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
of Co
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,Herrgott, D
ommerce
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 atirector of C
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 Nickle
Congression
es Vice Presid
ent, Van Sc
ing 0, 2012 on nter C
rust Statem
Legislative C
Health and
ironmental
es Group, Lnal Affairs f
ent, Nation
coyoc Asso
ments
Committee
d Safety, Na
Affairs, Na
LLC for the U.S.
nal Asphal
ociates.
ational
ational
Chamber
t Pavemennt
5/22/2012
Legislative Objectives Urge Congress to enact a Surface
Transportation Authorization Bill Strongly oppose cuts to the Federal
Highway Program FY 2013 Transportation Appropriations Bill
Highway Bill Status Highway bill in conference
S. 1813 (MAP-21) passed 74-22 H.R. 4348 (90-day extension) passed 293-127 Current law expires June 30
Authorized Highway Funding Levels
Page 2
5/22/2012
Conference Goals NAPA Priorities in Conference
Funding: Senate level or higher Length: Through FY 2013 or longer if possible Oppose Mandates: LCCA, MEPDG,
Discount Rates Accelerate Pavement Technology
Deployment: Support Issues outlined in TCC letter
Appropriations (Funding) FY13 Transportation Appropriations
Senate Committee Approved Bill Flat Highway Funding
House Committee Action Pending House Budget Resolution: “Live within your
Means” = Reduced Highway Funding Appropriated Highway Funding Levels
b
Page 3
“Live Within Your Means” Budget
40.7 41.2 40.838.9
12.8
31.9 32.4 32.9 33.5 34.2 34.9 35.6 36.3 37
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Estimation of Federal Highway Obligations Through 2022
Federal-aid Highway
Maintaining current services through FY 2012:Assuming minimum balance of $4B in Highway Account
($bi
llions
)
Page 4
Formula Programs FY 2012
Senate
Committee
Recommendation
House
Committee
Recommendation
Alabama 686,715,565 687,225,988
Alaska 407,862,245 408,129,973
Arizona 656,350,209 656,788,953
Arkansas 458,149,130 458,465,111
California 3,258,347,193 3,260,629,974
Colorado 484,984,546 485,324,649
Connecticut 447,359,543 447,666,669
Delaware 150,246,610 150,352,443
District of Columbia 146,005,716 146,111,947
Florida 1,694,197,099 1,695,313,174
Georgia 1,156,274,283 1,157,047,023
Hawaii 154,383,858 154,495,053
Idaho 257,100,386 257,273,803
Illinois 1,284,161,217 1,285,048,527
Indiana 853,135,679 853,701,029
Iowa 434,559,537 434,867,846
Kansas 345,073,584 345,322,528
Kentucky 599,778,227 600,201,353
Louisiana 615,331,311 615,761,455
Maine 169,109,016 169,232,630
Maryland 535,114,355 535,496,347
Massachusetts 554,173,040 554,571,606
Michigan 952,607,569 953,268,743
Minnesota 570,248,002 570,642,187
Mississippi 429,462,191 429,765,041
Missouri 814,634,564 815,192,736
Montana 346,272,268 346,505,111
Nebraska 263,024,903 263,211,957
Nevada 328,405,134 328,632,645
New Hampshire 149,840,374 149,945,422
New Jersey 896,898,658 897,514,856
New Mexico 323,793,179 324,016,136
New York 1,525,471,569 1,526,553,201
North Carolina 935,614,205 936,259,326
North Dakota 225,904,110 226,064,716
Ohio 1,186,578,402 1,187,397,774
Oklahoma 575,012,624 575,415,265
Oregon 445,144,900 445,461,771
Pennsylvania 1,489,293,086 1,490,372,433
Rhode Island 197,365,100 197,509,369
South Carolina 564,689,916 565,073,874
South Dakota 249,368,744 249,542,161
Tennessee 745,044,062 745,558,953
Texas 2,828,750,110 2,830,634,525
Utah 291,615,935 291,818,692
Vermont 182,336,297 182,469,282
Virginia 899,984,685 900,610,730
Washington 603,272,439 603,705,869
West Virginia 386,604,429 386,875,846
Wisconsin 650,558,021 650,990,895
Wyoming 220,925,931 221,080,431
State Subtotal 34,627,133,756 34,651,118,028 12,800,000,000
Non‐Formula Programs 4,516,448,914 4,492,464,972
Federal‐aid Highway Program Obligation
Limitation 39,143,582,670 39,143,583,000 12,800,000,000
Emergency relief & equity bonus exempt
contract authority 739,000,000 739,000,000
Emergency relief (disaster spending) 1,662,000,000 ‐
Total 41,544,582,670 39,882,583,000 12,800,000,000
Source: Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill,
2013, Committee Report
Highway Funding Under Proposed Transportation Appropriations BillsFEDERAL‐AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
Live With
in Yo
ur M
eans B
udget
?
Page 5
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
Page 6
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.
Page 7
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.
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)
Page 8
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
We’re Building A Better America!
