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

25–914 PDF 2017

MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST 

CENTURY [MAP–21] PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC ASSETS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 8, 2015 

Serial No. 114–146 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK, MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Massachusetts 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

MICHAEL KIKO, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Transportation and Public Assets 

SARAH VANCE, Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC ASSETS

JOHN L. MICA Florida, Chairman 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. Tennessee 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois, Ranking 

Member 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 8, 2015 ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Thomas Echikson, Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Mr. David S. Zachry, Chairman, American Road and Transportation Builders 

Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Mr. Carlos Swonke, Director, Environmental Affairs Division, Texas Department of Transportation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21ST 

CENTURY [MAP–21] PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION 

Tuesday, December 8, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC

ASSETS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:14 p.m., in Room 

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Mica, DeSaulnier, and Duckworth. 

Mr. MICA. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone and 

call this hearing of the subcommittee of Government Oversight and 

Reform. Our subcommittee’s title is Transportation and Public Assets. I call this hearing to order. 

Welcome, everyone. And we will probably have some votes, but 

I would like to try to get our witnesses heard, and if we have to 

go back and forth, we will have to recess during those votes. 

The title of today’s subcommittee hearing is ‘‘Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century’’ talking about MAP–21 and some of 

the program consolidation elimination and where we are with that. 

We have three official witnesses. The Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation has two folks who will be 

participating also. 

So the order of business will be opening statements, and I will 

start with mine and will defer to other Members. We will leave the 

record open for a period of 10 days for additional testimony or comments from Members or questions for our panelists. 

So with that, I will start with my opening remarks, and then I 

will yield to Ms. Duckworth. 

Today’s hearing is being called—it is kind of interesting because 

this is the eve, the end of MAP–21 legislation we adopted a little 

over 3 years ago, and I had the chance to chair the committee at 

that time. It is commonly known as MAP–21. And within the last 

few days, we have enacted new legislation, FAST legislation, I 

guess, is the nickname for it. But it carries on where a lot of the 

policy which was established in MAP–21 some 3 years ago set forth 

a whole series of significant changes, some consolidation, some 

elimination of programs, and also importantly, devolution to some 

of the States. We tried to expedite a process, tried to eliminate, 

again, some of the duplications, and save taxpayers money, put 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

more money in the hands of those who are actually doing these infrastructure projects. 

So this is one of the first times that we have had a chance to 

look at where we have been with MAP–21, and then we want to 

build on that with the new legislation just signed into law. And if 

there are some problems with operational standpoint from the Department, I know they try to comply but I think this is a good time 

to see how they have complied and get some of the facts as to what 

they have done to try to streamline the process, eliminate some of 

the duplication, and then devolve to those closest to projects the actual responsibility. 

So we know that section 1301 of MAP–21 tasks the Secretary 

with identifying opportunities for States to assume responsibilities 

for again a whole host of activities, permitting being one of them, 

and then actually operating and functioning in some of the responsibilities previously tasked in Washington to the Federal Government. 

So we said specifically in the bill that we want that done in a 

manner that protects public health, the environment, and also involves public participation. 

So today, we are here to see again, take an inventory of where 

we are, where we have come, and where we need to go. We will 

look at the secretarial responsibilities such as environmental permitting or determinations regarding environmental rule. We want 

to judge if DOT has made available some of those opportunities for 

States. We will probably hear some problems. We will probably 

hear some success stories, I think, from one of our witnesses. 

So our focus today is, again, whether the provisions of MAP–21 

that were intended to make DOT more efficient and provide more 

flexibilities and devolve responsibilities to the State and other entities are in fact achieving the objectives we set out for. 

So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and participation. I think this can be a very positive lead into the new legislation that we have just adopted. 

Mr. MICA. So those are my opening comments. Let me now yield 

to our distinguished ranking member Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will have to 

rely on your expertise since I was not here when MAP–21 was 

passed. And I am sure the institutional knowledge that you have 

will be very valuable in this hearing. 

I want to thank you for holding today’s hearing on MAP–21. This 

important bipartisan legislation included very important provisions 

that consolidated service transportation programs and mandated 

the use of performance management measures. 

Congress has an essential oversight role in ensuring that these 

good government reforms are implemented properly, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the state of that implementation. 

Last week, I was proud to join 358 of my colleagues in the House to pass the FAST Act, which authorizes approximately $300 billion 

to be invested in Federal highway and public transportation 

projects over the next 5 years. 

Most importantly, this bipartisan act addressed my three transportation policy priorities, it provides States and industry with a 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

certainty, it strengthens public safety, and invests in innovative, 

multimodal transit solutions. When I travel home to Illinois’ Eighth 

Congressional District, my local transportation community is constantly asking me why Washington can’t come together to compromise on a long-term solution, and they have grown frustrated 

with the short-term, kick-the-can, bandaid fixes that prevent States 

and local government from effectively planning long-term projects. 

So I am especially pleased that Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that includes 5 years of funding 

at adequate levels. I am particularly relieved that, according to the 

Illinois Department of Transportation, the FAST Act will provide 

my home State with nearly $3 billion in public transit investments, 

the fourth-highest allotment behind only New York, California, and 

New Jersey, and approximately $7.5 billion in total highway investments. 

However, it is important to note that while the FAST Act represents progress, it is far from perfect. Indeed, I am cosponsoring 

the GROW AMERICA Act, which authorizes $478 billion to rebuild 

our infrastructure over a 6-year period. I am on record supporting 

a bill that would provide States with even greater levels of investment and certainty than the FAST Act. 

In my view, investing in American infrastructure is the ultimate 

taxpayer win-win. It sustains well-paying American transportation 

industry jobs and it creates new ones. Investing in American infrastructure is one of the most effective fiscal policy options to increase economic growth and employment. And yet, despite our nation’s crumbling system of roads and bridges and the public support for investing their tax dollars in local projects that create new 

American jobs, Congress remains unable or unwilling to dramatically increase investments in our transportation system. 

At the same time, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave 

America’s roads a grade of D in its 2013 Infrastructure Report 

Card, and furthermore, their 2014 report card for my home State 

of Illinois the findings are just as disturbing. The report states that 

severe traffic congestion costs Illinois’ economy billions of dollars in 

lost productivity each year. Congestion is estimated to cost approximately $4 billion annually for the Chicago area alone, and 42 percent of Illinois’ major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Driving on those roads cost Illinois motorists $3.7 billion a year in extra 

vehicle repairs and operating costs. This is simply unacceptable, especially when multiplied by 50. 

The FAST Act is a step in the right direction, but further action 

is needed. I would simply note that it is my hope that over the next 

5 years Congress can work in a bipartisan fashion to develop a 

truly sustainable and long-term infrastructure solution for our nation. 

Throughout our nation’s history, our economic growth has been 

driven by significant infrastructure investments from the construction of the Erie Canal in 1807 to the creation of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 to President Eisenhower’s visionary establishment of the interstate highway system in the 1950s. It is 

our responsibility to preserve this proud legacy and continue in 

making important investments to enhance America’s ability to 

thrive and compete well into the 21st century. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

Again, I would like to thank you for holding the hearing, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. And again, we will leave the 

record open for other Members who wish to submit a statement. 

And now, I would like to recognize our panel of witnesses. I am 

pleased to welcome first Mr. Thomas Echikson. And he is the chief 

counsel at the Federal Highway Administration, Department of 

Transportation. Mr. Echikson is accompanied by two experts from 

the Federal Highway Administration, and I am going to swear 

them in, too, which we will do everyone in just a few minutes. One 

of those is staffer Brian Bezio, chief financial officer of the Federal 

Highway Administration. The other is Mr. Peter Stephanos, who is 

director of the Office of Transportation Performance Management 

of FHWA. 

