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

26–349 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–53 

IMPROVING AMERICA’S TRANSPORTATION 

INFRASTRUCTURE: THE ROAD FORWARD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 17, 2017 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 17, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

WITNESS 

Chao, Hon. Elaine, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation .................... 5 

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 16 

Senator Duckworth ................................................................................... 21 

Senator Harris ........................................................................................... 22 

(1) 

IMPROVING AMERICA’S TRANSPORTATION 

INFRASTRUCTURE: THE ROAD FORWARD 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2017 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:44 a.m., in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Ernst, Rounds, Shelby, 

Fischer, Capito, Boozman, Sullivan, Inhofe, Booker, Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Duckworth, Gillibrand, Harris, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. I will call the hearing to order. 

Today we are welcoming the Secretary of Transportation, Hon. 

Elaine Chao, to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on our nation’s infrastructure needs. 

Madam Secretary, welcome to the Committee. 

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has always taken the lead on infrastructure issues in the Senate. When 

unveiled, other committees’ infrastructure proposals will increase 

funding and provide streamlining requirements for the construction 

of pipelines, rail, housing, and large urban projects of various kinds 

that may be privately financed through public-private partnerships, 

to name a few of the issues. 

However, our nation’s highways, roads, and bridges should be a 

central component of any final infrastructure bill. It is up to our 

Committee in a bipartisan way, working with the Administration, 

to invest real dollars in existing highway formulas and non-formula 

programs in a fiscally responsible way. 

In a recent hearing in this Committee, Wyoming Department of 

Transportation Director Bill Panos stated in written testimony that 

‘‘Using the current predominantly formula-based FAST Act approach to distribution would ensure both rural and urban States 

participate in the initiative. It would also help push the benefits of 

any new infrastructure initiative out to the public promptly.’’ I 

agree. 

Using the formula-based approach will expedite the delivery of 

additional infrastructure spending, which will ensure highway 

projects for the public will be built faster, as opposed to adopting 

a new funding structure that’s less understood by the stakeholders. 

Public-private partnerships can be effective in urban areas but 

2 

don’t work for rural States like Wyoming and other small and rural 

States represented on this Committee. 

In February, before this Committee, Cindy Bobbitt, a Grant 

County, Oklahoma, County Commissioner, testified on behalf of the 

National Association of Counties. She stated in her written testimony the difficulties in rural areas’ being able to raise revenue to 

pay for infrastructure and the ever increasing costs of construction 

when she stated, ‘‘In addition to facing growing demands for transportation investment and numerous limitations on local revenue 

sources, rural counties are encountering rising costs for transportation and infrastructure projects.’’ She goes on: ‘‘Based on the 

American Road and Transportation Builders Association’s Highway 

Construction Price Index,’’ she states, ‘‘the cost of construction, materials, and labor for highway and bridge projects increased 44 percent between 2000 and 2013, outpacing the 35 percent increases in 

general inflation.’’ 

In part to help address cost concerns expressed by both rural and 

urban communities, this Committee recently held a hearing calling 

for better, faster, cheaper—and as Senator Carper added, smarter—highway and road projects. Working with this Administration 

and with you, Madam Secretary, and with the members of this 

Committee, we do need to find ways to get projects started faster, 

build better roads, and reduce costs. As I stated at that hearing, 

simplifying these processes will allow for construction companies to 

help start hiring and for workers to begin building faster. 

When we find ways to streamline review processes, we can initiate projects expeditiously. Less time and money in staff effort 

would need to be dedicated to regulatory compliance. When we find 

opportunities to streamline regulation, it enables State departments of transportation and other regulated entities to focus more 

closely on delivering transportation projects and programs and do 

a better job of them. 

This Administration also has a role to play in correcting recent 

proposals that unnecessarily subjected rural State departments of 

transportation to the same rules as more densely populated States. 

The idea that combating congestion should require Wyoming or 

Alaska or South Dakota to report on traffic volumes on roads that 

are infrequently traveled is a waste of valuable time and taxpayer 

resources. Most importantly, meeting these requirements meant for 

more urban areas takes time and money. It impacts a rural State’s 

ability to complete projects. 

I also have concerns about longstanding barriers that exist at the 

Federal level, at the Department of Transportation, and at the 

State level that might interfere with application of technologies 

that can accelerate project delivery at lower cost. 

A June 2016 report by McKinsey and Company titled Imagining 

Construction’s Digital Future states that large capital projects typically take 20 percent longer to finish and are up to 80 percent over 

budget. One of the reasons stated is that the construction industry 

is one of the industries that is the least digitized. 

So modifying policies to allow for technological innovations as 

identified in that report, such as designing with new materials, digital mapping, intelligence assessment management, decisionmaking, paperless projects, and other technologies, they can save 

3 

valuable taxpayer money and speed project construction. Technological innovations such as these are just common sense and must 

be allowed to be used. 

I believe we can work together in a bipartisan way to help our 

communities address their infrastructure needs. I look forward to 

working with the Secretary and my colleagues to help accomplish 

these things. 

With that, I would invite the Ranking Member, Senator Carper, 

for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, delighted to see you here. Delighted that you 

are in this position. I think all of us supported your nomination 

and look forward very much to working with you. Thank you for 

visiting with me a couple of weeks ago. One of the things, my colleagues, that the Secretary and I talked about was, what is the role 

of government? What is the role of government? Abraham Lincoln 

used to say the role of government is to do for the people what they 

cannot do for themselves. 

I think the primary role of government, Madam Secretary, and 

I have said this to my colleagues any number of times, is to create 

a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. In 

our business, people who have jobs are able to support their families and themselves. For us, the rest is actually pretty easy. The 

nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation includes a lot of things. It includes work force, includes access to capital, includes energy—dependable energy—it includes public safety, 

common sense regulations, tax policies that foster economic growth 

that are deemed to be fair, that don’t explode our budget deficits 

and so forth. 

But another big factor, and this is the reason we are having our 

hearing today, another big factor in that nurturing environment for 

job creation and job preservation is the ability for people to go 

where they need to go when they need to go. And for us to be able 

to ship and move goods throughout this country in a cost effective 

way. 

I am excited that we are going to have a chance to take this up 

and discuss this with you today. We look forward to an ongoing 

conversation with you and your colleagues. You have taken this 

leadership role at a critical time for our country, and I think at an 

exciting time. What did Einstein used to say, in adversity lies opportunity. Plenty of adversity, also plenty of opportunity. Our job 

is to seize the day, carpe diem, or as we say in Delaware ‘‘Carper 

Diem.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. But we face this crisis in large part because we 

haven’t raised the gas and diesel tax in some 24 years, or not adjusted them for inflation. Revenues have stayed flat while construction costs to build roads, highways, bridges continue to increase. 

We managed to pay for the FAST Act in 2015 by literally pilfering 

some $70 billion from other accounts, according to Congressional 

Budget Office estimates. We will need to find about $115 billion in 

4 

2020 in order to continue providing the same level of funding plus 

inflation for the next 5-year bill. 

In fact, when we take up the next transportation bill, I am told 

we need to do a lot more than just maintain our current levels of 

spending. Plain and simple, the amount that we are spending 

today is woefully short of what we ought to be spending if we want 

to have the roads, highways, bridges that our country and its people need. We face an $836 billion backlog of grid, highway, and bridge projects. We have a $90 billion backlog for transit. Put them together it’s almost like $1 trillion. The under-investment shows in 

the condition of our assets. The 2017 report card from the Society 

of Civil Engineers gave our roads in this nation a D, as in dog— 

not delightful—dog. Our transit systems received a D¥, a D¥. How low can you go? Not much lower than that. 

But spending on transportation at all levels of government needs 

to increase, and the Federal Government should, I believe, lead the 

way, at the same time making sure we’re spending that money in 

a cost effective way. We will come back to that later on. 

But that is why I was heartened to hear President Trump’s cam- paign pledge to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure. I hope that 

when the Administration finally releases its proposal that it will 

include plans for direct spending to address the investment backlog. 

When we invest in transportation we also have to choose investments wisely in order to make the best use of scarce Federal dollars. Some of the changes made by this Committee in the last two 

authorization bills, often referred to as streamlining, will help improve transportation planning and project delivery. Unfortunately, 

a number of these changes have not yet been implemented, as you 

know, by the Department of Transportation. And the work has 

been put on hold for the last couple of months. I sincerely hope 

that you and your team will focus on ensuring fast and effective 

implementation of the remaining MAP–21 and FAST Act provisions as they relate to streamlining. 

The transportation world today also faces a grave safety challenge. Last year more than 40,000 people lost their lives on our 

roads. That is more than all the people we have who live in Dover, 

Delaware. Over the last 2 years this number has increased more 

quickly than at any time in the last half-century. 

As you know, safety is a central part of the mission of the Department of Transportation. We hope that you will make it part of 

your personal mission, as its Secretary. 

In short, there is no shortage of challenges. We know that. But 

as I said earlier, where this is adversity, there is also opportunity. 

Our job—a big part of our job—is to find that opportunity. New 

technology and integration in vehicles has the potential to dramatically improve safety and increase the efficiency of our roadways, 

and advances in construction materials will enable us to build infrastructure that is stronger, lighter, that is less expensive and 

more sustainable. 

I am also hopeful that innovation can help point the way toward 

new sources of revenue, a means of collecting road user charges in 

a secure and cost effective way. If you take RUC—road user 

5 

charges, that is what they have been doing in Oregon for 10 

years—combine that with highway speed EZ Pass, and I call it 

RUC and roll. RUC and roll, I think that might be part of the future for dependable revenue sources as we try to get our roads, 

highways, and bridges back in shape again. 

In closing, let me reiterate that we look forward to working with 

you; we look forward to your testimony and look forward to working with you. We look forward to your testimony, and look forward 

to working with a bunch of stakeholders all across the country who 

are counting on us to do our jobs. 

So welcome aboard, and good luck. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Our witness today is Hon. Elaine Chao, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Madam Secretary, your full written testimony will be made part 

of the official record. We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELAINE CHAO, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee. 

Although I have talked with many of you individually, this is the 

first time that I am testifying as the Secretary of Transportation. 

So I am pleased to share some thoughts on our country’s infrastructure challenges and to hear your concerns as well. 

As I mentioned during my confirmation, my three priorities as 

Secretary of Transportation are safety, infrastructure, and the future. Our country’s vast network of highways and bridges is a 

prime example of infrastructure that needs attention in all three 

categories. 

After several years of going in the right direction, recent statistics have shown that highway fatalities, as mentioned, are increasing. Measured in lost time and fuel, growing congestion is costing 

our economy and our citizens as much as $160 billion annually. 

And some of our most basic infrastructure will require modifications to accommodate the smart technology of the future. 

These challenges, I know, are well known to you, which is why 

passage of the FAST Act in 2015 was such an important milestone. 

It provided the Department with new tools and more flexibility to 

speed up the repair, the rebuilding, and the refurbishment of critical infrastructure. 

Over the past 2 years, the Department has begun to implement 

the provisions of the FAST Act, but much more can be done, especially in streamlining project permitting, approval, and delivery. 

That is why we have initiated a complete review of how the FAST 

Act is actually being implemented. We want to ensure that the 

tools and flexibilities provided by the Act are not encumbered by 

unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements. 

Although this Administration is only about 4 months old, let me 

share with you some of the infrastructure funding that has already 

been delivered. It includes $166.5 million in TIFIA loans and nearly $800 million in emergency grants to States and municipalities 

6 

to repair highway infrastructure damaged by disasters. One notable award was $10 million in emergency relief provided to Georgia 

after the collapse of a bridge over Atlanta’s I–85 highway, a major 

traffic artery that is critical to the local economy. 

In addition, the Department is set to award a number of 

FastLane grants very shortly, and will be issuing a solicitation for 

applications under the FastLane program. We are also taking a 

close look at the criteria used in awarding the Department’s discretionary loans and grants. We want to ensure that we are maximizing the opportunities to revitalize infrastructure provided by 

the FAST Act and that the needs of all parts of the country are 

addressed. 

As mentioned, the President has made infrastructure one of his 

top priorities. The Administration will share its vision of what the 

infrastructure plan will look like soon, which will kick off our collaboration with the Congress. As OMB Director Mulvaney recently 

announced, the proposal will likely include $200 billion in direct 

Federal funds, which will be used to leverage a trillion dollars in 

infrastructure investment over the next 10 years. The goal is to use 

Federal funds as an incentive to get projects underway and build 

more quickly, with greater participation, by State, local, and private sector partners. 

A key goal of this initiative will be incentivizing private sector 

investment in infrastructure. We understand that not every infrastructure project, however, is a candidate for private investment. 

The Administration recognizes the difference between rural and 

urban infrastructure needs. We anticipate that the President’s proposal will reflect this understanding. 

Transportation infrastructure is essential to the 46 million Americans who live and work in rural areas, and to moving agriculture 

and other products produced in these areas to markets and ports. 

So I look forward to working with you to find solutions to our country’s infrastructure challenges, not only to support economic development and job growth, but also to keep America connected. From 

the Gulf Coast to the Great Lakes, from the east coast to the west 

coast, transportation helps to knit our country together. So we have 

got to ensure that we take good care of these critical resources. 

And now, I will be happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chao follows:] 

7 


26349.001

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELAINE L. CHAO 

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

HEARING ON 

IMPROVING AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION INFRASTUCTURE: 

THE ROAD FORWARD 

Mayl7,2017 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members ofthe Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify on the state of our highway and bridge infrastructure. It is an honor to 

testifY for the first time as Secretary of Transportation before this Committee, which is working 

on issues that are so vital to our country's continued safety, security, and economic success. 

