We10 10 2:3 6:0 6:3 7:3 Th7:0 8:0 8:3

ednesday, M:00 a.m. – 4

:00 a.m. – n

30 p.m. – 5:0

00 p.m. – 7:3

30 p.m. – 7:3

30 p.m. – 9:3

hursday, Ma00 a.m. – 8:0

00 a.m. – 5:0

30 a.m. – 5:0

May 30 4:00 p.m.

noon

00 p.m.

30 p.m.

30 p.m.

30 p.m.

ay 31 00 a.m.

00 p.m.

00 p.m.

2012 TranWas

TCC Re

NAPA Le

Legislati

Capitol H(Buses d

Speaker (Optiona

Rep. Ric (Optiona

ContinenStaff ava

Hospital

Capitol H

Schednsportation shington M

May 3

gistration

egislative M

ve Briefing

Hill Receptioepart hotel 5:

r John Boehal $2,000 to a

chard Hannaal $1,000 to a

ntal Breakfasilable to answ

ity Room

Hill Visits

dule OverviConstructioarriott at M30 – 31, 20

eeting

on 30 p.m.)

ner Fundraisattend)

a Fundraiserattend)

st wer questions

iew on Coalitionetro Center12

(Ballro

(Salon

(Grand

RaybuRooms

ser AGC T53 D S

r Capito100 1st

(Grands

AGC T

n Fly-In r

oom Foyer)

n E)

d Ballroom)

urn House Os B-338 – B-3

Townhouse treet, SE

ol Hill Club Street, SE

d Ballroom)

Townhouse

ffice Building340

g

I. We

II. Ro

III. Ack

IV. Op

V. NA

VI. Fed

VII. TC

VIII. Co

elcome

ll Call

knowledgem

pening Rem

APA Regula Carol

Asph Howa

Asph

deral Budge Haze Alex

Comm

CC Fly-In Ob Jay H

Assoc Steve

nclude

ment of NA

marks – Ric

atory Updatlyn Guglielmalt Paveme

ard Marks, Valt Paveme

et and Highn Marshall,Hergott, Dirmerce

bjectives anHansen, Eciation e Palmer, V

ALegisl

Wednesda10:00

MarriotWas

S

APA Policy a

Neubert, C

e mo, Vice Prent AssociaVice Presid

ent Associa

hway Fundi, Partner atrector of Co

nd Messagexecutive V

Vice Preside

Agenda ative Meetiay, May 300am – Noott Metro Cenhington, DCSalon E

and Anti-Tr

Chairman, L

resident ofation dent of Envation

ing Updatet The Nickleongressiona

es Vice Presid

ent, Van Sc

ing 0, 2012 on nter C

rust Statem

Legislative C

Health and

ironmental

es Group, Lal Affairs fo

ent, Nation

coyoc Asso

ments

Committee

d Safety, Na

Affairs, Na

LLC or the U.S.

nal Asphal

ociates.

ational

ational

Chamber o

t Pavemen

of

nt

 Federal subridges ofquality of  The facts  

Sim

 

Than

 

SAex

 

Th 

A

st

h

 

The highw

 

Thbm 

Ago 

Cjop 

Afoapsuec 

Feb

 

urface transpf America. Wlife and expa

ince 2006, asmore than 2 m

he asphalt pand increasing

AFETEA‐LU exxtensions.   

he current ex

bsent a comp

till need to pr

undreds of th

way bill is a ca

he long‐delayusiness.  Pass

meaningful bo

dvancing thisoods and serv

larity from Wobs in the neaaychecks. 

 Federal Highor each $1 bilpproximatelyupporting theconomy.   

ederal highwaillion invested

Enact A

ortation progithout federaand economic

phalt paving tmillion well‐pa

avement indug recycled ma

xpired in Sept

xtension expir

prehensive ef

rovide revenu

housands of jo

an‐do agenda

yed reauthorisage of a multoost to the U.S

s bill means avices across t

Washington wiar term. Cons

hway Adminislion of federay 9,500 jobs ine construction

ay spending cd. 

A Multi‐Ye

grams are crual support, stac developmen

tons have deaid, middle‐cl

ustry has respterials where

tember 2009;

res June 30, 2

ffort by the H

ues to preven

obs.         

a item that w

zation of fedti‐year bill, wS. economy.

dvancing comhe country an

ill immediatetruction work

stration studyal spending on the construcn sector, and 

combined wit

 

ear Highwa

ucial to maintaates are hindent opportunit

clined 30 perass American

onded by cute possible.  

