Earmarks are back, which Michigan projects will make the cut?

[Music]

Jeff Cranson: Hello, this is the Talking Michigan Transportation podcast. I'm Jeff Cranson, director of communications at the Michigan Department of Transportation.

[Music]

Cranson: This week, the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is engaged in an old practice, resurrected recently, and that's earmarking projects. On this week's edition, Susan Howard, who's the program director for transportation finance at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, joins me to talk about the process, the pros and cons of earmarking, and what else we can expect. And then later, I’ll be joined by Matt Chynoweth, who is the chief bridge engineer at MDOT and the architect of the innovative bridge bundling plan that he and his team have been working on for some time. And he'll be on to talk about the biggest earmark in that bill, which would be for the Miller/Rotunda Road bridges near the Ford Plant in Dearborn. Again, I'm happy to have with me Susan Howard of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Susan, thanks for taking time to do this. Could you just outline a little bit how we went away from earmarks for a long time, more than a decade, and how the process has been reintroduced?

Susan Howard: Yeah, absolutely, thanks for having me. Right, so, about a dozen years ago or so, congress phased out the use of earmarks in both the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bills as well as in annual appropriations. And that was largely a reaction to just an over reliance and a kind of seeing the process get out of control, particularly when it came to the SAFETEA-LU Bill, the 2005 surface transportation bill, which was just, you know, the number of earmarks had just exploded at that point. And the process really felt like it was unwieldy. So, you know, they pulled back, and this is really the first time that we've seen them come back through the House bill this year to reauthorize the surface program.

Cranson: And I guess I should further solidify your credibility because before you came to AASHTO you were a veteran staffer on the Hill. So, you've followed this process, I guess, kind of on both sides as an advocate, as somebody working on it from a legislative standpoint. Was it surprising to you that given some of the comments from other Republicans like, you know, ‘Over my dead body, we’ll never do earmarks, and we're not going to participate in that,’ that a number of House Republicans sought and received earmarks in this initial round?

Howard: Yeah, yeah. About half of the Republican caucus in the House ended up submitting earmarks. And I think there was sort of a everybody make your own decision kind of posture taken for Republicans. On the Senate side, the ban, I believe, is still in place, but they've kind of given folks permission to—well, I guess, I should say they chose not to completely repeal the prohibition. But I don't think anyone's going to be penalized if they do seek earmarks. So, yeah, I think I was a little bit surprised at how high it was in terms of the House Republicans who decided to participate. But at the same time, you know, I think it's like if you see the trains moving, you sort of just, like, you might want to jump on. No one would want to see a bill come out and have, you know, projects funded in the district right next to theirs and, you know, you don't want to have it look like you're not out there advocating for your constituents.

Cranson: Right, yeah. You can stand on principle, but if you're not doing your constituents any good then what does it matter?

Howard: Right.

Cranson: So, I guess, you know, there are some provisions in this new legislation that seem like, you know, honest efforts at transparency and the ability for constituents and media and anybody else to see right away who's asking for what and what it would do. Is that right?

Howard: Yeah, that's right. All of the earmarks have been published and are available on the House T&I website. When you go look at the language, they are not assigned to a particular member. You have to do a little bit more digging to find that, but it's possible because every request that members submitted had to be published publicly. So, you can figure out, you know, who requested what and a lot of media outlets have spent some time this week doing that. So, it's not hard to figure out. And that was one of the issues in the past with earmarks. It was a very opaque process, and it was always sort of a question of, like, ‘Well, do we know where this really came from? Who requested it? What public sector entity requested it? What member requested it? What exactly is the project?’ I think they've definitely tried to shore that up a bit. And, in fact, I think they spent a lot of time—the committee staff spent a lot of time vetting requests that came in, and that's why the markup got pushed a bit past the original goal of having it before Memorial Day. So, yeah, I think there's definitely an effort to have it be a little bit more transparent and an open process.

Cranson: So, when is it just, you know, an upfront, transparent, legitimate legislative process, you know, earmarking projects, and when is it pork?

