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

21–635 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1232 

MOBILITY AND CONGESTION IN URBAN 

AND RURAL AMERICA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 18, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 18, 2010 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 4 

WITNESSES 

Lomax, Tim, Research Engineer, Texas Transportation Institute; Researcher, 

University Transportation Center for Mobility; Regents Fellow, Texas A&M 

University ............................................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 22 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 25 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 28 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 29 

Haggerty, Hon. Scott, Supervisor, Alameda County, California; Chairman, 

Transportation Steering Committee, National Association of Counties; 

Chairman, Metropolitan Transportation Commission ...................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 40 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 41 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 44 

Townsend, Hon. James, Judge Executive, Webster County, Kentucky; President-Elect, National Association of Regional Councils ..................................... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Marlatt, Hon. Bryce, Oklahoma State Senator; Vice Chairman, Oklahoma 

State Senate Committee on Transportation ...................................................... 66 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Smith, Hon. John Robert, Former Mayor, Meridian, Mississippi; Co-Chair, 

Transportation for America; President, Reconnecting America ....................... 74 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senators Boxer and Carper....................................................................... 81, 84 

Senators Boxer and Lautenberg ............................................................... 81, 83 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 81 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 85 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 86 

(1) 

MOBILITY AND CONGESTION IN URBAN 

AND RURAL AMERICA 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (Chairman of the full Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Barrasso, Sanders, Carper, and 

Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The meeting will come to order. I am very 

pleased to call our Full Committee Hearing on Mobility and Congestion in Urban and Rural America to order. 

For me today is great day because yesterday, in a bipartisan 

vote, 68 to 29, the Senate passed the HIRE Act, and it includes an 

extension of all of our transportation funding for the Highway 

Trust Fund through the end of this year. The President will be 

signing this bill into law this morning, so I will be heading out to 

be there because I want to make sure that we really got it done. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. It was a very big fight, and it should not have 

been. 

But here is the great news. One million American workers, including 100,000 in my State, will have confidence in knowing that 

their jobs are secure because we have renewed that bill. This is the 

first part of our Jobs Agenda. The Tourism Bill also will create 

about 160,000 jobs. So, we are moving toward that moment when 

we know that things have righted themselves. 

The other thing is that this extension—or I would say reauthorization, really—until the end of the year allows us to focus on moving forward with our own Transportation Bill here in this Committee. And this hearing that we are having today on mobility and 

congestion in urban and rural areas is an opportunity to examine 

these issues as we continue our work on the bill. 

According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s recent Urban 

Mobility Report Americans in urban areas lost 4.2 billion hours 

traveling and burned an extra 2.8 billion gallons of fuel due to traffic congestion. They calculate that the cost to America’s families 

and businesses is $87.2 billion, and that is up more than 50 percent over the previous decade. 
2 

So, we know we have got this congestion. We know it is not good 

for our people. It is not good for our businesses. It is not good for 

our health. And I know that it is not just the urban and suburban 

areas. Rural areas have their share of issues when it comes to mobility, including safety concerns. The fatality rate is 2.5 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas according to the Federal 

Highway Administration. 

And while there are programs that provide funding to help address transportation needs in rural areas there are currently no 

targeted initiatives focused on the need of rural America in the 

Federal Highway Program. This is something we will be working 

on as we reauthorize a bill. 

Today’s witnesses will discuss the mobility issues that both rural 

and urban areas face, provide examples of how we can ensure that 

both their needs are being met when it comes to congestion and 

safety. So, I do look forward to hearing from our panel. 

And in the nick of time comes our Ranking Member, Senator 

Inhofe. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I welcome 

all you guys here. 

Confession is good for the soul, I say, Madam Chairman, and one 

of our witnesses, Bryce Marlatt, used to work for me. He had western Oklahoma and did a great job, and now he decided that he 

wanted to get personally involved so he ran for the State Senate. 

He is a good friend. He has got a great handle on what needs are 

out in rural areas. 

So, Madam Chairman, I think this is a significant hearing. It is 

another one where you and I will get along and come to, probably, 

the same conclusions. And I am very glad to welcome Senator 

Marlatt here as we make decisions for the next Surface Transportation Bill. 

We need to keep asking ourselves what is the Federal role. This 

Nation’s needs far exceed the available funding. That is the big 

problem that we have. And I think all of our panelists know this, 

that we have said since we were together back in the 2005 Reauthorization Bill—while that was a huge bill, and we were criticized 

for the size of it, that did not do any more than maintain what we 

have today. 

So, this is the problem that we are faced with now. I think the 

purpose or one of the purposes of this hearing is to talk about how 

the needs may be different from the most populous areas and the 

urban areas and the rural areas. Certainly with Senator Marlatt 

here, he and I have traveled extensively in western Oklahoma, an 

area that is not very highly populated, and their needs are different from others. 

So, along the same lines the next Transportation Bill has got to 

continue to recognize that transportation needs for rural Oklahoma, though different in many ways, are just as real as those in 

urban areas. I think that a number of the proposals we have seen 

so far have ignored this fact. So, I am particularly pleased that this 

hearing will focus on both urban and renewal in rural areas. 
3 

Obviously the Oklahoma Panhandle does not have the congestion 

problems of New York City or of San Francisco. In the Panhandle 

the important issues are connectivity, businesses and mobility of 

citizens, though we must remember that not all rural communities 

have the same specific concerns. 

One of the things that surprised you, Madam Chairman, is that 

if I were to take you in my airplane out to western Oklahoma, the 

area that he represents, you would see at any one time 500 of the 

windmills going around. One of the problems—I think it is going 

to come, at least I have heard, and I hope you address it in your 

opening statement—is that you have to transfer these blades there, 

and it requires more lanes than would normally be there. 

So, let us get on with the hearing. I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for calling this hearing, and thank you to all our 

witnesses for joining us today. I’d like to extend a special welcome to Oklahoma 

State Senator Bryce Marlatt, who represents the northwest area of the State. I 

know he has a great interest in transportation issues, and I look forward to hearing 

his comments. 

As we make decisions for the next surface transportation bill we will need to keep 

asking ourselves, ‘‘What is the Federal role?’’ This Nation’s needs far exceed the 

available funding, so we must focus Federal funds on addressing areas that have 

a defined Federal responsibility with national benefits. 

Over the past year or so many organizations have offered ideas for the next transportation bill, including on congestion and other mobility issues in metropolitan 

areas. The problems are real and documented, as the Texas Transportation Institute 

(TTI) will detail in testimony for us. The solutions are less clear but certainly are 

not the same in all areas. 

Any emphasis on addressing metropolitan congestion problems must be based on 

the recognition that Washington does not understand the unique problems or the 

best solutions to those problems in individual areas. I think the Chairman would 

agree with me that what works in Tulsa may not work in Los Angeles. The strategies implemented in Portland may not be workable in Missoula. Any Federal efforts 

in this area should be structured to provide Federal assistance for Federal responsibilities while not attempting to force all areas to fit within any particular approach. 

Along the same lines the next transportation bill must continue to recognize that 

the transportation needs of rural America, though different in many ways, are just 

as real as those of our urban areas. I think a number of the proposals we’ve seen 

so far have ignored this fact, so I am particularly pleased that this hearing will 

focus on both urban and rural transportation needs. 

Obviously, the Oklahoma Panhandle does not have the congestion problems of 

New York City. In the Panhandle the important issues are connectivity of businesses and mobility of its citizens. Here, too, though, we must remember that not 

all rural communities have the same specific concerns. As with our urban areas, we 

must not try to force Washington so-called solutions on all rural communities without regard to their specific situations. We must focus Federal investment on Federal 

responsibilities while not making the mistake of assuming that solutions to urban 

problems are needed or appropriate in our rural communities. 