I also welcome Mr. David Zachry, chairman of the American 

Road and Transportation Builders Association. 

And then our other witness is Mr. Carlos Swonke, and is the director of Environmental Affairs at the Texas Department of Transportation. We appreciate his traveling up to be with us and his participation today. 

So I want to welcome all of you. This is an investigations and 

oversight subcommittee, so I will ask all of you to stand and the 

two that are behind you that are going to testify, raise your right 

hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MICA. All of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. And 

we will let the record reflect that. 

I am not sure who has been before us before, but we try to have 

you give us a little 5-minute presentation. If you have lengthy materials you would like added to the record, just request that 

through the chair. 

So we will proceed and we will hear from Mr. Thomas Echikson, 

Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration, USDOT. 

Welcome, sir, and you are recognized. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. ECHIKSON 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Thank you, Chairman Mica and Ranking Member 

Duckworth. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss program consolidation under MAP–21 and provisions within it that 

are designed to accelerate project delivery. 

With me today are Brian Bezio, our Chief Finance Officer; and 

Peter Stephanos, Director of our Office of Transportation Performance Management. They are experts in some of the topics you may 

wish to discuss today and are available to answer questions, as am 

I. 

Before discussing MAP–21, it’s important to mention that just 

last Friday President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act, the FAST Act, into law, marking the first longterm transportation funding bill Congress has passed in 10 years. 

Though the FAST Act isn’t perfect, it reflects bipartisan compromise and ends the long cycle of uncertainty for State DOTs. I 

assure you that the Department is already hard at work impleVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:06 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25914.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

menting the FAST Act, and we will continue to do so in the days 

and months ahead. 

MAP–21 consolidated FHWA’s programs into a smaller number 

of broader programs. These new programs, however, retain and 

continue the eligibilities that have previously existed. This modified program structure provides our grantees with greater flexibility to deliver projects more efficiently. It also allows our grantees 

to make data-driven decisions in order to meet performance targets. 

Notwithstanding MAP–21’s program consolidation, the same activities previously authorized remain eligible for funding under 

MAP–21. As such, neither the number nor the complexity of the 

projects and activities that we oversee has diminished. Throughout 

the country, FHWA personnel remain focused on overseeing a $42 

billion program that is going to grow over the next 5 years, protecting taxpayers by ensuring that Federal funds are spent in accordance with the law. In fact, more than two-thirds of FHWA’s 

employees are located in our field offices working directly with 

State DOTs to deliver projects. 

The cornerstone of MAP–21’s Federal highway program transformation was the adoption of a performance-based program. The 

Department has been working diligently to finalize the performance management rules. As the GAO has recognized, completing 

these rules has been an arduous task. The performance management requirements cover a number of areas at varying maturity 

levels. In some cases we have had to establish the new methods, 

standards, and data sources necessary to implement an effective 

national program. Because State and MPOs will need to comply 

with these new requirements, it has been particularly important 

for DOT to engage with these stakeholders and carefully consider 

the impact on them. 

FHWA is looking forward to the benefits that performance-based 

policy framework will bring in terms of helping States focus their 

expenditures where they are most needed. Implementing the performance management requirements and assisting States and 

MPOs as they transition towards this framework remains a priority at FHWA. We believe performance management is a key tool 

to prepare the Federal-aid Highway Program for the future. 

MAP–21 also included provisions designed to support innovation 

and improve efficiency in the delivery of transportation projects, 

and this complemented the successes of FHWA’s Every Day Counts 

partnership with states, local governments, and the private sector. 

We believe these provisions, together with our EDC efforts, are 

helping move projects from concept to completion more efficiently, 

saving time and money and allowing the public to enjoy the benefits of upgraded infrastructure more quickly. 

Immediately after passage of MAP–21, FHWA began working aggressively to implement these provisions by conducting outreach 

sessions with stakeholders, issuing guidance, and working collaboratively with other Federal agencies. These efforts helped us advance rulemaking and guidance documents in accordance with statutory deadlines and identify and resolve concerns from agency 

partners. We have now completed all the project delivery 

rulemakings with a statutory deadline and continue our broader efVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:06 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25914.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

forts under EDC to improve and expedite the delivery of highway 

projects. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the invitation to appear here 

today on behalf of FHWA. This concludes my remarks, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Echikson follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 25914.001
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 25914.002
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 25914.003
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 25914.004
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 25914.005
12 

Mr. MICA. Okay. And they are not going to give opening testimony, but Brian Bezio and Peter Stephanos, come on up and take 

your chairs here. 

And we will turn to the next witness, which is Mr. David Zachry, 

chairman of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. Welcome, sir, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID S. ZACHRY 

Mr. ZACHRY. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Representative 

Duckworth. I’m David Zachry. I’m CEO and president of Zachry 

Corporation in San Antonio, Texas, and I’m here today on behalf 

of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association 

where I’m honored to serve as the Chairman. 

Chairman Mica, if I can begin by commending you for your leadership over many years in working to cut through the bureaucratic 

red tape that has plagued transportation project planning and approval process. You made great contributions to this effort as the 

lead author of MAP–21. We also appreciate the Subcommittee convening this session to review progress in this area since MAP–21’s 

enactment. 

Project delays not only waste federal resources, they also delay 

mobility and safety enhancements and stifle job and economic 

growth. The 2012 MAP–21 surface transportation law commendably and appropriately attempted to shorten the 9 to 19 months or 

years it takes to plan, gain approval of, and construct a major new 

federally funded highway project. 

Among MAP–21’s many significant reforms was an expansion in 

the use of categorical exclusions, or CEs. A CE is used when 

projects create minimal impacts on the environment. Under MAP– 

21, most TE projects were automatically classified as CEs, including those in response to emergency situations and projects undertaken within an existing right-of-way. 

These—the use of CEs can shave years off an environmental review process. For example, the emergency CE was put in—put to 

use in May 2013 when a truck hit the I–5 Skagit River Bridge in 

Mount Vernon, Washington. Application of the CE allowed repairs 

to the bridge to begin within 24 hours of the accident and allowed 

the bridge to reopen to traffic after only 27 days. 

MAP–21 also expanded the opportunity for states to conduct 

their own environmental reviews. Both California and Texas have 

taken advantage of this opportunity. Ohio is poised to do the same, 

and Florida and Utah have also indicated their interest. 

The initial results are very positive. California said it has been 

able to reduce the amount of time for most—for the most complicated environmental review documents by years. Though Texas 

was only approved for the program late last year, it is estimated 

an average time savings of 25 percent for project reviews. However, 

it’s important to note that these, as well as many other MAP–21 

reforms, are discretionary, not mandatory. The more state and federal agencies choose to use the opportunities afforded by MAP–21, 

the greater will be its impact. 

On a separate topic, MAP–21 included a provision originating in 

the House Reauthorization Proposal directing USDOT to provide 

transparency regarding the use of Federal highway funds. Similar 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
13 

to what the Federal Government did with the highway funds spent 

from the Economic Stimulus Bill, this tool had the potential to provide a real tangible connection to the taxpayers by explaining exactly how the money they sent to the Federal Government is spent 

on projects in their states and communities. More than a year after 

expiration of the MAP–21, these efforts have yet to be started. 

Mr. Chairman, we commend the USDOT for telling the public 

how $27 billion in highway stimulus funds were spent. The same 

treatment should apply to the $80 billion in core highway improvements that occurred over the same time period. 