; since then C

2012. 

ouse and Sen

t massive cut

will help the e

eral highway which already 

mmon‐sense pnd to market

ly reinvigoratkers don't jus

y found that nn highway coction sector, approximate

th a 20 perce

 

ay Bill, NO

aining and exered in their aties. 

rcent and the n jobs. 

tting costs, op

Congress has 

nate to enact 

ts to infrastru

economy 

programs is has a broad b

projects that s around the 

te the ailing cst need mortg

nearly 28,000onstruction naapproximateely 14,000 oth

nt state matc

OW! 

xpanding the ability to imp

 construction

perating lean

enacted nine

a highway bi

ucture progra

a major piecebase of suppo

facilitate theworld.  

construction sgage relief: th

0 jobs are genationwide. Thly 4,300 jobs her jobs in oth

ch supports 3

highways andprove its resid

n industry has

er, reducing l

e short‐term 

ill, Congress w

ms and the lo

e of unfinisheort, will provi

e movement o

sector and crehey need 

erated annuahis includes in industries her sectors of

4,779 jobs pe

d dents’ 

s lost 

labor, 

will 

oss of 

ed de a 

of 

eate 

ally 

f the 

er $1 

 

 

Recurring extensions and delays have negative impacts 

States rely heavily on guaranteed funding from the federal government for new capital projects and planning; extensions disrupt the flow of federal funding for transportation projects. 

 

Delaying a reauthorization bill creates uncertainty, which stunts business growth and prosperity. It also is a major hindrance to state and local DOT in planning longer term, more complex highway projects. 

 

The uncertainty caused by short‐term extensions results in state and local governments spending fewer highway dollars and leaving needed roads unbuilt or unrepaired, frustrating citizens and stifling commerce. 

 

Thanks to inadequate investment and maintenance, the overall physical condition and performance of our nation’s highways are badly deteriorated.  Delaying passage of a reauthorization bill allows this deterioration to worsen, making the inevitable repair or replacement even more costly.   

 

Future multi‐year highway safety projects are put on hold under extensions.  

Delaying a reauthorization bill costs the taxpayer money as projects take longer to complete and project costs rise.   

 

Construction timetables are disrupted by the uncertainty of extensions as states try to manage contract bid lettings that are complicated by staggered funding over multiple non‐standard periods.     

 

Extensions create uncertainty, which disrupts hiring and equipment purchasing decisions, further harming the greater economy. 

 

The construction workforce suffers under extensions due to a lack of steady employment, inconsistent workforce training, and the loss of highly skilled employees to other sectors of the economy.  

Delaying a reauthorization bill means a longer road to prosperity for the American economy.  Call to action  

The House and Senate need to make the transportation bill a top priority and report a bill out of the conference committee that advances important reforms and maintains highway investment levels. 

 

It is imperative that Congress delivers consensus legislation that the President can sign before the current extension expires on June 30, 2012.  

 

May 7, 2012 Dear Conferee: The 29 national associations and construction trade unions of the Transportation Construction Coalition (TCC) commend the House and Senate for advancing the reauthorization of the federal highway and public transportation program to its final stages. After more than 31 months of temporary extensions and uncertainty about the federal role in improving the nation’s surface transportation network, we urge you to reach agreement on a conference report before June 30, when the latest extension expires.

Investment

As conferees work to reconcile the House and Senate positions on this critical legislation, we are compelled to emphasize the job creation and transportation-related productivity gains all parties desire are directly linked to increasing investment in surface transportation infrastructure improvements. While policy reforms are extremely important—as this letter will later articulate—the fact remains that allowing the $2 billion cut in FY 2012 federal highway investment to stand means this program will be supporting nearly 70,000 fewer jobs than it did six months ago. As such, we urge conferees to ensure that any conference report, at a minimum, includes inflation-adjusted FY 2011 levels of highway and public transportation investment as proposed by the Senate. We certainly recognize the fiscal challenges confronting the Highway Trust Fund and how these impact the duration of a reauthorization bill. The TCC has routinely called for a six-year reauthorization bill to assist transportation agencies in implementing long-term improvement plans. This objective, however, in no way supplants the overriding need to prevent unnecessary and damaging cuts in federal surface transportation investment. Consequently, any effort to extend the duration of the reauthorization bill beyond FY 2013 must also include sufficient revenues to preserve the Senate-passed investment levels. While innovative financing must be viewed as a complement to core federal surface transportation investment and not a replacement, the TCC strongly supports increasing the allocation of funds to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program to $1 billion a year as has been supported in both chambers. Increasing resources available to the TIFIA program would leverage limited federal resources by providing financing for eligible projects.

-1-

We’re Building A Better America!

