فیلم تأجیل مجدد حمل و نقل سطحی برای قرن ۲۱

Title:A Surface Transportation Reauthorization for the 21st Century

در ۳۰ سپتامبر ۲۰۲۱، قانون حمل و نقل سطحی کشور برای دومین بار منقضی می شود. قانون پنج ساله – که سیاست حمل و نقل فدرال را تعیین می کند و سرمایه گذاری ها را در جاده ها، پل ها، ترانزیت، راه آهن و سایر روش ها هدایت می کند – تأثیر زیادی بر کار برنامه ریزان دارد. به همین دلیل، تضمین یک مجوز مجدد جامع حمل و نقل سطحی که در برنامه ریزی سرمایه گذاری می کند، یکی از چهار اولویت سیاست فدرال در سال ۲۰۲۱ است. APA از کنگره می خواهد تا قبل از مهلت ۳۰ سپتامبر مجوزی را تصویب کند که سهم بیشتری از بودجه را برای مناطق و جوامع فراهم می کند و با آب و هوا مقابله می کند. تغییر، ایمنی کاربران آسیب‌پذیر جاده را در اولویت قرار می‌دهد و پشتیبانی از حمل‌ونقل، دوچرخه‌سواری، و پیاده‌روی را گسترش می‌دهد و شامل پشتیبانی برای برنامه‌ریزی برای EV، پهنای باند و سایر فناوری‌های نوظهور می‌شود. بیشتر بدانید: https://planning.org/policy/priorities/2021/transportation/

قسمتی از متن فیلم: Hello all uh i see people still coming in but with the interest of time i think uh let’s get going and start it good morning good afternoon and uh good day from from all over the world i believe i am madhu narayana swami i work for a company called smb infrastructure i am

Out of houston i’m also part i’m also the vice chair for the american planners association’s transportation planning division am pleased to have this webinar going through today where we are going to talk about apa’s legislative update on the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill our partners in crime

On this webinar are next slide please uh the planus advocacy network it is basically the apa’s national network of planning advocates we really love if you can join this advocacy network and help grow our voice heard together uh the link is provided there if you can if you’re not part of this organization

Do so join this organization i i got a chance to work with jason on many items through this organization as well i’ll introduce jason shortly after this another organization that i’m representing here is the apa’s transportation planning division we have around 5000 members of planners to help share transportation planning uh

Discussions and share our thoughts together and advocate for a common cause again if you are not part of this division do please register and join this this division as well so without further a record i would like to introduce jason jordan who will be our speaker today

Who is going to talk about uh the legislative briefing of uh on the surface reauthorization bill uh jason jordan is is the public office director for for the apa uh overarching fba he leads our government affairs policy and of advocacy efforts of the american planners association he also developed policy guides which

Kai who used to work with him on couple of policy guides as well he is our representation of apa with congressional officers federal agencies and any partner agencies along alongside there uh jason also provides us the strategic guidance to volunteer leaders on policy matter on different levels we’d be state national or

Local level he has been with apa for 20 23 years and helping us grow and be a more and help us become a bigger voice in in the legislative process as well that jason could you take over thanks very much i appreciate that introduction and appreciate the partnership with the

Transportation planning division it’s it’s great to be working together on such a timely and important topic like the surface transportation reauthorization um we’re really coming to you with breaking news uh in a sense because so much has been happening just over the course of this week on this

Topic um so i thought i would start just by catching people up on sort of where we are procedurally before we jump into the substance of the of the bills we want to talk about today um you probably saw that um a little over a week ago the first congressional committee to

Take action on the reauthorization that that happened with a vote in the senate environment public works committee that’s the main senate committee of jurisdiction that was followed just the middle of this week uh wednesday wednesday night and into thursday morning um the house transportation and infrastructure marked up

Their bill um so all of this is happening of course in the context of a broader debate over infrastructure but these committees are really focusing on one component of infrastructure which is the surface transportation reauthorization you all know that that expires september 30th so congress is working to put in place a new

A new authorization there are some additional steps in the process though one is that the senate has multiple committees of jurisdiction and so the senate banking committee is the committee that is responsible for the transit program that committee hasn’t taken any action yet another senate committee that’s