Howard: [Laughing] It's in the eye of the beholder, I think. If you look through the list of earmarks, you'll see a lot of trail projects. When I did earmarking, back in the day, that was a very popular place to do earmarks because one, the accounts that were eligible for earmarking, and two, those are the type of projects that are often very popular with local governments and counties, you know, to have that kind of recreational trail use and sidewalk improvements and things that really you could see a tangible impact, you know, to the community in a different kind of way than you might with a maybe less visible highway project or transit project where there's not the ribbon cutting aspect of it as much. So, I don't know, I think that there will certainly be folks that criticize some of the projects. But I do think that because of some of the guardrails put in place this time around, there'll be more—I don't want to say legitimacy because that seems dismissive of what's been done in the past, but I do think that they made a concerted effort to make sure that projects were in the STIP, projects had been vetted with local governments or state DOTs. So, again, I’m sure there'll be criticism of some of them depending on your bent and what types of things you'd like to see earmarked, but, overall, it's probably a better outcome than in the past.

Cranson: So, you know, you make a really good point though about trails and trail related projects because I can remember a time, just a few years ago, where conservative lawmakers from rural areas would often question and be critical of trail projects. Because as far as they were concerned, you know, if we're in a state like Michigan that's been under funding transportation and the roads are falling apart, every dollar should go to potholes. And then the tide has turned as they found out, just what you said, that these are really popular with a lot of people in the communities. So, it's really kind of turned their thinking.

Howard: Yeah, I think that's probably true. You know, you're looking at what is going to best meet the priorities and needs of your community, a lot of that stuff is going to be very localized types of improvements that are, again, not super expensive. I mean, in the grand scheme of things and that's what I try to remind people of, too, it's just like we have, certainly, a lot of needs, but we also have a lot of flexibility with programming funds and earmarks can be part of the picture if they're used properly. You know, it's we're not in a situation here where, you know, funding one type of project comes at the expense of another.

Cranson: Well, coming out of the pandemic, I think a lot of people expect that a lot of, you know, recreational users who got out on bikes—I mean, bike sales soared.

Howard: Right.

Cranson More people were walking, hiking, and there's every reason to think that that'll still continue. So, we're going to need that kind of infrastructure.

Howard: Mm-hmm.

Cranson: So, talk a little bit about where you think things are going. I know you don't have a crystal ball, but do you expect, you know, a lot of these to survive. And I guess the even bigger question is is this kind of discussion as part of reauthorization the best we're going to do in the end, or do you still think, given that talks have broken down between Senator Capito and President Biden and there's another group pursuing their own, you know, bipartisan negotiation, do we still have a chance at the at the American Jobs Plan and something big?

Howard: Well, as you mentioned, you know, in the last 24 hours things have kind of broken down a bit. And the President seems to have moved on to negotiating with a new group of folks, a bipartisan group of senators that—what's different with that is that, you know, obviously, Senator Capito is the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate EPW Committee, which has already passed its bill unanimously out of committee. So, you know, I think the challenge is that there's probably going to be pretty significant differences between what the House passes this week and what the Senate passed out—or I should say, the House Committee passes this weekend with the Senate moved out of committee a couple weeks ago. But I think it's most likely that, since the reauthorization seems to be what's moving, it'll likely serve as a vehicle for pieces of the Biden infrastructure plan. Then there will be a whole lot of other stuff that doesn't fall within the parameters of reauthorization that will perhaps be done through budget reconciliation or some other mechanism. Today, my view might change, but today I’m a little bit more skeptical about the possibility of passing this massive infrastructure bill as a standalone, independent product. I think it's probably going to start breaking down into different pieces that get moved, but, again, that's just speculation today. Things could change but since we do have these two reauthorization proposals moving through, it might just be time to let those let those play out like that, let that take shape, and then see what's not what's left undone that's still a priority for the administration to move forward with.

Cranson: Yeah, it presents a bit of a dilemma for state DOTs and cities and, you know, local road agencies who, on one hand, would love to see something as big as the AJP, but, on the other hand, would like some certainty that you would get with reauthorization moving forward.

Howard: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we've kind of had to assume both scenarios in a way and play out each hand. But, yeah, for sure a long-term bill is a priority since our current extension expires September 30, and states rely on that predictable funding to make decisions and implement their programs. So, I think it's really been an evolving thing and the final pin probably isn't put in it. But for now, at least, what's on my mind, I think, it's how these two packages are going to be reconciled, meaning what's passed out of the Senate EPW committee and what's going to pass out of T&I.

Cranson: What do you think we should watch most closely to really get a sense of where this is going?

