in Section 4. Investment 
required for capacity expansion to maintain or improve system 
performance is assumed to grow at a rate equal to the rate of travel 
growth. Therefore, the investment required for each year during the 
first 10 years of the analysis period will be lower than the average 
annual; and the investment required for each year during the second 
half of the analysis period will be higher than the average annual.
    Exhibit 5-2 compares the investment required in 1994 to maintain or 
improve highway, bridge, and transit conditions with the comparable 
1993 capital outlay. Readers will note that the highway and transit 
investment required in 1994 is indeed lower than the average annual. 
Bridge investment is generally directed at system preservation and is 
therefore assumed to be insensitive to travel growth estimates.
                               __________
                           PART II: MARITIME
                  Chapter 6: Waterborne Transportation
    The U.S. waterborne transportation system serves the needs of both 
international and domestic commerce and also includes the port 
infrastructure and shipbuilding industry. Together its segments play a 
critical role in meeting national security requirements and 
contributing to economic growth.
    The world merchant fleet amounts to over 25,000 vessels with a 
capacity of 686 million deadweight tons (DWELL. The U.S. ranks tenth 
among countries of registry with 20 million DWT. The domestic fleet 
includes nearly 40,000 vessels with a cargo capacity of more than 67 
million short tons.
    The January 1, 1995, world orderbook for merchant vessels consisted 
of 1,527 vessels totaling 66.6 million DWT. The Major U.S. Shipbuilding 
and Repair Base is comprised of 101 private building and repair 
shipyards, and the U.S. ranks 26th among the world's shipbuilding 
nations.
    U.S. oceanborne foreign trade amounted to 898 million long tons 
with a value of $566 billion in 1994 and is projected to grow 4.5 
percent annually through 2005.
    The cargo carried on U.S.-flag vessels increased steadily from 25.1 
million long tons in 1970 to 35.2 million long tons in 1994, a 40 
percent increase, reflecting the deployment of larger, more productive 
vessels.
    Total domestic trade amounted to approximately 1.1 billion short 
tons annually during the 1987 through 1993 period.
    There are 1,917 major U.S. seaport terminals, and 1,789 river 
terminal facilities located in 21 states on the 25,000-mile U.S. inland 
waterway system. Of the 343 ports that handled waterborne trade during 
1993, the 50 leading coastal and inland ports accounted for 89 percent 
of the total traffic. In 1994, 44 percent of the world merchant fleet 
tonnage called at U.S. ports.
    World oceanborne trade is projected to approach 5 billion tons by 
2005. The demand for new buildings worldwide will approximate $267 
billion in current dollars over the next 5 years, $150 billion 
attributable to replacement requirements and $117 billion to trade 
growth.
    Future investment in the U.S. waterborne transportation system will 
need to continue to be a blend of public and private money, as the 
industry remains essentially privately capitalized.
                  system characteristics and condition
    The U.S. waterborne transportation system serves the needs of both 
international and domestic commerce. It includes the international 
liner (scheduled), nonliner (unscheduled dry cargo) and tanker 
segments, the domestic inland waterways, Great Lakes and ocean 
segments, the port infrastructure, and shipbuilding industry. Together 
these segments play an important role in both the global and domestic 
economy, and a critical role in meeting our national security 
requirements and contributing to economic growth.
World and U.S. Oceangoing Fleets
    Characteristics The world merchant fleet of oceangoing vessels 
1,000 gross tons and over, as of January 1, 1995, amounted to just over 
25,000 vessels with a capacity of 686 million deadweight tons (DWT). 
Only 15 nations have more than 10 million DWT registered under their 
flags, and together these 15 account for 75 percent of the world total. 
The five largest registry 'days are Panama, Liberia, Greece, Cyprus, 
and the Bahamas, accounting for 46 percent of the total world fleet. 
The U.S. ranks tenth with 20 million DWT. Tanker vessels make up the 
largest part of the world fleet, accounting for 5,994 vessels and 297 
million DWT. Dry bulk carriers account for 5,291 vessels and 250 
million DWT. The United States has a significant presence in the world 
intermodal fleet; its containership fleet ranks third in the world.
            Condition
    The U.S. oceangoing fleet is older and less fuel efficient than the 
overall world fleet.
U.S. Domestic Fleet
            Characteristics
    The domestic fleet includes nearly 40,000 vessels with a cargo 
capacity of more than 67 million short tons. The predominant vessel in 
the domestic fleet is the dry cargo barge, 87 percent of which operate 
on the inland waterways. Total capacity of the 26,953 dry cargo barge 
fleet is 39 million short tons.
    In 1993, the tank barge fleet consisted of 3,862 vessels with a 
capacity of nearly 11 million short tons. About 82 percent of these 
operated on the inland waterways. The domestic towboat/tugboat fleet 
amounted to 5,224 vessels in 1993, 62 percent operating on the inland 
waterways. The self-propelled U.S.-flag Great Lakes fleet consists 
almost exclusively of dry bulk vessels, most of which carry ores. 
Ferries constitute a small segment of the domestic fleet, 150 in 
number, with a total passenger capacity of just over 87,000 (580 per 
vessel average).
            Condition
    An age profile of selected portions of the domestic fleet is shown 
in Exhibit 6-3.
Port Infrastructure
    The U.S. port system is comprised of deep-draft seaport and Great 
Lakes port facilities and the inland waterway system. Each of these 
elements include both publicly and privately owned marine terminal 
facilities which are the interface between water and surface 
transportation modes.
    There are in total 1,917 major U.S. seaport terminals comprising 
3,173 berths. The general cargo class is the predominate berth type in 
all regions except the Great Lakes, where the majority of facilities 
are for dry bulk cargoes.
    There are 1,789 river terminal facilities located in 21 states on 
the 25,000-mile U.S. inland waterway system. The inland system is less 
concentrated geographically and provides almost limitless access points 
to the waterways.
U.S. Shipbuilding
    The Major U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Base is comprised of 101 
private shipbuilding and repair shipyards--21 shipbuilding yards, 32 
major repair yards, and an additional 48 yards that are capable of 
performing topside work on large vessels.
                          drawing conclusions
Intermodal Transportation
    Intermodal transportation uses sophisticated equipment (vessels and 
inland delivery systems) linked through information technology to meet 
shippers' needs. Compared to traditional breakbulk services, Intermodal 
transportation provides shippers with lower transportation costs, 
reduced inventory and warehousing costs, just-in-time logistics 
support, reduced damage and pilferage, and increased market 
opportunities. U.S.-flag carriers pioneered the development of marine 
container terminals, double stack trains, and cargo and equipment 
tracking systems to provide the total logistics support required for an 
efficient transportation network.
U.S.-flag Shares
    U.S.-flag vessels carried approximately 3.8 percent of U.S. 
waterborne foreign trade in 1994, down from 5.3 percent in 1970. 
However, the cargo carried on U.S.-flag vessels has increased steadily 
from 25.1 million long tons in 1970 to 35.2 million long tons in 1994, 
a 40 percent increase. This absolute increase in cargo carried on U.S. 
flag vessels reflects the deployment of larger, more productive U.S.-
flag vessels in the in the 1970's and 1980's.
                           system performance
International Trade
    In 1994, world oceanborne trade (imports) amounted to about 3.1 
billion long tons, with the United States accounting for 18 percent. 
Total oceanborne U.S. foreign trade (exports and imports) in 1994 
amounted to 898 million long tons with a value of $566 billion, an 
increase of 3.2 percent in tonnage and 12.8 percent in value from the 
previous year.
    U.S. finer trade expanded at an annual rate of 6.8 percent between 
1985 and 1994. In 1994, approximately 78 percent of all U.S. liner 
cargoes gong tons) were containerized. Highly specialized line-haul/ 
feeder services, connecting carrier services and vessel-sharing 
arrangements have become the norm in these trades.
    U.S. non-liner shipments declined at an annual rate of 1 percent 
between 1985 and 1994. The U.S. tanker trade grew at an average annual 
rate of 7 percent between 1985 and 1994, due largely to rising U.S. 
petroleum imports (occasioned in part by declining domestic crude oil 
production).
    In 1994, 7,206 vessels, or 29 percent of the world merchant fleet, 
called at U.S. ports. In terms of capacity, these ships represented 44 
percent of the deadweight tonnage in the world fleet.
U.S. Domestic Trade
    Total domestic trade (inland waterways, Great Lakes, and domestic 
ocean services) amounted to approximately 1.1 billion short tons 
annually during the 1987 through 1993 period.
    The total volume of cargo carried on the Great Lakes has been quite 
stable over the last several years, and amounted to nearly 110 million 
tons in 1993. More than 90 percent of this traffic moved in dry bulk 
ships.
    One out of every eight tons of goods transported domestically moves 
via the inland or intracoastal waterway systems, and more than half of 
U.S. states are tied to a waterway system.
    Total cargo moving in the domestic ocean trades, which include 
Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, has been declining steadily for the 
past several years, reflecting the decline in Alaska North Slope crude 
oil shipments.
Port Traffic
    The movement of domestic and foreign waterborne commerce through 
the U.S. port system is highly concentrated. A total of 343 ports 
handled waterborne trade during 1993. The tonnage handled by the 50 
leading coastal and inland ports amounted to 89 percent of the total 
water-borne trade in that year. Despite the high degree of 
concentration, there were 145 ports that handled over 1 million short 
tons of cargo, which demonstrates the broad base on which the U.S. port 
system is built.
    Container traffic through U.S. ports, which increased by 12 percent 
from 1993 to 1994, is also highly concentrated. The top ports accounted 
for 79 percent of the total. In terms of port calls, the top ports 
accounted for approximately 75 percent of the vessel calls to all U.S. 
ports in 1994.
Shipyard Production
    As of January 1, 1995, the world orderbook for merchant vessels 
1,000 gross tons (GRI) and over consisted of 1,527 vessels totaling 
million DWT. Japan and South Korea are by far the leading world 
merchant shipbuilders with combined 64 percent share (based on DWT) of 
the January 1, 1995 orderbook. The United States ranks 26th among the 
world's shipbuilding nations.
    U.S. shipbuilding industry has a long history of commercial 
construction. However, as a result of the suspension of Federal 
construction assistance, the U.S. shipbuilding industry's commercial 
orderbook fell from 77 vessels (approximately 4.7 million GRT) in the 
mid-1970's to zero by 1988. Since the enactment of the National 
Shipbuilding and Shipyard Conversion Act of 1993, U.S. shipyards have 
been aggressively competing for re-entry into the domestic and foreign 
commercial shipbuilding markets. The newly expanded Federal mortgage 
guarantee program Title XI) has been a major impetus to the shipyards.
National Security Aspects
    In the past, the United States relied on a huge fleet of relatively 
small commercial ships to provide sealift support; now, that fleet has 
been superseded by an infinitely more sophisticated network of 
interrelated, intermodal equipment and large vessels. These assets, 
located throughout the world, serve both U.S. commercial and military 
requirements.
Demand for Water Transportation and Shipping Capacity
            Oceanborne Trade
    World oceanborne trade expanded from 2.3 billion long tons to 3.1 
billion long tons between 1985 and 1994 (3.9 percent annually), and is 
projected to grow at 4.3 percent annually to approach 5 billion tons by 
2005. U.S. oceanborne foreign trade grew at a slightly slower rate over 
the last 10 years, but is Projected to grow 4.5 percent annually 
through 2005. Oceanborne trade is expected to grow at higher rates than 
gross domestic product due to reduction in trade barriers and advances 
in transportation and communications. Countries will be trading a 
larger share of what they produce.
Demand for Ocean Shipping Capacity
    Demand for shipping capacity is largely a function of world trade. 
However, given the age profiles of the existing world fleet, the 
principal new building demand in the 1990's will come from the 
requirement to replace existing vessels. Thus, total shipbuilding 
demand has a replacement component and a trade-induced component. Since 
trade forecasts may vary widely, there is much more certainty 
associated with the replacement component, which reflects the physical 
deterioration of ships over time. Exhibit 6-7 shows the world demand 
for newbuildings in the 1995-2000 period. Nearly two-thirds of the 
total demand for newbuilding through the year 2000 will be for 
replacement vessels. The demand for newbuildings worldwide will 
approximate $267 billion in current dollars over the next 5 years, $150 
billion attributable to replacement requirements and $117 billion to 
trade growth.
    Considering the high percentage of the world fleet that serves the 
U.S., this demand for newbuilding is important to the Nation, as both a 
shipbuilder and a consumer of transportation services.
System Investment Requirements
    Future investment in the U.S. waterborne transportation system will 
need to continue to be a blend of public (Federal, State, and local) 
and private money, as the industry remains essentially privately 
capitalized.
    Significant investment in replacement tonnage will be required. 
Where the replacements are built and what flag they fly will be largely 
a function of the level of Federal commitment to maintaining a U.S.flag 
presence in international trade and a U.S. shipbuilding capability. 
Federal funds invested in the maritime industry tend to be highly 
leveraged. Thus, an annual investment of $100 million in the proposed 
Maritime Security Program would maintain an operating liner fleet of 50 
U.S.-flag ships operating in international trade (a small fraction of 
the total operating costs of such a fleet). Similarly, the Title XI 
ship financing program (which guarantees up to 87.5 percent of vessel 
cost) requires that only a small portion of the guarantee amount (5 
percent to 10 percent) be held as a reserve against default.
                               __________
     Statement of Andrew Card, Jr., President, American Automobile 
                       Manufacturers Association
    Good afternoon, I am Andrew Card, President and CEO of the American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA). AAMA's members are 
Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company and General Motors 
Corporation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
(ISTEA).
    The automotive industry has a keen interest in and a unique 
perspective on a safe and efficient highway system: good roads are 
vital for both the production and use of our products.
    The automotive industry sells ``mobility.'' Some years ago, a 
former GM chairman characterized the role of the industry in this way: 
``We may think we sell cars and trucks. But what we are really selling 
is mobility. Our cars and trucks must be well designed and well built, 
but if they cannot be used efficiently and enjoyably, they will be of 
no more value than a canoe in the desert.''
    While our customers need good roads for the safe and efficient use 
of our products, we as manufacturers must also have good roads to build 
and distribute our products. Global economic competition has changed 
the way we conduct every aspect of our business and that includes how 
we use our highways. U.S. maps may show that Interstate 95 runs from 
Maine to Florida and that Interstate 80 goes from New York to San 
Francisco. However, for America's car companies, these roads extend 
directly from our 276 manufacturing facilities to Europe, to Asia and 
beyond.
    In order to compete in our global economy, AAMA member companies 
have instituted quality control and lean manufacturing processes to 
reduce costs and increase productivity. These improvements have 
resulted in a significant change in the auto industry's material 
delivery network. Auto manufacturers now ship the majority of their 
parts and components just-in-time to meet very precise production 
schedules. The data dramatically illustrate this change: in a decade, 
just-in-time deliveries have increased, on average, from 25 percent to 
95 percent of all deliveries.
    For example, at one of our member companies, 32 plants operate on a 
just-in-time inventory system. That means that throughout every single 
working day, about 2,500 trucks travel more than one million miles on 
the nation's highways delivering parts and components to those 32 
plants just at the point they re needed in the production process.
    At another one of our member companies, one typical plant receives 
and unloads an average of 120 truckloads of component parts and 
supplies daily. The plant then ships approximately 480 vehicles (one 
half of its daily production) directly to dealers using 60 haulaway 
trucks. An additional 480 vehicles leave the plant site loaded on 
multilevel rail cars destined to rail unloading ramps located in major 
market areas. Upon arrival, the rail cars are unloaded and the 480 
vehicles are delivered to dealers by another 60 haulaway trucks.
    Finally, another manufacturer uses a scheduled delivery process to 
assure that parts and materials are delivered to its plants in just the 
right quantity, at the right time. Trucks must pick up parts at 
suppliers within a 30 minute window and deliver them to the 
manufacturer's plant under the same time constraints. The objective is 
to have no more than 2 hours inventory on the line at any one time.
    It is clear that any disruption in highway service, such as 
congestion or bad roads, will cause disruption in the manufacturing 
cycle, resulting in lost production and sales. As Henry Ford put it: 
``Ordinarily, money put into raw materials or into finished stock is 
thought of as live money. It is money in the business, it is true, but 
having a stock of raw materials or finished goods in excess of 
requirements is WASTE which, like every other waste, turns up in high 
prices and low wages.''
    Just-in-time was a goal in the 1980's, but in the 1990's, it is a 
necessity in order to be internationally competitive.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like now to address some specific issues 
related to ISTEA. One of the most crucial responsibilities for Congress 
in the reauthorization process is to provide adequate funding for the 
highway program. There are sufficient funds in the Highway Trust Fund 
but they have not been spent in the past several years, to the 
detriment of our roads and bridges. I know the subcommittee is well 
aware of this problem. In fact, all of you signed the recent letter to 
Budget Committee Chairman Domenici urging the committee to provide a $6 
billion increase in highway funding for fiscal year 1997. AAMA's 
members strongly support and appreciate your efforts.
    As a global industry, the automobile industry also believes that 
future U.S. competitiveness must address global transportation trends. 
With the national commitment in some major overseas markets to advanced 
surface transportation modes and to Intelligent Transportation Systems 
programs, continued U.S. development of innovative highway 
transportation approaches is important in assuring the long-term 
viability of the U.S. transportation system. In this context, the 
automobile industry supports development of Intelligent Transportation 
Systems, or ITS, a mix of both vehicle and highway technologies which 
are designed to assist all roadway users in the smooth movement of 
traffic in congested areas. ITS can help improve air quality, increase 
safety for highway users, as well as help reduce fuel use.
    America's car companies believe that maintaining and improving our 
nation's highway system must be one of our national priorities if we 
are to compete internationally in the 21st century. We know you will 
work toward that same goal as you authorize ISTEA this year.
                                 ______
                                 