American Road & Transportation Builders Association (co-chair) �

Associated General Contractors of America (co-chair) �

American Coal Ash Association � American Concrete Pavement

Association � American Concrete Pipe Association �

American Council of Engineering Companies � American Subcontractors

Association � American Iron and Steel Institute � American Society of Civil Engineers � American Traffic Safety

Services Association � Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers

Association � Asphalt Recycling & Reclaiming Association � Associated Equipment

Distributors � Association of Equipment Manufacturers � Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute � International Slurry Surfacing Association �

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers � International Union of Operating

Engineers � Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust � Laborers’ International Union of North America � National Asphalt Pavement Association �

National Association of Surety Bond Producers � National Ready Mixed Concrete

Association � National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association � � National Utility Contractors

Association � Portland Cement Association

� Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute � The Road Information Program � United Brotherhood of Carpenters and

Joiners of America

For More Information: 202/289-4434 (ARTBA) 703/548-3118 (AGC)

Environmental Review Process

The TCC has long advocated for needed reforms to expedite the environmental review and approval of transportation projects. Current requirements are excessively burdensome, needlessly increase project costs, and delay benefits to the public. We are encouraged both chambers have passed meaningful provisions that would improve the efficiency and outcomes of this process. As conferees work to reconcile these proposals, we urge you to support:

• Strengthening the U.S. Department of Transportation’s role as the lead

agency in the approval process for transportation improvement projects

through the comprehensive proposals approved by the House, such as

firm deadlines for agency reviews;

• Eliminating redundancies between environmental reviews required under

the transportation planning process and the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) as proposed by the House;

• Providing greater opportunities for environmental reviews to be delegated

to interested states;

• Expanding the range of projects that may qualify as categorical exclusions

to allow projects to undergo a review commensurate with their potential

environmental impact; and

• Authorizing property acquisition and design activities prior to the

completion of the NEPA process.

Revenue Title

The nation’s growing transportation challenges and the increasing budget difficulties facing all levels of government demand new and innovative approaches to delivering mobility solutions. Unfortunately, the Senate-passed surface transportation bill includes several provisions that would hamper public-private partnerships involving a long-term lease of a roadway. While we agree the public interest must be protected in all transportation improvement projects, this goal should be pursued on a case-by-case basis by facility owners and not through barriers erected at the federal level. We urge conferees to oppose the disincentives in the Senate bill on projects involving a leasing of existing roadways. By contrast, we believe there is merit to the concept raised in both chambers of allocating federal revenues from domestic energy exploration to the Highway Trust Fund. The revenue challenges facing the Highway Trust Fund cannot be ignored in perpetuity. We believe all options that could provide a long-term

-2-

We’re Building A Better America!

For More Information: 202/289-4434 (ARTBA) 703/548-3118 (AGC)

source of revenue to improve and maintain the nation’s surface transportation network should be on the table. Technology Transfer

The TCC supports the Accelerated Implementation and Deployment of Pavement Technologies Program established under Title II, Section 52003, of the Senate bill. This provision will support the implementation and deployment of well-conceived and effective pavement technologies and strategies developed through research efforts in previous authorizations. By focusing on implementation of pavement technologies that have the highest potential for return on investment for highway agencies, we can increase the life and cost efficiency of our national pavement asset significantly. This is something that in turn will reduce future pavement expenditure needs tremendously, helping to relieve budget pressures on roadway agencies for years to come. Transportation Enhancements

The transportation enhancement program has historically walled off a certain percent of each state’s highway apportionment and directed these funds to projects that do not directly improve transportation facility operations. MAP-21, as reported from the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, made significant improvements in the Transportation Enhancement program by providing states new flexibility to address their unique transportation challenges. This flexibility would be undermined by dividing enhancement funds between state and local governments. The TCC recommends the conference report adopt the transportation enhancement reforms as reported from the EPW Committee. Other Policy Issues

As you work to produce a final conference report, the TCC urges you to:

• Support the consolidation of highway program spending categories to

better direct resource toward national objectives and provide states

increased flexibility to achieve these goals;

• Support doubling investment for the Highway Safety Improvement

Program, as proposed in both chambers, to help reduce roadway fatalities

and serious injuries;

• Oppose provisions in the Senate-passed bill that would allow federal

highway formula funds to be used on freight rail and maritime activities.

These are critical elements of the U.S. intermodal transportation network

that our members develop, but the conference report should not create a

false choice between different modes of transportation.

-3-

We’re Building A Better America!

For More Information: 202/289-4434 (ARTBA) 703/548-3118 (AGC)

• Institute a performance management process to help ensure recipients of

federal funds work to achieve specific national goals as proposed by the

Senate. At a minimum, federal agencies should be required to provide

timely data on contract awards and the obligation of federal funds. Such

proposals would preserve the American public’s faith in the federal

government’s ability to deliver transportation solutions; and

• Support the Senate-proposal for a new federal program to facilitate freight

movements on the U.S. highway network. This proposal reinforces the

national importance of the federal-aid highway program and the critical

linkage between federal highway investment and economic

competitiveness.