Responsible for this bill is the senate commerce committee they deal with the rail components as well as some safety components of the legislation they have released a bill yesterday a draft and that bill will be voted on next week on the 16th of june also yesterday the leadership of the house came forward

And said that the last week of june um the house will vote the full house will vote on the bill that was passed out of committee so we’ve got a couple of items already on the calendar but we still have some question marks in terms of the pay fors for this bill

Have to come through finance and ways and means we don’t know what the process is going to look like in those committees and of course looming over all of this is the back and forth that you’ve probably seen on the news this week around what’s happening with the broader infrastructure package

That’s still very much unclear whether this bill will become the infrastructure package or whether a broader bill will move through possibly through a reconciliation process or possibly the regular order so we’re gonna have to see how these pieces fit together um again so let me focus a little bit

Um more sharply on the transportation piece here um at the markup this week the house transportation infrastructure committee chairman mr defazio from oregon made it very clear that his desire is to move through what’s known as regular order meaning not to try to move this through reconciliation

In part the rationale for that is the reconciliation process while it has the benefit of only a simple majority in the senate a lot of the policy changes in fact most of the reform elements that are in both of these bills can’t be done via reconciliation it’s mostly for funding levels

So his goal is to move it through this regular order process where the committees would vote it would go to the floor of both chambers and he envisions a traditional conference committee to hammer out the differences between the two bills it remains to be seen exactly how that

Will unfold and whether they’ll go to a traditional conference committee or if they’ll be a separate negotiated process but certainly we can see that the next steps in this process will be moving a bill off the house floor at the end of june which meets the speaker’s goal of something

Happening before the fourth of july break and then the senate committees need to move um move their measures forward i think when we talk about the substance in just a second of these bills you will see that while there are differences between the two one sort of common theme here is that

Um they both set a pretty high floor if you will for what a negotiating bill would look like that is there are a lot of very positive provisions in both bills so even as they come together and negotiate out a compromise i think we start from a very positive

Place in terms of the priorities that apa has articulated over the course of more than a year now at the same time there’s some familiar problems there’s a reason why these bills often end up in long extensions and despite the fact that there’s a lot of agreement about the need

It never quite gets across the finish line or it takes a long time to get across the finish line i mean we’re going to face those same challenges and largely they’re about the money they’re about not just overall funding levels but the future of the highway trust fund

Resistance to changes to existing user fees like the gas tax other sorts of of pay force carry their own political baggage and make it very difficult to move this bill um through regular order so we’re still going to confront that we’re also confronting this idea of how this fits in with a larger

Infrastructure debate that’s unfolding so that’s kind of where we’re headed but i think it’s clear that we have significant momentum right now with the two votes in committee that we’ve already had another committee vote scheduled the floor vote there’s a clear sense of a open window of opportunity for for action so

Let’s turn to looking specifically at these these two bills there’s a lot to cover here so i’m going to hit some some high level themes and then happy to take questions at the end and even offline to dig into some of the the details um one of the biggest differences that you

Will see in the the two bills that have been voted on so far is both their overall funding level with significantly more funding in the house bill but also their approach to moving through committee so in the senate a lot of effort was made to ensure that this was a bipartisan bill

Introduced both by the chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member of the committee and thus got unanimous support in the vote you contrast that to the situation in the house where the bill was largely almost exclusively a party line though two republicans joined with the rest of the democrats but

Certainly has a a much more partisan flavor which is not uncommon when you compare the political realities of the two chambers the house bill largely looks to the administration’s infrastructure plan the american jobs plan is the blueprint but it also looks a whole lot like the

Bill that the house was able to pass in 2020 in fact both of these bills there’s a sort of sense of deja vu all over again if you will in terms of the fact that you know we saw the senate epw passed a unanimous bill through committee in 2019 that never

Moved anywhere in the senate we saw the house move a much larger package uh through the floor it never went anywhere in the senate we certainly hope that that’s not where we end up uh this year and i think the political dynamics are a lot different than they were then

But sort of these early acts of the drama are similar to what we’ve seen before one of the other things that i would mention just up front here is that the house bill really does take a fix it first focus in in the bill so even though there’s a lot of additional

