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

88–765PDF 2015

S. HRG. 112–918 

ISSUES FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORIZATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 14, 2011 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 14, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ............................ 1 

Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ............................. 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 115 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 116 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 117 

WITNESSES 

Smith, Fred, chairman, president and CEO, FEDEX Corporation ..................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Thomas, Hon. Sharon, councilwoman, city of Las Cruces, New Mexico ............. 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Searles, Brian, Secretary, Vermont Agency of Transportation ............................ 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Lewis, Michael, director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation .............. 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Ridley, Gary, secretary, Oklahoma Department of Transportation .................... 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Cox, John F., director, Wyoming Department of Transportation ........................ 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Cooper, John R., director, Alabama Department of Transportation ................... 79 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Article, Rhode Island has the 4th-worst Bridges in the Nation, by: PBN 

Staff, published on March 31, 2011 .................................................................... 108 

Statement, The American Trucking Association ................................................... 119 

(1) 

ISSUES FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORIZATION 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus (chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure) presiding. 

Present: Senators Baucus, Inhofe, Sessions, Carper, Sanders, 

Whitehouse, Barrasso, Merkley and Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. The hearing will come to order. Good morning 

everybody, welcome to the hearing entitled Issues for Surface 

Transportation Authorization. 

We have an excellent panel representing a cross-section of industrial, State and local interests. I will be chairing this morning’s 

hearing on behalf of the Chairman, Senator Barbara Boxer. In the 

interest of time, I ask, frankly, that we waive Senators’ opening 

statements. Let’s be a little bit more efficient around here and 

move straight to the witnesses’ testimony. Senators will obviously 

be permitted to include their statements for the record. 

I also think it would be appropriate for Members of this panel 

to themselves introduce witnesses from their States or maybe tied 

to that particular Senator in any other special way. So I will turn 

to you, Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. I will just go ahead and waive an opening statement and get to our witnesses. I want the honor of introducing 

Gary Ridley from Oklahoma, and I am sure that Senator Barrasso 

and Senator Sessions and maybe others might want to take care 

of their witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I have often said that I truly believe Gary is one of the best—if not the best— 

DOT heads in the Nation. Gary came to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation in 1965 when he started as an equipment operator and worked his way up 

to Division Engineer. 
2 

When Brad Henry, a Democrat, was elected Governor of Oklahoma in 2002, I 

called him and asked for only one thing: for him to keep Gary on as Director of 

ODOT. Fortunately for Oklahomans, he did. In 2009 Gary was appointed Transportation Secretary, a position he still holds, as well as serving concurrently as the director of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. 

I first realized just how great Gary was back in 2002 when a barge took out a 

580 foot section of the I–40 bridge at Webber Falls. Sadly, 14 people lost their lives 

in that tragedy. The bridge fell on May 26th and, due to the excellent work of Gary, 

the bridge was reopened to traffic on July 29th. Think about that for a second: two 

spans of a bridge were replaced in just 2 months. Normally, a project of this magnitude takes an average of 13 years to complete—most of the delays are due to Federal red tape and billions of dollars are wasted in taxpayer money. 

We can deliver projects dramatically faster than we currently do while still protecting the environment. Reducing the time it takes to deliver transportation 

projects I know is a priority for all of us, which hopefully means we can get something meaningful done in the next highway bill. 

I would also like to draw attention to Gary’s concerns about EPA’s proposal to 

revise the Nation’s air quality standards for ozone. I share his concerns. After much 

effort and cost, Oklahoma currently has no ‘‘nonattainment’’ areas. But because of 

EPA’s ever-changing definition of ‘‘clean air,’’ economic development—indeed, many 

of the very transportation system improvements and capacity expansions we contemplate today—is being threatened. 

The Nation’s ozone standards are a prime example. EPA, in 2008, significantly 

tightened the standards as part of its statutory 5 year review. Yet the Obama administration has made a political decision to revise that standard outside of the 5- 

year review cycle. This creates tremendous confusion for State and local communities and businesses that have to meet the requirements. 

The standards EPA is now considering could put as many as 15 of Oklahoma’s 

counties into nonattainment status. Indeed, over 650 counties across the country 

could be in violation, even though many of them have what EPA considered ‘‘clean 

air’’ just 2 years ago. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on ideas that will make it easier, 

not harder, to improve our deteriorating infrastructure, create jobs, and strengthen 

our global competitiveness. 

Senator BAUCUS. All right. Our first witness is Mr. Fred Smith, 

chairman and CEO of FedEx. Next is Sharon Thomas, councilwoman, City of Las Cruces, NM, then Brian Searles, secretary, 

Vermont Agency of Transportation; Michael Lewis, director, Rhode 

Island Department of Transportation; and next, Gary Ridley, secretary of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. 

Do you wish to introduce Mr. Ridley? 

Senator INHOFE. As they come up. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. Fine. Then Mr. John Cox, director of the 

Wyoming Department of Transportation; and finally, last but not 

least, Mr. John Cooper, director of the Alabama Department of 

Transportation. 

OK. Let’s get down to business here. Let’s begin right down the 

line here, beginning with you, Mr. Smith, and let’s hear what you 

have to say. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, could I introduce my Alabama 

witness? 

Senator BAUCUS. You want to do that now or do you want to do 

it later? 

Senator SESSIONS. Now would be great, if you would allow me. 

Senator BAUCUS. Let’s do it now. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Cooper was recently appointed by Governor Bentley. Dr. Bentley chose him to head the Highway Transportation Department. He was recently CEO of Avocent Corporation, a manufacturer of technology products headquartered in 

Huntsville, with operations around the world. Prior to that, he was 

chief financial officer and senior vice president for Finance and Ad-
3 

ministration at ADTRAN of Huntsville, a global telecommunications provider, one of Alabama’s largest home-grown companies 

and most successful. 

He was also managing partner with a large accounting firm, 

served as partner and leader of Arthur Young and Company’s audit 

practice in Birmingham, received his B.A. degree in accounting 

from, and master’s, from the University of Alabama. When the 

Governor announced his appointment of Mr. Cooper, he stated, ‘‘A 

first-class transportation system is a critical part of my plan for 

economic growth and bringing good-paying jobs to the citizens. 

John Cooper has the managerial experience and leadership qualities to ensure that Alabama has the right transportation infrastructure.’’ 

I agree. Mr. Cooper, we are glad to have you here and thank you 

for coming. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me that moment. 

Senator BAUCUS. You bet. Thank you, Senator. 

Again, Mr. Smith, why don’t you start out. 

STATEMENT OF FRED SMITH, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, FEDEX CORPORATION 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator. I have submitted a 

written statement for the record and will just summarize it here, 

if that is acceptable to you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Absolutely. Obviously, all statements will be in 

the record. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate your having me up here. I am wearing 

two hats today. Obviously, I make my living at FedEx. FedEx is 

about a $40 billion transportation company that operates 700 airplanes, moving 8.5 million shipments to 220 companies around the 

world. We fly about 500,000 miles in those aircraft every day. We 

have about 80,000 vehicles that drive millions of miles every day. 

So as you might imagine, we are quite focused on the issue of petroleum and oil supplies. 

I also serve as the co-chairman of the Energy Security Leadership Council, which is a group of retired four-star admirals and 

generals, and several major corporate CEOs who, like FedEx, use 

a great deal of energy, like Southwest Airlines and Royal Caribbean and so forth. I am a member of the Electrification Coalition. 

We believe that the Nation’s dependence on petroleum, after terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, is the Nation’s largest 

single national security and economic risk. In 2008 when the price 

of oil went up to $147 a barrel, U.S. families and businesses spent 

$900 billion or 6.4 percent of GDP buying petroleum products. It 

would be great if there were a free market solution to our problem 

in this regard, but there is no free market for oil. It is managed 

by a cartel which if it were doing what it does in the United States, 

it would be illegal. 

To solve this problem, you have to focus on three areas: vehicles, 

fuels and infrastructure. While we have made enormous strides on 

vehicles, fuel efficiency in particular, we need to focus a great deal 

of attention on fuels, which is the focus of the Electrification Coalition. It is our belief that electrification of the light-duty fleet in the 
4 

United States offers the largest potential for reducing our oil importation requirements. 

Then finally there is infrastructure, which is where this committee comes in. We believe at the Energy Security Leadership 

Council that the transportation policies of the United States should 

be linked specifically to petroleum consumption goals. In fact, we 

issued a report in February of this year called Transportation Policies for America’s Future, which are recommendations for reforms 

designed to transform the Nation’s transportation policy, introducing a more market-oriented model and instituting oil consumption as a key metric by which decisions are made and evaluated. 

Specifically, we recommend the establishment of a national oil 

savings performance metric in choosing and evaluating transportation projects; second, the replacement of select programs with 

both formula and discretionary programs specifically designed to 

reduce congestion in metropolitan areas; third, a program to maintain and improve highway capacity outside of metropolitan areas 

and along major freight corridors; Federal efforts to improve the 

productivity of our freight transportation systems; a streamlined 

environmental process for transport projects; and ultimately alternatives to the current fuel tax regime to address funding challenges. 

We believe that smarter, more efficient and more market-oriented infrastructure projects represent an important element of 

any comprehensive policy to end our Nation’s dangerous dependence on imported petroleum from areas of the world which are hostile to U.S. interests. 

With that, I will be happy to take questions, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Next, Hon. Sharon Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHARON THOMAS, COUNCILWOMAN, 

CITY OF LAS CRUCES, NM 

Ms. THOMAS. Good morning, Senator Baucus and Members of the 

committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

I am a retired English professor who moved to Las Cruces, NM 

in 2003. In 2007, I ran for city council and was elected. Las Cruces 

is a town of 97,618 (we just got our 2010 census) located in the 

Mesilla Valley between the Organ Mountains and the Rio Grande, 

45 miles north of El Paso, TX. Las Cruces has received several 

awards, including ranking from Money Magazine as one of the best 

college towns to retire in, and from AARP as one of the dream 

towns for retirement. 

Since election to the City Council, I have served on the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the South Central Regional Council 

of Governments, and on our newly formed South Central Regional 

Transit District. 

When I first moved to Las Cruces, my interest was focused more 

on planning neighborhoods where residents could live, work and 

play. Since that time, I have come to realize that it is all connected. 

How a community is laid out, roads, transit, pedestrian and bicycling facilities, open space, public areas, commercial areas, housing 

choices, economic development, health issues are all related. 

So, of course, when the Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Transportation formed the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, I 

knew I had found the model for combining land-use and transportation planning. 

In 2009, our project, Picturing El Paso, was one of four chosen 

to participate in EPA’s technical assistance program to help us develop a vision for the street that connects our downtown and New 

Mexico State University. When EPA joined the Sustainable Communities Partnership, our project, Picturing El Paso, became part 

of that program as well. 

During 2010, we worked with our Federal partners and community participants to develop our vision. In that vision, El Paseo 

Road would be transformed from a vehicle-clogged, dying, strip 

mall-lined street into a mixed-use pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, 

tree-lined boulevard with multiple transportation options, a range 

of housing choices, and plenty of public gathering places. This is 

what the community told us they wanted. 

At our Transportation Summit in September 2010, we heard 

similar messages from the over 100 in attendance. We passed on 

those suggestions to Secretary Ray LaHood when he visited our 

city in October 2010. 

In New Mexico, too often, transportation planners have torn out 

our Main Streets in order to get better traffic ‘‘flow’’ blow and destroyed our small towns. We want to see transportation planning 

that takes into a account all users of the roadway, as well as the 

surrounding context of that roadway. 
20 

As part of the Surface Transportation Authorization, we would 

like to see financial support for livable community projects such as 

the recent TIGER grants that can help us build communities that 

are safer, more livable, and welcoming to everyone. 

