U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–130 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–386 

KEEPING GOODS MOVING 

IN AMERICA’S HEARTLAND 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

AND MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SAFETY AND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 2, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, General Counsel 

JASON VAN BEEK, Deputy General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT 

MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY AND SECURITY 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 2, 2016 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Fischer ................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES

Kyle Schneweis, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads ................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Donald E. Overman, Chairman of the Board, Airport Authority, County of 

Scottsbluff, Nebraska ........................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Deb Cottier, Executive Director, Nebraska Northwest Development Corporation; Member, Board of Directors, Heartland Expressway Association; and 

Member, Ports-to-Plains Alliance ....................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

David Freeman, Senior Vice President, Transportation, BNSF Railway Company ....................................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Kevin Kelley, President, Kelley Bean Company ................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Richard B. Brent Holliday, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Transport 

Company ............................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

APPENDIX

Addendum to Statement of Deb Cottier on Behalf of Nebraska Northwest 

Development Corporation, a member of the Heartland Expressway 

Association and the Ports-to-Plains Alliance ..................................................... 63 

(1) 

KEEPING GOODS MOVING 

IN AMERICA’S HEARTLAND 

MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND

MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY AND SECURITY,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Scottsbluff, NE. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in the 

Plex Room, the Harms Advanced Technology Center, 2620 College 

Park, Western Nebraska Community College, Hon. Deb Fischer, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Fischer [presiding]. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Mrs. FISCHER. Good morning, everyone. I am so pleased to be 

here in beautiful Scottsbluff, Nebraska for today’s Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security 

field hearing. 

Our hearing is entitled ‘‘Keeping Goods Moving in America’s 

Heartland.’’ I am grateful to the Senate Commerce Committee 

Chairman, John Thune, our neighbor in South Dakota, for providing me with the opportunity to convene this hearing and bring 

the U.S. Senate here to Scottsbluff. 

Western Nebraska values safe, efficient, and reliable infrastructure, which is critical to the local economy. A robust transportation 

system requires well-maintained roads, bridges, railways, and 

highways to bring our goods to market. Without it, manufacturers, 

agriculture producers, and businesses of all sizes cannot offer their 

products domestically or around the world. 

As many of you are aware, Congress passed an important fiveyear highway bill at the end of last year known as the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation, or the FAST Act. I was proud to 

work with my colleagues on this bipartisan legislation and usher 

in the first multi-year transportation bill in over a decade. Accomplishing a long-term highway bill was one of my key goals since 

joining the United States Senate, and I am proud to see this victory achieved for the American people. 

The common theme regarding the highway bill is certainty. For 

nearly a decade, Congress was forced to pass 36 short-term extensions. Congress kicked the can down the road for 8 years, leaving 

infrastructure projects across the country in limbo. With the pasVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Oct 25, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\22130.TXT JACKIE
2 

sage of the FAST Act, states and localities will now have certainty 

to plan and implement projects for the next 5 years. 

Since my time in the Nebraska Unicameral, I have made funding 

of transportation infrastructure a top priority. Two of my accomplishments in the Unicameral were the Build Nebraska Act and 

the State/Federal Dollars Buy-Back Program. Both of these laws 

have led to increased investment for Nebraska’s infrastructure and 

have helped local communities start and complete vital transportation projects such as the Heartland Expressway. 

I brought those Nebraska commonsense solutions with me to 

help craft the Senate’s highway bill. I was pleased that Nebraskans 

played a strong role by providing important guidance to my office. 

I have also encouraged key stakeholders from Washington to visit 

Nebraska. Last year I welcomed U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to Lincoln, where we convened a roundtable at the University of Nebraska Lincoln’s Transportation Research Center. We 

were joined there by local transportation stakeholders representing 

the railroad, highway, construction, trucking, passenger automobile, and aviation industries. 

At this important meeting and at my many listening sessions 

across the state, the message from Nebraskans was loud and clear: 

Our businesses, consumers and families wanted a long-term highway bill. They advocated for legislation that reduces regulatory 

burdens, strengthens safety, and increases flexibility for our state 

and our local officials. 

I was pleased to be appointed as a member of the Highway Bill 

Conference Committee, which worked to combine the House and 

the Senate versions in order to craft that final bill. The bill includes several provisions which I was proud to author and enact in 

the final legislation. For example, as Chairman of the Surface 

Transportation Subcommittee, I drafted provisions to reform the 

regulatory framework at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or the FMCSA, which has jurisdiction over commercial 

vehicle safety and operations. 

Commercial carriers and businesses across our state will benefit 

from increased participation, clarity, and also transparency within 

the obscure and the often controversial regulatory process at the 

FMCSA. 

The FAST Act, it also corrected a flawed FMCSA truck safety 

scoring program that stakeholders, including law enforcement organizations, were sharply criticizing. Erroneous scores had prompted 

frivolous litigation and caused carriers to lose longstanding business contracts. 

Another provision will provide more career opportunities for military veterans. Under a new commercial driver pilot program, 

younger returning veterans with commercial driver’s licenses, those 

CDLs, will be allowed to operate commercial freight vehicles across 

state lines. This will help to address our Nation’s serious truck 

driver shortage while also providing work opportunities for those 

who have served our Nation. 

The FAST Act also offers regulatory relief for agriculture producers who transport diesel fuel for equipment. It offers an exemption for agricultural retailers, employees, and producers from obtaining a hazardous materials driver’s license. They will no longer 

3 

require this license when transporting 1,000 gallons or less of diesel fuel if the container is clearly marked ‘‘diesel fuel.’’ 

Nebraskan families, workers and businesses will soon see new 

highway projects up and running at a faster pace as well. This is 

due to provisions that I championed in the FAST Act that will enable stronger coordination between the Nebraska Department of 

Roads and the Federal Highway Administration. In key elements 

of our infrastructure such as rail at grade crossings and bridges, 

they will also see increased investment at a faster pace. 

Under this legislation, rural communities in our state will have 

additional opportunities for resources to maintain bridge infrastructure through a new streamlined discretionary freight grant 

program. It includes a 20 percent rural and small-project set-aside. 

According to the Department of Roads, Nebraska has nearly 3,000 

rail grade crossings eligible for public funding. The FAST Act will 

strengthen the resources flowing to states like Nebraska to enhance the safety of at-grade rail crossings. The FAST Act will assist our railroads and rail workers by providing additional oversight of the Federal Railroad Administration, or the FRA, as it 

works with railroads on positive train control implementation. The 

FRA will also be required to clarify the safety benefits of the multibillion-dollar electronic braking mandate that was released last 

year. 

The FAST Act will provide vital transportation resources for localities throughout our country, including our rural communities 

here in Western Nebraska. Specifically, it includes a new national 

strategic freight program which will help our state prioritize 

freight traffic and increase safety. The program provides states 

with discretion to direct new funds to rural and urban freight corridors with higher commercial traffic. 

As states work to develop their freight plans and designate corridors, local public and private transportation stakeholders across 

all modes will have the opportunity to participate and to provide 

that valued feedback. First and last mile connectors for freights at 

airports, trucking facilities and rail yards will also be eligible for 

increased investment under this national freight program. 

There is still much more work ahead for us as the FAST Act 

takes effect. During our hearing this morning, we will focus on the 

implementation of the highway bill. I hope we can spend time focusing in particular on rural transportation and the multimodal 

freight policy program. 

I’m eager to hear your ideas about how Congress can continue 

to strengthen our Nation’s transportation system not only for our 

cities and our urban areas but also for rural and small communities. 

I would like to thank each member of our panel for taking the 

time out of your work week to be here at this Senate hearing. It 

is an honor to have you before this committee to discuss these important matters. 

Our strong panel includes public and private-sector representatives from the infrastructure, trucking, agriculture, and railroad 

sectors. We will hear from Nebraska’s Director of the Department 

of Roads, Kyle Schneweis—I never get that right—Director 

Schneweis. Mr. Schneweis has worked on a number of key initiaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Oct 25, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\22130.TXT JACKIE
4 

tives to strengthen Nebraska’s transportation system. I would also 

like to point out that the Director and his team were critical in 

guiding my staff as we worked on the FAST Act. Thank you. 

We also welcome Deb Cottier, who is currently the Director of 

the Northwest Nebraska Development Corporation in Chadron. She 

has been a strong advocate of completing the Heartland Expressway in Western Nebraska, and I am grateful for the advice she has 

provided to my office. We’ve enjoyed a strong working relationship, 

particularly in developing the highway bill. Thank you. 

Grant Holliday is the Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska 

Transport Company in Gering, Nebraska, which is a member of the 

American Trucking Association. In 1973, the Nebraska Transport 

Company was started with one truck. Today it operates with terminals across the Midwest and elsewhere, and I look forward to hearing from Mr. Holliday this morning regarding the challenges and 

opportunities facing the trucking industry. Thank you. 

Don Overman is the Chairman of the Scottsbluff Western Nebraska Regional Airport, and I want to thank Don for his crucial 

insight as we worked on the Senate’s bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. That legislation passed the Senate 

last month. Thank you. Together, we were able to secure critical 

funding for Nebraska’s rural airports, including a vital provision to 

ensure that Scottsbluff continues to receive airport improvement 

program dollars despite downturns in the annual enplanements. I 

look forward to hearing Don’s perspective regarding the airport’s 

economic impact for passengers and cargo movements. 

Agriculture stakeholders are being represented today by Mr. 

Kevin Kelley, the President of Kelley Bean Company. Kelley Bean 

was founded in 1927 and sells dry edible beans to global markets. 

Reliable and efficient transportation is critical to the company’s 

business model, and it is a privilege to hear your perspective as a 

client of our nation’s freight transportation system. So, welcome. 

The railroad industry is represented this morning by David Freeman, Senior Vice President for Transportation at Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. Railroads are integral to Nebraska’s heritage and critical to both the national economy and our way of life 

in this country. We are truly blessed to have the world’s finest 

freight rail network. With two major freight railroads operating 

here in Nebraska, I am especially glad to hear your remarks about 

the state of railroads today. Thank you. 

Thank you all again for your attendance, and with that I would 

like to begin with your testimonies. 

And we will begin with you, Mr. Director. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KYLE SCHNEWEIS, DIRECTOR, 

NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ROADS 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. Thank you, Senator Fischer. I am Kyle 

Schneweis, Director of the Department of Roads here in Nebraska. 

Thank you for the opportunity today to testify regarding the impact 

of freight transportation on rural economies. 

As I traveled Nebraska in my first year as director, I heard a lot 

of excitement about the FAST Act, and this legislation really puts 

America’s surface transportation on sound footing for the next 5 

5 

years. It’s a real testament to our congressional leaders and a commitment to infrastructure in our country. 

Here in Nebraska we are particularly proud of your tireless efforts on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and 

the Environment and Public Works Committee. So, thank you, Senator Fischer. 

We also appreciate Chairman Thune’s interest in promoting 

freight improvements by holding the Subcommittee field hearing 

here in Nebraska today. 

The FAST Act is truly significant in that for the first time, formula funding for state DOT freight programs will be provided. 

Over $1 billion is being distributed annually to states by the Federal Highway Administration. Here in Nebraska, we will receive 

$8.2 million this Fiscal Year alone. In accordance with Federal regulations, these new funds will be applied to a wide range of 

projects and improvement on our highway system, including highway and rail grade separations, bridge improvements, other capacity projects, and operational needs. 

The FAST Act also provides discretionary funding with the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, dubbed 

‘‘FASTLANE’’ by USDOT. This provides further encouragement to 

us here in Nebraska of Congress’s commitment to improving our 

infrastructure, and we at NDOR have taken the necessary steps to 

try to benefit from these advancements. 

These national advancements come at a time where, in Nebraska, NDOR is working to improve its strategic approach to how 

infrastructure advancements are made at the state and the local 

level. The Build Nebraska Act, the Transportation Innovation Act, 

both of these include increased emphasis on innovation and finding 

ways to link economic development and improve partnerships to 

positively impact customer satisfaction here in Nebraska. 

For the first time we are incorporating public input and economic 

impacts into our project prioritization process. In a way, we are rewriting the book on project selection to ensure that there is local 

buy-in, which specifically helps draw out the rural concerns that 

can impact the flow of freight in our communities. 

As you know, Senator Fischer, everything is local in Nebraska, 

and most of these local concerns are impacted by the challenges in 

our rural communities. And when it comes to freight challenges, we 

don’t have the same sorts of challenges that some of our friends in 

more urban and coastal states face. We don’t have the congestion 

and the bottleneck issues. What we have are access issues and activity issues. Safety is always a concern. We have the challenge of 

preserving a very large and extensive transportation network. 

So we are in the process of developing a freight plan for our state 

that will help provide a way forward and guide us as we look to 

improve our freight network to better meet these challenges. We 

don’t need a freight plan, though, to know how important Nebraska 

is to the nation’s transportation network with our geographic central location and our resources. We play a key role in the movement of freight in our country. We have I–80 running east and 

west for the length of states providing coast-to-coast travel for 

trucks and commodities. UP, the Union Pacific and BNSF Railroad 

main lines serve the nation, with arteries right through our state. 

6 

We have an extensive highway network outside of I–80 and shortline rail networks that provide connectivity. We have barge terminals on the Missouri River and Eastern Nebraska that connect to 

the Mississippi River system. We have inland waterways and ports. 

And finally, we have the headquarters of major freight companies, 

like the Union Pacific and Werner Enterprises Trucking, and many 

other transportation companies. 

For a state where agriculture is our number-one industry and 

the manufacturing sector has over 1,800 establishments, transportation flow and commodity mobility are at the heart of our economic growth. As our economy grows, we must be able to handle 

the new demands on transportation. National freight tonnage is 

projected to grow by 42 percent by 2040. Preparing for this growth 

will take a thoughtful and focused approach. 

Thanks to the FAST Act and the recent state initiatives like the 

Build Nebraska Act, the Transportation Innovation Act, we are 

really laying the pavement for exciting new advancements in 

freight mobility. 

The emphasis on access and connectivity really stresses our understanding of the rural landscape here in Nebraska and the commitment to growth through partnerships and economic opportunities. 

So thank you again, Senator Fischer, to the Subcommittee on 

Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security, and my fellow stakeholders, for the opportunity to 

share NDOR’s path forward with regard to the FAST Act. As we 

move forward, we are confident that our unique assets will align 

well with the key national networks such as the primary highway 

freight system and the national highway freight network. 

The Nebraska way is to take a right-sized approach to involving 

all of our partners from industry, agriculture, state, local, and Federal partners, and we look forward to implementing the FAST Act 

and other policies as we move forward. So, thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneweis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KYLE SCHNEWEIS, DIRECTOR, 

NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ROADS

Senator Fischer, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the impact of freight transportation on rural economies. 

As I traveled Nebraska in my first year as Director of the Nebraska Department 

of Roads (NDOR), I heard excitement from Nebraskans about the recent enactment 

of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or FAST ACT. This legislation 

put America’s surface transportation on sound footing for five years. It’s a real testament to our Congressional leaders’ commitment to infrastructure. Here in Nebraska 

we are particularly proud of Senator Deb Fischer’s tireless work on the Commerce, 

Science and Transportation Committee and the Environment and Public Works 

Committee. We also appreciate Chairman Thune’s interest in promoting freight improvement by holding this Subcommittee field hearing in Nebraska today. 

The FAST Act is truly significant in that for the first time, formula funding for 

State DOT Freight programs will be provided. Over $1 billion is being distributed 

to States annually by the Federal Highway Administration. The NDOR will receive 

$8.2 million in Fiscal Year 2016. In accordance with Federal regulations, these new 

funds will be applied to a wide range of improvements to our highway system, including railway-highway grade separations, bridge improvements and many other 

freight capacity and operations enhancements. 

The FAST Act also provides discretionary funding through the new Nationally 

Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, dubbed ‘‘FASTLANE’’ by U.S. 

7 

1 Nebraska Department of Economic Development, 2014 General Manufacturing Statistics 

2 National Freight Strategic Plan (Draft), U.S. DOT (2015) 

DOT. Nebraska is encouraged by Congress’ commitment to improving our Nation’s 

infrastructure and is taking the necessary steps to benefit from these advancements. 

These national advancements come at a time where NDOR is also working to improve its strategic approach to how infrastructure advancements are made at the 

state and local level. The Build Nebraska Act and the Transportation Innovation 

Act both include increased emphasis on finding innovative ways to examine how 

economic development and partnership alliances can positively impact stakeholder 

and customer satisfaction. For the first time, we are incorporating public input and 

economic impacts into our project prioritization process. 

In a way, we are rewriting the book on project selection to ensure there is local 

buy-in which specifically helps draw out rural concerns that can impact the flow of 

freight within our communities. As Senator Fischer knows, everything is local in 

Nebraska and most of those local concerns are impacted by rural challenges. 

When it comes to freight challenges, we don’t face the congestion and bottleneck 

issues that more urban coastal states face. Our challenges are related more to access, connectivity, safety, and preservation of an expansive transportation network. 

NDOR is in the process of developing a state freight plan that will provide a guide 

forward as we look to improve our freight network to better meet these challenges. 

A freight plan isn’t required, however, to recognize that Nebraska, with our geographically central location and resources, plays a key role in the movement of 

freight in our country. For example: 

• Nebraska has the I–80 corridor running east-west through the length of the 

state for coast-to-coast trucking and travel. 

• The Union Pacific and BNSF railroads’ main lines likewise serve the Nation 

with arteries through Nebraska. 

• We also have important north-south highway and rail service as well, along 

with short-line rail networks. 

• Barge terminals on the Missouri River in eastern Nebraska connect to the Mississippi River System’s inland waterways and ports. 

• Finally, Nebraska features the headquarters of major freight companies like the 

Union Pacific, Werner Enterprises trucking, and many other transportation and 

logistics companies. 

For a state where agriculture is our number one industry and the manufacturing 

sector has over 1800 establishments in the state, transportation flow and commodity 

mobility are at the heart of our economic growth.1 As our economy grows, we must 

be able to handle new demands on transportation. National freight tonnage is projected to grow 42 percent by 2040—preparing for this growth will take a thoughtful, 

focused approach.2 Thanks to the FAST Act and recent major state initiatives like 

the Build Nebraska Act and the Transportation Innovation Act, Nebraska is laying 

the pavement for exciting new advancements in freight mobility. The emphasis on 

access and connectivity stresses Nebraska’s understanding of its rural landscape 

and commitment to growth through partnerships and economic opportunity. 

Thank you again to Senator Fischer, the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, and my fellow transportation industry stakeholders for the opportunity to share NDOR’s way forward 

in regards to the FAST Act. As we move forward, we are confident that Nebraska’s 

unique assets will align well with key national networks such as the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS) and the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN). 

The ‘‘Nebraska way’’ is to take a right-sized approach and to involve our partners 

from industry, agriculture, academia and state and local government. 

BACKGROUND

FAST Act Freight Funds 

• Nebraska will have $8.2 million in FY16, the first year of this on-going program. These new funds can be applied to a wide range of improvements to our 

highway system, including railway-highway grade separations, bridge improvements and many other freight capacity and operations enhancements. 

• The Act directs States to have a State Freight Plan in place by December 2017. 

FASTLANE Application 

• NDOR filed an application on April 12, 2016 for FASTLANE funding for grade 

separations along the Union Pacific mainline in Columbus, a thriving industrial 

8 

and commercial center in northeast Nebraska that is served by expanding expressways along US–81 and US–30. 

• This application falls under the Small Projects category of FASTLANE and the 

improvements will resolve safety issues and bottlenecks on local thoroughfares 

in Columbus. Even though the State Highway System won’t be the beneficiary, 

we at NDOR are proud to partner with the city and the railroad to bring about 

those improvements for the benefit of the community, the region and the freight 

network. 

State Freight Plan 

• In general; Nebraska must have a freight plan to receive various freight formula funds. A plan also increases possible eligibility for freight grants. A freight 

advisory committee is not required but encouraged. The State Freight Plan will 

be in place by December 2017 to comply with FAST Act mandates. 

• Nebraska has and continues to be proactive in the transportation industry. I am 

looking forward to building upon our team’s base of freight policy knowledge as 

we move forward with drafting and implementation of the plan. 

• Requirements for a freight plan include: 

» Freight system trends, needs, and issues 

» A description of the freight policies, strategies, and performance measures 

that will guide the freight-related transportation investment decisions of the 

State 

» A description of how the plan will improve the ability of the State to meet 

the national freight goals 

» Consideration of innovative technologies and operational strategies 

» Description of improvements that may be required to mitigate the deterioration of roadways that are projected to substantially deteriorate due to heavy 

vehicles (including mining, agricultural, energy cargo or equipment, and timber vehicles) 

» An inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues, such as truck bottlenecks, and a description of the strategies to mitigate. 