   Responses of Andrew H. Card, Jr., to Questions from Senator Inhofe
    Question 1. Do you see the EPA's proposed ozone and particulate 
matter standards as having an economic effect on transportation trends 
in this country in general? And specifically on the transportation 
industry?
    Response. If EPA's proposed standards for ozone and particulate 
matter are adopted, there is likely to be a significant increase in 
non-attainment areas in the country. Any area in non-attainment would 
be restricted in how it allocates Federal highway funds, so there would 
clearly be a negative effect on transportation. In addition, there 
would likely be additional controls imposed on mobile source emitters 
which would have a negative effect on both personal mobility and the 
just-in-time delivery system on which manufacturers depend.

    Question 2. What would you like to see in an ISTEA reauthorization 
proposal concerning the CMAQ program?
    Response. The CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) program 
currently does little to reduce congestion on America's highways and 
therefore little to improve air quality. The CMAQ program should be 
reformed so that funds could be used for highway projects which would 
allow traffic to move more freely and provide improved access from 
highways to our manufacturing facilities.
   Responses of Andrew H. Card, Jr., to Questions from Senator Chafee
    Question 1. I think we can all agree that investments in 
transportation yield a high return in terms of economic productivity, 
efficiency and job creation. However, we are unlikely to have adequate 
public resources to address all transportation needs. Strategic 
transportation investment is therefore critical. In your opinion, which 
transportation investments will yield the greatest rate of return in 
the future?
    Response. The best return on our investments in transportation 
comes from highway expenditures, especially where funds are used to 
mitigate traffic congestion and improve access to our manufacturing 
facilities.

    Question 2. Your testimony recommends that the reauthorization 
should provide increased funding for highways and innovative highway 
programs. What about other modes of transportation? How much does your 
industry rely on rail and other modes to build and distribute your 
products?
    Response. The auto industry is heavily dependent on all modes of 
transportation, including rail. As a result, intermodal connectivity--
efficient connections between modes--is also very important to the 
industry.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of Alan E. Pisarki, Author of Commuting in America 
                                   II
                              introduction
    It is an honor to be here at this first Senate hearing on ISTEA 
reauthorization, with the opportunity to address important 
transportation trends in America today. I recall with great pride that 
I participated in the first Senate hearing in the advent of ISTEA 6 
years ago.
    My focus today will be on commuting trends, their economic and 
demographic determinants, and their implications for our transportation 
future. This will be based largely on my recent study, Commuting in 
America II. At the outset, I want to thank the 14 sponsoring 
organizations and other agencies that assisted in this effort, 
particularly the leadership of the American Association of State 
Highway and Transportation Officials.
    The materials provided are in two parts: this testimony, and a set 
of supportive graphics. Copies of the complete report, Commuting in 
America II, have also been made available.
                            the worker boom
    Previous study has identified three factors operative in the worker 
boom of the seventies: large job increases, the baby boom, and the 
rapid increases in women's participation in the work force. Each of 
these three forces has diminished. The trends depict a clearly visible 
``bubble'' of growth in both the labor force age population and the 
actual labor force over the past period that explains the great 
commuting surge of the seventies and early eighties and its relative 
decline in the nineties.
    Although the rates of change show a sharp drop, the total increase 
for the period is still substantial, over 18 million workers, actually 
about 300,000 more than in the seventies yielding two decades of very 
substantial increase with which our transportation system has had to 
deal.
    There is substantial foundation for the belief that the 1990 census 
results may have signaled the closing of the worker boom. Future trends 
depict a period of relative calm low overall growth in total population 
and population of working age for the remainder of the decade and into 
the next century. Labor force growth rates will decline to about half 
of the rate in the eighties, but are still projected to produce an 
absolute increase in labor force of between 17 and 18 million for the 
decade, or only a little less than the number in the eighties.
    Some key points:
    <bullet> The 1980-1990 decade saw the lowest rate of population 
increase in our nation's history, save for the depression decade, and 
the only other time that growth over a decade has been below 10 
percent. Absent extensive levels of immigration that rate would have 
been much lower.
    <bullet> There is a period of relative calm ahead about 10 percent 
overall growth in population and population of working age for the this 
decade moving in tandem with continuously declining rates of growth out 
to the year 2050.
    <bullet> Women's labor force growth rate surged through the sixties 
and seventies and is just now tapering off, but still remains at high 
rates relative to men. Total labor force increase in the 1980-1990 
decade was clearly down from the previous decade, for both men and 
women, with women contributing 11 million to the labor force in 
contrast to about 14 million in the previous decade.
    <bullet> Women's share of total employment rose from below 30 
percent in 1950 to 45 percent in 1990.
    <bullet> It is expected that the 18 year old age-group, the source 
of new workers, new commuters and new drivers, will have declined to 
its nadir in 1995 and then slowly begin recovering, but will not reach 
4 million again until 2008 under present projections.
    <bullet> In many respects the fundamental unit of metropolitan 
travel is the household. There are about 100 million households in 
America today. The average household size in 1950 was 3.37 persons, 
declining rather dramatically to 2.63 persons by 1990, with the 
greatest changes occurring in the sixties and seventies.
    <bullet> There continues to be a close parallel between household 
and labor force growth; the overall growth rate from 1950 to 1990 for 
the labor force was 200 percent and for households, 211 percent, 
indicating that labor force (or workers) per household changed little 
in the period.
    <bullet> Seventy percent of workers live in households with two or 
more workers, suggesting that tradeoffs between home and work locations 
are critical.
    <bullet> The effect of all this is to say ``yes,'' but to the 
question of the influence of the worker boom in the future of 
commuting. The strong growth rates characteristic of the boom period 
are over, but given the large size of our national work force resulting 
from the strong growth of the past, future growth will continue to 
yield large numbers of new commuters that will challenge our 
infrastructure and public policy.
                             the auto boom
    As in the worker boom, there is a qualified answer to the question 
of the persistence of the trend in private vehicle ownership and use.
    Arrayed on one side is the astonishing fact that we added more 
vehicles than people to our population in the eighties. Beyond the 
surge in ownership is the fact that the private vehicle continued to 
absolutely dominate the choice of mode of transportation to work. All 
alternatives to driving alone to work by private vehicle declined 
between 1980 and 1990. The increase in the number of commuters in 
single occupant vehicles exceeded the total increase in commuters. 
About 19 million workers were added, and over 22 million single 
occupant vehicle drivers. Effectively, all new workers chose to drive 
alone and a few million additional workers shifted from other modes to 
the single occupant vehicle. Some alternatives, such as walking and 
carpooling, declined precipitously, while others, such as transit, 
declined less dramatically. Only working at home showed growth.
    Arrayed on the other side, it is difficult to see continued shifts 
to the private vehicle, on average, across the Nation beyond the 
present surge. A number of factors are involved in this:
    <bullet> The shares of auto ownership by households show clear 
signs of stabilization at very high levels.
    <bullet> The ratio of cars to workers has actually declined 
slightly.
    <bullet> Most significantly, the number of vehicles available 
exceeds the number of drivers; and there is apparent saturation, on 
average, of drivers licenses. The important exception to these points 
will be treated later.
    The prospects for further shifts to the private vehicle seem minor 
if only because commuting travel is now so overwhelmingly oriented in 
that direction. It seems infeasible to believe that carpooling or 
transit levels could drop further fewer than one in ten cars has an 
occupant other than the driver, and transit is used by one in 20 
commuters. On the other hand the precipitous declines in carpooling in 
the last decade were unanticipated as well.
    The forces that impel personal vehicle use continue. Among the 
factors that will govern private vehicle use for commuting in the 
future are these:
    <bullet> continued dispersion of jobs and population to the suburbs 
and beyond;
    <bullet> continued pressures of time on multi-worker households;
    <bullet> continued low levels of vehicle operating and ownership 
costs.
    Of these, the pressures of time, particularly on working women, has 
immense influence. The fact that 70 percent of commuting households 
have two or more workers suggests that living near work is no longer a 
simple option, and the trip chain taking care of household needs on the 
way to and from work (children, food, laundry, etc.) is central in 
contemporary lifestyles.
    Among the key findings were:
Vehicle Ownership
    <bullet> While population grew by less than 10 percent and 
households by about 14 percent between 1980 and 1990, total vehicles 
available to households jumped by over 17 percent. Nothing depicts 
better the scale of vehicle growth than that the number of vehicles 
added in the decade exceeded the number of people added.
    <bullet> The majority of U.S. households have two or more vehicles, 
with an average vehicle availability of 1.66 vehicles per household, up 
from 1.61 in 1980. It is more impressive when it is recognized that 
these increases in vehicles per household are occurring against a 
backdrop of declining persons per household.
    <bullet> The case for stabilization of vehicle ownership can still 
be made despite the significant growth numbers just cited; there has 
been a decrease in the share of households with three or more vehicles 
from 1980 to 1990
    <bullet> It will not matter how many vehicles people own as long as 
the number of driver's licenses are stable.
    <bullet> The proportion of all households that are without vehicles 
has been in continuous decline since at least 1960. In 1960 21 percent 
of households were without vehicles, dropping to just above 11 percent 
by 1990.
    <bullet> In absolute numbers, the number of zero-vehicle (vehicle-
less) households has remained roughly constant for 30 years at about 10 
to 11 million.
    <bullet> Census data indicate that about 5.3 million workers live 
in vehicle-less households. Thus at most half of the vehicle-less 
households have workers.
    <bullet> The New York metropolitan area held about 20 percent of 
all zero-vehicle households in 1980. Despite the fact that New York 
lost zero-vehicle households in the 1980-1990 decade, it still obtained 
approximately a 20 percent share of a fifth of all such households.
    <bullet> The American vehicle fleet is aging rather substantially. 
The present fleet's average age is approaching 8 years (7.7 years), in 
contrast to less than 5.6 years in 1969.
    <bullet> New cars typically have less than 20 percent of their 
travel allocated to commuting whereas older vehicles have upwards of 
24-25 percent of their travel in commuting.
    <bullet> Trends in the transportation cost index, composed of the 
cost trends in owning and operating private vehicles, and with 
proportional inputs from taxi, transit, and airline fares, as well as 
other transport costs closely track the general consumer price index, 
composed of a weighted ``marketbasket'' of all consumer purchase items.
    <bullet> The cost of vehicles in terms of the number of weeks of 
median family earnings needed to pay for them showed a stable pattern 
throughout the seventies at about 20 weeks pay, rising to about 25 
weeks pay, a 25 percent increase, by 1991. Thus, the average vehicle 
costs about half a years pay to the family earning the median national 
income.
    <bullet> If improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency are added to 
declines in fuel costs the price of fuel per mile of travel has dropped 
substantially. Fuel costs have dropped from above nine cents a mile in 
the high cost 1980-1982 period to the 5\1/2\ cent range in 1992.
Modal Shares
    <bullet> The short description of the long term trend is that there 
is a continuation of the increasing orientation to personal vehicles 
for commuting. The number of single occupant private vehicle users 
increased by over 22 million between 1980 and 1990 exceeding the number 
of new commuters. The pattern is uniform across the Nation by region, 
State, and metro area.
    <bullet> The linking together of trips serving the household as 
part of the journey to work trip, so called work-trip chains, such as 
dropping children at child-care facilities, dropping off cleaning, 
picking up fast-foods, etc., is very much a family/household 
characteristic, and an increasingly important factor in choice of 
transportation.
    <bullet> Auto use increases with age until the mid-fifties age 
group and then slowly tapers. This pattern is replicated when men and 
women are analyzed separately.
    <bullet> There are only slight differences between men and women in 
mode choice that are still discernible; these differences have tended 
to diminish over time as women's work characteristics have become more 
like men's.
    <bullet> The most evident effect of income is that driving alone 
increases from about 60 percent to over 80 percent with increasing 
income; correspondingly, carpooling decreases.
    <bullet> Central city renters, constituting about 17 percent of 
households, are the least auto-oriented group, although still with a 70 
percent private vehicle share. While all home owners are highly private 
vehicle-oriented, suburban home-owners are the most, with over 90 
percent use of the private vehicle.
    <bullet> The number of carpoolers has dropped from 19 million in 
1980 to less than 15.4 million carpoolers in 1990 out of a total of 115 
million declining to 13.4 percent of commuters. A major factor in the 
decline of carpooling, accounting for two-thirds of the loss, is the 
decline in large carpools.
    <bullet> Carpooling is increasingly a household activity.
    <bullet> Public transit use remained relatively stable from 1980 to 
1990 with almost exactly 6 million riders in 1980, declining by about 
100,000 to roughly 5.9 million users in 1990. Transit's share of 
commuters declined from 6.3 percent to 5.1 percent.
    <bullet> While bus, the major mode used in transit, lost ridership, 
other transit modes, specifically subway and commuter railroad, gained 
riders. Much of the total increase, almost 40 percent of it, occurred 
in New York.
    <bullet> Metro area size is a critical factor in transit use. Metro 
areas of over one million population, which account for half the 
national population, are responsible for 88 percent of the nation's 
transit use; areas over 5 million account for 61 percent. New York 
alone accounts for 37 percent. The concentration of transit use in the 
largest metropolitan areas has increased since 1980.
    <bullet> Working at home was the only category, other than the 
single occupant vehicle, that increased in share. The overall gain was 
dramatic, over a 50 percent increase, growing from 2.2 million in 1980 
to 3.4 million in 1990.
    <bullet> Among the groups that are most oriented to working at home 
are women, home owners, older populations, non-metropolitan residents 
and the white non-Hispanic population. Non-metropolitan residents, with 
20 percent of all commuters, constitute 30 percent of those who work at 
home.
Commuting Times and Travel Trends
    <bullet> Overall, commuting travel time for all modes averaged 22.4 
minutes one way in 1990, up by only about 3 percent, from 21.7 minutes 
in 1980 an increase of roughly 40 seconds.
    <bullet> Seventy percent of Americans reach work in less than half 
an hour.
    <bullet> Metropolitan size is also a major factor in travel times, 
varying from an average of 17 minutes for those areas below 100,000 in 
population to over 27 minutes for those over 3,000,000 in population a 
10-minute swing. The average for the areas over 1 million is just above 
25 minutes.
    <bullet> Most States cluster around the national average with the 
greatest deviations being New York State (1.24 times the national 
average) and North Dakota (58 percent of the national average).
    <bullet> On average, a suburban resident commuting to the same 
suburb has a 7 to 8 minute travel time advantage over commuting to the 
central city of the same metro area.
    <bullet> The central city oriented trip appears to increase in 
travel time far more rapidly as metro size increases than do trips to 
suburbs or to other central cities or suburbs. This suggests one reason 
for the growing significance of suburbs in large metro areas.
    <bullet> Reverse commutes, at 23 minutes, take about 3 or 4 minutes 
less in the non-peak direction than does the inbound direction.
    <bullet> Suburb to same suburb travel is almost completely 
explained by driving alone, walking and working at home.
    <bullet> Suburban and non-metropolitan flows are very similar in 
regard to the dominant share of the private auto and two-person 
carpools. After that, larger car pools are key in non-metropolitan to 
central city flows, while transit plays a bigger role in suburb to 
central city flows.
    <bullet> The flow between central cities shows a striking use of 
larger carpools and of railroads. This is a major role for commuter 
rail.
    <bullet> The percentage of commuters with travel times beyond 60 
minutes is just below 6 percent. The average for all metro areas over a 
million is 7.5 percent. Three areas have percentages over 10 percent 
New York (16.5), Chicago (10.7), and Washington, DC. (10.7).
    <bullet> The 60-or-more minutes travel time group has the lowest 
drive alone share, while still significant, but with extensive use of 
large carpools and transit, especially commuter railroad.
    <bullet> There is an even peak from 7 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and from 
7:30 a.m. to 8 a.m., consisting, of a male-oriented worker peak and 
then a female oriented peak.
    <bullet> Even in the peak period, the period from 7:30 a.m. to 8 
a.m., the majority of travelers have trip times of under 20 minutes. 
The half hour segment just before it has many more long distance (in 
time) travelers.
    <bullet> The early morning hours are much more heavily oriented to 
long distance travelers. A high proportion of workers with trips longer 
than 60 minutes leave for work before 5 a.m.
    Travel time changes support the changing flows patterns observed 
earlier. While both increased in average travel time, the time 
advantage of suburb to suburb commuting over suburb to central city 
commuting has actually increased.
    The average trends tend to imply that things are going relatively 
well in commuting, but that is clearly not the case everywhere. Nothing 
is so distorted by averages as measures of travel time. Many areas, 
particularly those undergoing substantial growth, notably the 
metropolitan South and West, have seen sharp increases in travel times. 
One part of the explanation for the small increases in average travel 
times is provided by the shifts from slower modes to faster, e.g. from 
transit to carpooling or from carpooling to driving alone. This is 
obviously a one-time solution that will be available to only a few in 
the nineties. Neither will the surplus system capacity be available to 
absorb additional travelers. As a result the search for reasonable 
commuting times will likely lead to further dispersal.
                         the surbanization boom
    In regard to the geographic flow patterns of commuting the trends 
are unequivocal; the suburban boom continues. Because of Bureau of the 
Census definitional changes, this trend requires some statistical 
manipulation to confirm.
    Overall, the suburbanization of population and jobs not only 
continues but has accelerated in pace. Today the dominant commuting 
flow pattern is suburban, with half of all the nation's commuters 
living in suburbs and over 41 percent of all jobs located there, up 
from 37 percent in 1980.
    Suburban areas, defined here as the balance of metropolitan areas 
after subtraction of the central city, are now the main destination of 
work trips. The suburbs were the location of 13 million of the 19 
million new jobs created between 1980 and 1990; about a 70 percent 
share of all job expansion. This is an increase in share of job growth 
from the 1970 to 1980 period.
    If the focus shifts to commuting within metropolitan areas only, 
and non-metropolitan areas are excluded, suburbs contain two thirds of 
all metropolitan workers and slightly more than half of metropolitan 
job destinations.
    The flow patterns with a suburb as a destination account for 
substantial shares of growth in recent times. Suburb to suburb 
commuting accounted for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows in 
1990. That share is destined to increase given that suburb to suburb 
commuting obtained more than 58 percent of all commuting growth from 
1980 to 1990 as it did in the 1970 to 1980 period.
    A substantial increase in growth share was also obtained by central 
city to suburb commuting, so-called ``reverse commuting,'' rising from 
a 9 percent share of growth to over 12 percent. Its share of growth 
actually exceeded the share of central city to central city flows.
    Of further note is that the ``traditional commute,'' the suburb to 
central city component of flows, decreased its share of growth, 
accounting for less than 20 percent of all increase in the 1980-1990 
period, down from a 25 percent share in the previous decade.
    Inter-metropolitan commuting has shown substantial growth. In both 
1980 and 1990 the dominant part of inter-metropolitan commuting was 
``cross suburb commuting''--that is, commuting from one suburb to the 
suburb of a different metropolitan area. This flow pattern grew at more 
than twice the rate of suburban commuting growth in general.
    As one measure of the suburban effect, the number of Americans who 
commute outside their county of residence has almost tripled since 
1960.
    Some key trends:
                          population patterns
    <bullet> If the geographic definitions that applied in 1980 are 
retained for 1990, central city population across the Nation has 
actually declined, all of the metropolitan growth of 17 million 
therefore was in the suburbs. In this structuring of the data non-
metropolitan areas gained 5.2 million. Some of the key points in the 
suburbanization trend are:

          <bullet> In the 1980-1990 period, using 1980 definitions, 
        central cities showed a slight decline of .7 percent, losing 
        roughly half a million people.
          <bullet> Central cities lost in the range of 2.5 to 3 million 
        persons per year in net terms to the suburbs during the 
        eighties. These flows were somewhat softened by foreign 
        immigration to central cities in the range of 750,000 per year. 
        Thus central cities continue to experience net outward 
        population shifts, almost exclusively to suburbs, in excess of 
        2 million per year.
          <bullet> The 1980 to 1990 growth pattern contributed to a 
        further increase in suburban population share; the 1990 
        suburban share of metropolitan population now stands at over 60 
        percent.

    <bullet> Metropolitan population growth rates have been highly 
variable from area to area. All of the high growth metro areas were 
Western or Southern, with the exception of Minn.-St.Paul. Conversely 
almost all of the low growth areas were Northeastern.
    <bullet> As in the seventies, all areas losing population still 
show substantial overall worker growth and even more dramatic suburban 
worker growth, although not as extreme as in the earlier decade.
    <bullet> Non-metropolitan areas are again experiencing something of 
a growth renaissance. Although less than half of the nation's non-
metropolitan counties were growing in the eighties, almost three-
quarters were gaining population in the nineties, with a major factor 
being in-migration. Many of these growth areas seem to be recreational 
and retirement based.
    <bullet> Actual domestic migration rates appear to have continued 
unslackened in the eighties, despite the aging of the population, with 
most moves remaining in the same area.
    <bullet> There is evidence of a lessening of the shift to the 
sunbelt that has dominated national migration patterns since the 
1950's. Taken together the South and West, with 52 percent of the 
nation's 1980 population, obtained 94 percent of population growth in 
the 1980-1985 period, dropping off to about 83 percent of growth in the 
1985-1990 period. In the nineties the rate has dropped further to an 
estimated 76 percent of all growth by 1993, but their share of the 
nation's population still rose to 56 percent.
Job/Worker Patterns
    <bullet> Suburbs now house half of all workers in the country. Most 
of the workers reside within the heavily urbanized inner ring of the 
suburbs.
    <bullet> The data indicate that there has been a significant 
alteration in the location of jobs over the 10 year period. Suburban 
areas constituted 42 percent of the job locations in 1990, up from 37 
percent in 1980, obtaining a two-thirds share of national job growth in 
the period, (equivalent to 75 percent of metropolitan job growth). The 
remarkable point is the substantial share of growth taken by the 
suburbs and central cities outside the metropolitan area of residence 
of the commuter. One quarter of the growth was obtained by such areas.
    <bullet> Of 115 million commuters, about 90 million are in 
metropolitan areas, of which 80 million commute internally and 10 
million leave the metropolitan area, often bound for other metropolitan 
areas.
    <bullet> The remaining 25 million commuters are non-metropolitan, 
for the most part remaining in non-metropolitan areas to work, with 
about 3 million entering metropolitan areas every day to work.
    <bullet> The tendency to work within one's home county declines as 
the size of the metropolitan area increases. Seventy-six percent of all 
commuters work within their county of residence, with a remainder of 
somewhat more than 27 million who leave. This is almost triple the 
number who commuted beyond their county of residence in 1960. 
Intercounty commuting varies sharply by metropolitan area as a function 
of the local geography.
    <bullet> Central city residents are more home-area oriented, with a 
percentage approaching 85 percent working in their home county, while 
suburbanites are much less so-oriented, with slightly more than 71 
percent remaining in their residence county. Those living in places of 
above 5,000 population in non-metropolitan areas, i.e. small cities and 
towns, are the most locally oriented, with 85 percent remaining in 
their county to work.
    <bullet> The dominant flow pattern is suburban, with half of all 
metropolitan commuters living in suburbs; and with suburb to suburb 
commuting accounting for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows. 
Suburban areas are now the main destination of work trips.
    <bullet> The available data indicate that outbound flows to other 
metropolitan areas and to non-metro areas amounted to about 5.4 percent 
of all commuting in 1980 and rose to over 7.5 percent in 1990. 
Moreover, inter-metropolitan commuting increased at a rate more than 
double that of metropolitan growth.
    <bullet> In both 1980 and 1990 the dominant pattern of inter-
metropolitan commuting was ``cross suburb commuting,'' that is 
commuting from one suburb to a suburb of a different metropolitan area. 
It amounted to about 31 percent of all inter-metropolitan commuting in 
1980, rising to almost 39 percent in 1990. This flow pattern grew at 
more than twice the rate of suburban commuting growth in general.
    <bullet> Overall the national job/worker ratio for central cities 
is 1.36, i.e., 136 jobs for every 100 workers. The overall national 
job/worker ratio for suburbs is 0.83 and for non-metro areas 0.92. 
Review of national patterns suggests that something closer to balance 
is occurring in both central cities and suburbs.
                            emerging trends
    In addition to the persistence, in varying degrees, of the trends 
of the past, new trends are emerging that will sharply modify commuting 
patterns into the future.
Immigration
    The scale of foreign immigration has become prodigious; perhaps, 
the dominant factor in national population growth patterns. Total 
immigration to the United States in the 1980-1990 period was about 8.7 
million persons; thus the foreign born share was almost 40 percent of 
total population growth. Recent data indicate the pace continues at 
that rate, with 4.5 million arriving in the 5 year period from 1990 to 
1994, twice the rate of the 1970's.
    Foreign immigrants tend to go to where Americans are, but with a 
somewhat greater focus on central cities. It is the most populous 
States that receive immigrants.
    The arrival of immigrants has affected the numbers of households 
without vehicles in the areas with major foreign immigration. Many 
sunbelt cities had greater percentage increases in population than in 
vehicles; all had significant increases in the number of households 
without vehicles. Even the suburbs of many of these areas saw large 
increases in households without vehicles.
    In obvious contrast to new births most immigrants arrive at labor 
force participation age; they are instantaneous additions to the 
traffic scene. About 80 percent of immigrants were of labor force age.
    Thus immigrants impact the commuting scene in many ways. They are a 
direct addition in population, and an even more substantial increment 
to labor force, equaling greater than a third of all new commuters, and 
their volatile modal patterns will affect future flows in several 
modes. Of acute interest will be the timeframe in which they shift from 
initial patterns of behavior upon arrival to patterns more like the 
national average.
    The fact that immigration factors can be altered by congressional 
action at any time tends to create additional uncertainties with 
respect to future commuting patterns.
Ethnic and Racial Patterns
    Previous discussion has emphasized the tendency toward saturation 
in many areas vehicle ownership, driver's licenses, and the use of the 
auto to work. These tendencies can be overstated because of a failure 
to examine these patterns in sufficient demographic detail. Saturation 
is a characteristic almost exclusively among the white non-Hispanic 
population. There is still substantial room for growth in these 
characteristics among the Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.
    The key factor is households without vehicles. The proportion of 
all households that are without vehicles has been in continuous decline 
since at least 1960 dropping from 21 percent to just above 11 percent 
by 1990. In terms of absolute numbers, the number of zero-vehicle 
(vehicle-less) households has remained roughly constant for 30 years at 
about 10 to 11 million. The slight increase in this number from 1980 to 
1990 is almost certainly attributable to immigrant population effects. 
Census data indicate that about 5.3 million workers live in vehicle-
less households. Thus at most half of the vehicle-less households have 
workers.
    In stark contrast, the black population averages over 30 percent 
non-vehicle owning households and in central cities the number is over 
37 percent. Many individual central cities have extraordinary levels of 
black vehicle-less households New York with 61 percent, Philadelphia 47 
percent, Chicago and Washington, DC, 43 percent.
    Hispanics, with an overall rate of vehicle-less households of 19 
percent, have a rate of 27 percent in central cities. Among the central 
cities in metropolitan areas with very high levels of Hispanic vehicle-
less households are New York with over 62 percent and San Diego with 37 
percent.
    It is clear that central city renters are the predominant group of 
non-vehicle owning households; and as a general rule renters are more 
likely to be zero vehicle households than home owners. The New York 
metropolitan area held about 20 percent of all zero-vehicle households 
in 1990.
    One of the most pertinent aspects of this is the variation among 
racial and ethnic groups with regard to availability of driver's 
licenses. The White, non-Hispanic population is near, or at, effective 
saturation, especially among men (circa 96 percent); whereas the rate 
among all other racial and ethnic groups of men is on the order of 80 
percent.
    The disparities among women of different racial and ethnic groups 
and between women and men, are even greater. A point worth focusing on 
is that the sharp disparities between men and women among Hispanics and 
Asians is considerably greater than that between either Black or White 
men and women.
    All of these differences have effects on the opportunities for work 
locations, travel times, choice of mode, etc. A predominant part of the 
population that walks to work, or uses transit, and taxi are drawn from 
the households without vehicles.
    These groups constitute the major sources of growth in vehicle 
ownership and use in the future. It cannot be assumed that the 
differences between these groups and the national average are racial, 
or ethnic, or gender-based in character. Rather, age, income level, 
household size, and the location and type of residence will be the 
governing factors in future commuting patterns. It must be assumed that 
as the socio-economic profile of these groups change there commuting 
behavior will shift accordingly. That is likely to mean an auto-
oriented suburban-based working style.
    Some key findings:
    <bullet> Black and Hispanic drive-alone commuters have very similar 
patterns, with White non-Hispanics exhibiting a similar pattern but 
with a higher overall utilization rate.
    <bullet> A major difference is the exceptional use of transit modes 
by the black population. The pattern is similar in both suburban and 
central city locations.
    <bullet> Black households lag both white non-Hispanic and Hispanic 
households in the use of bicycles, motorcycles and working at home.
                                closing
Mode Choice
    There is little basis for adopting any view that suggests that 
there will be a significant reversal in the private vehicle orientation 
of commuters based on present patterns of behavior and demography. The 
dominant factor here is the continued dispersal of populations out from 
our metropolitan areas and the pressures of time on workers. As long as 
the private vehicle remains at all affordable to own and operate the 
pattern will continue. The shifts in age structure of commuters abets 
this trend.
    This does not suggest that all is lost for public transit or other 
alternatives. The cases where transit, carpooling, walking and biking 
have been successful need to be studied and clues found regarding the 
appeal to the commuters that have proven effective. Those areas where 
transit is a major factor, predominantly in the center of our major 
metropolitan areas, need to sustain and intensify services. Where 
transit use is significant, most users indicate happiness with the 
services provided, which is a sound starting point. This market needs 
to be preserved. Transit providers will need to be very innovative to 
sustain or gain in markets. Some of the innovative work responding to 
suburban demands in the Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Jersey areas may 
yield successful models.
    It is difficult to be optimistic regarding a renaissance in 
carpooling. Most carpooling today is not carpooling in the sense we 
knew it just a few years ago a voluntary arrangement among co-workers 
or neighbors. That is dying most of the surviving ``carpool activity 
consists of family members with parallel destinations and timing. Maybe 
these need a new name ``fampools''? The advantages in carpool lanes are 
significant where average traffic speeds are very poor, but there are 
time costs to carpooling as well. Thus it is a changing environment 
which needs continuous exertion, as jobs change, work patterns shift 
and travel times change.
Density and Dispersal
    Continued dispersal toward the fringes of our metro areas seems a 
given for both jobs and population. Rapid growth on the metropolitan 
fringes has been masked by definitional changes. Census modified 
definitions shifted 6 million of the new population growth in the 
eighties from the suburbs to the central city and four million from 
non-metro to metro areas.
Variations on a Theme
    We are becoming increasingly conscious of a set of developments 
that add to the volatility of commuting. Simply described, this is a 
tendency for greater variability in the location, path, time and mode 
of travel to work. It is difficult to say whether this tendency is 
increasing or that it has just become more evident to researchers in 
recent times. Our data collection approaches focusing on 1 day's travel 
by a set of selected individuals or households would typically not 
catch this kind of phenomenon. Surveys would have to track daily travel 
of an individual over the course of several weeks to establish some 
sense of the scale and character of variation.
Economic and Social Factors
    The nature of work is changing. More work can be done in small work 
units of a few people or even one. This adds to the potential for 
dispersal of jobs. It also adds to the greater freedom in many cases of 
people to set their hours of work to match their personal preferences.
    Paralleling this factor is that many jobs are services oriented, 
where workers must be available to customers, requiring odd hours of 
work and weekend schedules. This adds to the greater potential 
dispersion of jobs in time as well as space.
    The powers of communications and data processing are only beginning 
to be felt. They are becoming ubiquitous.
    All of the power of telecommunications is focused unintentionally 
on permitting greater dispersal of populations and jobs. It 
fundamentally reduces the penalty of distance.
    The effects of women in the work place has been unmistakable and 
will further influence trends in the future. There seems to be a 
greater understanding of people's needs to care for children, and to 
take time off for other family needs as well. This has led to greater 
work scheduling flexibility in many firms, both large and small. That 
flexibility supports variation in work arrivals, and departures, as 
well as work days. Certainly, part of this is the sharp competition 
among firms for highly skilled employees, many of them women.
    It is to be expected that this willingness to be flexible on the 
part of management will only increase in the future as some skills 
become even scarcer and firms compete for the best. This also means 
that firms will tend to relocate where their scarcest resource, skilled 
employees, are located. Being a short commute away will be a benefit 
that firms can offer. This will tend to push firm locations to where 
people want to be, generally pushing employers toward higher income 
neighborhoods, and leading to longer commutes for lower income workers. 
Regionally, it means the outer edges of the metropolitan area; 
nationally, it means those areas that are pleasant and attractive to 
live in. This will keep national growth focused on the sunbelt and 
West. This could lead as well to increasing growth in smaller areas, 
university towns, for instance, rather than in the very large 
metropolitan areas of the Nation.
Immigration
    The scale of immigration, and in some respects its character, is a 
product of a stroke of a pen in Washington. Immigration will be the 
dominant population factor in many areas of the Nation, in the large 
population centers in general, and in particular in the centers of the 
West and South. Material presented earlier shows that immigrants are 
heavily oriented to the labor force years. Their bimodal distribution 
in education will create strange frictions in the national labor force, 
competing both at the highest and lowest skill levels.
    Not surprisingly, their orientation to the private vehicle is less 
than that of other Americans. The question is how long will it take 
before their behavior patterns are symmetric with others of similar 
income and age characteristics. Or, are there substantial cultural 
variations that will manifest themselves?
The Democratization of Mobility
    The private vehicle has become the tool of mass mobility. While we 
tend to think of auto ownership as all-pervasive in this society, this 
study has shown that this is strongly skewed by race and ethnicity, and 
other factors. One has to believe that the expansion of opportunity in 
America to immigrants and those born here will expand ownership and use 
of private vehicles as well. This will provide the great sources of 
growth of private vehicle ownership and travel in the coming years.
    The growth in vehicle travel in the remaining years of this decade 
and into the next century will be predominantly a product of new access 
to personal vehicle use on the part of young people, the older 
population, women in general and racial and ethnic minorities the 
mobility ``have-nots'' of our society.