Unfortunately, there are not many examples yet of the time-and 

money-saving benefits MAP–21 reforms could provide. The MAP– 

21 reforms are aimed at large, complex, very expensive, multiyear 

projects. Without the assurance of stable and predictable long-term 

Federal funding, States are often reluctant to proceed with these 

types of projects. The recent enactment of a 5-year reauthorization 

bill should help remedy this concern. 

Mr. Chairman, Representative Duckworth, ARTBA deeply appreciates the opportunity to take part in today’s discussion. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Zachry follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 25914.007
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 25914.008
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 25914.009
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 25914.010
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 25914.011
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 25914.012
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 25914.013
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 25914.014
22 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. We will hold questions and we will now 

hear from Carlos Swonke. He is the director of environmental affairs, Texas Department of Transportation. Thanks for being with 

us. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF CARLOS SWONKE 

Mr. SWONKE. Thank you. Chairman Mica, Ranking Member 

Duckworth, my name is Carlos Swonke. I am the Director of the 

Environmental Affairs Division at the Texas Department of Transportation. 

TxDOT appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to the 

Subcommittee meeting here today and to provide our experiences 

with implementing some of MAP–21’s environmental streamlining 

initiatives. 

Since the—since its passage and subsequent rulemaking, TxDOT 

has taken advantage of many of the streamlining provisions. In my 

testimony, I’ve also offered comments on program consolidation and 

total interoperability. 

TxDOT environmentally approved over 1,800 projects last year. 

Our project delivery program involves billions of dollars worth of 

projects and is highly dependent upon an environmental process 

that is efficient and predictable. Provisions in MAP–21 helped us 

to improve our efficiency and the predictability of the environmental process. I’ll provide some specific examples here. 

Section 1313 of MAP–21 made permanent the Service Transportation Project Delivery program, which allows States to assume environmental approval authority under the National Environmental 

Policy Act typically reserved for the Federal Highway Administration. In September of 2014, FHWA finalized the rule establishing 

the program. On December 16 of last year, TxDOT and FHWA executed the Memorandum of Understanding allowing TxDOT to participate in the program. 

The general benefits of NEPA assignment come from the removal 

of a layer of review in the environmental process and the increase 

in independent decision-making of the State DOT. 

Even though we have been in the program for a year, it is difficult at this time to quantify the time savings we’ve realized. The 

reason is because larger projects may have an environmental review that extends several years. As such, we have not had the opportunity to start and finish a large project with the NEPA assignment authority. I will say that we are seeing a trend that shows 

that projects being approved with an environmental assessment of 

NEPA classification, these projects are taking closer to 2 years as 

opposed to the average of about 3 years prior to NEPA assignment. 

I can also say that smaller projects—time frames for smaller 

projects that are approved with categorical exclusion determinations are now being measured in days and weeks instead of months 

or years. I’ll talk more about the MAP–21 categorical exclusions in 

a moment. 

I feel confident in saying that TxDOT’s transition to and implementation of NEPA assignment has been successful. We are seeing 

time savings. I can also say that our internal program is more organized and our process more predictable. The success is owed to 

TxDOT leadership, who have been tremendously supportive, and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 

TxDOT environmental staff, who are committed to making the program work. 

As you probably know, California has been working under full 

NEPA assignment program since it was authorized as a pilot program 8 years ago. TxDOT is the first to pursue full NEPA assignment under the MAP–21 changes. I know of at least four other 

states that are pursuing NEPA assignment at this time. They are 

Ohio, Utah, Florida, and Alaska. The six of our States talk frequently. FHWA has also been helpful in facilitating the conversation between the States on this issue. 

Now, I’ll transition over to the MAP–21 categorical exclusions 

and mention one in particular. Section 1316 of MAP–21 created the 

new categorical exclusion for work done in the operational right-ofway. FHWA finalized the rule for this new categorical exclusion on 

January 3 of last year. TxDOT has utilized this categorical exclusion about 343 times over the past year. It is sometimes used for 

routine work where another type of a categorical exclusion may 

have applied, but we’ve also used it for larger projects where a 

more time-consuming environmental assessment would have been 

necessary without the availability of this categorical exclusion. In 

these instances, it has been a terrific time-saver. Given all this talk 

about time savings, you may begin to wonder about compliance or 

if the environment is being sacrificed in any particular way. 

To prepare for NEPA assignment in our program, we made our 

internal process more rigorous. This was also in part to prepare for 

the audits by FHWA, as required by the program. I think it’s fair 

to say that our analysis of project impacts and emphasis on regulatory compliance is as strong as it’s ever been. 

I’ve mentioned here what I think are the largest MAP–21 gamechangers for our environmental program. There are certainly a 

number of other MAP–21 provisions that we’ve used and we’ve 

found to be beneficial. With the limitation on time, I’ll offer up information on these as you see fit or as follow-up, and I’m happy to 

answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Swonke follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 25914.016
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 25914.017
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 25914.018
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 25914.019
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 25914.020
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 25914.021
30 

Mr. MICA. Thank you all. We have about 3 minutes before we are 

going to have to go vote, and you might want to get a—yes, I was 

going to say you might need a little bit more time. 

I understand also, Mr. Swonke, you may have to leave to catch 

a plane. Is that true or —— 

Mr. SWONKE. No. 

Mr. MICA. You are okay? 

Mr. SWONKE. I’m okay. 

Mr. MICA. Oh, good. You are going to have dinner with us. 

Thanks. 

Okay. Well, we are going to recess in just a minute and I want 

to pick up with questions. What have we got? So let me think, 

probably recess for about a half-hour. Yes. Probably recess for 

about a half-hour. We will probably have two votes. If you could 

sort of be back around a little after 3:00, we would appreciate it, 

and then we can get to the questions. So we will stand in recess 

until that time and appreciate your indulgence. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MICA. I would like to call the subcommittee hearing back to 

order. 

And, unfortunately, this is going to continue this afternoon for a 

little while, these interruptions, but we do want to proceed. And I 

will make sure and we will keep the staff advised as to how much 

time we consume with questions. But we will go to some questions, 

and I will start. And then we will afford Ms. Duckworth or the minority as much or more time, whatever they need. 

This is sort of a meat-and-potatoes hearing. It is not a flashy one 

with indictments planned, at least this week. But in any event, the 

purpose of it is, again, as we pass MAP–21, our intent was there 

to try to discontinue some programs at the Federal level or consolidate programs. I have a status of MAP–21 consolidation. Do we 

have copies of this that we can give to the witnesses? Maybe we 

could. But it says 52 programs identified by DOT has being affected, some 31 programs were allegedly discontinued, and then it 

says 15 programs consolidated into other programs. Two programs’ 

eligibilities included research programs to program set-aside and 

one program with many eligibilities contain transportation alternatives and one program continued substantially changed. 

Now, we heard Mr. Echikson talk a little bit about what DOT 

had done. I asked a question as to how—and he described some 

time setting standards that he basically also testified that basically 

they had finished most of that setting the standards, if says needed 

time to set standards, and then you testified it is now completed 

or it has been completed for the most part, and personnel were 

used in that process. 

So far, we can find only about 20 FTEs that may have been 

eliminated. Maybe you could tell us where we are now. In your testimony you spoke to, again, some positions being needed to get us 

to where we are and where we might go. That is a long question 

but maybe you could respond. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, what MAP–21 did, the way I like to think 

of it is you had a pie, Federal-aid highway pie. It’s 40 billion, 41 

billion, now 43 and increasing. Before MAP–21 there were 50-odd 

programs so you have 50 slices of that pie. Now, post-MAP–21, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

we’ve got six or seven slices of the pie but the pie itself is the same 

size. The types of projects that are being done are the same size. 

So while the programs were consolidated or sometimes eliminated, 

all the projects that we’re overseeing and all that work in terms 

of providing stewardship and oversight to the states continues. So 

it really doesn’t affect our FTEs. 