The Administration has been pushing a transportation and housing initiative 

called ‘‘livability,’’ which I believe is nothing more than code for transit oriented development. While details of the proposed program are still lacking, what I have 

heard so far makes me believe that the goal of this program is to move people to 

urban centers where transit options will negate the need to own a car. This is exactly the type of centralized decisionmaking and land use planning that I oppose. 

The Federal Government should not be trying to tell communities what transportation solutions they need or should want. 
4 

Again, I thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing focusing on both 

urban and rural transportation needs. I look forward to discussing these issues with 

our witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and 

Senator Inhofe, for holding this hearing today. 

The next Highway Bill must ensure equity in mobility, flexibility 

and connectivity. This bill should not assume or mandate that people in Wyoming and other rural States are going to get out of their 

vehicles. That is not going to happen. Taking a train, riding a bike 

to work in Wyoming or Montana is geographically and climatically 

prohibitive. Metro mobility concepts can work in urban areas, but 

it is just not feasible in our many rural States and any new program outside of the traditional formulas must include a rural component. 

Wyoming, like many other low populated States, has needs, but 

they are very different than the cities like New York or Los Angeles. I mean the needs are significantly different. In order to meet 

the highway system’s national needs rural States must have the 

flexibility to use Federal dollars that serve the national interest. 

And I have full faith that the Wyoming Department of Transportation will continue to [unclear] Federal resources that will keep 

our highway system whole. 

The rural component of our interstate and national highway system is critical to keeping our Nation connected. Growing the Highway Program in one area by taking from another is going to leave 

gaps in our national highway system for years to come. Due to inflationary pressures on highway construction many of these holes 

in the system may never be filled. We cannot grow the program in 

urban areas while ignoring the rural highway component of this. 

The Interstate 80 Corridor is a critical link for moving commerce 

from the west coastal ports, including those is California and in 

Washington State and Oregon, to cities throughout the United 

States. I–80 captures over 60 percent of the truck traffic that is 

going with international commerce that does not originate or terminate in Wyoming. But is passes through our State. 

According to the Federal Highway Administration truck traffic 

on I–80 is going to double over the next 20 years. The Highway 

Program is already complicated enough. As we work through these 

issues we must keep in mind the fact that this is not all about congestion. Congress must not lose sight of the importance of a national, interconnected system of highways that includes access for 

rural America. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your leadership in holding today’s hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. And Senator, let me just assure you. Take 

my State. I have got more rural areas than you can imagine, 

swaths of them, with just little tiny towns and just miles in between. So, I do not look at rewriting this bill as rural versus urban. 

We do not need to pick fights. I think we have got to look at all 
5 

of the needs and meet them. So, I am with you, absolutely, on that 

point because we do not have a good bill if it does not address all 

of America. And that is a fact. 

So, we look forward to working with you. And that is why we 

have included the rural issues here today because we know they 

are key. And the last Highway Bill, we really did not have a title 

that dealt with it. So, let us work together on that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Now we are pleased to turn to our terrific panel. We will start 

off with Mr. Tim Lomax, Research Engineer, Texas Transportation 

Institute. And I quote you so often, your Institute, it such a proven 

leader on this. I am very glad you are here. 

STATEMENT OF TIM LOMAX, RESEARCH ENGINEER, TEXAS 

TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE; RESEARCHER, UNIVERSITY 

TRANSPORTATION CENTER FOR MOBILITY; REGENTS FELLOW, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 

Mr. LOMAX. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope that I live up your 

trust and do not make an Aggie of myself. 

Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the Committee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to talk about congestion. 

I am completely with you that there are a lot of problems and 

issues that you all face. I think congestion is certainly one of them. 

It is something that we have seen affecting not just citizens but the 

freight shippers, the businesses and the manufacturers. So, I think 

it is a broad issue. 

I also think there are some solutions, and I hope that we get a 

chance to talk about those, too. But I am here to talk about the 

problem. I think we really have several congestion problems. We 

have got an urban congestion problem that is going to face our 

metro and urban regions for a while. There are going to be long 

travel delays. There are going to be unpredictable travel times. 

There are going to be problems for both people and freight. It is 

also going to be a problem in small and medium sized cities. This 

is not just a Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, DC, New 

York kind of problem. 

Congestion in rural areas looks different, but it is no less a problem. More often it is related to crashes, stalled vehicles, tourism, 

other special events. And it is easy for big city residents to dismiss 

that. But then they are stopped for a couple of hours on a highway 

behind a crash and the congestion problem comes home to them. 

And safety and congestion problems are not different. In many 

cases, they are solved by the same strategy or the same issue. 

So, we should really think about these problems and opportunities as sort of niche markets or a series of niche markets. Some 

problems have a clear technology or an infrastructure fix. Some of 

them are really only solved with better information. Some of them 

are better addressed by different policies or programs or incentives 

or perhaps different institutional relationships. Some of them require big solutions. Some of them require small solutions. 

And many of these congestion points or routes can be improved 

with relatively low cost strategies. So we are not talking about solutions that only require a lot of money. Simple ideas are often the 
6 

ones that we should look at first because they not only solve part 

of the problem, but they also build trust with the public that the 

money that we are spending is returning good value, good return 

on their investment. It gives them some trust, gives the whole process a sense of transparency and accountability. 

So, I think the couple of problems that you spoke about, Madam 

Chairman, the wasted time, up from 2.7 billion hours to 4.2 billion 

hours in the last 10 or 12 years, fuel consumption up to 2.8 billion 

gallons, it costs $87 billion. That is a congestion tax, if you will, 

of $750 per traveler in the urban areas that we look at across the 

country. If you live and work in a busy corridor, a big metro region, 

your time penalties and costs could be two or three times that. 

Over the last 29 months, however, there has been some good 

news on congestion. Unfortunately, for your job, that good news is 

related to the economic recession and high gas prices. I do not 

think that anybody is suggesting that an economic recession and 

high gas prices are a good solution to congestion. However 2008 

and 2009 showed lower congestion levels than in 2007. 

You could think of a trip that might take you 30 minutes in a 

free flowing time, say Huntington to downtown DC or Alexandria 

to downtown DC, something like that. It would take you 36 minutes on an average day. But take that same trip and turn it into 

one that has a weather problem or there is a crash or a stalled vehicle or something like that, it might take you something more like 

47 minutes. So, this difference between an average problem and a 

reliability or unreliability problem is one that I think some programs should look at. 

I think that it is clear that the goals for cities and towns and 

rural areas are similar. We want better quality of life, better livability. But I think the programs, projects and policies that each 

city, county and State uses to solve those problems and to achieve 

those goals are going to be different. I think that is a reflection of 

the creativity and the diversity that we have in our cities and 

towns, and I think that it should be rewarded. 

Thank you very much for your time, and I hope to be able to answer some questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lomax follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Lomax. 

I am so happy I have the chance to introduce Hon. Scott 

Haggerty who is the Supervisor for my home State, the Alameda 

County Board of Supervisors. He is speaking on behalf of the National Association of Counties. 

I just have such fond memories of being a County Supervisor all 

those years ago. And I know that is where the rubber meets the 

road absolutely, whether you are talking about highways or anything else. You are really there with the constituency. 

So, we really look forward to your testimony, and when you are 

completed I am going to leave to go over for the signing, and I am 

going to hand the gavel over to Senator Sanders. 