Highway money there are a lot of new requirements for what states would have to do if they want to use that money to expand um as opposed to putting that into existing infrastructure or investing in other modes which is a source of some controversy the house bill also takes a much stronger approach

On uh sub-allocation that is giving locals more control the money as opposed to relying on states through formula programs that too is is pretty controversial um the house bill also for the first time in a number of years brings back earmarks so there are actual specific projects proposed by members of congress with

Lots of restrictions on what could be proposed but the earmarks are there in in the house bill the senate bill in contrast is very much more state focused which you would expect given the nature of representation in the senate therefore it’s more formula driven but it does contain a number of new pilot

Programs and new grant programs that try to address some of the specific areas of new concerns so that’s sort of the you know the the top line view of these two bills we’ll talk more specifically about some of the key provisions i’ll start with the money uh and and this really sort of

Just uh amplifies what i was just saying about the house focus being a little bit stronger on local control um what you see is that the so-called sub-allocation the amount of money driven directly to mpos as part of the surface transportation block grant program which is the

Sort of primary pot of money that we’re often focused on the the house moves that percentage from the existing 55 percent that’s retained in the senate bill to a higher 60 percent over the course of the five years of the bill it also provides several new programs that sort of expand

On this idea of sub-allocation so there’s a billion-dollar metro performance allocation again that would go to mpos for for direct uh obligation there’s another 500 million dollars for gridlock reduction grants that would also be aimed at local projects and not flow through the through the states both bills um continue

Work on uh vehicle miles travel fee pilot program both expand that to a national pilot trying to move toward a replacement or a complement to the existing gas tax through through the vmt levy idea there is a new regional i’m sorry rural grant program in the senate bill as well as a

Significant expansion of bridge funding in the senate bill the house bill also has additional bridge money um both bills also sort of push sub-allocation down to smaller size communities as as part of the overall structure of the bill one of the key pillars for apa has been maintaining that this legislation needs to

Tackle climate change more aggressively both of the bills that have been proposed and voted through committee have climate titles which would be a historic first for a surface transportation bill one of the and they’re very similar in many respects but the biggest difference and this is important for us is that the

House bill relies much more heavily on a planning led approach to climate change with planning baked into the transportation planning process new performance measures required and then project selection linked to those performance measures so well both both bills fund uh hazard mitigation resiliency electric vehicle charging station development other sorts of carbon

Reduction strategies both use a mix of both formula money and grant money so some of this would come through a new apportionment and some would come through a competitive process but the basic pieces are quite similar but again the the house bill relying a little more heavily

On on planning and is a little more prescriptive and how it deploys planning the senate bill focuses on a state carbon reduction strategy as opposed to some of the more stringent standards and performance measures that would be set in the senate bill on the subject of biking and walking so

The main biking and walking program is the tap program the transportation alternatives program this is where most of the federally supported biking and walking projects and planning come from both bills adopt provisions from legislation that apa has previously endorsed that would both expand and reform the tap program this would be a major

New infusion of funding um and it’s really remarkable when you think that just a few years ago there was a big debate about whether this program would even continue to exist i mean if you go back a couple of reauthorizations this was very much an existential question for biking and walking

Now you know both bills have agreed to significantly expand tap the biggest difference between the two measures is again on the issue of sub-allocation so the existing tap program actually empowers mpos to do a lot more have a lot more direct engagement in how tap monies are spent they run competitions

They can distribute those those funding uh levels uh the the house bill would increase the percentage of money that would go into that process for direct mpo control to 66 um would drive more of the money out that way uh the the senate bill is a little less

Generous in that regard but both move to a percentage set-aside allocation of 10 which is is where we get the the boost in funding they provide uh funding for technical assistance which could support some of the planning process and some of the implementation work that mpos

Have to do the house feels a little bit stronger on limit limiting the ability of states to transfer money out of tap altogether which has been a problem in a handful of places but again both of the measures both of the bills have measures that that advance biking and walking

In the tap program looking at safety again this is an area where pre-existing legislation that apa had worked on and endorsed has been incorporated into both of these measures a little bit slightly different ways but a couple of kind of high level takeaways on safety both would support vision zero planning