Howard: Well, what we still don't know is the overall funding mechanism for any of this. I mean, we don't know a funding mechanism for an infrastructure bill or for a reauthorization bill. Those things matter because the overall funding level for the bill—I mean, what House T&I is proposing, what Chairman DeFazio is proposing today has a high price tag. And that's all well and good but it there has to be some mechanism for paying for it. So, I’m looking to that to see if there's any movement anywhere on either if we are just going to resort to general fund transfers again or if there's some willingness to talk about another funding mechanism. And then I think, yeah, seeing how these negotiations with a new group of senators may go. I’m not super optimistic that that the tone will change much. Again, I keep kind of coming back to the feeling that if a deal was possible, it really had to be with the deal maker., and, in this case, that's Senator Capito from West Virginia. I mean, she's the one with the with the committee leadership and with the buy-in. So, this group of bipartisan senators is, you know, a great group of seasoned legislators. I mean, they know what they're doing, I’m just not convinced how far they'll be able to get. So, I think those are kind of things I’m looking at now to see can there be any more movement on a larger infrastructure proposal, or are we kind of settling into a reauthorization strategy?

Cranson: Well, that's well said. I appreciate it, Susan. I’m sure you and I will be able to talk again maybe when something surprises us, and a bigger package does actually get adopted. But thank you for taking time today.

Howard: My pleasure. Thanks, Jeff.

Cranson: As promised, for the second segment, I’m going to be talking with Matt Chynoweth, who is MDOT's chief bridge engineer. He's the head of MDOT's Bureau of Bridges and Structures. And, really, he and his team are the architects of what is a very progressive and, I think, thoughtful bridge bundling plan that the governor and the State Budget Office have embraced to try to create some economies of scale and take care of some failing local bridges that otherwise might not be addressed. And this is especially relevant today because as the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in Washington continues to go over some earmarks. Among the biggest for Michigan is $20 million dollars for the Miller/Rotunda Roads bridges near the Ford plant in Dearborn. Matt, just talk about what it could mean if we're able to get that mark and then what comes next.

Matt Chynoweth: Yeah, so, good afternoon, Jeff. And it's great to be here talking to you. So, yeah, the Miller/Rotunda bridge, that has been the topic of a lot of discussion relative to number one, it's condition, number two, how do we maintain it in its current condition, which it has over, I think, 500 temporary supports holding up the bridge. The governor has been out there several times. Our director has been out there several times to draw attention to the fact that major investment is needed to replace this bridge and to also keep, you know, the economic center there of the Rouge facility. And there's a there's a railroad there, and you've got the local economy. And then you've got the I-94 freeway right there. So, it's an expensive proposition. This is not a cheap bridge and having this this $20 million earmark really helps solidify, number one, the understanding of the importance of this piece of infrastructure, but then it also will help, hopefully, mobilize the remaining funding that's needed to really do this right, which is a full, you know, replacement and bringing the whole facility up to modern standards.

Cranson: So, talk again about—and you and I have discussed it before on the podcast and numerous media interviews, but I still think we have to assume that some people are coming into this cold—explain the bridge bundling concept.

Chynoweth: Yeah, so, the bridge bundling concept is not new. Actually, project bundling is not new to MDOT. We've been doing it for years and folks may see it and not even understand it's bundling, but if you're doing a section of roadway, pick any section. Let's talk about I-94, you know, in Detroit. You're doing X amount of miles of road while you're in there. Let's do all the bridge. Let's do all the safety improvements. Let's do everything we can in that corridor, and that really is bundling a bunch of separate projects all into one. So, specific to the bridge bundling, though, and, again, MDOT has done this where we release packages of bridges, but what makes this program unique is the fact that MDOT is partnering with the local agencies. And we are administering a 100% local agency program, meaning there are no trunk line bridges involved. We are using our expertise and partnering with the locals to administer this program on local bridges, which is somewhat of a, you know, departure from the traditional thinking where the state says, ‘Here's our bridges. We're worried about these. The locals, you have some state funding, but you also have the ability any given time to propose a millage or something for funding.’ And, unfortunately, the reality is the funding is just as hard to come by. So, what we're proposing is to use a balance of a mix of federal funds, state funds, and really target these local agency bridges that are what we call our ‘bridges of concern,’ that are bridges in, you know, serious, critical condition, closed bridges, load posted bridges that really impact the communities where they reside. So, it's been done in other states very successfully, you know, multi-million-dollar programs that have hit several hundred bridges at a time. So, we're taking a page out of that playbook.