Please proceed, Supervisor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT HAGGERTY, SUPERVISOR, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORTATION 

STEERING COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 

Mr. HAGGERTY. Thank you very much for those kind words. 

Good morning, Madam Chair, and Members of the Committee. 

My name is Scott Haggerty, and I am a member of the Board of 

Supervisors in Alameda County, California. I also serve as the 

Chair of the Transportation Steering Committee for the National 

Association of Counties. I am also the Chairman of the San Francisco Bay Areas Metropolitan Transportation Commission which 

covers nine counties in the Bay Area with a total population of over 

7 million citizens. 

Madam Chair, before I get started with my prepared remarks I 

would like to thank you for your leadership in getting the bill and 

going over to see—or to make sure—that the bill gets signed this 

morning that extends the Surface Transportation Program and affords $20 billion to the end of the year. It is a great achievement, 

and we certainly thank you for that. 

NACo’s view is that congestion in the metropolitan areas is an 

important issue in America’s transportation today. In many of the 

metropolitan areas we have constrained mobility and increasing 

congestion. We know that many commuters and freight carriers 

traveling in or through our metro regions do not know how long it 

will take to reach their destinations. We know that the delays in 

these trips are costly, they harm the environment, hurt America’s 

commerce, and seem to get longer each year. 

County governments understand congestion and recognize that it 

is a big problem. Counties are increasingly very large jurisdictions. 

There are 34 counties with populations in excess of 1 million. 

Seven of the top 20 mega-counties are in California. Another 76 

counties have between 500,000 and 1 million constituents. We estimate that 120 million people live in these 120 large jurisdictions. 

Approximately 85 percent of all congestion, traffic congestion, transit ridership, and auto related air pollution are in metro areas. 

No place in America better reflects the challenges of mobility and 

congestion in both rural and urban America than Alameda County. 

It is home to more than 1.5 million people and to large cities such 

as Berkeley, Oakland and Fremont. It is home to one of America’s 
34 

busiest international seaports, the Port of Oakland, and to major 

transit agencies such as BART and AC Transit. 

Alameda County suffers from the worst highway congestion in 

the Bay Area, which in turn is the second most congested metropolitan region in the country behind only Los Angeles. This is a 

problem that we quite literally cannot afford to ignore. 

Yet my county is also home to vast ranches, orchards and vineyards. Alameda County is not only the gateway to San Francisco 

but to the high tech world of Silicon Valley and the agricultural 

bounty of the San Joaquin Valley as well. 

NACo strongly urges the reauthorization of the Federal Surface 

Transportation Program to include the creation of the Metro Mobility Program and that these regions with populations of 500,000 or 

more be eligible. 

We are pleased to see that this concept was included in the 

House Reauthorization Bill. The goal of this program would be to 

reduce and/or better manage congestion. Local government officials 

sitting on the Metropolitan Planning Organization would select 

projects for funding and a broad based congestion plan that would 

be required in each metro area and that includes a plan to better 

manage freight as well as commuter traffic. 

While there are a variety of strategies for reducing congestion 

that could be funded under this new program, a Metro Mobility 

Program needs to include capacity improvements as an eligible activity. However before any projects are funded there should be a 

clear statement with supporting data demonstrating how the 

project will address congestion and improve mobility. 

Give that breakdowns and accidents are responsible for an estimated 50 percent of congestion, incident management should be 

considered as a priority in the new reauthorization. An incentive 

grant program should be created which funds counties/metropolitan 

areas that implement a comprehensive incident management plan. 

This could lead to improved cooperation among State, county and 

city governments in developing agreements and strategies to quickly identify and to act to remove vehicles from the roadways. This 

is an essential and often less expensive approach to congestion 

mitigation. 

We still need improvements in the transportation planning process, even if it requires more capacity and more planning funds. 

MPOs should have the authority to program all Federal highway 

and transit funds coming into a metro area, not just the Surface 

Transportation Program funds and the Transit Program funds. 

While the EPW Committee does not have jurisdiction NACo 

wants to be clear that it supports a robust transit program that improves mobility, reduces congestion, conserves energy resources, 

limits greenhouse gases and serves the needs of our underserved 

population. We cannot fail to mention the nexus between transit 

and highways since thousands of buses do travel on roadways that 

are funded with programs that this Committee authorizes. 

This would not be a NACo statement if I did not touch on rural 

issues. We strongly urge this Committee to retain both the Federal 

Highway Bridge Program and the Off-System Bridge set aside. 

Without these programs there is no assurance that there would be 
35 

an adequate investment by States and local governments in our 

rural transportation infrastructure. 

We also recommend the expansion of the High Risk Rural Road 

Safety Program and an enhanced rural planning process. Finally, 

we must improve project delivery, particularly for many less complicated and smaller projects, through a streamlined process that 

does not unacceptably stretch out environmental review of the permitting process. The 90 percent of Federal highway projects that 

receive categorical exemptions should have a faster and easier path 

to project approval and completion. 

We are a decade into the 21st century, and despite all efforts by 

all levels of government congestion and mobility solutions continue 

to challenge us. We cannot afford to continue the status quo. 

This completes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions from members of the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haggerty follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you so much. As I go off for the signing of this reauthorization of the Trust Fund I do want to thank 

Senator Inhofe. He has been a really good supporter of transit, 

highways, of our Highway Trust Fund, and I just wanted to note 

that. And of course colleagues here at the table who helped us. 

John—before you leave. Senator. I wanted you to just hear this 

just because it interested me when I said we had so many rural 

roads. We called the Federal Highway Administration—just so you 

know that I was not just being rhetorical. We have 89,000 miles 

of urban roads in California and 83,000 miles of rural roads. So, 

we are together. We are going to work together because we all have 

common interests. I just want to make sure you knew that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. With that, I am going to hand off the baton, as 

it were, to Bernie Sanders and thank my colleagues. 

Senator SANDERS [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We are next going to hear from Hon. James Townsend, Webster 

County Judge Executive from Kentucky on behalf of the National 

Association of Regional Councils. 

Thanks for being with us, Mr. Townsend. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES TOWNSEND, JUDGE EXECUTIVE, 

WEBSTER COUNTY, KENTUCKY; PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COUNCILS 

Mr. TOWNSEND. Thank you very much. 

Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and 

other members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify and ask that my written statement be submitted for the 

record. 

Senator SANDERS. Without objection. 

Mr. TOWNSEND. As said, my name is Jim Townsend. I am County 

Judge Executive of Webster County, Kentucky, in the western part 

of the State. And we are very rural. Also, I am President-Elect of 

the National Association of Regional Councils, and I also serve on 

the Executive Committee of my regional planning organization, 

which is the Green River Area Development District. 

Today I will address the needs and opportunities in America’s regions, particularly rural America. My comments will cover four 

main areas and will highlight the important role regional planning 

organizations have in delivering transportation and services to localities. 

America’s rural regions can be best served in the next Federal 

Transportation Bill by providing local involvement in safety, robust 

investment in both urban and rural regions, opportunities for livability through comprehensive planning, and a strong role for 

rural, local elected officials through their regional transportation 

planning organizations. 

Locally elected officials are very aware of the safety needs in our 

communities. Rural areas have more than half the highway deaths 

and twice as many serious injuries. This is unacceptable to us. 