    Just as we have cited the competition for skilled workers at the 
high end of the job spectrum, there will likely be more workers than 
jobs at the low end. This will mean workers traveling great distances 
for not particularly attractive jobs. The dramatic growth in 
intermetropolitan travel and in reverse commuting from the city out to 
the suburbs are both products of that reality.
    Society then is faced with an unpleasant challenge. So much of 
current public policy in commuting is aimed at suppressing auto 
ownership and use. Those policies are unintentionally aimed squarely at 
those on the margin of the ability to own and operate a vehicle, 
particularly those policies aimed at increasing the cost of driving. It 
is clear that those most affected by such policies will be those on the 
lower rungs of the economic ladder. Often these people will be those 
who are most auto-dependent.
Public Policy and Commuting
    Much of public policy today is focused on modifying societal 
behavior in commuting, specifically the preference for driving alone. 
These policies have proven at best dramatically ineffective. At worst 
they can be directly antagonistic to the goals they are intended to 
support.
    It must be clear by now that the notion that there is an American 
``love-affair'' with the automobile is missing the point. Those who 
promote this idea seem to imply that love is some kind of aberration, 
and with enough psychiatrists we can solve America's commuting 
problems. Americans love their automobiles about as much as they love 
their microwave ovens. They have them and use them because they are 
very efficient tools they are time saving devices. The desire for the 
personal vehicle in other countries follows this same pattern.
    The center of all of these issues is the burden of time pressures 
that most Americans feel. It is time pressures, particularly on women, 
that increases personal vehicle use trip chaining, and many of the 
other patterns we have examined. Decisions regarding household location 
and mode to work are not made frivolously. People have sound reasons 
for their choices.
    Public policies that try to increase the costs of auto use or 
increase travel times and congestion to force behavioral shifts to more 
preferred modes of behavior or locational densities will simply force 
people to make painful decisions. Many of these will result in the 
shift of households and jobs to areas where congestion is less 
obtrusive and where other costs are less; inevitably this will mean 
greater dispersion of the population, not less. The American commuter 
is a resilient and innovative character.
    Those who see the solution of so many of our present ills by 
reorganizing society into living at higher densities miss the point. 
People do not live ``efficiently'' in order to optimize some imposed 
societal goal, certainly not commuting. Residential density is one of 
the most fundamental of choices that households make. It is clear that 
most people, given the choice, opt for lower density living when income 
permits. As the society changes and choice patterns evolve, the market 
place must be ready to respond with development that is responsive to 
household choices. Any public policies that inhibit a market trend 
toward higher densities must be addressed. But the market place must be 
the final arbiter in a free society.
    The focus of public policy in this area must be on improving 
commuting for all workers with better walking and biking opportunities, 
better transit, and better roads. My proposed goal would be to reduce 
commuting to an unimportant topic of conversation and public policy.
    One effect that needs identification in closing is that many of 
these trends lead to room for greater optimism regarding commuting 
solutions. Technological responses increasingly respond effectively to 
energy and environmental concerns, and congestion, while still a major 
problem, in many areas is addressable in its new patterns. The 
beginning of the solutions lie in recognizing that the American public 
is in charge.
    It would be attractive to think that commuting will eventually 
become an activity of no particular personal or public policy interest. 
It would be quick and effortless with no detrimental public side-
effects. That day will not be arriving soon.
                        COMMUTING IN AMERICA II
   (Prepared by Alan E. Pisarski under the direction of the Steering 
              Committee for the National Commuting Study)
           Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc. Lansdowne, VA
                                foreword
    This report, titled Commuting in America II, is a followup to the 
first national report on commuting patterns and trends in the United 
States, published in 1987 and titled Commuting in America. As such, it 
is subtitled The Second National Report on Commuting Patterns and 
Trends. The 1987 report was based on data gathered during the 1980 
Federal census, and this report makes use of similar data obtained in 
the 1990 Federal census. The 1990 census data show substantial changes 
in how and why Americans moved about in their daily activities over the 
decade.
    Both reports were prepared at the initiative and under the 
direction of a group of public and private-sector organizations 
concerned with national transportation issues, with the member 
organizations for this report differing somewhat from, and being larger 
in number than, the organizations that sponsored the 1987 report. Each 
of the cooperating organizations is active in the development and 
implementation of public policy. The basic purpose of the report is to 
provide information that will be of use to them and others in the 
establishment of transportation policies affecting our metropolitan 
areas and states.
    The list of sponsoring organizations is contained in the report, 
together with the names of the persons serving on the Steering 
Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee in early 1996 that 
directed and guided the effort. The report was prepared by Alan E. 
Pisarski, who served as both consultant and author. During his many 
meetings with the two committees, he repeatedly displayed his extensive 
command of transportation data, his penchant for both accurate and 
understandable presentations, and his seemingly endless patience. 
Funding for preparation of the report was provided by several of the 
sponsoring organizations, which are also identified in the report.
    Some of the trends in national commuting between the 1980 census 
and the 1990 census have persisted in some cases, shifted in character 
in others, and have been affected by emerging new patterns in still 
others. Commuting continues to grow and to change. This study is 
intended to be an objective, factual resource that presents and 
analyzes key trends, without drawing programmatic or policy judgments. 
It is a working resource document designed to inform its users.
    An extensive array of specialized resources were utilized in the 
preparation of the study. The primary source was the decennial Federal 
census of 1990. All of the historical census material, going back to 
the first statistics of commuting in 1960, was also employed. The 
Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) products were made 
available from the census, with funding and support from the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and 
the Federal Highway Administration. This document is larger than the 
1987 report mainly because of the extensive new material made available 
by the 1990 Federal census and its specialized tabulations prepared for 
local, state, and national use. All interested persons and 
organizations are encouraged to use these data further. They are major 
national statistical resources.
    The editing and publication of Commuting in America II was 
undertaken on behalf of the sponsoring organizations by the Eno 
Transportation Foundation Inc., which also published the 1987 report. 
The contributions made by the foundation toward release of the study 
have permitted the document to be broadly distributed at reasonable 
cost. The foundation has the deep appreciation of the sponsors.
    In conclusion it should be noted that this report was undertaken 
only to provide an information base from which varied interests can 
work. It does not purport to reflect the policy positions of any of the 
sponsoring organizations, and it should not tee interpreted in this 
manner. Furthermore, where the author has expressed his personal views 
in the report, it is to be understood that such views are his and are 
not necessarily subscribed to by the sponsoring organizations.
    The extent to which the sponsoring organizations, with often 
disparate views of policy, have been able to come together to prepare 
this report is a measure of its success in providing a substantive, 
unbiased source of information. The report is intended to serve as a 
common resource of factual information upon which policymakers can draw 
in developing and implementing transportation policy and decisions, as 
our nation moves into the next century.
                                        Francis B. Francois
      Chairman of the Steering Committee for Commuting in America; 
     Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and 
                                           Transportation Officials
                               __________
                            acknowledgments
    This document really qualifies as a group effort. From the funding, 
to the data development needed for input, to the planning and 
preparation of the document and its final production, many thoughtful 
and dedicated people have been involved.
    The document had many sponsors. They are listed in the report, and 
most of them had representatives on the Steering Committee. It is a 
hallmark of the document that many organizations see value in it and in 
what it can contribute to public understanding. I deeply appreciate 
their faith in the document and wish to thank them all for their 
support--financial and otherwise.
    The document received valuable technical support. Agencies such as 
the Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(USDOT) provided specialized data development from which the document 
benefited greatly. Phil Salopek and his staff at the Journey to Work 
Division of the Bureau of the Census have produced a valuable national 
analytical data base that many will use in the future. Richard 
Forstall, perhaps America's most knowledgeable scientist in matters of 
commuting and urban geography, and now retired, gave graciously of his 
time and interest.
    The work of the Office of Information Management of the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA) of USDOT in the production of specialized 
tabulations from the 1990 census was a giant step ahead for national 
understanding of the commuting phenomenon. I thank Elaine Murakami and 
Bryant Gross. David McElhaney, former director and now retired, was, as 
always, a great supporter.
    The Technical Advisory Committee formed by the Steering Committee 
provided valuable support and patient interest over a long period of 
data development, design, and review. Its leader, George Wickstrom, 
kept us pointed in the right direction. Thank you, George.
    Of all the players in this process over the years, the late Jim 
McDonnell was the most responsible for forging the consortium of US 
DOT, Bureau of the Census, American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and others to make the Census 
Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) a reality. He never diverted his 
attention from the goal of a national CTPP, and he would not let the 
rest of us get too far away from that goal either. The strong, 
continuing program relationship between the Bureau of the Census and US 
DOT, dedicated to providing better transportation planning data, is his 
legacy.
    The process that produced the document enjoyed tremendous 
leadership. To Frank Francois, his incredible staff, and AASHTO, I am 
especially grateful. During the report's almost 5 years in the making, 
Frank was unstinting in his support. Tom Brahms of the Institute of 
Transportation Engineers and all the people at the Eno Transportation 
Foundation and their editor, Kathryn Harrington-Hughes, who helped put 
the document together, were wonderful. I thank you all.
                                           Alan E. Pisarski
                           executive summary
    The first Commuting in America, published in 1987, discussed the 
need to replace the public's stereotypical images of commuting with a 
more appropriate picture. Most of the images derived during the 1950's 
and 1960's and involved a suburban worker leaving a dormitory-like 
suburban neighborhood to go to an office downtown. Although some 
commuters still fit that pattern in 1987, a more current picture of 
commuting was required to make possible the kind of substantive 
understanding needed for sound public policy.
    Commuting in America sought to replace that image with one that was 
more sound--one that was based on the realities of contemporary 
commuting characteristics and patterns. The new understanding had three 
parts: a boom in workers, often from two-worker households; a boom in 
suburb-to-suburb commuting, becoming the dominant flow pattern; and a 
boom in the use of private vehicles, as America's vehicle fleet 
exceeded the number of drivers.
    As Commuting in America II comes to print, that fundamental pattern 
shift is widely recognized by public officials and the general public. 
To further dispel wornout perceptions is one of the goals of this 
report.
    Commuting's impact on land use patterns, urban form, and society in 
general has been discussed extensively in the policy literature and the 
public press. The questions then become: ``Are the patterns observed in 
the 1980's still effective descriptors of contemporary patterns of 
commuting?'' and ``Are new patterns emerging?'' These are important 
questions that this report seeks to answer.
    Amajor part of this report reassesses the strength of these trends 
as we move into the mid-1990's, to determine whether they are still 
strong forces in defining the character of commuting patterns and 
whether new forces of change have come forward, either replacing, or 
joining, previous trends.
                     the persistence of past themes
The Worker Boom
    The previous study identified three factors operative in the worker 
boom of the 1970's: large job increases, the baby boom, and rapid 
increases in women's participation in the work force. These three 
forces have diminished. The trends depict a clearly visible ``bubble'' 
of growth in both the working-age population and the actual labor force 
during the 1970's and 1980's that explains the great commuting surge of 
that period and its relative decline in the 1990's. Although the rate 
of change shows a sharp drop, the total increase for the period is 
still substantial, over 18 million workers, actually about 300,000 more 
than in the 1970's--yielding two decades of very substantial increase 
with which our transportation system has had to deal.
    There is reason to believe that the 1990 census results may have 
signaled the closing of the worker boom. Trends depict a period of 
relative calm--low overall growth in total population and working-age 
population for the remainder of the decade and into the next century. 
Labor-force growth rates will decline to about one-half of the rate in 
the 1980's, but are still projected to produce an absolute increase in 
the labor force of between 17 million and 18 million for the decade, or 
only a little less than the increase that took place in the 1980's. It 
is expected that the 18-year-old age-group, the source of new workers, 
will have declined to its nadir in 1995 and then slowly begin 
recovering; but it will not reach 4 million again until 2008, under 
present projections.
    The growth rate for women in the labor force surged through the 
1960's and 1970's and is just now tapering off, but still remains high 
relative to that for men. Total labor-force increase in the 1980-1990 
decade was down from the previous decade, for both men and women, with 
women contributing 11 million to the labor force in contrast with about 
14 million in the previous decade.
    The effect of all this is to say ``yes, but--'' to the question of 
the worker boom influence in the future of commuting. The strong growth 
rates characteristic of the boom period are over, but given the large 
size of our national work force resulting from the strong growth of the 
past, future growth will continue to yield large numbers of new 
commuters that will challenge our infrastructure and public policy.
The Private Vehicle Boom
    Again, as in the worker boom, there is a qualified answer to the 
question of the persistence of the trend in private-vehicle ownership 
and use.
    Arrayed on one side is the astonishing fact that we added more 
vehicles than people to our population in the 1980's. In addition, the 
private vehicle continued to absolutely dominate the choice of mode of 
transportation to work. All alternatives to driving alone to work by 
private vehicle declined between 1980 and 1990. The increase in the 
number of commuters in single-occupant vehicles exceeded the total 
increase in commuters. About 19 million workers were added, and over 22 
million single-occupant vehicle drivers were added. Effectively, all 
new workers chose to drive alone, and a few million additional workers 
shifted from other modes to the single-occupant vehicle. Some 
alternatives, such as walking and carpooling, declined precipitously, 
while others, such as transit, declined less dramatically. Only working 
at home showed growth.
    Arrayed on the other side, it is difficult to see continued shifts 
to the private vehicle, on average, across the Nation beyond the 
present surge. A number of factors are involved in this:
    The shares of automobile ownership by households show clear signs 
of stabilization at very high levels.
    The ratio of cars to workers has actually declined slightly.
    Most significantly, the number of vehicles available exceeds the 
number of drivers; and there is apparent saturation, on average, of 
driver's licenses.
    The prospects for further shifts to the private vehicle seem minor, 
if only because commuting travel is now so overwhelmingly oriented 
toward that direction. It seems unfeasible to believe that carpooling 
or transit levels could drop further--fewer than 1 in 10 cars has an 
occupant other than the driver, and transit is used by 1 in 20 
commuters. On the other hand, the precipitous declines in carpooling 
during the last decade were likewise unanticipated.
    The forces that impel personal vehicle use continue. The factors 
that will govern private vehicle use for commuting in the future 
include the following:

  <bullet> Continued dispersion of jobs and population to the suburbs 
    and beyond
  <bullet> Continued pressures of time on multiworker households
  <bullet> Continued low levels of vehicle operating and ownership 
    costs

    Of these factors, the pressures of time have immense influence. The 
fact that 70 percent of commuting households have two or more workers 
suggests that living near work is no longer a simple option, and the 
work trip chain--taking care of household needs--daycare, food, 
laundry--on the way to and from work is central in contemporary 
lifestyles.
The Suburban Commuting Boom
    In regard to the geographic flow patterns of commuting, the trends 
are unequivocal: the suburban boom continues. Because of changes in the 
Bureau of the Census definitions, confirmation of this trend will 
require some statistical manipulation.
    Overall, the suburbanization of population and jobs not only 
continues but has accelerated in pace. Today the dominant commuting 
flow pattern is suburban, with 50 percent of the nation's commuters 
living in suburbs and over 41 percent of all jobs located there, up 
from 37 percent in 1980.
    Suburban areas--defined here as metropolitan areas outside of the 
central city--are now the main destination of work trips. The suburbs 
were the location of 13 million of the 19 million new jobs created 
between 1980 and 1990--about a 70 percent share of all job expansion. 
This is an increase in share of job growth from the 1970-1980 period.
    If the focus shifts to commuting within metropolitan areas only and 
nonmetropolitan areas are excluded, suburbs contain two-thirds of all 
metropolitan workers and slightly more than one-half of metropolitan 
job destinations.
    The flow patterns with a suburb as a destination account for 
substantial shares of growth in recent times. Suburb-to-suburb 
commuting accounted for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows in 
1990. That share is destined to increase, given that suburb-to-suburb 
commuting obtained more than 58 percent of all commuting growth from 
1980 to 1990, as it did during the 1970-1980 period.
    Asubstantial increase in growth share was also obtained by central 
city-to-suburb commuting, so-called ``reverse commuting,'' which rose 
from a 9 percent share of growth to over 12 percent. Its share of 
growth actually exceeded the share of flows from central city to 
central city.
    The ``traditional commute,'' the suburb-to-central city component 
of flows, decreased its share of growth, accounting for less than 20 
percent of total increase during the 1980-1990 period, down from a 25 
percent share in the previous decade.
    Intermetropolitan commuting has shown substantial growth. In both 
1980 and 1990, the dominant part of intermetropolitan commuting was 
``cross-suburb commuting''--that is, commuting from one suburb to the 
suburb of a different metropolitan area. This flow pattern grew at more 
than twice the rate of suburban commuting growth, in general.
    As one measure of the suburban effect, the number of Americans who 
commute outside their county of residence has almost tripled since 
1960.
Emerging Trends
    In addition to the varied persistence of past trends, new trends 
are emerging that will sharply modify future commuting patterns.
Immigration
    The scale of foreign immigration has become prodigious. It is a 
major, if not the dominant, factor in national population growth 
patterns. Total immigration to the United States during the 1980-1990 
period was about 8.7 million persons; thus the foreign-born share was 
almost 40 percent of total population growth. Recent data indicate the 
pace continues at that rate, with 4.5 million arriving during the 5-
year period from 1990 to 1994, twice the rate of the 1970's.
    Foreign immigrants tend to locate where Americans reside, but with 
a somewhat greater focus on central cities. It is the most populous 
states that receive immigrants.
    The arrival of immigrants has affected the number of households 
without vehicles in the areas with major foreign immigration. Many 
sunbelt cities had greater percentage increases in population than in 
vehicles; all had significant increases in the number of households 
without vehicles. Even the suburbs of many of these areas saw large 
increases in households without vehicles.
    Most immigrants (80 percent) arrive in the United States at labor-
force participation age. They are instantaneous additions to the 
traffic scene.
    Immigrants thus impact the commuting scene in many ways. They are a 
direct addition in population and an even more substantial increment to 
the labor force, equaling greater than one-third of all new commuters. 
Their modal patterns will affect future flows in several modes. Of 
acute interest will be the rate at which these households 
``mainstream,'' i.e., obtain vehicles and begin moving to the suburbs.
    The fact that immigration factors can be altered by congressional 
action at any time tends to create additional uncertainties regarding 
future commuting patterns.
The Democratization of Mobility
    Previous discussion has emphasized the tendency toward saturation 
in many areas--vehicle ownership, driver's licenses, and the use of the 
automobile to commute to work. These tendencies can be overstated 
because of a failure to examine these patterns in sufficient 
demographic detail. Saturation is a characteristic almost exclusively 
found among the White non-Hispanic population. There is still 
substantial room for growth in these characteristics among the Black, 
Asian, and Hispanic populations.
    The key factor is households without vehicles. The proportion of 
all households that are without vehicles has been in continuous decline 
since at least 1960, dropping from 21 percent to just above 11 percent 
by 1990. In terms of absolute numbers, the number of zero-vehicle 
(vehicle-less) households has remained roughly constant for 30 years 
(10 million to 11 million). The slight increase from 1980 to 1990 is 
almost certainly attributable to the immigrant population. Census data 
indicate that about 5.3 million workers live in vehicle-less 
households. Thus at most one-half of the vehicle-less households have 
workers.
    On average, more than 30 percent of Black households do not own 
vehicles, and in central cities the number is over 37 percent. Many 
central cities have extraordinary high levels of Black households that 
do not own vehicles--New York City with 61 percent, Philadelphia with 
47 percent, and both Chicago and Washington, D.C., with 43 percent.
    Hispanics have an overall rate of vehicleless households of 19 
percent; that rate rises to 27 percent in central cities. The central 
cities in metropolitan areas with very high levels of Hispanic 
households without vehicles are New York City (more than 62 percent) 
and San Diego (more than 37 percent).
    It is clear that renters in central cites are the predominant group 
of nonvehicle-owning households; as a general rule, renters, rather 
than homeowners, are more likely to be zero-vehicle households. About 
20 percent of all zero-vehicle households were in the New York City 
metropolitan area in 1990.
    One of the most pertinent aspects of this is the variation among 
racial and ethnic groups regarding the availability of driver's 
licenses. The White non-Hispanic population is near, or at, effective 
saturation, especially among men (circa 96 percent); whereas the rate 
among all other racial and ethnic groups of men is about 80 percent.
    All of these differences have effects on the opportunities for work 
locations, travel times, choice of mode, and so forth. A large part of 
the population that walks to work or uses transit or taxi is drawn from 
households without vehicles.
    These groups constitute the major sources of growth in vehicle 
ownership and use in the future. It cannot be assumed that the 
differences between these groups and the national average are racial, 
ethnic, or gender-based in character. Rather, age, income level, 
household size, and the location and type of residence will be the 
governing factors in future commuting patterns. As the socioeconomic 
profiles of these groups change, their commuting behavior will shift 
accordingly. That shift will likely mean an auto-oriented, suburban-
based commuting style.
Closing
    One element of change in commuting that needs to be addressed in 
closing is the effect of increased commuting on travel times. 
Surprisingly, with the sharp increases in automobile use, average 
travel times did relatively well; average travel times to work 
increased by 40 seconds, from 21.7 minutes in 1980 to 22.4 minutes in 
1990. Seventy percent of Americans reach work in less than 30 minutes.
    Only about 6 percent of commuters take longer than an hour to get 
to work, rising to about 7.5 percent in metropolitan areas with 
populations over 1 million. In only three areas--Washington, D.C., 
Chicago, and New York City--do 10 percent or more of commuters travel 
for more than an hour. This is strongly affected by mode choice; 
commuter rail and large carpools make up the bulk of this group. 
Metropolitan size is also a major factor in travel times, varying from 
an average of 17 minutes for those areas below 100,000 in population to 
more than 27 minutes for those over 3 million in population--a 10-
minute swing. The average for areas over 1 million is just above 25 
minutes.
    Travel time changes support the changing flows patterns observed 
earlier. Although both increased in average travel time, the time 
advantage of suburb-to-suburb commuting over suburb-to-central city 
commuting has actually increased.
    The average trends tend to imply that things are going relatively 
well in commuting, which is clearly not the case everywhere. Nothing is 
so distorted by averages as measures of travel time. Many areas, 
particularly those undergoing substantial growth--notably the 
metropolitan South and West--have seen sharp increases in travel times. 
One reason for the small increases in average travel times is because 
of the shifts from slower modes to faster modes--for example, from 
transit to carpooling or from carpooling to driving alone. This is 
obviously a one-time solution that will be available to only a few in 
the 1990's. Nor will surplus system capacity be available to absorb 
additional travelers. As a result, the search for reasonable commuting 
times will likely lead to further dispersal.
    It would be attractive to think that commuting will eventually 
become an activity of no particular personal or public policy interest 
and that it would be quick and effortless with no detrimental public 
side effects. That day will not be arriving soon.
                               __________
        Chapter One: Understanding Commuting Patterns and Trends
    The introduction to the first edition of Commuting in America, 
published in 1987, talked about the need to replace stereotypical 
images of commuting with a more appropriate picture. Most of those 
images derived from the 1950's and 1960's and involve a a suburban 
worker leaving a suburban neighborhood for an office downtown. While 
there were still those who fit that pattern in 1987, the first edition 
of Commuting in America sought to replace that image with one that was 
more sound--one that was based on the realities of contemporary 
commuting characteristics and patterns. This updated view of commuting 
had three parts:

  <bullet> A boom in the number of workers, accompanied by an increase 
    in worker households;
  <bullet> A boom in suburb-to-suburb commuting, which had become the 
    dominant flow pattern; and
  <bullet> A boom in the use of private vehicles, with the number of 
    vehicles having exceeded the number of licensed drivers.

    Now, with Commuting in America II, that fundamental shift in 
commuting patterns is widely recognized by both public officials and 
private citizens. Commuting's impact on land use, urban form, and 
society in general has been discussed extensively by policymakers and 
the media. The questions have become, ``Are the patterns observed in 
the 1980's still effective descriptors of contemporary patterns of 
commuting? Are new patterns emerging?'' This report seeks to answer 
those questions.
                            report structure
    This chapter introduces the subject of commuting. Its purpose is to 
provide an understanding of commuters and commuting, given the 
complexities of the subject and the vagaries of the available data. The 
first concern of this chapter is to place commuting activity in context 
with other travel, so that the role of commuting in the overall 
structure of transportation policy and planning can be understood. The 
second concern is to provide definitions for the terminology used in 
this study.
    Data sources that form the basis for this report are identified, 
including a discussion of their particular strengths and weaknesses in 
terms of this report. The final part of this chapter discusses the 
difficult topic of geography. Because of its spatial character, 
commuting analysis is especially sensitive to the geographic units used 
to aggregate and present data. This is particularly a concern in a 
national analysis, where comparability between areas is crucial.
    Understanding commuting and commuters requires knowledge of 
demographics, economics, geography, and other tools. Because commuters 
are a moving target, they are difficult to capture statistically. 
Commuting, like all passenger travel, is a social phenomenon, an 
economic phenomenon, and a technological phenomenon. Each has its 
influences, and they interact to create new and fascinating behavioral 
patterns.
    Commuters and commuting activity can be described from one of three 
vantage points:

  <bullet> The origin of a work trip, usually the home.
  <bullet> The destination end--the job site.
  <bullet> The patterns formed by trips between a multitude of origins 
    and destinations.

    Each of these perspectives is almost an area of study in itself.
    Chapter 2, Commuters in the 1990's, addresses commuters and their 
characteristics. It includes a discussion of whether the growth that 
has occurred since World War II, paralleling the post-war baby boom, 
has slowed. Chapter 2 also focuses on the changes in demographics of 
job holders, particularly whether the explosive increases in working 
women seen in the 1980's will persist into the 1990's. Immigration is 
also considered, in the context of declining overall rates of 
population growth. This is followed by a look at where most commuters 
now live and where their jobs are located in the nation's regions and 
metropolitan areas. A key issue to be discussed is whether the suburban 
boom in population and jobs has slackened and whether there are signs 
of a new revitalization of central city growth. Has the 1980's been 
like the 1970's, or more like the 1960's? Where do we go from here? The 
``demography'' of the automobile and the other vehicles that are so 
much a part of our commuting lives is also discussed.
    Chapter 3, Commuting Flow Characteristics, looks at commuting 
flows--their patterns and scale. Commuting patterns are examined from 
the perspective of how commuters travel between central cities, 
suburbs, and exurban areas. Modes of transportation used for commuting 
in different markets are described. The emerging boomlet in working at 
home is examined. The availability, for the first time, of census data 
on worker starting times permits a discussion of the new patterns of 
job schedules. Finally, the distances, travel times, and speed 
characteristics of the new commuting patterns are discussed.
    Chapter 4, Closing Perspectives, looks at how these changes might 
affect commuting itself, the infrastructure that supports commuting, 
and the broader community. This chapter contains the author's views and 
speculations on the character of the trends identified and the future 
directions of commuting, with the goal of encouraging further 
discussion and analysis of this important topic.
                      commuting and overall travel
    In this report, ``commuting'' refers to travel to and from a 
workplace, including trips to temporary work sites, which are 
customarily taken by construction workers, household workers, and 
others with no fixed work location. It does not include travel 
associated with related work activities--going to a meeting, seeing 
clients, delivering goods, and so forth.
    Although a crucial part of passenger travel, commuting is by no 
means the entire picture. It is only one of a large number of purposes 
that generate daily travel activity. It is important to place commuting 
in the proper overall context so that the material presented here can 
be fully appreciated.
    Commuting exists in a continuum of transportation activities. While 
it often dominates public discussion about transportation, commuting is 
just one part of the demand that we make on our transportation system. 
In a metropolitan area, transportation activities include the following 
eight categories:

  <bullet> Commuting
  <bullet> Other resident travel
  <bullet> Visitor travel
  <bullet> Public vehicle travel
  <bullet> Urban services
  <bullet> Urban goods movement
  <bullet> Passenger through-travel
  <bullet> Freight through-travel

    It is uncertain what commuting's share of this total activity is, 
because of the mix of freight and passenger activities. For instance, 
there are no comprehensive sources of data on freight movement or 
visitor travel. The mix of transportation activities will clearly vary 
with a metropolitan area's size and levels of activity. Despite 
existing pressures for comprehensive planning and data collection at 
the state and metropolitan level, there is probably no metropolitan 
area in the country that can comprehensively describe all eight 
transportation activities in their region.
    Commuting can be placed in context with travel by residents in 
metropolitan areas by focusing on only the ``commuting'' and ``other 
resident travel'' categories. The Nationwide Personal Transportation 
Survey conducted in 1990, the same year as the population census, 
permits timely analysis of commuting in the context of other travel 
demand. According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, 
work travel constitutes just under 20 percent of all persontrips (Table 
1-1).
    Work travel can be measured as a proportion of person-trips or as a 
proportion of person-miles of travel, which weights the trio shares by 
the distance of the trip. Because work trips tend to be longer than 
most other local trips, the work trip share of travel is greater than 
its share of trips. The share for work trips has evidenced a slight 
downward trend over the years, from about 20.7 percent in 1983 to 19.3 
percent in 1990. Yet the share of person-miles increased significantly, 
from 20.1 percent to 23.2 percent, during that time, apparently as a 
result of increases in average trip length.
    Work travel can also be measured as a share of personal vehicle 
trips or as a proportion of the total miles traveled by personal 
vehicles. As a proportion of vehicle trips, work travel amounts to 
slightly above 26 percent of activity; as a proportion of vehicle miles 
traveled, it is about 33 percent. These numbers reflect the heavy 
utilization of personal vehicles for longer work trips, and work trips 
are typically longer than other local trips.
    Work travel is even more important to transit, accounting for about 
43 percent of all transit travel.
    Commuting bears an importance to transportation beyond its share of 
total travel for a number of reasons. The first is attributable to the 
impact it has on the economy and on the development of communities. The 
second is due to the concentration of work travel in certain time 
periods and locations, in contrast to the more dispersed patterns of 
other trips. Commuting is a major factor in determining peak travel 
demand and therefore serves to define the capacity and service 
requirements of our transportation system. In certain climates and 
under certain weather conditions, morning travel generates more air 
pollution, particularly ozone. In the peak morning hours (6-9 a.m.), 
work-related travel, which includes work trips and work-related trips, 
accounts for more than 47 percent of all person-trips and for about 62 
percent of vehicle trips and vehicle-miles of travel. Both the morning 
and afternoon peaking characteristics of work travel seem to be abating 
both in location and duration. The Nationwide Personal Transportation 
Survey data and the patterns discernible from the census indicate that, 
perhaps as a product of work-pattern shifts or congestion pressures, 
the proportion of work travel in the peak hours is declining; work 
travel is now spreading into other time periods. The spatial dispersion 
of the origins and destinations of work trips is a fundamental aspect 
of contemporary work travel.
    Other aspects of commuting are changing in ways that affect other 
parts of travel and the transportation system serving it. One of these 
is the increased tendency for commuters to make a work trip part of a 
trip chain--i.e., taking children to school, picking up necessities, 
and running household errands in an effort to more efficiently use time 
(Figure 1-1). Although this increases the efficiency of overall travel, 
it also increases the number of non-work-related trips occurring in the 
peak period.
    Two other matters are important to an understanding of the commuter 
and commuting. The first is the information source--the statistics 
needed to fully understand the complex character of commuting. To 
identify and analyze trends, comprehensive, detailed information on a 
national scale is needed.
    The second matter is the geography used to assemble and present the 
statistics. Commuting is a spatial phenomenon, and the geographic units 
used to aggregate individual trips are key to a correct representation 
of its character.
                         terms and definitions
    One of the obstacles to a better understanding of American 
commuting is the technical language used by the statisticians and 
analysts who work in the field. Although that language has value to 
those professionals, it can hinder the average reader's understanding 
of the subject. The glossary that begins on page 5 should help in that 
regard. The more formal definitions of these terms are contained in 
special guides prepared by the Bureau of the Census for the 1990 
census.
                              data sources
    The fundamental sources for this report are the journey-to-work 
data and related characteristics from the 1990, 1980, 1970, and 1960 
decennial censuses. These are the sole nationwide sources of detailed 
data on commuting patterns, and hence the starting point for all 
credible evaluations of commuting. The census data are a rich source of 
work travel characteristics, including auto availability, mode, 
detailed residence and workplace geography, and associated 
socioeconomic descriptors of travelers and households.
    Although these data support national scale reports, such as this 
one, they are a minor function of the census journey-to-work data set. 
The main strength of the data set is that it provides small-area 
statistics, including neighborhoods and even blocks, to support local 
planning and analysis. While a broad national sample would probably be 
adequate for this report, small-area statistics are invaluable for 
local planning.
    The work-related travel questions in the census survey are limited 
because of constraints on the length of the survey and the broad range 
of topics covered. The questions represent a minimum data set, 
particularly for those accustomed to the richer information derived 
from traditional urban transportation surveys.
                                glossary
Demography
    Household--A group of persons sharing a separate housing unit, 
characterized by eating together and sharing other activities, as 
differentiated from persons living in ``group quarters,'' such as 
barracks or dormitories. Families constitute the majority of 
households. Single individuals living alone, or unrelated persons 
sharing a housing unit, also constitute households.
    Immigrants--As used here, immigrants include foreign-born persons 
who entered the United States between 1980 and 1990. Persons born 
abroad of American parents are not considered immigrants. As of 1990, 
the United States had a foreign-born population of 19.8 million, of 
whom 8.7 million arrived between 1980 and 1990.
    Jobs--In this report, the count of workers is sometimes used as a 
surrogate for the count of jobs. This is useful only as an estimate. 
Because multiple jobs are not counted in the census, the number of jobs 
and therefore of commuters is sometimes underestimated.
    Labor Force--The labor force is defined as that part of the 
noninstitutionalized population aged 16 or over that is working, 
temporarily absent from work, or actively seeking work.
    Vehicles--Between 1960 and 1980, vehicle counts were determined by 
the number of automobiles available at occupied housing units. In the 
1980 census, vans and trucks of 1-ton capacity or less were, for the 
first time, also counted in a separate category. The 1990 census merged 
the two counts into one. All vehicles available at home for use by 
household members, including company cars and leased vehicles, are 
counted. Accordingly, the count does not necessarily conform with the 
number of vehicles owned by the household, but rather with the broader, 
more valid concept of vehicles available to the household. The census 
survey separately identifies households with 1 through 6 vehicles and 
then aggregates households with 7 or more vehicles.
    Workers--Workers are defined as that part of the population at work 
or temporarily absent from work. In the U.S. census, a person is 
defined as a worker if he or she worked full- or part-time during the 
week prior to the taking of the census. A worker is counted once, 
regardless of the number of jobs held. Multiple jobs are not counted 
separately.
    Working Age Population--That part of the population of an age 
considered to be eligible for the labor force. In this report, the 
working age population is defined as being between the ages of 16 and 
65. Although other studies define this category as all persons over the 
age of 16, the age-group from 16 to 65 is a very useful estimator of 
the potential labor force.
Geography
    Census Region--The United States is subdivided into four main 
regions, and the regions are further subdivided into nine divisions 
(Figure 1-2).
    Census Tract--The Bureau of the Census defines a census tract as a 
relatively homogeneous area within a metropolitan area containing about 
1,000 households. The geographic size of each tract is dependent on 
population density.
    Central Business District--The central business district is the 
commercial core of a central city. This term is no longer used by the 
Bureau of the Census.
    Central City--In general, the central city is defined as that part 
of the city with the densest population, around which the metropolitan 
area is structured. There have been some cases where more than one 
central city existed within a metropolitan area. The 1990 census 
defined any city inside a metropolitan area having a population greater 
than 25,000 as a ``central city'' if it met certain other criteria. 
This resulted in an increase in recognized central cities (525 central 
cities in 1990 versus 429 in 1980).
    Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA)--The term 
consolidated metropolitan statistical area refers to large metropolitan 
complexes with populations over 1 million that comprise identifiable, 
separate metropolitan groups that might otherwise be freestanding. Each 
individual component of these clusters is called a primary metropolitan 
statistical area. For instance, the New York consolidated metropolitan 
statistical area consists of 12 separate primary metropolitan 
statistical areas. There are now 20 consolidated metropolitan 
statistical areas with 71 component primary metropolitan statistical 
areas.
    Metropolitan Area--The definitions and names for metropolitan units 
were revised in 1983 for use in the 1990 census. This statistical 
aggregation of counties around a major city or cities identifies areas 
with strong social and economic interrelationships, serving as a 
``commutershed'' for the central city. The building blocks of 
metropolitan areas are counties, and a metropolitan area's 
configuration may thus vary substantially. Changes in the criteria for 
a county to be included in a metropolitan area have resulted in 49 
counties no longer being considered part of metropolitan areas since 
1980; 60 other counties have, however, taken their place. This makes it 
difficult to compare data from the 1980 census with that from the 1990 
census.
    Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)--Metropolitan statistical areas 
are freestanding, as distinguished from clusters of metropolitan areas 
known as consolidated metropolitan statistical areas. The 1990 census 
identifies 264 metropolitan statistical areas.
    Rural Area--As defined by the Bureau of the Census, the term rural 
area is almost devoid of useful meaning. Parts of metropolitan areas 
may be rural. Nonmetropolitan areas are predominantly rural, but they 
may also contain urban nonmetropolitan units.
    Traffic Zone--Metropolitan transportation planning agencies 
designate traffic zones based on the configuration of the road system 
and traffic patterns--i.e., a traffic-based neighborhood. At about one-
third to one-quarter the size of a census tract, traffic zones do not 
evidence specific population characteristics, but tend to have 
populations of about 1,000.
    Urbanized Area--An urbanized area consists of the built-up area 
surrounding a central core, generally exhibiting a density of at least 
1,000 people per square mile. The area is defined by development and 
population, without respect to jurisdictional boundaries. Urbanized 
areas are thus generally wholly contained within a metropolitan area, 
which uses county boundaries. That area of the metropolitan area 
outside the urbanized area may be quite rural in character, although 
still metropolitan by definition.
Transportation
    Auto/Vehicle Occupancy--The number of people in a vehicle, 
including the driver. This number is generally lower for work trips 
than for other trips. An auto occupancy of 1.5 means that a vehicle 
would, on average, carry a driver and half a passenger. The 1990 census 
tracked occupancy singly through 6, then grouped vehicles with 7 to 9 
occupants and with more than 10 occupants. Increasingly, the term 
``single-occupant vehicle'' is used to describe a vehicle containing 
only the driver.
    Carpool--This term is increasingly used to describe any vehicle 
carrying more than one person to work, rather than in the more specific 
sense of a group of persons sharing the cost of the trip or taking 
turns driving.
    Mode--A transportation mode refers to a means of transportation. 
Mass transit can be considered a mode, with bus, subway, and commuter 
rail as submodes, or each can be considered modes of travel in their 
own right. In this report, the categories used by the Bureau of the 
Census to identify how people usually get to work are treated as 
separate modes. The census data do not permit identification of 
multimodal work trips, such as auto to bus to train--which are 
sometimes referred to as intermodal trips. In such cases, the mode used 
for most of a trip distance is used to describe the total trip. Walking 
is considered a mode only if it is the sole means of travel to work.
    Origin-Destination--Trips are described in terms of their starting 
(origin) and ending (destination) points. For most, but not all, the 
origin is the home, and the workplace is the destination. Exceptions 
include situations involving students working after school and workers 
traveling to various client locations or construction sites.
    Reverse Commute--This term is often used by transportation 
professionals to denote travel from the center city to suburban 
locations in the suburbs, going counter to the main volume of traffic 
flow.
    Start Time--A new data item in the 1990 census, start time 
identifies the time (to the minute) at which the commuter left home for 
work. This information permits better analysis of traffic loadings 
around peak periods for local traffic modeling of travel demand and air 
quality analysis.
    Traditional Commute--The pattern of commuting from a suburb-like 
area outside the city to a downtown work location.
    Travel Time--A commuter's estimate of the time (in minutes) it 
``usually'' took to get from home to work in the previous week. This 
data item was first collected in 1980; the 1990 census thus allows an 
opportunity to evaluate trends for the 10-year period.
    Trip End--A trip end is either end of a trip. The term is used to 
describe trips in terms of their common origins or destinations, such 
as all work trips with a destination in the suburbs.
    Work at Home--In the census survey, a person who said his or her 
residence was the usual place of work in the week prior to the census 
was counted as working at home. Workers who have variable work 
locations or who periodically work at home are not included in the 
work-at-home group. A related, increasingly popular term is 
telecommuter, which refers to someone who has a regular workplace away 
from home, but occasionally works at home (for instance, once or twice 
a week).
                                 ______
                                 
