Policy Options for Intermodal Freight Transportation Special Report 252 (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Federal Surface Transportation Programs and Freight
3 Federal Surface Transportation Programs and Freight
Pages 46-64
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 46... ...
ISTEA was one of a series of reauthorizations of a program whose structure has remained essentially unchanged since the Federal Aid 46
|
From page 47... ...
Innovations in ISTEA gave states greater flexibility in selecting the roads and projects on which federal-aid funds are expended, substantially increased the influence of local governments in project selection, and made possible expenditure of federal aid on nonhighway freight projects in certain very limited circumstances. Extending allowed spending beyond highways has always been controversial.
|
From page 48... ...
"Federal Surface Transportation Legislation and Freight," by Jean Lauver, analyzes the provisions of federal programs affecting freight, reactions of the interested parties to the freight provisions of ISTEA, and the issues that were prominent in the debate over reauthorization of ISTEA. "Freight Projects of National Significance," by Daniel Smith, examines how to define and identify such projects.
|
From page 49... ...
(1996) both endorsed allowing state and local governments flexibility to use federal aid for nonhighway projects with few constraints.
|
From page 50... ...
If trust fund revenues are dispersed too widely, the alliance of interests that has supported the program will be eroded and the program will be in jeopardy. Second, liberal availability of federal aid may fuel uneconomic interstate rivalries in development of ports and other facilities.
|
From page 51... ...
PROJECT SELECTION AND PRIORITY FOR FREIGHT PROJECTS Freight interests have stated that in their experience, the provisions of ISTEA that emphasize flexibility and local participation in project selection have sometimes come into conflict with the goal of improving intermodal freight efficiency. AAPA, for example, has declared: AAPA will support continuation of the structure envisioned by ISTEA with decision making authority primarily at the local level, if
|
From page 52... ...
in project selection on the theory that these bodies are least capable of recognizing freight needs (ISTEA strengthened the influence of local governments, acting through their MPOs, to influence how states spend their federal-aid funds) ; · Mandate of freight representation in MPO decision making; · Planning requirements calling for states to identify freight problems and solutions; · An increase in the overall funding available from the federal-aid program or other public or private sources to make it easier for states and local areas to rearrange funding priorities; and · Direct federal funding of individual freight projects of national significance.
|
From page 53... ...
Increased port contributions to local projects would enable local areas to capture more of the benefits of improved intermodal transportation and promote local support of projects in the national interest. The committee lacks evidence to evaluate the contention that state and local governments systematically underinvest in infrastructure needed to improve freight efficiency because freight interests have weak voices in local politics or because federal-aid program rules deny local governments flexibility to select investments with the greatest payoffs.
|
From page 54... ...
PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES NCIT and DOT's National Freight Transportation Policy Statement refer to a category of projects of national significance as a sphere of federal responsibility. The DOT policy statement declares: Federal participation may be appropriate when infrastructure invest ment projects have a national or regional significance or when Federal involvement may facilitate the resolution of a freight trans portation problem.
|
From page 55... ...
State and local governments and private firms regularly carry out freight system improvements of large magnitude and nationwide importance without federal leadership. A "project of national significance," as the term is used in the following, is defined as a project with an essential federal role.
|
From page 56... ...
The descriptions and the discussion of policy options that follows make use of two papers commissioned by the study committee: Daniel Smith, "Freight Projects of National Significance: Toward a Working Definition," and John E Petersen, "Public-Sector Financing in Intermodal Freight Transportation." The conclusions are those of the committee.
|
From page 57... ...
. The project will be paid for with revenues from port fees, a fee on trains using the corridor, state and local government commitments of shares of federal surface transportation aid, and local tax revenues.
|
From page 58... ...
Many projects that have national importance are conducted without federal involvement or within established federal programs. State and local governments on their own initiative as well as the private sector have made substantial investments in expanding freight transportation capacity.
|
From page 59... ...
Rather than "NIMBY" problems of local opposition to freight projects of national significance, there is more evidence of the opposite problem, local eagerness to develop projects of questionable value in the
|
From page 60... ...
All the candidates that have been suggested as projects of national significance would have substantial potential for generating revenues through user fees or other mechanisms (assuming they were successful as transportation projects)
|
From page 61... ...
Extent of Federal Control When it designs federal surface transportation aid programs, Congress must decide on allocating control of spending between the federal government and the states. The policy options among which Congress can choose are to continue the traditional mechanisms of federal control in the surface transportation program (principally, categorical funding and
|
From page 62... ...
When the centerpiece of the federal-aid highway program was the Interstate system, a well-defined national objective, a strong consensus supported federal decisions that redistributed highway fund revenues among the states, set national design standards, and channeled spending into federally defined project categories. With the completion of the Interstates, the program lost this focus.
|
From page 63... ...
The significance of this problem is not well documented and needs to be assessed and illustrated with case study analyses. User Fee Finance Federal aid for surface transportation improvements is paid for with revenues from the federal motor vehicle fuel tax and other excises on highway users.
|
From page 64... ...
1996. National Freight Transportation Policy Statement.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.