Nebraska Department of Economic Development 

• Is a strong partner to NDOR’s efforts. Looking ahead, NDOR and its partners 

will soon take a more coordinated approach to: 

» Statistically profiling Nebraska’s freight infrastructure across modes 

» Defining our core state-level freight network 

» Generating state-level information on key commodity flows and forecasts 

» Developing state goals, objectives, strategies and performance measures 

» Mapping ideas for enhanced policies and programs to support freight, and 

» Developing an overall implementation plan for those activities. 

WITNESSES

Michael Smythers, Assistant Vice President, Federal Government Affairs, 

BNSF 

Smythers most recently served as Special Assistant to the President in The White 

House Office of Legislative Affairs. From April 1999 through February 2004, when 

he joined The White House, he was assistant vice president, Federal Affairs, in the 

Washington office of CSX Corporation. He worked in the U.S. Senate from August 

1994 through April 1999. Smythers is a graduate of the College of William and 

Mary. Andersen comes to BNSF from the Gallatin Group, which he joined in February 2005 as a principal after working for eight years with U.S. Sen. Max Baucus 

(D-Mont.). He was the senator’s legislative director from September 2000 through 

October 2002 and chief of staff from December 2002 through January 2005. A Montana native, Andersen is a graduate of the University of Montana. 

Kevin Kelley, Kelley Bean 

Kelley Bean traces its roots back to the founding of the Chester B. Brown company in 1927 where Robert L. Kelley Sr. was plant manager of the Morrill, Nebraska facility. In the early 1940s, Robert Kelley was promoted to President of the 

company, a position he held until 1969. In 1970, Robert L. Kelley Sr. left Chester 

B. Brown to form Kelley Bean Company. His son’s Gary, and later Bob, joined him 

to help run the family’s new business. In 1982, under Gary Kelley’s leadership, the 

9 

Kelley Bean and Chester B. Brown companies merged to form a reunited Kelley 

Bean Co., Inc. In 2006, under Bob Kelley’s leadership, Kelley Bean acquired 

ConAgra’s dry bean operations. Eleven other acquisitions over the years have 

formed one of the largest originators and processors of dry beans in the U.S. Today, 

a third generation led by Kevin Kelley, is in place and poised to grow the company 

well into the future. Ask any of the Kelley’s and they will tell you that none of this 

would have been possible without the dedication and hard work of the world’s best 

group of employees and growers. 

Brent Holliday, Chief Executive Officer 

When my father, Richard B. Holliday Sr., acquired Nebraska Transport Company 

in 1973, he was determined to give our customers the best freight service possible 

at competitive rates and provide the employees with the knowledge and incentives 

to work toward that goal. Today, we operate NTC based on those same principles, 

committed to operating only top quality equipment and employing the finest people 

available—committed enough to be the first Nebraska-based LTL carrier to achieve 

the ISO 9000 Certification. I’m proud of the effort ‘‘Team NTC’’ puts forth every day 

to consistently provide our customers with the best transportation service anywhere. 

We have a great team, a team of winners, who all understand what our team has 

to do to grow and continue to be a leader in our industry, all the while remembering 

that the single-most important part of their job is—and always will be—to serve 

you, our valued customer. 

David Freeman, Vice President, Engineering/Transportation, BNSF 

Deb Cottier, Executive Director, NW Nebraska Development Corporation 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you, Director. 

Mr. Overman? 

STATEMENT OF DONALD E. OVERMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE 

BOARD, AIRPORT AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SCOTTSBLUFF, 

NEBRASKA 

Mr. OVERMAN. Well, first of all, Senator Fischer, I want to thank 

you for coming to Western Nebraska to hold this important hearing. I want to thank you also for your leadership in securing passage of the FAA reauthorization bill. As you have so well stated, 

it is critical to the rural airports across the United States, and it 

allows us to continue to receive our $1 million funding for safety 

improvements that we so badly need. The fact that you put an 

amendment in that would allow us to receive that for the next 2 

years because of the number of hours pilots have to have now, that 

creates great improvement for not only Scottsbluff but North Platte 

and Kearney and Alliance. 

It is important to know that Western Nebraska Regional Airport 

is a diversionary airport for DIA in Denver, very important to us, 

and to them too. We support airlines such as United, Delta, Alaska 

and Southwest. We have had as many as seven diversions of 727s 

and 737s on our tarmac at one time in a line. It is quite a sight. 

I have been associated with rural transportation issues for the 

past 42 years, including the Heartland Expressway from the very, 

very beginning, as well as being a national spokesman for the national EAS program, having appeared before the Senate Commerce 

Committee twice in Washington, D.C., as I was the national 

spokesman for essential air service throughout the country. 

Scottsbluff is a true regional transportation center, and we need 

that airport. Our regional airport is a host to major corporations 

to provide air and ground deliveries of products throughout this entire trade area. FedEx is based on airport property and has one airplane per day into our airport, and sometimes two, as well as one 

10 

semi-truck per day for ground FedEx. They serve an area that 

stretches up to 150 miles in every direction. UPS has one plane per 

day, along with UPS Ground, which serves an area of 120 to 150 

miles in every direction. 

Good roads are essential for the economic development of our 

area, and we are happy to have Kyle here from the Department of 

Roads today to show us his input and what has happened at the 

state level. 

We also have at our airport an air ambulance company, 

EagleMed, that has served over 1,000 patients in this past year, 

sending patients to advanced hospitals in Wyoming, Colorado, and 

Nebraska. 

Not to be forgotten, of course, is the United States Postal Service, 

which needs safe roads for their trucks that deliver mail all over 

this area. Our local area trucking company, NTC, is here to support that issue. 

We want to thank you again for your leadership in the Nebraska 

Unicameral, on the roads, and in surface transportation, and now 

in the U.S. Senate, providing improved road funding for the state 

of Nebraska, and certainly most recently the FAST Act, which 

gives us five years of receiving $1.5 billion to Nebraska’s highways, 

railroads, and bridges. The figure is monumental, and what you 

have done for transportation in the state of Nebraska is fantastic, 

and we thank you for your leadership. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Overman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD E. OVERMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, AIRPORT

AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SCOTTSBLUFF, NEBRASKA

Good morning Senator Fischer, my name is Donald E. Overman. I am the Chairman of the Board of the Airport Authority of the County of Scottsbluff. I thank you 

for holding this United States Senate Commerce hearing on transportation in 

Scottsbluff, Nebraska. 

I also thank you for your leadership in securing passage of the FAA Reauthorization Bill in the Senate. This bill is so critical for rural airports across the country 

and it allows us to continue to receive $1m in funding for airport safety improvements for each of the next two years. 

It is important for all to know that Western Nebraska Regional Airport is a diversionary airport for DIA in Denver and we support airlines such as United, Delta, 

Alaska and Southwest. We have had as many as seven diversions on our tarmac 

at one time. 

I have been associated with rural transportation issues for the past 42 years including the Heartland Expressway from its inception, as well as being the National 

spokesman for the EAS program. I know how important transportation is to the economic development of our area. Scottsbluff is a true regional transportation hub for 

Western Nebraska and Eastern Wyoming. 

Our regional airport is host to major corporations that provide air and ground deliveries of products in our entire trade area. 

FedEx which is based on airport property has one plane per day into our airport 

and sometimes two, as well as one semi-truck per day for Fedex ground. They serve 

our area that stretches up to 150 miles in each direction. UPS has one plane per 

day and along with UPS ground which serves an area of 120 to 150 miles in each 

direction. 

Good roads are essential for the economic development of our entire area. We are 

pleased that the Director of Roads for the State of Nebraska has joined us today. 

We also have based at our airport an air ambulance company, EagleMed, that 

served over 1,000 patients sent to more advanced hospitals in Wyoming, Colorado 

and Nebraska in the last year. 

Not to be forgotten, the United States Postal Service. Which needs safe roads for 

their semi’s that deliver our mail throughout our entire region. Our local area trucking company (NTC) is here also to support safe roads. 

11 

Thank you again, Senator Fischer for your leaderships both in the Nebraska Unicameral and now in the United States Senate providing improved road funding for 

the State of Nebraska and now the entire country. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you. 

Ms. Cottier? 

STATEMENT OF DEB COTTIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NEBRASKA NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; 

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, HEARTLAND EXPRESSWAY 

ASSOCIATION; AND MEMBER, PORTS-TO-PLAINS ALLIANCE 

Ms. COTTIER. Hi. I’m Deb Cottier. I’m the Executive Director of 

the Nebraska Northwest Development Corporation, which is in 

Chadron, Nebraska, about 100 miles north of here, a beautiful 

morning to drive in here this morning. 

I want to start by adding my appreciation and my thanks to Senator Fischer for all of her work, not only in the Nebraska legislature but also for holding a hearing here in Nebraska and giving us 

a chance to come share our views on rural transportation. We also 

want to thank her for leading the effort in the Senate to include 

a robust freight program in the recently enacted FAST Act. 

I’ll be testifying today on behalf of NNDC, but also on behalf of 

the Heartland Expressway, which is also part of a larger organization called the Ports-to-Plains Alliance. This alliance is actually a 

grassroots effort of communities, over 275 communities and businesses whose mission it is to advocate for international transportation infrastructure, and by international we’re speaking specifically of the four routes that come together that create this corridor. 

The Ports-to-Plains corridor comes from the Texas/Mexico border 

to Denver, the Heartland Expressway, which comes through the 

entire state of Nebraska north to south, through Chadron, through 

Scottsbluff. That’s the Heartland Expressway. The Teddy Roosevelt 

Expressway, which goes from Rapid City north through the Bakken 

oil fields up to Canada, as well as the Camino Real, which connects 

Canada through existing interstate systems. 

Freight movement across rural North America is critical to connecting the natural resources of agriculture and energy to the 

urban populations and the economy of the United States. I have 

submitted a written record which is much more in-depth, but my 

comments today will actually highlight three points. 

First, the prosperity of America’s heartland depends on fourlaneing critical rural freight corridors like the Ports-to-Plains corridor. Northwestern Nebraska is effectively isolated from interstate 

highways. The closest to the north is 110 miles; to the south it’s 

137 miles. Moreover, there is only one way to get to interstates 

from Chadron, Nebraska, and that’s on two-lane roads. There is 

nearly a 500-mile-wide gap between I–25 in the west in Wyoming 

and the I–29 corridor in Iowa in the east, between which there are 

no four-lane, north-south highways that fully traverse the state of 

Nebraska. This is a missing link in our national highway network. 

As a result, our two-lane roads carry a large agriculture and energy business. Other business trucks, local cars and delivery vans, 

and a lot of out-of-state tourists who find themselves mixed in with 

that whole variety of utility vehicles are all on narrow two-lane 

12 

roads, which actually limits the ability for the safe movement of 

people to and from places like the Black Hills of South Dakota. 

Upgrading the Ports-to-Plains corridor to a four-lane divided 

highway would create significant benefits for America’s heartland 

and is critical for the efficient movement of goods and people, the 

economic development of the region, and for the safety of the traveling public. Furthermore, the corridor provides an uncongested alternative to I–35 coming out of Texas and to I–25 to the west. If 

four lane, the Alliance corridor would provide a cost-effective alternative for trucks to avoid that urban congestion. 

And that brings me to my second point, upgrading the critical 

rural freight corridors, especially the multi-state corridors that 

we’ve been speaking of, and this requires a strong Federal partner, 

as we’ve heard the Senator say numerous times. Both in terms of 

leadership and resources, the states and localities cannot do the job 

alone. 

As Congress was considering the transportation bill, you and 

your colleagues were often under pressure from some to devolve the 

transportation programs back to the state and local governments. 

Devolution would have a devastating effect on our national service 

transportation system, and we commend Congress for rejecting the 

idea. 

We would sound, however, one note of caution. If the Federal 

Government is to continue to be the strong partner in the future, 

Congress must find a permanent fix to the Highway Trust Fund, 

and it should not necessarily wait until the next transportation bill 

to do so. It should seize the first opportunity, which could come in 

the next Congress in the form of a budget initiative and tax reform. 

My third and final point is that the new freight programs within 

the FAST Act are a huge step forward, but they will require careful 

oversight to ensure that the adequate resources are made available 

to upgrade the critical rural freight corridors. 

With respect specifically to the FAST Act, it says that critical 

rural freight corridors are eligible for both freight planning and 

funding opportunities. Whether a particular route such as the 

Heartland Expressway is designated will depend on how FHWA 

and the states interpret the implementation of the FAST Act requirements, and there is some reason for concern. 

The guidance, which was just put out, basically says that the 

first and last mile connectivity is essential to an efficiently functioning freight system, and that it encourages the states to consider 

first or last connector routes for the high-volume freight corridors. 

The language itself is a little troubling, for if the guidance or 

FHWA forces or leverages states into following just that piece of it, 

then much of the funding that’s available for critical rural freight 

corridors would be directed to a series of spurs off high-volume corridors rather than to the entire rural freight corridor like the 

Heartland Expressway. Based on our initial review of the guidance 

of the FAST Act, this does not appear to be what Congress intended, and we urge Congress to closely monitor the implementation. 

In conclusion, we want to thank you for the opportunity to appear today and for your effort to bring together those people who 

13 

can speak about transportation on this level, and we appreciate the 

opportunity to be included. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cottier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEB COTTIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEBRASKA

NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

HEARTLAND EXPRESSWAY ASSOCIATION; AND MEMBER, PORTS-TO-PLAINS ALLIANCE

Chairwoman Fischer—Honored members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science and Transportation, thank you for allowing me to testify on an issue as important to Nebraska, the Heartland Expressway and the states included in the 

Ports-to-Plains Alliance as rural transportation and intermodal freight policy. 

For the record, my name is Deb Cottier, Executive Director of Nebraska Northwest Development Corporation and a member of the Board of Directors for the 

Heartland Expressway Association, a member of the Ports-to-Plains Alliance. 

The Ports-to-Plains Alliance is a grassroots alliance of over 275 communities and 

businesses, including alliance partners Heartland Expressway, Theodore Roosevelt 

Expressway and Eastern Alberta Trade Corridor Coalition, whose mission is to advocate for a robust international transportation infrastructure to promote economic 

security and prosperity throughout North America’s energy and agricultural heartland including Mexico to Canada. In the United States the primarily rural Alliance 

includes four congressionally designated High Priority Corridors on the National 

Highway System. The Ports-to-Plains Corridor connects the Texas/Mexico border to 

Denver, CO via Interstate 27 in Lubbock and Amarillo, TX. The Heartland Expressway, which includes my home community of Chadron, NE, connects Denver, CO to 

Rapid City, SD and to the Camino Real (Interstate 25) in Wyoming via Scottsbluff, 

NE. The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway connects Rapid City, SD to the Montana/ 

Canada border at the Port of Raymond via Williston, ND. The Camino Real Corridor 

from its connection with the Heartland Expressway at Interstate 25 west of 

Torrington, WY continues north the Montana/Alberta Canada border at the port of 

Sweetgrass. 


502DEB1.eps
14 

This entire nationally significant rural freight corridor provides an uncongested 

alternative to Interstate 35 with its chokepoints at San Antonio, TX, Austin, TX, 

Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, Oklahoma City, TX and Kansas City, MI and to Interstate 

25 through the Colorado Front Range and Cheyenne, WY for the movement of critical natural resources from rural areas to domestic and international markets. 

My statement today focuses on three items: 

1. Importance of Transportation System to Rural Economic Development 

2. Strong Federal Role Required in Improve Movement of Freight 

3. Building Rural Economies Together through the FAST ActrURA 

Freight movement across rural North America is critical to connecting the natural 

resources of agriculture and energy to the urban populations and the economy of 

the United States. The interstate system provided significant impacts serving an 

economy that primarily moved freight east and west. Growing population centers 

along that interstate system are now creating significant chokepoints along the system and continuing the same transportation policies, adding to the congestion, results in increased transportation costs and environmental impacts. 

Importance of Transportation System to Rural Economic Development 

Chadron, NE is an excellent example of a rural community currently served by 

only two-lane highways. Chadron is located 102 miles south of Interstate 90 at 

Rapid City, SD and 148 miles north of Interstate 80 at Kimball, NE. Research 

shows that economic strength of communities is strongly affected by proximity to 

an interstate highway or at minimum a four-lane highway. 

POLICOM Corporation is an independent economic research firm which specializes in analyzing local and state economies. From its research, it determines if an 

economy is growing or declining, what is causing this to happen, and offers ideas 

and solutions to improve the situation. A recent evaluation of the role of highway 

infrastructure on economic strengths of the top 50 Strongest and Weakest 

Micropolitan areas was made by POLICOM and presented to the Ports-to-Plains Alliance. Micropolitan Statistical Areas are typically quasi rural areas. A Micro must 

have an urbanized area (city) with a population of at least 10,000 but less than 

50,000 population and must be at least one county and most are. 

Top 50 Micropolitan Area Strong Weak 

Located on an Interstate 31 7 

Located on a four-lane limited access 10 5 

Located near a four-lane within the area 0 11 

Not Located on a four-lane roadway 9 27 

Forty-one of the Top 50 Strongest Micropolitan Areas in the United States are located on an interstate or four-lane divided highway. Twenty-seven of the Top 50 

Weakest Micropolitan Areas in the United States are not located on an interstate 

or four-lane highway. 

In case the nine strong Micropolitan Areas that are not located on a four-lane 

roadway, there is a unique reason for their success that is not available to most 

rural communities. Two are in Alaska—Ice Roads; one is an island; one is a wealthy 

tourist destination, two are related to energy (Williston and Dickinson, ND); one is 

a town with livestock slaughter facilities as its main economic driver (Garden City, 

KS) and one is a military base. 

The development of four-lane rural freight corridors is a positive economic impact 

to communities like Chadron, Alliance and Scottsbluff, NE as well as rural communities from Texas to North Dakota and Montana along the Ports-to-Plains Alliance 

corridor. This conclusion is further supported by recent studies that evaluate economic benefits within the ten-state region. 

Beginning with Nebraska, the Heartland Expressway Corridor Development and 

Management Plan, Final Report (2014), published by the Nebraska Department of 

Roads summarized significant economic national benefits from the development of 

this primarily rural corridor to a four-lane profile. It stated: 

‘‘The Heartland Expressway Corridor will provide many national, regional, and 

local benefits. Some of the most noteworthy national benefits include: 

• Connection of metropolitan cities and regional trade centers 

• Develops a significant North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) corridor 

• Provides an alternative to avoid urban congestion and delay along Interstate 25 

15 

• Completes an integral segment of the PTP Alliance Corridor, a trans-national 

corridor 

• Enhances the national freight network and freight movements 

• Provides safer travel 

• Provides a north/south high speed corridor 

• Enhances delivery capacity and efficiency to Great Plains markets 

• Provides essential economic development infrastructure to the Great Plains 

• Develops a significant tourism corridor’’ 

In 2004, the Ports-to-Plains Corridor Development and Management Plan, evaluating the rural corridor in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Colorado, found similar results. 

In November 2015, the Texas Department of Transportation published the Initial 

Assessment Report for the Extension of I–27/Ports to Plains Corridor. The Assessment was an initial look at the opportunities presented by the expansion of the existing corridor in Texas to an interstate profile. The report stated: 

‘‘The I–27/P2P corridor is viewed as a gateway for commerce with the potential 

to redirect traffic from congested corridor across Texas. Planned and programmed 

projects aim to: 

• Increase corridor capacity and enhance safety; 

• Reduce congestion at ports of entry along the Texas-Mexico border by dispersing 

freight to multiple border crossings (in addition to the heavily-used Laredo crossings); 

• Provide travel alternatives to the state’s most congested corridors located through 

major metropolitan areas (e.g., I–35); 

• Provide alternatives to other congested north-south corridors that run through 

major metropolitan areas (e.g., I–25); 

• Help to facilitate trade between the U.S., Mexico and Canada; and 

• Provide facilities that can effectively meet the traffic volumes and vehicle types 

that are traversing the corridor.’’ 


502DEB2.eps
16 

Strong Federal Role Required in Improve Movement of Freight 

Our rural communities support modernizing our Nation’s surface transportation 

network, including the upgrading of multi-state rural highway corridors, to meet the 

challenges of the 21st century. 