The State of Our Highway Infrastructure 

Our country's vast network of highways and bridges connect our communities and support our 

economy. Running from coast to coast, through beautiful rural landscapes and great cities, the 

National Highway System (NHS) is comprised of223,257 miles of road, which is approximately 

five percent of the total mileage in our country. Despite this low percentage, the NHS accounts 

for 55 percent of the total vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and over 83 percent of the miles 

traveled by truck in the country. In 2016, total miles driven on public roads in the U.S. increased 

for a fifth straight year by 1.65 percent to 3.2 trillion miles. These figures underscore the critical 

demands placed on America's highways and bridges. 

Pavement and bridges in poor condition directly impact the lives of ordinary citizens by 

increasing wear and tear on vehicles, driving up repair costs, inflating travel times, and 

sometimes introducing new safety concerns. For freight users, poor conditions can increase the 

cost of doing business and delay the delivery of millions of tons of goods and agricultural 

products across the country. As you may know, trucks transport the majority of U.S. freight, so 

keeping our roads and bridges in good condition is critical to our country's competitiveness. 

The recently released DOT report, "2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges and Transit: 

Conditions and Performance," (2015 C&P Report) contains some good news regarding the state 

of our bridges. From 2002 to 2012, the share of bridges classified as "structurally deficient" has 

improved. For example, the percentage of bridges in this classification dropped from 14.2 

percent in 2002 to ll.O percent in 2012. The share of bridges on the NHS classified as 

structurally deficient also improved over the same period, dropping from 5.9 percent to 4.5 

percent. 

But, while bridge conditions are heading in the right direction, the 2015 C&P Report suggests 

that there is more work to do. The Report stated that the percentage of Federal-aid highway 
8 


26349.002

mileage classified as "acceptable ride quality" (either good or fair quality) decreased from 87.4 

percent in 2002 to 80.3 percent in 2012. When weighted by vehicles miles traveled, the decrease 

in acceptable ride quality went from 85.3 percent to 83 .3 percent, which leads to the conclusion 

that ride quality on less-traveled Federal-aid highways has significantly declined since 2002. 

This is of particular concern for rural communities. Nearly 73 percent of our country's public 

roads are located in rural settings with populations less than 5,000. 

Drivers slowing to avoid poor pavement and bridge conditions can also create congestion, which 

continues a troubling trend. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that total delays 

resulting from congestion experienced by all travelers increased from 5.6 billion hours in 2002 to 

6.7 billion hours in 2012. The cost of wasted time and fuel attributable to congestion also rose, 

from a staggering $124 billion in 2002 to $154 billion 2012. Bringing our existing infrastructure 

into a state of good repair will not only make our roads and bridges safer, but will also save 

travelers and shippers time and money. 

The Federal Lands Transportation Program provides critical support for roads, bridges, trails, 

and transit facilities managed by Federal Land Management Agencies, such as the National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, 

and U.S. Forest Service, as well as Tribal Nations. These transportation networks, which are 

critical for supporting the economy, national defense and for providing access for all Americans 

to our country's national scenic treasures, are critical for supporting the economy, national 

defense and for providing access for all Americans to our country's national scenic treasures, are 

falling into disrepair, creating a backlog of billions of dollars in deferred maintenance. Access 

to Department oflnterior managed public lands generated nearly 1.8 million jobs and $296 

billion in economic output for State and local economies in 2015. There are also more than 

450,000 miles of roads that are not actually located on Federal lands but provide access to 

Federal lands. This creates opportunities for recreational travel and tourism, protection and 

enhancement of resources, and sustained economic development in both rural and urban areas. 

Annual visits to Federal lands total nearly I billion, and are expected to rise as the population 

increases. This poses a challenge to Federal Land Management Agencies to maintain the needed 

infrastructure to fulfill their missions of providing visitor enjoyment while conserving precious 

resources. 

Moving Forward to Address These Challenges 

The Department is already taking steps to improve our nation's infrastructure by implementing 

the FAST Act, which Congress passed in 2015. This was important legislation. 

But before describing the ongoing efforts at the -Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), I 

want to take this opportunity to commend the outstanding work of the FHWA, particularly its 

Acting Deputy Administrator, Butch Waidelich, and the FHWA divisional managers in Georgia, 

during the recent fire and collapse of the I-85 bridge outside of Atlanta. This was a superb 

example of prompt action and timely collaboration with the Georgia State government, including 

Governor Deal's office, Georgia State Department of Transportation, including Commissioner 

Russell McMurry, and the courageous police, state troopers, firefighters and other first 

2 
9 


26349.003

responders. They brought the situation under control and evacuated everyone with no loss oflife 

or injuries. 

Regulatory Streamlining 

With respect to implementing the FAST Act, the Department has already begun accelerating the 

environmental review and permitting process for new projects, which can be too cumbersome, 

lengthy, and delay the start of new projects. Not only do these delays increase the costs-the 

cost of capital and labor can both increase substantially over many years-but by alleviating the 

uncertainty that permits will eventually be issued, the Department hopes to make projects more 

attractive to private investors. 

The Department has begun to more fully utilize the tools that Congress incorporated in the last 

several surface transportation reauthorizations, particularly to improve the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. These provisions have allowed us to: 

• create new categorical exclusion (CE) actions to increase the percentage of projects 

that can clear NEPA review without lengthy and costly processes, and to provide 

States with templates to complete them; 

• promote the option of a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 

Record of Decision (ROD) documentation, allowing a quicker resolution to the 

NEP A process; 

• establish time limits for litigation challenging an environmental review; and 

• reduce duplication by linking the planning and environmental review processes. 

Additionally, under the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program, commonly referred to 

as the NEPA Assignment Program, States can choose to assume the Federal Highway 

Administration's (FHWA) responsibilities for environmental review under NEPA. 

To date, five States-California, Texas, Florida, Utah, and Ohio-have assumed NEPA 

responsibilities. Alaska, Arizona, and Nebraska are also actively pursuing this opportunity. 

Each State must enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with FHWA and agree to 

certain conditions, such as waiving sovereign immunity and submitting to Federal court 

jurisdiction if a NEPA decision is legally challenged. To promote flexibility, States also have 

the option to assume only environmental approvals for projects that are eligible for categorical 

exclusim\s (CEs) under the CE Assignment Program. For example, Alaska signed aCE 

assignment MOU in September 2009. The FHWA has observed that NEPA assignment States 

take more care and consideration in environmental and project decision making, resulting in 

better stewardship of the environmental resources impacted by projects. 

Another FHW A initiative is to allow separate Federal permitting and review processes and the 

environmental review process to move forward concurrently, at the outset of a project, rather 

than conducting them sequentially. This approach can contribute to significant resource 

efficiencies and cost savings in the project development process. Sharing and exchanging 

environmental documents and information reduces duplicative reviews and identifies permitting 
10 


26349.004

challenges early in the process, which results in expedited resolutions and accelerated project 

delivery. 

While the Department is taking steps to conduct environmental reviews more efficiently, we will 

continue to examine additional ways to create more flexibility in the system, in order to ensure 

that vital highway and bridge projects do not spend years languishing in a cumbersome and 

ineffective environmental review processes. One innovation might be to better coordinate the 

review processes with other agencies involved in permitting. DOT is not the only federal entity 

involved, and the FAST Act is not the only statute that directs this process government-wide. 

Funding and Financing 

On the funding side, the Highway Trust Fund is projected to have enough cash to cover 

expenditures through Fiscal Year 2020, the final year of the FAST Act authorization. As of the 

end of April2017, the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund has a total balance of$47.7 

billion. In recent years, outlays from the Highway Trust Fund have outpaced revenue from 

highway taxes, penalties, and interest, which have been the traditional source of highway 

funding. Given this trend, it is crucial to work together to find innovative ways to finance 

highway infrastructure. 

In the FAST Act, Congress created the Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives 

(STSFA) Program, which provides grants to States to demonstrate user-fee based alternative 

revenue mechanisms that can help maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. 

These include on-board vehicle technologies to charge drivers based on miles traveled, and 

multi-State or regional approaches to road user charges. These projects are evaluating the 

reliability, as well as the security, of such technologies and addressing common challenges to 

implementing use-based fees, including public acceptance, privacy protection, and equity 

concerns. Last month, the Department published a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for 

up to $20 million in STSFA funds for Fiscal Year 2017, with applications due next month. The 

Department hopes to gain valuable insight from the STSFA program about possible new funding 

mechanisms for addressing the impending shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund. 

The FAST Act also authorized funding in the amount of$1.435 billion to provide Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Action (TIFIA) credit assistance for eligible projects for 

FY 2016-2020. The FAST Act authorized the Department to consolidate the TIFIA program into 

the Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau, also referred to as the Build America 

Bureau, along with the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, the 

Private Activity Bonds (PABs) program, and the National Surface Transportation and Highway 

Projects (NSHSP) program. The Department has been implementing the FAST Act changes to 

TIFIA and the other programs that have been consolidated into the Build America Bureau 

structure. 

The FAST Act also continued the Emergency Relief program, a special program from the 

Highway Trust Fund, which provides funds for emergency and permanent repairs on Federal-aid 

highways and roads, tribal transportation facilities, and roads on Federal lands that have suffered 

serious damage as a result of natural disasters or failure from an external cause. Just last month, 

4 
11 


26349.005

I approved the release of$768.2 million to help fix roads and bridges damaged by storms and 

catastrophic events across forty States. 

Additionally, in the Consolidated Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017, Congress 

provided flexibility to allow States to repurpose certain earmarked funds that were over 10 years 

old and had not been used for their stated purposes, putting previously idle funds to use on 

critical highway and bridge projects. Thus far, 2,200 earmarks worth approximately $1.8 billion 

have been repurposed. 

MAP-21 and FAST Act Implementation 

The Department continues to implement the congressional directives contained in the FAST Act 

and MAP-21. We are reviewing our implementation efforts, particularly with respect to 

streamlining to maximize any flexibility granted by Congress. 

Safety 

Safety continues to be the Department's highest priority, and is at the core of our mission. The 

Nation lost 35,092 people in motor vehicle crashes in 20 15-an average of 96 deaths per day. 

The 7.2 percent increase in fatalities from 2014 to 2015 ended a five-decade trend of declining 

fatalities. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) projection of traffic 

fatalities for the first nine months of2016 shows that an estimated 27,875 people died in motor 

vehicle traffic crashes, an increase of approximately 8 percent from the same period in 2015. In 

addition to the tragic impact on human life, NHTSA estimates that when lost quality of life is 

also considered, annual societal consequences of highway crashes can be quantified at $836 

billion. Nothing can replace the loss of a loved one, but quantifying the economic and societal 

costs of motor vehicle crashes demonstrate even further the importance of investing in highway 

safety and achieving a better safety record on U.S. highways. 

The FAST Act continued the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), providing 

estimated annual average funding of approximately $2.6 billion. Over the life of the FAST Act, 

an average of $260 million of this funding per year is reserved for the Railway-Highway 

Crossings Program. The HSIP has broad eligibilities aimed at achieving a significant reduction 

in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned roads and 

roads on tribal land. 

The FHW A encourages a data-driven, performance-based approach to save lives on all public 

roads. Under the HSIP, States develop and implement comprehensive, data-driven Strategic 

Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) that establish statewide safety goals, objectives, and key 

emphasis areas and integrate the "four Es" of safety--engineering, education, enforcement and 

emergency medical services. Beginning this summer, States and metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) will set data-driven annual safety performance targets for the first time, 

which will help guide their investment decision-making. 

To achieve the vision of zero fatalities, crashes on local and rural roads must be addressed. Fiftyfive percent of all public road miles are locally-owned rural roads. In 2012, 19 percent of the 
12 


26349.006

U.S. population lived in rural areas, but rural road fatalities accounted for 54 percent of all road 

fatalities. The fatality rate in rural areas has remained 2.5 times higher than the fatality rate in 

urban areas, which may be the result of several factors including the distance to hospitals. The 

FHWA continues to take a coordinated national approach with its partners and stakeholders to 

address local and rural crashes. The FHWA's local and rural road safety program encompasses 

training, technical assistance, guidance, and other tools. This program has shown measured 

success, more States are funding projects on local roadways with their Highway Safety 

Improvement Program dollars, and local agencies are more aware of their roadway safety issues 

through the development of Local Road Safety Plans, and more local agencies are participating 

and SHSP development that includes participation from local agencies. 

Performance Management 

In MAP-21, Congress made significant changes to the Federal-aid highway program by 

establishing new requirements for performance management. These changes were intended to 

increase the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program and to provide 

a framework to improve our investment decision making by focusing on performance outcomes 

for key national transportation goals. State DOTs will now be required to establish performance 

targets and assess performance in key areas. 

FHW A has been implementing these performance management directives from Congress 

through a series of inter-related rulemakings and other actions, including a suite of training 

courses, technical tools, and guidance to educate our State and local partners. The FHWA has 

completed the rulemakings addressing performance management in the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program and asset management. Working with NHTSA, FHWA has delivered 

target-setting workshops to more than 1,000 stakeholders in 45 States, including representatives 

from State DOTs, MPOs, and State Highway Safety Offices. State DOTs that fail to meet or 

make significant progress toward meeting their safety targets will be required to direct a larger 

share of their highway spending toward HSIP projects. 

Under the asset management provisions in MAP-21 and the FAST Act, State DOTs must 

develop and implement an asset management plan, which aims to improve and preserve the 

condition of assets and system performance at a minimum practicable cost. An FHWA rule 

finalized last year implements this statutory requirement, explains the form and content for the 

resulting plans, and establishes FHWA's oversight role. 

Freight 

The continued success of the freight industry is vital to our national economic interests; 

investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure is needed if we expect to maintain a 

global competitive edge. Trucks currently carry 64 percent of the tons and 69 percent of the 

value of freight moved in the United States. In the next 30 years, the U.S. economy is expected 

to double in size and the Nation's population is projected to increase by 68 million people. 

Driven by this projected economic and population growth, freight movements across all modes 

are expected to grow by roughly 42 percent by the year 2040, making investments in our freight 

infrastructure a priority. 

