MARINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2002

 WASHINGTON, D.C.

DOT HEADQUARTERS – ROOM 3200-3206

 

10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

 

 

 

 

ATTENDEES

 

 

 

      NAME                                                                REPRESENTING

 

 

Chris Koch                                                     World Shipping Council

Bernard Groseclose                                       American Association of Port Authorities

Gwen Harris-Gale                                          Council of Minority Transportation Officials

Jeff Keever                                                    Hampton Roads Maritime Association

John Doyle                                                     Waterways Work

Peter Gatti                                                      National Industrial Transportation League

Kathy Luhn                                                    National Industrial Transportation League

Ashley Miller                                                 U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Jean Godwin                                                   American Association of Port Authorities

John Shanahan                                               Maritime Association – Port of NY/NJ

John Wetzel                                                    Association of American Railroads

Harry Cook                                                    National Waterways Conference

Worth Hager                                                  National Waterways Conference

Boyd Hollingsworth                                       American Waterways Operators

Raymond Barberesi                                       U.S. Maritime Administration

Richard Lolich                                                U.S. Maritime Administration

 

 

 

 

The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM by the two co-chairs, Chris Koch and Bernie Groseclose.  All attendees were asked to introduce themselves.  Chris Koch reminded those present that the full MTS National Advisory Council meeting will be meeting in New York in a few weeks and that some infrastructure issues previously discussed need clarification.  Among the more difficult issues is what MTS needs require funding?  Another is the issue of Customs duties.

Chris Koch cautioned the group not to propose something for SEA-21 which is at odds with the Freight Stakeholders Group and the Chamber of Commerce.  The Infrastructure Team needs to clarify which issues are primarily water and which are primarily land.  Jean Godwin reminded the group that the intention of the original drafters of the Infrastructure Team Funding document to the full MTSNAC was not to undermine the TEA-21 reauthorization process.

 

John Doyle observed that there were some inconsistencies and errors in the Infrastructure Team document and that it did not faithfully represent the consensus of the Infrastructure Team from the last meeting.  He noted that the assistance of an outsider contractor had led to a loss of control over the process by the Team .  Raymond Barberesi explained that the contractor’s assistance had been requested by the former Chair to assist the group in identifying the various infrastructure elements of MTS in need of funding.   Richard Lolich added that some of the changes to the original document were made by agreement of the full Council at its meeting in Long Beach, CA in August, 2002.  He also took note of the errors and corrections made by John Doyle.  Chris Koch noted that the Team needs to clean up the document; otherwise the overview chart will raise questions

 

Everyone also agreed that there is no intent to undermine Inland Waterways issues, such as the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.  John Wetzel added that AAR is opposed to the railroads paying into the Highway Trust Fund.  Peter Gatti urged the group to identify infrastructure needs and how best to fund them.  Kathy Luhn pointed out that the group can enlarge and/or add new programs if desired.  Jeff Keever observed that there are many underfunded maritime programs and that all federal agencies feel underfunded.

 

Raymond Barberesi explained that many federal agencies are looking at MTS, through the Interagency Committee for the Marine Transportation System (ICMTS).  These agencies are looking for support for current programs and not for new programs or initiatives.  Boyd Hollingsworth asked if individual programs need more funding, and if so, how much?  Chris Koch warned the group that MTS needs are one thing, but dedicated MTS Trust Fund does not necessarily follow.  The MTSNAC needs to be careful before submitting a document to the Secretary.  Clarity is paramount.

 

Jean Godwin reminded the group that the premise of the Infrastructure Funding document is that there would be no new fees.  Chris Koch asked if there were a false premise on the source of fees (Customs revenues).  Also, have the needs really been quantified?  MTS has largely ignored transportation policy needs.  Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are central to this issue.  They are part of TEA-21, which involved the intermodal concept, not just highways.  John Doyle pointed out that the Infrastructure Funding document was partly a result of the advice of Carl Bentzel and Jim Sartucci, Hill transportation staff members, who encouraged the group to reach a consensus, and that Customs revenues should be viewed as an equity issue.  John Shanahan pointed out that Customs duties may not solve the problem, since Customs duties are based on value, not volume.  Duties based on volume would produce substantially different results and revenue.