    The census travel data are something of a compromise. Data quality 
and scale of coverage are unequaled, but there is less detail than 
desirable. For example, no information is obtained on:

  <bullet> work trips using more than one mode of travel,
  <bullet> travel to a second job, for those with more than one job,
  <bullet> variations in ``usual'' travel patterns, such as occur with 
    workers who work at home 1 day per week, or
  <bullet> other trips linked to the work trip--a ``trip chain,'' such 
    as dropping children off at school picking up laundry, or shopping 
    for groceries.

    Nonetheless, the census data are a rich source of fundamental 
national work travel characteristics. Each census has yielded more 
comprehensive data on commuting. In 1980, questions on time spent 
commuting were added to the survey, and questions on vehicle ownership 
and mode of travel to work were expanded. In 1990, a question about the 
starting time of the work trip was added, and a question that 
separately identified trucks and vans was deleted.
    There are serious questions about the design of the next census 
(2000) and its ability to provide crucial journey-to-work data. The 
census data set has become embedded in the transportation planning, 
analysis, and policy review fabric of national, state, and metropolitan 
governments. The 1990 data were compiled in a large-scale package of 
tabulations to meet both state and metropolitan needs.' Viewed at a 
very fine level of detail, such as down to small traffic zones, the 
data permit the kind of detailed analysis required in our contemporary 
policy framework for both transportation planning and energy and air 
quality evaluations. Loss of these data would impede progress toward 
many of the goals in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, as well as other 
national priorities, such as the National Energy Policy. Work is 
already under way to define the needs for the data set in 2000.
    This report is based on information provided by the Bureau of the 
Census, as well as data compiled by the Bureau of the Census and the 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to summarize national trends. 
The Bureau of the Census data have changed over time, but the 
definitions have not; thus it is possible to make meaningful 
comparisons of commuter travel over the 30 years that the Bureau of the 
Census has collected commuting data.
    Although the primary source of data for this report is the 
decennial census, other data sets have been used as necessary. Among 
these data sets are those from the Nationwide Personal Transportation 
Survey, conducted by the U.S. DOT in 1969, 1977, 1983, 1990, and 1995. 
The American Housing Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census and 
the Consumer Expenditure Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics have also provided important information. Together, the 
three surveys provide information useful in depicting trends for such 
important factors as trip lengths, travel speed, and vehicle operating 
costs.
                               geography
    Perhaps no aspect of the commuting topic creates more confusion and 
difficulty than questions of geography. Several aspects of geography 
need to be considered:

  <bullet> The geographic units into which commuting data are 
    aggregated;
  <bullet> The level of detail in trip patterns;
  <bullet> The comparability over time of areas defined by the Office 
    of Management and Budget; and
  <bullet> The comparability at the national level between various area 
    systems in use from place to place.

    The main geographical unit used in this report is metropolitan 
area. In this report, metropolitan area refers to the metropolitan 
statistical areas (MSAs) and consolidated metropolitan statistical 
areas (CMSAs) identified in 1990, when the census data were collected.
    This report uses current definitions to summarize data for 
metropolitan areas, and it separates data on the central city from data 
on the remainder of the metropolitan area. The non-central-city area, 
often called the suburbs or the suburban ring, may evidence 
considerably different kinds of development and travel behavior from 
one metropolitan area to the next. Areas outside metropolitan areas are 
referred to as nonmetropolitan or exurban areas.
    To allow consistent comparisons and to minimize any misleading 
effects of changes in geographic definitions, the 1990 data were 
tabulated using the definitions in place when the 1980 data were 
collected.
    When referring to work trips in the metropolitan area, three terms 
are used in this report--central city, suburbs, and surrounding 
nonmetropolitan area--to create a matrix that tracks nine movements. 
Although something of an oversimplification, the matrix keeps the 
constituent parts of the metropolitan commuting phenomenon readily 
understandable. In addition, sophisticated tabular analyses conducted 
by the Bureau of the Census make it possible to distinguish trips 
ending in the suburbs or central city of a metropolitan area other than 
the one in which the commuter resides.
    In the decennial census, both origins and destinations of work 
trips in metropolitan areas are identified at very fine levels of 
detail, such as individual blocks, which permits assembly to differing 
area units. Worktrip origins (the home) are relatively easy to 
identify. The census data are based on households, and each respondent 
is identified by address.
    Work locations are, however, another matter. Because transportation 
planners need detailed identification on work locations, an entirely 
separate system is needed to locate and identify work addresses, 
according to a set of geographic codes compatible with other census 
geography and computer operations. The system is not perfect. For 
example, some workers fail to provide sufficient information on their 
work location; a Bureau of the Census system is thus used to distribute 
work locations in proportion to known destinations.
    For small-area statistical needs, the Bureau of the Census 
aggregates the block level data into areas called census tracts. 
Transportation planners use similar areas--called traffic zones--keyed 
to the configuration of the road system. A large metropolitan area 
might have more than a thousand such zones or tracts. Trip origins and 
destinations must be sufficiently detailed to be assigned within one of 
these areas, in order to be useful for traffic planning and many other 
local purposes, such as school redistricting and development zoning. 
The detailed data are assembled in a format facilitating comparison by 
local agencies.
    Although these detailed data are crucial to transportation models, 
they are not very useful to an understanding of what is happening in a 
city or region. For that purpose, the detail needs to be aggregated 
into larger areal units, such as metropolitan areas or urbanized areas. 
This must be done with great care, for the process of aggregation can 
conceal as well as reveal.
    There are fundamentally two choices when it comes to aggregating 
data at the national level:

  <bullet> Aggregate to areas that have boundaries demarcating a legal 
    geographic unit such as a county, township, or state.
  <bullet> Let the shape and size of the areas be defined by the nature 
    of the data.

    Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses. Clearly, it is 
necessary to use political units of geography for many purposes--for 
instance, to relate to other data and to match the boundaries of 
jurisdictional authority. On the other hand, modern conditions have 
demonstrated that many problems, such as pollution and transportation, 
do not respect political boundaries. For transportation purposes it is 
clear that a metropolitan region does not stop at the city, county, or 
state line.
    The Bureau of the Census and the Office of Management and Budget 
have responded to these needs with a number of systems of aggregation. 
They have sought to clearly define a metropolitan area. The definition 
has changed over time, but the key elements are a major central city 
and the surrounding related counties. Because it is composed of 
political units (counties), a metropolitan area will evidence 
substantial variation in size, shape, and features.
    The 1990 census designated 284 metropolitan areas, representing all 
of the major and some of the relatively minor metropolitan units in the 
United States. Of these areas, 71 were grouped into 20 larger units 
called consolidated metropolitan statistical areas, reflecting the 
immense scale some metropolitan complexes have reached. Over time, the 
concept of the metropolitan area has become imbedded in Federal 
programs well beyond any statistical role. Concurrently, the definition 
of what constitutes a metropolitan area has been relaxed, thus 
qualifying more and more areas for that title. As a result, the concept 
of a metropolitan area has lost meaning. Almost 80 percent of the U.S. 
population now resides in a metropolitan area. With anything remotely 
urban now being defined as an official metropolitan area, new 
constructs are needed to more clearly discriminate what is actually 
happening.
    New terminology and new definitions for metropolitan areas were 
adopted by the Office of Management and Budget in 1983. These were more 
nomenclature changes than definitional modifications, but several of 
the changes have severely impacted the ability to analyze trends in 
transportation.
    Most serious of these changes is the redefinition of what is meant 
by a central city.
    On average now there are two central cities for every metropolitan 
area. This means that many metropolitan areas have several so-called 
central cities, often small suburban centers that were once 
freestanding units but that have been engulfed by suburban expansion. 
To include these in the central cities classification corrupts the 
concept of metropolitan area. Many users of the census data, not 
realizing the implications of the redefinition of central city, have 
noticed that the data indicate a revitalization of central city growth 
beyond what is actually happening. In this report, the notion of a 
central city as the major place at the center of the region has been 
maintained, and other cities have been subsumed under the suburban or 
noncentral city label. In many cases, 1980 definitions have been 
retained for 1990 data to avoid the misleading effects of the new 
definitions. Ultimately, we will need to recognize the rise of suburban 
activity centers, in some better form, as elements of the metropolitan 
fabric.
    The other areal unit used extensively by the Bureau of the Census 
is the urbanized area, which takes the second approach to area 
definition. An urbanized area is the area surrounding a central city 
and comprising all of the built-up parts of the region, generally 
defined as that area within which the average population density 
exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile. The key point about this 
definition is that it is independent of political boundaries. Its 
extent is determined by the data itself. Although urbanized area 
statistics are not extensively used in this report, they have real 
value--particularly in transit analysis, which often predominantly 
focuses on the densely built-up parts of a metropolitan area. An 
attractive concept is the joining of metropolitan areas and urbanized 
areas to establish a ring-like geography. Until recently, this was not 
feasible except in special cases because of difficulties in identifying 
work trip destinations within urbanized areas. Such joined areas are 
used here whenever the data permit their use.
    Figure 1-3 shows the ``typical'' structures and relationship of a 
standardized metropolitan statistical area and an urbanized area. But 
it cannot depict all the potential problems caused by the definitions 
and their interrelationships with local political boundaries. The 
following issues can affect the statistical conclusions drawn from data 
using these typical units:
    Many metropolitan areas extend into two or more states, thus adding 
additional boundaries.
    Counties, which vary widely in size, are generally larger in the 
West, with the result that a Western metropolitan area may wholly 
reside within one county. Such large counties will often contain vast 
rural territories within the metropolitan construct.
    Boundaries and sizes of cities are often dependent on rules about 
annexation.
    As metropolitan areas grow, they increasingly come into contact 
with other metropolitan areas also expanding from a distant center, so 
that the outer areas of metropolitan complexes may serve as a 
commutershed for more than one center. The growth of suburban 
complexes, or once-minor towns and cities on the periphery of an urban 
center, into major centers of economic activity creates multicentered 
regions that are not easily statistically defined.
    These issues suggest that the concept of a metropolitan area is 
probably clearer than its definition. This further suggests that great 
care must be used when examining data based on metropolitan aggregates, 
and particularly when data from all metropolitan areas, with all their 
local variations in character, are summarized and analyzed at the 
national level.
    One of the more serious consequences of these issues is that the 
concept of the suburb is not clearly defined. Current definitions are 
simply inadequate for capturing the spatial boundaries of a suburb. In 
this report, the suburbs are defined as that part of the metropolitan 
area outside the central city. This is a rather arbitrary construct 
determined by the nature of the geographic identification of available 
data. If a city is large, a large amount of suburb-type development 
will exist within its boundaries. If the city and surrounding counties 
are small, the suburbs may extend out through two or three counties. 
Depending on their size, counties outside the metropolitan area may 
generate substantial amounts of commuting to the metropolitan area. 
These areas may constitute an increasingly important ``exurban ring'' 
beyond the suburban area, because suburban areas are increasingly 
becoming the major destination of work trips. These exurban ring 
counties are prospective additions to the metropolitan area. These 
realities are not readily captured statistically.
      new concepts in the geographic representation of travel data
    Much of the logic used to define metropolitan areas is based on 
commuting patterns. In fact, one of the many justifications for 
collecting commuting data is the Office of Management and Budget's use 
of the data in defining and determining metropolitan areas. It is 
ironic that these geographic constructs are not very useful for 
commuting analysis.
    If we were not restricted to geographical boundaries, we would 
probably define a commutershed around important economic and social 
centers that serve as destinations for most commuters. Rings at given 
radii from the center would be defined based on their degree of focus 
on the center, an increasingly tenuous quality of the large 
contemporary metropolitan unit. This would still leave problems of 
overlap between the areas of commuting influence on large urban 
complexes and would probably generate new problems. A series of 
overlapping rings with different centers would result.
    New geographical information system techniques and capabilities 
make possible very impressive analytical tasks, which have been decades 
in development. Grid systems using latitude and longitude coordinates 
provide a strong graphical capability, and they have been used as the 
basis for planning in some major metropolitan areas, including New York 
and Chicago.
    Overall, the areal units used in this report--jurisdictionally 
based geographical units, consisting of counties as building blocks--
are substitutes for that yet-to-be-defined more-perfect system. We must 
be conscious at all times of the potential ``tyranny of geography'' and 
its ability to mislead, as well as to enlighten.
                                 ______
                                 