6 
13 


26349.007

As you all know, the FAST Act established the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) to 

improve the efficient movement of freight on the newly designated National Highway Freight 

Network (NHFN). NHFP funds can be used to support freight projects that improve intermodal 

connectivity, which is critical to ensure the safe, resilient, and efficient flow of freight movement 

across the overall freight transportation system. In Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017, FHWA has 

distributed over $2.2 billion in National Highway Freight Program funding to the States by 

statutory formula. 

Under the FAST Act, the Department is required to develop a National Freight Strategic Plan, 

which will identify strategies and best practices for improving intermodal connectivity and 

performance on the freight system, as well as mitigating the impacts of freight movement on 

communities. DOT is currently working to develop this plan, which we look forward to sharing 

with this Committee and other stakeholders. 

The FAST Act also requires each State to develop a State Freight Plan, a comprehensive plan for 

their immediate and long-range planning activities and investments that includes: identification 

of significant system trends, needs, and issues; identification of multimodal critical rural freight 

facilities and corridors; an inventory of facilities with freight mobility issues; strategies to 

mitigate congestion or delay; and a freight investment plan. Beginning December 4, 2017, a 

State may not continue to obligate formula freight funds unless it has developed a comprehensive 

State Freight Plan. States are currently working on their plans and three States-Nevada, Idaho, 

and Ohio-have completed development of compliant plans. 

Congress not only provided formula funds for freight development in the FAST Act, but also 

created the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program (that became 

unofficially known as "F ASTLANE"). This grant program provides financial assistance through 

competitive grants or credit assistance to projects that, for example, improve the safety, 

efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people; generate national or regional 

economic benefits and increase our national economic competitiveness; or reduce highway 

congestion and bottlenecks. Each fiscal year, 25 percent of the competitive grant funds 

distributed are reserved for projects in rural areas. In Fiscal Year 2016, grants totaling over $700 

million were awarded to 14 States and the District of Columbia. We are examining ways to 

increase the effectiveness of that program. 

Technology and Innovation 

Technology and innovation play a critical role in tackling these various challenges. The 

Department's Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) performs 

research on intelligent systems and is currently focusing on developing intelligent vehicle and 

intelligent infrastructure technologies, including vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-toinfrastructure (V2I) connectivity through the application of advanced wireless technologies. The 

program invests in major research initiatives, develops and tests the underlying technology and 

applications, and provides deployment support, including technology transfer and training. In 

addition to connected vehicles research, ITS JPO is also focusing on expanding automation to 

enable the smooth and safe introduction of automated features into our vehicles and 

7 
14 


26349.008

transportation systems. Intelligent transportation technologies like these have the capacity to 

create safer vehicles and roadways by enhancing crash avoidance capabilities; enbance mobility 

by exploring methods and strategies that increase system efficiency and improve individual 

mobility; and better manage traffic flow and reduce congestion. Each of these improvements 

enables infrastructure to operate more efficiently, to better support future economic growth and 

to improve the lives of everyday Americans. 

In addition to ITS JPO, the Department supports several competitive grant programs that 

encourage and facilitate the deployment of new technologies by our State and local partners. 

Last month, the Department issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the second 

round of competitive grants in the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management 

Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) Program. Congress created this program in the FAST 

Act in order to develop model deployment sites for large scale installation and operation of 

advanced transportation technologies. Eligible projects, such as V2V and V2I communication 

systems, collision avoidance technologies, integration of intelligent transportation systems with 

the Smart Grid, and advanced mobility and access technologies, are designed to improve safety, 

efficiency, system performance, and infrastructure return on investment. Last year, the 

Department distributed $56.6 million to eight projects in six States, which leveraged close to 

$100 million in additional public and private funding. Up to $60 million is available this fiscal 

year and applications are due next month. The Department looks forward to evaluating this new 

group of projects to discover how our State and local partners can continue to be laboratories of 

innovation. 

The Accelerated Innovation Deployment (AID) grant program provides $10 million per year to 

eligible entities to accelerate the implementation and adoption of innovation in highway 

transportation. AID is one initiative under the multi-faceted Technology and Innovation 

Deployment Program (TIDP), which was continued by Congress under the FAST Act to provide 

funding and other resources to offset the risk of implementing an innovation. AID can accelerate 

the adoption of innovative technologies and new business practices in highway construction. 

Thus far, AID has funded 62 projects in 34 States, totaling $44.4 million. 

Investment in research is critical to the identification, development, and evaluation of these 

technology and innovation initiatives. While the private Sector and the States undertake 

significant research efforts, the Federal government plays a role in performing higher risk, 

advanced research, as well as research that meets critical national needs. The Federal 

government also provides an independent assessment and evaluation of the benefits and 

performance of innovations. Many of the cost and time savings, and safer technologies and 

innovations advanced by our State and local partners through AID, were first developed and 

refined by FHWA at its Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. These advances include the 

use of ultra-high performance concrete, the Diverging Diamond Interchange, and adaptive signal 

control systems. 

The Administration's Infrastructure Plan 

The President has made clear that modernizing our country's crumbling infrastructure, including 

our Nation's highways and bridges, is one ofhis top priorities. The Administration's 
15 


26349.009

infrastructure initiative will be comprehensive, covering surface transportation and aviation, 

along with other important sectors, like ports, inland waterways, pipelines, water, broadband, and 

energy as well. The Administration's goal is to seek long-term reforms on how infrastructure 

projects are regulated, funded, delivered, and maintained. It is designed to leverage Federal 

dollars by incentivizing State, local, and non-Federal investment in infrastructure, and it will 

address infrastructure development in both urban and rural areas in ways that are supportive of a 

wide range of funding options and sensitive to funding challenges faced by some communities. 

We hope to broaden and expand participation in infrastructure funding so that more projects can 

be undertaken overall and so that we do not supplant existing state, local, or private funds 

already dedicated to infrastructure. The goal is to increase the total amount of infrastructure 

investment, while delivering better transportation outcomes for Americans. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the invitation to appear before you today. I welcome the opportunity to 

work closely with you on these issues of critical importance to our country's infrastructure, so 

our economy can continue to grow and create good jobs for America's working families. Thank 

you. 

9 
16 


26349.010

Responses to Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Elaine L. Chao 

Secretary of Transportation 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Improving America's Transportation Infrastructure: The Road Forward" 

May 17,2017 

Submitted June 20, 2017 

Ranking Member Carper: 

I. In your speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, you mentioned that a key feature of 

Administration's infrastructure plan will be "unleashing billions of dollars in private 

capital available for investment in infrastructure." As you develop your plan to 

incentivize more public private partnerships, what safeguards will the Administration 

pursue to protect taxpayers from bad deals? 

Response: The Department is committed to protecting the interests of taxpayers in the 

development and delivery of public-private partnerships (P3s). The Department, 

through its Build America Bureau, develops and promotes best practices in innovative 

finance and P 3s and provides extensive technical resources for states, municipalities, 

and other public and private sector entities that are considering P 3s. The Bureau 

provides advice and expertise to project sponsors that seek to leverage private sector 

funding. This includes P3 toolkit materials, training opportunities, project-specific 

technical assistance, peer knowledge exchanges, value for money evaluation tools, and 

other expert resources to support the knowledgeable and responsible implementation of 

P 3 projects. Furthermore, P 3 projects that seek a TIFIA loan, which includes many of 

the P3 transactions completed in recent years, are subject to very thorough 

creditworthiness evaluations, which increases the level of due diligence required for P3 

projects. Additionally, projects fimded through the infrastructure initiative would be 

subject to all(){ the accountability requirements that apply to DOT projects generally. 

2. In your testimony, you stated your commitment to working together to address the 

Highway Trust Fund solvency crisis. As you know, this is also an issue of great 

significance to me. When the Fast Act expires in 2020, Highway Trust Fund revenues 

will not be able to further support funding levels. Beyond then, we will face a $115 

billion cumulative funding shortfall through 2026, according to the Congressional 

Budget Office. You have indicated that "all options are on the table" for new revenue 

measures. Can you provide more details on which transportation revenue measures that 

you and President Trump might support as a means to address the long-term solvency 

of the Highway Trust Fund? 

Response: Although the Highway Trust Fund will remain solvent until 2020, we share 

your concern about its long-term solvency. We will review the results of the pilot 

projects under the FHWA Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives 

Page 1 of 11 
17 


26349.011

Program. Alternative funding mechanisms that are currently being piloted by States 

include vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fees. 

3. Traffic fatalities continue to rise across our country. The latest estimates show that 

traffic deaths surpassed 40,000 last year for the first time in a decade. In my home State 

of Delaware, we have the highest pedestrian fatality rate of any State in the country. 

Unfortunately, we're not alone. The number of pedestrian fatalities in the United States 

increased 25 percent from 2010 to 2015 and it is estimated that that the number of 

pedestrian deaths increased by II percent in 2016 over 2015.ln fact, nearly one in six 

deaths on our roads is a pedestrian. How is the Department responding to this crisis and 

what reviews and actions have you initiated to respond to increasing motorized and 

non-motorized fatalities? 

Response: The Department of Transportation's (DOT) number one mission is safety. 

We are very concerned about the recent increase in traffic fatalities. In addition to 

continuing to promote highly successful vehicle safety and behavioral safety efforts, 

DOT is working to combat these increases in several new ways: 

• DOT is working with the new Road to Zero Coalition that has gathered an unprecedented 

range ofsafety constituents to pursue collaborative road safety strategies. 

• The Federal Highway Administration partners with State and local agencies to deliver a 

data-driven, performance-based approach to save lives on all public roads. 

o The agency has developed a wide variety of resources to help States develop, 

implement, evaluate, and promote their Strategic Highway Safety Plans under the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

o State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations are also accountable for 

targets associated with fatalities and serious injuries, including nonmotorized 

fatalities and serious injuries, under the Safety Performance Management Rule, 

issued pursuant to MAP-21. 

o The agency has a/sofocused additional resources on the cities and States with the 

highest pedestrian fatalities and/or fatality rates. 

• DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is working closely with 

State partners to identify specific traffic safety problems at the State and local levels and 

apply appropriate countermeasure that will stem the increases, using highway safety 

grant funds. 

• NHTSA is working closely with the industry to encourage adoption of technologies that 

will prevent crashes from happening in thefirst place. For example, in 2016 NHTSA and 

the Insurance Institute for Highway Saftty worked with 20 automakers to gain their 

commitment to make automatic emergency braking standard on virtually all light-duty 

cars and trucks by 2022. 

DOT's concern about the sharp rise in pedestrian and bicyclist deaths led to the 

creation of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinating Committee. The goal of this 

Committee is to identify cross-modal opportunities for research and program 

development and to engage new partners to improve the safety of bicycling and walking. 

The Committee brings together the five modal administrations that have a role in 

Page 2 of 11 
18 


26349.012

pedestrian and bicyclist sqfety to coordinate their efforts and address the rise in 

fatalities with strategic actions. Most recently, NHTSA, Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and Federal Transit 

Administration have all produced technical assistance material aimed at increasing 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Specific examples include: 

• Creation of a clearinghouse to improve community access to the latest research and 

information on effective practices for engineering, education and law enforcement; 

• Starting a technical assistance program targeting States that receive funding under the 

new NHTSA Non-Motorized Safety Grant Program established under the FAST Act; and 

• Conducting new research analyzing the demographics of alcohol-impaired pedestrians 

killed in motor vehicle crashes, assessing the risks associated with walking-while-texting 

and pedestrian use of other electronic devices, and evaluating the effectiveness of 

enhanced enforcement of motorist violations of bicycle safety laws. 

4. After promising to invest a trillion dollars in infrastructure, President Trump's FYI8 

budget proposed to eliminate the TIGER competitive grant program, which funds many 

multi modal projects, and to cut funding for new transit lines as well as for long-distance 

passenger rail lines. As a member of the Trump Administration, can you reassure us 

that funding for multi modal projects, including for transit and rail, will continue to 

remain a national priority? 

Response: The Department takes a holistic approach when considering how best to 

make national infrastructure investment decisions. The TIGER program, first enacted 

as part of the Recovery Act in 2008, has not been formally authorized as part of a longterm surface transportation bill. Many projectsfimded by TIGER are also eligible 

under DOT's other mandatory highway and transit formula programs. Furthermore, 

the Nationally Significant Highway and Freight Projects discretionary grant program 

provides DOT the ability to mvard competitive grants to projects of national or 

regional significance, including freight rail and port projects that have public benefit. 

The program is authorized at $4.5 billion dollars through 2020. DOT's credit and 

finance programs also have additional capacity for financing many of these rail, 

transit, and multimodal projects. However, as Congress has appropriated $500 million 

in FY l?for the TIGER program, the Department will continue to utilize all currently 

available funding mechanisms and programs, as well as working to develop new 

approaches to ensure we properly address our national infrastructure needs as 

efficiently and etfective~y as possible. 

5. I would like to thank you for the Department's quick response to the I-85 bridge 

collapse in Atlanta, enabling the bridge to be reopened May IS,just six weeks after it 

collapsed. The project benefited from strong local, State, and Federal leadership and 

used existing legal authorities. What can we learn from this successful experience that 

might be applied to the rest of the nation? Do you feel that your experience in this 

project may lend itself to revising your earlier statement that "the problem is not the 

money" but rather the permitting delays? 

Page 3 of 11 
19 


26349.013

Response: The Department prides itself on the ability to respond quickly to emergency 

situations such as the 1-85 collapse in Atlanta, to assist States to restore critical 

transportation infrastructure expeditiously. Fortunately, the vast mqjority of 

transportation projects are not the result of an emergency situation. For this majority 

of projects, emergency procedures cannot be used. Additionally, while the Atlanta 

project was limited in scope to restoring the facility to its pre-emergency condition, 

other projects typically have additional scope. For the most complex projects, the 

environmental and historic preservation review and permitting processes can delay 

project delivery. 

We continue to believe in the importance of improving the efficiency and effictiveness 

ofenvironmental review and permitting. It is critical that limited Federal funds are 

spent in an efficient manner, delivering the best return on investment to the American 

taxpayers. Reducing project delivery times by improving these processes will reduce 

costs and help create the certainty necessary to encourage private-sector, State, and 

local investment in infrastructure. 