 

Chris Koch suggested that the group identify a list of MTS programs in need of more or better funding for the next funding cycle (FY 2004). Bernie Groseclose added that it was difficult to define needs without a needs assessment.  John Shanahan pointed out that the FHWA Highway Urban Planning process and the HUD Urban Planning Assistance Program both began with assessments of the system and needs.  One must do a needs assessment, document it and include a capital improvement plan.  Local needs must be defined to ensure local support.  Jeff Keever remarked that the South Atlantic Marine Transportation System Organization (SAMTSO) has asked the Southeast Atlantic ports to identify their individual needs and report this to the full MTS Council meeting in November.  John Shanahan added that the group needs to measure MTS needs and cost; then they can decide how best to fund these needs.

 

It was noted that the needs identification process must separate needs and projects that are inherently government and those which are the responsibility of the private sector.  The marine complex at Los Angeles/Long Beach is a good example.  Much of that development has been private, but there is certainly a place and need for public participation, such as the Alameda Corridor. 

 

John Wetzel pointed out that the railroads wrestled with the issue of which projects/needs are the responsibility of the industry and which are for the government.  The railroad industry ultimately decided that it doesn’t want to pay additional fees and therefore, does not want to propose a public improvement program such as TEA-21.

 

Chris Koch reminded the group that SEA-21 originated with Secretary Mineta who presented  MTSNAC with a blank sheet of paper and asked them to fill in the blanks.  John Doyle suggested that the group should recommend: 

1)  Immediately spending down the surpluses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund; and
2) Set up a needs assessment program over the next two years. 

Chris Koch observed that the group seemed to be forming a consensus which is very different from the recommendations contained in the original Infrastructure Funding document.  What exactly should we recommend to the Secretary?  John Doyle noted that a recommendation to spend down the current surpluses in the existing trust funds would be a quantum leap from the status quo.  John Shanahan suggested that the group could recommend that DOT amend its local process to include MARAD in the MPO planning process.  This could be done by changing language in TEA-21 reauthorization to recognize the importance of marine stakeholders in the MPO planning process.  John Doyle cautioned that since that one of the most pressing issues was intermodal connections from ports to highways and rail, it might be better to amend the MPO process to address this issue.  Otherwise there may be complaints that highway funds are being used for maritime programs. Harry Cook reminded the group that Transportation Corridors are not limited to deep draft ports and that inland ports also play a major intermodal transportation role.

 

Chris Koch then summarized the group’s recommendations as follows:

 

1)      Spend down the Harbor Maintenance and Inland Waterways Trust Funds

2)      Support TEA-21 changes which encourage intermodal connectors

3)      Support the role of Customs in security

4)      Support the NOAA PORTS Program

 

It was noted that this still requires a needs assessment to adequately quantify the needs and funding levels.  It was also noted that there is very little maritime representation on most local MPO planning groups.  This could be improved if local port authorities were included in local MPOs.  Bernie Groseclose stated that he is but one of about 40 members of his local MPO and that the MPO process needs amending to give port and freight stakeholders a large voice.

 

John Doyle suggested that SEA-21 might be a combination of programmatic and legislative solutions.  John Shanahan agreed and added that a needs assessment should be done and the marine community should partner with the highway community on TEA-21 reauthorization so that SEA-21 issues can bubble up.  Chris Koch stated that the needs list should not be that difficult to identify or that large.  Jean Godwin pointed out that the Council had asked the Secretary to fund a needs assessment study.  What is the status?  Raymond Barberesi  explained that it had not yet been done and that the study may not address the issues being discussed here.  There must a focused way to identify these needs.  Throwing money at the “feds” may not be the answer.  Also, the study being contemplated isn’t scheduled for completion until mid-or late 2003. 

 

Chris Koch said that basis the preceding, we should emphasize:

 

1)      Spending down the Trust Funds

2)      Integration of the marine community into local transportation planning

3)      Identification of other needs, e.g. NOAA PORTS Program and USCG programs

 

 

This should not interfere with the TEA-21 reauthorization process, but should reinforce other TEA-related stakeholder groups.  It was recommended that the two co-chairs alert other teams so that they could coordinate their efforts.  Jeff Keever offered to alert Pat Hall, Chair of the Security Team.  

 

John Shanahan then noted the development of a North Atlantic MTS group and asked about the role of regional planning initiatives and the role of the government, e.g. MARAD.   Raymond Barberesi answered that the recommendations to the Secretary will include a request for funding, since there is currently no specific funding for MTS regional group support.  Jean Godwin noted that the federal Interagency MTS group (ICMTS) was also working this issue and that their recommendations were due by the end of FY 2003 (October 2003), somewhat later than the MTSNAC.

 

It was agreed that Chris Koch and Bernie Groseclose would draft an Infrastructure Funding proposal and circulate it among the Team members for review and comment, and presentation to the MTSNAC meeting in New York in November. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 PM.