Mr. MICA. Some were devolved to California and Texas, for example. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, that’s correct, under our provision where we 

assigned NEPA to Texas and to California. The people who were 

responsible for doing that work, that was some of the work they 

were responsible for in our field offices. They have now other work 

that they do to oversee the State program. 

In addition, in both California and in Texas, we still are —— 

Mr. MICA. Has there been no diminish in personnel needed for 

Texas and California? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. There —— 

Mr. MICA. Because they are pretty big states. I mean Texas just 

testified 1,800 projects. Is that correct? 

Mr. SWONKE. Yes, that is correct. Yes, in the past year. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. You actually came into play about a year ago —— Mr. SWONKE. Exactly. 

Mr. MICA.—the approval. 

Mr. SWONKE. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. But that took over 2 years to get the approval, right? 

Mr. SWONKE. It was approaching 2 years, yes —— 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. SWONKE.—when you start with our State legislation, too, the 

MOU, yes. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Right, so we negotiated—I think we had to promulgate the rule. They had to agree to waive sovereign immunity, 

and then it took about a year with Texas really being the first one 

we had in the post-MAP–21 where we had one of these MOUs. 

We’re nearly final with Ohio and we just last week received an application from Utah. And so I think with Texas paving the way 

we’ve —— 

Mr. MICA. Okay. You have answered some questions. I know 

Florida was trying, when Ananth Prasad was the Secretary, to take 

over the IJR, interchange justification process report, at the state 

level, and I think another State had already done that. Has Texas 

taken over IJRs? 

Mr. SWONKE. Texas has not taken over the IJRs yet. 

Mr. MICA. Well, and he told me it was just a few months. Now, 

he has been gone a year, and I asked most recently Florida if that 

had been taken over, and they said no. What is the story there in 

trying to get more approvals done? A lot of what we looked at, too, 

in the permitting, the same requirements were at the state level 

that were at the Federal level, so we were just going over the same 

thing at the Federal level, whereas we were trying to get the State 

to assume that. And then you set the standards. They had some 

approval process, but it hasn’t worked out exactly the way we intended it because we still have almost as many Fed people working 

on the projects as we had before. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, we have devolved in Texas in particular, 

you know, a lot of the responsibilities. And IJRs, I’m going to need 

to get back to you. I don’t know the specific story as far as —— 

Mr. MICA. Do either of these guys know, your —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON. That’s not really their area —— 

Mr. MICA. No? No? 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—of responsibility —— 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Could you —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—but we can get back to you. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Sure. 

Mr. MICA. But, again, trying to devolve as much as we can to the 

states, we don’t have to eliminate positions but through attrition 

we can absorb some of the positions. But somehow, it doesn’t seem 

like our original intent to consolidate, to eliminate as much of the 

Federal role. And again, you have got a couple big states now taking that over. Ohio is a good-sized State, maybe Florida, Utah. But 

at some point the rules have been set. We don’t need all of those 

rule-setting people. 

Is it correct that there are only about 20 positions that have been 

eliminated? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, I would not tie any elimination of positions 

to MAP–21. We have in fact reduced our FTEs —— 

Mr. MICA. That is not good news. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. As I explained, the purpose of MAP–21—or we 

see it as there was a reduction in the number of programs, but our 

responsibility is to oversee the Federal-aid Highway Program remained. And it still requires—we’ve got fewer people now overseeing a larger program. 

Mr. MICA. Well, only larger the last week? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, $42 billion program and —— 

Mr. MICA. And that should be overseeing at a smaller level because you have two big states which now have more responsibility 

at the local and State level than they do at the Federal. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. They have responsibility to do their NEPA work, 

their environmental work, and we no longer in California and to 

some extent in Texas—there’s a transition period because we’re 

still carrying on some projects. Those people’s responsibilities have 

been—we no longer have people doing that. They’re exercising 

other responsibilities to oversee the program. 

I’d also point out in Texas and California and in any other State 

border projects, projects that cross state borders or international 

borders, remain the responsibility of FHWA. 

Mr. MICA. You can see that, but again, I don’t know, maybe we 

need to get an inspector general to look at what is going on. Maybe 

we need sort of an analysis of what can be done as effectively at 

the local level with some Federal check-offs. Or, again, you testified 

you had set standards and that work is now complete, and you 

don’t see any possibility of reducing the personnel? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I wouldn’t tie it to that. I think a lot of the work 

we’ve done to implement the project—I mean, we’ve implemented 

rules, issued guidance, particularly those that had statutory deadlines —— 

Mr. MICA. And that is done. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—to expedite delivery of projects and —— 

Mr. MICA. That is done. Now, you would audit—it would be more 

of an audit or from time to time modifying those rules, but it 

doesn’t seem like you need the full-court press of Federal bureaucrats doing that. 

Maybe Mr. Swonke—I am telling you it was very difficult to get 

anybody to come and testify. They are all terrified of DOT. And 

now, with authority for 5 years, they are afraid you all are going 

to hammer them if you come and say something. I don’t like that 

at all. If I have to put bags on their head and subpoena them and 

bring them in here, we are going to find out what we can do more 

efficiently getting information from people who were seeing it. 

But I go back to the district, in Florida, I go around the country, 

and I am hearing the same thing. The Feds still have our—they 

are just moving the red tape around, and the intent and purpose 

of MAP–21 wasn’t just to do that. So I don’t know if you want to 

comment and risk all of your Federal funding, Mr. Swonke. Go 

right ahead. What are you seeing? 

And actually, this is a good news story because they have taken 

it—and a tangential question, have you all sent out anything to the 

State DOTs saying that we now have completed the rules, we now 

have these things, standards in place, and that you can do suchand-such? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, we —— 

Mr. MICA. Has there been such a communication? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. We have been in constant—we’re constantly in 

communication. We have an office in every State that works very 

closely —— 

Mr. MICA. But if you have a letter —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—with the State DOTs —— 

Mr. MICA.—that has gone out to them, I would like to see that 

as part of the record, okay? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Yes, Sir. 

Mr. MICA. If I you haven’t, well, maybe the staff—we can ask 

Secretary Foxx to get something out because it does take a while 

to get the rules of the game in place. The rules are in place, and 

now, we want folks to know what the opportunities are, relieving 

some of your responsibility. You could probably do great things in 

Washington, and again, we could also eliminate some of the red 

tape. 

But back to Mr. Swonke, tell us your experience and where you 

have been. You have seen the process and then what do you see 

is the potential? 

Mr. SWONKE. Yes. I think, first off, getting into the program, the 

NEPA assignment program, you know, there is that time frame, 

but I think Tom did explain well that we started into or towards 

pursing the program prior to the final rulemaking. And that was, 

you know, with the approval and the working relationship with 

Federal highways that we had, moving towards that, saying we’ll 

work with you to apply—to get your application going despite the 

rules not being finalized yet. And so we very much appreciated that 

working relationship. 

And so that, combined with our internal process, reworking and 

waiting for the final rule to come out and then getting our MOU 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

executed, I think, you know, that should—is probably not the typical time frame for the—to gauge what it takes to get entry into 

the program because we were first and we were started before the 

final rule was in place. 

Working with our FHWA should be a division office and headquarters as well. They were very supportive in getting us into the 

NEPA assignment program. And so the—you know, especially from 

the headquarters level, their cooperation and their understanding 

of getting us ready, I think, is something that we would describe 

as a partnership. So I would say that that has been a—that was 

a positive experience. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. And do you see the potential for this—well, for 

your role in taking on more responsibilities, is that possible? Do 

you think you will need additional legislation to accomplish that? 