6. As part of the FAST Act, the Department ofTransportation was directed to establish a 

Tribal Transportation Self Governance Program through the negotiated rulemaking 

process. Though the negotiated rulemaking committee had begun its work, we 

understand that all work has been postponed. When does the Department anticipate 

resuming the negotiated rulemaking process? Will the Department and the rulemaking 

committee be able to meet the statutory deadline imposed in the FAST Act to complete 

the mandate? 

Response: The Department is still evaluating, pursuant to Erecutive Order 13771, the 

statutory directive contained in 23 U.S. C. 207 which directs the Department of 

Transportation to engage in a negotiated rulemaking process to establish a Tribal 

Transportation Se(f Governance Program and issue proposed regulations not later 

than September 5, 2017 (21 months after the date of enactment of the FAST Act). This 

deadline, as well as the deadline to issue a final rule may each be extended one time up 

to 180 days. The Administration continues to review this regulatory undertaking. /fan 

extension is deemed necessary, the Secretary will submit such a request in accordance 

with 23 USC 207(n)(1)(D). 

7. In 2005, SAFETEA-LU included a provision in that law that created a Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs within the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation at DOT. However, although statutorily required, the position remained 

vacant for more than a decade, until last year. That position is yet again vacant. Will the 

Department commit to appointing someone to this role? 

Re~ponse: It is our intention to .fil/fi/1 our responsibility to Tribal governments by 

designating a Deputy Assistant Secretary to serve as their liaison with !he Department. 

Page 4 of 11 
20 


26349.014

8. In 2010 and 2012, the Obama administration brought together automakers, 

environmental and consumer organizations, and the state of California in support of 

agreements to almost double the fuel economy standards of cars and light trucks. This 

was a win for consumers who now spend less money on gas, a win for the environment 

because less global warming pollution is being emitted by the transportation sector, a 

win for national security and the trade deficit because we don't import as much foreign 

oil, and a win for the auto industry, which got a predictable set of national regulations 

and the end to years-long litigation. This outcome was only made possible because 

everyone worked together and agreed on what the standards should be. Will you 

commit to convening the same set of stakeholders to try to reach agreement on the 

CAFE standards for 2022-25 and beyond? 

Response: NHTSA will continue to engage with stakeholders as it works to develop the 

upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule making (NP RM) to set CAFE standards for MYs 

2022-2025. By statute, that rule making must he "de novo," which means that NHTSA 

must startfresh and consider all relevant factors based on the best and most current 

iriformation. Toward that end, NHTSA is working and will continue to work carefully 

with stakeholders to make sure that it is getting the best information possible. 

9. Provisions of the FAST Act allow metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to 

create congestion relief plans by working with employers and transportation 

management associations (TMAs). The recently passed 2017 omnibus appropriations 

language includes direction from the Senate Committee on Appropriations for FHW A 

to provide technical assistance to MPOs on ways to improve engagement with 

employers, TMAs and mobility providers. Can you describe how the Department plans 

to help MPOs engage employers and TMAs as part of the transportation planning 

process? What steps are the Department taking or planning to take to directly engage 

stakeholders such as employers and mobility providers in order to improve our nation's 

congestion problems? 

Response: The FHWA is working with MPOs on their congestion relief plans by 

providing technical assistance and resources. Some a_( these efforts include: 

• Sharing information across FHWA Division Offices on how Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations responsible for Transportation Management Areas 

(!'MAs) are using the Congestion Management Process (CMP) to inform 

programming and project selection. 

• Updating the CMP Guidebook to assist MPOs as they implement CMP and 

suggest approaches for integrating the CMP into metropolitan transportation 

planning processes. 

• Highlighting case studies and notable practices of the CMP and how MPOs 

have structured their CMP processes; their data collection and analysis 

methods and tools; their integration of the CMP with the metropolitan 

transportation plan and other planning processes; and effective practices for 

documentation and visualization of congestion information. 

Page 5 of 11 
21 


26349.015

• Updating planning courses to provide current information on public 

involvement and coordination practices to help MPOs and States coordinate 

with the public, transportation management agencies, and employers. 

• Implementing final performance management rules required by MAP-21 and 

using performance goals and targets to address regional congestion. 

• Emphasizing how intermodal facilities can support intercity transportation, 

including intercity bus facilities and commuter van pool providers, through the 

statewide and metropolitan multimodal transportation planning processes. 

• Sharing resources such as Integrating Demand Management into the 

Transportation Planning Process to serve as a reference and integrate demand 

management into the transportation planning process. This resource discusses 

how demand management relates to key policy objectives that are often 

included in transportation plans, such as congestion and air quality. 

• Supporting a Commuter Choice Decision Support System designed to help 

employers explore commuter choice options. 

• Producing resources on transportation demand management approaches. 

10. The Administration's budget proposal suggests rewarding "self-help" localities that 

bring their own financial resources to match federal funding. However, many counties 

around the country are limited by state law in their ability to "self-help" through local 

tax measures. Does this Administration support change at the State level for expanded 

local authority to encourage self-help as a source of transportation revenue? 

Response: The Administration believes that state, local, and tribal governments are 

better equipped than the federal government to understand the right level of investment 

needed in their communities, including how best to finance those investments. 

II. The Administration's proposal to cut or eliminate both the Capital Investment Grants 

program and the TIGER program targets two programs with the some of the strongest 

requirements for departmental analysis of project quality, benefit cost analysis, risk and 

readiness assessment and overall project competitiveness. What is the Department's 

position on the value of benefit cost analyses and other technical assessments of project 

quality? 

Response: Benefit-cost analysis is a valuable tool for project evaluation because it 

assesses how a project's expected outcomes match up with the project's intended goals. 

Ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars are spent wise(v and on high impact projects is a 

top priority for the Department, and the Department greatly relies on the results of 

benefit-cost analysis and similar technical evaluations to iY{/iJrm project selection 

through many of its discretionary grant programs, including the Nationally Significant 

Freight and Highway Projects program. 

Senator Duckworth: 

12. At a May 16'h hearing of the EPW Committee regarding "Leveraging Federal Funding; 

Innovative Solutions for Infrastructure," we heard testimony from Virginia's 

Page 6 of 11 
22 


26349.016

Transportation Secretary, Aubrey Layne, who highlighted the challenges that his state 

faced in assessing the complexities of high value infrastructure projects with private 

entities. 

Private entities that invest in P3s have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. As public 

servants, we have a responsibility to taxpayers. I'm concerned about the ability of States and 

municipalities to assess the value ofP3 projects for local taxpayers to ensure they get the best 

deal possible. 

Will you commit to working with me to ensure policies are put in place that ensure local 

decision-makers have the tools they need to ensure their taxpayers are protected in P3 

infrastructure deals? 

Response: Yes, we will work with you to ensure that local decision makers have the 

tools they need to ensure that taxpayers are protected in P 3 deals. The Department's 

Build America Bureau develops and promotes best practices in innovative finance and 

P3s and has developed a variety of technical assistance tools that local decision makers 

may find helpful. 

13. It is no longer uncommon to see electric vehicles on Illinois roadways and U.S. 

highways. This is helping innovative technologies make their way into the marketplace 

and it benefits the environment- a win-win. Currently, federal regulations only allow 

vending machines at interstate rest areas. Many State DOT's, including the Illinois 

Department of Transportation, interpret these regulations as prohibiting the installation 

of electric charging stations at rest areas. 

What is US DOT doing to encourage the development and use of electric vehicles and will 

you commit to working with me to advance policies that support a more robust national 

network of electric vehicle charging stations? 

Response: We are working with our State partners to address the practical issues that 

are arising as electric vehicles are being used more widely and for longer distances. In 

accordance with the FAST requirements in Section 1413, the Federal Highway 

Administration released a report that designates national electric vehicle (EV) charging, 

hydrogen, propane, and natural gas ji1eling corridors along the National Highway 

System. This includes designations for the state of Illinois. That report is available here: 

I.!11J2,y/i\_;:_\\ \\j_lE\_!h\1\l.Lg~!.Yi.t;l]llffiD111CnUaiH~J:llit\lY£.Jucl con·lQurs!rcsgurccsiscction 141 

l_r£DQ[t'fh"ahcr_l70.pdf 

Senator Harris: 

14. Question about Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Purple Line 

The recently released Annual Report on Funding Recommendations identifies and rates 13 

projects in the New Starts pipeline, including Section 3 of the Westside Purple Line 

Extension in Los Angeles. Sections I and 2 of this project have separate Full Funding Grant 

Page 7 of 11 
23 


26349.017

Agreements (FFGAs) and are currently in design and/or under construction. A third FFGA 

for Section 3 is required to complete this project that will provide badly needed transit 

service between downtown Los Angeles and the Veterans Affairs West Los Angeles 

Healthcare Center. 

However, it was troubling that the President's budget request only sought funding for projects 

that currently have FFGAs in place. This request level is far below both the FAST Act 

authorization and the FY 17 appropriated levels. 

How will the Department complete work on the Purple Line and others that are currently in 

the Capitallnvestment Grant (CIG) process, and what assurances can you provide that any 

funding appropriated to this account in excess of the President's request will be obligated for 

the projects in the ClG approval process consistent with Congressional intent? 

Response: As required by the FAST Act, the FY18 Annual Report on Funding 

Recommendations for the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program contains ratings for 

all of the projects currently in the CIG program that requested such ratings. including 

the Westside Purple Line Section 3 project. However, the Annual Report did limit 

funding recommendations to projects with existing full funding grant agreements and 

specified that future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities 

that use and benefit from these localized projects. 

The Department is continuing to implement the CIG program in accordance with 

program provisions as authorized in statute, including advancing projects through the 

various phases of the program. In April2017, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority submitted a request for the Westside Section 3 project to enter 

the Engineering phase of the CIG program, which is currently under review. 

Lastly, the President and his infrastructure team are currently reviewing the country's 

pressing infrastructure needs. In the coming months, the ir!frastructure team will develop 

a comprehensive proposal that will accelerate project delivery, spur private sector 

innovation and investment, and ensure that the Government effectively invests Federal 

infrastructure funding. 

15. Question about California priority projects and the President 

In January, President Trump issued Executive Order 13,766 to speed up the review of high 

priority infrastrll(.iure projects. I support the goal of moving projects quickly consistent with 

applicable federal law. The Executive Order stated that the White House would decide 

within 30 days whether a project qualifies as "high priority." On February 24, California 

Governor Brown wrote to the President to identil)' ten projects that California considers high 

priority. Nine ofthem are transportation projects. 

More than 120 days have passed- four times what the Executive Order promised- and the 

State has not received an answer. Have you had any conversations with the White House 

about these projects? When will the Governor receive a response? 

Page 8 of 11 
24 


26349.018

Response: The President's Executive Order on "Expediting Environmental Reviews 

and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects, " together with other 

Administration efforts, will help deliver critical infrastructure projects in a more 

efficient and effective manner. The Executive Order identified the Chairman of the 

White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as responsible for deciding 

whether an i1Jfrastructure project qualifies as a "high priority" infrastructure 

project. As Cf:Q explaint>d in its April] l, 201 re.1pons<: /ella, CEQ is work ill!!, wiz/1 

other Fedaa/ agi'ncies, includill!!, the Federu/l'ennittin!!, Improvement Steaing 

Council, and .-1dmillistration officials to align various pamitting improFemelll a11d 

ill/rastructur<' initiatives. Jnjimnation on the identification of' high priority 

infi·astructure projects will he made aFai/ahle as rhis interagenc)' process nwvl's 

fiJrward We look forward to working with CEQ, and others federal agencies, to 

implement the Executive Order and carry out other permitting reforms to improve the 

delivery of all infrastructure projects. 

16. Question about Workforce Development 

Workforce development in the transportation sector is extremely important both to ensure the 

safe and efficient operation of our transportation and transit systems and to make sure that 

Americans can fill these good, high-paying jobs. For example, Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, one of the nation's largest transit agencies, estimates 

that around 40% of its employees will be eligible to retire within the next few years. The 

GROW AMERICA Act, which was signed into law in December 2015, included $369 

million in workforce development over the six years to support and enhance the size, 

diversity, and skills of our nation's transportation workforce. What are you doing within the 

Department to help make sure that people are properly trained to fill important jobs in the 

transportation sector? 

Response: DOT currently has several programs to support workforce development in the 

Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration. We are continuing to work to improve our coordination 

within DOT. 

The transportation industry is experiencing ullforeseen pipeline gap across all career 

paths, professional, skilled and unskilled. This issue is national and not one that DOT 

can address alone. Therefore, in partnership with the Department of Labor, DOT has 

launched the highway construction workforce sector/based pilot project to bring together 

key stakeholders in the public workforce system, including the public and private sectors, 

to effectively address staffing and training needs in highway construction. This industryled approach to identifY, train, and place individuals in high demand highway 

construction occupations, or to ups kill and retain the current workforce, is being led by 

the State and local workforce development boards in partnership with the Department of 

Labor's Employment and Training Administration and DOT's Federal Highway 

Administration. 

Page 9 ofll 
25 


26349.019

Combining growth and separations, transportation industry employers will need to hire 

approximately 4.6 million workers by 2022, of which 2 million of the 4.6 workers are 

truck drivers. In 2014, 53 percent of the transportation workforce was 45 years or older. 

Transit (at 35 percent) and Railroad (at 29 percent) currently have the highest 

percentages of workers over the age of 55. 

In addition to providing funding for organizations to address their specific worliforce 

needs, DOT continues to partner with Department of Labor and Department of 

Education to gather, analyze and interpret data to better understand the transportation 

workforce needs. We will continue to coordinate and collaborate with all of our 

stakeholders to address this very important issue. 