As the Coalition for Sustainable Communities has grown across 

the country, we have noticed the addition of one more adjective, 

healthy. In Las Cruces, we are particularly interested in healthy, 

sustainable communities because of our high rates of childhood 

obesity and diabetes. 

When schools are not accessible by biking and walking, students 

lose an important daily opportunity to exercise. Unfortunately, the 

schools in our city have typically been located on busy streets, 

fenced off from surrounding neighborhoods, and primarily designed 

for students to be dropped off by vehicle. 

Our Safe Routes to School Program is changing all that. We now 

have walk and bike to school programs, bicycle safety classes, more 

bike lanes and bike racks, and better sidewalk markings. 

As Congress moves toward Surface Transportation Authorization, 

we would like to see greater recognition of the impact transportation planning has on the health of communities and more support 

for programs like the Safe Routes to School Program. 

Certainly, our local projects cannot continue without a new Surface Transportation Authorization. As you move forward with that 

legislation, I hope you will recognize the impact that transportation 

facilities have on all aspects of our communities, and work toward 

a new vision for transportation legislation and policies that do 

away with the silos that currently exist between land use and 

transportation planning so that we can promote communities that 

are healthy, livable, and sustainable. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am 

looking forward to a new Surface Transportation Authorization 

that will coordinate transportation planning with housing, land-use 

planning, and economic development so that all Americans can live 

in healthy, sustainable communities. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thomas follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Ms. Thomas. I appreciate your testimony. 

Senator, do you want to introduce your witness? 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

I want to welcome Brian Searles, Vermont’s new secretary of 

transportation. He has only been on the job for a few months, but 

he is certainly familiar with transportation issues. In fact, this is 

his second stint as transportation secretary during more than 40 

years of public service. He is really one of the more knowledgeable 

public servants that we have in the State, working in a variety of 

areas. 

Recently, he was the director of the Burlington International Airport. He has been a police chief. He has been a city manager. He 

has been director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, the State commissioner of Personnel, and the deputy secretary 

of administration. 

So we thank him very much for joining us today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Searles, why don’t you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN SEARLES, SECRETARY, VERMONT 

AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. SEARLES. Thank you, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member 

Inhofe and other Members of the committee. I am pleased to have 

the opportunity to talk about a few transportation challenges facing small States and rural areas. I believe the challenges we face 

are critical considerations as we move toward the next Transportation Reauthorization bill. 

Both the quality and quantity of the transportation systems that 

serve small States and rural areas have steadily eroded over several decades. Economic and demographic shifts, coupled with longterm under-investment have all had detrimental impacts on mobility, economic opportunities and the quality of life for rural residents. 

One challenge I want to emphasize today is that of maintaining 

infrastructure in northern-tier States. Maintaining transportation 

infrastructure has always been a challenge, and according to the 

Federal Highway Administration, 80 percent of the national road 

network is rural roads, accounting for 3.1 million miles of the U.S. 

transportation system. 

City and county governments, which rely heavily on State DOT 

funding, are responsible for 95 percent of unpaved and 55 percent 

of paved roads. While most States have a backlog of deferred paving projects, these backlogs are particularly pronounced in small 

States and rural areas that receive a disproportionately smaller 

share of Federal transportation transfers, even with the minimum 

set-aside supplement. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, States with severe winters and 

temperature variations are even more prone to higher roadway 

maintenance costs, the corroding effects of salt, liquefied snow removal agents, coupled with continued freeze-and-thaw cycles and 

the wear and tear of snow removal for highway safety adds significantly to the cost of roadway maintenance budgets. 
25 

Another rural challenge is inadequate bridge structures. Approximately 30 percent of Vermont’s nearly 2,700 long bridge structures 

are considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. 

Per capita, rural States maintain significantly more bridge miles 

than the national average. For example, Vermont maintains 429 

square feet of Interstate bridges per capita, 33.2 percent above the 

national average, ranking 11th among the States. 

Of course, this leads to a discussion of money, and compounding 

the money challenges for small and rural States is the very limited 

ability to raise additional revenues to close funding gaps through, 

for example, public-private partnerships or tolls. 

Transportation has an inordinately high impact on household 

budgets in rural areas due to sprawling land-use patterns that date 

back to farm economies in existence for over 200 years. Residents 

of rural States travel longer distances to worksites and needed 

services such as health care and employment training. Rural residents also tend to have lower incomes than the national average. 

This affects family budgets and transportation costs account for the 

second-highest spending category after housing costs. These family 

budgets are increasingly under strain due to high energy costs. 

The demographic trends of rural areas are also different from 

urban areas and exacerbate transportation challenges. Most rural 

States are aging and the share of residents over 65 account for a 

significantly rates than their urban counterparts. As older residents require more transportation services, providing those services 

to sparsely populated areas will cost even more in the future. 

Rural States, especially border States, play an increasingly important role in the movement of goods and the enhancement of national and global trade. This leads to concerns about roadway 

maintenance costs along the national highway system. Over 40 percent of Vermont’s freight are through-flow trips that neither originate or are destined for Vermont. 

Environmental challenges require transportation policies to support strategies to modernize vehicle fleet efficiencies and reduce vehicle miles traveled. The steady increase in VMTs from the 1970’s 

to the 1990’s has begun to stabilize. Moreover, consumers have 

begun to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles and the Nation’s 

fleet will continue to meet the higher efficiency standards. Since 

our funding is related mostly to a per-gallon gas tax, the problem 

here is that our environmental goals run counter to our transportation funding and will cause problems in the future. 

Very quickly, what to do about this? Some suggestions I would 

make is that through the Reauthorization Bill, we concentrate on 

those systems that can connect small or mid-size communities to 

the national surface transportation network because without a 

healthy transportation system, the Nation’s metropolitan areas will 

also suffer. 

I order to ensure the viability of small State and rural transportation systems, we need to reinvent funding mechanisms and not 

be too dependent on that per-gallon gas tax. 

There is also a need to streamline Federal funding and the regulatory process and allow flexibility in shifting funds between 

modes. Small and rural States provide operating funds to transit 
26 

and rail systems that pay a high portion of their State transportation funds toward these critical modes. 

Finally, I would encourage you to support major regional and national initiatives that have transportation advantages of connecting 

small States and rural areas to larger cities. As an example, the 

national rail corridor, Northeast Rail Corridor has the potential to 

redefine future modal splits and reduce our dependence on the 

automobile. Raising transit and rail ridership will benefit our Nation’s highway network as well. 

I know you have a huge task in front of you and I want to wish 

you the best in your efforts to maintain and improve our Nation’s 

transportation system, and thank you for listening. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Searles follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Senator BAUCUS. You bet, Mr. Searles. Thank you very much. 

I notice that the Senator from Rhode Island is here with a big 

smile on his face. I think he would like to introduce our next witness. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would be delighted to, Mr. Chairman. I 

thank you and the Ranking Member for this opportunity. 

Michael Lewis is our director of Transportation in Rhode Island 

and I am very pleased that he is here joining the panel. He is a 

very talented individual. Many of my colleagues will know, Rhode 

Island has been hit with particularly tough economic times. 

Into a 12 percent unemployment rate, Michael was able to lead 

the Rhode Island Department of Transportation to be the most efficient and fastest at getting out the Recovery Act funding into 

Rhode Island, supporting literally thousands of jobs, some cases 

very creatively, by investing in projects that kicked off much more 

significant private sector development that would not have been 

possible had the access not been provided with the stimulus work. 

There is a project in Johnston in particular that I remember opening with him where there were literally tens of millions of dollars 

freed up and put to work in the private sector because of the stimulus funds that he deployed there to open up the area that needed 

the rehabilitation. 

We also had the worst floods in living memory in Rhode Island 

and the response of the Department of Transportation in Rhode Island was so good that the U.S. Department of Transportation has 

chosen the Rhode Island response as its sort of best practice model 

going forward. 

So he brings a great deal of talent and I am delighted to have 

the chance to introduce him. 

Thank you for being here, Michael. 

Senator BAUCUS. Your State has set a very high standard for you 

to follow. 

Mr. LEWIS. That is a lot to live up to. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LEWIS, DIRECTOR, RHODE ISLAND 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator SANDERS. I want to point out that I was a civil engineering student at UVM when you were Mayor of Burlington, so it is 

nice to see you again. A lot of time has passed. 

My name is Michael Lewis. I am the director of the Rhode Island 

Department of Transportation. I am also on the Board of Directors 

of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, the Rhode Island 

Turnpike and Bridge Authority, and the Rhode Island Public Rail 

Corporation. 

Today, I will focus my testimony on three main points. First of 

all, Rhode Island has made great strides in effectively managing 

our transportation system using all the tools and resource currently available. Second, despite sound and hopefully creative management efforts, Rhode Island is still facing a critical crisis in preserving and rehabilitating our existing infrastructure. Third, Rhode 

Island will need an increase in funding at Federal and local levels, 

and more flexibility in the use of Federal resources in order to 
36 

make progress in bringing our highway infrastructure into a state 

of good repair. 

Rhode Island, I hope, has effectively and efficiently managed its 

transportation resources using innovative approaches, including 

the use of TIFIA loans, GARVEE financing, and performance measures. Using the tools and resources we have had available, we have 

relocated a major portion of Interstate 95 and Interstate 195 in the 

heart of Providence with very little disruption to traffic during that 

undertaking. 

We have undertaken a freight rail improvement project that has 

led to the expansion of commuter rail service from Boston to Providence and points further south in Rhode Island, including a direct 

connection to T.F. Green Airport, the closest rail-air connection in 

the country. We are currently replacing vital bridge links to Aquidneck Island that leads to Newport, the biggest tourist destination 

in the State. 

Rhode Island’s transportation infrastructure suffers from underinvestment, a national issue not just a Rhode Island issue. A December 2008 Governor’s Blue Ribbon Panel Report entitled Rhode 

Island’s Transportation Future: Reinvesting in our Transportation 

System stated that in order to maintain our highway system in a 

state of good repair, without adding additional capacity, just a 

state of good repair, the State would need to invest $3 billion over 

10 years, a doubling of our current investment just to get into a 

state of good repair. 

The gap continues to widen as the cost of construction materials 

increases, revenue derived from gas tax decreases, and the infrastructure continues to age and deteriorate. Decades of underinvestment in maintenance has resulted in a downward spiral of condition of the highway infrastructure. At the time of the report, over 

20 percent of Rhode Island’s bridges were structurally deficient, 

nearly 30 percent were functionally obsolete, 8 percent were posted, 

and nearly 2 percent were closed. 

One of our embarrassments for the State, quite frankly, is an 

Interstate 95 bridge in the city of Pawtucket that has been posted 

with a weight limit of 18 tons for the last 3 years. We are currently 

undertaking a replacement of that bridge, but that is a major economic impact on not just Rhode Island, but the New England region because it is right on the I–95 corridor. 

Just south of that bridge that is being replaced right now, in the 

city of Providence we have a structure called the Providence Viaduct, also on I–95 suffering similar conditions, currently not posted, 

but in the very near future it will be likely be posted unless we are 

able to find the funds to replace it. The cost of replacing that structure would equal our total Federal apportionment for a year in the 

State of Rhode Island, one bridge structure in the city of Providence. 

The Providence Viaduct has undergone some repairs, but replacement is now the sole option and we need to find flexible funding 

sources to undertake that project. 

Rhode Island is not building new roads. We have had a fix it first 

philosophy for a number of years. RIDOT cannot build its way out 

of congestion. Investing in bus and rail transit are the only way to 

increase travel capacity in our State, an indication of some of the 
37 

differences in some of the regions of the country and the States on 

what are the emphasis areas for improving transportation options. 