NARC recommends strengthening urban and rural regional planning to develop the plans and programs necessary to address this 

problem. Education and enforcement through regional planning organizations are key to improving safety. 
46 

In transportation policy many are focused on urban needs and 

the effects on congestion. While NARC supports this discussion we 

stress the importance of addressing rural congestion and mobility 

challenges that we have. NARC recommends that the Federal Government strengthen the rural planning process and actively include 

the concerns of rural communities. Rural, local elected officials 

stand ready to communicate local needs and implement the Federal 

vision. 

We applaud the Federal focus on livability and strongly support 

including both urban and rural planning and implementation. The 

National Association of Regional Councils recommends including 

local governments through our regional planning organizations to 

identify on-the-ground livability needs and implementation strategies, taking into account the rural ties to the Department of Agricultural and to the Economic Development Administration. 

As you are aware, regional planning organizations are governed 

by local officials. They are elected. The relationship between localities and regional cooperation is a very effective mechanism for developing consensus and solutions. NARC recommends that MPOs 

retain their current regional decisionmaking processes and that 

rural planning organizations are given authority to implement the 

Federal and State visions. 

We thank this Committee for their continued support of regionally important programs that get to heart of the local problems and 

the local needs. 

Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today. Please use NARC as a resource for any Committee activities. 

I welcome any questions, and look forward to working together. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Townsend follows:] 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Townsend. 

The Honorable Bryce Marlatt is the Vice Chairman of the Oklahoma Senate Committee on Transportation. Thanks for being with 

us. 

Mr. Marlatt. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRYCE MARLATT, OKLAHOMA STATE 

SENATOR; VICE CHAIRMAN, OKLAHOMA STATE SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. MARLATT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you Ranking Member Inhofe. I really appreciate the opportunity to 

testify before this Committee. 

As you said, I serve in the Oklahoma State Senate, Senate District 27, and also serve as Vice Chairman on the Transportation 

Committee. Senate District 27—— 

Senator INHOFE. Let me interrupt. Tell the panel what your district is like. 

Mr. MARLATT. Senate District 27 is the largest Senate district in 

the State of Oklahoma and the entire legislature. It encompasses 

the entire Panhandle of Oklahoma and all of the northwest part of 

the State. It is about 320 miles across, so we have got a lot of 

ground to cover, obviously. 

Anyway, I really appreciate the opportunity to be here, and we 

encompass a lot of obvious U.S. Federal highways and highways on 

the national system, and I am continually working on transportation needs in the State of Oklahoma. 

Approximately 60 million people—21 percent of the population— 

live in rural communities in the United States. This is an increase 

of about 11 percent since the 1990s. Millions of Americans travel 

on rural, county and State road systems every day. Rural roads are 

vast throughout the country and have significant needs. 

The county highway system in Oklahoma is comprised of 85,000 

miles. Oklahoma’s rural nature and historically ag and energy 

based economy have witnessed a conversion of many farm-to-market roads into highways. While these roads were ideal for transporting livestock and crops to market they are less than adequate 

when supporting the daily needs of transportation. 

In fact based on the evaluation of safety features such as passing 

opportunities, adequate sight distance, the existence of paved 

shoulders, recovery areas for errant vehicles and the severity of 

hills, 24 percent of our over 12,000 miles of rural highways alone 

rate as critical or inadequate. 

Over 4,700 miles of Oklahoma highways are two-lane roads without shoulders, and this lack of adequate capacity for Oklahoma 

rural highways prevents rural Oklahoma from participating fully 

in the State and national economy. We will never have the jobs and 

economic development that we need in rural Oklahoma or rural 

America if we do not address infrastructure. 

Rural roads also pose unique challenges. For example, generally 

speaking rural roads have a greater rate of traffic fatalities than 

urban roads. Rural accidents occur at an alarming rate, and the severity of the collisions is significant. When specifically considering 

the accidents that occur in Oklahoma’s critical or inadequate highways, 86 percent happen on rural two-lane roads. However many 
67 

of these critical, needed highway safety improvements that could 

prevent property damage, personal injury or the tragic loss of life 

remain unattended due to the lack of funding. 

In particular I have been working to upgrade U.S. Highway 270, 

which stretches from the west part of Oklahoma City through 

northwestern Oklahoma and all throughout the Panhandle. Currently, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation has plans for 

each section of the crucial corridor through 2017. These upgrades 

are planned in each county from Canadian through Woodward and 

on throughout the Panhandle. It is extremely important for me, 

from the perspective of safety, jobs and participating in the Oklahoma national economy, for this 270 corridor to be completely modernized. 

The Nation’s rural bridges have unique needs. For example Oklahoma has over 14,000 bridges, 5,600 of them are on rural highways. When considering the 6,700 highway bridges, over 1,400 are 

either too narrow to support daily traffic or have structural deficiencies or both. More than 1,100 of the 1,400 bridges, or 78 percent, exist in rural areas, and in addition rural commerce can be 

severely impacted by bridges with restricted load limits as detours 

can add many miles to the price paid for the transportation needs 

in fuel and time. 

It is imperative for the rural highways and bridges to be returned to and kept in a state of good repair. These highways move 

entire sectors of our economy including ag, energy, forestry and 

tourism, to mention a few. Steady, predictable and increasing funding sources are necessary because funding allows our transportation professionals to plan our progress and affords the opportunity for our contractors to develop their work forces and construct our roads and bridges as efficiently as possible. 

States and local units of government cannot alone finance, construct and maintain national systems of highways. A strong Federal commitment is necessary to ensure the continuity and viability 

of our transportation infrastructure far into the future. 

Since the current Federal Highway Authorization Bill expired on 

September 30, 2009, States have been operating under a string of 

continuing resolutions which cost Oklahoma about $15 million a 

month. Congress’ recent action to extend the Federal Highway Program through the end of the year is significant and will help while 

a new reauthorization bill is under development. 

And Oklahoma is consistently proud of the work of our Senior 

Senator, Senator Inhofe, and I am proud to say that I have worked 

for you, and thank you very much for the reauthorization bill that 

you worked on. 

The States want to do our part to find new funding solutions to 

our Nation’s transportation needs. Over the last 3 years, there has 

been approximately a 5 percent decline in Oklahoma motor fuel tax 

due to less demand and increased fuel efficiencies. This has resulted in a $30 million loss in revenues for my State’s roads and 

bridges. 

As Vice Chairman of the Oklahoma Transportation Committee, 

I offered Senate Bill 1941 to create an Innovative Funding Task 

Force for the purpose of studying and evaluating innovations, technologies and new methods being employed nationally and by other 
68 

States to more adequate and equitably fund roads and bridges and 

infrastructure, including both new construction and maintenance. 

This legislation passed the Oklahoma Senate on March 1st, and I 

would expect quick consideration in the House of Representatives. 

Currently, the funding sources of fuel and gross production tax 

fluctuate a great deal. The Federal fuel tax is—— 

Senator SANDERS. If you could wind it up, Mr. Marlatt, please. 

Mr. MARLATT. Oh, OK. We have made great strides in investing 

in the infrastructure and reversing the tide of declining funding in 

Oklahoma. And I appreciate your support and your work on the 

new authorization bill and would yield for questions as you see fit. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marlatt follows:] 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

Our next panelist is Hon. John Robert Smith. He is the former 

Mayor of Meridian, Mississippi. He is the Co-Chair of Transportation for America and President of Reconnecting America. And 

Senator Carper wanted to say a few words of introduction. 

Senator. 

Senator CARPER. I just wanted to welcome Mayor Smith to join 

us. I was privileged to serve on the Amtrak Board when I was Governor of Delaware, and our terms did not overlap. When I stepped 

down he was joining the Amtrak Board, and he went on to become 

Chairman of the Amtrak Board. I think he may have succeeded 

Tommy Thompson, if I am not mistaken, as the Chair and was appointed by President Clinton and I think recommended by Trent 

Lott. 