17. Question about Freight Bottlenecks and Santa Barbara 

I also want to ask you a question about freight bottlenecks. For example, the project to 

widen Highway 101 in Santa Barbara County will combat congestion locally and also, as one 

of two main north-south arteries in our state, have significant benefits to California and the 

nation. It is critical to the nation's movement of goods and agriculture and provides access to 

Vandenberg Air Force Base. Santa Barbara plans to apply for a TIGER Grant and a 

FASTLANE Grant this year. Do you agree that programs like TIGER and F ASTLANE 

provide federal resources that are valuable investments to projects like the 101 widening that 

would solve our nation's freight-movement bottlenecks? 

Response: As authorized by the FAST Act. the Nationally Significant Freight and 

Highway Project (NSFHP) Program is specifically designed to address projects on the 

National Highway System that can help alleviate freight bottlenecks such as those that 

are experienced on Highway 101. The TIGER program that wasfimded in the FY 17 

Omnibus bill provides broader eligibility and serves as another mechanism to .fund 

important road projects in our nation. For both programs, the Department seeks the 

most competitive applications. The Department believes a merit-based approach that 

holds project sponsors accountablefor delivering results, leverages non-federal sources 

of .funding to expand the number of infrastructure projects that DOT can support, and 

implements new and innovative approaches will allow us to address our nation's 

infrastructure needs at the lowest cost and in the shortest time possible. 

18. Question about Riverside & Orange counties and Timely Department Reviews 

I also want to ask about Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 

loans. Within California, multiple agencies are seeking to use the financing provided under 

TJFJA to provide low-interest loans that allow local agencies to implement projects in an 

efficient manner, while limiting taxpayer expense. For instance, Orange County is seeking a 

$627 million loan for its Interstate 405 project, an expansion project in one of the nation's 

most heavily congested corridor. Similarly, Riverside County is considering a project to add 

express lanes to Interstate 15, and the County is hoping to apply for a TIFIA loan. These 

types of projects are consistent with the President's call for increased investment in public 

Page 10 of 11 
26 


26349.020

infrastructure. These projects also do not increase the federal deficit. What is currently being 

done to ensure that TIFIA financing agreements are being reviewed in a timely manner? 

Response: A low-interest, long-term TIFIA loan is an important tool for state and local 

governments seeking to modernize their infrastructure. The Department has been working to 

make the evaluation and approval ofTIFIA loan applications more efficient and timely, while 

also continuing to protect the interest of taxpayers. With the establishment of the Build America 

Bureau, in accordance with the FAST Act, there has been a focused effort to identifY 

inefficiencies in the TIFIA process and to reduce the time required for certain steps. For 

instance, the Bureau now includes an Outreach and Project Development team, which is 

responsible for working with potential TIFIA borrowers during pre-credit phases to ensure that 

key issues are resolved as early as possible and to avoid any potential delays during final 

approval steps. Final approvals ofTIFIA loans also now require fewer meetings of the Council 

on Credit and Finance than previously required The Bureau has also developed and piloted a 

streamlined application process for certain projects that meet higher credit standards. With all 

of these changes. it is still important to ensure that the TIFIA loan evaluation process continues 

to accurately determine the creditworthiness of projects, along with effective identification and 

mitigation of key projects risks. The Bureau has recently closed two projects that completed the 

full creditworthiness and application processes in approximately 6-8 months, which is a 

significant improvement over the typical time line of more than a year. The Bureau's streamlined 

loan review and credit processes will continue to result in more timely financingsfor the foture. 

Page 11 of 11 
27 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. I 

appreciate your testimony. As we know, the Administration has 

committed to a comprehensive infrastructure bill. As you mentioned, and as did I, the highways, roads, and bridges need to be 

a central component of any infrastructure bill. 

Could you talk a little bit more about the Administration’s view 

on ensuring that a major portion of the funding in any infrastructure package is used to do things to maintain and upgrade the nation’s highways, roads, bridges, and the fundamentals that we are 

focused on here? 

Ms. CHAO. As mentioned, the President’s top priority—one of the 

President’s top priorities is obviously restoring, rebuilding, refurbishing, repairing the infrastructure of our country. This is a huge 

task, which involves the entire executive branch. 

There has been an interagency work force that has been established. There are 16 different agencies and departments that are 

part of this task force to ensure that we are looking at the infrastructure proposal from a holistic point of view and including also 

all the stakeholders involved. 

So this infrastructure task force includes, for example, the Treasury Department, Commerce, OMB, Transportation, of course, Agriculture, Interior, Department of Defense, Department of Labor, 

FCC, Veterans Affairs. So the proposal will include not only transportation infrastructure, which includes, of course, airports, roads, 

rail, highways, ports, inland waterways, but also energy, water, 

possibly broadband, veterans’ hospitals. So it would be a very comprehensive approach. 

To that end, there is also a great deal of attention given to two 

parts of this effort: the front end part of permitting and then the 

latter part about pay force. So this has been a very significant undertaking by the whole, entire executive branch. 

Senator BARRASSO. In terms of using resources in a better way 

and a smarter way, one of the things I talked about in my opening 

statement were some of these one size fits all approaches. When I 

see some of the proposals on measuring and combating traffic congestion, in New York, New Jersey, California, they may make perfect sense. But in Wyoming, they don’t, in terms of the amount of 

money we would have to spend to do the kinds of things, to monitor 

things. The road between Casper, Wyoming, where I live, and 

Cody, Wyoming, 214 miles, there is one traffic light, kind of halfway in between, in Thermopolis. Pretty much, people don’t ever 

worry about the amount of traffic. The reason they put the traffic 

light there was not that felt they needed it many years ago, but 

they were just concerned that when students went there to the 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, they wouldn’t know how to work 

a traffic light when they were driving until they got to the university. So they put a traffic light up. 

So are there ways we can look together to look for some common 

sense regulations in terms of rural America? 

Ms. CHAO. Absolutely. You mentioned your concern earlier in 

your testimony; we take note of that. As you know, I come from a 

rural State myself. So as we go forward, the Administration wants 

to be very, very emphatic that it will understand the concerns of 

rural America. 

28 

Senator BARRASSO. Could you please provide us with a bit of an 

update of the Administration’s timeline for the infrastructure package? 

Ms. CHAO. The Administration’s timeline was in part based on 

the congressional timeline. And it was anticipated that third quarter of this year would probably be a time that both House and Senate would be able to pick up this proposal. 

In the interim, obviously the President is very impatient, and he 

has asked the principles be released around the latter part of May. 

So the principles for the infrastructure project should be coming 

out shortly. 

Senator BARRASSO. I want to talk also about the way that funds 

are distributed in current formula programs. It seems to be working, people agree. Is that your thought as well, that that would be 

the right way to go, rather than creating a whole new way to distribute the funds? 

Ms. CHAO. We have certainly talked a great deal about formula 

funding. That certainly has been one way in which the various demands and requirements of the Members of Congress are addressed. So we are still talking about that as well. 

Senator BARRASSO. And given your existing authorities, could 

you talk a little bit about your vision to streamline the regulatory 

process to accelerate the delivery of some of these projects? 

Ms. CHAO. All of us care about the environment, and we care 

about all construction projects, and that they should be conducted 

in a way that is responsible. 

But as we examine the permitting part of construction projects, 

we find that sometimes there are—many times, there are duplicative and redundant requirements which impede and slow down the 

approvals for a construction project. So we are looking at those 

redundancies, and seeing whether there are some ways, sometimes, 

where it would be appropriate to do things concurrently as well, 

and not so much sequentially. So those are a couple of examples 

of the things we are looking at. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. 

When you were good enough to visit with me, I mentioned one 

of my core principles, and that is that things that are worth having 

are worth paying for. When I was Governor of Delaware, I took the 

lead, we did huge investments from 1993 to 2001 in our transportation infrastructure. We also paid for them. And we did it through 

an increase in user fees and a variety of other ways. But we didn’t 

just charge more stuff on the State’s credit card. 

I mentioned to you a couple of different things. One is user fees. 

The baseload for transportation funding for roads, highways, and 

bridges has been user fees for as long as I can remember. I think 

65 percent of the funding for Federal highway programs today 

comes from gas tax. It is about 18 cents a gallon. We have not 

raised it for like 23, 24 years. About 25 percent of the moneys come 

from diesel tax. We have not raised that, again, for 23, 24 years. 

Some of us proposed, George Voinovich, who used to serve with 

us on this Committee, in Bowles-Simpson, as part of an overall program to reduce deficits and grow our economy, we proposed raising 

29 

gas and diesel tax for 4 years and index it growing forward. That 

was made a part of Bowles-Simpson, not enacted here by the Congress. 

In States across the country where the States have gone ahead, 

20 States have gone ahead and raised their user fees. Amazingly, 

the legislators who voted to do that got re-elected. Ninety percent 

of Democrats got re-elected, 95 percent of the Republicans. People 

said, you can’t vote to do this stuff and get re-elected. Well, that’s 

not really true. You can do the right thing and actually be rewarded by your voters. 

We do a lot of tolling in Delaware. If you have ever been up I– 

95, you probably know what I mean. We apologize for that. But 

when you combine tolling with the EZ Pass and similar kinds of 

programs, you make it kind of easy. People go through the toll 

highway speed and it charges up on their credit card. 

Three-P, you mentioned to me when we talked earlier today 

about harnessing, if you are the private sector, for these public-private partnerships. The idea of tying together new construction that 

does tolling, that works in some places. In densely populated areas 

along the coast, maybe it works better than in the middle part of 

our country. 

But the idea of tying in tolling on new construction and using 

that to harness and incentivize the private sector to be involved, 

I think is a good idea. Other people who are smarter than me think 

it is as well. The trucking industry, which is a big advocate of the 

user fee approach, doesn’t like tolling on existing highways, but 

they’re willing to support tolling on new highways. 

But the idea of those who say we are going to solve this problem 

on the funding side just by doing 3-P—public-private partnerships—I would just remind us all, in the last 20, 30 years, there 

have been 30 public-private partnerships. Thirty. And some of 

them are pretty big. But that is out of tens of thousands of projects, 

30. 

And as you know, in a lot of parts of our country, it doesn’t work. 

But in some parts of our country, Texas, and 35 States, they have 

never had a public-private partnership. Thirty-five States. Texas, I 

think they just basically voted to take it off the plate, off the table. 

So it is not a panacea, but it is part of what can be done. 

Oregon has its road user charge thing that they have been doing 

for 10 years. Ten thousand vehicles are covered. I think we have 

to move quickly toward VMT, vehicle miles traveled. And by combining road user charge, as they are doing out in Oregon, with EZ 

Pass, highway speed EZ pass, and as I call it, could RUC and roll. 

If we can develop vehicles, cars, trucks, and vans that can drive 

from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean without a driver, we 

ought to be able to come up with a way to do vehicle miles traveled 

in a way that is respective of privacy. 

Those are just some of the ideas. I am happy to go out on a limb 

and say, we need an all of the above approach. There is no silver 

bullet, a lot of silver BBs. Some of them that I just mentioned are 

bigger than others. 

Talk to us about funding these projects, please. 

Ms. CHAO. Senator, you are exactly right. 

30 

These projects, as valuable as they are, as important as they are 

to our country, yes, they have to be paid for. But the question is 

whether or who pays for it. So that is the difficult part. 

In the past, there has been government funding. And in this particular environment, 100 percent government funding is probably 

not realistic, given the tremendous amount of resources that we 

need to devote. 

Therefore, as you mentioned, as cars become more fuel efficient, 

the gas tax per vehicle mile has been decreasing. And the integrity 

of the Highway Trust Fund is very important, and distributions 

have now exceeded inflows. 

So the good news is, nothing is off the table. We are looking at 

all of these things. Public-private partnerships are one way in 

which financing of needed infrastructure projects can occur. We are 

also hoping to have, through that vehicle, through that channel, 

more innovative, creative ways of financing. But nothing is off the 

table. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Colleagues, our President put on the table a week or two ago the 

idea of user fees, raising user fees, something Senator Inhofe and 

I have been big proponents of for a long time. I immediately put 

out a press release supporting what he was doing. Then it was 

taken off the table. 

We need presidential leadership. As Governor, I tried to lead on 

these things. When Jim was mayor, he tried to lead on issues like 

that. We have other recovering Governors here at the table, as you 

know. We need presidential leadership. If the President will lead 

on this, making some tough choices, and not pull them off the 

table, we can get something done. 

Thank you so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. And let me remind Senator Carper, I can remember when I first was involved, I was in the House at that time, 

it was back in 1987, my first year here. At that time, Madam Secretary, the biggest problem we had with the Highway Trust Fund 

was that we had too much surplus in it. Of course, those days are 

long gone. 

At that time, I had said we had better prepare now and put in 

an escalation clause, so you have it indexed in some ways. This is 

something that very likely is going to be looked at. 

At the end of the Obama administration, Madam Secretary, the 

United States Department of Transportation solicited applications 

for FastLane grants. I know there are two of those that are established in the FAST Act. And I know that we have a couple of them 

in my State of Oklahoma. 

People are always calling me up and asking me the question that 

I am about to ask you, and that is, do you have an update that you 

can provide us as to when we can expect some type of announcement concerning those grants? 

Ms. CHAO. The Administration came in, as you well know, less 

than 3 months ago. So we are in the process of evaluating those. 

Some, I hope pretty soon that we will be releasing a tranche. Then 

we will be taking a look at the others. We are very much aware 

31 

of the needs of rural America. So we are reviewing all this with an 

eye toward, in particular, the needs of rural America. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. I think the Administration has 

made it very clear, and you have made it very clear that we are 

looking at the streamlining that was put together in both the ’21 

bill and the FAST Act. That was a timeframe, during that timeframe I chaired the Committee, and Senator Boxer was the Ranking Member. We worked together on these streamlining things. 

There were a lot of time when she would put her foot down, but 

we always ended up realizing that you have to compromise when 

you are putting one of these things together. 