And is there anything in the new legislation you think that will 

help you move forward even faster? 

Mr. SWONKE. I think the way it is laid out that now the application process in the MOU is very workable in the states that I mentioned earlier that are pursuing it now, have moved along fairly 

quickly. You know, the MOU that we negotiate or worked with 

Federal highways with has been used as a template moving forward and —— 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Is that the same that California is using? Are 

they both—other than the names, but are they basically the same? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. There are some differences because California 

was in a pilot program before MAP–21, and we’re actually in the 

process of renewing California’s assignment and —— 

Mr. MICA. And you have one MOU that would be available for 

the states that want to sign up? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. It is absolutely—I think what we’ll see in Ohio 

is very, very close. There’s a —— 

Mr. MICA. And how long would the —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—distinction —— 

Mr. MICA.—Ohio approval process—you said about a year for 

—— 

Mr. ECHIKSON. For our process? 

Mr. MICA. Yes, to do the MOU and —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, the MOU itself was probably close to a 

year, maybe 10 months or so. But again, there were some exceptional issues with that. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. So Ohio, I believe we received the formal application in April, and we’re—it should be done by the end of this year. 

So that’s a shorter period of time, and I anticipate with the recent 

application from Utah that we will move promptly. 

There is a process that has to go through. There’s a public input 

—— 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—that needs to be sought and so on, but I think 

the process has reduced. And everybody sort of understands, as 

Carlos explained, the states are in contact. They know what we’re 

looking for and what’s expected of them. And we also assist them. 

We provide training on certain steps that they need to take responVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:06 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25914.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

sibility for, how to do legal sufficiency reviews, how to do, you 

know—and we train them in how to do the work well. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Zachry, what have you seen from the road builders’ standpoint? How is MAP–21 doing? Maybe you have seen some 

experience now in Texas and California. Are you seeing—now, 

some of you did testify that, let’s see, California has sped up the 

process. I don’t know how much. Texas, you said, about 25 percent 

of the time was whacked off? 

Mr. SWONKE. That’s what we’re looking at. Again, we’re still 

looking at that data but it looks like we can—we’re—we should be 

able to achieve 25 percent. And that’s essentially what California 

has documented for their reduction in time is about 25 percent. 

Mr. MICA. And what are you hearing from your contractors and 

road builders, Mr. Zachry? 

Mr. ZACHRY. Mr. Chairman, we—what we hear is—and what we 

see, and speaking as a contractor in Texas, not in the capacity as 

the chairman of ARTBA, what we see is, frankly, more projects 

coming to bid, coming out to be executed. Again, speaking on my 

own personal behalf, I don’t know exactly which of those projects 

a categorical exclusion was used on, but they tended to be smaller 

projects for which that would be an appropriate usage, and there’ve 

been—the number of projects has increased quite a bit —— 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. ZACHRY.—in the last 12 to 18 months. 

Mr. MICA. But the expedited categorical is—well, that is expedited also and handled under your MOU, right, and California’s. 

But in general, we have also allowed for an expedited categorical 

exclusion for the Department, right? What are you seeing there, 

Mr. Echikson? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, we have completed all the rulemakings and 

issued new categorical exclusions. We have programmatic —— 

Mr. MICA. When this —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—agreements with the states where —— 

Mr. MICA. How long has that been in place? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I’d have to get back to you, but I believe the rule 

was—the final rule was issued about a year ago —— 

Mr. MICA. So that took about 2 —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—but I can —— 

Mr. MICA.—years to get that in place. And maybe again, staff, 

we can ask either inspector general or GAO to look at—probably 

want to try to get a year snapshot and see what improvements 

have taken place again. And our intent was to try to eliminate red 

tape, to try to speed up the process. 

We base some of this, you know, on that—was that Highway 35, 

the bridge collapsed, and I stood on the bridge with Members. We, 

Mr. Oberstar and I stood on the Floor right after the bridge collapsed and said we would work together to expedite the replacement of that link in the interstate. And I think 435 days later I 

stood with about a dozen Members of Congress on the bridge, and 

that was how many days it took to replace that bridge, to finish 

the project through permitting, through construction. 

And that was the beginning of a working relationship with Ms. 

Boxer and other—California has some of the toughest environmental laws and regulations in the country. But we said if you 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

could do it there, you should be able to do it anywhere. And what 

we did is we replaced an unsafe bridge with a safe bridge. The 

bridge that was built many decades ago was not built with any considerations like we have today for the environment. So we stopped 

dumping polluted water and runoff into the Mississippi River. We 

actually improved the quality of the natural waters, a safer bridge, 

and we did it in record time, which also saves a record amount of 

money because a lot of the—instead of building structures, you are 

paying for red tape and process. So that was one of our models. 

And then California was a great example because California has 

been hit with natural phenomena of earthquakes, and in fact, they 

have had to rebuild things. And they do it in the best fashion, environmentally sensitive attention, and also in rapid fire, which is 

what we are trying to speed up. 

I have more questions but I have been rejoined by our ranking 

member. I am only 14 minutes over. Is that—so you have got plenty of time just to—I will let her ask some questions and we will 

try to keep it moving. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my 

late return. I was under the impression we were going to do another vote right away so I was sitting there and they say, oh, no, 

no, no, 10 minutes so they will probably interrupt us. 

But I would like to discuss the need for significant investment. 

MAP–21 was important legislation, and now that it has been replaced by the new long-term reauthorization, the FAST Act, I sort 

of want to be sure to continue the spirit of investment. 

In the Chicagoland area, we have 200 bridges that have been 

deemed—and I probably am not getting the technical terms correct, 

but unsafe but okay to be used or substandard but okay to be used. 

And I wonder what that means, and I would like to know where 

those are so that I don’t drive over them or have my baby over 

them. 

But, Mr. Echikson, can you explain, you know, why the 5-year 

legislation with consistent funding is important to enabling states 

to move forward with transportation projects, especially when you 

have something like 200 bridges? You can’t really—you know, my 

understanding, you can’t really replace them all, but to sort of look 

at the long-term effect of the importance of this type of funding for 

State and municipalities in terms of infrastructure projects. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, having a long-term bill provides stability, 

certainty so that states and localities can do their planning. And 

even on particularly larger projects, they know the money is going 

to be there. 

I would agree with you that FAST is a start. We—there’s a 2013 

Status of the Nation’s Highways and Bridges Transit Conditions 

and Performance Report that was submitted to Congress, and as of 

2010, the backlog of unmet highway and bridge needs has grown 

to—had grown to about $800 billion. Addressing that backlog 

would require about $145 billion per year. We as a nation spend 

about $100 billion per year. So we’re not even keeping up with that 

need. 

FAST is absolutely a great start. It provides that certainty. But 

I would agree more funding, as we had proposed in the GROW 

AMERICA Act, is needed. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Zachry, with the capability that we have, 

if we were to, you know, be able to fund as much as we want with 

the capacity for bridge builders and road builders, how long is it 

going to take us to actually invest and actually do the work if we 

were to go after, you know, all of the infrastructure, the bridges 

and the roads in this nation? I mean I would think that the sheer 

volume of what needs to be done, even if we threw a ton of money 

at it, it is going to take a while. 

Mr. ZACHRY. It would take a while. I have actually never even 

in my wildest dreams thought about that scenario if there was so 

much money to do it. You know, you’ve got issues of workforce development and the skills to actually go out and execute the work, 

the public entities, the DOTs. FHWA has to administer it and 

track it. You’ve got all of the permitting processes that have to go 

through. If you had an unlimited amount of money to go and try 

to address it, it would likely still—it would still take you a decade 

to—or something—I’m making up a number. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Right. Right. 

