There is plenty of finger pointing and blame to go around when deciding what is wrong with the nation's air travel system. Fixing the problem is going to require the effort of all involved. There is a need to expand capacity at the nation's airports, modernize the air traffic control systems, and find a more logical and sustainable system of scheduling flights. In large part, technology and funding is available. Most of all, it is going to require leadership, by the Administration, Congress, airports and airlines.

 

The NCARC recommended an overhaul of the FAA's budget, organization and management, and transforming it into a performance based organization. There have been many calls for privatizing the air traffic control function of the FAA. Many other nations, including Canada and the United Kingdom, have done so. This has permitted the rapid introduction of new technologies and has reduced costs.

 

Another idea that may deserve serious consideration is "rush-hour" pricing. The old system of open access has led to over scheduling. By setting slot fees according to demand, airlines will be given incentives to spread flight times out. Also, by charging more during peak times, airports can increase revenue.

Solutions to ease the increasing demands on our transportation system and improve highway conditions, capacity, and safety are multifaceted and don't always mean simply building more roads and bridges. America must change its transportation behavior, increase transportation investment at all levels of government, and make use of the latest technology. Cities and communities should be better planned to reduce dependence on personal vehicles for errands and work commutes, and businesses must encourage more flexible schedules and telecommuting.

 

Specifically, all levels of government should work diligently to exceed FHwA's strategic plan target of less than 25% structural deficiencies for all bridges by 2008.

 

Congress must fully re-authorize TEA-21 when it comes up for reauthorization in 2002. Congress also must use all of the money that accumulates in the Highway Trust Fund and protect it from abuse by removing it from the unified budget. Congress must provide adequate funding to meet current highway and transit bridge needs, and include enough funding for research and development of civil engineering innovations that offer cost-effective solutions to our transportation needs. Other solutions include private-public partnerships where appropriate, and multi-year capital and operating budgets.

 

There is still an alarming lack of public support and education about the need for proper

maintenance and repair of dams. Unless a dam fails, dam safety is not usually in the public view, although it is an issue that affects the safety of thousands of people who could be living and working in the path of a sudden, deadly flood.

 

It is imperative that policy makers act before another human tragedy occurs.

 

New solutions are needed to what amounts to a nearly trillion dollars uncritical drinking water and wastewater investments over the next two decades. Not meeting the investment needs of the next 20 years risks reversing the public health, environmental, and economic gains of the last three decades.

 

The case for federal investment is compelling. Needs are large and unprecedented; in many locations, local sources cannot be expected to meet this challenge alone; and because waters are shared across local and state boundaries, the benefits of federal help will accrue to the entire nation. Clean and safe water is no less a national priority than are national defense, an adequate system of interstate highways, and a safe and efficient aviation system. These latter infrastructure programs enjoy sustainable, long-term federal grant programs; under current policy, water and wastewater infrastructure do not.

 

Equally compelling is the case for flexibility in the forms of federal investment including grants, loans, and other forms of assistance. Grants will be needed for many communities that simply cannot afford to meet public health, environmental, and/or service-level requirements. Loans and credit enhancements may be sufficient for other types of communities with greater economies of scale, wealthier populations, and/or fewer assets per capita to replace.

 

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recommends that funding for water

infrastructure system improvements and associated operations be provided by a comprehensive program.

 

The current energy crisis in California, combined with the rising costs of oil and natural gas have made energy transmission and generation an important issue at all levels of government. Policy makers will be looking at a host of ideas in the coming months to deal with the crisis including increased exploration for energy sources, new conservation techniques, and more emphasis on renewable energy sources. Yet, even with solutions to some of these problems there has been, little discussion regarding the nation's aging transmission infrastructure - the backbone of the system.

 

There is, on average, a 12-year span between identifying and remediating sites under CERCLA. This long span is caused by overlapping federal and state requirements and responsibilities; mandated joint, strict and several liability for potentially responsible parties (PRP); and inconsistent cleanup requirements.

 

Site cleanup requirements do not take into account site specific conditions and risks based on the reasonably anticipated future use of the site. Cleanup to "background" levels adds significantly to cleanup costs and schedules and discourages the redevelopment of brownfield sites crucial to local industrial economies.

 

There has been a federal/port partnership involved in the development of our nation's port system for nearly 200 years. While the Federal government historically funded 100% of navigation channel improvements as well as maintenance, since 1986 the federal role of the partnership has been cost-sharing capital improvements to federal navigation channels.

 

U.S. public ports are varied, but generally act as semi-autonomous authorities. Local, statewide or regional ports are responsible for investment, development, and operation of marine terminal facilities. Ports are also responsible for dredging of berthing areas and access channels connecting the port facilities to federal navigation channels. In 1998, the cumulative local investment in port facilities was $1.5 billion. An additional $9.1 billion of non-federal investment is expected before 2002.

 

The U.S. Congress must address the funding issue for both Harbor and Inland Waterways

financing. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland Waterway Infrastructure Trust Fund both have surpluses as of 2000. Congress should use all of the money that accumulates in both the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and Inland Waterway Infrastructure Trust Fund and protect them from future abuse by removing them from the unified budget. Congress must also provide adequate funding on an on-going basis to address the $38 billion backlog of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorized projects.

 

Solutions to ease the increasing demands on our transportation system and improve highway conditions, capacity and safety, are multifaceted and do not always mean building more roads and bridges. America must change its transportation behavior, increase transportation investment at all levels of government, and make use of the latest technology. Cities and communities should be better planned to reduce dependence on personal vehicles for errands and work commutes, and businesses must encourage more flexible schedules and telecommuting. Congress must fully reauthorize the TEA-21 when it comes up in 2002. Congress also must use all of the money that accumulates in the Highway Trust Fund and protect it from abuse by removing it from the unified budget.

 

Congress must provide adequate funding to meet current highway and transit needs, and include enough funding for research and development of civil engineering innovations that offer cost-effective solutions to our transportation needs. Other solutions include private-public partnerships where appropriate, and multi-year capital and operating budgets.

 

Efforts to repair, rehabilitate or modernize the nation's schools face numerous hurdles. The complex relationships between local school districts and state and federal governments are constantly evolving. Coupled with other serious problems faced by the nation's school systems, school infrastructure must compete for both attention and money.

 

Given that children are our most precious commodity, we should accept nothing less than the best conditions for our schools. ASCE strongly believes that governments at all levels should make primary and secondary education a priority, along with the resources to support the necessary infrastructure.

 

The current domestic policy debate surrounding MSW focuses on the interstate shipment of waste.

 

Whether state and local governments should be given authority by the U.S. Congress to restrict the growing volume of out-of-state solid waste (the "interstate waste" issue) has been on the national environmental policy agenda for more than a decade. A related issue, whether state or local jurisdictions may designate where locally generated waste must be disposed ("flow control") also has become controversial. Congress has been unable to resolve either issue since the debate began in 1987.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) supports the continued use of landfills as a viable option for managing municipal solid waste (MSW), especially for solid waste streams which are not handled by other management techniques, such as recycling and incineration, or are the non-reusable by-products or residuals of these other techniques.

 

New solutions are needed to what amounts to a nearly trillion dollars uncritical drinking water and wastewater investments over the next two decades. Not meeting the investment needs of the next 20 years risks reversing the public health, environmental, and economic gains of the last three decades.

 

The case for federal investment is compelling. Needs are large and unprecedented; in many locations, local sources cannot be expected to meet this challenge alone; and because waters are shared across local and state boundaries, the benefits of federal help will accrue to the entire nation. Clean and safe water is no less a national priority than are national defense, an adequate system of interstate highways, and a safe and efficient aviation system. These latter infrastructure programs enjoy sustainable, long-term federal grant programs; under current policy, water and wastewater infrastructure do not.

 

Equally compelling is the case for flexibility in the forms of federal investment including grants, loans, and other forms of assistance. Grants will be needed for many communities that simply cannot afford to meet public health, environmental, and/or service-level requirements. Loans and credit enhancements may be sufficient for other types of communities with greater economies of scale, wealthier populations, and/or fewer assets per capita to replace.

 

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recommends that funding for water

infrastructure system improvements and associated operations be provided by a comprehensive program.