I say that because one of the concerns I have is that some of the 

previous streamlining that we have achieved might not have been 

implemented to the truest intent of Congress. For example, we provided a categorical exclusion for projects in the existing operation 

of right of way. However, the implementation of this provision still 

requires paperwork from our State DOTs and approval, Federal 

Highways, that a project can receive a categorical exclusion. 

Is the Department reviewing guidance issued by the previous Administration to ensure that our streamlining efforts are being implemented to their fullest? Everyone out there who is a contractor, 

is working and participating in what we are going to be doing, you 

and us in concert. They are interested in streamlining, because you 

can get so many more miles out of it. And that was an agreement 

from the Democrats and the Republicans. 

Ms. CHAO. What you just mentioned is very important in terms 

of helping the permitting process along. That is a categorical exemption. This effort has been—has started. We are taking a renewed look at it and making sure that indeed, we are implementing it in the speed and in the way that the Act requires. 

Senator INHOFE. That is music to my ears and to the ears of a 

lot of other people who have already started participating. Even 

though projects right now are not ongoing from the FAST Act itself, 

they know what our intent was, and our intent was clearly to get 

as many miles out of that as possible. 

Yesterday I chaired the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, and we looked at innovative solutions for public sector 

funding and private sector financing of infrastructure projects. We 

had State and local witnesses talking about the different initiatives 

that they are taking to prioritize infrastructure, including working 

with the private sector. 

But there was an overall agreement that the Federal Government must remain the lead in our infrastructure investment. Is 

that the view of the Administration as well? 

Ms. CHAO. We are certainly very concerned about this. We are 

taking the leadership on it. 

Senator INHOFE. Most of us out there are very, very excited 

about the prospects. I have had a lot of my good Democrat friends 

who have a different philosophy than I have on most other issues 

saying, this really is what we are supposed to be doing. I have 

often said, there is an old, worn out document nobody reads anymore; it is called the Constitution. We are supposed to be doing two 

things here: defending America, and they called them post roads 

32 

back there, but they are talking about infrastructure. So we are all 

looking forward to working with you in a very effective way. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Chao, for coming before us. 

I want to bring particular attention to my gratitude for the letter 

that Senator Schumer, Senator Menendez, Senator Gillibrand, and 

myself sent you regarding the Gateway Project and the real crisis 

we have. Your letter, which I have here, was just really gracious. 

You put forward an intended hope that either before the major infrastructure announcement by the Administration or after, you 

would be willing to come up and visit. That is actually really, really 

assuring. 

It was also nice to hear that you, yourself, travel on Amtrak 

through the Gateway area as well. 

Ms. CHAO. I have been delayed as well. 

Senator BOOKER. Yes. Well, that is really the crisis we have right 

now. As you probably heard, we now have delays that are stranding literally hundreds of thousands of Americans. It has become, in 

one of Planet Earth’s most economically productive regions, literally the busiest river crossing in all of North America. We now 

have a system of rail that connects between Boston and Washington, DC, that has hit a critical chokepoint. 

It is so bad now that it is costing our region millions and millions 

of dollars in productivity every week in what is happening now. 

And the outrage of people, I literally have people from the State 

of New Jersey talking about moving back into New York, just 12 

miles away, because of the unreliability of service. People calling 

my office, writing my office about lost time with family, not able 

to take the children to school. It is really a crisis throughout the 

area. Probably the biggest calls that Senator Menendez and I get 

into our offices, one of the biggest reasons is just this failing infrastructure that we have right now. 

It is outrageous, and this is really what our President’s remarks 

have said as well, that in the 1960s you could move along the same 

rail half an hour quicker between Boston and DC, because that is 

how much more efficient this rail line was back then. 

So with commuters facing delays that are unconscionable, with 

crews desperately trying to fix this without causing even more 

delays, we have what I consider—we are teetering on the edge of 

a traffic Armageddon in the northeast region. If we don’t begin 

work on these new tunnels soon, what that is going to mean is that 

we are going to have to take one of these over 100-year-old tunnels, 

and that is a tour I hope to take with you, where I actually went 

into the tunnels in a glass car, and was astonished. You could see 

the physical damage done by Hurricane Sandy still. 

If we have to pull one of those tunnels out of service, that will 

literally cause a traffic Armageddon in the region, in one of America’s—I think it is like the jugular vein of all the arteries we have 

in America, the most economically productive region. That would 

cause a nightmare like we couldn’t believe. That is the level of urgency that we have before us. 

33 

So I guess the first sort of question I have is, given sort of what 

the failure of one of these tunnels would mean, I am sure, again, 

I hate to do this to you when you have only been in office about 

3 months, but are you taking this, at least what the last Administration called the greatest transportation crisis in the country, are 

you looking at this and figuring out what a strategy to prevent the 

crippling, really, of that region, should one of those tunnels have 

to go down? 

Ms. CHAO. Absolutely. Senator, as you may know, actually, I 

grew up in New York. So I know that area very, very well. The 

President is a New Yorker; he understands the issue there very 

well. 

We have kept a very close eye on this, and FTA’s safety inspectors have been down at Gateway, in that whole tunnel area. We 

just recently sent someone there again to make sure that our oversight of safety responsibilities is totally focused on the tunnel 

there. That is not to say that it is unsafe. 

Let me also bring to your attention, I want to work with you on 

this, the governing structure. Because the governing structure is 

quite complicated, as you well know. The Department of Transportation has one seat in a quasi-governmental, local-State-Federal 

governing structure, in which the Governors of both States, New 

York and New Jersey, are involved. 

So the governing structure is something that is one that dictates 

all the parties involved need to work on this. So I would like to 

work with you on that. Please be assured that Gateway is an absolute priority in terms of our focus. We understand what is happening there. I have been a passenger myself, as mentioned, I have 

been delayed. I know the New York area very well; the President 

is a New Yorker. So this is a priority, and I look forward to working with you on it. 

Senator BOOKER. I appreciate it. My time is expired. I look forward to talking with you about the governing structure. The two 

Federal positions are, as you said, the Department as well as Amtrak. Amtrak is such a critical agent as well; I hope we can have 

conversations about Amtrak funding. 

You know that the Amtrak rail between Boston and Washington, 

DC, more people travel on rail than they do on plane. That is another area where there is continuing degradation of services. So we 

have a lot to talk about. I am grateful for your focus. I know you 

are a New Yorker, I just want to remind you—— 

Ms. CHAO. A Kentuckian. 

Senator BOOKER. A Kentuckian. Excuse me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. I know you have New York roots. I just want 

to remind you that most of the New York professional sports teams 

play in New Jersey. So thank you very much. 

Ms. CHAO. Just as a last point, I have also met several times 

with the Amtrak board and also with the President on this particular issue. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

34 

Secretary Chao, thank you for testifying today and discussing the 

importance of infrastructure to our economy. I also appreciate your 

highlighting some of the proposals the Department of Transportation is reviewing to include in this infrastructure package. I look 

forward to working with the Administration in order to enhance 

our mutual priorities for the benefit of all American families. 

As you know, our national infrastructure is in a critical condition. The most recent report card from the American Society of 

Civil Engineers rated the United States infrastructure as a D∂. 

This is unacceptable. 

Members of Congress must work together on a common sense solution to keep our country moving. The FAST Act was an important first step to address our infrastructure needs. It was the first 

long-term highway bill in more than a decade. However, as you 

know, the work is not done. 

That is why I happen to have introduced a bill that is going to 

look at solving two of the major challenges facing our transportation system. The first is that near-term solvency of the Highway 

Trust Fund. The second is the lack of flexibility for States in starting and finishing major transportation infrastructure projects. 

As we know, any infrastructure package must recognize that 

States know their own transportation needs best, not the Federal 

Government. Programs like the National Freight Program work for 

all States without leaving any behind. The National Freight Policy 

has also robust bipartisan support. Expanding this freight program 

should be an idea that is on the table when we discuss infrastructure. 

I would stress that as we think about the infrastructure package, 

we should avoid falling into the trap of a stimulus style spending. 

Infrastructure is an investment in the future of this country. That 

is how we need to think about it; that is how we need to plan for 

it. 

Finally, any infrastructure package must address how unintended regulatory consequences can impact our freight network, 

whether it is a delay to a critical highway project or a new requirement that alters the supply chain, burdensome regulations can 

hinder progress. 

So I would ask you, Madam Secretary, will you commit to working closely with my colleagues and I on priorities like these as the 

Administration and Congress continue developing a national infrastructure policy? 

Ms. CHAO. Yes, of course. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. And as we have already discussed, 

States are currently facing real challenges regarding infrastructure 

project completion due to those excessive procedural costs and 

delays in the permitting process. Earlier you called that the front 

end part. 

In response to the permitting delays, the Nebraska Unicameral 

unanimously passed legislation to allow the Nebraska Department 

of Roads to pursue assumption of the NEPA permitting process. 

The Nebraska Department of Roads has sent a letter to the Federal 

Highway Administration to begin the implementation of this program. I understand it could take up to 18 months. 

35 

So Madam Secretary, do you have any updates on that program 

that you could share with me at this time? 

Ms. CHAO. I think Nebraska has done very well, and your leadership on this issue is very much appreciated. The Governor acted in 

March, your legislature acted very quickly thereafter, and in the 

State Department of Transportation. So it was the Governor, the 

State Department of Transportation. The State Department of 

Transportation issued the letter on May 7th. 

So we know this issue, we are tracking it. We understand it is 

a concern of yours, and we are going to pay attention. 

Senator FISCHER. OK, thank you very much. 

Also, the FAST Act requires the Department of Transportation to 

develop a National Freight Strategic Plan to assess that national 

freight network and help to plan for the future growth in that 

movement of freight. States are required to develop their own 

freight plans, and that is happening within Nebraska, with our Department of Roads. They are devoting significant time and resources to ensuring that we do have a comprehensive plan in the 

State of Nebraska. 

Can you elaborate on the importance of ensuring that we do have 

a thorough strategy to address the growing movement of freight 

across our country? 

Ms. CHAO. Freight is a very important part of our overall commerce. It helps to keep our economy vibrant and our work force 

prosperous. So we want to do everything we can to facilitate commerce so that it brings greater vitality and prosperity to our country. 

Of course there are other—sometimes concerns expressed by 

other groups. So we want to work with all these groups. But there 

is no understating the importance of freight to the economic vitality of our country and the part the transportation infrastructure 

plays into that. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. On the Commerce Committee, Senator Booker is Ranking Member, and I chair the Surface Transportation and the Merchant Marine Safety and Security Subcommittee. We look at the connection between the different modes 

of transportation, whether it is the roads, ports, rail, trucking. So 

I look forward to working with you on these issues as we look at 

how we are going to make sure that intermodal connection is also 

put together. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Madam Secretary. 

One of the questions that keeps arising is when the Administration is going to present an infrastructure plan. The President 

talked about possibly accelerating it. There was another discussion 

of it moving further back in the year. 

Do you have a sense now of when we will have a detailed proposal from the Administration? 

Ms. CHAO. Actually, the two timelines are actually in sync and 

coordinated. The President would like the principles to come out in 

36 

May, and then the legislative package will come out sometime later 

in the year, probably the third quarter. 

Senator MERKLEY. One of the things the President—so principles 

in May and details third quarter. OK, thank you. One of the things 

the President had said in some interview was that he recognized 

that the public-private partnerships didn’t work in a lot of situations, and sometimes were more expensive. Certainly, we have 

found in the west that often toll roads end up taking a lot more 

money out of people’s pockets than does public financing. 

Are you looking at the details of really how to get the most bang 

for the buck in terms of dollars spent? And I don’t mean just total 

dollars, but I mean the total investment by citizens. Because if you 

have to pay for a road three times over, over 30 years of tolling, 

to get a 15 percent or 20 percent return for a middleman, that is 

much more expensive than if we just financed it directly. 

Are you taking a look at how to get the most cost effective 

projects done? 

Ms. CHAO. One of the reasons why the proposal is taking some 

time as well is that we in the executive branch, in all of our departments and at the White House are engaged in consulting with 

Members of Congress, with other stakeholders outside our Government, to ensure that mistakes of the past are not repeated. There 

are some very smart people at the White House who are former investment bankers who understand a great deal about financing. 

They have been giving their own expertise, but also listening to 

other people as well. 

So on your point about getting the most bang for the dollar, that 

would certainly be a reasonable and a logical thing to do. We hope 

that we are doing that adequately, yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. I would really encourage that. Because sometimes when I listen to the conversation it sounds like how to minimize the public dollars, talking about leverage and so forth. But 

sometimes that involves tolling that takes a tremendous amount 

more of our working Americans’ pockets than if we just finance 

something directly. The President’s comments seemed to reflect 

that recently. I was heartened by that, but I wanted to make sure 

that that is really getting the attention it needs. 

Ms. CHAO. We are very open minded, as I mentioned. It is a 

large, consultative process underway with Members of Congress as 

well. So it will be in collaboration with the Congress. 

Senator MERKLEY. As I go from community to community, and 

I hold a town hall in every county in Oregon every year, and beforehand I meet with the county and local officials. The most common commentary on infrastructure isn’t actually roads and bridges. 

It is water, clean water supply and waste water treatment. That 

is because you have changing Federal standards, you have old infrastructure wearing out, and you have new demands, for either a 

growing commercial sector or a growing residential sector. 

Will water projects be a big piece of an infrastructure package? 

Ms. CHAO. The short answer is yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Great. I love to hear it. 

Are you familiar with the WIFIA program, Water Infrastructure 

Finance Innovation Act strategy? You mentioned TIFIA; it is basically the parallel on the water side. 

37 

Ms. CHAO. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Might that be piece of how we tackle that? 

Ms. CHAO. You have made an excellent suggestion. That is not 

within my lane. But that is why we have 16 different Cabinet secretaries and agency heads around the interagency task force, to address issues like where there are infrastructure funding programs 

in different departments, how do we work together. Water is certainly a major topic within the infrastructure proposal. 

Senator MERKLEY. Great. I want to turn to Buy America. The 

President has said we will have two simple rules on the massive 

rebuilding effort: Buy America and Hire American. Are you supportive of those principles? 