• Support the Senate proposal to allow state infrastructure banks to issue

“Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Bonds” to further support

needed transportation improvements.

After more than two years of short-term extensions and with an economy still struggling for a full recovery, enactment of a surface transportation reauthorization bill is one of the most productive legislative actions available this year. We urge you to seize this opportunity to produce a bipartisan agreement on a conference report that will benefit all Americans. Thank you for your consideration of these views and for your work to produce a reform-oriented reauthorization of the federal highway and public transportation programs. Sincerely, The Transportation Construction Coalition

-4-

We’re Building A Better America!

For More Information: 202/289-4434 (ARTBA) 703/548-3118 (AGC)

Hurdles to Overcome in House–Senate Conference

In passing H.R. 4348, a 90-day extension of highway programs with some additional policy initiatives, the House has a legislative vehicle to bring to the Senate. The goal is to create a House–Senate compromise bill based in the policy provisions of H.R. 4348 and the Senate-passed surface transportation bill (S. 1813). Here is a rundown of potential hurdles:

Issue House Senate

Length of bill Until 9/30/2012 Until 9/30/2013

Funding Levels FY 2012 level: $39.1 B FY 2012 level: $41.6B FY 2013 level: $42.2B

Policy Changes None, except for certain streamlining provisions

Extensive and Major (about 1,700 pages)

General Fund “Bailout” No Yes

Offsets No Yes

Other Provisions

Keystone XL approval

RESTORE Act

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund

Environmental Streamlining Provisions from H.R. 7

Coal Residuals Act

Silent

RESTORE Act

Silent

Environmental Streamlining Provisions from S. 1813

Silent

In a conference committee, the Senate has the upper hand on most transportation policy issues because the House could not pass its transportation reauthorization bill (H.R. 7). However, the House can still insist on certain policy changes. Additionally, the Keystone XL provision, politically prominent and controversial in nature, could deadlock the conference for a considerable time. President Obama has threatened a veto if the Keystone XL provision passed as part of H.R. 4348 remains in the final bill. The environmental streamlining provisions could also prove controversial. Once a conference agreement is reached, it should be able to pass the Senate and House with substantial bipartisan majorities.

Confereelisted acc

Barbara and PublMax BauJay RockCommer

Tim JohnHousing Robert MHousing,DevelopmCharles SBill NelsoDick Dur

Se

es are selectcording to th

DeBoxer, Califlic Works

ucus, Montakefeller, Wece, Science

nson, Southand Urban A

Menendez, N, Transportament SubcoSchumer, Non, Florida rbin, Illinois,

enate-Appo

ted from theheir rank on e

mocrats fornia, Chair

ana, Chair, Fest Virginia,

and Transp

h Dakota, ChAffairs New Jersey, tion, and Committee (Ba

New York

Majority Wh

ointed Con

committeeseach commi

r, Environme

Finance Chair,

portation

hair, Banking

Chair, ommunity anking)

hip

nference C

s that helpedittee.

ent JamesEnvironOrrin HKay BaMembeTransp

g, RicharBankinDavid VHousinDeveloJohn H

ommittee

d draft the le

Rs Inhofe, Oknment and P

Hatch, Utah,ailey Hutchier, Commerportation rd Shelby, Ang, Housing Vitter, Louisng, Transporopment SubcHoeven, Nor

Members

egislation. Co

Republicansklahoma, RanPublic Works, Ranking Mnson, Texa

rce, Science

Alabama, Raand Urban A

siana, Rankirtation, and Ccommittee (Brth Dakota

onferees are

s nking Membs ember, Finas, Ranking and

anking MembAffairs ing MemberCommunity Banking)