Given the urgency and magnitude of this undertaking, it is imperative that the 

Federal Government be the strong partner that it has been in the past. From the 

First Congress’ support of lighthouses, buoys and public piers to make navigation 

‘‘easy and safe;’’ to Henry Clay’s support for internal improvements; to President 

Lincoln’s support for the transcontinental railroad; to President Teddy Roosevelt’s 

support of the Panama Canal; to President Franklin Roosevelt’s support for a crosscountry, high-level road system; to President Eisenhower’s support of the Interstate 

Highway System and the Federal Highway Trust Fund; and to President Reagan’s 

support for increased motor fuel user fees to preserve and modernize the Federalaid highway network; the Federal Government has been instrumental in the development of our Nation’s surface transportation system. 

This system unifies our country by providing for the easy movement of people and 

goods. As President Eisenhower noted, without it, ‘‘we would be a mere alliance of 

many separate parts.’’ The Federal Government must provide the leadership and resources to help preserve and modernize the national surface transportation network 

for the 21st century. 

With a few minor exceptions, the federal-aid highway program targets Federal 

highway investment on the network of roads most important to regional and interstate travel. There are four million miles of roads in the United States. Only 25 percent of these roads are eligible for federal-aid highway funding. This network of 

roads is known as the federal-aid highway system. It carries 85 percent of the total 

vehicle-miles travelled in the United States annually. The remaining seventy-five 

percent of the Nation’s roads (roughly 3 million miles) are the responsibility of state 

and local governments. 

Even more importantly, the vast majority of federal-aid highway investment 

(about 75 percent) is dedicated to the National Highway System (NHS), a portion 

of the federal-aid highway system. 

The NHS, which includes the Interstate Highway System, makes up only 5 percent (about 220,000 miles) of the Nation’s road mileage but carries 55 percent of 

total vehicle-miles traveled and over 90 percent of truck miles. It is the backbone 


502DEB3.eps
17 

of the federal-aid highway system as well as America’s intermodal transportation 

network. The Ports-to-Plains Corridor, the Heartland Expressway, the Camilo Real 

and the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway are part of the NHS. 

By fostering an interconnected network of roads in uniformly-sound condition, the 

federal-aid highway program serves an important national purpose. This purpose 

can only be achieved by a certain amount of redistribution, which the federal-aid 

highway program achieves through its structure and formulas. 

Without redistribution, certain states—typically large, sparsely-populated states— 

would not be able to develop and maintain their portion of the network. A network 

is only as strong as its weakest links. 

It is also important to note that modernizing the federal-aid highway system, especially the major highways that make up the National Highway System, will require significant, sustained investment over a considerable period of time. The investment level needed is considerably higher than current levels of funding. 

Multi-state Rural Freight Corridors Are a Federal Interest 

A critical part of the national network is the multi-state rural highway corridors 

that are essential to the development of America’s energy and agricultural resources. The antiquated two-lane highways that currently serve most of these corridors were not designed to carry the number of trucks, especially heavy trucks, currently being experienced up and down these corridors. 

Moreover, these roads are not geometrically designed to accommodate the large 

trucks being used today by the energy and agricultural industries. 

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Ports-to-Plains Alliance Corridor. The 

north-south movement of goods and persons through this ten-state economic region 

relies on an existing 3,088-mile network are two-lane highways. The good news is 

that almost 54 percent of this corridor has been upgraded to four-lane or better. 

To promote economic security and prosperity throughout America’s energy and agricultural heartland, the Ports-to-Plains Alliance Corridor must be upgraded and 

modernized. Other multi-state rural highway corridors important to energy and agricultural production must also be improved. 

Only in this way will the United States be able to realize the full potential of its 

energy and agricultural resources. By doing so, it will take an important step toward energy self-sufficiency and increased international competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. 

Overview of the Agriculture Regional Economy 

As indicated in the Texas Freight Mobility Plan agriculture is the largest user of 

freight transportation in the United States. Nebraska agriculture reflects the importance of agriculture to the economy of the ten-state Ports-to-Plains region. The Nebraska Agriculture Fact Card, a cooperative effort of the Nebraska Department of 

Agriculture, USDA, NASS, Nebraska Field Office, and the Nebraska Bankers Association highlights Nebraska’s Top National Rankings. The state ranks first in the 

Nation in beef and veal exports, 2014 ($1,128,700,000); cash receipts from meat animals, 2014 ($13,885,411); commercial red meat production, 2015 (7,470,600,000 lbs.); 

commercial cattle slaughter, 2015 (6,575,100 head); all cattle on feed, January 1, 

2016 (2,520,000 head); Great Northern bean production, 2015 (763,000 cwt.); popcorn production, 2012 53,711,118 lbs.); and irrigated acres of cropland, 2012 

(8,225,973 acres). 

18 

Nebraska ranks as the second state in the Nation for All cattle and calves, January 1, 2016 (6,450,000 head); Pinto bean production, 2015 (1,878,000 cwt.); Proso 

millet production, 2015 (3,298,000 bushels); Light red kidney bean production, 2015 

(298,000 cwt.); and Bison, December 31, 2012 (23,152 head). 


502DEB4.eps 502DEB5.eps
19 

For corn for grain production, 2015 (1,692,750,000 bushels); cash receipts from all 

farm commodities, 2014 ($24,942,122,000); and corn exports, 2014 ($1,212,400,000), 

Nebraska ranks as the third state in the Nation. 

Nebraska agriculture relies on the nationwide transportation system for both inputs and outputs of its agriculture production. Interstate and international commerce is critical to Nebraska agriculture and that is a reflection of the entire Portsto-Plains Region. This ten-state region produces over $111 billion of agricultural 

goods, or 28.22 percent of the U.S. total. The region boasts three of the top ten farm 

states: Texas, Nebraska and Kansas. 

Movement of agriculture products from the primarily rural areas across the Portsto-Plains region to urban domestic markets and to export markets on the coasts requires infrastructure investments that connect production to consumers. Canada 

and Mexico are the second and third top export markets for U.S. farm products. The 

agriculture production regions in the U.S. often are not located near major urban 

areas or coastal export facilities. A strong Federal interest is required to ensure the 

agriculture resources can safely and efficiently reach domestic and global markets. 

Overview of the Energy Regional Economy 

While agriculture has been and will continue to be the economic base for Nebraska and the entire ten-state Ports-to-Plains region, energy has emerged as a significant economic driver across the region. Energy production, including conventional resources like oil and natural gas, combined with strong renewable energy including wind development, use resources in rural areas to meet the growing needs 

of urban areas and a global market. 

The Ports-to-Plains Alliance tagline says ‘‘Securing the Benefits of Commerce to 

North America’s Energy & Agricultural Heartland.’’ The highway system connects 

a region that includes significant conventional and renewable resources. Energy security is provided by North America’s energy development and the Ports-to-Plains 

region provides the connections needed to develop those resources including world 

class oil, gas and wind resources. 

Oil and Natural Gas 

From an oil and gas viewpoint the corridor connects Alberta, Canada and Texas, 

both the production and reserve leaders in the world. The highway system moves 

the people and equipment needed to develop these resources. The Bakken in North 

Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and South Dakota; the Niobrara in Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska; and the Barnett and Permian in Texas; and the Eagle Ford 

in Texas are connected by the Ports-to-Plains Corridor. The Corridor provides the 

connection between the Houston, Denver and Billings. To summarize the oil and gas 

role of the region: 

• Seven of top ten and eight of the top fifteen oil producing states, producing over 

1.667 billion barrels annually in 2013 

• Alberta ranks third, after Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, in terms of proven recoverable global crude oil reserves 

• Five of the top eight and seven of the top fifteen natural gas producing states 

that produced over 57.5 percent or 13,966,836 million cubic feet in 2012 


502DEB6.eps
20 

• Oil and natural gas accounts for three million jobs or 35.8 percent of the Nation 

in the region, generating incomes of over $208.5 billion or 40.5 percent of the 

entire nation’s oil and gas jobs and income 

There are those who will point to a bust in the U.S. energy boom. They cannot 

wait to share stories of job losses and bankruptcies, but while the boom has stopped, 

the reality is that the production continues. The following from North Dakota shows 

that energy will be returning to its boom days. ‘‘North Dakota’s top oil regulator had 

a message for Williston leaders this week: Get ready . . . When—not if—oil prices 

increase, drilling crews will be back in the Bakken eager to make up for lost time,’’ 

said Director of Mineral Resources Lynn Helms. ‘‘The industry is preparing for the 

world’s oil supply to come into balance by the end of 2016 or the first half of 2017,’’ 

Helms said. ‘‘He anticipates that once that happens, the price could double ‘virtually 

overnight.’ ’’ 

Energy development is reliant upon moving employees and large equipment 

across the north-south region, often on narrow two lane highways and bridges. As 

an example, U.S. Highway 85 of the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway saw 72,000 


502DEB7.eps 502DEB8.eps
21 

permits for oversize and overweight trucks in 2014. Energy security for the United 

States is dependent upon a transportation system that again connected rural America where the resources are located and the labor force, the technology and ultimate 

markets for U.S. energy. A strong Federal role is required to provide the resources 

needed to build and maintain infrastructure from lower population areas to urban 

areas. 

Renewable Energy/Wind 

Renewable wind resources are also abundant throughout the region. 

• Four of the top ten and seven of the top twenty U.S. States for Installed Wind 

Capacity 

• The region accounts for 48.9 percent of the total current wind generation in the 

U.S. 

• Top six nationwide, eight of the top 10 U.S. states for Potential Wind Energy 

Generation, nearly 76.9 percent of the U.S. potential 

These wind resources are resulting in the addition of manufacturing facilities for 

nacelles (turbines), blades and towers in Texas, Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming and 

North Dakota. Production and manufacturing creates jobs and tax base for many 

of our communities. 


502DEB9.eps 502DEB10.eps
22 

The electricity being generating is being transmitted to urban areas for primary 

use of urban populations. Once again a strong Federal interest will be required to 

support the needed infrastructure across the rural production areas. 

Rural Corridors: An Alternative to Freight Chokepoints 

One largely unexplored role of rural freight corridors requiring a strong Federal 

interest is the opportunity presented by multi-state rural corridors like the Heartland Expressway and its partners in the Ports-to-Plains Alliance to address congestion and its accompanied environmental impacts in urban areas. State departments 

of transportation are often forced to look only at the expensive solutions of expanding already congested urban highway corridors. Historically, these expansions have 

only provided temporary relief. 

The National Strategic Freight Plan indicates that this trend will continue. 

The U.S. economy is expected to double in size over the next 30 years. By 2045, 

the Nation’s population is projected to increase to 389 million people, compared 

to 321 million in 2015. Americans will increasingly live in congested urban and 

suburban areas, with fewer than 10 percent living in rural areas by 2040 (compared to 16 percent in 2010 and 23 percent in 1980). 

The question looking for an answer is: can primarily rural multi-state freight corridors provide a safe, cost-effective opportunity to address growing congestion in 

urban areas? The maps below reflect the current peak period congestion using 2011 

data and then projected to 2040. 

Within the Ports-to-Plains region, peak period congestion, creating freight choke 

points, existed in 2011 along Interstate 25 along the Colorado Front Range and 

along Interstate 35 including San Antonio, Austin and Dallas/Fort Worth in Texas, 

Oklahoma City, OK and Kansas City, MI. 


502DEB11.eps
23 

The peak period congestion, and thus freight choke points, grows significantly by 

2040 based on current policy and investments combined with doubling the economy, 

significant population increase and shifts from rural to urban areas. 


502DEB12.eps 502DEB13.eps
24 

The Interstate Highway System, especially in the west addressed east-west movement of people and goods. It was an economic driver of great proportion. In the West 

the interstate system included Interstates 15, 25 and 35. As you can see, each of 

these corridors is growing significant congestion. 

The Ports-to-Plains Corridor, with its target of a minimum development of fourlane divided highway can assist rural communities becoming more economically 

competitive and reducing the number of trucks creating freight choke points on the 

congested existing interstates. 

Agriculture, energy and alternative corridors will require a strong Federal interest to guide a future that does not result in those shown in the 2040 projections. 


502DEB14.eps 502DEB15.eps
25 

Building Rural Economies Together through the FAST Act 

As a rural economic developer and advocate for improved rural freight infrastructure, I would like to join the Heartland Expressway Association and the Ports-toPlains Alliance in appreciation of the National Freight Policy included in the Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation Act. It provides an opportunity for an improved 

future in both rural and urban communities. The question that remains is how the 

FAST Act is implemented. 

I and my partners in the Ports-to-Plains Alliance believe that the implementation 

of Critical Rural Freight Corridors under the FAST Act is a key to the opportunity 

for an improved future. USDOT/FHWA posted the guidance on designating and certifying Critical Rural Freight Corridors on April 27, 2016. USDOT/FHWA guidance 

now moves the implementation to state department of transportation. The USDOT/ 

FHWA guidance did result in one concern about how USDOT/FHWA will view Critical Rural Freight Corridors for eligibility for both freight planning and funding opportunities offered by the FAST Act. The guidance includes the following statement: 

First and last mile connectivity is essential to an efficiently functioning freight 

system. These public roads provide immediate links between such freight generators as manufacturers, distribution points, rail intermodal and port facilities 

and a distribution pathway. FHWA encourages States, when making CRFC designations, to consider first or last mile connector routes from high-volume freight 

corridors to key rural freight facilities, including manufacturing centers, agricultural processing centers, farms, intermodal, and military facilities. 

As our partners review the FAST Act, the emphasis on ‘‘first and last mile 

connectivity’’ seems to be a priority of USDOT/FHWA and not Congress. Our review 

of the FAST Act results in the only place that ‘‘first and last mile’’ appears in the 

legislation is as a portion of one twelve items to be considered by the Secretary in 

designating or re-designating the National Multimodal Freight Network. Even that 

consideration was described as ‘‘major distribution centers, inland intermodal facilities, and first-and last-mile facilities. ‘‘First and last mile connectivity’’ is not mentioned in relationship to Critical Rural Freight Corridors in the FAST Act. We wish 

to be sure that ‘‘first and last mile’’ is not prioritized above corridors in future decisions under the FAST Act. 

Below, I will outline the relationship of Critical Rural Freight Corridors to two 

planning networks and two funding programs. 

Congress had the foresight to finalize the National Highway Freight Network including 41,518-mile Primary Highway Freight System identified during the designation process under MAP–21, Critical Rural Freight Corridors, Critical Urban 

Freight Corridors, and the portions of the Interstate System were not designated 

as part of the primary highway freight system. Once a Critical Rural Freight Corridor is designated and certified it is added to the National Highway Freight Network. 

In addition to the National Highway Freight Network, Congress also required the 

designation of the National Multimodal Freight Network. The stated purposes of the 

National Multimodal Freight Network includes assisting States in strategically directing resources toward improved system performance for the efficient movement 

of freight on the Network; to inform freight transportation planning; to assist in the 

prioritization of Federal investment; and to assess and support Federal investments 

to achieve the national multimodal freight policy goals and the national highway 

freight program goals. 

Included in the goals of this program are to strengthen the contribution of the 

National Multimodal Freight Network to the economic competitiveness of the 

United States; reduce congestion and eliminate bottlenecks on the National 

Multimodal Freight Network; to improve the short-and long-distance movement of 

goods that travel across rural areas between population centers; travel between 

rural areas and population centers; and to improve the flexibility of States to support multi-State corridor planning and the creation of multi-State organizations to 

increase the ability of States to address multimodal freight connectivity. These are 

clear goals that certainly address the rural freight opportunities and importance described earlier in the statement above. 

The FAST Act requires the Interim National Multimodal Freight Network to be 

established by June 1, 2016 and a Final Network of the National Multimodal 

Freight Network to be designated by December 4, 2016. The Under Secretary of 

Transportation for Policy is responsible to establish an Interim National Multimodal 

Freight Network not later than 180 days after the passage of the FAST Act. The 

second deadline, within the FAST Act, states that the Final Network of the National 

Multimodal Freight Network be established by the Undersecretary not later than 

one (1) year after passage of the Act. This Final Network is established after solicVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Oct 25, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\22130.TXT JACKIE
26 

iting input from stakeholders, including multimodal freight system users, transportation providers, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, ports, airports, railroads, and States, through a public process to identify critical freight facilities and corridors, including critical commerce corridors, that are vital to achieve 

the national multimodal freight policy goals. Critical Rural Freight Corridors need 

to be considered throughout this process. This National Multimodal Freight Network will not be re-designated for up to five (5) years after the establishment of the 

Final Network. Once again, designated Critical Rural Freight Corridors are eligible 

components of this Network. 

With the guidance provided by USDOT/FHWA for the designation and certification of Critical Rural Freight Corridors, the process of state departments of transportation is able to move forward. If state departments of transportation act quickly, 

Critical Rural Freight Corridors may be considered by the Undersecretary for the 

Interim National Multimodal Freight Network. As of this date, that window of opportunity is very narrow. After June 1, 2016, Critical Rural Freight Corridors will 

have up to six months to engage in the stakeholder process for the establishment 

of the Final Network of the National Multimodal Freight Network. The opportunity 

to include Critical Rural Freight Corridors as a component of the National 

Multimodal Freight Network now rests with the state departments of transportation. 

Critical Rural Freight Corridors within the FAST Act seem designed to address 

the need to connect the importance of agricultural production to the domestic and 

global markets requiring food and fiber. Congress recognizes the Critical Rural 

Freight Corridors provide access or service to grain elevators; agricultural facilities; 

and intermodal facilities including connections to international ports of entry. 

Critical Rural Freight Corridors within the FAST Act also seem designed to address the importance of access or service to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas to the domestic and global markets requiring energy resources. The Heartland Expressway in Nebraska is one link in the infrastructure 

required to safely make those connections. Implementation of Critical Rural Freight 

Corridors by state departments of transportation will be a major factor in the region 

remaining competitive economically. 

The National Highway Freight Program provides for the first-time formula funds 

to states to improve the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway 

Freight Network. Nebraska is authorized for $58.8 million over the five years of the 

FAST Act. This amount is above what has already been distributed to Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations for the same purposes. States are allowed to obligate these 

formula funds to Critical Rural Freight Corridors. The April 27, 2016 guidance on 

designating and certifying Critical Rural Freight Corridors indicates that National 

Highway Freight Program can be authorized once the FHWA Division Office verifies 

that the certification from the state department of transportation is valid. 

Additionally, the FAST Act established a Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program as a competitive grant process (FASTLANE) with dedicated 

funding specifically for freight projects. The competitive grant program includes $4.5 

billion nationally from 2016 through 2020, an annual average of $900 million. Each 

fiscal year, at least 25 percent of all Nationally Significant Freight and Highway 

Projects funds are reserved for projects—either large or small projects—in rural 

areas, defined as an area outside a U.S. Census Bureau designated urbanized area 

with populations over 200,000. Eligible projects include a highway freight project 

carried out on the National Highway Freight Network. In relationship to Critical 

Rural Freight Corridors, the April 27, 2016 guidance indicates that designated and 

certified Critical Rural Freight Corridors will be eligible for funding under the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program (FASTLANE). 

Congress through the FAST Act provided a framework and funding to assist with 

improved freight movement and especially rural freight movement in the United 

States. Congressional oversight, however, will be important as individual state departments of transportation like Nebraska Department of Roads, and the administration of USDOT/FHWA have been given major decision-making authorities on how 

the funding of freight programs are allocated. 

Conclusions 

As I conclude, let me summarize. There is significant importance of the transportation system to rural economic development. Research shows that economic 

strength of communities is strongly affected by proximity to an interstate highway 

or at minimum a four-lane highway. Significant economic national benefits from the 

development of primarily rural corridors to a four-lane profile is demonstrated 

through benefit/cost analysis in the Corridor Development and Management Plans 

27 

for the Heartland Expressway in Nebraska and the Ports-to-Plains Corridor in 

Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Colorado. 

Second, if improvements are to be made in the rural movement of freight, it will 

require a strong Federal role. Historically, that has been the case. A critical part 

of the national network is the multi-state rural highway corridors that are essential 

to the development of America’s energy and agricultural resources. A strong Federal 

interest will be required to improve existing corridors but also to implement programs which look to alternatives to the already congested interstate system. 

Finally, the FAST Act has provided a policy and funding framework for Building 

Rural Economies Together. At the very core of that framework for multi-state rural 

corridors is the role of Critical Rural Freight Corridors. State departments of transportation hold the reins to the timing and priority of Critical Rural Freight Corridors. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Fisher. I ask that a copy of this statement be included 

in the hearing record. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Freeman, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID FREEMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

TRANSPORTATION, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 

Mr. FREEMAN. Good morning again, Senator Fischer. My name is 

David Freeman, and I am the Senior Vice President of Transportation for BNSF. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

Congress has enacted several significant pieces of legislation that 

affect the supply chain. BNSF is pleased to have this opportunity 

to thank the members of the Committee for the balanced and effective approach in passing these transportation laws which are particularly important to the rural economy. 