Exacerbating the problem in Rhode Island is the State’s historical practice of borrowing the required match to Federal transportation funds. Debt service is using more and more of the State’s gas 

tax revenue, reducing available funding to perform preventive 

maintenance. We are now at a point where our debt service now 

exceeds what we need to match Federal funds. 

We have to break that cycle, and Governor Chafee has recently 

introduced a bill to do just that. Within 5 years, we would become 

a pay-as-you-go State to wean ourselves off of the debt and the borrowing that the State has undertaken. 

We are right out looking over the edge of the cliff in terms of financing. We have run out of roads and changing direction is our 

only option. What happens in the Ocean State to our transportation infrastructure has local, State and national implications. 

Should the Pawtucket River Bridge or the Providence Viaduct have 

to be taken out of service, hundreds of thousands of motorists, 

goods and services will face unimaginable delays. 

Increasing flexibility to the State for tolling, public-private partnerships to allow commercial use of transportation rights-of-way, 

and innovative financing is essential to allow States like Rhode Island to leverage the assistance we get from Federal programs. We 

must recognize the unique challenges facing each State, while 

working toward our common goals. One size does not fit all when 

it comes to national transportation. 

We look forward to working with you to address this daunting 

task ahead. However, with increased flexibility, funding and a 

strong partnership, I believe we can succeed. 

Thank you for providing me the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was listening with interest as Senator Sanders introduced his 

Secretary of Transportation as being one of the newest Secretaries 

of Transportation in America. Well, I am honored to introduce the 

most experienced and tenured Secretary of Transportation in the 

United States of America, and I want my colleagues to listen to 

him. 

I was first elected to the State Legislature in 1965. That was the 

same year that Gary Ridley came to the Department of Transportation in the State of Oklahoma. So we have a lot of experience 

there. Over the years, to this same day today, I don’t know whether 

Gary Ridley is a Democrat or Republican. He has been the very 

best. He has been director for a long time, then later made Secretary of Transportation. 

But I remember when a good friend of mine, Brad Henry, a Democrat, was elected Governor. I called him and I said I only have one 

request, and that is that you keep Gary Ridley running the Transportation Division. He said, I was going to do it anyway. 

But Gary has just done a great job. I remember in 2002, a lot 

of the Members on this committee may not know that we in Oklahoma are navigable. We have a navigation way that comes all the 

way to the city of Tulsa or Catoosa, right outside of Tulsa. In 2002, 

May 26, I think it was, a barge coming up there ran into the 

Webber Falls Bridge going across the Interstate. It took out 580 

feet. Our estimates were that it was going to take 2 years to get 

that fixed and get things going again. We sat down with Gary Ridley. He ended up doing it in exactly 2 months. 

So I would just say that he does things other people talk about 

doing and it gets them done. He has a lot of concerns. He and I 

talk on probably a weekly basis about the disaster that we have 

throughout the Nation, that we need to have a transportation reauthorization bill. There are a lot of things that we can all talk about. 

Some we will agree with and some we won’t agree with. 

But I am just very delighted to introduce a guy that I think is 

the most experienced Secretary of Transportation in the United 

States of America, Gary Ridley. 

STATEMENT OF GARY RIDLEY, SECRETARY, OKLAHOMA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. RIDLEY. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, along with Senator Inhofe 

and the other Members of your committee, for your leadership and 

efforts to increase consistency in delivering transportation projects 

in the new reauthorization. 

As we consider the deficiencies of our national transportation 

system in the next highway bill, we recognize it will be extremely 

difficult for Congress to increase the Federal transportation funding or even sustain the current funding level. Therefore, more 

transportation dollars must be directed to our core infrastructures 

without set-asides or diversions. 

In addition, we must work together to deliver projects more efficiently and free from unnecessary bureaucracy and regulations. 
43 

Programs that mandate the commitment of dedicated transportation funding to recreational and fringe activities such as trails, 

landscaping, lighting, building renovations, should be vigorously reviewed. The logic is questionable when the core transportation infrastructure of the country is in such deplorable conditions due to 

lack of investment. 

The Americans With Disabilities Act is an unfunded mandate for 

States and local governments. Everyone should recognize that we 

must do more to accommodate individuals with a physical challenge. The ADA requires thoughtful and reasonable compliance. It 

does not mandate the wholesale abandonment of common sense. 

There must be room to focus on the greatest need and the highest 

accessibility returns, while allowing for sound engineering judgment in the regular maintenance of our highways. 

Surely, it is reasonable to expect that DOTs can execute state of 

good repair highway projects within existing rights-of-way, without 

the added expense and delay of Federal involvement or regulation. 

Therefore, when transportation system improvements are being implemented within existing rights-of-way, a full NEPA and Federal 

oversight exemption should be granted or other non-transportationrelated Federal regulations should be minimized or eliminated. 

The benefits of this action cannot be ignored. Transportation 

agencies are encouraged to work within existing transportation facility footprints and minimize impacts to private property and the 

environment. Also, the State and Federal regulatory resources and 

lead agencies can focus more of their attention on quickly delivering critical larger scale projects. 

The air quality of the United States has improved to the point 

that meaningful air quality targets that once seemed unachievable 

are now commonplace. Our concern is that EPA continues to advance an agenda that ratchets down the targets outside their own 

guidelines, and seemingly with the intent of widespread nonattainment. 

The EPA should consider the improvements made and acknowledge the benefits that will undoubtedly be realized from the clean 

energy initiative of business, government and the public. Air quality targets and guidelines must be established that reflect the 

input of State governments and the private sector that do not restrict the economic growth and the competitiveness of our country. 

Now is the time to acknowledge the achievements of the past 20 

years, rather than implement a new set of unachievable targets. 

The EPA is also obligated to establish and enforce water quality 

measures and guidelines. However, we are concerned with the farreaching impact of the indiscriminate stormwater regulations will 

have on transportation systems. Rules and regulations are being 

advanced that require States to manage, monitor and potentially 

treat rainwater that falls in or on and run through our transportation rights-of-way. However, the quality of the receiving water is 

impacted to a far greater extent by the runoff from other nontransportation-related lands that sometimes even discharge into the 

highway rights-of-way. 

The footprint of the linear transportation system represents a 

microscopic portion of the total land area that can be affected by 
44 

water quality. Yet the cost of regulatory compliance is disproportionate to the true benefit of the water quality that is in question. 

States have made great strides improving air and water quality 

as they preserve our environmental resources. We know that we 

can perform at a very high level in a less bureaucratic and heavily 

regulated setting. In the case of Federal environmental and regulatory issues, we certainly understand that not all or will can be 

eliminated. However, we must strike a new balance that quickly 

delivers transportation improvements to enhance the function of 

our system, the safety of the public, and the economic vitality and 

the longevity of our country. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind invitation and the opportunity to offer our perspective on several reauthorization issues. 

We will be more than happy to answer any questions the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ridley follows:] 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Ridley. 

Next, Senator Barrasso, would you like to introduce Mr. Cox? 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I 

would. Thank you, Senator Inhofe, for holding this hearing on the 

next highway authorization bill. 

Today, I am honored to have join us the director of the Wyoming 

Department of Transportation. His name is John Cox. John is not 

your traditional Department of Transportation director. He has a 

28-year background in law enforcement and since 2005, he has continued to serve Wyoming in his role as the Wyoming Department 

of Transportation director. 

John is so respected in Wyoming that he was first appointed to 

this position by a Democrat Governor, Dave Freudenthal, and then 

recently reappointed by our new Republican Governor, Matt Mead. 

John and I worked closely together in the Wyoming Legislature 

when I was Chairman of our Senate Transportation and Military 

Affairs Committee. In fact, we worked together to increase the 

State’s highway construction biannual budget from $40 million to 

$200 million. 

John understands rural transportation. As a young Patrolman, 

John drove many miles on the rural roads of Wyoming and he 

knows that we need a national system. We don’t need a regional 

system that only serves largely populated urban areas. 

So I know that the committee today will benefit from the testimony and wisdom of John Cox. 

Thanks for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. COX, DIRECTOR, WYOMING 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, good morning. It is a privilege for me 

to be here today and, if Senator Baucus were still in here, as his 

immediate neighbor to the south, I would thank him for his many 

years of work, not only on transportation, but on other interests 

with regard to rural States. 

My thanks to Ranking Member Inhofe, to Senator Barrasso and 

to Members of this committee for the opportunity to be here today. 

In my remarks today, I will focus on Wyoming’s perspective as a 

rural State, but I want to make it clear that we also have much 

in common with many other States, such as a desire to see the 

highway program simplified with more flexibility for the States. 

My main point today is that Federal investment in surface transportation in rural States like mine benefits the Nation. Oftentimes, 

discussions of transportation policy omit the importance of investing in routes in rural States. My written statement today is actually a joint statement together with Idaho, Montana, South Dakota 

and North Dakota. In answering any questions later, I will speak 

for Wyoming, but we are certainly pleased to be like-minded and 

part of a joint written statement with these other States. 

Federal investment in surface transportation in a rural State is 

important to the Nation. Let me explain. First of all, safety is 

WYDOT’s highest mission priority. It perhaps goes without saying 

that Federal transportation funding enables rural States to improve safety on rural routes. 
63 

Wyoming highways are a bridge for truck and personal traffic between heavily populated areas. For instance, to move between the 

West Coast and Chicago, freight and people must cross rural 

States. A huge percentage of truck traffic in rural States neither 

begins nor ends in those States. In Wyoming, it is an amazing 77 

percent, far above the national median. Clearly, investments in 

rural State highways serve the Nation’s commerce and 

connectivity. 

Wyoming highways ensure that agricultural and natural resource products move from source to markets, including the export 

markets. Rural highways serve agriculture and energy needs, including wind energy infrastructure and natural gas and oil development. We need surface infrastructure supporting our efforts to 

export agricultural products and reduce dependence on foreign oil. 

The truck movements supporting these activities occur far from 

large cities, but support the Nation’s economic competitiveness and 

welfare. In my area of the country, many of the rural States, including mine, are major exporters of energy to our Nation. 

Highways provide access to scenic wonders distant from the 

Interstate highway system. Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 

Parks and Devil’s Tower National Monument are locations in Wyoming that millions of Americans and international guests visit. 

These destinations are, however, some distance from the Interstate 

highways and in some cases even from the National Highway System (NHS), and maintaining Federal aid eligibility for the Highways serving this kind of resource helps deliver access and helps 

benefit the American economy. 

The map at the back of my prepared statement illustrates the 

vast gaps between NHS routes in rural western States and underscores the importance of maintaining Federal aid eligibility for 

highways in addition to the National Highway System. 

Our States face significant transportation funding challenges. We 

are large geographically. We have extensive highway networks and 

we have very low population densities. So, we have very few people 

to support each lane mile of Federal-aid highway, yet our citizens’ 

per capita contribution to the Highway Trust Fund from rural 

States exceeds the national average. 

Past Congresses have recognized that it is in the national interest that significant Federal funding be provided to support highways and transportation in and across rural States. For many reasons, including those I have described, the upcoming authorization 

bill should continue that approach. 

Before I close, Mr. Chairman, let me make just a couple of other 

points. A higher percentage of highway funds, at least 90 percent, 

should be distributed to the States by formula. Formula programs 

are generally faster in putting program dollars to work, facilitating 

job generation, as well as transportation improvements. 

We also realize the importance of doing more with each dollar. 