But he is a real good, common sense guy and he understands 

transportation well. And a pretty good mayor, too. So it is very nice 

to see you again. Welcome. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ROBERT SMITH, FORMER MAYOR, 

MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI; CO-CHAIR, TRANSPORTATION FOR 

AMERICA; PRESIDENT, RECONNECTING AMERICA 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, esteemed members 

of the Committee, I am John Robert Smith. I am the President of 

Reconnecting America and a founding partner of Transportation for 

America Coalition, which we call T for America. 

I want to thank the Committee for holding this hearing to discuss the transportation challenges facing small towns and rural 

America. I know those issues firsthand for I served for 16 years as 

the Mayor of my home town of Meridian, Mississippi, a small city 

of 40,000 people. 

Transportation challenges facing small town America are not 

those of congestion only but of access. Long commutes, volatile energy prices and shifting demographics all impact the prosperity of 

these communities. Many small towns and rural areas lack the financial resources, the planning capacity, and the authority to implement solutions to their transportation needs. I think a bold new 

policy is needed on a Federal level to address those needs. 

Last year the T for America Campaign hosted a series of roundtable discussions with transportation practitioners, non-profit advocates, service providers and elected officials. This working group 

identified the barriers to accessible transportation in non-metropolitan areas and prepared six principles of reform. Those ideas are 

summarized in a white paper that we will release later today entitled Principles for Improving Transportation Options in Rural and 

Small Communities. You will find them as an appendix to my written testimony. 

First, we must empower local communities through institutional 

reforms. You have heard that from other speakers. The residents 

and leaders of small towns and rural communities have the responsibility for key elements of the transportation system that connect 

their towns to other areas. They know best the local transportation 

needs and challenges, and they just want to be a part of the decisionmaking process in finding those solutions. 
75 

Second, it is imperative that America improve the condition and 

safety of its transportation system. The poor condition of many of 

our roads and bridges has reached a crisis point, threatening lives 

in this economy. Let me share a couple of statistics. 

More than 450,000 rural bridges, almost half of the bridges of 

more than 20 feet in length in this country, are structurally deficient. Fifty-eight percent of highway fatalities occur on rural roads, 

a rate twice that of urban roads. We must find highway design solutions and commit funding to reverse these dangerous conditions 

that threaten the lives of our people. 

Third, there must be adequate investment in public transit. The 

demand for transportation options is growing in rural America. 

Aging baby boomers like me in many small rural towns are increasingly relying on local transit providers. When gas prices spike 

in my home town of Meridian people must depend on public transit 

just to see the doctor, go to the grocery store or get to their jobs. 

Fourth, there is a desire among those who live in rural America 

to preserve and create livable communities. Now, some think that 

livable communities is a catch phrase only applied to large metropolitan areas. I can tell you that is not the case. Sprawling development patterns have damaged the historic character and the heritage of many small towns. 

In my own home town through investment in our downtown and 

the creation of a transportation hub we bolstered the local economy 

and reversed the decline of our historic buildings in our city center. 

Other communities can do likewise if this country will commit the 

resources needed to enhance the economic competitiveness of existing communities. 

Fifth, investment in intercity transportation networks will allow 

us to link public transit to passenger rail to high speed rail to commercial air service and intercity buses. This is the key to mobility 

in rural America—connectivity. 

Our decision in Meridian to invest in the revitalization of our 

historic train station as a multi-modal center proved to be a catalyst for transforming our main street, increasing public transportation ridership and helping to generate millions of dollars of private sector development in surrounding neighborhoods. 

Expanding and funding eligibility of intercity transportation facilities and intercity rail and bus service are critical in rural America. 

Finally, we must renew our focus on the movement of goods, particularly through rural America. State and local governments need 

the flexibility to invest in multi-modal infrastructure like rail, 

inter-modal transfer points and inland waterways. Multi-modal 

freight solutions are required to ensure that rural America can be 

competitive in this 21st century global economy. 

In conclusion, a safe, strong and efficient transportation system 

in our small towns, rural areas and metropolitan cities is necessary 

if we are going to continue to grow our economy and provide the 

American dream to everyone. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

Well, let me begin the questioning, then we will go to Mr. Inhofe. 

I heard Mr. Marlatt and Mr. Smith, among others, and I came 

a little bit late, talking about among other things the deterioration 

of our roads and our bridges. In terms of full disclosure I come 

from Vermont, one of the most rural States in the country, and we 

have exactly those problems as well. We just tore down a major 

bridge going between New York State and Vermont. It could not 

be repaired, at great economic loss to those communities. 

In addition, we are in the midst of a major recession with massive unemployment. From your testimony, what I hear, are you 

supportive of a massive infusion of Federal funds into rebuilding 

our infrastructure? 

Mr. Lomax. 

Mr. LOMAX. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Haggerty. 

Mr. HAGGERTY. Yes, definitely. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Townsend. 

Mr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Marlatt. 

Mr. MARLATT. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir, very much. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. 

We also have a $12.5 trillion national debt. Can I have some suggestions—and I happen to agree with you, I think, in terms of infrastructure, our roads and bridges are not getting better when we 

neglect them. Right? So, if we are going to be a strong, competitive 

Nation economically, we are going to have to adjust this problem 

at one point or another. We may as well do it now and create jobs. 

Do you have suggestions as to how we might pay for the improvement of our infrastructure? Anybody who has ideas, I would 

like to hear them. 

Mr. Haggerty. 

Mr. HAGGERTY. Thank you very much. Well, first of all, I think 

the National Association of Counties clearly supports increasing 

the gas tax. It also wholeheartedly supports the inclusion—or actually making sure that we index it so we do not have to continue 

to go through this problem of trying to figure out if we can get the 

gas tax raised at any given time. 

I think that it is also important that we look at other ways to 

put taxes on the user fee, especially as vehicles become more efficient. I will say this to you, though, Senator. You know when some 

of the counties come to you, we have come to you as self-help counties. We are actually doing what we can also to raise funds through 

maybe a half-cent sales tax measure, or you know, we have a fee 

on our bridges. If you have an access to the bridge, there is a fee 

on that. 

And we will also be moving on, in Alameda County and actually 

the MTC planning area, the regional HOT lane, actually regional 

HOV network, where some of these lanes will convert to HOT lanes 

and will help not only to reduce congestion in these areas because 

as we move to a congestion pricing on the Bay Bridge, for example, 
88 

on July 1st, we estimate that there will be 23 percent reduction in 

congestion at that time. 

So, those are just a few examples. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Other thoughts about how we could—— 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir, Senator. T for America is on record as supporting a 20 cent increase in the gas tax indexed to inflation, a 2.5 

percent sales tax on motor fuels, and an $8 per barrel surcharge 

on oil. Each one of these would leverage $250 billion in additional 

resources for transportation solutions. 

We wanted to find out what the public thought about this so we 

did some polling with Democrat and Republican pollsters, and we 

will release that poll later this month. But the poll does show that 

there is public support for additional resources if the transportation 

decisions are transparent and those who make the decisions—— 

Senator SANDERS. So, do you have a number in the back of your 

head about if we were to adequately fund our infrastructure needs? 