                  Chapter Two: Commuters in the 1990's
    The 1970's and the 1980's saw volatile demographic change. Today, 
some of these trends are losing steam and are having less of an 
influence on commuting. These trends include population growth, labor 
force growth, vehicle growth, and geographic shifts of workers and 
jobs. Although not at peak level, some of these trends still have 
substantial impact, notably labor-force growth trends. And there are 
other trends that are just emerging as potential major forces of 
change. Notable among these is the growth in immigration; however, 
other trends, particularly the aging of the population and the 
disparate travel needs of different racial and ethnic groups, will also 
be factors of great concern in the future.
                         end of the worker boom
    The first edition of Commuting in America described at some length 
the great job boom of the 1970's that contributed so forcefully to the 
dramatic increase in commuters. A major factor behind that boom was the 
tremendous increase in persons of labor-force age--as a product both of 
the coming of working age of the baby-boom generation and of the surge 
in women's participation in the labor force. Of course, the U.S. 
economy deserves the greatest credit--by creating jobs on such a 
mammoth scale, it permitted persons of working age to find jobs. For 
almost 20 years, between 1970 and 1990, the work force grew by an 
average 2 percent a year in the United States far exceeding the total 
job growth in all other developed nations combined.
    The 1940 census may have documented the high point of the growth 
period of population and workers and signaled the end of the worker 
boom. The number of workers grew to 115.1 million in 1990, an increase 
of 18.4 million workers from the 1980 census and about 300,000 more 
than the number of new jobs generated between the 1970 and 1980 census 
periods (Table 2-1). The 19.2 percent increase in workers was 
substantial, but down significantly from the 23 percent growth rate 
seen in the 1970's. By the mid-1990's, job growth had been slowed by an 
economic recession, but also because there were fewer people in the 
labor force. Overall, the number of workers (and thus prospective 
commuters) has almost doubled since 1950.
Workers and Population
    Population change contributed to the decreasing labor force. Table 
2-1 shows the continuing decline in the pope growth rate from the baby-
boom years to the present. The 1980-1990 decade saw the lowest rate of 
population increase in our nation's history, except for the depression 
of the 1930's, which was the only other time that population growth 
fell below 10 percent.
    More significant for commuting concerns is the rate of population 
growth by age-group (Figure 2-1). The increase in total population is 
gradually declining, but the increase in working-age population (16 to 
65 years of age) and the labor force is dramatically subsiding. As 
shown in Figure 2-1, a clearly visible ``bubble'' of growth in the 
working-age population and the actual labor force in the 1970's and 
1980's explains the substantial surge in commuting during that period. 
The sharp drop-off in both labor force and working-age population 
signals the last of the baby boomers entering the labor force in the 
mid-1980's and the tapering of the surge of women joining the labor 
force later in the decade.
    Although the rate of increase sharply dropped, the total increase 
for the period is still substantial (more than 18 million workers).
    The Bureau of the Census projected increases in working-age 
population growth and labor-force growth for the 1990's are also shown 
in Figure 2-1. It depicts a period of calm--about 10 percent overall 
growth in population and in the working-age population for the decade 
moving in tandem. In fact, this is the product of a brief growth blip 
of about 1.1 percent a year for the first 5 years of the decade, and 
then a return, based on projections, to the same rate as the late 
1980's, with continuously declining rates of growth to the year 2050. 
Labor-force growth rates continue to decline to a rate of just below 15 
percent, about half of the rate in the 1980's, but are still projected 
to produce an absolute increase in labor force of between 17 and 18 
million for the decade, or only a little less than the increase that 
took place in the 1980's.
    Figure 2-2 makes this more apparent by differentiating the labor-
force growth rates of men and women. The growth in male workers has 
moved in tandem with the growth in the working-age population. The 
growth in female workers, on the other hand, has followed a separate 
course, surging through the 1960's and 1970's and just now tapering 
off, but with rates of increase considerably higher than those for men.
    Looking at the actual changes, rather than rates of change, 
provides a clearer understanding of what is happening. Figure 2-3 shows 
the slow tapering in population increases, the precipitous drop in the 
population aged 16-65 between 1980 and 1990, and the labor-force surge 
and decline. Of special note is that in 1980 the actual increases in 
each of the three factors were almost identical.
    The most direct way to make the point concerning the end of an era 
of rapid working-age population growth is to depict the number of 
people reaching 18 years of age (Figure 2-4). These are the new 
entrants to the labor force, the new workers, and the new auto drivers 
who fuel the economy. Figure 2-4 shows the number of persons turning 18 
years old in this decade. The number of 18-year-olds peaked at slightly 
above 4 million in 1990 and had declined almost 5 percent by mid-1993. 
The age-group is projected to decline to its nadir in 1995 and then 
slowly begin recovering, but it will not reach 4 million again until 
2008.
    Furthermore, census projections \1\ indicate that those aged 18-
21--the primary group of entrants into the work force--peaked at 17.4 
million in 1980, declined to 15.2 million in 1991, and declined further 
to 14 million in 1995; the group is expected to increase to 15.5 
million by 2000 and to reach 18 million by 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This study always uses middle series projections. Current 
Population Reports, 1992, J. Chesseman Day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This discussion has identified the trends in the labor force age-
group and the actual labor force, as background to a discussion of 
workers and job locations. \2\ As shown in Table 2-1, the number of 
workers almost doubled between 1950 and 1990, adding more than 56 
million workers to reach a total of 115.1 million workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ This document continues a convention adopted in the first 
edition of Commuting in America, in which the counts of work trips at 
their destination ends, as measured by the census, are considered to be 
a count of jobs. But they are in fact an incomplete measure of jobs. 
Holders of multiple jobs reported only one job in the census. Thus the 
journey-to-work data undercount actual jobs. However, they are the most 
comprehensive national source of at-workplace statistics on the 
demographics of workers and their travel behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Bureau of Labor Statistics places 1990 employment at about 120 
million; it dipped sharply to below 117 million in the second quarter 
of 1991. Employment did not return to 120 million until 1993, reaching 
122 million in the second quarter of 1994. Thus in census terms the 
Nation in mid-1994 was just about 2 percent ahead of the 1990 
employment level. It will be difficult, but not impossible, for job 
growth in the 1990's to reach the 18 million per decade levels seen in 
the 1970's and 1980's.
An Aging Working Population
    The baby boom has been a bubble making its way through the nation's 
demographic structure, sharply affecting society at each stage. The 
baby boomers clogged our grammar schools in the 1950's and our high 
schools and colleges in the 1960's and 1970's; they are now clogging 
our transportation system. The baby boomers are in their most 
productive years, and from a transportation point of view, their most 
active years. According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation 
Survey (NPTS), people in the 35-55 age-group, which is the group the 
baby boomers fall into in the 1990's, have the highest propensity to 
travel.
    The long-term population trends by age-group, including Bureau of 
the Census projections to 2000, are shown in Figure 2-5.
    The population below 16 years of age clearly rose during the baby-
boom years and dropped to a stable level of about 50 million. All 
growth has been attributable to the over 16 years of age population.
    The median age of the population has shifted from 28 in 1970, to 30 
in 1980, to 32.9 in 1990, and to over 33 in 1992. \3\ Census 
projections indicate that the median age will reach 35.7 by 2000 and 
will hover between 36 and 37 through the first half of the next 
century.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The median is that number which is the central item in a 
distribution when ranked from low to high--thus half the numbers are 
higher and half lower than the median. It is often used instead of the 
average in cases where a few high numbers have the potential to distort 
understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As shown in Figure 2-6, population declined in all age-groups below 
25-29, except for those below school age. All but six states (Alaska, 
Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and New Hampshire) had fewer people 
in the 20-24 age-group in 1990 than in 1980. Worth noting is the 
arrival of the ``depression babies'' at the 65-year-old age point. This 
group was exceptionally small because of the bad economic times when 
they were born and then the war years; its size accentuates the size of 
the baby-boom bubble.
    The older population of working age is of interest. In 1980 there 
were 21.7 million persons aged 55 to 65. This number dropped slightly 
to 21 million by 1990, but is projected to reach 23.7 million by 2000 
and to jump to 34.5 million by 2010, as the baby boomers begin to reach 
retirement age.
Women in the Workforce
    Earlier, this chapter noted that women had been the major factor 
behind the surge in the labor force from 1960 to 1990. Between 1950 and 
1990, the number of workers in the Nation almost doubled. In that 
period, women's share of total employment rose from under 30 percent to 
45 percent.
    In 1990 about 192 million people were 16 or older; about 99.8 
million (52 percent) were women. Of that group, 56.6 million women were 
in the labor force--an all-time high for women. These figures mask the 
participation rates for women in the younger age groups--over 77 
percent of women aged 35 to 44 worked, in contrast to about 40 percent 
in 1960. Furthermore, the number of working women with children is very 
high--almost 75 percent of married women who work have children over 5 
years of age, and almost 60 percent have children under 6. In contrast, 
74.4 percent of men were in the labor force at that time.
    Since 1990 the labor-force participation rate for women has 
continued to increase whereas that for men has continued to decline. 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the participation rate for 
women reached 59.2 percent in August 1995.
    The relative contribution of men and women to the labor force in 
the latter half of this century is shown in Figure 2-7. The total 
labor-force increase in the 1980-1990 decade was clearly down from the 
previous decade, for both men and women; women contributed 11 million 
to the labor force, compared with 14 million in the previous decade. 
Women's share of the labor force increase in the different periods grew 
from 58 percent in the 1970-1980 period to 61 percent in the 1980-1990 
period.
    The 56.6 million women in the labor force in 1990 represented about 
46 percent of the total labor force. Figure 2-8 traces women's share of 
the labor force throughout the period.
                      residential and job patterns
Population Distribution Patterns
    The nation's population grew by only 22.2 million (9.7 percent) 
between 1980 and 1990, about 1 million less than the number added 
between 1970 and 1980. Since 1990 that pattern has continued, with 
about 2.8 million persons added each year. The estimated population 
reached 265 million in dune 1996, with 2.7 million additional people 
added in 1995. The population is projected to reach more than 276 
million in 2000, yielding a growth rate for the decade of just above 10 
percent, with declining growth rates in all decades thereafter until 
mid-century. Table 2-2 summarizes long-term national population trends 
and their distribution by metropolitan geographic category.
Metropolitan Patterns
    Using current metropolitan definitions, the 22.2 million increase 
in population between 1980 and 1990 occurred almost exclusively in 
metropolitan areas, with 21 million of the growth occurring there. Of 
that amount, 15.6 million, or about 75 percent, occurred in suburbs, 
and the remaining 5.4 million occurred in central cities--a substantial 
improvement in growth rates for central cities. However, the adjusted 
column in Table 2-2 clarifies that all of this growth is a statistical 
artifact. If the definitions that applied in 1980 are retained for the 
1990 data, the data show that central city population has actually 
declined and that all the metropolitan growth of 17 million was in the 
suburbs. In this restructuring of the data, the nonmetropolitan areas 
gained 5.2 million rather than 1.2 million. Of most interest is that 
overall population growth in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas was 
effectively identical to the national average. Given that the suburban 
share of the metropolitan population was 58 percent in 1980, the 1980-
1990 growth pattern contributes to a further increase in suburban 
share. As a result, the 1990 suburban share now stands at almost 62 
percent.
    The national long-term distribution between the three major 
groupings is presented in Figure 2-9 (using adjusted 1990 figures), 
showing that the suburban share of total national population continues 
to grow--from 43 percent to 47 percent between 1980 and 1990. \4\ The 
central city share of population declined to 29 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The share held by suburbs varies little under either 
definition: 46 percent under standard 1990 definitions, 31 percent for 
central cities, and 23 percent for nonmetropolitan areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overall migration flows are instructive. In the late 1980's 
nonmetropolitan areas lost small amounts (100,000-250,000) each year to 
metropolitan areas. Otherwise, nonmetropolitan areas held constant with 
flows to and from central cities roughly in balance. The flows between 
central cities and suburbs were more substantial. Central cities lost 
in the range of 2.5 to 3 million persons per year to the suburbs. These 
flows were somewhat softened by the 750,000 or so immigrants arriving 
in the central cities each year. Thus in net terms, central cities 
continue to experience outward shifts,