States can achieve this if given greater flexibility to direct funds 

to their highest priorities. Set-asides and narrow categorical programs should be eliminated in favor of flexibility and fewer regulatory and program restrictions. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, two ways that Congress could simplify 

and streamline the Federal Surface Transportation Program would 
64 

be to, first, harden NEPA review guidelines, and then provide for 

additional categorical exclusions from the NEPA review process. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to be here 

and I look forward to fielding any questions when the time comes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:] 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

Senator CARPER. Has Mr. Cooper he been introduced? 

Senator SESSIONS. I introduced Mr. Cooper, and I think he would 

be ready to testify, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Are you ready? 

Mr. COOPER. I am ready. 

Senator BAUCUS. Let her rock and roll. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. COOPER, DIRECTOR, ALABAMA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and Members of the committee, good morning. My name is John Cooper and 

I am the director of the Department of Transportation for the State 

of Alabama, and I am here today to testify on behalf of that Department. 

We appreciate being given the opportunity to be heard. We appreciate being given the opportunity to provide our input to the 

committee. We particularly appreciate Senator Sessions and his 

role in transportation both nationally and in our State. 

My written testimony was provided earlier and is available for 

the record. In the brief time that I have this morning, I would like 

to make just a few points that we believe are germane to this discussion, at least from our perspective. 

My testimony is based on the assumption that funding for transportation will be difficult, at best, and most probably reduced. In 

our State, revenues from our State taxes on fuels generally are at 

the same level they were 10 years ago. While we realize that no 

final resolution has been reached at the Federal level, we assume 

that some reduction is probable. 

This environment dictates that we use available funds as well as 

possible. Now, I realize that Alabamians may be known for maintaining a somewhat strong skepticism to Federal regulation, but 

nevertheless I believe we have some points that are worth you 

hearing and I would like to ask you to consider. 

First, we believe the next reauthorization should reduce the 

number of funding categories to three or at most four. A suggestion 

would be Interstate highways, the national highway system, major 

urban areas, and another category. We believe that would be one 

way to categorize funding that would preserve congressional intent, 

while allowing funding to be more efficiently directed within a particular State. The large number of categories presently is not necessary and it becomes particularly troublesome when we have 

short-term extensions of the Act. 

Second, we believe Federal oversight of transportation should be 

limited to activities of true national interest. Clearly, this would 

mean the Interstate highways and major national highways. But 

we do not believe that the Federal Highway Administration should 

be involved in work that is done on minor highways or the bridges 

on those highways. 

Third, there are numerous areas where Federal regulations create additional costs and impede the efficient use of funds. Three of 

those which are referenced in my written testimony are, No. 1, situations where bridge re-work is required simply because resurfacing is being done on a particular highway; second, the application of what are called the logical termini regulations to situations 
80 

where we believe they are inappropriate; and third, requirements 

for updated environmental work after only 3 years, which is not 

long in the development of highway systems today. 

In summary, we ask you to consider whether what might be 

called the hands-on involvement of Federal Highways in all aspects 

of road construction and maintenance, supported by significant 

staffing presence in each State, has proven to be a sound approach. 

Would we be better served by regionalized oversight function with 

more responsibility being delegated to the States? 

To touch on a couple of other points, we will support the inclusion of performance standards in the reauthorization, we know that 

is being discussed, so long as the performance standards are tailored the needs of a particular State and so long as those standards 

are not a way for the implementation of additional Federal oversight. 

Finally, from the standpoint of our State, I would be remiss if I 

didn’t express my concern over the growing emphasis on high-speed 

rail, a mode of transportation that does not present a viable solution to problems with transportation in our State. We hope your 

will not use scarce Federal highway dollars to support that mode. 

As I said at the beginning, I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here. We thank you for listening to our views and we are prepared 

to address any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:] 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. 

Several points come to mind here. One, we don’t have a lot of 

money here. At at the current rate, under a 6-year program, the 

number of dollars spent per year reduced, I think it is something 

like $40 some billion a year, from $42 billion down to $28 billion. 

If we take the 6 years in the current funding levels, the annual 

funding payments would be approximately from current $42 billion 

down to about $28 billion, unless we find new revenue. 

I don’t think we want to be in that position where it is only $28 

billion. That is a huge blow to our country. 

Which raises the question of the 6-year versus a 2-year bill. I 

just raise that because if we can’t find revenue to pay for a full 6- 

year bill, it might be better to go for a shorter which is fully funded 

for at least those 2 years. 

The next basic question is this: We need to get the highway program back into a national program, to restore the pride that we 

once had in the Interstate highway system. President Eisenhower 

conceived the idea and built it, proposed the idea. I have forgotten 

what year we built the Interstate system, but it is a national system. It passes through urban States and rural States. 

It is true that there are points of congestion. There is no doubt 

about that, in some of the urban States, cities and ports. But it is 

also true that the rural States need a highway system, the Federal 

Interstate. I mention my State, Montana, has one of the highest 

State gasoline taxes in the Nation. The Interstate Highway System 

would stop at the Montana border, probably the Wyoming border, 

maybe North Dakota border if there were no Federal system. We 

can’t afford it in Montana, don’t have the resources. Of course, 

freight has to go across the country. It is a national program. 

So I am just asking a couple of questions and you can take any 

one you want, any one of you. One is what do we do to assure we 

have full funding? We can’t have fewer dollars for this system. Second, what do we do to get back to the national focus on energy so 

this is an American program? Is it not just a little sectional this 

community and that community, and so on and so forth, program. 

We can leave then things like performance standards so people get 

a better sense of the money that is being spent correctly, not wasted. 

Any thoughts? I will just go down the line here. I don’t have a 

lot of time here, but Mr. Smith, I will start with you. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Senator, we think that the best way to provide 

the funding for the highway system is from the users. Obviously, 

the fiscal problems of the United States preclude a lot of general 

funds going into transportation. Specifically, to move from a gasoline tax to a vehicle mileage tax, which represents a surrogate for 

the older system. 

You really have to go that way because with the introduction of 

hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles and so forth, the efficiency of the 

vehicles is not producing the kind of gasoline tax revenues into the 

fund. So that is one thing. 

The second is to use technology in the areas where there is most 

congestion, to manage transportation demand. Where that has 

been done, it is very successful. The people that need to utilize the 

system in the peak hours pay more for the lane or the time of day 
96 

that they use. With the technology that is out there today, both of 

these are feasible solutions. 

Senator BAUCUS. Ms. Thomas, your thoughts? 

Ms. THOMAS. I would just add that New Mexico is also a very 

rural State. Our largest city is only a half million, so we have the 

same problems Montana has. We don’t have the funding to maintain a Federal system through our State. 

I would agree with Mr. Smith. A vehicle miles traveled tax seems 

reasonable to me, and also the technology. My daughter is a transportation planner. She works in Albuquerque. She is familiar with 

those systems. I know how beneficial they are. 

But I would also continue to put in a plug for other modes of 

transportation. In Southern New Mexico, that is a very high-poverty place and not everybody in our rural areas can even afford 

automobiles. So we also need public transit. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. Mr. Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. What do you want to do? Go back and forth? 

Senator INHOFE. That would be nice. 

Senator BAUCUS. Yes, that is what I thought. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Sessions, I think your witness may be 

leaving, that is why we are deferring to you? 

Senator SESSIONS. That would be great. 

Mr. Cooper, one of the things I understood, for example, is that 

even a modest repair or work on an intersection could result in the 

State required to do an environmental audit or review of a large 

area of the entire highway. Are those kind of things actually happening to your department? 

Mr. COOPER. We have had instances where that has happened. 

We did attempt to widen a two-lane intersection in a rural area, 

of two State highways covered by parts of the Federal system. In 

order to do that, and it would have been to simply widen an intersection for about 100 yards, we were required to do a corridor study 

of 7 miles in thought that eventually we might want to widen the 

entire 7-mile corridor between two small towns. It took about over 

a year to do that corridor study. 

Senator SESSIONS. That delayed both your repair at the intersection and increased cost for it? 

Mr. COOPER. Well, it increased cost and it actually was a safetymotivated repair. We were having and continued to have a number 

of accidents at that intersection. It has poor line of sight and poor 

grade, something that was correctable. But in order to do that and 

protect the ability to use Federal funding on that road, we had to 

study a corridor of 7 miles environmentally. 

Senator SESSIONS. In your judgment, that was not a smart use 

of resources or a legitimate basis to delay the safety actions you intended to undertake? 

Mr. COOPER. I think we would acknowledge there is a place for 

the logical termini. We did not believe it was here. The problem is 

that the regulations get written, the rules get written, and then 

they tend to be interpreted rather absolutely and rather rigidly 

without, in our view, any input of common sense. We do not believe 

common sense would have supported doing that corridor study for 

7 miles. 
97 

Senator SESSIONS. With regard to your overall challenges that 

you have, I am aware that Alabama has certain serious congestion 

problems in certain aspects of the Interstate system, and some of 

those repairs are exceedingly costly, I guess, in terms of the size 

of Alabama’s budget. 

How do you see the Federal-State responsibility there? You indicated that you thought the Federal Government should reduce its 

responsibility in the non-major highways and increase it in its 

Interstates and major highways. Would you share a little more of 

your thoughts about that, please? 

Mr. COOPER. Well, clearly the Federal highways are, to use an 

old Southern expression, the big rocks of highways. They are the 

important arterials that connect across our State and across our 

country. Federal involvement, we understand, is very necessary 

there and a shared State-Federal financing is appropriate. We accept that involvement and believe it is appropriate. 

Our questions on Federal involvement are where the tentacles of 

it go down into rural roads, roads that we do not believe have national significance. As to the funding of our Interstates, it is almost 

an insurmountable object in many ways. We currently are rebuilding one mile of Interstate in Birmingham at a cost of over $23 million. That is competitively bid with five responsible bidders. It is 

a pretty representative price. 

We believe that we could spend our entire budget on repairing 

and maintaining the Federal system, the Federal Interstate system 

for a couple or 3 years and probably not totally catch up to where 

we would like to be. I think our situation in that regard is reflective of many States. 

Senator SESSIONS. That’s $23 million for that 1 mile in Alabama’s Federal highway funds? 

Mr. COOPER. It is shared funding. The larger part is Federal. It 

is an Interstate highway. 

Senator SESSIONS. We get about, what, $500 million to $600 million from the Federal Government? 

Mr. COOPER. Collectively, we get about $800 million. 

Senator SESSIONS. Eight hundred million dollars. 

Mr. COOPER. Eight hundred million dollars. Some of that goes di- rectly to the large urban areas and the bulk of it, about $560 million comes to ALDOT. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Smith, you mentioned the electrification 

of vehicles and the need to get off our dependence on foreign oil 

and the wealth transfer, the economic impact that has. We have 

been hearing a lot of talk about natural gas, increasing supplies 

and the lower cost. One estimate I had recently was that the price 

of natural gas compared to fuel was $24 a barrel. Now, we are over 

$100 a barrel for oil. 

Have you considered, particularly in your localized FedEx vehicles, natural gas as an alternative? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Senator, one of the things that the Energy Security Leadership Council advocated right at the onset was to 

maximize U.S. production of U.S. oil and gas. Fortunately because 

of technological developments, as you point out, we now have large 

supplies of natural gas that just a few years ago were deemed to 

be unrecoverable. 
98 

So the issue is what can that natural gas best be used for? Based 

on our analysis, it can be very productively utilized for centrally 

fueled heavy fleets: buses, garbage trucks, things that began and 

end at the same point every day. It is probably not a particularly 

cost-effective or energy-efficient system for most other transportation based on the experimentation and the analysis that we have 

done. 

We believe, however, that the use of natural gas for the production of electricity is hugely important. As I mentioned, the Electrification Coalition has been focused very heavily on how does the 

country electrify a large part of our light-duty vehicles, personal 

automobiles and smaller pickup and delivery vehicles. 