Ms. CHAO. It is the President’s agenda, yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I am pleased to hear that. 

I think for those of us who have seen the dumping of foreign 

steel in our market and the impact it has had on domestic production and the importance of steel in our national security, certainly 

there is a lot of support for making sure we keep that principle. 

We are cheering the President on on that topic. 

I wanted to turn to the issue of the CAFE standards and the conversation about loosening those. I see my time is up, so you are 

spared this question. So perhaps I will follow up on it later. My 

concern is, and I will just state it this way, is that if we don’t stay 

on the cutting edge of innovation, it makes it much harder for our 

products to be sold around the world, and to keep the innovation 

here in America. The rest of the world is pushing hard forward on 

this issue of more efficient strategies for transportation, and I hope 

we will, too. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Secretary Chao. 

As a Kentuckian, I suspect that you recognize the need to balance both the urban and rural States’ needs when it comes to infrastructure repair, development, and so forth. 

I am concerned by the President’s proposed, as we call it, the 

skinny budget, which provided no funding for TIGER grants for fiscal year 2018. However, many States, including South Dakota, 

have benefited from TIGER grant programs. We have received 

funds for innovative transportation projects. Just an example 

would be, in 2016, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, which is in a very 

rural area, received a $14 million TIGER grant for a highway 

project. It was an improvement project, and in 2015, we received 

a $6 million grant for a freight capacity expansion project. 

These projects are difficult to fund through other Federal funding 

sources. But they really are important to job creation, particularly 

in rural areas. They are also important for transportation safety 

and efficiency and the economic growth of rural States. 

I am just concerned, can you share with us a little bit about what 

you see as the future of the TIGER grant program and the benefits 

that the program has to infrastructure projects and what your 

thoughts are in general about the lack of funding for TIGER 

grants? 

38 

Ms. CHAO. I know how popular TIGER grants are with Members 

of Congress. This is the first budget done by a new Administration. 

And the OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, had not been on board yet. 

So this particular issue about the TIGER grants is something that 

we are discussing. The thought was that going forward there would 

be a more holistic approach to infrastructure, and perhaps these 

TIGER grants would be recast in some way in the future. So we 

are still talking about it. 

Senator ROUNDS. I am glad to hear that. A lot of these TIGER 

grants, they are small in nature compared to a lot of the costs involved in some of the more urban areas where there is significantly 

greater cost for any project to be completed. In this particular case, 

these TIGER grants really are very well appreciated. They are 

highly competitive. So only the best projects are really funded with 

these TIGER grants themselves. 

But I am glad to hear that it is a work in progress. Rest assured 

we would love to provide additional input and advice as you come 

to making the decisions in this particular case. It is a very good 

series of projects, and we have seen some real benefits within our 

rural States. 

That is all that I have. 

Senator CARPER. Would the Senator from South Dakota yield for 

just 10 seconds, please? 

Just to follow up on your point, it is a really good point. One of 

the advantages of TIGER grants, as you know, is it helps leverage 

other moneys. One of the principles of the Administration, if we 

want to leverage private sector moneys and those kinds of investment moneys from other sources, that is one of the beauties of 

TIGER grants. 

Senator ROUNDS. Absolutely. Not only does it impact some very 

rural areas that are able to obtain some Federal dollars in this 

process, but in all of these cases you are finding that there is a 

partnership provided. Because in a lot of cases, it is an economic 

development plan in an area where you can either get additional 

commodities to market or in some cases, you are improving highways that we simply didn’t have the resources to improve in some 

very rural areas. Particularly for our Native America populations 

in rural areas, some of the poorest counties in the entire United 

States, this is one project that really did impact those areas and 

provided the resources to actually improve some very dangerous 

roads. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I want to thank the Chair and Ranking 

Member for convening today’s hearing. I definitely want to thank 

Secretary Chao for participating in this very important conversation. 

Thanks to the determined bipartisan leadership of this Committee, Congress passed the FAST Act in 2015. Several provisions 

of the law are still making their way through your agency. I look 

forward to working with Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member 

Carper, Senators Inhofe, Cardin, and others to ensure that the law 

is fully implemented. 

39 

More than anything else, States and municipalities count on 

multi-year authorization to provide communities with the certainty 

needed to plan effectively and implement critical infrastructure 

projects. Secretary Chao, do you agree that the FAST Act has been 

effective in providing local decisionmakers with funding certainty 

for planning purposes? 

Ms. CHAO. Senator, I think if you are referring to what I think 

you are referring to, you and I have talked about the regional planning districts. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don’t 

work so well in others. Senator Durbin has also weighed in with 

you as well. So we are looking at the whole planning part of that, 

and we are actually making progress in changing it to the way that 

I think you will like. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I was actually referring to the 

FAST Act and the FastLane grant programs, to know that you 

have the certainty of those dollars coming in, those grant dollars 

coming in allows local municipalities to really plan out into the future. It is a great tool for municipalities to help figure out what 

they are going to do next. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Under the bipartisan framework of the 

FAST Act, the FastLane grant program was created to advance 

projects of regional and national significance. At every meeting I 

have had with the freight rail industry, I am asked about the 75th 

Street Corridor improvement project as a component project of the 

CREATE program, a unique public-private partnership. 

All seven Class I railroads agree that the 75th Street project will 

improve regional freight shipping and benefit the entire freight network. Stakeholders are confident in the project’s national significance. State and local funds combined with significant rail company dollars are waiting patiently for FastLane funding to advance 

this critical project. 

I just want to say that it takes 48 hours to get freight from California to Chicago, and then it takes an additional 30∂ hours just 

to get from one side of Chicago to the other. That is what this 

project will address. 

Secretary Chao, can we expect US DOT to move expeditiously in 

finalizing FastLane grant applications and not waste valuable time 

and resources re-opening the application process? 

Ms. CHAO. We have just been in office for a relatively short time. 

I understand what you are saying, but we need to understand what 

these FastLane applications and grants are. We are working very 

hard to try to get them out as quickly as we can. We will probably 

do a first tranche, and then for the remainder, we are probably still 

going to go out with some applications de novo, to see, as we assess, on what the criteria is for reporting on these FastLane grants. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. The sooner you can get them through, the 

better. As I said, this is holding up the commerce of the entire nation, not just the Chicago area or Illinois. 

Another linchpin freight project that is ripe for Federal support 

through the FastLane program is the replacement of the 127-yearold Merchant’s Bridge. This project is critical to the St. Louis region and represents another critical step toward improving our national freight network. 

40 

As you know, Illinois has received over $327 million in TIGER 

grant funding. So I was pleased to hear the discussion we just had 

in committee. TIGER-funded projects in Illinois create thousands of 

jobs while upgrading key components of the State’s infrastructure. 

That is why I was troubled to learn that President Trump’s budget 

blueprint does eliminate TIGER programs. 

The skinny budget also cuts investment in new transit projects, 

like the CTA’s Red Line extension to 130th Street, ends Amtrak 

long haul service, and hamstrings essential air service. Illinoisans 

are bracing for another blow to job creation efforts when the President’s full fiscal year 2018 budget is released next week. 

Can we expect more cuts to transportation programs? Or will the 

budget more closely reflect the promise the President made to invest in infrastructure? 

Ms. CHAO. No. 1, I don’t know what is in the budget that will 

be coming back. It will not be released until May 23rd. No. 2, as 

I mentioned, we understand, I understand how popular these 

TIGER grants are, and we are hoping to work in some way with 

the infrastructure project to find a more holistic way in which to 

provide the needs for the States and communities. 

So the moneys that will be taken out hopefully will be put back 

in the infrastructure project. I will not know that until May 23rd 

when it is released. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. We are quite anxious. People all across Illinois are; I have heard from them, and they would like to keep the 

dollars in the FastLane grant program. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Duckworth. 

Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for joining us today. 

Because of Iowa’s location in the center of the country, our interstate routes handle a lot of cross-country freight. For a lot of this 

freight, Iowa is not the origination, and it is not the final destination. It simply just passes through Iowa. This pass through traffic 

takes a major toll on our roads, and of course, drives up the maintenance costs for Iowa DOT. 

Nationally, Iowa ranks 5th in the number of bridges and 12th in 

the miles of roadway. Yet the State ranks 30th in population and 

23rd in overall land area. Central States like Iowa, which are overwhelming rural, are responsible for supporting the infrastructure 

that moves cross-country freight. Do you think that this point is 

something that Congress should take into consideration when 

working on future transportation bills, and if so, in what ways? 

Ms. CHAO. This is an issue that we have discussed in the interagency work force. We do not have any conclusions on that yet, but 

clearly, this is a very important issue. Internally, we are discussing 

the very same issues that you are bringing up here. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. I know a number of other Senators 

have mentioned, or course, the rural areas and how important it 

is that funding mechanisms are reflective of those situations on the 

ground. So thank you. 

I did see some news recently that you had attended the U.S. 

Chamber. At that event, you mentioned projects that can’t access 

41 

private sector funding, and that there will be a few special projects 

that will likely be identified and funded directly. 

You also mentioned that this category of projects would either 

have the potential to significantly increase GDP growth or to lift 

the American spirit. Can you explain further what types of projects 

might these be? 

Ms. CHAO. We will not specify any list of projects or anything 

like that. My remarks wanted to confirm and to reassure that this 

Administration understands the needs of rural America. As we go 

forward, we need to find some way to address the needs of rural 

America in a way with other financing mechanisms that may not 

work, that may work for urban areas but not for rural areas. So 

that is also one of the topics that we are working within the 

taskforce on trying to address. 

Senator ERNST. Certainly. I do hope that you reach out to rural 

legislators, Members of Congress, and receive input from our offices 

as well. We would love to assist in any way that we can to help 

our rural areas. 

And then finally, as you mentioned in your testimony, nearly 73 

percent of our country’s public roads are located in rural settings 

with populations under 5,000 people. I live on a gravel road outside 

of Red Oak, Iowa. Red Oak is a lot like the rest of rural America. 

We have about 5,700 people that live in Red Oak. 

Our network of farm to market roads and bridges, they are an 

integral link for our food supply chain. I have heard from farmers 

all across the State, as I am out on my 99-county tour, about their 

declining state of repair. So we do have about 4,900 bridges that 

are considered structurally deficient. 

What will you do as Secretary to ensure funding and attention 

are dedicated to these rural projects? Are there any specific guiding 

principles that you would operate under? 

Ms. CHAO. That is why the President has made infrastructure repair, rebuild, and refurbishment such a priority. 

Let me also point out structurally deficient does not mean the 

bridge is unsafe, or the road is unsafe. What structurally deficient 

means is that there will be more frequent inspections. If a bridge 

or road is unsafe, it will be shut down immediately. So I do want 

to make that clarification. Thank you. 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Madam Secretary, for being here. 

On Friday, Senator Schumer and I wrote to you to raise the issue 

of funding for maintenance backlogs that exist for Amtrak’s northeast corridor. As you may be aware, there have been significant infrastructure issues at Penn Station in Newark over the past few 

months. Because commuter trains use Amtrak’s rails, this has impacted not just Amtrak, but the Long Island Railroad and the New 

Jersey transit as well. 

Last month, there were two derailments, and just last week, 

there were service disruptions on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, causing significant hardship for New Yorkers who rely on the 

42 

Long Island Railroad to travel between Long Island and New York 

City. These disruptions have become unbearable for many of my 

constituents. It boils down to the fact that we have not done a good 

job in maintaining our infrastructure over the past several decades. 

What assistance can you and the Department of Transportation 

provide to Amtrak to help them to move forward quickly with the 

repair work at Penn Station and reduce further impacts to riders? 

Ms. CHAO. We have actually met with Amtrak, with the board 

and also with the President on this issue. It is a very complicated 

real estate play, if I may, play being movements. Because Penn 

Station is located right below Madison Square Garden. There is 

Moynihan Station which is being contemplated. So it is a very complex real estate. 

Nevertheless, I understand your concern. I am concerned about 

it. I just had a discussion back and forth with Senator Booker 

about Gateway and the tunnel there, the condition thereof, and 

how that is also delaying Amtrak. 

So as we go forward, I look forward to working with you and 

Senator Booker on the New York as well as the New York-New 

Jersey issues. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Do you think that the Administration’s infrastructure plan will include additional funding for passenger rail 

and the Gateway project? 

Ms. CHAO. There will not be a specific list of projects. The infrastructure proposal is being put together with a much greater view 

of principles. Given the decentralized nature of our transportation 

infrastructure overall, there will seeding of Federal dollars that 

hopefully will leverage other moneys from perhaps the private sector, State and local, to the $1 trillion. State and local I take back, 

but to the $1 trillion. 

What we have found is where there is Federal Government funding that that often displaces State and local funds as well. So we 

believe that the infrastructure concerns and needs are so great that 

all entities need to collaborate. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I agree. Concerning back to the trains 

issue, Congress has extended a deadline for railroads to implement 

the positive train control in the FAST Act. Implementing positive 

train control is essential to preventing future derailments and collisions due to operator error, which we have unfortunately experienced too many times in the northeast. 

What is the current status of the Department’s efforts to work 

with the railroads to implement positive train control requirements, and will you ensure that congressionally enacted deadlines 

are enforced? 

Ms. CHAO. Absolutely. We just got the omnibus passed, thanks 

to the Congress. We now have the money, and we will be beginning 

to give them out. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. OK. My last question is, we have another 

issue in New York about the transport of crude oil by rail. It is a 

growing concern to a lot of our communities in our State, particularly along the Hudson River and cities upstate. During your confirmation hearing, you were asked whether you would support ongoing work by the Department of Transportation and Energy on 

43 

the volatility of crude oil. At that time, you could not comment 

until you had been confirmed and had an opportunity to be briefed. 

Have you had a chance to be briefed on this topic, and will you 

support continued work by the Department to address the safety 

risks of crude oil transport by rail in a meaningful way through 

regulation? 

