Interest Group Positions On Surface Transportation Legislation By WILLIAM T. SUNLEY, Engineer of Local Roads and Streets

The upcoming 1992 surface transportation legislation may result in major changes in the federal highway program. The anticipated completion of the Interstate construction program presents an opportunity to significantly restructure the federal highway program in order to better address current and future needs.

Over the last two years, national transportation associations, industry organizations, the FHWA, and state and local governments have developed proposals for consideration by Congress as it crafts the new bill. Among these organizations are AASHTO, the Highway Users Federation (HUF), National Association of Counties, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the American Trucking Association, While each proposal is directed towards the needs of the particular organization, common themes do exist. In general, proposals are calling for increased federal funding to address growing transportation needs and a federal focus on issues and programs that are of national significance, with corresponding increased flexibility to states and local areas to address individual state and local needs.

Following are the key components of a new highway program, and an indication of the various groups' positions on restructuring alternatives.

Highway System of National Significance (HSNS) — There is considerable agreement that federal investments should focus on preservation of a national system of highways. Most groups support a designated HSNS which includes the Interstate system, a portion of each state's Primary system, and other key national defense needs (Strategic Highway Network). Determination of the system would be made jointly by the FHWA, states, and in urbanized areas, in consultation with metropolitan planning organizations. Some local government groups favor all the Primary system being divided into the urban and rural programs described below.

Urban/Rural Highway Program — Addressing the growing problem of urban/suburban congestion in the nation's metropolitan areas is a major theme for inclusion in the next surface transportation bill. In addition, the need to provide improved access within rural areas and from rural towns to the main national transportation arteries is also recognized. Both AASHTO and FHWA recommend a new, flexible program which is intended to replace the current FAU, FAS, safety construction programs and any FAP roadway not on the HSNS with an aggregate allocation of flexible funds to states. The proposal would provide maximum flexibility to states to use funds for any non-HSNS needs and would eliminate many current federal requirements for approvals, agreements, inspections and standards. This approach has raised concern among local government organizations about such things as the split of funds between urban and rural needs in each state and programming authority for local governments. Local government groups and a number of the national associations have recommended retaining separate urban and rural programs. HUF calls for a multimodal Metropolitan Mobility Program for areas of 50,000 and over in population, which would provide funds to local areas for highway and transit projects. APTA also calls for a combined program for major capacity improvements

Page 24 / Illinois Municipal Review / July 1990

but not for routine needs now funded by the FAU and

UMTA formula grants programs. The restructuring of the non-HSNS urban and rural programs is one of the more controversial issues before Congress.

Bridge Program — Of major concern to all groups is the need to address bridge needs nationwide. Nearly all groups recommend a continued "status quo" program structure; providing apportioned funds to states to address routine bridge needs and a discretionary bridge program to address high cost bridge needs on the federal system. FHWA is pushing for greater efforts in bridge management systems.

There are, of course, many different positions on a whole range of other, very important related issues for the next reauthorization bill. Congress has begun to conduct hearings to formally gather information on the many issues. Bills could be drafted as early as this fall in both houses. The draft public works committees' bills will reflect the consensus of Congress, the final decision maker, on the wide range of views. •

July 1990 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 25