That is very profound because the operating cost of a small vehicles, say, a FedEx Express pickup and delivery vehicle, relative to 

a diesel-powered vehicle, is about a 75 percent or 80 percent per 

mile savings. Basically, the power to generate that propulsion during the day is already produced during the evening and is dissipated because there is no place to store it. 

So the real element in electrification is how fast the battery technology can produce lower battery costs and performance. Today, it 

is about 100 miles for a charge produced overnight. If it is a 220- 

volt recharge, it is about a 4-hour cycle. In four to 5 hours, based 

on our analysis and the Department of Energy, ARPA-E, as they 

called it, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, thinks that 

those costs will give you about a 200 to 250-mile range for a personal automobile or a small commercial vehicle, and the price will 

be about 40 percent or 50 percent less than it is today. 

So you are getting pretty close there, but the numbers are quite 

astounding. We burn today about 10 million barrels of oil in our 

light-duty sector. Remember, 98 percent of all transportation is fossil fuel; 70 percent of all petroleum is burned by transportation. In 

the light-duty sector, it is about half of our oil consumption per 

day. At a 2.5 percent to 3 percent GDP growth rate over the next 

25 years, that will grow, even with the new fuel efficiency standards, if we don’t do something, to about 14 million barrels a day. 

If you execute the recommendations of the Electrification Coalition in the report that we put out, that can be reduced by 2035 to 

4 million barrels a day. So there is a swing of 10 million barrels 

a day there between making a major effort to electrify and not. The 

cost is really by Washington standards very modest and there is a 

huge ROI. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. Thank you, 

Senator. 

Next is Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Thanks to all of you for joining us 

today. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Smith and then one for 

the panel. Before I ask those questions, let me say this. 

We last raised the Federal gasoline tax in I think 1993, raised 

it to about 18.5 cents per gallon. Today, we are in a situation 

where we don’t have enough money in the Transportation Trust 

Fund to build all that we need to build. I think the Nation’s engineers have evaluated our transportation infrastructure and given 

it a grade D as in delta. That is not good. 
99 

What we do since we don’t have enough money in the Transportation Trust Fund, we borrow money from our general fund. Because there is not enough money in our general fund to serve all 

of our needs, we do around the world and borrow this year about 

$1.5 trillion. 

I know that we have a saying that if things are worth having, 

they are worth paying for. I am very encouraged with the idea of 

a vehicle-miles-traveled approach. I think it makes all the sense in 

the world. Congestion pricing, that kind of thing, it makes sense. 

We can toll. That makes sense. It makes a whole lot of sense to 

move people out of cars, trucks and vans where they have densities 

to other forms of other transportation, whether it is buses or trains 

or transit. 

But we need to raise some revenue here, and nobody wants to 

run away from that. I proposed, along with former Senator George 

Voinovich, that we raise the Federal gasoline tax about a penny a 

month for 15 months. The Erskine Bowles-Alan Simpson Deficit 

Commission came back. They ended up recommending we raise it 

a penny a quarter for 15 quarters. That would give pretty much 

the money that we need to go forward and actually take that great 

D up to something like a C or a B, and to be able to meet our 

needs, but that is the kind of things we have to do. 

We have to find the will to raise the revenues. If we are not 

going to do that, we shouldn’t be spending all this money that we 

don’t have, and simply go around the world hat in hand and borrow 

it. You don’t need to hear that lecture from me, but I lay that at 

your feet and I lay it at the feet of my colleagues. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Smith, question. You guys deliver a lot of 

packages every day. God only knows how many you deliver at 

FedEx. I am sure that the kind of price increases that we have 

seen in gas have an inordinate effect, a bad impact on your bottom 

line, and that congestion can have a debilitating effect on your ability to deliver on time. 

Could you just give us some idea of what impact congestion and 

the rising price of oil are having on you business? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, first of all, Senator, let me reiterate in response 

to your remarks there, we have supported an increase in gasoline 

taxes to fund the transportation infrastructure of the country. The 

problem is, as I just mentioned, as things electrify and get more 

efficient, you are not going to be able to raise the revenue from the 

gas tax to fund it. So you ought to decide how much we need to 

spend and then find an efficient funding mechanism, which we 

would recommend as the VMT, transportation demand management. 

Senator CARPER. I agree. I agree. 

Mr. SMITH. Now, to your specific question, it is hard to assess exactly what the cost of congestion is, but there are a lot of studies 

by the DOT that put the cost in lost productivity to the Nation in 

the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. So it is definitely 

something that improves our GDP and it reduces our fuel consumption. 

On the effects of high fuel prices on us, we don’t try to speculate 

or hedge. We have a base cost of jet fuel and diesel fuel in our rates 
100 

which is put up on the Internet. When it goes above that cost on 

a barrel of fuel, we increase the fuel surcharge. Then each year 

over the last 10 years, we have raised our base. 

So the bigger effect is what it does on overall GDP. The facts of 

the matter are our increased use of petroleum, 60 percent of which 

is produced abroad, acts as a very deleterious tax on the American 

public when the prices run up, and it reduces demand and GDP as 

a result. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. 

I just want to ask one more question, and that is a number of 

experts have noted that the Federal transportation program does 

not have a coherent vision. They have suggested that the transportation bill that we are going to work on should establish national 

goals to guide the Federal program. I agree. 

Do you believe that reducing oil consumption should be a national transportation goal? 

Mr. SMITH. We absolutely think that it should be a goal. This is 

a military and security and economic problem of the highest order. 

Every policy that the government has, including our transportation 

policy, should include some sort of petroleum consumption metric 

as an integral part of the process, in our opinion. 

Senator CARPER. All right. My time is about to expire. 

Let me just say again, as we have seen this run-up in gas prices, 

we have also seen a dramatic increase of cars, trucks and vans 

being introduced that get considerably better gas mileage. I drove 

for the second or third time this last week the Chevrolet Volt, a 

great vehicle, terrific mileage, terrific performance. We are going to 

start building it in our old G.M. plant in Delaware next year, a 

Fisker product that gets about 80 miles per gallon. 

So the ability to generate money from the vehicle fuel tax, gasoline tax, is going to diminish over time. If we are smart, we will 

do what some others have said and take these heavy diesel vehicles 

especially and begin converting them to compressed natural gas. 

There is a great opportunity to save gas there as well. 

But when people, I will be honest with you, folks are reluctant 

to raise a user fee like the gasoline tax, and just politically it is 

a difficult thing to do. But if things are worth having, we need to 

summon the courage to do something. Vehicles miles traveled, I 

would like to say we can turn on a switch and it will be there tomorrow. It is not. It is going to take a while, a good while, before 

we can have that kind of component. 

In the meantime, I would just ask my colleagues to keep in mind, 

we have seen this run-up in gas prices. In 1 week, gas prices go 

up by more than 15 cents in 1 week, and that is not money that 

goes into improving our infrastructure in this country; not money 

that is going to make us any more productive in this country. It 

is money that ends up in the pockets of people in a lot of countries 

that are unstable, undemocratic governments, and we have to be 

smarter than that. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
101 

Let me just kind of, well, I would only say this, in line with the 

previous question. I won’t ask you a question, Mr. Smith, but I 

would only make an observation. I think everyone, it should be a 

part of this discussion, and that is we in the United States have 

the largest recoverable reserves in gas, coal and oil of any country 

in the world. Our problem is we are not developing our own resources. It is a political problem and I have nothing against my 

good friends who disagree with me philosophically, but we could be 

self-sufficient, at least from Middle Eastern oil. 

Now, I happen to be, and I looked over here, my two friends are 

not here. I think they are coming back, but I rank normally as one 

of the most or the most conservative Member of the Senate. Yet I 

am a big spender in two areas. One is national defense and one is 

infrastructure. I think that is what we are supposed to be doing 

here. 

I am a little disturbed, more than a little disturbed, because 

when I chaired this committee in 2005, we had the last transportation reauthorization bill that we had. It was a $286.4 billion bill, 

and if you take the math that Senator Baucus mentioned, it is accurate. If you divide that out, it would be $48 billion a year for the 

6 years. But if you take the transit out, it would be around $42 billion. 

Now, we have some pretty persuasive evidence that even with 

that amount of money, that barely maintained what we have today. 

Here is the big problem. The problem is we need to have more 

money generated for that purpose. I would respectfully disagree 

with Ms. Thomas in some of these areas because one of the problems we have had, I can remember back in the days when we always had a surplus in the Highway Trust Fund. 

In addition to the problems we have that have already been mentioned in terms of fuel efficiency and all of that, one of the problems we have, and everybody, and this is the nature of government, 

they all want to hitchhike on anything where there is a pot of 

money. So they all came in. They said, well, we want our bike 

trails in there and we want all this stuff. 

It used to be just bricks and mortar and maintenance and 

bridges. In the State of Oklahoma, I think we are ranked last. I 

will ask Mr. Ridley to see if he agree with this. Either Missouri or 

we are ranked last in the condition of our bridges. We had a bridge 

in Oklahoma City that dropped concrete on a lady. It killed her, 

the mother of two small children. 

This is a real serious problem that we have, and we have some 

ideas on what we want to do to correct this problem. 

Let me ask Mr. Ridley if you could talk about some of the Federal red tape that would make our dollars go further, could you 

kind of give us some ideas? Then maybe some of the other witnesses would like to share or see if they agree with your thoughts 

on this. 

The Federal red taps is using up a lot of the money that could 

be used for bricks and mortar. 

Mr. RIDLEY. Senator Inhofe, you are exactly right, exactly how 

much money you would save by the bureaucratic system that we 

have now put in place. The Chairman made mention earlier about 

the trust fund that was enacted in 1956 when President Eisen-
102 

hower signed into law the Interstate law. We have used those 

funds in two ways that has been a detriment on the trust fund. 

One is the bureaucratic regulations that we have to go through 

that really create no value. The second is that those funds are used 

for anything and everything other than what their intended purpose was for, and that is to build and maintain the national highway system. 

The regulations that you speak of, surely we could all agree that 

working within existing rights of way, the footprint of an existing 

facility, and that if all we are trying to do is to keep that system 

in the state of good repair, to replace the existing pavement in 

kind, not add capacity, but just allow us to rebuild that system, 

surely if we had the chance to be able to rebuild bridges on our 

Interstate system and replace it in kind where we stay within our 

existing footprint, not add additional right of way, not have to 

move utilities, not add capacity, that we ought to be able to do that 

simply and efficiently with Federal funds or a joint use of State 

and Federal funds. 

Yet today, we cannot. An example of that would be on South Canadian River out west of Oklahoma City on I–40, we have a bridge 

that has a sufficiency rating of less than 40, two bridges eastbound 

and westbound. They are functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. They are only 30 feet wide. They were built under the old 

standards back in the early 1960’s when we first built the Interstate system. Both those bridges need to be replaced. We have the 

money set aside to be able to do that. We have been 15 months 

going through some 12 different studies that have to be done in 

order for us to rebuild those two bridges, which seems somewhat 

ridiculous to me to be able to put back a bridge. 

When we get all said and done, we are still going to build the 

bridge. It is going to be in the exact location of the existing ones, 

and we create not value with the studies and the regulatory efforts 

that we have to go through. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, could I just ask one more 

question of these three witnesses here? In terms of streamlining, 

because we talk about this all the time here, what areas do you 

see, and Mr. Cox, perhaps you could start off, where we could actually get a lot more roads for our dollars in terms of streamlining? 

I know pretty much what the situation is in Oklahoma. What is 

it in Wyoming? 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, Senator, first of all, avoid adding any 

additional regulatory burden to the next bill. I am in broad agreement with Oklahoma’s statement against the backdrop of really 

limited funding, limited fund-raising ability perhaps, for the highway program. 