For pedestrian safety both create mechanisms for the development of vulnerable road user assessment planning requirements and then when states hit certain threshold of safety problems it would target would force states to target some of the safety money into those specific locations to Meet the performance standards that would be identified in the user assessment both expand the safe routes to school program extend that to high schools um and and both tackle in somewhat different ways complete streets and context sensitive design the the senate bill is a little less prescriptive in that

Regard it would require a dedication of funding for complete streets planning uh the the house bill goes a little bit further to um ensure that eot usdot prescribes complete streets policies and that those those are embedded there’s funding available in both bills um to sort of drive those policies in into practice

I’m so similar in safety a little bit more funding and a little bit more sort of prescriptive requirements from from the house bill on the safety front um on transit this is a difficult one to make an apples to apples comparison because as i mentioned at the outset

The banking committee in the senate is the the group that will write all of the transit provisions there are a couple of items um that are are related to um the epw bill one is uh transit oriented development eligibility specifically called out in a loan guarantee program known as tiffia

And when we look at the bill that the commerce committee drafted we can see a 25 billion dollar significant increase for amtrak overall 36 billion dollars for rail in that commerce committee bill which was introduced with republican support and is expected to be adopted on a near unanimous vote if not a

Unanimous vote next week so you can see significant new rail funding um coming out of the senate it’s a more open question about what’s going to happen with the transit provisions in the senate and the banking committee there’s a little more controversy there um and certainly i think we would see

Lower funding levels than what’s been improved in the house the other issue is that the the senate seems more committed to the existing ratio of highway to transit investment roughly 80 20 whereas the house bill tries to it’s not moving to parity but it’s moving closer in that direction

So let’s take a look at the house bill for for a second kind of high level perspective on on the transit title here overall it’s 109 billion dollars over the life of the bill for transit it triples funding for amtrak it creates a new grant stream for high-speed and passenger rail programs

On the the public transportation side of the equation it invests a lot in zero emission buses and it has a number of provisions that are sort of aimed at ensuring that transit investment really meets equity needs and it includes some some provisions that target low-income communities for additional investment for better service

Looking at things like no fare pilot programs frequency of service initiatives et cetera it too focuses on tod it has the same provision about tod eligibility in the tifia program but it also creates some new requirements in the new starts process for evaluating the ability of new transit service to

Expand affordable housing options along the transit corridor it also creates a well extends really an office at usdot focused on tod and supporting tod planning something we’ve long supported it includes an interesting provision that would allow other federal funds through the community development block grant program and the economic development administration

To be counted toward the local share requirements in the new starts process which is a big deal that’s often prohibited and it’s a it’s it’s a way of ensuring that a broader set of communities are competitive because they can use those other funding those other federal funding streams uh

As part of the local share there’s also provisions in there that expand on the concept of mobility as a service as part of the overall transit program so we have a much more fleshed out view of a transit title in in the house bill we’ll see what comes from the senate reconnecting communities

And equity issues are i think important and sort of headline aspects of both of these bills very new uh initiatives to address very much long-standing problems but at different scales so both bills anticipate a new program that would support both planning as well as capital investment aimed at reconnecting communities where earlier

Infrastructure investments had disrupted and disadvantaged certain communities and neighborhoods in those places this could be reconnecting with new infrastructure could be taking existing infrastructure out both include dedicated planning grants for tackling this problem and supporting the public engagement around this issue the senate bill treats it as more of a pilot program

And with a 500 million dollar funding level the house ramps up much more quickly with a full three billion dollars for for this program um some other important things to note on the house bill there’s a community investment grant program uh again sort of focused on investment in lower income communities

A new active transportation connectivity grant program which is aimed at bringing active transportation opportunities to communities that may have been underserved in that way there’s also provisions around accessibility and housing and planning that are contained in the house so on the senate side a couple of things worth noting

And there’s a similar provision in the house bill but this transportation access pilot program is really planning oriented and focused on providing some resources to better understand access issues measuring access to jobs access to economic opportunities and baking that into the public process and into the planning process and providing some funding

For expanding data and expanding modeling and improving that process similarly there’s a prioritization process pilot program where npos could get to compete for grant resources to make the project prioritization process more transparent and more open to the public and engage the public in new ways so both bills have planning-led planning-oriented