e

ber,

ance

ber,

,

Hous

Confereelegislatio

John MicDon YouRepublicJohn DuHighwayBill Shusand Pipe

Shelley MRick Cra

Jaime HeLarry BuRichard H

Steve SoJames LReid Rib

Fred UptEd WhitfPower Su

Doc HasRob BishForests a

Ralph Ha

Chip CraTechnolo

Dave CaMeans Patrick TMeasure

se-Appoin

es are selecton. Conferee

Repca, Florida, Cung, Alaska,can, former Cncan Jr., Tes and Trans

ster, Pennsyelines Subco

Moore Capitawford, Arka

errera Beutlschon, IndiaHanna, New

outherland, ankford, Ok

bble, Wiscon

Repton, Michigafield, Kentucubcommittee

Reptings, Washhop, Utah, Cand Public L

Repall, Texas, C

avaack, Minnogy and Inno

mp, Michiga

Tiberi, Ohio, s Subcomm

ted Confer

ted from thees are listed

publicans Chair #2 Committ

Committee Cennessee, Csit Subcommylvania, Chaommittee

to, West Virgansas

er, Washingana

w York

Florida klahoma nsin

Enpublicans an, Chair cky, Chair ofe

Npublicans hington, ChaChair of NatiLands Subco

Sciencepublicans Chair

nesota, Memovation Subc

an, Chair Wa

Chair of Semittee

rence Com

committeesaccording to

Transport

tee Chair hair of

mittee ir of Railroad

ginia

gton

nergy and C

f Energy and

Natural Res

air onal Parks,

ommittee

e, Space an

mber, committee

Ways and ays and

lect Revenu

mmittee Re

s that helpedo their rank o

tation Comm

Nick RPeter Dand TrJerry CSubco

ds EleanoChair oSubcoJerroldCorrineand PiElijah CLeonarTim BiResou

Commerce C

Henry d

sources Com

Ed Ma

nd Technolo

Eddie Membe

Means Com

Earl Bl

ue

presentati

d draft the on each com

mittee D

Rahall, West DeFazio, Orransit SubcoCostello, Illinmmittee

or Holmes Nof Economicmmittee

d Nadler, Nee Brown, Flpelines SubCummings,rd Boswell, ishop, New rces Subcom

CommitteeD

Waxman, C

mmittee D

rkey, Massa

ogy CommiD

Bernice Joher

mmittee lumenauer,

ves

mmittee.

Democrats t Virginia, Raregon, Chairommittee nois, Chair o

orton, Distrc Developme

ew York orida, Chair committee , Maryland Iowa York, Chair mmittee

Democrats California, Ra

Democrats achusetts, R

ttee Democrats hnson, Texa

Oregon

anking Memr of Highway

of Aviation

rict of Colument

r of Railroads

of Water

anking Mem

Ranking Mem

as, Ranking

ber ys

mbia,

s

mber

mber

FIN

BILL TITprogram

NAPA PIf your S

FINAL V

AyoBarBusCoaCobCorCorDeM

CraHat

AL VOT

TLE: A bill ms.

POSITION: Senator is n

VOTE: AYE

otte (R-NH) rrasso (R-Wss (R-NC) ats (R-IN) burn (R-OKrker (R-TN)rnyn (R-TX)Mint (R-SC)

apo (R-ID) ch (R-UT)

TE RES

to reauthor

NAPA reconot listed be

ES – 74, NA

WY)

K) ) )

SULTS (Demo

rize Federa

ommendedelow they vo

AYS – 22,

---- N

Enzi (R-WGraham (Johanns Johnson Kyl (R-AZLee (R-ULugar (R-McCain (

---- NOT

Kirk (R-ILLautenbe

FOR SEocrats in ita

al-aid highw

“yes” vote oted in favo

NOT VOTIN

NAYS 22 -

WY) (R-SC) (R-NE) (R-WI)

Z) T) -IN) R-AZ)

T VOTING

L) erg (D-NJ)

ENATEalic)

way and hig

on final paor of S. 181

NG – 4

---

McCPauPortRiscRubToo

G 4 ---

E BILL (

hway safet

assage of S3)

Connell (R-Kl (R-KY) tman (R-OHch (R-ID) bio (R-FL) mey (R-PA

(S. 1813

y construct

S. 1813. (No

KY)

H)

A)

3)

tion

ote:

F

BILL TITcarrier spending

NAPA Pinsure Hthey vot

FINAL V

AckeAderAmaBaldBassBassBeceBerkBermBlumBonaBrooBrouButteCamCappCapCarnCastChu CicilClarClarClayCleaCohConConyCouCrowCumDaviDeGDeLDeuDingDogEdwEllisEngeFarr FranFudg

INAL VOT

TLE: To prosafety, trans enactment

POSITION: House – Sened in favor

VOTE: AYE

erman rholt

ash dwin s (CA) s (NH) erra kley man menauer amici oks un (GA) erfield

mpbell ps uano ney tor (FL)

lline rke (MI) rke (NY) y aver en nolly (VA) yers rtney wley

mmings is (CA)

Gette auro tch

gell gett

wards on el

rnk (MA) ge

TE RESU

ovide an exsit, and othet of a multiy

NAPA reconate conferof H.R. 434

ES – 293, N

ULTS FOR(Demo

xtension of er programyear law rea

ommendedrence. (Not48)

NAYS – 127

---- NGaramendiGonzalezGrijalva GutierrezHanabusaHastings (FHeinrich Himes Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Holt Honda Hoyer Israel Johnson (GJordan Kildee Kind Kucinich LabradorLangevinLarsen (WALee (CA)Levin Lewis (GA)Lowey Luján Maloney Markey Matsui McClintockMcCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcNerneyMeeks Miller (NC)Miller, GeoMoore Moran MulvaneyMurphy (CT