We are not even here talking about water and other infrastructure, 

just roads and bridges, for example. How much would we as a Nation need to be spending? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think we are looking at $500 billion-plus. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Over what period of time? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, that $500 billion would be over a 6-year authorization. You know, we are building a future for my grandchildren. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. President Reagan fought hard for a 5 cents per gallon 

gas tax that included transit funding and he made a promise to, 

then, my children, in 1983. What promise will we make? My grandson is 4 years old and wants to have an opportunity to live in Meridian and be accessible. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. 

Other thoughts, briefly, on how we fund a massive improvement 

in roads and bridges. Any other ideas out there? Let me get Mr. 

Townsend. 

Mr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir. NARC is right now working on a regional infrastructure improvement zone concept that we are working on to create financing of infrastructure, and we would be happy 

to provide the Committee with detailed information on that. 

Senator SANDERS. What I find interesting about this whole discussion is not only are we obviously addressing a major national 

issue; I do not think there is any debate, no matter what your politics may be, progressive or conservative, bridges falling down are 

bridges falling down. And it has to be repaired. But also, I would 

reiterate that in the midst of a recession we can create some pretty 

good jobs as we rebuild this infrastructure. 

So, thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is one of 

the few areas where we agree philosophically on anything. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Well, that is true. 

I have always said when I was first campaigning for this job and 

the different times I have been elected, four times, that we have 
89 

some priorities. No. 1 has always been, in my position, national defense. No. 2 is infrastructure. 

Now, when Senator Marlatt was talking about the condition of 

our bridges in Oklahoma I want all of you to know that we are now 

ranked dead last in the condition of our bridges. And it was not too 

long ago, Mr. Chairman, that we had a lady who is the mother of 

two who, in driving under a bridge, about a football size—it 

dropped on her and killed her. What we are talking about are life 

and death issues. That is why the line of questioning that the 

Chairman has put forth to you is very significant. 

There are two problems that I see with the Oberstar bill, and I 

want to kind of get your reaction. I will, of course, start with you, 

Bryce. He is focusing very heavily on the transit bike paths and 

sidewalks. 

Now, I would like to have you—you talked about State Highway 

270. I am very familiar with that, and before you got here, in my 

opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I acknowledged that if you get 

with me in my airplane, and you go through there, you can see at 

any one time 500 of the wind generators going at the same time. 

And one of the problems you have is actually transporting the 

blades. I would like to have you address that. 

Anyway, I want you to get on record in terms of how you feel 

about the amount or the percentage that is used for the various 

transit bike paths and sidewalks as opposed to roads, highways, 

bridges and so forth. 

Mr. MARLATT. Thank you, Senator. I guess the concern with 

Chairman Oberstar’s bill is that it takes away the ability for expansion on our traffic, and it takes away the ability for rural America to be connected to the global economy. 

My Senate district, as you well know, has a vast—we are expanding dramatically in clean energy, compressed natural gas, and 

we have got a huge influx of wind blades and turbines that are 

coming in, over a $300 million investment alone in my district. We 

have got the largest substation in the United States—— 

Senator SANDERS. Excuse me, a $300 million investment in wind 

in your district? 

Mr. MARLATT. In wind in my district, yes, sir. And that has the 

opportunity to continue to expand if we have the ability to stay 

connected. But one of the main concerns is the lack of shoulders, 

the two-lane roads going in and out, and the ability to transport 

the towers and the blades into my district. 

The largest substation in the United States is being built in the 

northwest part of the State of Oklahoma to disperse the energy 

that we are producing, whether it be from natural gas, oil or wind. 

So, I really feel like the fact that the congestion issues are not 

going to be something that in rural Oklahoma we need expansion 

of roads; we need expansion of shoulders and highways so that we 

can continue to provide for the United States. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Bryce, the reason I bring this up where 

there is a lot of talk about renewables and all that, that presents 

other problems, as in his district, even getting the blades there. 

These are things we have to consider. I know we are going to have 

another round of questioning, but I want to get to both Mr. 

Haggerty and Judge Townsend. 
90 

I mentioned there are two things I did not like particularly about 

the Oberstar bill, and that was one we already talked about, and 

the other is the expanded Federal decisionmaking and control over 

issues traditionally handled at the local and State levels. Examples 

include specific Federal performance standards, Federal approvals 

of substance in various State and local plans, Federal project selection, and all that. 

I would like to have the two of you respond to whether or not 

you agree with my concern. 

Mr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir, I do agree with your concern. We feel 

that on the local level we should have more input into the spending 

and where it needs to be spent. We have the same problems in 

western Kentucky that are in Oklahoma. We have a lot of traffic. 

We basically are a farm county, and western Kentucky is basically 

farm country. We also have coal mines there, and coal trucks run 

our highways, and it is very difficult to keep those roads up and 

in condition from the State level as well as the county level. 

Senator INHOFE. So you think State, county and local government probably knows more about your needs than the Federal Government does? 

Mr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir, I do. 

Senator INHOFE. What do you think—the reason I singled out the 

two of you is because you both are representing large areas that 

transcend urban and rural areas. 

Mr. HAGGERTY. We certainly agree with you, Senator. We believe 

that at the local control we certainly go through a very extensive 

planning process. You know, we do what we can to work through 

the problems of what local constituents on the ground are doing 

day to day, and we feel that we certainly have a better understanding of what it is that the needs are. 

We would want to make sure that, you know, as we move forward with any plan, that it continues to work toward reduction of 

congestion. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Carper, Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to turn to the issue of looking for opportunities to find 

multi-modal solutions to our transportation challenges. Some of 

you mentioned that in your testimony. I think certainly Mayor 

Smith did. 

I like to tell the story about once I was trying to get to Mackinac 

Island near Michigan. I drove my car from my home in Wilmington 

to a parking garage, and then I walked to the train station. I took 

the train to BWI Airport and got off the train and took a bus to 

the airport terminal, flew to Travers City, Michigan, got off the airplane and had another bus to a ferry which took us across the lake. 

We got off the ferry and got on a horse drawn carriage which took 

us to our hotel. I love thinking back about how that really met 

my—how all those different solutions helped me get where I needed to go that day in a pretty comfortable and interesting way. 

Could you share with us some examples of multi-modal solutions 

that you are aware of, that you have worked with, and give us 

some ideas of how we could foster more of those from where we sit? 
91 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Senator, your trip sounds not unlike my honeymoon. We were married at a multi-modal transportation center, 

we took the train to Washington, we flew to Knoxville, and then 

we drove up into the Smoky Mountains. 

Senator CARPER. And then lived happily ever after? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. Well, that is all I will share with you about that trip. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. But what we did in downtown Meridian, we took the 

remnants of a historic train station, and this was with ISTEA 

money, we invested $1.3 million of city funds, about $5 million in 

ISTEA funds, and we created the first multi-modal transportation 

center in the South, one of the first in the country, especially for 

a city of our size, where we brought all modes of transportation together—the passenger rail services, intercity bus service, city transit service, taxi service, connections out to the airport. 

What that $1.3 million did of city investment, it has leveraged 

today $135 million of additional public-private sector investment 

within three blocks of that station. It has created transportation 

choices for people; people are living back downtown for the first 

time in my lifetime. And I live in the home my grandfather built. 

My grandson is the fifth generation of our family to grow up in our 

house. Now, we are seeing market rate apartments, condominiums, 

all connected into the downtown living. 

We were the last HOPE VI project awarded, or one of the last 

in this country, totally lifted one whole historic sector of Meridian, 

rebuilt real homes instead of housing projects to warehouse human 

beings, with a sense of sidewalks and landscaping and lighting. But 

it is connected by transit so that those citizens who live there connect to their jobs, a lot of them in the service sector, to the community college for education and to the hospitals for healthcare. That 

has leveraged other economic development. 