One of the most important things to look at is what are the bureaucratic roadblocks and the bureaucratic costs in implementing 

a Federal funding program. So we are very concerned about standing up any new Federal regulatory process. Last year’s bill in the 

House of Representative talked about at least two new offices within the USDOT. We couldn’t support that at all. 

Mr. Chairman, also one other comment I would say, reiterating 

what I said in my testimony, is give NEPA hard deadlines for 

every applicable comment period. Give them a timeline and a fail-
103 

ure to tender comments, particularly on the part of resource agencies, equals concurrence. 

In our world, where we have rulemaking authority that we have 

to implement in a wide variety of areas, we go out for public comment. We publish. We go out for public comment; take comments; 

take them into consideration; make a decision; make the rule. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, my time is expired, but do you generally 

agree with that, Mr. Cooper? Just kind of yes or no? 

Mr. COOPER. Senator, I do. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. What I would like to do for the record 

is to ask each one of you to kind of list those areas such as you 

did and several others have, and try to attach something on there 

in terms of the cost, having to do with endangered species, NEPA 

and all these things that might be seen as obstacles in terms of 

getting the most building out of our highway dollars. 

So if you could do that for the record, I would appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just begin, and this has been a really informative panel, 

by making two statements and see if there is any disagreement 

here among the panelists. 

No. 1, is there any disagreement that our infrastructure is deteriorating seriously in a very significant way? We all agree on that, 

no matter what our political perspectives may be. 

As a former Mayor, I think you will agree with me that if you 

don’t put money into improving your infrastructure, it probably 

doesn’t get better the next year. Is that right? In fact, it becomes 

pretty stupid because you end up spending more money than you 

should have spent if you properly maintained. 

Is that correct? OK. 

Now, I want to pick up on the point that Senator Baucus made 

a moment ago. What we have heard today from Mr. Smith and others, which I think makes a lot of sense. From an environmental 

perspective, if we get automobiles that get better miles per gallon, 

that is good. I believe that very strongly. If we move to an electrification of vehicles, I believe that that is good also from an energy independence perspective, as well as an environmental perspective. 

But obviously, it is not good in terms of funding the Highway 

Trust Fund. That we all agree on. 

So I want to get back to the I think important question that Senator Baucus asked, and just say this. Senator Carper made the 

point that raising the gas tax is politically unpopular. Well, it is 

and it should be. In my State, you have many people who today 

living in rural areas, drive 50, 100 miles to work; drive 50, 100 

miles back. The amount of money they are now paying for gas to 

fill up their tank has soared. They don’t have the money to pay 

more to go to work. That is the simple reality. Their wages have 

gone down. Their transportation costs are going up. 

So I hope that we can look at other more progressive and fair 

ways of raising revenue to rebuild our infrastructure. We heard 

from Mr. Smith and Ms. Thomas. Maybe we will start with Mr. 
104 

Searles and just go on down the line and just continue Mr. Baucus’ 

line of questioning. Where do we raise that money? 

Brian, do you have any thoughts? 

Mr. SEARLES. One of the things we have done in Vermont recently is put a 2 percent tax on gas, not a two cent per gallon tax. 

What that allowed us to do is raise money for a transportation infrastructure bond fund so we are borrowing and servicing the debt 

with that. It is a short-term matter, but at least we have been able 

to get the benefit, if you can call it that, of rising gas prices for our 

infrastructure. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Thanks. 

Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Ultimately, the vehicle-mile-traveled tax is the true 

user fee. You pay for what you use. I think there is a lot of work 

to be done to get there. I think that is a future revenue source that 

makes a lot of sense. 

In the meantime, there are other existing user fees that I think 

we can make some better use of. It doesn’t work everywhere in the 

country, but there are areas like in the Northeast Corridor where 

I think increased use of tolling is an opportunity to raise significant 

funding as a user fee. 

Take the I–95 corridor, Maine is tolled. New Hampshire is tolled. 

Massachusetts is not. Rhode Island is not. Connecticut used to be. 

New York and New Jersey is. It is a mixed bag. There are opportunities in urbanized areas. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, let me interrupt you and ask you. My 

understanding is heavy trucks have a lot more negative impact, destructive impact on bridges than do small cars. Are we properly 

taxing these heavy trucks for the actual damage that they do? 

Mr. LEWIS. I would defer to others on that, and perhaps Mr. Cox 

or Mr. Smith. Trucks do pay a larger fee. Whether it is the right 

amount, whether we need to take more control in terms of the permitting of excessively overweight trucks, I think that is an issue. 

Senator SANDERS. But they do more damage than an automobile. 

Mr. LEWIS. They absolutely do more damage, but they are also 

necessary for the movement of goods and services. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. Right. Let me just go on down. 

Mr. Ridley. 

Mr. RIDLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may, the idea that we can spend 

our money wise, the existing funds that we have, I think is something that we need to consider, on how do we spend the existing 

funds that we have to ensure that we get the biggest return on investment. Certainly, again, as we have pointed out, that the trust 

fund was established to build the national highway system and 

that is where the—— 

Senator SANDERS. But do you disagree that given the deterioration of the national infrastructure, that we don’t need more money? 

Mr. RIDLEY. No, I think, Senator, with all due respect, I think 

that the State DOTs, it is not our position to tell the Members of 

Congress how to fund the transportation system. I think it is our 

job to explain the problems we have the rules and regulations that 

are set in place, as well as the condition of the system and how it 

is deteriorating. I think that Congress has to make those decisions. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Thank you very much. 
105 

Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, Gary said that much better than I could 

have, I think. One comment that I would make is that in Wyoming 

at the legislative level, at the State legislature level, there is a very 

similar debate going on. There is a growing acknowledgment of the 

need for funding for transportation infrastructure. There are multiple studies going on during the interim between sessions this 

year. 

The argument over whether or not the need exists has ceased. 

Now, it is an argument over where the money will come from. 

Senator SANDERS. There is an agreement now that you need 

more money, is what you are saying? 

Mr. COX. There is certainly agreement there, and I recognize the 

obvious nature of the need for more revenue. Again, like Director 

Ridley said, our position has been to communicate the magnitude 

of the need. 

But also, there is one comment that I want to make with regard 

to the VMT tax. The vehicles miles traveled by the average driver 

in Wyoming is the highest in the Nation at about 17,000 miles per 

year. So when that is taken into consideration, how do you integrate into that equation how to—— 

Senator SANDERS. So you are suggesting that a VMT tax might 

be unfair to rural areas? 

Mr. COX. It might have a disparate impact on rural drivers unless there is some way to mitigate that. 

Senator SANDERS. Good. OK. Great. 

Thank you all very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Cox, the map that you included in your testimony I 

thought really highlighted the connectivity challenges that we face 

in Wyoming and Idaho and Montana and North and South Dakota. 

As Senator Baucus has said, Montana and Wyoming allow the flow 

of commerce to move from coast to coast. These are the bridge 

States that keep our transportation system whole. 

Could you elaborate a little bit on the national consequences of 

not adequately funding the rural States like Wyoming and Montana? 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, Senator Barrasso, first of all, I guess I 

would start by saying that Wyoming historically is like many other 

States, I think: very dependent on Federal funding to take care of, 

particularly, the Interstate highways. There was a term used by 

my colleague from Alabama. I can’t remember exactly what it was, 

but what we call I–80 in Wyoming is the thousand-pound gorilla. 

The fact is, and this is from an established study, I–80 would 

take all of our Federal funding. If Federal funding remained flat 

for the next 25 years, I–80 would take all of the Federal funding 

that Wyoming receives to preserve it in its present condition, without adding bridges, without adding off-ramps and on-ramps; without any notion of capacity addition or anything like that. 

So the need is obvious. Any cessation or any loss of Federal funds 

is going to have a dramatic impact on that. A few years ago, I 
106 

learned that about 20 percent of the American population lives 

within several hundred mile radius of Chicago. Many of the goods 

that serve that population enter the United States at the western 

ports: L.A./Long Beach, Oakland and Seattle. Most of those goods 

travel by rail and by highway across the rural States in order to 

get to that population center. It spreads out from there. 

So, the whole idea of funding these rural bridge States in an ongoing sense is absolutely critical, in my opinion. 

Senator BARRASSO. You testified that there was a time when the 

Federal Highway Administration was truly a resource for the 

States and the Departments of Transportation, and for contractors. 

But over the past years, the Highway Program has become more 

and more complicated. Red tape continues to slow projects, and 

that, of course, drives up the cost. 

There are so many things I think that Washington gets wrong, 

States get right. Can you talk a little bit about a few of the areas 

where Federal regulations could be maybe scaled back to allow the 

highway dollars to go further? 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, Senator Barrasso, I guess I would reiterate the comments that I made just a little bit earlier about avoiding additional regulations in the new bill. Again, giving NEPA hard 

deadlines for all comment periods involved in the process we think 

is critical. I agree with Mr. Ridley’s comments in the broad context 

of any kind of reconstruction that takes place within the footprint 

of existing facilities needs a categorical exclusion granted. 

Senator BARRASSO. When you came in and I mentioned to you, 

Director Cox, that this was quite an impressive panel. You said, 

you know, Gary Ridley is the real deal. Listen to this guy. 

Mr. Ridley, is there anything that you would like to add, I have 

another minute or so left, that you think we haven’t heard yet on 

this committee? 

Mr. RIDLEY. No, sir. I think the committee has asked questions 

that were pertinent to the topic. I certainly think that my colleagues from the other States have a good grasp of the situation. 

Hopefully, Members of Congress will listen to these learned gentlemen and women that you could help the situation. It certainly 

needs our full attention. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Director Cox, anything else that you would like to add? 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the general question was raised a little 

while ago about a 3-year bill versus a 6-year bill. Obviously, the 

optimum for the States and their ability to plan in a long-range 

sense is a 6-year bill. 

I think we fully appreciate the difficulty of funding for the bill, 

but the longer we have that we can predict funding, whether it’s 

Federal funding or State funding, the better off we are in the planning sense. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
107 

Let me first request that an article entitled ‘‘Rhode Island Has 

the Fourth Worst Bridges in the Nation’’ be, by unanimous consent, 

made a matter of record. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

[The referenced document follows:] 
108 
109 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Unfortunately for the Ranking Member, 

Oklahoma is one of the three States that has a higher percentage 

than Rhode Island of structurally deficient bridges, but we clearly 

share an intense concern about this. I wanted to ask Mike Lewis, 

our DOT director, in that vein to talk a little bit about the, you 

mentioned it during your testimony, but elaborate a little bit on the 

situation with the Providence Viaduct. 

First of all, does that count as a bridge, even though it looks like 

one. It is not over a body of water or anything. It is kind of a highway interchange, goes right by the mall in Providence. You drive 

underneath it and you look up and there are boards that have been 

put across the I-beams underneath it to prevent exactly what happened in Oklahoma. It is falling through and if it were to fall on 

somebody, they could be hurt or killed. So they have this juryrigged wooden net, I guess, to protect against pieces falling on the 

traffic below. 

We really need to solve that problem. It is I–95 going right 

through Providence, and if it were to go, it would be really very significant in terms of its regional economic impact. 

Mike? 

Mr. LEWIS. Absolutely, Senator. You are absolutely right. As I 

mentioned earlier, it is one of probably 160 structurally deficient 

bridges in the State. For many States that is a small number, but 

relative to Rhode Island, it is a very large number. I–95 is the lifeblood of the State. It is the corridor from New York to Boston and 

on up the East Coast and on down to Washington. 

So if we were put in a position of having to post the Providence 

Viaduct with weight limits or, God forbid, close it, you would be basically cutting off the Interstate corridor through the State and cutting off the capital city. There are no good detours unlike the Pawtucket River Bridge that we are currently detouring commercial 

traffic. 