The economic value of rail is well known in Nebraska, and railroads are the workhorse of the economy. They deliver approximately 40 percent of inner-city freight volume, more than any other 

mode of transportation, and shippers pay less because of rail’s efficiency. 

BNSF is wholly owned by Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway. 

It has approximately 42,000 employees, including more than 5,000 

here in Nebraska. We operate about 1,200 trains per day, and our 

total volumes last year were about 10.3 million units, the most of 

any railroad. 

BNSF operates major rail facilities at Alliance, Lincoln, McCook, 

Omaha and Haslett, and operates more than 1,400 miles of track 

in Nebraska. We move more than 2 million carloads of freight 

through the state annually. Much of it is coal from the Powder 

River Basin, which drives rail employment and investment here in 

Nebraska. More than 1,000 employees in Alliance inspect, repair, 

and overhaul equipment mostly associated with coal transportation. 

Rail volumes are a good indicator of how the economy is performing. While my written testimony details concerns about the 

current freight outlook, particularly with respect to coal, the good 

news is that BNSF has the capacity to grow with our customers. 

Volumes peaked for NBSF in 2006. Then we lost 20 percent of the 

units by 2009 to the Great Recession. After that, freight volumes 

grew twice as fast as the economy through 2014, and the industry 

struggled to handle that. 

Throughout this period, the rail freight industry, especially 

BNSF, increased investment with volumes. Since 2000, BNSF has 

28 

invested more than $53 billion in its network. Unfortunately, volumes in 2016 are now trending downward. By January, volumes 

had fallen by about 9 percent. We do not see a lot of growth in the 

near to mid-term outlook. At the moment, BNSF has about 4,500 

transportation employees on furlough and more than 1,800 locomotives in storage. My written testimony contains more detail 

about volumes across BNSF business units. 

The economy is running on two tracks. The consumer economy 

is stable but not growing quickly, and the industrial economy is 

slowing, if not in recession. A strong U.S. dollar, changes in energy 

markets, and regulation are a drag on growth. There is no better 

place to see that than coal volumes. This year, coal traffic in the 

U.S. has decreased more than 30 percent year over year. Markets 

are at work here. Falling demand has reduced coal utilization, but 

EPA regulations will ensure that coal will not likely grow again. 

Coal’s steep decline means a significant downshift for investment 

in infrastructure, manpower, and other resources that support coal 

movements. BNSF, of course, must match costs to reduce volumes, 

and we are working on that. But cost is not the only element in 

the equation. We are also committed to generating growth. 

Turning to freight policy, from BNSF’s perspective, the extension 

of the PTC deadline was one of Congress’ most significant legislative accomplishments. BNSF expects that by the end of 2018 PTC 

will be installed as required on its network. 

Enactment of the FAST Act was a significant legislative achievement that will benefit the Nation’s supply chain. The law 

prioritizes freight projects in a way no previous highway bill has 

done, and provides more Federal funding to mitigate public roadway conflicts with railroads’ rights of way. 

Significantly, the FAST Act streamlined environmental and historic preservation reviews for railroad projects. Almost weekly at 

BNSF, negative decisions from courts or permitting authorities at 

all levels of government demonstrate that our growth is limited by 

permitting processes. 

Finally, Congress does not authorize or appropriate railroad capital budgets. However, Federal economic regulatory policy directly 

impacts investment decisions. BNSF appreciates the bipartisan effort to achieve balanced regulatory oversight in the reauthorization 

of the Surface Transportation bill. The virtuous cycle of growth in 

volume, revenues and reinvestment has brought us to where we 

are now. BNSF infrastructure is in the best shape it has ever been 

to meet customer needs, and its safety record is at an all-time best. 

The Nebraska division is amongst the top three safest on our network. Nowhere is efficient freight rail more important than places 

like Western Nebraska, and Senator Fischer and members of the 

Senate Commerce Committee have understood that. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID FREEMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

TRANSPORTATION, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY

Good Morning Chairwoman Fischer. My name is Dave Freeman and I am the 

Senior Vice President—Transportation for BNSF Railway Company (BNSF). In this 

29 

role I have responsibility for all train movement on the BNSF network in addition 

to capacity planning, and service performance. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. In addition to providing an overview of Nebraska’s role in BNSF’s business 

and operations, my testimony will discuss BNSF’s perspective on the state of the 

freight economy, as well as the importance of good public policy for an efficient supply chain. 

Several significant pieces of legislation that affect the supply chain have been enacted by this Congress. BNSF is pleased to have this opportunity to thank Senator 

Fischer and the Members of the Senate Commerce Committee for the balanced and 

effective approach undertaken in passing these laws on important transportation 

policy issues, which include railroad economic regulation, safety rules and surface 

transportation policy. These laws are particularly important to the rural economy, 

where freight rail and roads play a large role in the movement of goods. 

Rail Industry & BNSF Overview and Outlook 

The economic value of rail is well known in Nebraska, where generations of family 

histories are linked to that of the railroads. Railroads in the U.S. operate across a 

nearly 140,000 mile network and are the workhorse of the economy. They deliver 

approximately 40 percent of intercity freight volume, more than any other mode of 

transportation. And because railroads do it more efficiently than most other transportation modes, shippers pay less for transportation by rail. 

Freight rail also lessens the environmental impact of the supply chain. For example, BNSF can move a single ton of freight almost 500 miles on a single gallon of 

fuel, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75 percent. One double-stack intermodal 

train of consumer products removes more than 250 long-haul freight trucks from the 

highway, helping to reduce traffic congestion and wear and tear on the Nation’s 

highways. 


502BNSF1.eps
30 

BNSF is wholly owned by Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway, which completed 

its acquisition of the railroad in early 2010. At the time of purchase, Berkshire CEO 

Warren Buffett proclaimed it ‘‘an all-in wager on the economic future of the United 

States.’’ BNSF operates one of the largest freight rail systems in North America 

with approximately 32,000 route miles in 28 states and also operates in three Canadian Provinces. BNSF has approximately 42,000 employees and operates about 

1,200 trains per day. 

Total volume for all types of freight hauled by BNSF last year was 10.3 million 

units, the most of any railroad. BNSF is the leading intermodal transportation provider, handling millions of shipments every year that could travel exclusively by 

truck but are carried on the railroad. BNSF hauled more than 4.8 million containers 

and trailers in 2015, representing close to half of all the freight units that BNSF 

handled for the year. BNSF hauls the most grain and coal and also has a large industrial products franchise, which includes crude oil and drilling inputs. 

BNSF’s network serves all major ports along the west coast and Gulf of Mexico. 

Freight flows through several key transcontinental corridors—the Southern 

Transcon, which connects Southern California and Chicago; the Great Northern 

Transcon, which is the Pacific Northwest to Chicago and beyond; and the Midcon 

Corridor, which includes the lines that essentially move freight north and south. Nebraska is part of the Midcon Corridor. 

For more than a century, BNSF and its predecessor railroads have played an important role in Nebraska’s economy. BNSF’s footprint across Nebraska dates back 


502BNSF2.eps 502BNSF3.eps
31 

to the late 1860s when the Burlington & Missouri River Rail Road (B&MR) began 

planning its westward expansion from Iowa across the Missouri River at 

Plattsmouth. By the summer of 1870, the B&MR had built a new railroad from the 

west bank of the Missouri River to the newly designated state capital of Lincoln. 

By 1882, the new Nebraska line had crossed the entire state and into Denver, Colorado. Eventually, more railroad was built across the state, running northwest to Billings, Montana and beyond. 

BNSF employs more than 5,000 people in Nebraska with an annual payroll of almost $385 million, and operates major rail yards in Alliance, Lincoln, McCook and 

Omaha. We also operate shops in Lincoln, Havelock and Alliance. BNSF currently 

owns and operates more than 1,400 miles of track in Nebraska, moving more than 

two million carloads of freight through the state on annual basis. 

BNSF delivers fertilizer from plants around the country to grow yields for Nebraska’s crops. It links the state’s agricultural industry, including its emerging ethanol 

industry, to markets domestically and around the world. BNSF also delivers a wide 

variety of consumer products to Nebraska retailers and businesses along with lumber and other building materials from the Northwest and the Southeast to satisfy 

construction demands throughout the state. 

A significant percentage of BNSF’s traffic moving across the state is cleaner-burning Powder River Basin (PRB) coal from Montana and Wyoming, headed not only 

to Nebraska where its citizens rely on coal for their energy needs, but to electricity 

generators and consumers around the country. Coal freight traffic drives much of 

the rail employment and investment in Nebraska. More than 1,000 employees work 

at Alliance, where loaded and empty coal trains, along with mixed freight trains, 

are processed and rail cars and locomotives are inspected, repaired and overhauled. 

Rail volumes are a good indicator of how the economy is performing. Freight rail 

volumes peaked in 2006 and then bottomed out during the Great Recession, when 

freight railroads lost 20 percent of their volume. BNSF carried 10.6 million units 

of freight in 2006 but plummeted to 8.4 million units in 2009. 

Coming out of the Great Recession, consistent growth in rail volumes did not 

begin again until 2010. Then, as the economy limped its way out of the recession, 

rail volumes actually grew at double the 2.1 percent rate of economic growth from 

2009 to 2014. The industry struggled with handling the volume growth during 2013 

and 2014 and, while the number of units on the railroad never quite got back to 

peak, BNSF exceeded its peak in gross ton miles which reflected a shift in traffic 

mix to heavier commodities like coal, crude oil and grain. Throughout this period, 

the freight rail industry, especially BNSF, increased volume and investment. 


502BNSF4.eps
32 

Since 2000, BNSF has invested more than $53 billion in its network; all railroads 

invested heavily during this period. BNSF had all-time record capital programs in 

2014 and 2015—totaling more than $11 billion. We added almost 200 miles of double-track, approximately 1,000 miles of centralized traffic control, 16 new sidings 

and more than 20 extended sidings. In Nebraska last year, BNSF’s $245 million 

capital plan for the state included, among other things, construction of two double 

track segments on the Ravenna subdivision between Bradshaw and Aurora and 

Pleasant Dale and Milford totaling 18 miles. These projects improve capacity on the 

Midcon Corridor, currently the heaviest trafficked coal route. 

In 2016, BNSF plans to invest approximately $110 million in its network in Nebraska, continuing a robust capital program which has seen investment of more 

than $500 million in Nebraska infrastructure over the last five years. In 2016 BNSF 

plans include approximately 1,760 miles of track surfacing and/or undercutting 

work, the replacement of about 40 miles of rail and more than 160,000 ties, as well 

as signal upgrades for federally mandated positive train control (PTC). 

While my testimony will detail some concerning news in the current freight outlook, particularly with respect to coal, the good news is that BNSF has the capacity 

available to continue to grow with our customers and facilitate development within 

the region. These investments give us expanded capacity for improved service—our 

performance was strong in 2015 and we are carrying that momentum through 2016. 

BNSF infrastructure is in the best shape it has ever been to meet customer needs 

and operate safely. 


502BNSF5.eps 502BNSF6.eps
33 

As BNSF’s Executive Vice President for Operations Greg Fox shared in testimony 

before this subcommittee last summer on the role of technology in improving safety, 

BNSF and the rail industry are currently experiencing the safest years on record, 

showing significant improvement over the past decade. 

During this time, safety improvements have occurred even as volumes increased, 

including volumes of hazardous materials and the growth in crude-by-rail. Continued robust investment in infrastructure has played a direct role in this success, 

along with the deployment of technology and safe operating practices, which involve 

rules compliance and a commitment to safety by BNSF’s employees. 

I am pleased to report that the Nebraska Division is currently one of BNSF’s top 

three safest divisions. Its 2015 reportable employee injury frequency ratio, at 0.82 

reportable injuries per 200,000 employee hours, is even better than BNSF’s systemwide average of 0.95 (which would be a best ever measure for any year on the railroad). 

Unfortunately, volumes in 2016 now are trending well off the recent ‘‘peak’’ volume levels realized in 2014. In 2015, industry volumes decreased about three percent versus 2014. The last two months were especially challenging as we saw the 

traffic decline accelerate. In December, volumes were down about nine percent 

versus 2014. This downward trend has continued into 2016 and we do not see a lot 

of growth in the near to mid-term outlook. At the moment, BNSF has 4,500 transportation employees on furlough and 1,800 locomotives in storage. All railroads are 

undertaking efficiency efforts in order to reduce costs to match volumes, aligning resources with the current business. 

The economy is running on two tracks—the consumer economy is stable but not 

growing quickly, and the industrial economy is slowing, if not in recession. There 

is a structural change occurring in the traditional volume mix of railroad traffic, and 

the dynamics have been changing at a pace that I have not seen in my career. Coal 

volumes are at the heart of it, but volumes related to the industrial economy are 

also suffering. A strong U.S. dollar, changes in energy markets and regulation are 

a drag on growth. The consumer economy—consumer goods and automobiles—continues to grow at a modest pace. The ongoing change in railroad volume, mix and 

revenue currently underway will impact the freight rail industry for some time to 

come. 


502BNSF7.eps
34 

There is no better place to see that than coal volumes. At the beginning of 2015, 

we saw strong customer demand focused on rebuilding inventories—due to the 

underperformance in 2014. Continued service improvements and a mild winter have 

driven stock piles to historic highs; combined with low prices for natural gas, coal 

demand is at a historic low, as a fundamental shift in electricity generation is taking place. The Energy Information Administration is now forecasting that 2016 will 

be the first year that natural gas-fired electricity generation will exceed coal generation in the U.S. on an annual basis. 

In 2013, coal was still about 40 percent of tonnage and nearly 20 percent of rail 

revenue for U.S. Class I railroads. This year, coal traffic in the U.S. has decreased 

more than 30 percent (31.7) year-over-year. Markets are at work here; falling demand has reduced coal utilization. But Environmental Protection Agency regulations will ensure that coal will not likely grow again. 

Coal’s steep decline means a significant downshift for the investment in infrastructure, manpower and other resources that supported coal movements. BNSF, of 

course, must match costs to reduced volumes, and are working on that. But cost is 

not the only element in the equation. We also are committed to generating growth 

across all of our business units in order to diversify Midcon Corridor utilization. 

Agriculture shipments—primarily corn, soybeans and wheat, as well as ethanol— 

represent about 10 percent of BNSF volumes. Approximately 34 percent of BNSF’s 

annual agricultural shipments are exported outside of the U.S. Of BNSF grain shipments, 60 percent move to export markets. In 2015, agriculture products made up 

more than 85 percent of BNSF shipments originated in Nebraska, almost half of 

which were corn and ethanol. Of the agricultural units originated in Nebraska, the 

majority are destined for Texas (37 percent), California (23 percent) and Washington 

(16 percent). 

Growth in agricultural products over the last several years has been steady due 

to increased plantings, improvements in crop yields, as well as continued expansion 

of grain facilities. In fact, the last three years of U.S. grain production have been 

the highest on record. Planting conditions indicate another big crop year in 2016 

and BNSF will be ready to meet our customers’ needs. As U.S. crop yields have increased, BNSF has expanded its capacity and efficiency in kind. Railroads are a factor in the U.S. producer’s competitive position as a least cost producer in the world 

market. An efficient and low cost rail network is particularly important to Nebraska 

agricultural producers. Every load of agricultural products starts in a truck and, 

then if loaded on rail, has the optionality to move to end markets both domestic and 

international. 

For the first quarter 2016, agricultural products on BNSF are up 1.5 percent, 

driven by record soybean exports through the Pacific Northwest ports and increased 

ethanol shipments. However, U.S. agricultural exports continue to face headwinds 

from global competition, low commodity prices and the strong U.S. dollar, which has 

grown more than 19 percent since July 2014. This is impacting many of BNSF’s export segments. 

Turning now to industrial products, BNSF volumes in this segment for the first 

quarter 2016 are down 9.2 percent, due mainly to business related to crude drilling 

and production. Year-over-year, industrial products were down just under 6 percent 


502BNSF8.eps
35 

(5.9) in 2015 versus 2014; crude volumes decreased 10.6 percent in 2015 as a result 

of lower oil prices. In 2014, we were averaging about 750,000 barrels of crude oil 

per day and that volume declined to an average 620,000 barrels per day in 2015. 

This trend worsened throughout 2015 and currently we are averaging around 

360,000 barrels per day in 2016. Not surprisingly, other input commodities such as 

minerals and frac sand were also down in 2015, about 20 percent (21.3) versus 2014, 

and down in the first quarter 2016 over 25 percent (25.3). 

Plastics, on the other hand, are poised to grow given the more than $1 billion expansion of the petrochemical and refining complex along the Gulf Coast, fueled by 

low cost American oil. We expect oil-related shipments to by cyclical, while coal’s 

downturn appears to be systemic, and likely permanent. 

Rounding out a review of BNSF business units, we end on a positive note. BNSF’s 

largest business unit is intermodal—consumer products that move on trucks and 

rail, and sometimes also from a ship. BNSF intermodal volumes increased slightly 

in 2015, about 0.5 percent. Those volumes are almost 70 percent back from the recessionary trough. 

In 2015, international volumes were down almost 2 percent (1.8) as shippers diverted freight from U.S. West Coast Ports, responding to disruptions by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) labor negotiations. BNSF’s Vice 

President of Consumer Products, Katie Farmer, testified before the Subcommittee 

about those impacts on the freight rail network last year. As you know, an agreement was reached in late February 2015, and pent-up demand began to clear in 

March. It is hard to tell exactly how much, but we know a certain percentage of 

that freight did not come back. It went permanently to other ports in Canada or 

on the East Coast. 

On a brighter note, BNSF domestic intermodal volumes, converting truck to rail, 

were up 2.4 percent year-over-year. Looking forward, we see additional growth potential and opportunities to take more truck miles onto the railroad. Looking longerterm, this will continue to be one of BNSF’s best business growth propositions. We 

work hard to provide the service that converts truck miles to the railroad; trucking 

companies are BNSF’s largest customers. 

Public Policy Review 

Turning to freight policy, the interests of Nebraska shippers and the freight industry were well served by several important pieces of legislation that this Congress 

has passed. From BNSF’s perspective, the extension of the PTC deadline was one 

of the most significant of these legislative measures. Freight rail traffic was poised 

to effectively stop before the end of 2015 if Congress did not act. The deadline was 

responsibly extended by Congress, and BNSF expects that by the end of 2018, PTC 

will be installed as required on its network. BNSF has completed more than 80 percent of the necessary signal work and equipment of locomotives to support PTC implementation, and as of today is running trains in Revenue Service Demonstration 

(RSD) across 14 of its subdivisions. To date, we have operated more than 60,000 

PTC trains in revenue service. We continue to work through challenges that the 


502BNSF9.eps
36 

RSD is helping expose, including overall reliability of a complex system of systems, 

initialization of the locomotive onboard computer system prior to train departure, 

and en route failures and braking performance that relies on complex braking algorithms. 

Enactment of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was a significant accomplishment that will benefit the Nation’s supply chain. The law 

prioritizes freight projects in a way no previous highway bill has done. It provides 

funding for not only freight-related roadway projects, like intermodal connectors and 

highway-rail grade separations, but also potentially port projects and some freight 

rail projects, such as port facility freight rail access projects, critical bridge infrastructure and railroad relocations. Throughout the laws various programs and policy 

provisions, special emphasis is placed on providing Federal funding to state and 

local efforts to reduce road and highway conflict with freight railroad rights-of-way. 

Significantly, the FAST Act continued and expanded upon project delivery and 

permitting reforms enacted as part of the reauthorization bill’s predecessor—MAP– 

21. Of particular interest to railroads, the bill directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to streamline and improve rail-related environmental and historic preservation reviews, either through 

internal process changes or by rulemaking. Permitting reform is critical at all levels 

of government. At BNSF, almost weekly, negative decisions from courts or permitting authorities at all levels of government demonstrate to BNSF and its customers 

that our growth, especially at origins and destinations, is limited by the inability 

to receive required permits. 

I would like to point out that the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) contains additional provisions which BNSF considers important 

to continued permit reform. Section 1021 of the bill would expand the authority contained in Section 214 of the statute to cover railroad projects. Section 214 presently 

authorizes the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds from non-federal 

public entities, public utilities and natural gas pipeline companies to expedite the 

evaluation and processing of permit applications that fall under the jurisdiction of 

the Department of the Army. Amending the Corps’ Section 214 authority to expedite 

the evaluation and processing of permits to include rail initiatives would streamline 

the industry’s ability to deliver critical infrastructure projects that benefit the communities in which railroads operate and the customers they serve. Importantly, the 

new provision would not make any substantive or process changes and all environment rules and protections would continue to apply. We encourage enactment of this 

important provision. 

