DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED JULY 27, 1993.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. CARR of Michigan, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 2750] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994. The accompanying bill would provide $13,724,297,344 in new budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the Department of Transportation and related agencies, a decrease of $530,696,225 below the $14,254,993,569 requested in the budget. Unlike past years the accompanying bill does not assume that any funds will be made available to the Coast Guard from the Department of Defense. The budget request did not include any such transfer of funds and the Committee does not recommend such transfers in the bill. The Committee has also recommended limitations on obligations for a number of programs that are, for the most part, financed by multi-year contract authority in legislative acts. The total of the limitations on obligations for these programs is $21,808,750,000. This is $1,551,825,000 above the levels enacted in fiscal year 1993, and $1,840,875,000 below the levels requested in the budget. An additional $2,117,008,750 is estimated to be obligated for federalaid highway programs exempt from the obligation limitation in the bill. This is identical to the exemption amount estimated in the budget. The total recommended obligational authority (new budget authority, limitations on obligations, and obligations, and exempt obligations) amounts to $37,667,997,094. This is $2,366,946,225 less than the budget request and $1,533,963,747 more than comparable fiscal year 1993 enacted levels. BILL HIGHLIGHTS Due to the funding constraints under which the Committee must operate, recommendations for each mode and administration in the accompanying bill are below the President's request. To the extent possible, the Committee has tried to provide resources for the Administration's investment proposals. In the case of the administration's high speed rail initiative, the Committee has decided not to recommend funding in advance of authorization. The Committee is unable to provide for the entire increase in the obligation limitation for the federal-aid highway program. Approximately one-half of the increase has been accommodated, which allows a significantly greater program level than in the current year. INVESTMENT CRITERIA One of the Committee's major initiatives this year regarding funding of transportation projects has been the development and application of a set of economically based investment criteria. These criteria were issued after consultation with numerous individuals from the Department of Transportation, commercial investment companies, transportation consultants, and others. The criteria have been used by the Committee in evaluating the many requests for special funding consideration that have been received. It should be noted that the criteria seek to generate the same type of information that is used by the commercial investment community in their funding decisions. The criteria also have much in common with the Circular of the Office of Management and Budget concerning guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs. For ease of reference, the criteria are included in the report in their entirety. The Committee intends for the use of the criteria to be an evolving process. Although it is unlikely that the major focus of the criteria will change, it is possible that certain elements of the criteria may be refined. For example, additional attention is needed to refine criteria for airport renovation and rehabilitation projects. In this vein, the Committee welcomes and encourages comments on the criteria. The objective is to ensure the best possible use of the limited taxpayer funds available for transportation infrastructure projects. Other ideas or approaches that will lead to that goal will be considered by the Committee. Authorities and organizations seeking special funding consideration in the Transportation Appropriations Bill for 1995 are encouraged to provide responses to the questions posed in the criteria no later than May 15, 1994. This will allow the Committee sufficient time to review the responses thoroughly before making funding recommendations. HIGHWAY CRITERIA STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1. Describe exactly what the project demonstrates. 2. Describe how the project's objectives will be measured. 3. Indicate if the project is included in the state's transportation improvement program. Include reasons for projects not in state plan. 4. Describe the scope of the project. For example, is it a complete project, a stand alone segment, or a segment contingent on later phases? BASE CASE AND ALTERNATIVES STUDIED 1. Describe the base case. If the project under consideration is not approved, it is highly unlikely that in its place nothing would be done. It is more likely that smaller scale infrastructure modifications might be undertaken. Alternatively, electronic traffic con trol or other IVHS-type measures might be employed. Another alternative might use demand management techniques such as congestion pricing. These types of actions, in the absence of the principal project under consideration, constitute the base case. 2. Describe the alternative solutions that were considered, including the costs and benefits of maintaining the base case. 3. Describe extent of private sector involvement, especially regarding financing of the project. EXPECTED ECONOMIC RATE OF RETURN KEY ASSUMPTIONS Please provide estimates for the following benefits: 2. Value of energy conservation. 4. Value of reduced vehicle operating costs for fuel, oil, tires, depreciation, and repairs/maintenance. 5. Value of travel time savings. 6. Value of resulting safety improvements (e.g. reduced number of accidents). 7. Value of enhanced business and industry activities. 8. Value of other economic benefits, with description. For example, indicate recurring job creation resulting from the project. Please provide estimates of the following costs on an annual cash-not accrual-basis: 1. Total cost of project, by year. 2. Total non-federal share of project cost, by year. 3. Nature of non-federal share of project cost (e.g. cash or inkind). 4. Total cost of annual operation and maintenance expenses for the project. 5. Sources of all funds to cover annual operating expenses. (If tax, indicate whether dedicated to specific project or transportation uses in general, as applicable.) 6. Detail of total project costs by major functional category, including land/right-of-way acquisition, interest, design, engineering and all other. 7. Total life cycle costs of project, by year and functional category. Include copy of life cycle cost analysis. Please also provide the following information: 1. Current credit rating of the unit(s) of local government sponsoring the project. Indicate any changes in credit rating during the past 12 months. 2. Result of independent analysis performed on capital outlay estimate. 3. Net present value of project, defined as the present day value of project benefits less present day value of project costs. Provide the net present value as of three years after completion of the project, and for the entire life-cycle of the project. 4. The economic rate of return of the project, defined as the discount rate at which the project's net present value equals zero. Provide the estimated rate of return as of three years after completion of the project, and for the entire life-cycle of the project. 5. The benefit-cost ratio of the project, expressed as the present value of benefits divided by the present value of costs. OTHER ECONOMIC EXPECTATIONS 1. Explain the extent and manner that IVHS features have been taken into account. 2. Provide estimated average traffic speeds, both in the base case and assuming completion of the project. 3. Provide status of environmental impact statement, including estimated completion dates of both draft and final statements. 4. Provide documentation of expressions of local opinion about the project. FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND PERFORMANCE 1. Identify all funding already provided for project by source and year in which funds were authorized. 2. Of the funds previously authorized, identify the amount expended, obligated and committed to date. 3. Indicate if project qualifies for existing federal program funds. If project does qualify, explain why specific federal funds are requested. If project doesn't qualify, explain why not. TRANSIT CRITERIA STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1. Describe the scope of the project. For example, is it a complete project, a stand alone segment, or a segment contingent on later phases to reap maximum benefits? 2. Indicate the nature of the project. Is is a feasibility study, vehicle purchase, new construction, expansion of an existing facility, rehabilitation or reconstruction of an existing facility, or other? 3. Indicate if the project is included in the state's transportation improvement program. Include reasons for projects not in the state plan. 4. Indicate the estimated change in total transit ridership associated with the new transit program. BASE CASE AND ALTERNATIVES STUDIED 1. Describe the base case. If the project under consideration is not approved, it is highly unlikely that in its place nothing would be done. It is more likely that smaller scale infrastructure modifications might be undertaken. Alternatively, electronic traffic control, more buses, or IVHS type measures might be employed. Another alternative might use demand management techniques such as congestion pricing. These types of actions, in the absence of the principal project under consideration, constitute the base case. 2. Describe the alternative solutions that were considered, including the costs and benefits of maintaining the base case. 3. Describe the extent of private sector involvement, especially regarding financing of the project. |