OVERALL: This session included remarks from Congressman Oberstar and Secretary Slater and panel discussions on four elements of TEA-21: Research and Education, Investment & Funding Levels, Safety Provisions, and Intermodal Provisions.

Given that the session was hosted by the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, there was considerable focus on the research and education elements of TEA-21 and the importance of research. The University of Minnesota has 6 colleges working on transportation research with Federal funding vital to the University, especially the ITS and public policy program. The University reached over 6,000 practitioners last year throughout the State with their U.S. DOT funded program efforts. After his opening remarks, Secretary Slater presented a $1.8 million grant to help continue to fund programs at the ITS Institute.

Representative Congressman James L. Oberstar, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure made welcoming remarks and was credited by the Secretary for his extraordinary work in helping to get TEA-21 enacted. As part of the Congressman’s remarks, the following were notable quotes:

"TEA-21 Takes us beyond the interstate era, beyond the ISTEA era, to a new era, with new vigor for transportation in America."

During his remarks on the need for multi-modal planning and policy development expertise, he said:

"We need to combine the best engineering judgement with the best policy directions for transportation for the next century....We need transportation in its’ broadest sense..including transit, CMAQ, enhancement. Americans want more out of their transportation dollar. They want access to scenic and cultural treasures. They want to use roadways for bikeways, in-line skating and walkways. We can do this." Finally, on the environment, he said, "We need to move more people more efficiently with less impact on the environment."

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION:

Panelists discussed the way TEA-21 changes the relationship between USDOT and State departments of transportation on research and the fact that, in their view, National level research is under funded. The demands on research funds exceed what is available through TEA-21 and, in the view of University of Minnesota panelists, National research needs are not sufficiently addressed. They indicated that they welcome a stronger role for states but the consequences on federal research program are significant. There is also a substantial shortfall in funding for policy-related research activities. Speakers noted that it is essential that states be involved with the USDOT in defining the national transportation research agenda.

Specific suggestions:

• Do not forget the important of basic research and the critical role for the USDOT in taking a strategic approach to defining research directions.

• The USDOT should facilitate and encourage partnerships. There is a need for a central coordinator for research, dissemination, etc. The USDOT needs to play a role here--and is in a unique position to be central coordinator.

• Promote interdisciplinary research. There are big payoffs in research and multiple perspectives need to be brought to bear on complex transportation issues.

• Emphasize educational outcomes in all university activities. Federal agencies should be involved in defining the role that research should play in education at the universities.

The Federal agencies need to be the primary champion in research. It was suggested that USDOT use incentives and requirements to take advantage of decentralized research programs to ensure that research needs are addressed.

Transportation, technology and development interactions have been a focus of attention since 1991. Research is also needed on environment and community concerns. Four ways the University of Minnesota research agenda has addressed many of the thorny issues: 1) How can infrastructure contribute to sustainable communities? Link rather than divide people. 2) How can congestion pricing be used as a tool to address congestion? Through the research program, the Univ. of Minnesota has tried to communicate how and why pricing makes sense. 3) How can telecommunications and information technology change transportation and what are the implications for public policy? 4) How can transportation statistics be improved and used efficiently to use data in productive ways?

In addition, speakers noted the importance of public community and outreach activities and that they are integral to their programs (i.e., congestion pricing work, linking community and economic development with transportation and linking telecommunication and information planning with transportation projects.) Speakers encouraged DOT to support research and higher education in teaching and outreach.

TEA-21 INVESTMENT AND FUNDING LEVELS:

Panelists noted the strengths of TEA-21 in providing resources to preserve and improve transportation infrastructure and establishing a floor for highway and transit funding. They also supported the TEA-21 safety and environmental provisions.

Specific Suggestions:

• SIBs: SIB should not be limited to only four states. This removes one of the most innovative financing tools provided by ISTEA. At least those states participating in original SIB programshould be allowed to continue to capitalize SIBS.

• Apportionment formulas: A few speakers noted that the apportionment formula hurts states that are actively promoting alternative fuel use. Minnesota leads the nation with its clean air ethanol policy and this speaker felt the State is penalized by federal policies that are contradictory. This speaker mentioned that this could cost Minnesota $20-50 million per year and suggested that TEA-21 be amended to hold states harmless that have been proactive on clean air issues.

• Additional funding: Panelists mentioned that there is a need for additional funding for safety and freight movement projects in local governments. Regional transportation partnerships in Minnesota want proportionate increases in funding shared with the State. Additional funding for safety for bicyclists is critical and bicyclists education programs are needed.

ENHANCING OUR ENVIRONMENT:

TEA-21 penalizes states that conserve energy. TEA-21 provides CMAQ funds on the one hand, but rewards states for energy consumption through the formula. Congress needs to offer incentives for energy conservation. One speaker noted that public agencies spend millions of dollars on covered parking structures for their employees’ use, while the public sector does not provide bus shelters with any protection from the weather, etc. She suggested that we ought to think through ways to make transit use more attractive if we really want to create viable options to driving.

Specific suggestions:

• Make flexibility reality. Flex STP funds to transit, carpool facilities and other non-road facilities. Even bus shelters are not user friendly...should be heated.

• Do not discriminate against environmentally friendly transportation projects.