Cranson: So, this bridge in particular, like you said, the governor's been there several times. We've done media events there. It's vital to, you know, one of the biggest employers in that area and the producer of some iconic vehicle brands. But explain just the age and the temporary supports and just how bad that bridge is.

Chynoweth: Yeah, so, the bridge is very old. It was built in the late 50s. And at that time, the design standards were just, you know, multiple short spans with a lot of expansion joints. So, what that has resulted in is a lot of expansion joints that could leak or fail. And if you don't stay on top of the maintenance, those failed expansion joints could then cause the end of the beams to be exposed to de-icing salts and other environmental factors that would cause deterioration. So, with that many short spans, that many failed expansion joints, and the fact that the great separation itself is actually Miller Road and Rotunda, and they kind of tee in together and there's an intersection on the top of the bridge, it's just a very unique situation where you have tons and tons of areas where the beam ends are bad, and we had to put in temp supports. And there have been multiple temp support projects over the years just to keep that bridge operating because of its critical use, number one, for mobility in the area, but also for the Ford Rouge Facility.

Cranson: So, point to some other, I guess—some of these bridges because they're local bridges and they're, you know, by necessity had to be closed, they don't carry a lot of traffic. But what they do carry, in terms of commerce or agricultural products, are very important in that area. But what are some of the, I guess, what you would call the maybe higher profile ones that could be part of this package around the state?

Chynoweth: Yeah, so, there's several, actually, in Wayne County. There's several in Oakland County. And these are some of the higher ADT bridges, a lot of traffic on them. But what we find, too, Jeff, is as we look statewide, a lot of the bridges that they may be open, but they're load posted and become an impediment to the economy. We heard—when we were doing a lot of our outreach to the locals to start building this program, we heard from, like, you know, Schoolcraft County up in the U.P. We heard from their, you know, highway engineer saying, ‘Well, you know, there's a logging operation that brings trucks through the area. And one truck has to divide its load between two or three trucks to go across this specific bridge that's load posted and then load everything back onto one truck.’ And just think about how that impacts, you know, operations, right? And we've got another bridge out in Ferrysburg where it's not that old of a bridge. They had to close it a number of years ago, and now it's severely load restricted. And the detour route requires, you know, some navigating around. So, when you get to these bridges that, again, they don't have the traffic numbers that a trunk line bridge would have, but they serve a specific community or a specific sector of the economy. And even if they only see a couple hundred vehicles a day, if these vehicles are heavily loaded trucks that are critical to the local economy, that bridge is just as important to them as to any other bridge in the state.

Cranson: Yeah, I think that's a good thing to remember because we tend to think about traffic and numbers and forget that, yeah, what matters to you is what's on your route.

Chynoweth: Yeah, it becomes an equity issue. It becomes a quality-of-life issue, and there's a realization that, you know, a good operating infrastructure are essential for those things.

Cranson: So, moving forward, if we finally get some movement on this supplemental budget proposal, fiscal year 21 proposal, that would put about $300 million dollars into bridge bundling, and it would include about $40 million for the Miller and Rotunda bridges, I mean, let's say that that happens soon, and the U.S. House signs off on this earmark, how long would it be before that bridge could be replaced?

Chynoweth: Yeah, so, a bridge like that, Jeff, due to its size and then the complexity of the stakeholders involved, you've got Ford right there that, you know, they obviously have to maintain their operations during any sort of bridge reconstruction. You've got an active rail line right there. So, the design and the coordination for a project of that size is probably going to take about two years before you see any, you know, construction operations take place. That's a complex—it's not so much that the design is complex, it's all the stakeholders involved. It's all of the permits that would be required. There are lots of utilities out there. So, it's probably a two-year project development process.

Cranson: Well, let's hope that things come together at both the state and federal level and we can do that.

Chynoweth: Absolutely.

Cranson: Thanks, Matt, for talking this through and explaining once again. I’m sure we'll revisit the topic in the future.

Chynoweth: Yes, my pleasure, Jeff.

Cranson: Thank you again for listening to this week's edition of the Talking Michigan Transportation podcast. I would like to thank Randy Debler and Corey Petee for engineering this week's podcast. To subscribe to show notes and more, go to Apple podcasts and search for Talking Michigan Transportation.