Mr. ZACHRY. It would take many years. And remember that 

every time you put a road or any transportation system, an airport, 

anything in service, it immediately starts to degrade. And so you’ve 

also got maintenance costs as the system gets expanded. You have 

an ongoing maintenance requirement that in a lot of states is as 

significant as a capacity expansion requirement or greater. And so 

it’s—just because we’re spending more money doesn’t mean we’re 

not going to have to continue to spend more money. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Can you compare where we are to other nations that we would be competing against? You know, we have 

talked extensively about the fact that the lack of investment in our 

infrastructure is something that is actually hurting our economy 

where we are not able to—it is costing us money, it is costing commuters money, it is costing businesses money. But, you know, in 

your position as head of your organization, can you talk a little bit 

about what is happening internationally and where do we stand in 

competition with countries that are, you know, our economic partners but are also our competitors, places like, you know, Europe 

and Asia. 

Mr. ZACHRY. I don’t have that information in front of me but I’d 

be happy to get that for you. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. Does somebody else —— 

Mr. ZACHRY. I know the general discussion is that in certain 

countries, emerging countries, in China and others, that they spend 

a greater percentage of their GDP on infrastructure than we do in 

the U.S. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Echikson, can you address that a little bit and maybe describe briefly the master performance goals established by MAP–21 for the Federal highway 

programs as well? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I would need to get back to you on how our expenditures compare with other nations, but I’m sure we have that 

information and we’ll get it to you. 

The national performance measures is—well, we’ve done a series 

of rulemakings. We have proposed all the rules save one. We’re 

hoping to get that out in the first—so there’s six total rules. The 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

last one hopefully will be in the first quarter of 2016. We’re moving 

to finalize the first Performance Management Rule, which deals 

with safety. And the second Performance Management Rule should 

also be some time in at least the first 6 months of 2016. And then 

there’s associated rules. There’s an update to the Highway Safety 

—— Mr. STEPHANOS. Improvement. 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—Improvement Program, thank you. And also our 

Planning Rule —— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—an Asset Management Rule, excuse me. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So once you have completed your part on the 

rules, how long do the states have to establish the—I mean how 

long do you have after you have established performance measures 

for the states to implement their targets? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I’m going to turn this one over to Mr. Stephanos, 

who could probably answer that more accurately than I could. 

Mr. STEPHANOS. They have one year from the effective date of 

the final rules to establish targets. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. To establish targets. And —— 

Mr. STEPHANOS. And —— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH.—do you have, as part of the rules or how 

long—how far out they can make those targets? 

Mr. STEPHANOS. We’ve proposed that the two—there’s three 

rulemakings that propose the measures. Two of them have been 

issued as proposals. So for the safety rule it’s one year, so they’re 

setting safety targets for the end of the next calendar year. And 

then for our pavements and bridges, they’re setting targets looking 

out two and four years. But in both cases those targets need to be 

incremental steps that lead towards longer-term expectations that 

would be documented in their long-range plan or asset management plan. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So you will set the maximum measure for the 

target, right, the time period that they can take. Is that what you 

would consider the baseline or is that just the maximum? I guess 

my question is do you establish a baseline and then say, okay, here 

is the baseline for this particular target but you can take longer 

but we prefer this to be the baseline? And once the targets are set, 

can you modify them? 

Mr. STEPHANOS. Yes, I’m sorry. I may have misunderstood your 

—— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. 

Mr. STEPHANOS.—question about timing. When I was referring to 

the time frame, it’s the time horizon that they’re setting the target 

to so —— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Right. 

Mr. STEPHANOS.—for example, they want to reduce fatalities by 

a certain number by the end of the next calendar year. The base 

that—we aren’t through rulemaking establishing any minimum 

standards of what that target shall be. The baseline that they base 

the target on is documented—is proposed in the rulemaking, what 

they already use and where that data is to come from. It would be 

the most recent data that they would have had available and that 

we have available in the national data source. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

And then they do—to answer your second question about adjusting that target, for the safety target for 1 year we’re proposing that 

they don’t have an opportunity to adjust that. They set it and 

they’re held accountable to it. But for the payment bridge targets, 

the four year target that they would be setting at the two year 

point they have an opportunity to adjust those targets. How they 

adjust them and why they adjust them would be documented on a 

website so there’s transparency. And then this would recur every 

two years after that point. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. If I could just add, it’s—just to be clear is we set 

the measure so —— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—fatalities, rate of fatalities, the number of fatalities, it is the State’s responsibility to set the target in the manner 

that Mr. Stephanos just described. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. If that happens and they fail to meet the target, what happens? What are the consequences of a State meeting 

a target that they themselves set to try to meet your measure? 

What are the consequences? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. It depends on the target, but for the safety target, 

if they fail to make significant progress towards that, they would 

have to invest certain amount of money to improve their performance there. 

On some of the other targets, pavement, bridges, and some of the 

performance management 3, the congestion and freight and air 

quality, they may have some reporting requirements, so additional 

reporting requirements. And under the FAST Act, which we’re just 

trying to get a handle on, there’s a new—if they fail to meet the 

freight target, they need to provide a report explaining how they’re 

going to achieve that target in future years. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Would their funding be affected? Because here 

is the thing that I am worried about, right: Illinois is a State that 

is on the verge of bankruptcy. We are in deep financial trouble. So 

you could have a State like Illinois that has set a target but finds 

that it is not meeting—does not have the funds to meet that target. 

But then can the Federal funding then be cut as a result of them 

not meeting their targets, which puts them further in the hole? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. No, their funding is set by statute. They will get 

the same amount of money. 

With respect to the safety provisions, if they fail to meet their 

safety targets, they’ll have to just spend more of that money to address those safety issues. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So that is how you would enforce the State targets is the statute has that mechanism in it? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Correct. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. Is there any incentive for states to exceed their targets? What if they do really well, or to encourage 

them to pursue more ambitious targets? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. We think—and again, I might have Pete expand 

upon this, but we—you know, we’re trying to be as transparent 

about this as possible and so we’re setting—I think the plan and 

idea is that a lot of this information is going to be out there in the 

public. So if a State fails to set an adequate target or sets a very 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

easy target, that information is going to be available to the entire 

public. So I think there’s an incentive for the states just based on 

that—you know, having all of this information be transparent to 

try to set targets both that are realistic that they can achieve but 

that are ambitious as well. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Do you feel that the—and anyone on the panel 

can answer. Do you feel that the deadlines set in the legislation in 

the MAP–21 were too ambitious? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, I think, as the GAO reported, some of the 

rulemaking, particularly in the performance management area, 

were very ambitious. It was developing a whole new program, new 

standards, new methods, new data. We’re moving through that, 

and as I said, I expect at least within the next 6 months we will 

have two of those three performance management rules final, and 

we’ll have the other one proposed. So, yes, they were very ambitious. We’re working as expeditiously as we can to complete them. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Well, I am encouraged to hear about the 

progress that is being made with the rulemaking. I think it is important to balance a need to have rules promulgated in a timely 

manner, as well as the need to ensure that the rules are actually 

carefully vetted and stakeholders are given the opportunity to express their views. So I thank you for the hard work that you are 

doing. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. You know, I was reading the letter 

that you all sent us September 22 and looking at the projects, and 

then you had listed projects—I mean not projects but programs 

that you had consolidated or eliminated. I count 12 programs that 

say not continued under MAP–21 program is spending down prior 

balances. So I count 12 that would be eliminated at the federal 

level. Is that right, Mr. Echikson? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. That’s correct. The states are responsible—that 

money is still available for the states to spend, and they—you 

know, we’re encouraging them and working with them to —— 

Mr. MICA. Would we say after that this could result in some reduction in positions at the Federal level? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Again, with all due respect, the size of the Federal-aid Highway Program hasn’t changed. The eligibilities for 

these different programs are now captured under, say, the Surface 

Transportation, the STP program, a lot more flexibility for the 

states to focus those expenditures as they deem appropriate. 