In addition, there is also a bipartisan legislative effort underway in the Senate 

to provide for a limited railroad exclusion from FCC review for safety-related equipment in railroad rights-of-way that rely on wireless communications. We strongly 

support this proposal which builds on the reforms established in the FAST Act, and 

hope it will move forward in the legislative process. Permitting reforms like those 

described above are critical to BNSF operations as continued permitting delays effectively cap growth and access to markets, which not only hurts the railroad but 

Nebraska’s shippers. 

The FAST Act also followed and improved a recently released DOT rule related 

to rail transportation of certain flammable liquids, including crude. The DOT’s rule 

established design standards for tank cars, along with operating requirements for 

High Hazard Flammable Trains (HHFT), including a mandate for the installation 

of Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) Brakes. Congress refined several important aspects of the rule’s provisions, including strengthened requirements for 

new tank cars and calling for a data-driven analysis for ECP brakes, thereby improving safety outcomes and the overall regulatory process. 

Congress does not authorize or appropriate railroad capital budgets; however, 

Federal freight railroad economic regulatory policy directly impacts the investment 

decisions of freight railroads. Adequate freight railroad investment, driven by appropriate returns, is an important factor in Nebraska’s competitiveness in the world 

economy. BNSF and the rail industry did not oppose the passage of S.808, the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act, which reauthorized the Surface 

Transportation Board, the agency which exercises economic regulatory authority 

over freight railroads. This legislation made a number of important process changes 

at the Board, and BNSF is carefully watching implementation of its provisions. 

Committee Chairman John Thune (R–SD), Chairwoman Fischer and other members 

of the Commerce Committee worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft legislation that 

sought to strike a balance between regulatory oversight of the railroads with the 

industry’s need to earn sufficient revenues to allow for reinvestment. As we have 

stated many times since passage of the Staggers Rail Act in 1980, balanced reguVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Oct 25, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\22130.TXT JACKIE
37 

latory oversight is critical to the health of the freight rail industry and its customers 

who depend on us to deliver consistent and cost-effective rail service. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the freight rail industry has never been more prepared to take on 

freight volume and provide service to customers than it is right now. The ‘‘virtuous 

cycle’’ of growth in volumes, revenues and reinvestment has brought us to this 

place. However, Congressional action has also been part of this; Congress prioritized 

the supply chain within infrastructure policy, made important project delivery reforms and judiciously balanced the needs of supply chain participants. Most importantly Congress deftly prevented over-regulation. It is impossible to overstate how 

important that is to the ongoing availability of necessary capital and the efficiency 

of railroad operations. 

In the current economy, it is difficult to know the ‘‘what’’ or the ‘‘when’’ growth 

will return. But we believe that improvement will come. Earlier this year, the DOT 

released new 30-year freight projections. They are showing that freight tons moving 

on the Nation’s transportation network will grow 40 percent in the next three decades. 

We have invested to handle it, and we have the workforce—in Nebraska and elsewhere—to move the additional freight that America will need. The current period 

is difficult, and BNSF and all the Nation’s railroads are working to manage it in 

the most responsible way possible. 

Whatever the future brings, BNSF expects to continue to be able to support the 

economy of rural America. We will not just move its grain to market, coal to power 

its electricity generation, consumer goods to provide its consumers with the same 

choices as urban consumers, we also will work as a partner to develop and diversify 

the rural economy. From 2013 to 2015, BNSF was instrumental in locating 414 new 

or expanded facilities across the network; in Nebraska alone BNSF helped create 

more than $300 million in investments and 100 jobs over that period. Nowhere is 

efficient freight rail more important than places like Western Nebraska, and BNSF 

appreciates that Senator Fischer and Members of the Senate Commerce Committee 

have understood that. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kelley, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN KELLEY, PRESIDENT, 

KELLEY BEAN COMPANY 

Mr. KELLEY. Again, I’d like to thank you. I’m honored to be here 

today, and thank you for having the hearing here in Scottsbluff at 

WNCC, Senator Fischer. I’m looking forward to sharing this with 

you. I could talk for hours, but I’ll keep it quick. We are thankful 

for the opportunity to present testimony before this committee. 

Kelley Bean is involved in the organization and marketing of dry 

edible beans. We are tied to both the grower and end users. It’s our 

job to move the grower’s production into the domestic and export 

markets. In a given year we utilize approximately 700 rail cars and 

3,000 trucks for shipments that we are responsible for the transportation. Transportation logistics are crucial to our business. 

With rail transportation, we were classified under specialty commodities. We rely on single and small-quantity rail car placements 

at our plants, as opposed to unit trains used in grains and coal. 

This necessitates frequent spotting of empty rail cars to keep the 

flow of production moving during times of high-volume shipments. 

We have now been limited to one rail car switch a week at many 

locations. This situation is compounded when an empty rail car is 

delivered that is unsuitable for use and cannot be replaced until 

the next switch. This slows our production flow and delays delivery 

to the end customer. With this limited placement of rail cars, we 

also believe that railroads need to address their merged schedules 

to fit the rail car delivery situation. 

38 

As the economy improves and demand for transportation increases, we fear that the service level can only suffer and that specialty commodities will feel a large impact on service levels as railroads focus on their primary high-volume and high-profit customers. We have seen and experienced this in the past when the 

railroad capacity was stretched and service levels dropped. 

As an example would be 2 years ago with Great Northern bean 

shipments to be exported to the Port of Houston. Service was very 

poor and railroads were not being supplied as needed. Due to rail 

delays, we were forced to ship the product by truck to Houston in 

order to comply with our sales contract terms. This was a great expense for our company in higher freight and cost and lost sales. 

Railcar Despacho Previo, pre-documentation of railcar for export 

to Mexico, was implemented in the early 1990s to alleviate congestion at the border and to comply with Mexican customs law requiring documentation and payment of duties prior to the railcar entering Mexico. The reason behind the implementation was a situation 

of a lack of engines at the border to cross the railcars in an orderly 

manner, creating a 5,000 railcar backup that spread through several states, sidelining railcars destined for the border crossing. 

That situation does not exist today. Current Despacho Previo 

rules, as spelled out in BNSF Rules Book 6100–A, Item 3140E, 

only allow 48 hours from release of the railcar at the origin shipping point for delivery to the border of the required export documentation. After the expiry of the 48 hours, a documentation demurrage is charged by the railroad on a daily basis. This is an exceedingly short period of time to deliver the documents to the border, especially considering that a USDA Phytosanitary Certificate 

must be issued by a government agency after the railcar is loaded 

and released to the BNSF. In many cases, the railcar is still sitting 

alongside the shipping warehouse after the 48-hour period expires 

and has not physically moved or has only progressed a short distance in transit. This does not lead to congestion at the border. 

With the current situation, this appears to be more of a revenue 

generator than a legitimate mechanization for preventing congestion at the border. We would request a longer Despacho Previo period to give the shipper adequate time to accumulate the needed 

documents and dispatch those documents in an orderly fashion to 

the forwarding agent at the border. If shippers are given at least 

96 hours, it would aid the shipper and would likely have no impact 

on border congestion. 

We would also like to say that we support the Highway Transportation Bill. It is a step in the right direction for funding a highway system that is essential to our industry and to the Nation as 

a whole. We need to have an extensive, safe, well-maintained highway infrastructure to convey the commerce of the United States for 

now and into the future. 

In order to accomplish this, we need to allocate greater funds 

than are earmarked to expand the capacity and quality of our highway system, not just maintain and patch to keep them usable. As 

the economy expands, the volume of truck freight will increase and 

require more trucks and qualified drivers and higher capacity highways. Since the highway system is shared by both commercial and 

private vehicles, highway safety must be a major component. This 

39 

pursuit of highway safety should not be based on restrictive rules, 

regulations, and mandates to create a sense of safety, but with actual improvements to capacity, quality, and safeguards of the highways themselves. 

I’d like to thank you for allowing me to present today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN KELLEY, PRESIDENT, KELLEY BEAN COMPANY

We are thankful for the opportunity to present a testimony before this board. 

Kelley Bean is involved in the origination and marketing of Dry Edible Beans. We 

are tied to both the growers and the end users. It is our job to move the grower’s 

production into the domestic and export markets. In a given year, we will utilize 

approximately 700 railcars and 3,000 trucks for shipments that we are responsible 

for the transportation. Transport logistics are crucial to our business. 

With rail transportation, we are classified under Specialty Commodities. We reply 

on single and small quantity railcar placements at our plants as opposed to unit 

trains used in grains and coal. This necessitates more frequent spotting of empty 

railcars to keep the flow of production moving during times of high volume shipments. We have now been limited to one railcar switch a week at many locations. 

This situation is compounded when an empty railcar is delivered that is unsuitable 

for use and cannot be replaced until the next switch. This slows our production flow 

and delays delivery to the end customer. With this limited placement of railcars, we 

also believe that the railroads need to address their demurrage schedules to fit the 

railcar delivery situation. 

As the economy improves and demand for transportation increases, we fear that 

the service level can only suffer and that Specialty Commodities will feel a large 

impact on service levels as the railroads focus on their primary high volume and 

high profit customers. We have seen and experienced this in the past, when the railroad capacity was stretched and service levels dropped. An example would be 2 

years ago with Great Northern Bean shipments to be exported from the Port of 

Houston. Service was very poor and railcars were not being supplied as needed. Due 

to rail delays, we were forced to ship the product by truck to Houston in order to 

comply with our sale contract terms. This was at a great expense to our company 

on higher freight cost and lost sales. 

Railcar Despacho Previo (Pre-documentation of railcar for export to Mexico) was 

implemented in the early 1990s to alleviate congestion at the border and to comply 

with Mexican Customs law requiring documentation and payment of duties prior to 

the railcar entering Mexico. The reason behind the implementation was a situation 

of a lack of engines at the border to cross the railcars in an orderly manner; creating 

a 5,000 railcar backup that spread thru several states sidelining railcars destine for 

the border crossing. That situation does not exist today. Current Despacho Previo 

rules, as spelled out in BNSF Rules book 6100–A, Item 3140E, only allow 48 hours 

from release the railcar at origin shipping point for delivery to the border of the required export documentation. After the expiry of the 48 hours, a documentation demurrage is charged by the railroad on a daily basis. This is an exceedingly short 

period of time to deliver the documents to the border especially considering that a 

USDA Phytosanitary Certificate must be issued by a government agency after the 

railcar is loaded and released to the BNSF. In many cases, the railcar is still sitting 

alongside the shipping warehouse after the 48 hours period expires and has not 

physically moved or has only progressed a short distance in transit. This does not 

lead to congestion at the border. With the current situation, this appears to be more 

of a revenue generator for the railroad than a legitimate mechanization for preventing congestion at the border. We would request a longer Despacho Previo period 

to give the shipper adequate time to accumulate the need documents and dispatch 

those documents in an orderly fashion to the forwarding agent at the border. If shippers are given at least 96 hours, it would aid the shipper and would likely have 

no impact on border congestion. 

We would also like to say that we support the Highway Transportation Bill. It 

is a step in the right direction for funding a Highway System that is essential to 

our industry and to the Nation as a whole. We need to have an extensive, safe, well 

maintained highway infrastructure to convey the commerce of the United States for 

now and into the future. 

In order to accomplish this, we need to allocate greater funds than are earmarked 

to expand the capacity and quality of our highway system, not just maintain and 

patch to keep them usable. As the economy expands, the volume of truck freight 

40 

will increase and require more trucks and qualified drivers and higher capacity 

highways. Since the highway system is shared by both commercial and private vehicles, highway safety must be a major component. This pursuit of highway safety 

should not be based on restrictive rules, regulations, and mandates to create a sense 

of safety, but with actual improvements to capacity, quality and safeguards of the 

highways themselves. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. BRENT HOLLIDAY, JR., CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEBRASKA TRANSPORT COMPANY 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Good morning again, Senator Fischer. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Good morning. 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. I’d like to thank you and the Committee for 

hosting this hearing today and for the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Richard B. Brent Holliday, Jr., and I am the owner 

and the CEO of Nebraska Transport Company based here in Nebraska. My son Phillip represents the third generation of our family owned business. We serve greater Nebraska and the Midwest, 

and most of our revenue sources derive from our less than truckload or LTL operations, and supplemental income supplied through 

our truckload brokerage and expedited services. We operate 10 terminals nationally, six of which are located in Nebraska, and we 

currently have 225 employees. 

I want to begin my testimony today with a quote from a man 

that I’ve admired all my life, one of my heroes. He once told me— 

and this is a true statement—‘‘Brent, sometimes it’s better to be a 

pup on the porch than a big dog out in the street.’’ That man was 

Richard B. Holliday, Sr. He was my father. He ended up in 

Scottsbluff because this is where he ran out of gas and money 

when he was 18 years old, and he worked odd jobs until he secured 

a job on a freight dock and later became a truck driver. He went 

on to work for a local company with numerous promotions in his 

26-year tenure at that company. He ultimately held the title of VP 

of Operations. The company he worked for sold to a national carrier, and shortly afterwards he bought the ICC authority of a dormant company, and the story of NTC started in 1973. 

Now, that doesn’t have a lot to do with what we’re doing or talking about today, but trucking has been a family business, and most 

of the carriers that serve Nebraska are small carriers. It’s very important to the future of our network. 

In Nebraska, there are 13,500 interstate carriers registered. That 

makes us second only to Texas, and per capita we are actually first. 

That does not include private or intrastate carriers. The majority 

of these carriers are small carriers. Eight-hundred-fifteen-thousand 

pieces of equipment over 26,000 pounds are registered in the state 

of Nebraska. The local and regional economic impact is evident. 

Regardless of the different modes of transportation required to 

move goods from Omaha to North Platte or Beijing to Gering, 

trucks represent the first and last mile in a worldwide freight 

chain. Much of the last-mile service is provided by smaller carriers. 

For an effective local and regional transportation network, we have 

to have an ample supply of safe and financially strong carriers, 

large and small. 

41 

Regardless of fleet size, regulation has impacted everyone financially. The burden for smaller carriers, the carriers that serve communities such as Scottsbluff on a regular basis, is even more profound. There’s not a road in the state of Nebraska that one of our 

trucks has been on, and not everyone is just dying to have service 

to Venango, Nebraska, but it’s important to the people of Venango, 

Nebraska. 

Other industry headwinds such as the driver shortage, turnover, 

and escalating equipment costs pose a real threat. According to a 

recent article in Transport Topics, 3,585 trucks were sidelined in 

the first quarter of 2016. That is three-and-a-half times the amount 

of trucks removed from operation than in the first quarter of 2015. 

New, revised, and future regulation will continue to put pressure 

on carriers financially. 

Now, let me say this: regulation is not a bad thing. It has made 

our industry as safe as it ever has been and ensures our drivers 

are trained and tested to make sure that they are physically and 

mentally fit to share the roads with our families. Things such as 

EOBs and standardized safety scoring system for trucking is not 

only beneficial, it is a must. But it has to be consistent state to 

state and community to community when it comes to enforcement 

and measurement. 

We are not afraid of regulation, and we’re not afraid of managing 

regulation. Management of regulatory consistency is attainable. 

However, consistent regulatory changes are not. In other words, 

tell us what you want. We’ll manage it. We’ll make it right. We’ll 

get it right, and we’ll train our people. Revisions that require network and system changes are expensive and confusing to employees, and it affects service to rural communities. 

The implementation of the FAST Act is a very good start, and 

we really want to thank you for your work on that. Things like requiring the FMSCA to specify how it intends to evaluate future 

rules to measure their intended outcomes using a wider scope and 

selection of motor carriers and its cost/benefit analysis, listening to 

public concern for potential regulatory action, and requiring data 

on how safety initiatives will be quantified are all very positive 

steps. 

The FAST Act hopefully moves us into a more interactive and 

commonsense approach to future regulation. Real world versus regulation will never be understood in Washington without an interactive and collaborative approach with those being regulated. Increased regulation needs to be balanced and statistically data 

based. Thanks again for what you’ve done. 

The day of the pup staying on the porch where it’s safe is over. 

Carriers of all sizes need to be prepared to be in the street, and 

we need to know we can survive when we get there. If we don’t, 

the communities we serve will be held hostage to ‘‘you get it when 

you get it’’ due to a cost structure that means extreme efficiency 

at the expense of service. We need your help, Senator Fischer, and 

we are certainly willing and prepared to help you. Thank you 

again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holliday follows:] 

42 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. BRENT HOLLIDAY, JR., CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, NEBRASKA TRANSPORT COMPANY

1. The Driver Shortage is Bad and Getting Worse 

a. The driver shortage is currently 48,000 and growing 

b. There are many reasons for the driver shortage, including lifestyle and other 

local job alternatives. 

c. The biggest reason appears to be driver age. The average driver is 8–10 years 

older than the average American worker. Hence, retirements will disproportionately affect our industry. 

d. We need to begin identifying ways to attract more individuals to our industry 

2. We Need Stability/Consistent Regulations 

a. Trucking has struggled to plan and adapt under changing regulations (like 

hours of service) and the uncertainty of future ones (sleep apnea). 

b. We appreciate Senator Fischer’s regulatory reform language in the FAST ACT 

which requires FMCSA to prioritize rulemakings. 

c. We also urge greater Congressional oversight with respect to the necessity of 

rules (i.e., is there a compelling need and will they have a net safety benefit?). 

d. Regulation needs to be balanced and statistic based. What is real world vs. 

Regulation 

e. A study for George Mason University finds that since 1980 $4 Trillion dollars 

has been lost in economic growth due to growing regulations and our economy 

would be 25 percent larger if regulation would have been frozen in 1980 

f. Management of regulatory consistency is attainable, constant regulation 

changes create hardship to the carrier, drivers, and customers 

3. The New Electronic Logging Device Mandate Should Apply to All 

a. FMCSA’s new ELDs mandate exempts several groups of carriers. 

b. Those using pre-model year 2000 trucks and those operating locally (i.e., within 

a 100-mile radius) are generally exempt. 

c. These exemptions create safety implications and establish an un-level competitive playing field. 

d. FMCSA should correct for this inequity and refuse exemptions for carriers and 

industry segments that will, inevitably, request them. 

e. ELD’s eliminate a layer of ability to alter actual on duty violations. 

4. Highway Investment is Insufficient 

a. While the FAST Act increased highway funding by about 5 percent, this is not 

sufficient to make up the $740 billion backlog in needed highway capital investments to improve highway and bridge maintenance and address capacity 

needs (the Federal share is about half). 

b. Two-thirds of roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 63,000 bridges are 

structurally deficient. 

c. Congestion costs the trucking industry $50 billion annually, including more 

than $200 million in Nebraska. 

d. In 2014 truck drivers sat idle in traffic for 728 million hours, equivalent to 

265,000 drivers sitting in their trucks and not moving for an entire year. 

e. The best way to address the funding shortfall is to increase and index the Federal fuel tax. 

5. Smaller carriers struggle to survive in today’s Environment 

a. National carriers have eroded personal relationships with national pricing and 

created a commoditized pricing environment at the expense of service. 

b. 3 PLs or National logistics providers have commoditized pricing and compromised regional customer/carrier relationships 

c. Logistics providers do not have regulatory costs, asset costs, management costs, 

or risk 

d. National carriers have a lower proportional costs associated with regulation. 

43 

e. Small carriers are the first mile and last mile in worldwide freight chain If 

small carriers can’t survive rural America will be at the mercy of a ‘‘you will 

get it when you get it’’ environment 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Any written testimony that you have will be included into the 

record. 

Now we get to the fun part of the hearing. I’m going to ask a 

number of questions for you folks, and I really hope you’ll have an 

open conversation with me so that we can really drill down on 

some of these issues. 

And I’d like to begin with you, Director. Could you elaborate on 

how NDOR is working with the U.S. Department of Transportation 

to develop a statewide freight plan? What are some of the opportunities and the challenges that you foresee? 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. Sure. So, the FAST Act requires a freight plan 

be in place in order to get some of the funding. For us it’s a firstgeneration freight plan, so the first time we’ve done one, and I 

think it’s long overdue for us to have an understanding of the supply chains in our state and understand how the network supports 

freight movement. 

