• OVERALL: This session focused on the National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Programs and many specific suggestions on implementation of the programs were offered. There were comments on the specific issues noted below and unanimous support for the creation of the programs in TEA-21. Nevertheless, there was a recognition that there will be intense competition for a relatively small amount of funding ($700 million over the life of TEA-21). In addition, there were many presentations supporting specific projects.

  This summary is organized in the four issue areas raised during the overview and provided to panelists in advance of the session. The four issues addressed were:

  1) What criteria should USDOT use to select projects to receive funding?

  2) Should a specific amount of funding be set aside for each of the two program areas (e.g. borders and corridors) or should all projects compete for funding from the entire sum available each year?

  3) How should priorities be determined (both nationally and within States)?

  4) How should the USDOT leverage the greatest value with the available Federal funds and what role should stakeholders have (e.g. Mexico and Canada, freight operators, etc.)?

• Project Selection Criteria: The following were suggested as specific project selection criteria and several speakers noted that USDOT needs fair and balanced criteria and should devise an objective evaluation process.

  Criteria should include:

  • Amount of NAFTA traffic
    
  • Reduction in travel time through major international facilities
    
  • Value of cargo received
    
  • Tonnage vs. Value of cargo
    
  • Multi-national involvement
    
  • Project readiness. Is the project ready to go? How quickly can the project be completed?
    
  • Direct effects on trade, traffic and safety
    
  • Effects on air quality. Can the project reduce emissions?
    
  • Greatest benefit for least amount of effort and funding.
    
  • Degree of cooperation and coordination of fed agencies, state agencies, etc
    
  • Number of enterprise communities or empowerment zones
    
  • % of population impacted that are below poverty level
    
  • Link of regional and international activity
    
  • Innovation
    
  • Use of ITS
    
  • Evidence of multi-state collaboration
    
  • Evidence of multi-national planning and collaboration
    
  • Evaluate projects on overall impact on foreign trade
    
  • Maximum connectivity between national corridors
    
  • International and interregional trade, economic growth, national significance
    
  • Limit consideration of both programs to already established priority corridors
    
  • Remove barriers to trade including institutional, physical, or technological in nature.
    
  • Tangible results need to be demonstrated and need to result from these investments
    
  • Ensure significant impact on international or interregional trade based on benefit/cost ratio.
    
  • Is it located in a county adjacent to the border?
    
  • Are all parties in agreement on the project?
    
  • Does it benefit more than the sponsoring entity?

• Should there be a specific amount of funding set aside for each of the two programs?
  There was near universal support (with the exception of one speaker) for keeping the funding for the two programs together, not identifying a specific amount for each program each year. Speakers noted many reasons for doing this including:

  • All projects should be able to compete for funding without arbitrary amounts in each category.

  • Emphasis should be on border program because there isn’t enough money to do corridors and corridors have other funding sources in TEA-21.

  • Put all money in high-priority corridors included in TEA-21 because the need has been demonstrated.

  • Allocate funds based on need, don’t predetermine this by splitting fun into two programs.

• How should priorities be determined (both nationally and within States)?
  The following suggestions were offered:

  • Amount of leveraging of state and local funds
    
  • Key linkages that cannot be funded with other TEA-21 funds
    
  • Multi-state projects should get preference
    
  • State DOTs should set priorities
    
  • Projects submitted by either MPO or State should not matter in setting priorities.
    
  • Corridors in TEA-21 as high-priority corridors should get preference
    
  • Multi-national projects should get preference
    
  • Projects that incorporate both borders and corridors should get additional consideration
    
  • Need for expansion on existing corridors should get high priority
    
  • Ease congestion, enhance economic growth, evaluate corridors in context of entire system
    
  • High volumes of freight traffic
    
  • Age and condition of Interstates and relief to existing interstates should be a priority
    
  • Those with completed feasibility studies should be priority
    
  • Biggest and quickest bang for the buck should be #1 priority.
    
  • Priority should be given to projects that increase international and interregional trade.
    
  • Give preference to north- south corridors
    
  • Select projects that demonstrate team approach to making operational improvements. (e.g. ITS, traffic management, etc.).
    
  • Give priority to projects that document safe goods and passenger movement.
    
  • Bottlenecks and severe and immediate problems need to be first priority
    
  • Governors should designate projects for funding

• How should the USDOT leverage the greatest value with the available Federal funds and what should the role of stakeholders be (e.g. Mexico and Canada, freight operators, etc.)? How does the nation get the best return on this program?

  • Commitment of other stakeholders should be key consideration in project selection
    
  • Leverage as much additional funding as possible and use creative financing provisions
    
  • Give preference to states willing to provide the major portion of funding for the projects
    
  • Strong coordination is needed among state, federal, local and international agencies.
    
  • Partnerships should be encouraged. Stakeholder support and matching funds should be required.

Selected Quotes:

Mayor Betty Flores, Laredo, Texas

... "Our global competitiveness depends on ability to move goods and services. Border crossings need greater investment and improvement. These are the border cities. They are not where the US ends and Mexico starts. It is where US blends into Mexico... Where international trade is turned into national profit....Expenditures on corridors can increase exponentially but unless borders are receiving the needed infrastructure investments, borders will continue to be choke points, not check points."

Pete Geren, Alliance Airport- Fort Worth

"International trade touches the lives and pocketbooks of all Americans...Biggest and quickest bank for the buck should be #1 priority".

Roger Hord, Vice President, Infrastructure, Greater Houston Partnership

"Congress should be commended for taking decisive action to address transportation infrastructure problems...Corridor and Border program should be considered a launch program to a much bigger program."

Robert Nichols, Commissioner Texas department of Transportation

"Ready to go projects for FY99 should be preference. Put the money into projects, not more studies. Allow applicants to use existing, readily available data to justify project needs. Don’t require additional paperwork and data...states have deemed these projects worthy already."

Representative Joe Pickett, State House of Representatives

El Paso, Texas

"Border communities have been ignored. There are more trucks crossing through El Paso each day than registered vehicles in all of El Paso County... What is use of corridors if can’t get across the borders? ...Greatest benefit for least amount of effort and funding should be the criteria. In fact, USDOT should reduce the match on projects that have more than local impacts.......Your border is in our community".