Senator CARPER. Our role—what can we do to foster that sort of 

development? My question is what can we do at the Federal level 

to help encourage and nurture and foster those kinds of activities? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, to make those kinds of multi-modal hubs applicable, especially under livability, and when you think about livable 

communities, cities 50,000 and less need to be eligible for those 

funds as well. Those are small city centers that really lift regions. 

We support 350,000 people in rural counties around us. So, making 

such facilities eligible and allowing smaller cities to compete under 

what I think is a pretty exciting livability agenda that the Administration has rolled out. 

Senator CARPER. Any other thoughts on this? 

Yes, sir, Mr. Haggerty. 

Mr. HAGGERTY. Thanks, Senator. First of all, I would just like to 

say that NACo strongly supports mass transit, which includes rail 

bus, van transit ferries, and our urban, suburban and rural member counties want to offer more transit. 

I think the problem with transit from time to time becomes we 

need to make it more convenient. And I think, now speaking as a 

member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, one of the 

things that we have put in play is this 511.org. That is simply a 
92 

Web site that you can go to or even call on, and they will do a trip 

planner for you. 

For example, I am saying I am leaving my house in Dublin, California—which I really do live in Dublin, I am not just trying to be 

Irish—and then, you know, from Dublin, California, and I need a 

trip planner via transit to get to San Francisco on Van Ness Street. 

It will print that out for me, or it will tell me verbally how to do 

it and which I can do. 

That is the key. That is making transit convenient. That is helping people. Because part of the problem is, most of the people get 

out there and they say, I do not know how the heck to do this, I 

do not know how to ride the local bus to BART and then take 

BART, you know, to MUNI, and then get on the MUNI train and 

get to my final destination. 

Senator CARPER. Well, that is great. That is great stuff. Thank 

you. 

If we have time? Mr. Lomax. 

Mr. LOMAX. One more story. Your multi-modal trip sounds like 

one I took from London to Calais for lunch 1 day. It took the whole 

day, but my family had a great time, and we got to ride many different modes of transportation. They still complain about my interest in transportation. 

I think really your question, I would suggest, has an answer in 

both answering Senator Sanders and Senator Inhofe. You are really talking about local decisionmaking that comes from a data driven process, an interest in attaining some goals. So, I think there 

is a real connection here between the local interests, and what you 

all can do is help foster some of that data driven process. Some of 

the reporting requirements in Senator Oberstar’s bill could be reporting of metrics. It does not have to be to standards that the Federal Government suggests or mandates, but it could be to specify 

the measures and compare them to local standards. 

And then combine that with the support for the financing that 

really only happens when people understand what the value of the 

investment is. I think some of our lack of transportation investment comes from the fact that people just do not understand what 

they get. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. I thank you as well. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is 

good to see that we have some agreement here between our Ranking Member and the Chairman on infrastructure issues. This is a 

welcome development. 

Clearly, doing infrastructure, we need to do infrastructure, as I 

think most of you have emphasized in your testimony, because it 

is an investment in the future. And in this economic time we are 

in, it certainly creates jobs in both rural and urban communities 

that we need created. 

I wanted to focus a little bit on the rural part of this, so any of 

you that can comment on this. You know, transportation systems 

are critical for the economic health of rural communities. We 

have—an example I want to give you, is dairies in rural areas. 
93 

In Roosevelt County in New Mexico, it is a home to many large 

dairies that rely on a transportation network to deliver their milk, 

milk products, for processing and sale. Unfortunately the roads 

serving the dairies are in such disrepair that dairy owners must 

pay extra freight fees to allow for the detours and the delays that 

the truckers encounter. 

It sounds like something that Mr. Marlatt mentioned in terms of 

getting the renewable infrastructure, the turbines and all of that, 

into the area to do your rural development. 

So, what should be included in the reauthorization to ensure that 

the condition of rural roads is also included as a priority? Any of 

you, please go ahead. 

Mr. MARLATT. Thank you, Senator. I think the main thing is it 

is important to remember that we cannot divorce the fact that we 

have to—we need to maintain the integrity of our roads and 

bridges and provide the infrastructure to move products from Point 

A to Point B. 

As you well know, being from New Mexico, Texas County, which 

is in my district, is the sixth largest ag producing county in the Nation. There is a lot of product that moves every day out of Texas 

County, out of my district, and is disbursed to the rest of the 

United States. There is a lot of energy in my district that is moved 

from Point A to Point B to provide for the urban areas on a daily 

basis. 

Well, we do not have a lot of rail or public transit. We do have 

some horse drawn carriages in my district. But I think the main 

thing that we need to look at is that we do not want to take away 

from the ability to expand our lanes, to expand our shoulders. 

Transit, I do not feel like it is a great option in rural America. 

I think that it causes expansion of our roads to stop when we are 

investing in simply transit, and I really feel like that type of problem is replicated all throughout rural America. I think that maintaining and investing in the integrity of our roads and bridges is 

something that we need to do all we can to continue to fund. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Any of you, please, Mr. Haggerty. 

Mr. HAGGERTY. Just talking about roads here for a second, but 

another very vital part of roads is the Bridge Program and eliminating the Federal Bridge Program, more particularly the Federal 

Off-Road System Set Aside, would certainly be a mistake. The 15 percent set aside currently totals about $700 million per 

year and often goes to repairing our county owned bridges and is 

often the only Federal Highway Funds received by rural county 

governments. 

We—the GAO has documented that the program has been successful in decreasing the number of deficit off lying bridges. It 

seems to us that if you think deficit bridges are a national problem 

the best way to attack the problem is to retain a dedicated funding 

stream, that is the existing program, and not allow States to transfer bridge funds to other categories. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Any other? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Smith, did you want to comment? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Senator, if I may. Our rural program includes 

keeping national highway system and off system bridges eligible. 
94 

And in many rural areas they no longer are. But it is also not a 

one size fits all. In New Mexico the Railrunner Commuter Service 

links small towns between Albuquerque and Santa Fe. In Mississippi it is the Amtrak Crescent through my hometown of Meridian. We are looking for choices. It is about choice, and people are 

looking for other options as a way to stay connected and to get to 

the goods and services they need for everyday life. 

Senator SANDERS. I am going to have to run and give the Chair 

over to Senator Udall. Senator Inhofe, did you have another question for—— 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I did. I know that we are about out of time 

here. 

The big problem we have not devoted enough time to is how we 

are going to pay for all this stuff. And we talked about, you know, 

the different taxes. When we did—and I have been around through 

TEA–21 in 1991 and then SAFETEA in 1998 and then SAFETEALU, or whatever it was, in 2005. In fact, I was the author of that 

bill. 

We, at that time, recognized that we have been doing the same 

funding types of sources since the Eisenhower administration. And 

that is why I say that we need to get more innovative than that. 

I would like to direct this at you, Mr. Lomax, because Texas does 

some innovative things. You know, people always say they want 

change until there is change, and they do not want change. And 

you know what I am talking about because you guys went through 

it in Texas. And so they did in Indiana and Virginia and other 

States that tried that. But you have been very aggressive, and I applaud you for that. 

Just briefly tell us some of the partnership types of things that 

you have talked about in Texas, some of the problems, the misrepresentations, the hysteria that has come from that, and that 

might help us, direct us a little bit, on what me might want to do. 

There has got to be a better way than just continuing to do it as 

we have done in the past and still meeting those. 

Before you came in, Mr. Chairman, I talked about it was $286.4 

billion, the 2005 bill. It was huge. But that did not even pay for 

the maintenance of what we have. So, we have to get more creative. 