So as a first-generation plan, that’s really the approach that I 

think we’re taking to it in terms of trying to establish that priority 

freight network and understand how goods move across that network. Our partnership with Federal Highway and USDOT is critical as we think about the freight plan and implementation of 

whatever recommendations come out of that. 

I think another piece of it, there are a couple of other things that 

we’re thinking about. We’re such an agriculture-heavy state, and 

our network is so large, so how we can get those goods to market 

across what starts as our local network, all the way out to the 

interstate or to the railroad or however it ends up getting to market, understanding that local network and how it feeds in I think 

is an important piece. And that network is, as you know—— many 

of our bridges are over 50 years old, and understanding how that 

all works together is an important part of the freight plan. 

The local bridge piece is an important part of it, and then I think 

just understanding those supply chains work and looking for opportunities to understand how our highway network and other pieces 

of the multi-modalities can provide better connection, better access, 

better safety, that’s what we’re after. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Agriculture is the economic driver for the state of 

Nebraska, so I appreciate you recognizing the importance of setting 

those priorities to include that. 

Have you looked ahead at trying to determine how you’re going 

to make up your group as stakeholders as you look at working on 

a freight plan for the state? Do you have any kind of outline on 

who you’re going to reach out to, or if it’s going to come from the 

Department or the Administration? Are you going to look for any 

kinds of grassroots input as well? 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. I think the partnerships that we have —in my 

view, we have a responsibility as government to reach out to the 

folks that we’re trying to serve, our customers, and that’s the people of Nebraska. It’s the folks who are delivering the goods on our 

network. So we have to involve those folks whether they’re railVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Oct 25, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\22130.TXT JACKIE
44 

roads or shippers, growers. All of these folks need to be involved 

in our thinking and in our freight plan. So, absolutely. 

We don’t have a freight advisory council like some states have. 

That will be a part of this group, of our freight plan at some point. 

We will engage that sort of group and carry it forward. But it is 

critical that we include those stakeholders. 

Mrs. FISCHER. And as you look at stakeholders, I know you’ll be 

seriously considering this area of the state and local Chambers or 

local economic development groups. But there are a number of 

small communities in Nebraska that are truly disconnected. Senator Davis is here today. He represents a lot of those counties that 

are out there that don’t have really a connection. There aren’t that 

many highways even going through. 

So how would you try to include them, and what would you say 

to these areas of the state that are looking at losing population, 

about their involvement in trying to stimulate any kind of development? 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. Well, we know that transportation plays a role 

in supporting economic growth, and that means all across the 

state. So even just as we think about the Build Nebraska Act and 

some of our capital improvement projects that we’re out planning 

for, we very much believe in getting out into the communities and 

talking about what’s important to the regions. I believe we’ll make 

better decisions in government if we ask people what they think, 

and that’s something that I think has been a piece that we’re trying to improve at the Department of Roads. I think it plays a role 

in everything we do, whether it’s our state projects or the freight 

plans that we’re working with USDOT on. So, absolutely, we need 

to work with those folks and the people that live in Nebraska and 

that work in these communities and that own these companies. 

They can help us make better decisions, and so that’s what we’re 

trying to do. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Well, thank you, and I’d like to once again welcome you to the state. I appreciate the job you’re doing and the enthusiasm. 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. Thank you. 

Mrs. FISCHER. So, thank you, sir. 

Deb, you have always been a tremendous advocate for transportation in Western Nebraska. I mean, I remember meeting you a 

long time ago about the Heartland Expressway, and you were relentless. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. FISCHER. Which was a good thing. 

Would you provide more details for everyone here today regarding the status of the project for the expressway, the timeline and 

any challenges that you anticipate as the project moves forward? 

Ms. COTTIER. Well, I appreciate the length of time that we’ve all 

been involved in this. I can remember when there was a group 

called the Western Nebraska United Chambers of Commerce, and 

former Senator Joyce Hillman and I sat as Chamber directors on 

that committee when we actually held a contest to name the Heartland Expressway, so it goes back a year or two. 

So that actually began as an effort from the Scottsbluff-Gering 

area to try to figure out how to better connect our businesses to 

45 

the front range of Colorado, frankly, and then worked with South 

Dakota in a joint venture to try to then ultimately connect Rapid 

City with Denver and all of the communities in-between that wanted to be a part of this process. That includes Alliance, Nebraska. 

There are folks here from Alliance, from Kimball, from the whole 

region, and so it’s extremely important. 

The status of that so far is that we have obviously one of the 

promises from the state government to connect I–80 to the next 

town of the largest size, from Kimball to Scottsbluff. It has been 

four lanes for a number of years. We’ve gotten several pieces that 

help move that traffic around and through communities. We’re 

headed east on 26 and 92, about 10 or 12 miles. Eventually that 

will be four-laned all the way to Highway 385 on what we call the 

L–62A spur. 

Right now, the Department of Roads is in the process of letting 

bids and doing right-of-way work to try to do the next piece of this, 

which is from that junction—we call it the Baird Turnoff in general 

vernacular terms—on U.S. 385 to the city limits of Alliance up to 

Highway 2. So that will be another very important piece which currently has a lot of traffic, ag traffic and difficulty with seeing 

around and passing and all of that. 

The piece, of course, that is nearest and dearest to my heart is 

from Alliance through Chadron to the Nebraska-South Dakota 

state line. Those of you that have come from South Dakota probably know, they have finished their portion of the Heartland Expressway four-lane project, and when you get to the Nebraska state 

border it goes back to two lanes on the Nebraska side of that imaginary line. That’s a visual that we can all see every time we have 

to go to and from Rapid City, but it really is sort of what we’re 

talking about. It then creates this bottleneck and this traffic hazard, if you will. 

So the Heartland Expressway Association, withheld from our 

partners at the Federal level, and the Nebraska Department of 

Roads, leading the charge, have actually conducted a number of 

years ago the Corridor Development and Management Plan, which 

literally broke the remainder of the Heartland Expressway into 

four phases to be finished. We are now going to turn dirt on the 

first of those four remaining phases this coming year. 

So I have to say, without the Build Nebraska Act in the Nebraska legislature, we would not have had the wherewithal to convince the Nebraska Department of Roads that that should be a 

project, and that also allowed us to have better input with the Director’s direction to say we need to figure out how to best use that 

Build Nebraska Act funding. And now with the Transportation Innovation Act, we have even a better opportunity to really plan how 

those work. 

So that’s where we are, and we’re hopeful that those three remaining phases will be finished in my lifetime, I guess is the way 

I put it. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Do you have any numbers on the direct economic 

impact that this would have on local communities or that you’ve 

even seen in the past when this is opened? And I would ask you 

and then open it up to other members of the panel if they would 

like to speak on that. 

46 

Ms. COTTIER. In terms of dollars, the best number that we have 

been able to use, which comes from an official study, which makes 

it true, of course, is that this investment would bring about a twoto-one payback, if you will. So for every dollar invested in road improvements, we would see a two dollar return in the economics of 

it. 

Interestingly enough, back in the day when the Federal Highway 

Administration was requiring quarter development and management plans before they would consider earmarking funds, there 

were not a lot of economic development criteria included in those 

RFPs that we had those studies done. We fought, and a couple of 

the members of the Heartland Expressway Association, as well as 

staff from Ports-to-Plains, fought hard to get some economic development data included in that study that was done. So that’s the 

best number that I have that we use, and Department of Roads 

may have some other criteria. 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. Well, we are studying it. As we think about our 

highway investments and our transportation investments in the future, the economic impacts of these investments have to be understood, and that’s a layer that we’ve brought into our prioritization 

process in the last year. So not only public improvements were 

stressed but also economic impacts. We also understand that economic impacts vary depending on where you are. Job creation is 

what we’re after. GDP growth is what we’re after. But the definition of that and what impact that has on a community varies depending on where we are. 

So we’re trying to understand what that means, and then we’re 

trying to put the project through some sort of economic screening 

so that we can help inform our decisions and make better ones. It 

has always been about engineering, which it should continue to be, 

largely based on engineering, traffic and safety, these things. But 

economic impacts, what they mean to communities, that’s really 

how we can make the best decisions with our limited resources. 

So we’ve been working with Deb and her group to try and understand the economic impacts of the Heartland, and certainly it’s 

going to be a heavy factor in our prioritization process. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Have you ever seen any studies, or do you plan 

to look at this on what the impact is? Because it does vary across 

the state. What the impact is of an interchange in Scottsbluff 

County compared to what the impact would be of an interchange 

in more rural areas in the state? Because it is a big difference. 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. Yes. I think you have to understand it not only 

in terms of job growth and opportunity and those things, but also 

put it in the context of the situation where you are, the geographic 

location where you are. A job is not a job is not a job across our 

state. So understanding that and understanding those differences 

is critical for us to make smart decisions. It’s the Build Nebraska 

Act, not the Build Eastern Nebraska Act or Build Western Nebraska Act. It’s for the whole state. 

Mrs. FISCHER. And that was the intent. 

Ms. COTTIER. I would point out one thing. In the printed statement that we submitted, there are some great statistics in there 

about rural economic development and how locating next to an 

interstate, next to a four lane, next to a two lane, the difference 

47 

in how those micropolitan areas perform, a nice chart in there that 

shows that obviously the strongest performance are those on the 

interstate. The weakest is not even on a four-lane highway. But the 

improvement that you get by having a four-lane is significant. 

And the only other thing I would mention about the criteria is 

what we have come to realize and what we hope folks understand 

in Western Nebraska, as I know you do, is that roads are not always based on vehicles traveled. The need for roads out here is 

every bit as critical as the really urban congested areas, probably 

more so, because we have so many fewer options. But the number, 

the count of how many wheels go across a little ticker tape is not 

as important as how those interact with the types of traffic that’s 

on them. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Right. And, Director, would you say that it is still 

the number-one priority of the Department to look at safety as the 

first indicator for any expenditure of taxpayer dollars? 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. Yes, absolutely. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you. 

And did anyone else have anything to add on that? 

Mr. OVERMAN. I’d like to give a little bit of historical perspective 

on what politics does. We all know that’s what makes the wheels 

turn, and you do such a good job of it. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Never. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OVERMAN. Statewide and nationally. 

But in the early 1990s, I was on the steering committee for 

transportation and communication for the National League of Cities for 6 years. We made the Nation’s priorities to present to Congress. When Deb and I were involved early on with the Heartland 

Expressway, I met one morning with the Chairman of our committee. His name was Jim Bell from San Jose, California. Over 

breakfast, on a napkin, I drew the Heartland Expressway, and I 

said we need some money in the upcoming bill. He said let me talk 

to Norm Manetta, who was Chairman of the Committee. He said 

Mr. Manetta is on his honeymoon in Florida, but he’s a good friend, 

I’m going to call him. He called him on his honeymoon. 

To make a long story short, when the bill came out, we had $29.6 

million in the highway bill, of which half was to go to South Dakota and half to Nebraska. I will tell you, it would never have happened if I had not been there, just like you were there now to make 

things happen. That was the first money ever received by the state 

of Nebraska for the Heartland Expressway. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Good job. 

Mr. Holliday, if we could talk a little bit about some concerns 

that you expressed in your written testimony, and it was with regard to some trucking regulations. I know that you said that you 

can handle regulations, you just need to have that consistency 

that’s out there. But in your testimony you mentioned the FMCSA, 

the 2013 revisions to longstanding hours of service regulations. You 

mentioned that briefly again in your testimony here. 

The changes essentially mandated that drivers sleep at night, 

and it caused severe disruptions to our nation’s supply chain and 

threatened the safety on our roads, I think, by pushing more trucks 

out on the road during the morning commutes that we saw. 

48 

So given the supply chain that we have, and time is money, 

what’s the cost of that regulatory uncertainty that we see in Washington now on your business? What’s the cost, and I guess what 

does Washington need to do? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Sure. I appreciate your question. To put down a 

dollar figure, I can’t give that to you today. I could certainly do the 

research on that. But for us, in the LTL environment especially, we 

have to travel at night because our trucks are consolidating shipments in places like Kansas City, Denver, Chicago, Des Moines 

during the day. They bring those back to the terminal. That freight 

moves at night so that it’s in the communities where those consignees are the next morning. That’s not an option. 

As far as our long haul, our 48-state operation, I would just as 

soon have our drivers operate during the daytime, daylight hours 

only, for obvious safety reasons. We’d like for them to go on the 

same roads all the time. That also is impossible. 

So for us, especially with an LTL or regional LTL operation like 

we are, we can adjust to hours of service rule changes a lot easier 

than a truckload carrier, and those truckload carriers—and we 

have a truckload division, but it’s smaller. But a lot of those truckload carriers are the very carriers that Mr. Kelley is relying on at 

times to get product to the end user. The hours of service limit you 

to a time on the road that I believe is safe and I think has been 

studied to be safe, but there are times when it requires a driver 

to stop when he may be 100 miles from destination. So the cost of 

that is another day to the consignee before they can get the product 

to the carrier, because that carrier then has to secure a backhaul, 

so you may miss out. If you can’t unload until a Friday afternoon, 

it means that truck is going to sit wherever he’s at over the weekend until he can get a backhaul, or he’s going to deadhead home, 

which means zero revenue to that truck. 

So if you hold the truck, you’ve just taken a capacity situation 

that’s already tight throughout the Nation and you’ve compounded 

it. 

Mrs. FISCHER. When you work with businesses in delivering 

product, do you hear very often from businesses that they’re concerned with the amount of time it may take to get that product— 

or especially I think with commodities, with ag commodities, there 

is a certain time limit you have to get them delivered. But do you 

hear from businesses where they’re worried about it, they complain 

about it, they question it? Does it add cost to them, too? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Every day. You know, it’s never there soon 

enough, especially in the LTL environment, once again, which is 

the majority of our revenue stream. We have customers that, because of economics today—and this changed probably 10 or 15 

years ago. What you used to hear is these companies operating on 

a just-in-time mode. That was something for the bigger companies 

or warehousing. It’s across the board now. 

People don’t warehouse stock like they used to. They have to 

have the flexibility of a carrier that can literally get freight from 

Kansas City to Scottsbluff overnight, Chicago to Denver in 2 days, 

and they rely heavily on that because their inventory is so low that 

if a customer comes in and needs something or a customer has a 

49 

furnace go out, they may not have that in stock. We hear that all 

the time. 

Truckload and commodities are somewhat, actually a little easier 

than it is in the LTL environment. If Kelley Bean calls us and tells 

us that they’re going to have three loads out of their Morel facility 

that needs to be in Houston, that’s normally a week ahead of time 

that they can offer us that information, minimum, and we can adjust to that quickly. But in the LTL environment, and obviously the 

expedited environment, that becomes a lot harder to do. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Overman, what’s the importance of a cargo business at the 

airport? We talk about the passenger business, and the cycles go 

up and down and you’re always threatened with losing that funding for the essential air service, which I give Congressman Smith 

a round of thanks there. He has been a tireless advocate for essential air service for our rural communities. But what’s the importance of cargo service, not just at the airport out here but all over? 

Mr. OVERMAN. The cargo services are tremendously important to 

people in the corridor from all these companies all over the United 

States, and they want tomorrow service. They get it through the 

airport, part of it through FedEx and UPS. Both have planes come 

in every day. And as I stated earlier, FedEx goes out 150 miles in 

every direction from here. We had one route that goes to Hyannis 

from here, and it comes in on a plane. Some comes in on a truck. 

We just built a new truck depot at the airport and, of course, we 

already had the air there. 

But at Christmastime, and maybe Thanksgiving, some times like 

that, they may have to send in extra airplanes because they have 

so much coming in from—whether it be Amazon or some other 

major company across the country, and they want it overnight. 

We’re an overnight society now, and a lot of it comes in by air. The 

ground transportation is there as well, and the UPS doesn’t go out 

quite as far. They go out about 120 miles, generally speaking. They 

have a lot of trucks all over the panhandle of Nebraska and Eastern Wyoming, and it all comes out of that airport. 

Mrs. FISCHER. The second hearing that I had last year as Chairman of the Subcommittee, it was on our ports, and it happened to 

coincide with the disruption that we were seeing in the West Coast 

ports at the time. We have three folks on here that I think were 

affected by that, our airports, our rail, and our trucks. I had a lot 

of people say to me you’re a senator from Nebraska, why are you 

doing this? 

Well, first of all, it’s under the jurisdiction of our committee. But 

I think it really drove home that our ports affect everyone in this 

country. 

Would any of you like to just briefly speak to that? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Just to jump in from a railroad perspective, just 

to give you an idea about the ports of Southern California, we typically operate 50-plus trains a week out of the ports of L.A. and 

Long Beach. We have similar lesser-scale dynamics at the port of 

Oakland, the ports in Seattle and Tacoma up in the Pacific Northwest. 

When we went through the dynamics a year ago of what was 

going on out there and the impact, the numbers dropped. There 

50 

clearly were many, many less containers of stuff, and you could 

pick your stuff, from furniture to electronics to tennis shoes or 

whatever, that were being moved and therefore, obviously, available for consumption at any point in the U.S., which is basically 

where that stuff moves over time. 

Clearly, when it was all settled out, it came back to normal. 

There is today a little bit of a downturn in terms of what’s actually 

coming through the ports given some of the world economy situations that are out there and things of that sort. But when you look 

at the sheer number of containers, when I talk about 50 trains, we 

average anywhere from 250 to 275 boxes per train to a high number of up around 350 on some of the longer trains we’ll run. So 

clearly you’ll understand how much stuff comes through the ports 

that ends up at any place in the U.S., and frankly is even bridged 

to other countries in some of the bridge operations that work across 

the U.S. as part of their transportation plan. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Any other comments on that? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes. I think from a trucking perspective—and I 

don’t do a lot of business out in California, but trucks have wheels. 

As I spoke about earlier, just 13,500 carriers in the state of Nebraska alone, most of those guys are small carriers. They have 

truck payments, they have overhead. They can’t afford to have a 

truck sitting. So when they hear that there are problems with a 

shipping location, some of that is reacting as quick as a storm, but 

especially in the situation in California, they don’t send the trucks 

there because they know there’s not going to be the freight that 

they need. 

We see some of that with seasonality out of California with 

produce. When it’s the high shipping season for produce, we’re offered a lot more loads of steel and things like that because we don’t 

have any refrigerated trailers. But a lot of the carriers out there 

will switch to refrigerated when produce season comes into play. 

Just here again, it shows that smaller carriers need to be very 

agile and very diversified to stay in today’s world. I often say you’ll 

see some of our t-shirts on a little league team here in Scottsbluff, 

but you’ll never see one of my ads on the Super Bowl. We are competing with carriers that have ads on the Super Bowl. So their resources allow them, I guess, to go through slowdowns regionally a 

little bit easier than what we can. It allows them perhaps some engineers taking a look at predicting things that we are sometimes 

not as good at doing. So we have to be as agile as we can on any 

given day and really pay attention. 

I think that from a capacity standpoint, it once again compounds 

what’s happening here in rural Nebraska when trucks are diverted 

to areas where the grass is greener for a short period of time. 

Mrs. FISCHER. My question you responded to on the ports with 

things coming in and being able to transport that. What about 

things going out? What about exports? When you see a shutdown 

on the ports, I mean, obviously not only is there a backlog there 

that we can’t get things out, but have you seen an impact on our 

markets now? Have we lost export partners around the world because of the congestion that happened in the shutdown we saw on 

the West Coast? 

51 

I guess I’ll start with you, Mr. Kelley, because I hear a lot about 

it from ag producers, about issues that they had really with product just rotting. Has that affected you, and has it affected your export dealings now? 

Mr. KELLEY. I think Mr. Freeman alluded to it. The railroad has 

a huge responsibility, and we’re a small part of that. But we rely 

totally on the railroad in most export situations, using trucking as 

a secondary. Because, as you said, railroad has the value, and we 

appreciate that and recognize that. 

I want to emphasize that my speech sounded like I was picking 

on the BN, and I didn’t mean that, to do that. I had some help 

writing my speech and—— 

Mrs. FISCHER. Railroads get used to being—— 

Mr. FREEMAN. Thick skin. Not to worry. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FREEMAN. I think, just to pile on or add to the point of your 

question on the export side, clearly the flows through the ports of 

exports—as an example, we run traffic from Omaha in a modal facility there that goes to the port. We do assorted different things 

from all parts of the U.S. headed for the West Coast in various exports. There is no doubt that it has impact on export flows of agricultural commodities or industrial equipment or whatever. There 

are clearly impacts. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Have we lost partners? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I don’t know that I’m in a position to be able to 

talk about lost partners, but I hear—— 

Mrs. FISCHER. Have you seen a decrease in moving products? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Over time, there are clearly impacts by port flows 

on the movement of products, recognizing that the strength of the 

dollar and other economic issues are part of the equation as well. 