R HOUSEocrats in ita

Federal-aids funded ouauthorizing

“yes” vote e: If your R

7, NOT VO

AYS 127 i

FL)

GA)

A)

)

k

t

rge

T)

E EXTENSalic)

d highway, ut of the Hi such prog

on final paRepresentat

OTING - 11

--- NadlNealOlverPalloPelosPeterPolisPriceQuayQuigReyeRossRoybSáncSarbSchaSchifSchwScottScottSensSerraSherSmithSpeieStarkSuttoThomTiernTonkTownTsonVan HVelázVisclWassWateWaxmWelcWilsoWool

SION (H.R

highway saghway Trusrams.

assage of Htive is not li

ler lr

one si rs

s e (NC) yle

gley es s (FL) bal-Allard chez, Linda Tbanes akowsky ff weikert t (VA) t, David senbrenner ano rman h (WA) er k on mpson (CA) ney ko ns ngas Hollen zquez losky serman Schuers man

ch on (FL) lsey

R. 4348)

afety, motost Fund

H.R. 4348 tosted below

T.

ultz

or

o w

---- NOT VOTING 11 ---

Andrews Carnahan Filner Flake

Kaptur Marino Napolitano Paul

Pingree (ME) Rangel Slaughter

Understanding the Basics: Five Answered Questions about Federal Transportation Investment How Does the U.S. Transportation System Affect Businesses and the Economy? Businesses depend on a transportation network that is reliable, fast, safe and cost effective. Unfortunately, increasing congestion due to crumbling transportation infrastructure and insufficient capacity disrupts these important connections and imposes additional costs on workers and employers. As congestion increases system wide, supply chains and cargo shipments are frequently disrupted and the cost of doing business increases. Addressing our transportation challenges is critical to economic growth and output. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Transportation Performance Index which quantifies how well transportation systems are meeting the demands of the nation, underperformance cost the U.S. economy nearly $2 trillion from 2008 to 2009. Why is this the feds’ responsibility? Some members of Congress want to eliminate federal transportation programs altogether and leave the responsibility to the states. States need a strong federal partner to ensure that interstate commerce, international trade policies, interstate passenger travel, emergency preparedness, national defense, and global competitiveness are adequately supported by the nation’s infrastructure. Without federal support for an interconnected transportation system, several large, less-populated rural states would be unable to afford the costs of sustaining their roads and bridges. Many of our nation’s conservative visionaries, including Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan, understood the proper role of the federal government in meeting these needs. Even today, some of the most vocal opponents of federal spending recognize the importance of transportation investment. Rep. Paul Ryan points out in A Roadmap for America’s Future that transportation is a core government responsibility: “Governments must provide for a limited set of public goods: they must build roads and other infrastructure, foster the protection of property rights, and maintain internal and external security… this ‘core’ government spending tends to foster economic growth.” If we accept that federal government must play a role in transportation, aren’t existing revenues sufficient? Without new revenue, the federal programs will need to be cut by 30-50 percent. The chart below, provided by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, shows the highway, transit and highway safety federal program levels as supported by current resources in the Highway Trust Fund.

“Living within our means” would result in deep cuts to highway and transit programs in 2013. In the highway and bridge programs, investment levels would not return to current funding levels until after 2022.

Cuts of this magnitude will mean hundreds of thousands of jobs directly supported by federal funding will be eliminated. While Congress works to identify a long-term solution for federal transportation funding, general-fund offsets will be required to avoid this scenario. Why are “equity,” “fair share,” and “rate of return” moot in the current highway and transit reauthorization debate? From 2005-2009, each and every state received more back from the Federal government than they contributed in user fees to the Highway Trust Fund. (General Accountability Office, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-918) Devolving the federal programs and unwinding the Highway Trust Fund in whole or in part will mean that most states will need to raise more even more money than they currently contribute to the federal programs.

$40.7  $41.2  $40.8 

$38.9 

$12.8 

$31.9  $32.4  $32.9  $33.5  $34.2  $34.9  $35.6 $36.3 

$37.0 

$1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4

$9.4

$11.9 $11.3 $11.6

$8.1 $8.2 $8.2$7.4 $7.4 $7.6

$9.1 $9.2 $9.3 $9.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

($ billions)

Estimation of Federal Highway and Transit Obligations Through 2022Maintaining current services through FY 2012;

Assuming minimum balance of $4B in Highway Account and $1B in Mass Transit Account;Assumes historical General Fund appropriations  for transit

Federal‐aid Highway Highway Safety Transit

This grapcontribut

What abWe agreeissue. Thnational ithan 30. investme For its pathe cumbprojects tresourcesState Infr 

phic from GAted.

bout claims e that Congrhe Senate bilinterest, slicIt would als

ents on outco

art, the H.R. bersome envthat serve ins by increasirastructure B

AO shows h

that there’sress needs toll would eliming the num

so establish pomes.