Mr. Lomax, would you share your thoughts with us and your experiences in Texas? 

Mr. LOMAX. OK. I do not want to downplay the role of hysteria, 

but I think one of the things that Texas has done is to explore a 

bunch of options. I think some of those options have not been well 

understood, and I would suggest that there is a role for not just 

public information but public involvement in any set of options. 

I think one of the things that Texas is known for is trying to get 

the private sector involved in transportation—— 

Senator INHOFE. Into partnerships. 

Mr. LOMAX. As a partnership with the public entities, trying to 

get some more financial leverage, trying to find people with creative ideas. I think that is probably the cornerstone of what Texas 

has tried to do, is to get more money but also more creativity on 

how to solve the problems. 
95 

Certainly the toll road projects are the ones that have gotten the 

most attention. I think there are a variety of other operating treatments. Just coordinating the traffic signals, getting the crashes and 

stalled vehicles out of the roads. 

Houston has essentially a contract with a bunch of different tow 

companies where they are responsible for a 6-minute response 

time. If there is a crash or stalled vehicle, those tow companies 

have to respond immediately. We have seen a 10 to 12 percent reduction in crashes and about a $30 billion savings in congestion 

just from that kind of a program. That is about a $3 million or $4 

million a year seeing a 10 to 1 return rate on that. 

So, I think a combination of big projects, the toll road interests, 

as well as small projects. 

Senator INHOFE. When you say toll roads, are you talking about 

private toll roads? 

Mr. LOMAX. In some cases they are private toll roads. There is 

a toll road that connects the Austin and San Antonio areas on the 

east side that is going to be a privately operated toll road. 

Senator INHOFE. Now, on the innovation thing. Well, first of all, 

Senator Marlatt, you said that you had some kind of innovative 

funding mechanisms. Is there anything that is consistent with our 

conversation now that you can share with us that has come out of 

your study, I guess there on the State level in Oklahoma? 

Mr. MARLATT. It is an innovative funding task force that is just 

being created that will look at all kinds of opportunities, whether 

public or private, and on the public-private partnership program. 

I think it is important—and you know this well—I think it is important for the members of the Committee to know that in Oklahoma, maybe not down the line as funding mechanisms, but as far 

as stretching the dollar and making the dollar go as far as possible, 

in Oklahoma we have an interesting program where we actually 

allow the Department of Transportation—the agency actually selects the process on a critical needs basis. 

We have taken the politics out of the development and are actually addressing our needs on a critical needs basis. And the agency 

then has a responsibility to report back to the House and Senate 

and the Governor on the progress that they have made and making 

sure that they are being responsible and how they are spending the 

dollars. But it actually has given the control on a local level and 

allowed them to address the needs that they see fit. 

Senator INHOFE. Any of the rest of you on this? Because what 

Bryce is saying is true in Oklahoma. Of course, we are blessed with 

probably the best Transportation Secretary of any of the States. 

And we do it by needs by district, and we do not come in and say, 

well, this is the area that I want to help. It is not that type of 

thing. We spread those out. 

Is there any other, anything particular in the way of an innovative thing that you are aware of that has happened in your States 

or areas that you would want to share with us? 

Mr. HAGGERTY. Well, Senator, when you talk about innovation, 

and I am now speaking as an MTC Commissioner for the San 

Francisco Bay Area, we have seven of our nine counties, which are 

MPOs, or Metropolitan Planning Organizations, that are half-cent 

sales tax authority. What does that mean? That means that every 
96 

time you buy something, a half-cent goes to transportation projects 

in Alameda County, for example. In Alameda County prior to the 

recession we were raising approximately $110 million a year that 

would go toward transportation projects. 

And we certainly believe that gives us a leg up and the ability 

to do the necessary planning work to then come to the Federal 

Government and say, here is a project, we have worked it through, 

not only the locals, which we start down with the cities and the 

counties, and then if filters up to the MPO, and then MPO puts 

together a list of projects through, whether it would be our 2035 

Plan or whatever, that has a list of priority projects, and then we 

move those up either to the State or the Federal Government to 

implement them. 

So, I mean, I think that is something that we have done that is 

fairly innovative. We are starting to move some of our HOV lanes 

to HOT lanes, as I had mentioned in my earlier testimony. That 

money will be used to dedicate transit funding in that corridor. 

You know, we are doing everything we can. We were fortunate 

to have Steve Heminger, who is our Executive Director of our 

MPO, sit on a national commission that actually made recommendations to Congress. And we actually are implementing a lot 

of the stuff that came out of that process. For example, congestion 

pricing, which I mentioned in my earlier testimony also. 

Senator INHOFE. Good. Well, let us do this. I know we have gone 

beyond our timeframe. But I would like to have—when we say for 

the record, we normally are asking you, after this hearing is over, 

that you give us, share your experiences with us on anything innovative that you have either tried and has not worked. That is our 

big problem here. We have got to think of a way to pay for all of 

this stuff. 

When you said there is going to be, we are looking at a $500 billion problem, I agree with you. But you have got to come up with 

it. And I just think we are going to have to deviate from our old 

60-year-old behavioral patterns. 

Mr. TOWNSEND. May I have time here? 

Senator INHOFE. Does he have time here? OK. Go ahead. 

Mr. TOWNSEND. We are working on regional infrastructure improvement zones and trying to change the Federal Tax Code so 

that we can have private and public partnerships in business invest in the infrastructure improvements. NARC is working on that 

right now. 

Now, in the State of Kentucky, you mentioned the districts. We 

have districts also, and the districts meet with the counties, and 

we agree on what are the worst—— 

Senator INHOFE. You establish priorities. 

Mr. TOWNSEND. We set priorities, yes, sir. And then to go one 

step farther, our regional—our ag district or our regional cog, 

which is made up of seven counties and made up of judges and 

mayors and individual representatives, we look at the whole area 

to see what are the worst problem roads in the area. And we feel— 

you brought up a very good question about how to fund this. It is— 

one of the ways I think we are going to have to do it is through 

private and public together. 
97 

Senator INHOFE. You said something there that really sparked 

something in my mind. Now, Bryce, maybe the law has changed 

since I was in the State legislature, but we used to have assessment districts in Oklahoma. I assume we still do. You were talking 

about that. That has never entered my mind. Assessment districts 

would be a vehicle by which you could exercise the local support 

for something. It is something to think about. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Senator, in Meridian a large part of our success was by public-private partnerships, and we used tax increment 

financing districts which you had run linear along a transportation 

project to help fund that project. 

Also, amending Federal tax laws so that new market tax credits 

could support transit. Transit could be eligible for new market tax 

credits. That would be helpful to the private sector as they work 

with local units of government to provide seamless transportation 

experiences once you get into their downtowns. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. Let me say thank you to all five 

of you and particularly, of course, Bryce, for coming up here. It has 

been very helpful to us. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. You have 

finished your questioning? I think we are ready to wrap up here. 

Great. 

Let me also thank the witnesses in the panel today. Your testimony has been very helpful. Certainly, your ideas and recommendations are going to be taken into consideration in our work 

here. 

I would ask unanimous consent that the testimony from the 

Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota and Wyoming be inserted in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced testimony follows:] 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Senator INHOFE. If you would expand that so that we keep our 

books open for another 3 or 4 days so that if they wanted to respond in writing to the challenges we have been talking about, particularly unique funding mechanisms, they would be able to do 

that? 

Senator UDALL. Without objection. That is so ordered. And we 

would welcome that kind of participation. 

With no further business, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