But there is no doubt that the effectiveness of port operations 

working in concert with truckers, the railroads, et cetera, is a big 

part of economic growth in Nebraska, the U.S. as a whole, and over 

time we have to do things such as, as an example, some of the 

FAST projects with freight corridors, intermodal connectors, things 

of that sort, that clearly are and should be a big part of our economic future going forward. 

Mr. KELLEY. I thank you, Mr. Freeman. 

We saw a tremendous loss of business as a result—and I’m talking about the dry edible bean business, and we’re only a part of 

that. But certainly Western Nebraska is one of the leaders in exports. And politics is involved, world peace is involved, because we 

used to export 50 percent of our Great Northerns worldwide, and 

that doesn’t happen anymore. A lot of it has to do with the bean. 

Consumers have theoretically been at war with us through the 

problems with ISIS and the different things that have happened 

overseas. 

There are so many things that affect us as Americans. But the 

ports themselves, if the Administration in Washington would have 

reacted to the strike, which they didn’t call it a strike—they played 

around with the words, because if they called it a strike, the President could have reacted and played with that. They played it to the 

tune of billions and billions of U.S. dollars were lost in that process, while people were asking for a raise on the Coast and not 

52 

doing their job. It’s an economic impact that we’ll be suffering for 

generations. 

We saw traffic flow go from the West Coast to the ports of Houston, and then the ports of Houston couldn’t handle it because 

you’ve got to predict, you’ve got to build railroads and you’ve got 

to build infrastructure. You have to have employees and you have 

to have trucks, and all these things just don’t happen overnight. 

But in our opinion, the problem started when our Administration, primarily the White House, did not react to the seriousness 

of the ports being shut down on the West Coast. It rippled for 

months and it cost our economy billions of dollars, and that can be 

proven. It was probably in the trillions, if I had to guess. 

Our country relies on flow of product, and we’re such a huge, 

huge economy, and so spread out, that it’s so important that the 

government, especially the White House, reacts to situations and 

doesn’t try to placate unions. That’s exactly what was going on. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Yes. How do we gain back that lost market share? 

I want to focus on the transportation part. There are a lot of other 

issues out there to deal with when we talk about this, but how do 

we gain that back through transportation? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I think your earlier question to Director 

Schneweis around inputs from assorted parties and trying to understand, first off, what are the requirements that businesses, customers, people have in terms of what has to move and what has 

to flow, and taking those inputs, be it highway, be it rail, be it 

ports, be it water, rivers, whatever it happens to be, put those together and have a freight policy, if you will, that clearly the FAST 

Act is a step in the right direction for some number of years into 

the future. We’ll see what comes about with other opportunities 

that are out there. 

But I think that framework is essentially taken to a bigger scale 

as we try to figure out what will be the growth in our state, in our 

country, the world as a whole, and what markets can people play 

in, Mr. Kelley with the bean market, others who obviously are in 

different businesses and things of that sort. We will need to understand what’s out there. 

We’ll need to make sure that the landscape amongst rail and 

water and trucks and highway are essentially managed effectively 

and appropriately. We’ll need to have an effective policy around 

permitting and historic preservation activities that is timely and 

consistent and, to some degree, effective, if you will, around understanding that there has to be decisions made, what are we going 

to build, what are we going to be part of for the overall system of 

freight transportation going forward. 

And I think starting with the comment that he provided in response to your question, I’m taking that to a clearly larger scale, 

be it local, state, Federal, international, I think is the direction we 

have to go. 

Mrs. FISCHER. We’re going to put a lot of pressure on you, Director, and the NDOR to come up with a good stakeholder council, 

then, right? 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. It’s critical. You spoke to business and how important it is that you’re nimble and flexible. That’s not something 

you think of when you think of government policy. So it’s on us to 

53 

be able to make sure that we have a good understanding of supply 

chains and opportunities and can react quickly to the speed of business. I think it’s a challenge. 

Then I think technology is changing so fast, and we have to be 

able to understand as government and in partnership with the private sector how to invest in things like truck platooning. These 

things are being studied, do we need to have staging opportunities 

here in Nebraska to be able to experiment, research, and take advantage of those things. I think if we’re not doing it and we’re not 

thinking forward, then we are losing opportunities to grow. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Great. Thank you. 

Don, I wanted to get back to you on the FAA bill. You had talked 

about the importance of the essential service and keeping the funding here for Scottsbluff. Can you talk about what that means to a 

rural community like Scottsbluff, and not just this community but 

the region? If I could ask you, do you know how the airport is going 

to use those dollars to update infrastructure? 

Mr. OVERMAN. Well, in the past, of course, notwithstanding the 

bank crisis of 2008 and 9/11 and all the things that have happened 

since then, and the change in the law for pilots going from 500 

hours to 1,500, it has tremendously affected us to the effect that 

at the beginning of 2013 Great Lakes had 300 pilots, and at the 

end of 2013 they had 78. That speaks to why service is so bad, not 

only here but all across the country, but especially with the rural 

airports. 

When they get off the airplane, the first thing they see is the 

monument, and they see that this is a vibrant community. It’s the 

first impression, whether it’s medical people coming in here or 

business people coming in here to set up a new business. If you 

look out the front door of this building, across the street there’s 

about a $35 million building sitting over there. It would never be 

there if we didn’t have an airport. I mean, I was involved in bringing the initial company here, and they would not have been here. 

There’s another one down on the corner, across from the YMCA, 

which now houses state offices. But it was a KN energy company 

that we got through negotiations with myself and Mr. Ruschall, 

who many of us know and respect, in the background. Without the 

city manager even knowing it, we were negotiating to get them to 

move their corporate headquarters from Hastings to Scottsbluff. 

When the smoke cleared, they moved a great number of their 

people out of Hastings to Scottsbluff. Larry Hall was the President 

at that time, and he said that we’d never have done it if we didn’t 

have an airport. 

Being a past President of Nebraska Diplomats, of course, I understand how all the cities try to get more business in their cities. 

We just have to have that airport from an economic development 

standpoint. We just would not be able to do it. 

Now, you asked where we’re going to spend the money. Well, this 

year we had enough money carried over. We can carry money over 

for 2 years, and we needed a new snow blower because we had to 

keep the runways clear for the planes to land from here, and also 

from DIA. I think we got $800-and-some-thousand dollars. When 

you get a new snowplow as big as they are, you’ve got to build a 

new building. So we needed money this year, and we got it from 

54 

discretionary funds from the DOT, which comes from other airports 

that don’t use all their money. 

We’re faced with, in the next three to 4 years, our plan that the 

Department of Transportation suggested—actually mandates that 

we do—we’ve got to re-do both runways. The estimated cost is $20 

million. The million dollars we get cannot be used to run the airport. It can only be used for safety purposes, and that’s what we 

used it for, for all the years. When the airport authority took over, 

I think in 2004 or something like that, since then we have added 

$23 million of improvements to that airport, and most of that came 

from Federal funding, the million dollars and/or special projects 

that we were able to get back. They don’t happen very often anymore. 

Anyway, we need that money. If you look at it right now, we’re 

faced with $20 million. If we get $1 million and you can carry it 

over 2 years, you’ve got $2 million. Where are you going to get the 

other $18 million? Not only that, but the DOT in their ultimate 

wisdom recently, last year, we’re supposed to get 98 percent of the 

money, and we have to pay 10 percent for any safety purpose. 

They changed the rules a little bit, and now they only give us 

80 percent up front, and then they don’t give us the other 10 percent until the project is completed by the DOT and signed off. So 

we become their banker for 10 percent. It’s a mess, and it presents 

terrible problems to all the airports just with that one change. 

But the money will be used, as I’ve said, probably the next 

project is going to be airport runway improvement. 

Mrs. FISCHER. I know you’ve worked on improving that airport 

for many, many years, and I understand that a new terminal is 

going to be named in your honor. Is that correct? 

Mr. OVERMAN. It was in 2004. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Oh. I’m slow. 

Mr. OVERMAN. Or 2005. 

Mrs. FISCHER. OK. 

Mr. OVERMAN. But it was. I had a brother-in-law that came to 

visit us from Missouri. A couple of months later my wife called and 

said they were going to name that airport the Donald A. Overman 

Terminal. And he said I didn’t know he was sick. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Holliday, you mentioned the driver shortage. I worked on 

language in the highway bill hoping to allow younger drivers to be 

able to drive interstate, between states, which they cannot currently do. Even though we have 18 and 19-year-olds driving trucks 

in Nebraska, they can’t cross from Omaha, the bridge in the Council Bluffs. That’s an issue that I think we need to keep presenting 

out there. 

I had some people say they didn’t want to be on the road next 

to an 18-year-old driver, and I said, well, you already are. If you 

drive from San Diego to San Francisco, you’re on the road with an 

18-year-old truck driver. These are professional people. They’re 

doing their job. 

In the bill we were able to get some language in that would allow 

veterans, younger veterans to be able to drive interstate, and hopeVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:28 Oct 25, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\22130.TXT JACKIE
55 

fully we’ll be able to have some data that we can work with because there haven’t been studies on that. 

But can you tell me how your company is working to meet that 

driver shortage challenge that’s out there? Have you felt any impact from the shortage? 

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Have I felt any? Absolutely. I will say it has 

eased a little bit with some of the layoffs from some of the industries around us. We’ve had some drivers show up, especially out 

here in Western Nebraska, that are going back to truck driving, 

which is something they used to do. 

But we try everything. We use social media, Facebook. We have 

a full-time person in our office that does nothing but recruit because we need a vast array of different types of drivers. We need 

drivers that will go to 48 states over the road. We need city pickup and delivery drivers that will stay in Omaha or Kansas City. 

And we have flatbed drivers. All of those take a special skill set. 

One thing that I did read in your proposal is that they have to 

have 30 hours of instruction, which I think is good. I think after 

30 hours you’re going to be prepared. I did notice that there’s no 

classroom time specified presently, but I think most companies, including ours, we have probably eight hours’ worth of classroom instruction that we mandate from them anyhow. So by the time you 

have a driver out there in a truck for 30 hours, he’s going to encounter a lot of things; certainly not everything. Some weather-related issues may be, depending on when that driver trains, something that he hasn’t encountered, but it’s going to prepare him. 

Going back to ancient history, the first time I drove a truck 

across the state I was 18 years old and my cocker spaniel and I 

went to Omaha and back. You know, times were different then. 

But what we have found in the past, especially in rural Nebraska, 

is some of our best drivers, they’re kids who started driving a truck 

at 16 years old on their dad’s farm. It may be a beet truck, what 

we call a straight truck. But they just have that skill set to take 

somebody that says I’m going to get into truck driving because I 

hear they can make $30,000 to $50,000 a year, and they show up 

at truck driving school. I’d rather have that 18-year-old farm kid 

than perhaps a 25 to 28-year-old guy that’s gone through a truck 

driving school. 

Now, truck driving schools are good. There are some good, some 

better. But for us, the 30 hours I think is a good move. I think 

that’s going to be adequate training. I don’t have a lot of fear of 

that because all good companies and all companies that are responsible to the health of the public—my family is out there on those 

roads, too. I’ve seen what can happen if it’s not done right. Responsible companies are not going to let a driver, regardless of their 

age, 18 or 48, get behind the wheel of their truck and drive down 

the road because there’s too much at stake. 

Once again, I stress responsible companies. There are some companies that are in such need of drivers right now that, unfortunately, I think that maybe their standards aren’t quite the same. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. Freeman, I have a number of questions for you on some rail 

issues that maybe a lot of folks in the audience here haven’t heard 

56 

that much about, but they’re very newsworthy on the Federal level, 

and you know what’s coming here. 

From what I understand, BNSF is on schedule to be one of the 

first Class I railroads to fully implement its positive train control 

system. Can you share some of the lessons that your railroad has 

learned as that implementation has progressed, particularly any 

technical issues, interoperability challenges, workforce training 

issues that you’ve seen in trying to get this implemented? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Sure. Just to sort of set a little bit of a foundation 

context in terms of what’s going on, we are well down the road of 

essentially what will be a $2 billion project over the better part of 

10 years from the time we started when the mandate was first developed back in the 2008 timeframe. We are, as you pointed out 

with your comment, fully expecting to be installed by the end of 

2018, per the mandate. At present, we are at this point—just numbers—14 subdivisions out of 80-ish that are mandated under the 

law, already turned on, functional and operating. We are running 

approximately 600 trains a week with PTC right now, various 

parts of our network, and expect that to continue growing. We will 

add three more subdivisions between now and the end of May, and 

we’ll be on essentially a three to five subdivisions per month plan 

going forward until we’re completed. 

From a learning standpoint, I guess I would offer several different parts of an answer. First of all, from a software/hardware 

standpoint, I think we would admit BNSF, and I frankly think our 

industry colleagues would be the same—it is a very hard project. 

It is essentially new technology from a software standpoint. It is 

a monstrous installation/construction project in terms of what has 

to go in, not only in terms of the back office for servers and technology workstation kind of stuff, but also with communications 

towers and all the various pieces and parts that have to be in place 

with our signal system out in the field, and it is a significant undertaking by our mechanical team working to have the locomotives 

modified such that our roughly 5,000 to 5,500 locomotives will be 

fully equipped to run with PTC as we go forward into the future. 

So a large project, lots and lots of things going on in different 

parts of our world. 

From a people standpoint, we clearly are well equipped in terms 

of people to install signal telecomm. We use a small contractor 

group to supplement our own folks, but we fully believe that we are 

well down the road in terms of the capabilities of those folks. They 

are moving forward on plan. Essentially, our construction activities, if you will, in the field on the mandated subdivisions will be 

done by the end of 2017—I’m sorry, end of 2016 or early 2017. In 

fact, we’ll have some additional subs that we are adding to our 

project, activities ongoing during the course of 2017. 

From a train operations standpoint, we have seen what I’ll call 

strong success in terms of work with our train crews. I daresay 

that if I wanted to put out a shout-out to our Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen members, and our smart TD, the 

old UTU members, engineers and conductors have been marvelously supportive in terms of, one, learning; and two, serving as 

mentors and trainers for their fellow employees as we startup the 

systems on different parts of the network. That set of activities will 

57 

be growing as we move forward with many, many more subdivisions over the next couple of years. 

So that part is clearly a big deal as well for us, and I think has 

been very positive for us in terms of not only what’s been accomplished in the project but, frankly, relationships with our employees and union and their involvement in getting the process going, 

getting the system up and running. 

From an overall standpoint, I think going forward you mentioned 

interoperability. We are scheduled in the second quarter here in 

the next couple of months to start interoperability testing with the 

Union Pacific and their locomotives, and they with ours. We have 

not yet planned or scheduled yet with the CSX, but that will have 

to take place over time in order to set up an interoperable system, 

if you will. We handle trains and locomotives across the different 

carriers, so UP will run with our locomotives and vice versa and 

that sort of thing. 

It’s a key part for us, still a significant question, but we feel right 

now that we are on the right path to getting that accomplished. 

Aside from that, as I said, hard work, still a lot of things to get 

done, but we are very confident that we are on plan for year-end 

2018. 

Mrs. FISCHER. OK. Thank you. I understand that BNSF has conducted a pilot program for the ECP brakes, which are the electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. You’ve done that on a limited 

number of cold trains; is that correct? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes. I’m sorry. I thought—— 

Mrs. FISCHER. You were banging the table. 

Mr. FREEMAN. I’m sorry. 

Mrs. FISCHER. That’s OK. 

Mr. FREEMAN. My fault. Yes. At this point, there are two 

trains—— 

Mrs. FISCHER. For the record, he was not banging the table in 

any kind of show of frustration. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FREEMAN. No, no. No meaning of emphasis or frustration. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Exactly. But what’s been the result of that pilot 

program? 

Mr. FREEMAN. There are presently two trains operating in BNSF, 

and as I reported earlier in my opening comments, we are essentially roughly 1,200 trains on the network in any given time with 

today’s business level. So it’s a very, very small subset of trains. 

They are both cold sets, so they are operating from the Powder 

River Basin to a particular power plant in the Southeast, or two 

different power plants in the Southeast, same company. 

At this point I would tell you that our results would say that 

there are clearly reliability issues with the ECP systems. We continue to see service interruptions on our network where the reliability issues on those two trains are multipliers of what we see on 

normal cold sets of normal freight trains. In other words, 2X, 3X, 

5X in terms of actual outages given the technology that’s on the 

train. We also see in terms of the fixes to those service interruptions—that is to say, trying to deal with the reliability issues—that 

it takes longer to deal with those systems than it does with routine 

service interruptions on today’s braking technology, if you will. 

58 

Just to give you an idea, these systems have a big plug connector 

type piece of the technology, and it is almost like, to take a little 

bit of liberty, if the Christmas light goes out on your string of 

lights on your tree or on your home, you almost have to pull out 

light bulbs to try to figure out where is the disconnect and what 

is causing the issue. 

So overall reliability, and then the ability to fix the issue are 

clearly concerns of ours. 

All of that said, from a train operating standpoint, I don’t know 

that I necessarily can speak to exactly how the analytics were done 

relative to some of the safety statements that have been made. I 

don’t think we necessarily see a difference in numbers of cars being 

derailed and that sort of thing. We haven’t had the incidents to 

make those sort of assessments. So we would be concerned with 

those sort of impacts. 

I think overall we would say significant questions on reliability, 

significant questions working with them, and then I think we 

would compound that with some cost dynamics that we view are 

high relative to the potential benefits as we see them in operation. 

Mrs. FISCHER. In the FAST Act, you know we included in that 

a requirement for the GAO to have a study on the data and the 

methodology that underlies the Department of Transportation rule 

that requires the ECP brakes on certain unit trains, and the FAST 

Act also required real-world testing of the mandate from the National Academies in order to contrive the possible safety benefits of 

the methodology. 

So based on your experience, and you referred to this in your 

previous comments, but I would just like to know your insights 

that you would share to inform the GAO study and the Academies’ 

evaluation. 

Mr. FREEMAN. I think I would, in response to your question, essentially repeat some of my comments relative to what we are seeing relative to the issues and the specifics of those issues. I think 

we would look forward to the opportunity to, as a team—our mechanical group that has to deal with the issues, the locomotives 

that are critical to the operation of ECP, the cars and that sort of 

thing—I think we would look forward with that group, as well as 

our operating group, to be part of a study and be part of providing 

feedback and some of our experiences as part of the study going 

forward. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Do you believe that the real-world testing is needed instead of data that is brought about based on modeling done 

by the FRA? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I would not want to push aside modeling, and I’m 

not aware of the models that are being used by the various agencies and entities that are part of the study. I clearly think we 

should include everything in the conversation, but that the realworld data of what’s being assessed over time have been party to 

either as the car owners or as the railroads that are operating 

these types of equipment. We clearly have something to offer, and 

we would want to be part of that, but I would not want to necessarily shove aside the modeling as something to look at. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you. 

59 

This question is for the entire panel. While we recognize the need 

for consistency in our lives, I’ve heard from many Nebraskans all 

around this state about over-regulation from Washington, and that 

is one of their major concerns. As I said in my opening statement, 

we passed language in the FAST Act to make the regulatory process more transparent. I think that was of utmost importance. 

So to build on that, I’m interested in hearing about how these 

regulations affect your work, if any of you would like to comment 

on that, if you think of regulations and what you have to change 

or basically just how does it affect what you do. 

Director, I’m going to start with you because my office has 

worked with the Department of Roads on a number of items with 

the categorical exclusions and environmental impact statements. 

Would you like to talk about that a little bit? 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. Thank you for the support you’ve given the Department. 

Mrs. FISCHER. No, thank you for all the information you’ve 

shared with us. 

Mr. SCHNEWEIS. Regulations and accommodating regulations are 

a huge part of our delivery timeframe. It takes eight to ten years 

sometimes to deliver on a project, especially when we’re talking 

about a new corridor or going from two to four lanes, and a lot of 

that is due to regulation. 

We’ve seen a growth in the number of regulations, and we don’t 

question the intent. I think what we question is the level of risk 

sometimes. We don’t necessarily do a good job, I think, with our 

regulators assessing risk when it comes to whether or not to delay 

or whether or not to reassess or whether or not to continue working 

on the regulatory piece. That’s something that we talk a lot about 

with our Federal partners to try and assess the true risks of the 

issues that we’re talking about. 