The current posted bridges in the State of Rhode Island add up 

to over 800 miles of detour routes. So every day, the commercial 

traffic that has to detour around these posted bridges is incurring 

an aggregate of 800 miles of detours for those posted bridges. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. At huge cost to the trucking industry and 

the shippers and the people who are receiving the goods. 

Mr. LEWIS. Just an example of that, one posted bridge in the city 

of Cranston had the RIPTA, our transit agency, had to detour the 

bus route around that bridge. That single detour of a single bus 

route cost the transit agency over $300,000 in additional operating 

costs that 1 year; one bus route because of the detour. Multiply 

that with commercial. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So you can extrapolate that. So the costs 

of all this are very high. One of the solutions that we have proposed in Rhode Island is to put tolls on I–95 to generate some of 

our own funding since the Federal funding is insufficient for these 

purposes. 

I can remember driving through Connecticut when I–95 was 

tolled in Connecticut and it was a pain in the neck because at each 

toll plaza you bottlenecked and you had to wait. When that cleared, 

it was a real blessing to everybody. 
110 

Could you describe a little bit what the toll technology is like 

now with respect to toll plaza bottlenecks? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, I think the technology today is vastly different 

from that which you described. New Hampshire recently, just a 

year ago, introduced open road tolling at their Hampton toll plaza 

on I–95, which had previously been a cash-only facility. The 

backups in traffic have virtually been eliminated. You can travel 

through the toll plaza using an EZ pass transponder at highway 

speeds, so safety is completely eliminated as an issue for cash toll 

plazas. 

There are other roadways across the country and in Canada and 

around the world that are completely electronic, and that may be 

an opportunity in the future. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So it takes the hassle out of tolling. 

Mr. LEWIS. It really does. It takes the hassle out. Again, it is a 

user fee that goes directly into that facility, and increased flexibility for States where it is appropriate to utilize that in the upcoming bill would be very beneficial. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In the end of my time, I complimented you 

on the intensity of the effort you put into getting the Recovery Act 

funding out into Rhode Island. Can you comment on what you saw 

in terms of jobs and additional economic activity based on the way 

the Recovery Act was spent in Rhode Island? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, in the small State of Rhode Island, we were, as 

you know, Senator, one of the largest, most impacted States in 

terms of the economy. We are still one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. 

By putting a number of jobs out for Rhode Island, spreading 

across the State geographically, as well as different types of work 

to get as many contractors and labor to work. We were able to keep 

people from becoming unemployed in the construction industry as 

much as putting people in new jobs. 

So it was very much of a benefit to the State and transportation 

infrastructure investments, those are good jobs. They have a ripple 

effect. The investment goes back into the local economy. 

So I think certainly an increased investment in infrastructure 

has a positive beneficial impact on local and regional economies, as 

well as obviously the national economy. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time is expired. I thank the Chairman 

and the Ranking Member. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I appreciate you all being here, appreciate the testimony. 

One of the things, and it just is a recurring theme here and was 

a recurring theme in the House for the 9 years that I was there, 

is all of the bureaucracy and things that go on. It seems like that 

was one of the first things that we were talking about. Well, it was. 

We discussed it then, and if anything, the bureaucracy has increased significantly in the last 9 years. 

We had the study in the last reauthorization that came out that, 

you know, highlighted this. Yet, we have just got to address that 

problem. That truly is a cost-saver in a very difficult financial time. 

So we do appreciate your testimony in that regard. 
111 

Mr. Smith, we had the opportunity to visit the other day about 

some of these issues. You mentioned your views on electric cars for 

the vehicles that are doing the services like yourself at FedEx and 

then maybe the Frito-Lay people. 

Can you talk a little bit about electric cars and where you see 

that going in the future? The reason I bring that up is that that 

is an area where because they would not be participating in the gas 

tax, it is another reason that we really do need to figure out in a 

very fair way how we get around that. 

I think coming from Alabama, Mr. Cooper, you brought up the 

fact about the fact that some of our rural States, you know, so 

much traveling is done. If you go to some other system, how do you 

get all that stuff worked out? 

But could you comment a little bit about the electric cars and 

where you see that going in the future? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Senator, I made some comments earlier on this, 

but electrification is a real opportunity for the country to significantly reduce energy consumption in general. When combined with 

maximizing our own resources in this country, we could significantly reduce the amount of imported petroleum that we use. I 

gave the projection we could actually reduce it from about 14 million barrels a day estimated in 2035 to about 4 million barrels a 

day. 

On the gasoline taxes, I also mentioned we support a VMT, but 

as was noted a few moments ago and as we suggested to deal with 

congestion, the use of modern RFID taxes can give all kinds of information and things could be tweaked in many different ways. The 

larger vehicles that are used in commercial transport get about 5.9 

miles per gallon. So by definition, they pay a higher gas tax into 

the system because they use more gas. 

Well, if you go to a VMT, the transponder needs to be able to say, 

you know, I am a heavy truck. The VMT mileage for that truck 

might be different. Similarly, for State roads or rural transportation, which on a gasoline tax if you are driving more miles and 

you have an inefficient vehicle, you are going to pay a lot of gasoline tax relative to somebody that is using a commute in a metropolitan areas for 10 miles a day. 

So you can adjust the VMT actually easier once you move to that 

kind of velocity. That is why we support that and transportation 

demand management in the major metropolitan areas. 

The University of Texas, I think, estimated by the way that the 

cost of congestion in just the top 15 or 20 markets in the United 

States cost the economy about $115 billion a year. So there is a lot 

of improvement that can be made by going to a VMT and transportation demand management. 

Senator BOOZMAN. With the added axles and things, do you agree 

that the heavier trucks are harder on the roads? 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. The heavier the weight of the vehicle, it 

puts—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. Even if you distribute the load out? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, it certainly makes a difference, but it is, like 

our airplanes, you know, we have a six-wheel dolly or four-wheel 

dolly. It distributes the weight and it is better, but it is the absolute weight that deteriorates the runway. A Cessna doesn’t put as 
112 

much wear and tear on the Oklahoma City airport as one of our 

wide-bodies. In the highway area, that would be true. 

Now, having said that, we very much support efficiency improvements in vehicles. One of the things in my testimony is a recommendation that the so-called pups, the 28-foot vehicles, be permitted to go to 33 feet. If you saw these vehicles on the road, you 

wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two. 

They are actually more stable and safer, according to our drivers. 

You get about 18 percent fuel improvement. You can carry more 

weight, but again under a VMT, you can account for that given the 

type of vehicle because it can tell the transponder as it goes 

through the EZ pass location, I am a 33-foot twin trailer rig operating for FedEx or UPS or Conway or whoever the case may be. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

Mr. Smith, I really want to thank you for your detailed presentation and your Co-Chairmanship of the Energy Security Leadership Council. Many of the issues that you are talking about in 

there are ones that I am deeply interested in. I put out last year 

a report, America Over the Barrel, that highlighted many of the 

same issues. It is tremendous to have you working on this. My staff 

is passing me a copy here. 

But I also want to thank you for the leadership of FedEx in this 

regard. I believe you all have been using quite a lot of hybrid 

Navistar vehicles, but you are having delivery of completely electric 

vehicles starting this year, maybe 400 vehicles, something of that 

nature. 

Mr. SMITH. We have I think about 400 hybrids, and we are just 

starting to get delivery of the all-electrics. I think we have like 25 

of those, but that fleet will grow substantially in years to come. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK. I think I saw a press release today that 

by the end of the year, the all-electrics were going to be in the hundreds in your company. I am not sure if that was right or not, but 

in that regard, is the range sufficient to get one through the day, 

if you will in terms of fulfilling the type of urban routes that you 

have? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, the battery technology that is out there today 

can give you about a 100-mile range, legitimate range, because you 

are going over hills or whatever the case may be. There are a significant number of our pickup and delivery routes that can be 

served with all-electrics. 

In the next 5 years, we believe that the battery technology will 

allow a doubling of the range and probably come close to halving 

the battery cost. Then you open up a broader perspective. 

On a personal side, about 75 percent to 80 percent of personal 

vehicles in the United States and light-duty vehicles are driven less 

than 40 miles per day. Now, clearly if you use it to commute every 

day and then you want to go on a vacation, that is an issue. But 

as far as urban or city transportation, all-electrics in the years to 
113 

come will offer a very big opportunity to use less fuel, create fewer 

emissions and reduce our dependence on imported petroleum. 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. As you know. You are one of the authors of the Act 

to solve this problem. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, I want to praise my colleagues. Senator 

Snowe has been very involved and is the chief cosponsor of our bill 

for a National Energy Security Council to take and create an organization that would carry a vision for ending our addiction to foreign oil over multiple Administrations over a couple of decades. 

Senator Lamar Alexander is co-sponsor of the electric vehicle bill 

and been very involved on that front. 

But I also love and want to recognize that utilizing that either 

hybrid or electric technology allows you to recapture the energy lost 

by everyone else when we come to a stop every block, if you will, 

and those energy savings are enormous. 

I wanted to turn, and Mr. Cox and Mr. Ridley, I think both of 

you mentioned performance measures in your written testimony. I 

have a bill that encourages cities over 500,000 to establish a baseline of performance metrics. They choose the metrics, so it is not 

a national vision. 

Those metrics might be congestion. They might be greenhouse 

gas emissions and so on and so forth. Then calls for them to develop multiple transportation scenarios to weigh them against that 

metric as they proceed in transportation planning. 

This is essentially so that we get more bang for the buck, if you 

will. But I just wanted to ask you all if that kind of fit into your 

sense of whether or not there is value in the performance measure 

perspective. 

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, Senator Merkley, in the broad sense, it 

would be accurate to say that every State Department of Transportation measures front way, back way and cross-wise. So, there is 

a lot of performance measurement going on. We believe in that. I 

think there is consensus in the transportation community that performance measurement is critical. 

From Wyoming’s perspective, what is important is not to impose 

performance measurement in a transportation bill. I think the biggest thing to avoid would be paving the way for a Federal agency 

to measure and pit State DOTs against one another, and further 

and more dramatically, even incentivize or disincentivize agencies 

based upon how they compare with other States’ performance 

measures. 

In the broad sense, we support performance measurement. That 

is how we live in our world. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Ridley. 

Mr. RIDLEY. Mr. Chairman, Senator, I certainly agree with Director Cox in his assessments of performance measures. In taking it 

one step farther, I think it is important in any performance measure, you ought to have a return on investment. You cannot compare one community, one State, one region how they are able to 

perform and perform for improvement, make improvements, without first taking into account the moneys that they have available, 
114 

either local, State or Federal funds. So somehow you have to have 

a return on investment. 

The other thing I think that is an important component on performance measures is I think that the Federal Government and the 

resource agencies ought to have, as Mr. Cox again pointed out, a 

performance measure on how well they do their business in reacting to our requests. So I think that that is certainly an important 

aspect of any performance measure. 

So as we progress through a project delivery system, that the resource agencies of the Federal Government are also graded on their 

performance. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you both very much. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Smith, I would like for you to just give us a sense of the importance of the facility you have in Butte, Montana. You have a 

transfer facility there. It is right off the Interstate. In fact, two 

Interstates cross there at Butte, MT. 

So as we write a bill, a national bill, if you could give us a sense 

of the importance and the relevance of the national system in the 

context of a rural State like Montana, especially that new facility 

you have in Butte. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Senator, as you pointed out and some of the 

others, we have a national economy. The ability to trade and exchange goods between Butte and every other point in the United 

States is a huge part of the dynamic of our GDP. We have several 

very important facilities in Montana: the one in Great Falls, which 

you are familiar with, our express location there at the airport; the 

new Butte location is at an intersection there in your State that 

is very productive. 