7 would conironmental rterstate coming funding tBanks. 

how many do

s lots of was cut waste, a

minate or conmber of highw

performance

nsolidate or review proce

mmerce and into the TIFIA

ollars each st

ste in the fedand both thensolidate pro

way programe measures a

eliminate neess, and focunterstate trav

A program an

tate go back

deral transpSenate and

ograms thatms by two-thiand targets to

early 70 dupus the federavel. It woulnd dedicating

k compared t

portation prHouse bills are duplicatirds – from no help focus

licative progal highway pld also betterg $750 milli

o each dolla

rogram? address the

tive or not innearly 90 totransportatio

grams, streamprogram on r leverage prion a year to

ar

 

n the less on

mline

rivate

NAPA Summary of S. 1813 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

March 15, 2012 Overview The House and Senate are both considering legislation to reauthorize federal surface transportation programs. The previous transportation authorization — the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), enacted in 2005 — expired on September 30, 2009. Since that time, surface transportation programs have operated under a series of short-term extensions. The most recent extension expires on March 31, 2012. Summary On March 14, 2012, the U.S. Senate approved by a vote of 74–22 a surface transportation reauthorization bill, S. 1813, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). To see how your Senator voted on final passage of the bill, click here. The bill authorizes surface transportation programs through fiscal year (FY) 2013. MAP-21 proposes a total federal-aid highway program authorization of $86.2 billion over the remainder of FY2012 through FY2013. The bill cuts the number of highway programs from 90 to 30, although states could opt to spend federal highway funds for many of the same purposes. The overall federal-aid highway program would be structured around five “core” highway programs. These would include the existing Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); a new National Highway Performance Program that consolidates several existing programs; a new Transportation Mobility Program to fund a broad array of surface transportation projects; and a new National Freight Network Program. The existing Equity Bonus Program would be discontinued. MAP-21 would increase the use of performance measures by requiring states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to set targets for highway conditions and performance. It would also expand the use of alternative financing tools and private-sector investment to supplement traditional highway grant funding.

2

Funding Levels MAP-21 authorizes $42.3 billion of spending in FY2012 and $44 billion in FY2013 for all federal highway programs, including research and administrative expenses. The actual highway funding provided in MAP-21 is $41.6 million in FY2012 and $42.2 billion in FY2013. The annual highway funding in FY2011 was $41.1 billion. Core Highway Programs National Highway Performance Program [New program] — MAP-21 consolidates the current Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, and Highway Bridge programs into a single program and establishes performance goals for infrastructure condition and performance. The states would develop a risk-based asset management plan that includes a program to set targets for assessing asset condition and performance of the National Highway System. The USDOT would also establish minimum standards for state use in developing and operating pavement management systems, including measures and data needs for states to assess the condition of pavements on the National Highway System. Transportation Mobility Program [New program] — This program will assist states and localities in improving conditions and performance of federal-aid highways, as well as of bridges on any public road. Highway Safety Improvement Program [Existing program] — This program funds strategies, activities, and projects on a public road that are consistent with a state’s strategic highway safety plan. This may include projects to correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature, such as widening pavements and shoulders or adding passing lanes to remedy unsafe conditions. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program [Existing program] — This program provides funds to states for transportation projects designed to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. The bill adds particulate matter (PM10) as a pollutant to be addressed and requires a performance plan in large metropolitan areas. National Freight Network Program [New program] — MAP-21 establishes a new $2 billion per year program for roads and highways critical to freight movement. The Secretary of Transportation selects these roadways based primarily on freight volume in consultation with shippers and carriers as the “Primary Freight Network” (PFN) consisting of 27,000 centerline miles of existing roadways. The states will receive funding through an allocation formula and will be guided to direct their funding on the PFN first before spending funds on other freight-related infrastructure.