I talk a lot about flexibility, and I want flexibility in the rule because we understand the rule is there for a good reason, and we 

need to understand that intent and then assess the risk of whether 

or not we’re going to have any issues with that intent. So I want 

the flexibility to be able to understand and appropriately assess 

risk from project to project. But we also need consistency. We need 

things to be the same in every state. So I want the flexibility consistently, and I know that’s almost impossible. We’re asking for two 

things that are diametrically opposed to each other, but I think it’s 

important. It’s something that we have been talking a lot about 

with all of our Federal partners. 

A partnership is always—if you know the people and you trust 

the people that you’re being regulated by, I think you have a lot 

of opportunity to make progress in these areas. So that’s another 

area for us, trying to build that trust up so they trust us and we 

trust them, and it takes time to do that. It’s a continuous challenge 

for us. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you. 

Ms. COTTIER. I don’t think it’s always just about regulations that 

either a Federal agency has perhaps taken advantage of or is pushing a little more than others, but there are also items relative to 

road construction that we hear anecdotally from people, like why 

on earth do you have to have this gigantic engineered whatever 

60 

you’ve done when a simple corridor overpass or whatever would do. 

So the frustration and part of the challenge that we have as part 

of the Heartland Expressway Association is trying to educate the 

public, educate even our elected officials. 

We had a conversation with Congressman Smith about why is 

this built the way it is. We could say, well, because Roads said it 

had to be, or we could say because engineering-wise it needs this. 

So there’s a high level of knowledge that has to be gained either 

by the people who are paying for it or, at the very least, those elected officials and those of us who are advocating for it to be able to 

share that information. I think it’s really important. We don’t want 

to muddy the waters of the United States, and we don’t want to 

impact particular animals any more than anyone else does, but we 

also need to understand what it takes to have a safe road as well. 

So, two pieces, the environmental stuff and the engineering stuff. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you. 

Anyone else? 

Mr. FREEMAN. I think from a railroad standpoint, I think we 

would look at a couple of different things. First off, the oversight 

relative to, if you will, the ability to do public-private partnerships, 

the things that are needed and frankly have to happen if we’re 

going to have economic growth in Nebraska, the U.S. as a whole. 

There’s a framework that’s set up that clearly has moved us forward in terms of where we are today relative to economic growth, 

to being able to do the highway/rail interfaces, the intermodal connectors, things of that sort that are clearly going to be needed 

going forward. 

I think the Act has also provided for us some positive in terms 

of the conflicts of highway and railroad relative to road crossing 

interactions and that sort of thing. There are 24,000 crossings on 

the BNSF alone, public and private, not to mention pedestrian 

crossings and overpasses and underpasses that we deal with, and 

other interactions and that sort of thing. Those dynamics are clearly something we need to be working on, and that’s part of FAST 

and some of the things that are going on forward. 

So there’s a safety piece. There’s an economic dynamic that we 

clearly want to be part of. I think the other side for us, and I mentioned in my earlier comments about the ability to generate 

growth, working in concert with customers and with other modes 

of transportation to facilitate the move of goods and freight and 

pieces and parts of whatever is moving, agricultural goods and 

things of that sort. Having a consistent, timely process around permitting and those kind of dynamics, and doing anything you can 

do to make that a better situation than where we are today is a 

plus. 

To the point that Ms. Cottier made relative to muddy waters and 

that sort of thing, we want to do stuff that is helpful for the overall 

system of business, but at the same time we also recognize that 

there is an effective environmental and economic process that 

needs to take place, and we want to be part of that, and I think 

this has taken another step of improvement in that world. 

Mrs. FISCHER. Great. 

With that, I would like to thank the panel for being here today. 

I really appreciate the information that you have provided to the 

61 

Committee. I appreciate the extent of the conversation that we’ve 

been able to have. Thank you very much. 

I would also like to thank members of the community for coming 

and sharing a Senate hearing here in the state of Nebraska. It’s 

important that you are here as well. 

For the record, I would say that the hearing record will remain 

open for 2 weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit 

any questions for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as soon 

as possible. 

Again, I thank you, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(63) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDENDUM TO STATEMENT OF DEB COTTIER ON BEHALF OF NEBRASKA NORTHWEST

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A MEMBER OF THE HEARTLAND EXPRESSWAY

ASSOCIATION AND THE PORTS-TO-PLAINS ALLIANCE

Chairwoman Fischer—Honored members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science and Transportation, Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity 

to submit an additional statement for the record in response to your question regarding economic impacts of rural freight corridors. 

For the record, my name is Deb Cottier, Executive Director of Nebraska Northwest Development Corporation and a member of the Board of Directors for the 

Heartland Expressway Association, a member of the Ports-to-Plains Alliance. 

This information is gleaned from two Corridor Development and Management 

Plans that provided a Benefit Cost Analysis for various states including Nebraska, 

Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and the southern portion of Colorado. In October 

2014, the Nebraska Department of Roads issued the Heartland Expressway Corridor Development and Management Plan. This Heartland Expressway Corridor Development and Management Plan (HECDMP) is focused on the portion of the Heartland Expressway within the State of Nebraska. The HECDMP was prepared in compliance with Section 1118(d) of TEA–21 which is similar to the work previously completed for the Port to Plains corridor in 2005. The Ports-to-Plains Corridor Development and Management Plan (PTPCDMP) was published in 2005 complying with the 

same Section 1118(d) of TEA–21. The PTPCDMP covered the multi-state corridor 

including Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and the southern portion of Colorado. This 

Plan was completed in partnership between the states of Colorado, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas. At the top of the next page is a graphic showing the entire 

Ports-to-Plains Corridor including the High Priority Corridors of Ports-to-Plains, 

Heartland Expressway and Theodore Roosevelt Expressway. These studies did not 

directly include the portions of the Heartland Expressway in Colorado, Wyoming 

and South Dakota or any of the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway in South Dakota, 

North Dakota or Montana. 

Ports-to-Plains Alliance Corridor Development and Management Plan 

Of the two Corridor Development and Management Plans, the PTPCDMP provided significantly more specific economic impact data. In the section below on the 


502ADD1.eps
64 

HECDMP, the reasons for this will be explained. The PTPCDMP provided a Benefit 

Cost Analysis for several elements that improve the transportation network’s ability 

to move people and goods. Nearly 1,400 miles long, the corridor consisted of 511 

miles of 4- to 6-lane roadway, 755 miles of 2-lane roadway, and 113 miles of roadway in metropolitan areas. The Ports to Plains Corridor includes the following construction elements: 

• Widening 755 miles of 2-lane roads to 4-lane divided roads; 

• Constructing 15 relief routes around larger towns; 

• Adding amenities needed by commercial vehicle operators; 

• Improving or constructing connective interchanges; 

• Improving or constructing overpasses for railroad crossings; 

• Replacing obsolete or deficient bridges; 

• Installing corridor-specific signs; and 

• Integrating an intelligent transportation system. 

In the PTPCDMP there were two major sections addressing the benefit of the 

highway expansion construction elements described above: Transportation User 

Benefits and Economic Benefits. Transportation User Benefits addressed the historical engineering basis for evaluating infrastructure improvements: travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, and savings associated with increased safety; 

that is, crashes, including property damage, injuries, and fatalities that are avoided. 

Using these criteria, the PTPCDMP showed the total Transportation User Benefits 

as shown in the table below. 

Summary of Transportation User Benefits 

User Benefit Benefits (Millions 

of 2004 Dollars) 

Benefits (Millions 

of 2004 Dollars @ 7%) 

Safety $381.2 $114.3 

Vehicle Travel Time $541.9 $151.5 

Vehicle Operation Cost –$11.1 –$3.1 

Total $912.0 $262.7 

Source: AECOM Consult, Inc. 

Using these criteria only, the multi-state Ports-to-Plains Corridor in the four-state 

region would not have met the Benefit Cost Analysis threshold required for justification. It was the analysis of the economic benefits that justified the improvements 

to the Corridor and that economic analysis identified four potential sources of economic benefits. As a result the total economic benefits measured by income to residents would exceed the project cost by a ratio of 3.15. 

The economic benefits analyzed include construction benefits, roadside services 

benefits, increased manufacturing and distribution benefits, tourism benefits from 

seasonal travel, and the fiscal benefits attributable to the expansion of this economic 

base. 

Construction Benefits: These are one-time benefits that stem from the construction 

work needed to improve the existing road. 

Roadside Service Benefits: The improved road will attract more travelers, increasing the spending at roadside establishments. The roadside service benefits analysis 

examines the hiring and associated wage and salary gains generated to meet this 

increased demand. 

Manufacturing and Distribution Benefits: Given its southern terminus at the Port 

of Laredo, Texas and the Corridor’s significance as an international trade route, 

much of the economic development potential of the Corridor stems from economic 

activity related to North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trade, namely 

manufacturing and distribution activities. This analysis projects the potential 

growth in these industries that would occur if development unfolds as it has along 

other more established NAFTA trade routes in the region. 

Tourism: Winter seasonal migration is a growth industry in southern Texas and 

the Corridor lies along a feasible route for travelers from the Western U.S. The improved road opens up access to this travel market, permitting Ports to Plains communities to compete for a small share of this rapidly growing market. The expenditures made by these travelers generate demand in the local economy for food, entertainment, health and travel services. 

65 

The economic benefit from the 20-year development of the Ports-to-Plains Corridor 

was measured across a period ending in 2030. It showed an economic benefit of 

slightly over $4.5 billion and was projected to create 43,600 new jobs across the 

four-state region. It is important to recognize that while these job impacts were only 

measured through 2030, these jobs are recurring beyond 2030. 

Summary of Economic Benefits 

(Millions of 2004 Dollars Discounted at 7.0 Percent) 

Benefit Category Jobs Total Income 

2006–2030 

Construction (person years) 1,700 $28 

Distribution & Manufacturing (2030) 39,600 $4,258 

Roadside Services (2030) 2,000 $216 

Tourism (2030) 300 $27 

Total 43,600 $4,529 

Source: AECOM Consult, Inc. 

The PTPCDMP also projected that the expansion of the multi-state Ports-toPlains Corridor, based on the original construction elements described in page two 

of this statement, would draw traffic from the already congested Interstate 35 and 

Interstate 25 corridors. 

Adding to the economic benefits described above, the 2030 Build travel demand 

model results indicate that when all improvements have been made, additional traffic will be attracted to the Ports-to-Plains Corridor from surrounding facilities, including Interstate 35 and Interstate 25. The model indicates a twelve percent (12 

percent) increase in Corridor vehicle miles traveled over the 2030 No-Build scenario. 

In addition to these attracted trips, the 2030 Build forecast also reflects a significant 

shift of travel demand from Dumas, Texas to the north. Because of improvements 

to the U.S. 287 Corridor through eastern Colorado and increasing congestion on 

Interstate 25 south of Denver, the model forecasts a shift from I–25 to the improved 

U.S. 287 Corridor. 

Heartland Expressway Corridor Development and Management Plan 

The HECDMP was faced with a different interpretation of Section 1118(d) of 

TEA–21 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Division Office in Nebraska. FHWA determined that the economic benefits that played a significant role 

in the PTPCDMP could not be used in identifying a final Benefit Cost Analysis for 

the Nebraska Heartland Expressway Corridor. The FHWA position was that expenditures of Federal transportation funds would have the same economic benefit 

no matter where and on what types of projects in the country they were committed. 

Both the Heartland Expressway and the Ports-to-Plains Alliance opposed this view. 

In addition to the FHWA policy change on economic benefits, there was also a significant policy shift when evaluating the benefits associated with Transportation 

User Benefits. The HECDMP stated: 

‘‘Typically, these benefits are comprised of travel time savings, which may occur 

as motorists experience reduced travel times; increased safety, which may occur 

as the number of accidents that take place on the corridor are reduced; and operating cost savings that may occur as the distances driven by motorists on parallel facilities are reduced . . . ‘‘Because improvements along the corridor, in accordance with the Heartland Expressway Vision, typically involve expansion 

from two-lane facilities to four-lane facilities, it is assumed that there are no operating cost benefits for travelers. However, there would be operating cost savings 

associated with reduced maintenance costs for parallel roadways as travelers divert to the Heartland Expressway Corridor, thereby reducing the pavement wear 

and tear on parallel roadways. As a result, the transportation benefits associated 

with Heartland Expressway Corridor improvements in Nebraska are comprised 

of travel time, accident reduction, and pavement cost savings only.’’ 

Additional economic benefits are that were not allowed in the HECDMP included 

job creation and expanded payrolls from construction, operation and maintenance of 

the proposed improvements as well as benefits from purchases of goods and services 

necessary to operate and maintain the project. 

Travel Time Savings included the reduction in travel times for autos and trucks 

that could be expected in 2035 due to the improved transportation infrastructure 

66 

along Nebraska’s portion of the Heartland Expressway Corridor was calculated for 

Existing Users—those vehicles and passengers currently using the Heartland Corridor roadways without the improvements and Diverted Users—those vehicles and 

passengers currently using parallel routes who divert to the improved Heartland 

Corridor roadways. 

Accident Reduction Savings measured another transportation benefit of the Heartland Expressway Corridor improvements is the potential to reduce the number of 

accidents that could occur along the corridor due to roadway widening and the introduction of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) variable message boards for incident management. 

Pavement Cost Savings in Neighboring States evaluated the potential reduction in 

Vehicle Miles Travelled along parallel routes, as travelers divert to Nebraska’s 

Heartland Corridor roadways. 

Transportation Efficiency was the one economic indicator allowed in the 

HECDMP. It included road improvements that reduce travel times and improve reliability for truck freight improve the productivity of the logistics chain through the 

ability to use truck fleets more efficiently resulting in a reduction of inventory cost 

and organize production more efficiently. If shipments are more reliable, then distribution facilities can be more centralized and enjoy greater scale economies in 

many cases. Collectively, this allows the economy to be more economically competitive. Because of its economic measurement our statement points out that the fourlane improvements of the Heartland Expressway is projected to create a total inventory savings of $215.4 million across all alternatives results from applying a discount rate of 7 percent. 

As shown in the graphic below, these limited Transportation User Benefits resulted in a 1.88 Benefit Cost Analysis for Nebraska for just the improvements in 

Nebraska and reach 1.98 for Nebraska when the entire Ports-to-Plains Corridor is 

improved. 

While FHWA would not allow other economic benefits to be included in the Benefit Cost Analysis, the HECDMP did include a section on Economic Benefits that 

summarized construction impacts, roadside services impacts and competitiveness 

impacts. While not added to the Benefits Cost Analysis, these economic benefit findings are certainly important to the question regarding economic impacts of rural 

freight corridors. These impacts are summaries in the graphic on page 8. 

• Construction impacts. Construction of the project would create jobs and expand 

payrolls for the duration of the project’s construction cycle. 

For the four-state Heartland Expressway region the effects of the Nebraska 

component of the Heartland Expressway Corridor construction would result in 

$285.3 million in earnings ($2012) and 6,754 person-year jobs for the 2016–2037 

construction. These are one-time impacts that last for the duration of the construction period only. One job is defined as a job for one person during a one 


502ADD2.eps
67 

year’s duration. As an example, a job for one person for three years would be 

defined as three person-year jobs. 

• Operation and maintenance impacts. Since the project adds new lane miles, 

there would be hiring associated with the operation and maintenance of these 

new lane miles as well as the local purchases of goods and services necessary 

to operate and maintain the project. Unlike the one-time construction impacts, 

these new operations jobs and local purchases required to operate the project 

would be recurring impacts. 

For the four-state Heartland Expressway region the effects of the Nebraska 

component of the Heartland Expressway Corridor maintenance and operations 

would result in $46.9 million in earnings ($2012) and 1,146 person-year jobs for 

the 2016–2054 analysis period. Similarly, for the Nebraska Heartland Corridor 

counties, the effects would results in $40.2 million in earnings ($2012) and 

1,108 person-year jobs for the 2016–2054 analysis period. These jobs and earnings consist of operations-related employment in industries whose jobs and services are purchased directly to operate and maintain the new lanes as well as 

the secondary demand for goods and services across a broader spectrum of industrial sectors that support the industries providing the operations and maintenance services. 

• Economic development impacts. Economic development would increase with the 

market’s response to the operation of the improved facility. The improved road 

will improve travel times and reliability, which improves the productivity of the 

logistics chain through the ability to use fleets more efficiently. If shipments are 

more reliable, then businesses can reduce their inventories and organize their 

production processes to be leaner. Collectively, this allows the Heartland Corridor economy to be more economically competitive. In addition, traffic in the 

corridor would increase, increasing demand for roadside services in the corridor. 

» Roadside services impacts. Since the project attracts new long distance users 

to the corridor, demand for roadside services, including lodging, food, fuel, 

and other retail purchases would increase. The increase in demand would result in additional hiring and wages earned along the corridor. These would 

be recurring impacts. 

Traffic along the Nebraska portion of the Heartland Expressway Corridor is 

expected to increase by at least 3.6 percent with the completion of the transportation improvements due to the attraction of new users and diversions 

from parallel routes with slower travel times. The impacts of roadside services are largely a transfer from parallel routes to Nebraska’s portion of the 

Heartland Expressway Corridor. For the Nebraska Heartland Expressway 

Corridor region the effects of the roadside services expenditures associated 

with the Heartland Expressway Corridor travel scenario would result in $73.5 

million in earnings ($2012) and 3,175 person-year jobs for the 2016–2054 

analysis period. 

As shown in the graphic on page 8, Roadside Services Impacts were measured 

for several other scenarios including improvements and impacts outside of 

Nebraska. These scenarios, however, measured the economic impacts in Nebraska and demonstrate the importance of developing the entire Ports-toPlains Corridor. Roadside Services expenditures associated with the Heartland Expressway Corridor Heartland and Intensified Energy Resource Development travel scenario would result in $330.9 million in earnings ($2012) and 

14,374 person year jobs for the 2016–2054 analysis period. 

For the Entire PTP Corridor the travel scenario would result in $370.8 million in earnings ($2012) and 16,079 person-year jobs for the 2016–2054 analysis period and for the Entire PTP Corridor and Intensified Energy Resource 

Development travel scenario, travel scenario would result in $655.0 million in 

earnings ($2012) and 28,468 person-year jobs for the 2016–2054 analysis period. 

68 

» Competitive response. It is not possible to predict the exact type of business 

relocation that might occur in response to the productivity improvement; likely expansions would include food processing manufacturing to take advantage 

of the corridor’s significant agricultural assets and distribution facilities that 

take advantage of the corridor’s low costs and proximity to the larger urban 

areas. 

This total economic impact was not summarized but gave an estimate for the 

typical impact of food processing and distribution expansions in the Heartland 

Expressway Corridor. Based on recent food processing relocations to the region such as KYS Foods and industry trends, the typical food processing plant 

employs between 20 and 50 employees directly. The estimation assumes an 

average industry wage of $29,000 for food processing, an average wage of 

$35,000 for distribution activities, and an average wage of $40,000 for other 

services. 

The impact of a typical relocation of a food processing facility result in $3.431 

million in earnings ($2012) and 114 new jobs in Nebraska. Similarly, the impact of a typical relocation of a distribution facility result in $1.425 million 

in earnings ($2012) and 40 new jobs in Nebraska. The initial statement highlighted the importance of a four-lane highway in locating these types of facilities. 

The heading Other Services was provided in the HECDMP because over time, 

as the nearby Denver region continues to develop into the dominant urban 

economy in this region of the country, industries will increasingly seek lower 

cost locations with good access to this dense urban market. The expanding 

manufacturing base, combined with low cost proximity to Denver, offers opportunities to expand the range of services (and employment opportunities) in 

the corridor over time. 

The relocation of one of these Other Services would result in $1.668 million 

in earnings ($2012) and 42 new jobs in Nebraska. The completion of the improvements on the Heartland Expressway and the addition of many of these 

competitive impacts can add significant jobs and earning to the economy of 

Western Nebraska. 

Conclusion 

The potential economic impact of both the four-state Ports-to-Plains Corridor and 

the Nebraska portion of the Heartland Expressway demonstrate the positive economic impacts presented by rural freight corridors. In the Ports-to-Plains region 

over 43,000 jobs across the four-state region with $4.529 billion in earnings is certainly significant to a largely rural area of the United States. In Nebraska the creation of 10,000 to 36,000 new jobs and $362 million to $943 million in earnings, 

without the addition of any specific expansion in primary jobs being measured due 

to FHWA restriction, is equally as significant to Western Nebraska. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Fischer. I ask that a copy of this statement be included 

in the hearing record. 

Æ 


502ADD3.eps
69 

This page intentionally left blank. 

70 

This page intentionally left blank. 

71 

This page intentionally left blank.