So you can’t deal with this issue on just a State-by-State basis. 

It has to be done at national funding level and then complemented, 

you know, for the rural and less national infrastructure on a different basis. So the dollars should be apportioned as part of a national system and not as part of a balkanized system, in our opinion. 

Senator BAUCUS. I am just a little frustrated by how we pay for 

all this. To be honest, I have been involved in many highway bills. 

They are basically 6-year bills. I cannot remember a time as challenging as today, with all the different forces converging. One is 

the Trust Fund is deteriorating. That is a big one. The politics in 

our country today, it is very, very difficult to get additional revenue. 

Obviously, the costs are going up because fuel is going up, equipment is more expensive, asphalt is more expensive. You have to 

just keep up. 

Also we have to compete internationally. Other countries have 

very up to date infrastructure systems. It is incredible. Not long 

ago, I was over in China, Chongqing, and was stunned when I got 

off the plane at the airport. It was one of the most fancy modern 

airports I have seen. Then I drove on the highway. It is a big Interstate highway system. My gosh, it rivals ours. Chongqing is a city 

population of about 30 million people. 

I asked the Mayor, where did you get all the money to build this 

highway? A little sheepishly, he said, well, the central government 
115 

just gave them the money and built this big highway. I thought, 

gee, that is pretty neat. Too bad we can’t do more of that in the 

United States. 

Of course, to be honest, I found out later that they do not use 

their reserves for projects like this, although in China the central 

government decides where all the money goes. As you know, it is 

Chinese policy to move out to the west and central China, and so 

forth. 

But that is just a diversion, although it is challenging because 

we have this big national debt, some of it owned by China in their 

currency reserves, which makes it harder for us to come up with 

additional revenue to borrow more, if you will, or to tax more. 

After that, it is just all the changes in technologies. We talked 

about electrification of fleets. I think we should move in that direction to the degree that seems to make sense. Then all the tensions 

between urban on the one hand and rural on the other. 

Ms. Thomas, I understand your concerns. You live in a community where livability is really important. Of course, it is important 

to all our communities, but it is a certain kind of livability that is 

important in Las Cruces. 

So I just urge us all to keep working on this. One thing I think 

we need to do, I am reminded a little bit of efforts that we undertook a few years ago on an earlier highway bill, and Senator Byrd 

did a super job, Senator Robert Byrd, and in going around the 

room, all the groups were working on a highway bill. He asked 

each person in the room: Stand up and say what you are doing to 

generate support for this highway bill? What are you doing? What 

are you doing? All the way around. 

Then we met again about, oh, maybe a month later and he went 

back again: What have you done? And so forth. 

I mention that because we might more easily find ways to finance our transportation system the more all of us, clearly all of 

you, go out and generate support in your communities, to your Governors, your Mayors, your legislators and so forth. There is just a 

dire need that we have facing us. Oklahoma and Rhode Island 

bridges, for example, and the other example, I have forgotten what 

it was, Interstate 80, I guess, in Oklahoma. My gosh, level funding 

just doesn’t quite take care of it. 

So I just urge all of us to step up because Congress tends to respond, frankly. It doesn’t lead a lot. It tends to respond to what the 

people at home want. So I urge you to help generate some enthusiasm here so we can find some resources to finance what we need 

to do. 

OK. Thank you very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

I would like to welcome our witnesses to this important hearing. I am especially 

pleased that Fred Smith is here. Mr. Smith is the CEO of FedEx and Chairman 

of a group called the Energy Security Leadership Council. Given that FedEx delivers 8.5 million packages per day, Mr. Smith knows a thing or two about transpor-
116 

tation. I am looking forward to hearing from Mr. Smith on his thoughts about the 

U.S. transportation system. 

I am also looking forward to hearing from Mr. Smith about the impact of America’s dependence on foreign oil. This is a topic that I am very concerned about, and 

here is why: The United States consumes close to 19 million barrels of oil per day. 

Of that 19 million barrels, about 70 percent, or 13 million barrels, is consumed in 

transportation. Our planes, trains and automobiles consume nearly twice as much 

oil as is consumed by the entire economy of any other country. Let me say that 

again. The U.S. transportation system consumes nearly twice as much oil as is consumed by the entire economy of any other country. 

Today, every American is feeling the consequences of our dependence on foreign 

oil. The average price of regular, unleaded gas is now three dollars and eighty cents. 

The price of gas has risen a full dollar since last year. We will likely see a national 

average of four dollars per gallon in the near future. These prices are hurting the 

household budgets of every American and the profitability of our businesses. They 

are also hurting economic recovery. 

Mark Zandi, an economist at Moody’s, recently said, ‘‘The surge in oil prices since 

the end of last year is already doing significant damage to the economy.’’ So, this 

leads to an important question: Is our dependence on foreign oil good for the United 

States? I believe the answer is a resounding ‘‘NO’’. It is bad for our economy and 

it is bad for our national security. The good news is that we are starting to head 

in the right direction. 

The Obama administration has fast-tracked new CAFE standards to reach 36 

miles per gallon by 2016 and is currently working on ambitious targets that will 

extend to 2025. These standards have the potential to reduce U.S. oil consumption 

by 20 percent. While this is a significant improvement, we must go further. 

The decisions we make in this committee will have significant impact on our dependence on foreign oil. As this committee develops a new transportation bill, we 

have an opportunity to create a 21st Century transportation system that consumes 

less foreign oil, not more. 

First, we must establish a national goal for reducing transportation oil consumption. This goal should be incorporated into the states’ long-range transportation 

plans so that our local partners are working toward the same goal. Second, we must 

target areas with high congestion and offer transportation options that are less petroleum-intensive. Our dependence on foreign oil is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue and the solutions need not be political. Reducing foreign oil imports 

will improve our national security and strengthen the economy. 

I am looking forward to working with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member 

Inhofe to make sure the transportation bill takes us in the right direction. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

VERMONT

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman for calling this hearing on the next surface 

transportation bill. 

I would like to welcome Brian Searles, Vermont’s Secretary of Transportation. 

Brian has only been on the job a few months, but he is no stranger to transportation 

issues. In fact, this is his second stint as Transportation Secretary during more than 

40 years in public service. Brian has been the director of Burlington International 

Airport; he has been a police chief, a city manager, the director of the Vermont 

Criminal Justice Training Council, the State Commissioner of Personnel, and the 

Deputy Secretary of Administration. Welcome, Secretary Searles. 

Brian is going to talk about an issue that is very important to me: rural and small 

State concerns in the transportation bill. 

To my mind, it is very unfortunate that urban and rural interests are sometimes 

framed as being in opposition with one another. There is an idea held by some people that transportation money spent on rural areas is money ill-spent. That rural 

transportation projects simply do not have sufficient ‘‘cost-benefit’’ to merit Federal 

funding. That the only reason rural projects get funded at all is because of political 

considerations. 

Madame Chairwoman, I’m sure you agree that rural areas contribute greatly to 

this nation’s economy. Our Federal transportation policy must address rural needs 

just as it must meet the needs of our Nation’s largest ports, urban transit systems, 

and more heavily traveled highways and bridges. 

While it is absolutely appropriate for this committee to focus greater attention on 

‘‘projects of national significance,’’ we must also take into account projects of regional significance, as well. 
117 

When we debate new financing mechanisms—like the National Infrastructure 

Bank—we must make sure they are useful for rural projects, and not just for largescale, revenue-producing projects. 

As we consider funding formulas and programs, we must make sure that rural 

areas are not left behind. I congratulate my colleague, Senator Barrasso, for introducing a rural mobility bill last session in response to a proposal that would have 

directed $50 billion just for urban mobility projects. 

The reality is that the current system for planning, building and maintaining infrastructure is not keeping up with the needs of rural America. Let me quickly mention a few challenges. 

It is no secret that low-income rural residents, the elderly, and the disabled have 

few transportation options. Thirty-eight percent of rural residents live in areas that 

have no public transit options at all—and the transit options that do exist are very 

limited. 

The rural poor have to drive long distances—often in older model cars that get 

poor gas mileage—to get to low paying jobs, to see a doctor, or to go to school. A 

recent study showed that rural households in the lowest 20 percent income bracket 

spend an average of 42 percent of their limited incomes on transportation. Fortytwo percent. That doesn’t leave a whole lot for other basic needs, like shelter, food, 

clothing and healthcare. 

Meanwhile, America’s rural infrastructure is old, and outdated. In my State of 

Vermont, just under a third of our bridges are either ‘‘structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,’’ and fully 60 percent of those have structural deficiencies. It is 

well beyond the capacity of a small State like ours to make these urgently needed 

bridge repairs. 

According to the Federal Highway Administration, 36 percent of Vermont’s Federal aid roadways are rated ‘‘not acceptable’’ and are in need of major repairs or 

replacement. 

Given the need to drive long distances and the condition of rural roads, it is not 

surprising that the rural highway fatality rate is more than twice the urban rate 

per mile driven. 

Let me conclude by saying this: We have heard in previous hearings about the 

dire need to invest in our nation’s roads, bridges, transit, and high speed rail. We 

have heard that failure to make these investments could jeopardize our long-term 

economic competitiveness in the global economy. We have heard that investing in 

infrastructure supports millions of decent paying jobs that cannot be out-sourced or 

off-shored. 

I strongly believe the next surface transportation bill can address the enormous 

infrastructure needs of our cities—which we all know have been ignored for far too 

long—as well as the needs of rural America. We, as a Nation, can and must do both. 

Let’s get it done. Let’s reinvest in America. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Thank you, Senator Baucus for holding this hearing to focus on issues critical for 

surface transportation reauthorization. I am pleased to welcome today a witness 

from Las Cruces, New Mexico. Councilwoman and Mayor Pro-Tem Sharon Thomas. 

Since being elected to the City Council, Sharon has been working with the city 

of Las Cruces and the Las Cruces MPO to enhance their transportation system. 

While improving mobility for vehicles, the City and MPO have also been successful 

in improving modal choices for all members of the community as well as making 

the system overall safer through programs like safe routes to school and complete 

streets. 

Transportation reauthorization is critical for our states and local communities. We 

need to work together to provide a long term reauthorization bill so that they are 

able to plan ahead. They need to know what funding will be available to determine 

what maintenance needs will be able to be met and where critical capacity expansion can occur. 

But the reauthorization bill also provides us with an opportunity to change the 

way our system is developed. We need to ensure that vehicles can get efficiently 

from their origin to their destination—we also need to improve mode choice for people who cannot or choose not to drive. When people are able to take the bus, walk 

or ride their bike to their destination, there are fewer cars on the road which leads 

to less congestion. 

Too often the discussion about providing bike lanes or sidewalks or more buses 

is focused on taking funding away from our ‘core’ transportation focus, roadways. 

While that may be, on one level, correct, it is not entirely accurate. Successful bike, 
118 

walk and transit projects are often located within the densest part of any community. In the sections of town, where there is no longer room to add additional roadway capacity. By providing mode options, capacity is often increased and not, as 

many argue, decreased. 

In most cases, communities where these investments are made also enjoy external 

benefits beyond roadway capacity improvements. Areas of town, that accommodate 

all users become desired places to live and to work—they become safer for vehicles 

and for pedestrians and cyclists—economic development opportunities increase—and 

the people who live and work in these areas become healthier through more exercise 

and better air quality. 

As we continue to discuss reauthorization it is critical that we look at our nation’s 

transportation system and find areas in which we can improve. I look forward to 

hearing the ideas of the witnesses and working together with the members of this 

committee to incorporate those ideas into a long term surface transportation bill. 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 

Æ