For More Information: 202/289-4434 (ARTBA) 703/548-3118 (AGC)
Page 9
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.
We’re Building A Better America!
For More Information: 202/289-4434 (ARTBA) 703/548-3118 (AGC)
Page 10
• 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
We’re Building A Better America!
For More Information: 202/289-4434 (ARTBA) 703/548-3118 (AGC)
Page 11
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.
Page 12
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.
Page 13
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.
Page 14
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.
Page 15
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 [email protected] or Ester Magorka at [email protected].
Page 16
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:
Page 17
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
Page 18
---- NOT VOTING 11 ---
Andrews Carnahan Filner Flake
Kaptur Marino Napolitano Paul
Pingree (ME) Rangel Slaughter
Page 19
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,
,
Page 20
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
Page 21
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.
Page 22
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.
Page 23
“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
Page 24
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
Page 25
5/22/2012
Know your Member Know your member of Congress
Review their Web site for position on transportation issues, any hot issues
See how they voted on S. 1813 and H.R. 4348
Are they on the Conference Committee? Are they a member of the Appropriations
Committee?
Get Prepared Review talking points Think about impact from extensions Pull data from TRIP fact sheets Make it local
How does passing a bill, or failing to do so, impact your company, your employees, your community.
Page 26
5/22/2012
Key Messages Companies and DOTs cannot plan under short-
term extensions. (i.e. purchase new equipment) Highway needs are increasing and the cost to
repair will only grow. The transportation construction industry has been
hit hard by the downturn in housing and commercial construction, state budget cuts and lack of clarity from Washington.
A transportation bill is a jobs bill. Enact a bill NOW! Do not cut highway funding.
What to Expect Plan for 15 minute meetings Designate a leader Introductions
Name Company Location Number of employees in 2006 vs. now
Page 27
5/22/2012
What to Discuss Highway Bill
What is Congressman doing to encourage passage?
Highway Funding (FY 2013) Will the Congressman oppose highway
funding cuts? Plant Tours
Offer to host a plant tour for Congressman to see business and meet employees.
Page 28
We10 2:3
6:0 Th7:0 8:0 8:3
ednesday, M:00 a.m. – 3
30 p.m. – 5:0
00 p.m. – 7:3
hursday, Ma00 a.m. – 8:0
00 a.m. – 5:0
30 a.m. – 5:0
2012 T
May 30 3:00 p.m.
00 p.m.
30 p.m.
ay 31 00 a.m.
00 p.m.
00 p.m.
TransportaWash
TCC Re
Legislati
WelcomAmerica 2:30 p.mand Infraand CEO 3:00 p.mEnvironmconferenMixed C 3:30 p.mTranspoCEO, Kr 3:45 p.mand politlegislativBoard, N 4:30 p.mTranspoPresiden ClosingTranspoConstruc
Capitol H(Buses d
ContinenStaff avai
Hospital
Capitol H
ation Conshington Ma
May 3
gistration
ve Briefing
me – Steve S and Co-cha
m. – Represastructure CO, National S
m. – Senatement & Publnce. (Introdu
Concrete Ass
m. – Represortation and Irone NA for
m. – Charlietical analyst ve environmeNational Asp
m. – Represortation and Int, American
– Pete Ruaortation Buildction Coalitio
Hill Receptioepart hotel 5:
ntal Breakfasilable to answ
ity Room
Hill Visits
struction Carriott at M30 – 31, 20
Sandherr, Cair of the Tra
entative Joommittee (InStone, Sand
e Staffer Roic Works Co
uced by Robsociation)
entative ReInfrastructurthe Associat
Cook, Editowill keep theents. (Introd
phalt Paveme
entative NicInfrastructurn Concrete P
ane, Presideders Associaon.
on 30 p.m.)
st wer questions
Coalition FlMetro Cente
12
(Ballro
(Grand
CEO, Associaansportation
ohn Mica, Chntroduced by
d & Gravel A
oundtable, Tommittee wilert Garbini,
eid Ribble, Fre Committeetion of Equip
or and Publie audience i
duced by Kurent Associat
ck J. Rahalre CommitteePavement As
ent and CEOation and Co
RaybuRooms
(Grands
AGC T53 D S
ly-In Agener
oom Foyer)
d Ballroom)
ated Genera Constructio
hairman, Hoy Jennifer Jo
Association)
Top staffers fl give the SeP.E, Preside
Freshman Me (Introducepment Manu
sher of The informed onrt Bechtholdtion)
l, Ranking Me (Introducessociation)
O, American o-chair of the
urn House Os B-338 – B-3
d Ballroom)
Townhouse Street, SE
da
al Contractoron Coalition.
ouse Transpooy Pinniger,
from the leaenate view oent, Nationa
Member, Houed by Rusty Fufacturers)
Cook Politic today’s poli
d, Chairman
Member, Houed by Jerry V
Road & e Transporta
ffice Building340
rs of
ortation President
aders of of the al Ready
use Flowers,
cal Report itical and of the
use Voigt,
ation
g
Page 29