Equity programs really at the heart of the bill um moving on to one of the the last pillars of our our sort of advocacy in our perspective here is the issue of future mobility uh and the bills are pretty similar in this regard um both add micro mobility options as eligible items

Under the cmaq program so things like bike share scooter programs etc could be could be supported with cmac dollars both take a hard look at the impact and design standards for autonomous vehicles with a clearinghouse study recommendations there’s modeling focus in both bills both look at emerging technologies of various stripes with some

Additional research dollars and some pilot programs and there’s a metropolitan planning research pilot baked into the house bill sort of looking at more innovative cutting edge approaches to transportation planning that could be supported through new research funding so very similar uh on future mobility options and and core components really uh included

In in both of the bills um i know i ran through a lot of stuff at a high level at a breakneck pace so i’m sure there are some questions that are out there but i’m going to pause here and see what sorts of questions or issues

We might want to discuss i’m sure you can use the chat feature to let us know some of your questions and uh maru maybe you can take it from here in terms of what we want to talk about well thank you jason great outline we are starting to get some questions up

Here uh one thing quickly wanted to tell us we will be planning to put the slides along with the recording and also continue to summarize and present this information on the policy advocacy website so if you are not a member please do join it is free of course for all aba members uh

With that uh the first question is we are talking about the money for bridge right highway highway bridges does that mean it also includes for pedestrian access bridges parisian only bridges as well yeah that’s a really good question um one of the sort of less high profile provisions in

In the tni bill the house bill uh is to fairly significantly expand funding specifically for the so-called access bridges you know pedestrian access bridges as opposed to you know traditional um car freight um bridges so yeah it is both both are envisioned um there’s um a bit more of a focus on that

In in the house bill but the senate bridge program would also uh cover cover those those projects as well and how about like we talked about the safe routes to school program now it doesn’t exist as it’s in that name but all rolled under tap and other things

So is that going to be coming back again it is coming back well you know assuming the bill moves forward right but um the the bill anticipates codifying uh and and and creating a structure for for the safe routes program in a version that is basically what we remember from from before

Uh it it makes some expansions i mentioned the expansion of coverage um through uh through 12th grade through high school uh it also creates some new eligibilities um you know to support sort of encouraging uh walking and so forth so it expands the program a little bit it codifies the program

Uh and and moves it you know into the high schools as well thank you you have a sense of how senate thinks about the earmarks or are they going to uh it’s it’s interesting they have been a lot more reluctant on the earmarked front than the house i think the anticipation is that

They will come along with their own earmarks as part of a conference process or a negotiated settlement you know between the two bills at the end they made the decision not to incorporate them at the markup level but there have been conversations happening behind the scenes it is worth noting that they they

Haven’t shut the door to ear marks on the senate side it’s more a matter that they decided not to bake it into their process in the way that the house did um and that that could prove problematic um but i think the feeling was that it would be easier to move these bills

Without the ear marks initially and then to add them in um but the house from the from the get-go really felt like that would be a sweetener for for folks to to support these measures um and i think we will see the earmarks come back in

Once um once these you know the the bills are put together you know the both parties in the senate um agreed that you know earmarks are acceptable now both in the appropriations process as well as in the transportation reauthorization process um so i think we will see them

I know we are at the set time but do you have a few more minutes jason to run through a couple of questions let’s take a few more happy to do that but i would also say you know for folks you know we can’t get to all

The questions that i know that are out there and there’s a lot of detail um do keep the conversation going with us and do look for some of the content we do want to do some deeper dives as this process moves forward to unpack all of the specifics i mean it’s

Kind of hard to do probably 3 000 pages worth of bill text and in 30 minutes but uh you know we do want to answer your questions but let’s say we take a couple more sure i’m gonna quickly make uh like i’m seeing a lot of questions about equity equity in freight plans

I think we need to take a deeper dive into that a lot of questions about uh uh you know complete like funding for tods and affordable housing what it means probably we need to take a deeper dive in that uh also a lot of questions on uh electrification

Uh infrastructure we need to take a those are all those by itself will be uh occupying a whole session so i’m just gonna place those questions on the side and address that in the future uh sessions uh when we talk about like quickly can you summarize again what are the next steps