Mr. MICA. But it doesn’t require the same Federal oversight? All 

of these—maybe you could send us, too, a list of who was involved 

in those positions previously, and then where they have been absorbed to. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I can see what we can get you, but we’re not organized by program. We’re organized by function. So we have people —— 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Well, function, the Appalachian Development 

Highway System, it says not continued under MAP–21. So was 

there somebody in charge of that before? I can get your old directory and look these people up. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. There may have been somebody in charge of that 

program but —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

Mr. MICA. Do you guys know, the two—was there somebody in 

charge of that before, people in an office? Was there an office? 

Mr. BEZIO. That was a function within an office. There was a 

person that—one of their collateral duties was to oversee the Appalachian Development Highway System —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Yes. 

Mr. BEZIO.—and they still do so. Those balances are out there for 

states that—balances are available until expended, so those balances will spend down over many more years going forward. So it’s 

one of their many collateral duties in their office —— 

Mr. MICA. So you can’t really get rid of a program per se? 

Mr. BEZIO. You—it—eventually, it’ll be eliminated —— 

Mr. MICA. Yes, that is what I am saying —— 

Mr. BEZIO. It eventually will be —— 

Mr. MICA.—but that was 3 years ago. This is, last time I 

checked, 2015, 3 years. 

Mr. BEZIO. Right. 

Mr. MICA. I am not sure if we took care of this in new legislation. 

I am sure we didn’t. But I have got at least a dozen here you reported to me on that situation, not to mention—consolidation I can 

see, consolidated with another one. But this says spending down 

prior balances and how long they would go. We don’t do earmarks 

anymore, so I have got to find out from the Transportation Committee your progress in spending these balances down. 

Now, I could have probably—Mr. Echikson, I could have probably 

given a better case than you did on what you have done. If you go 

back and look at what you sent me—I should put this in the record 

and I will for you. 

Mr. MICA. In 2003 you had 2,366 FTEs. We were administering 

$30 billion, 31. It was 30.8. In 2012 you had $40 billion and you 

had 2,302, which is fewer people than in 2003. See, I would have 

touted that. Tell Foxx that you guys need to tout yourself on that 

kind of stuff. But then in 2014 that is where we went down to 

2,281. Now, what I would like to do is to either have GAO or the 

IG come back and tell us—you are telling us how many projects 

you work on, and I think we need to look at those. This is dollars. 

What are you going up to in this program under MAP–21 for the 

next year, do you know, Echikson? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I believe it’s around $43 billion. 

Mr. MICA. So it is going up $3 billion. But I want to go back and 

look at anecdotally and chronologically the number of projects that 

were involved. So let’s get that from either them or the IG or GAO 

when we do this little report. So we will see how many actual 

projects you were doing. You have $3 billion more. Well, it is only 

$1 billion more because it is 42 currently. And then we will look 

at these dozen programs and how long the spending down of prior 

balances is expected to continue. Maybe we can get the prior balances for all of those programs. So those are some of the things we 

would like to see. 

Now, I have a couple of other questions. In the bill we opened 

the door for—and here you go, Echikson. Again, this gave you some 

new responsibilities under public-private partnerships. I am familiar with the one we have in central Florida, which in record time 

was open. I hope it wasn’t just because I was Chairman. But we 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

are doing a $2.4 billion adding tolls to the center median. We kept 

free lanes free. As the federal Government, my philosophy is the 

Federal taxpayers already paid for them so we shouldn’t be charging for them again. But we said the right-of-way inside medians, 

some of those assets could be converted as long as they were adding capacity. 

Now, we had the $2.4 million central Florida project. Maybe 

Zachry or Echikson, some of you guys might know how many others have taken advantage of a similar expansion of capacity 

through a public-private partnership. And that would be— 

Echikson, here is where you pipe in and you say, well, we have 

new responsibilities like your new road in central Florida, Mr. 

Mica. We add that in. Any idea, Zachry? 

Mr. ZACHRY. I don’t have a number, Mr. Chairman —— 

Mr. MICA. If you do, maybe you could check that, get it back to 

—— 

Mr. ZACHRY. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

Mr. MICA. I would like to see did that have an impact. I know 

it did in my community. I have heard of several others looking at 

that option. 

Echikson, do you know anything about it? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Well, our TIFIA office works very closely with— 

and has helped in —— 

Mr. MICA. You raised TIFIA and I did a billion in TIFIA, didn’t 

we? And I think it went down by 60 percent. Can you tell us what 

—— 

Mr. BEZIO. I believe it’s $287 million in the FAST. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Yes. 

Mr. STEPHANOS. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. So it has actually gone down. Did we spend out 

the billion in TIFIA? 

Mr. BEZIO. It is not fully spent down but I —— 

Mr. MICA. That is one of those —— 

Mr. BEZIO.—have information in front of me. 

Mr. MICA. But obviously, there isn’t as much money available. I 

am not happy about that. That was a real screw up they did —— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Yes. 

Mr. MICA.—transportation infrastructure financing. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. They are not spending it. 

Mr. MICA. Well, and that is another good question for these guys 

is finding out how many TIFIA programs they had, how many people were involved, and how much was spent down and how much 

was unspent. They may have done that in taking the money down. 

I don’t know if that was a reason. At one time I heard there were 

four or five times the dollar number of requests that we had or 

even more, but now we have lessened that. Do you know anything 

about that, Zachry? 

Mr. ZACHRY. Well, sir, I’ve heard that same general statistic that 

you had. I saw something recently about the percentage of TIFIA 

funding that was utilized by each State. And I think the largest 

was actually Texas that had availed itself of 20 percent of the total 

program dollars from TIFIA. But again, I don’t know how many 

specific projects were tied up with either TIFIA or on a P3 basis. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Well, and does anyone know anything more 

about the public-private partnerships, any information on that? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I have a little more information —— 

Mr. MICA. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—which is you mentioned the I–4 project. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I think that was what you were referring to. 

We’ve used P3 projects on the Goethals Bridge, the Portsmouth Bypass in Ohio, and SH–22 is now—or 288, excuse me, is taking advantage of the P3 process. On TIFIA we have 59 TIFIA loans that 

we’ve closed. So it has been a very effective project. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. We’re fully supportive of public-private partnerships. 

Mr. MICA. Well, see, and, Echikson, next time you come in and 

say, oh, Mr. Chairman, because of your great work on MAP–21 and 

you put more into TIFIA, we did 59 projects that required more 

personnel because of what you did on the public-private partnerships. You have got yours in Orlando and then you just named the 

others, make sure to get a list of those because I want to use that. 

But that does take more personnel, too. 

I don’t mind giving DOT additional personnel, but also our intent 

was to try to devolve as much as we could of the red tape that Mr. 

Swonke talked about that I can’t get the others to come and testify 

on that you are still imposing because some of those folks have 

stayed in DOT even though we have tried to devolve some activities, as many as possible to the local level, and they have a new 

role justifying their existence. And that is what concerns me. Do 

you see my point? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I do but I would say we’re fully supportive of the 

devolution of certain requirements. The CEs, the states are responsible for all these CEs. They have to report to us but there’s not 

much—there’s limited oversight by FHWA except when they tried 

to create a new CE. But on the CEs that were developed in the 

statute —— 

Mr. MICA. And then —— 

Mr. ECHIKSON.—that you referred to —— 

Mr. MICA. And then, again, you could come in and say that we 

have gone from whatever it was, more back in 2003 with less 

money, and I am sure it would be less projects and doing more. So 

I am trying to make your case for you for DOT. I will help you out 

with the testimony next time. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. All right. But I think it would be very helpful if we 

look at this, where our success is, where we can get you out of the 

red tape business, where we can devolve to the states, where they 

could get more money back quicker to the states because they turn 

the projects around quickly. 