3

Innovative Financing MAP-21 proposes to greatly expand the existing federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation (TIFIA) Program, which provides credit assistance in the form of secured loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit to large transportation infrastructure projects. MAP-21 modifies the TIFIA program by increasing funding for the program to $1 billion per year, increasing the maximum share of project costs from 33 percent to 49 percent, allowing TIFIA to be used to support a related set of projects, and setting aside funding for projects in rural areas at more favorable terms. Environmental Reviews MAP-21 includes provisions intended to expedite project delivery by changing elements of the environmental review process. Examples of improvements include expanding the use of innovative contracting methods; creating dispute resolution procedures; allowing for early right-of-way acquisitions; reducing bureaucratic hurdles for projects with no significant environmental impact; encouraging early coordination among relevant agencies to avoid delays later in the review process; and accelerating project delivery decisions within specified deadlines. Procurement Reform MAP-21 allows states to utilize the construction manager/general contractor (CM/CG) method of contracting. This two-phase contracting method allows pre-construction and construction elements of a project to be bid separately. It also allows the party selected for pre-construction to bid on the project‘s construction work. The construction manager is generally selected on the basis of qualifications, past experience, or a best-value basis. During the design phase, the construction manager provides input regarding scheduling, pricing, phasing, and other input that helps the owner design a more constructible project. At an average of 60 percent to 90 percent design completion, the owner and the construction manager negotiate a “guaranteed maximum price” for the construction of the project based on the defined scope and schedule. If this price is acceptable to both parties, they execute a contract for construction services, and the construction manager becomes the general contractor. Highway Worker Safety Positive protective measures will be required to separate workers from highway construction projects in areas that offer workers no means of escape (bridges and tunnels) and temporary longitudinal traffic barriers in long duration stationary work zones in urban areas when workers are within one lane-width from live traffic. Construction Equipment and Vehicles Under MAP-21, a state shall fund diesel emission control technology on off-road diesel equipment or on-road diesel equipment that is operated over 80 hours during the life of a highway project within a PM10 nonattainment or maintenance area. Technologies include diesel exhaust controls, diesel engine upgrades, and idle reduction controls.

4

Pavement Related Provisions Asset Management — MAP-21 defines “asset management” as a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on both engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the life cycle of the asset at minimum practicable costs. Innovative Project Delivery Methods — This section promotes the use of innovative technologies and practices that increase the efficiency of construction and extend the service life of highways. Projects may have a federal share of up to 100 percent and include such examples as innovative construction equipment, materials and techniques including the use of in-place recycling technology, intelligent compaction equipment, and incentive payments to contractors for early completion. Value Engineering Program — States are required to adopt a program that ensures a value engineering analysis is conducted, and that the recommendations developed and implemented for each project are documented in the final report. Required projects for such a value engineering analysis would include federal-aid highway projects on the NHS estimated at $25 million or more; federal-aid bridge projects on the NHS estimated at $20 million or more; and any other project as determined by the U.S. DOT. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Study — The bill defines “life-cycle costs analysis” as a process for evaluating the total economic worth of a usable project segment by analyzing initial costs and discounted future costs, such as costs of maintenance, user delay, reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoration, and resurfacing over the life of the project segment. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is required to conduct a study of best practices for calculating life-cycle costs for federally funded highway projects. At a minimum, this study shall include a thorough literature review and a survey of current life-cycle cost practices of state DOTs. During the study phase, GAO is required to consult with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO), as well as appropriate experts in the field of life-cycle cost analysis and appropriate industry experts and research centers. Within one year after the date of enactment of MAP-21, GAO is required to submit a report to the Congress on the results of the study including a summary of the latest research on life-cycle cost analysis and recommendations on the appropriate period of analysis, design period, discount rates, and use of actual material life and maintenance cost data.

5

Pavement Research & Deployment Research and Development Program — $90 million for FY2012 and FY2013 is appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund for a research and development program. The program will include projects that increase the reliability of life-cycle performance predictions; ; reduce user delay; improve highway condition and performance through increased use of design, materials, construction, and maintenance innovations; and reduce life-cycle environmental impacts of highway infrastructure through innovations in design, construction, operation, preservation, and maintenance. Technology and Innovation Deployment Program — $90 million for FY2012 and FY2013 is appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund for the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program. Research goals include developing more durable infrastructure materials and systems; accelerating highway construction; developing performance-based specifications; enhancing construction and materials quality assurance, and ensuring sustainable infrastructure design and construction. Accelerated Implementation and Deployment of Pavement Technologies — MAP-21 established a new program under the Technology and Innovation Deployment Program to specifically promote and deploy innovative pavement technologies. Goals to be achieved include the increased use of recycled materials, reduction of initial costs and life-cycle costs, increased safety and reduced construction time, new non-destructive pavement evaluation techniques, and effective technology transfer. MAP-21 provides $6 million in FY2012 and FY2013 for asphalt pavement technology. The program must be carried out in collaboration with industry using the Asphalt Research Roadmap. In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is directed to work with organizations that have a proven track record of effective technology deployment and an advisory committee comprised of key stakeholders. FHWA and state DOTs would be established to oversee and advise the program efforts.

*** For more information, visit the Government Affairs section of the NAPA Web site at www.asphaltpavement.org, or contact NAPA’s professional staff: Jay Hansen at jhansen@asphaltpavement.org or Ester Magorka at emagorka@asphaltpavement.org.