Of these bills yeah sure so that the house is easy to summarize because the next thing we’ll see is a vote of the full house um in about two weeks time the last week of the month we don’t have the specific date yet um this the the tni bill will move to

The floor uh it’s not clear whether it will move with the funding uh associated the pay force associated with it or not i suspect not i suspect they’ll hold that and they’ll move basically the tni bill is sort of the the base the senate’s more complicated um we’ll see it the commerce committee

Vote next week we’re going to just wait on banking they have to do the transit component before they can assemble the package to take to the floor um you know i think in terms of overall timing you know the house has the luxury of being able to move a little faster

We’ll see their bill come out you know before the fourth of july um the senate is probably going to be aiming for getting something out before the august recess with the idea that we would look at september as the time to try to put these things together hopefully avoid a further extension

But that that certainly remains to be seen and again that funding piece kind of hangs over everything right because they can put the policy together i think there is a you saw that the bills are different but they’re similar enough that the pathway to a compromise is there especially some of the

More partisan issues can be kind of sanded off a little around the edges it’s the funding piece that’s going to be a challenge um i suspect would we will end up with something that probably looks a little bit more like the senate bill than the house bill just given the nature of things

Um but we’ll have to see and we’ll we’ll also have to see um what decisions are made on on a broader infrastructure package that could either incorporate this or you know be connected to it in somehow so we’ll have to see where those negotiations go those are very much ongoing as as you

Know from reading today’s newspapers so if i could just add one one more piece on that i think one of the takeaways here beyond the the policy specifics is that that timeline that i just outlined means it’s really important that folks continue having conversations with their congressional representatives about

What’s important from a planning perspective in the bill because now is the time and getting those provisions in these committee drafts getting them approved on the floor now is the time those final negotiations at the very end of the process is much harder to change some of the stuff than it is when

When we have opportunities in committee and it’s just important to be raising your voice with the your own congressional representatives about this issue so i’ll go through two more questions and then we can wrap it up are there any language about uh mpo’s requirement to do planning beyond their region

Talking about mega region uh well there are some provisions that talk about so-called mega regional planning so beyond you know the existing boundaries of the npo but it’s not terribly prescriptive it’s more a kind of an opportunity area that’s identified i think it creates a pathway for some of that um

There are also some provisions for smaller npos to work together um particularly since they’re pushing sub-allocation bands down to to smaller npos so they’re trying to do some things there to encourage that um that coordination it’s it’s not quite as i think direct as the question implies

But there are some provisions in there is there any discussion regarding internet connectivity to the rural regions within this world yeah there’s been a great question broadband is one of our priorities at apa for overall infrastructure and there’s been a lot of talk about it in the transportation committees when

Secretary budajedge came up he spoke specifically about broadband as infrastructure and and the connection to transportation these bills only hint at it and that’s where i think the larger conversation about infrastructure kind of comes into play and and makes makes it a little bit murky so there’s not direct funding for rural broadband

Here um but you know there are i mentioned that rural program uh in the senate bill i it’s framed in terms of economic development and economic opportunity you could very easily see broadband being interpreted as an eligible item as part of that That formula funding and a council that’s also being created so that’s a space where i think we would have to look to some of the other federal legislation that’s out there to fully tackle the broadband issue but there are spaces in this bill in these bills i should say where you can see

The bipartisan interest around broadband coming into play okay great uh with that uh i mean with respect to all of your time i would like to wrap this discussion there are still some more questions hanging out there i understand that but thank you very much for sending those questions

We wanted to keep this kind of discussion going on we can take this off and discuss it in the advocacy network website you know planning.org slash advocacy you can also send your questions to government affairs at planning.org and we were thinking about having this as a recurring webinar

A couple of month once in a couple of months or once in three months as we progress and collect more uh data about the topics to come from uh and do please send us suggestions on what topics or funding topics you would like to hear us

More from as well that uh thank you very much jason thank you emily for everything setting up everything have a wonderful day thank you all bye-bye thank you

ID: SOQNdSn6lyE
Time: 1623439405
Date: 2021-06-11 23:53:25
Duration: 00:37:05

منبع