You told me you went to 1,800. What was like your previous 

record? 

Mr. SWONKE. We were—that’s about what we’ve done in the past 

couple of years, but before that, it was more below 1,500, more like 

in the 12 to 1,400 range. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Mr. MICA. You are talking actually what you testified to about 

25 percent more efficiency out of it. When we did the road show 

for the MAP–21, we took the committee across the country, and we 

just heard one place after another cut the red tape, there are 

things that we can do locally, less in Washington, more State and 

local, and we could get the money out faster, get the projects done 

and approved faster. And sometimes you don’t want to degrade the 

environment in any event, but sometimes there are very similar— 

and in fact, I think California and some of the states have even 

tougher environmental requirements than the Federal Government. Is that not the case, Mr. Zachry, Mr. Echikson? 

Mr. ZACHRY. At least our perspective, yes, sir, that California has 

very rigorous environmental standards that as a general rule exceed Federal —— 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. ZACHRY.—requirements. 

Mr. MICA. And we negotiated MAP–21. Of course, Ms. Boxer is 

still the ranking person there, but she was chair and she wasn’t 

going to give one inch on any issue regarding the environment that 

she felt wasn’t being protected by actions and MAP–21. 

Well, I think this hearing is really just to sort of take the temperature of what we have done with the last bill, the new bill is 

coming in. If we have to, we can do some technical adjustments 

with Chairman Shuster and others, but what we want to do is get 

the biggest bang for the buck. If you need more personnel and we 

have programs at the Federal level that warrant them, we want to 

make certain that you have adequate resources and personnel. 

I think it would be very good, and I will talk to the Secretary 

and we will ask the Secretary to see if he can send out a letter now 

saying that some of these standards have been set to the states 

and that we have maybe even a model of MOU and see if there is 

more interest in devolving. That is our intent, Congress’ intent. Nobody has to do it, but letting the states know that it is there. We 

have hammered out some of the details to get us there and here 

is an example. I think that would be most helpful. 

Mr. Zachry, you know, you guys are building them and we want 

to get the maximum for the money. We need to know from you 

where there are any opportunities for moving this whole process 

forward faster, can be realized. And a lot it can be the administration. We have got new legislation in place but we can work with 

Secretary and others to get these things done. 

And I really appreciate Mr. Swonke risking his entire transportation program and his relationship with DOT to risk coming here 

today. You are the only one I could find in the entire country. The 

others ran like scalded rabbits. 

Mr. SWONKE. My pleasure. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. DeSaulnier, do you have any questions? Welcome, 

sir. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Since I walked in and you were talking about 

California environmental rules and Senator Boxer, I just had a 

question to the FHWA. In California we did get, when I was still 

in the Legislature, a lot of input from our contractors in Caltrans 

about water permits and I wonder without, from my perspective— 

pardon the expression—diluting the protection either in the CaliVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:06 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25914.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

fornia Environmental Quality Act or NEPA. Do you look at those 

kind of things in terms of effectiveness and maybe making it—if 

there are obstacles to getting done efficiently? Because we get a lot 

of that from the contractors. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. We absolutely have taken several steps to expedite those and coordinate those reviews. Just recently, we, along 

with the Corps of Engineers, reissued the Red Book, which is all 

about aligning environmental reviews. We’re supporting, at least 

on the federal side, the use of a single environmental document 

that all the different federal agencies can and should rely upon. So 

we take several steps to try to coordinate that and expedite that. 

We have a permitting dashboard that’s up for certain projects. We 

have an eNEPA project where all the environmental documents can 

be shared electronically instead of by hand with copies being sent 

around. It’s all to try to expedite and reduce the time it takes to 

permit and proceed with a project. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. And do you measure those outcomes over time 

to see if they are still getting the environmental outcomes you want 

to but help facilitating getting the projects up and done? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I don’t know that we’ve had it in place all those 

efforts long enough to make that sort of evaluation, but that’s 

something we’re always looking at to ensure that what we’re doing 

is protective of the environment. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. And then just on a different subject matter but 

somewhat similar, I read on, I believe, your website or DOT’s 

website about performance standards in general and that a lot of 

states are taking leadership. I think Washington, Minnesota, Massachusetts come to mind. So just watching what they are doing 

when it comes to performance standards for the future, both what 

you have in the act but potentially new ones, do you continue to 

engage with the State agencies when it comes to performance 

standards? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to, but 

in terms of our Performance Management Program, we—one of the 

important things, because it is a completely new program with a 

lot of new requirements for the states and localities, is we’ve engaged with our stakeholders extensively to ensure we get their 

input and to ensure that whatever we ultimately finalize is—sort 

of minimizes the administrative burden that’s being placed on 

them. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So it would be twofold, and one would be just 

project delivery on the new capital side and then the maintenance 

and operations. So, for instance, Washington has something called 

a Gray Book where they actually every quarter they measure both 

investments in the corridor, capital investments, improvements and 

maintenance and operations, and then they tell the public what the 

results have been in terms of congestion. So do we do things just 

to make sure that we are mindful that, these as the expression 

goes, the states are the laboratories and we are keeping up with 

them or at least being apprised of it on both sides, project delivery 

and then maintenance and operations of the system? 

Mr. ECHIKSON. I think I’d have to get back to you. I’m not quite 

sure. I mean in terms of our Performance Management Program, 

we’re absolutely building off of what states are doing. We’re trying 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

to build a national program. In terms of project delivery, we work— 

obviously, the states are the laboratories of democracy, and if 

they’ve got great ideas, we’ve got a whole program called Every 

Day Counts that works very closely with the states and, you know, 

pushes forward new and innovative ideas so that we can expedite 

project delivery, one that Mr. Mica mentioned before about the 

bridge. 

We’ve got a whole new sort of bridge program where we install 

these bridges promptly. They’re sort of precast prebuilt bridges 

that are dropped into place. That was all the result of our Every 

Day Counts program. So we’re trying to do different things, working with the states to expedite project delivery, as well as ensure 

protection of the environment. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Appreciate that. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And if you can get me any material, I would be delighted to 

look at it. 

Mr. ECHIKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MICA. Any additional questions, Ms. Duckworth? 

[Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. MICA. Well, I want to thank you for participating today. We 

made some progress. We are also finding some new ways to develop 

projects. I attended a conference with Bobby Scott down in Orlando, assimilation conference, and one of the technologies we saw 

there that was developed for assimilation was training bridge inspectors. It is hard to replicate some of the training and also have 

bridges that are defective and going out. It is very costly, time-consuming. But I was quite impressed with some of the advances for 

training personnel, see what is out there, what is safe, some of the 

monitoring now we have of the bridges. And some of those are new 

programs. And you have got to put this stuff in your next testimony of new things you are doing. 

But there is a lot of good news. We always try to strive to do better, and you have given us some information today. We are going 

to ask you for additional questions, fill-in-the-blank. So we are 

going to leave the record open. 

I have the testimony of Michael P. Melaniphy, and he is the 

president and CEO of American Public Transportation, APTA. We 

will put that in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MICA. He is not with us but has a wealth of suggestions and 

recommendations, observations. 

Then, there being no further business, again, I want to thank our 

witnesses and, too, their participants for being with us today. And 

we will adjourn this hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER