MTSNAC
Infrastructure Team Meeting
July 16, 2001
DOT Nassif Building, Room 6200
Meeting was convened at 11:00 A.M. by Chuck Carroll, Team Chair. There followed an introduction of all present
The June 20, 2001 meeting minutes were reviewed and approved.
Chuck Carroll raised the question- does everyone agree that we work to change status quo or are we happy/satisfied with status quo?
Lindsay McLaughlin asked about the ICMTS needs status request? Letter to Secretary requesting needs based assessment is now going through MARAD clearance process.
Looman Stingo stated that we are faced with gridlock. We need to funnel various funds.
Bill Ellis emphasized that the need has never been greater then now for funds to be provided. What format? A Set aside for Maritime program. Not co-mingled with other modes. Problem with "raiding" other trust funds
Jean Godwin of AAPA stated that AAPA does not approve of massive trust fund for all MTS needs. AAPA’s top priority is dredging. Don’t throw landside access into a SEA-21. Keep in TEA-21 reauthorization. Don’t muddy the waters. Not enough Customs duties to pay for these planned programs. OMB already counting this. AAPA does not support using HMT trust fund for MTS related projects. AAPA disagrees with Carl Bentzel’s statement to reinstate HMT on exports & use it for variety of programs.
Chuck Carroll added that piecemeal approval is the status quo and that we need to get pass this. What percentage of the HMT goes to ports? Mots of it.
Bill Ellis pointed out that it is not a good idea to use designated funds for other projects. See the Great Britain initiative. The Government pays for public benefits from increased waterway use. How about general revenues?
Dennis Kirwin of Waterways Works! Stated that Jeff High’s surplus is not now available. Jean Godwin asked if OMB has already counted the money.
Jim McCarville explained that OMB is counting 9% this year and 6% next year. But there are other sources of funding, not just Customs duties, e.g., funds from highway for intermodal connectors based on amount of trucks traffic generated.
Jean Godwin said that this is an argument for a TEA-21 funding mechanism.
Bill Ellis stated that we need to set up something specific for Maritime issues.
John Doyle reminded the group that spending
caps were statutorily imposed by the Budget Act, and they expire on September
30, 2002. We need a consensus report. Make an equity- base argument. Lay claim
to Maritime related expenses.
We need a Budget Act amendment to allow these monies to be spent for Maritime-
related projects.
Carol Lambos reminded the team that this group must report to full MTSNAC in September. Need to identify specific items. Need to develop short list for infrastructure projects.
Chuck Carroll identified the following key areas:
Dredging
Landside access
Coastal shipping initiative
Tom Allegretti of AWO disagreed. Jean Godwin wants a firewall around HMT. Inland Trust Fund should also be off-limits. There needs to be some sort of funding stream as part of an integrated whole as part as a national MTS.
John Doyle outlined the following funding needs and their respective funding sources:
FUNDING NEED FUNDING SOURCE
Jim McCarville- we need a dedicated CMAQ-like program/fund.
Should we include terminal expansion?
Scott Rainey asked if aids to navigation should be included.
Bill Ellis stated that there was a clear lack of regional freight planning. John Doyle suggested that we leave HMT + IWTF alone- don’t touch them. Jean Godwin and AAPA support repeal of the HMT. Instead, get access to customs duties.
Bill Ellis noted that some items are not now funded and need to be funded. Those that are funded need to be funded at higher level.
There was much discussion the appropriate funding mechanism(s):
Intermodal connectors- good chances of getting highway- related funding under TEA-21. Doris Bautch reminded the group of the long timeline for the buy- in on TEA-21 and intermodal road connectors.
John Wetzel added that railroad connectors were currently under discussion through the Gateways coalition. Should railroads and trucks be included in TEA-21? Should we re-introduce the Investment tax credit? Perhaps we should re-route the rail lines around cities vs. through cities, as suggested by Jim Sartucci at the last meeting.
Maybe re-direct deficit reduction tax? Both Inland Waterways and railroads want to eliminate it (4.5%).
Jim McCarville – use the Railroad Rehabilitation Infrastructure Fund (RRIF) and expand MARAD’s title XI Program.
John Wetzel pointed out the RRIF has severe constraints. It is focused on smaller railroads and is seldom used. It is a financing mechanism.
Jean Godwin suggested that we limit terminals and equipment to new coastal/inland uses. Concentrate on congestion. Limit to new uses. Need to include ships (Tittle XI). Focus on Congestion and Capacity.
Jim McCarville suggested that Intermodal connectors be included in congestion mitigation. He said that the challenge from Secretary Mineta was to address Items 4-8 above.
Tom Allegretti added that any proposal needs to focus on the future.
Should we create a fund to capture larger share of customs revenue to finance major MTS issues?
All agreed that there was a need for dedicated, predictable revenue.
There seems to be some support for repealing the HMT and replacing it with use of customs duties.
At this point Chuck Carroll offered to compose an outline and circulate it to all MTSNAC Infrastructure Team members for discussion and forwarding to MTSNAC for September meeting (with 2 week comment period).
Next meeting to refine paper will be September 6, 2001 @ 1pm.