Ms. CHAO. No. 1, safety is always No. 1, it is my top priority. No. 

2, I have been briefed on it, it is a complicated issue. We are not 

quite sure how to go forward with it yet, but definitely, since you 

have brought it up again, we will go back, not that we have not 

been paying attention, but that we will give it a renewed effort 

again. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

And then just a comment from the last exchange with Senator 

Duckworth, and with Senator Ernst, I really appreciate this interest in rural America. We have huge issues in New York, as you 

know, a lot of rural areas. Not all projects are economic, so you do 

need Federal investment. But there are some impediments also in 

cities. They can’t do P-3s, for example, in New York City. It is not 

allowed by New York State law. 

So sometimes you will need Federal funding as well, even for 

projects in urban areas. Because they don’t have the facilities to do 

all things that are possible. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you for bringing that up. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Of course, everybody can tell I am the junior member of this 

Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHELBY. I came on this Committee for one reason. I 

knew how important the infrastructure challenge was in this country and in this Congress. 

We all have our parochial interests, State by State, whether it 

is Iowa, whether it is my State of Alabama, everything. We know 

that a lot of our infrastructure is crumbling. We know that a lot 

of our ports are inadequate. The question is, Madam Secretary, and 

you have been a Secretary of Labor before, and I appreciate your 

commitment to public service. I think you bring a different wrinkle 

to the transportation challenges as Secretary. 

But we have to create a critical mass here, this year, if there is 

any way to do it. And it is not going to be easy. And we have to 

look at the macro challenge that we have. 

How are we going to do it? This Committee will play a big role. 

Obviously, the Finance Committee will play a role. The Appropriations Committee will play a role ultimately in this. 

But if we are going to grow our economy and create the jobs, and 

I think the President is right on this, we have to address our infrastructure inadequacies. You are in the forefront of it. 

I do believe, and we have talked about all this today some, but 

it is complex. I am sure it is not all worked out yet. There has to 

be a combination of other things. But there is so much more money 

in the private sector, if we figure out a way to leverage it up here. 

44 

But we are going to have to get more money for the public sector. 

It is not going to be easy. But I think it is going to be incumbent 

upon us to create that critical mass. We have to do it. 

I would be interested, and I am not going to ask you this today 

specifically, but how do we leverage the private sector? There are 

a lot of creative minds in this country in the finance area. How do 

we do this? We do it everywhere else. But if we could do it in the 

transportation sector, you can drive around, or you can ride a train, 

you can do this and see, or you can go to a port and see what good 

infrastructure does and what it attracts in the private sector. 

We have to do this. Sixty years ago, more or less, we started the 

interstate highway system. God knows, that was a monumental 

thing. But we can’t rest on that. A lot of it is crumbling, as you 

know. Our population is growing. I am looking at the Senator from 

California, the most popular State and the biggest challenge for infrastructure. But all of us, my State is 23rd, nearly 5 million people, and we have those same problems everywhere. 

I am going to go back to this. We have to find out a way to do 

critical mass, have we not, Madam Secretary? 

Ms. CHAO. I couldn’t agree with you more. The President does as 

well. Thank you for bringing up that infrastructure creates good 

paying jobs as well, because that is another topic that the President constantly talks about and is very concerned with as well. 

Public-private partnerships is not one way of doing things, but 

it is a method by which the private sector would be allowed to participate in public sector financing. As we have just heard, New 

York State does not allow public-private partnerships. So huge 

swaths of the private sector are unable to invest in a very critical 

part of our country by people who, one might say, are actually the 

most prosperous of all in one of the States to do so. 

So we also need to be incentivizing and discouraging, we need to 

be incentivizing State and local entities to engage more the private 

sector, do not discriminate against the private sector in their desire 

to help finance, where they can, the infrastructure. 

Senator SHELBY. But there is so much capital looking for good investments in the private sector, a solid investment. Infrastructure 

could be, if it is done right, a solid investment for a long time. A 

lot of our endowments, our universities, are looking for a good return on their money. Everybody is. Look at the savings accounts 

today. 

We have a lot of money in this country. But we have to marshal 

it and put it together. You and the leadership, that is going to be 

one of our challenges. But we have to do it. If we don’t, we are failing American people, are we not? 

Ms. CHAO. Absolutely. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Shelby. 

Senator Harris. 

Senator HARRIS. Secretary Chao, thank you for being here. 

I have a few questions that relate to California specifically. I 

know you are familiar with the transportation challenges that California faces and the actions we are taking to address those challenges. The Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee met 

45 

yesterday and heard about how Californians are investing substantial amounts of their own money in the State’s transportation future. We need Federal support to continue. The Mayor of Los Angeles was here yesterday. 

So I want to ask you about the Department’s involvement in a 

few of those projects. One is our State—a real high priority for the 

State is the CalTrans Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. 

This is widely supported. It has already raised $1.3 billion in 

matching funds. It was highly rated by your Department and is 

ready to start construction immediately. 

In fiscal year 2017, the spending bill that the President just signed into law, Congress passed $100 million for this project. The 

law, however, requires that the Department of Transportation 

enter into a full funding grant agreement for projects to receive the 

funding. Now all that is needed for construction to start and for 

10,000 jobs that will be part of this project to actually be hired into 

and filled is for the Department to execute the FFGA, as it is 

known. 

As you know, the contract to begin construction expires on June 

30th, so in a very short period of time. Senator Feinstein and I sent 

you a letter last week urging that we execute this agreement so the 

project can begin. The project could be in jeopardy if the full funding grant agreement is not executed very soon. 

Can you give me a status on that? 

Ms. CHAO. We have been very much focused on CalTrans. So 

please let me assure you that this is a subject that we pay a great 

deal of attention to. I have met with the Mayor, when he was here 

yesterday. I met also with Governor Brown. We have spoken 

with—I have spoken with Senator Feinstein and also Minority 

Leader Nancy Pelosi. Fifty percent of the new starts in the budget, 

if I am not mistaken, goes to California. So there is a lot of money 

going to California; there are a number of projects there. The fiscal year 2017 budget, the omnibus gave about $100 million. That has helped. Going into fiscal year 2018, we will hear the 

rest of it, it is another $118 million. But California and in particular CalTrans is not the only project that is waiting for this 

money. So I am about $107 million. 

So the $100 million in fiscal year 2017, that can go out because 

I have just been given the money by the omnibus bill. 

Senator HARRIS. The 2017? 

Ms. CHAO. Right. It is $100 million. Then in 2018, fiscal year 

2018, it is $118 million. But the funding required is $225 million. 

So I am about $105 million short. But the money from 2017 will 

go out. 

Senator HARRIS. So then how do you recommend we address the 

deadline that we have of June 30th? We have a requirement that 

we get the full funding agreement by that date in order for the 

work to begin and the jobs to be filled. 

Ms. CHAO. It is a tough problem. I understand the deadline. But 

there is no funding. So that is a problem. 

Senator HARRIS. How do you suggest we solve the problem? 

Ms. CHAO. I wish I knew. We have been in discussion with your 

office, I believe, and Senator Feinstein’s, the House minority leader’s office, I met with Governor Brown. So it is an issue I think the 

46 

California delegation needs to come together and discuss. There appears to be split opinions on this project as well. 

Senator HARRIS. So are you saying that the Department of 

Transportation cannot issue the FFGA? 

Ms. CHAO. So far, it has not been issued. I cannot issue it if the 

funding is not there. 

Senator HARRIS. So you cannot issue it if the funding is not 

there. How do we account for the out-year funding? 

Ms. CHAO. We can’t commit to the out-year funding. How do we 

work on it together? And it is a big problem. We don’t have the 

funding for it. 

Senator HARRIS. So I would urge your Department, under your 

leadership, to help us resolve this before June 30th. Because again, 

we are talking about thousands of jobs and infrastructure concerns 

that California has around transportation. 

I would also like to ask you about the West Side Purple Line Extension project in Los Angeles. Perhaps you talked with the Mayor 

about that. They have requested funding in this year’s report and 

are seeking to enter an engineering phase later this summer. 

Can you commit that this year’s project will follow the FAST 

Act’s expectations and rate projects and recommended projects for 

funding? Are you familiar with that? 

Ms. CHAO. I am very familiar with it, because the Mayor and I 

talked about it. He needs $1.3 billion in Purple Line funding. I understand the significance of it, because it is tied into the project 

that he is working on. 

I promised—I said to him that I would look at it, but that is for 

out-years, that is not 2017. 

Senator HARRIS. Right, that is correct. 

Is there any work that we can do through this Committee to follow up with you on that? 

Ms. CHAO. I am always willing and eager to work with you and 

your office. I will continue to do so. I will let the Mayor know as 

to what the prospect is. 

Senator HARRIS. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Harris. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is nice to be here with you, Secretary Chao. Thank you for 

what you are doing and for coming before the Committee. 

I would like to begin by just asking a commitment, as we all 

have, appreciate a commitment to work with my office on West Virginia’s last priority, or our priority infrastructure projects, but the 

completion of Corridor H. As you know, it is the last bit left of the 

Appalachian Development Highway System. It has been under construction for 52 years, all throughout the Appalachian region. So 

I would hope that you all, and you have been, the Department in 

the past has, and I assume you would continue that commitment 

to finish that last little very difficult-to-build part of that system. 

I see you shaking your head. 

Ms. CHAO. I hope so. 

Senator CAPITO. Good. That sounds good. 

47 

On the King Coal Highway, another project in West Virginia, I 

want to really highlight the great work that the Federal Highway 

Administration has done. They have been leading the way with 

drawing together the Corps, the EPA, Fish and Wildlife on the 

project, and have been very responsive to State and local stakeholders. 

A few weeks ago, I joined Congressman Evan Jenkins for a 

roundtable on how to move forward on one stretch of the highway. 

The FHWA, led by Acting Executive Director Gloria Shepherd, was 

very responsive on the need to coordinate environmental reviews. 

It is a very different project, basically it is a coal project where at 

the end there will be a highway after the land is reclaimed. It has 

been a project that has been in the mix for a very long time and 

very stalled out. 

So we are trying to find a way, when the mining is completed, 

to have a pave-ready State. It would save the private stakeholders, 

it would save the public taxpayers a great deal of money in terms 

of almost $110 million. That is how much it would save on a 5-mile 

stretch. So I want to thank you, your Department and particularly 

the FHWA for their work on this. Thank you for that. 

This goes to the P-3 project, and I am not going to ask you to 

repeat, because I know you have been asked about this a lot. You 

have talked a lot about the possibilities and some of the drawbacks. 

So I would encourage you, as you are moving forward with this infrastructure package, to look at other creative P-3 projects, such as 

this King Coal Highway project as we are moving forward. 

So I don’t really have a question there, but I do have a question, 

second, because one of my biggest priorities, and you and I have 

talked about this, is rural broadband deployment. My State of West 

Virginia ranks 48th. I am on a bill that Senator Hatch has, that 

Senator Ernst and Senator Fischer are on, that would allow 

broadband deployment along existing rights of way on Federal 

lands. 

I am curious to know, is this part of the discussion in the infrastructure? You said principles are going to be coming out in the 

next several weeks. It seems to me this would be a great principle 

to include in this. Do you have any comments on that? 

Ms. CHAO. I think the simple answer is yes. Yes. that is an area 

that we have discussed. While the final set of principles has not 

been finalized for release, that is certainly an area that we have 

talked extensively about. 

Senator CAPITO. I was in a meeting yesterday where the highlight was on infrastructure and this package, and the excitement 

of cities and businesses and the Administration and others. A question came up, well, a request came up, there were three large cities 

there, L.A. was one of them, the Mayor of L.A. was there, Denver, 

and Nashville. And one of the comments that they made was, don’t 

make the State the pass-through for all the Federal dollars. 

What is, in the general scheme of things, how many of the dollars that come through that are road issues does pass through the 

State? In our case, I would say it is a great deal, a large percentage. 

Ms. CHAO. A hundred percent, in my understanding, goes 

through the State, and they allocate it on a formula basis. 

48 

Senator CAPITO. So in that aspect I disagree with the mayors of 

a large city, being from a smaller State, that we don’t have the critical mass in any of our cities to be able to put together large 

projects. I think our State, along with other stakeholders and our 

State legislatures and our State DOTs and our infrastructure councils and water and sewer and all that, are really in good positions 

to be able to prioritize where projects—because we don’t want to 

put a dollar here, a dollar here, a dollar here; we want completed 

projects, and I am sure you do, too. 

So I will be interested to see how that debate goes forward. 

Ms. CHAO. It is understandable that mayors would hope that the 

money goes directly to them. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. I didn’t blame them for that. 

Ms. CHAO. But whatever is the will of Congress in having the 

Department distribute those funds is what we will follow. 

Senator CAPITO. But traditionally it has been through the State. 

Ms. CHAO. Right. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Secretary Chao, welcome. I hope that you see this Committee as 

a resource for you. Under the leadership of Chairman Inhofe we 

did a number—— 

Ms. CHAO. Barrasso. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No, no, I am going back in time. We did 

a number of big infrastructure bills; we did the last highway bill 

and a couple of WRDA bills. Chairman Barrasso, I think, has the 

intention to have the Committee work in just as powerful and bipartisan a way. 

I haven’t had the pleasure of having Chairman Inhofe on my 

side, and having had the experience of having him not on my side, 

I can tell you he is very powerful either way. It has been great 

when we have been able to work together. I think this Committee 

provides that opportunity, in the past under him and now under 

Chairman Barrasso. 

One can foresee considerable tumult ahead in Washington, in a 

whole variety of areas. But I think in the relative bipartisan calm 

and quiet of our interest in infrastructure and the traditions of this 

Committee, you can find considerable support. I hope you will see 

us that way, and I hope that the Administration will not try to jam 

Congress on an infrastructure bill, but rather work in a bipartisan, 

bicameral fashion to get something that everybody can celebrate 

when the day is done. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you, to your first point, and the second point, 

yes, of course, we would like to collaborate with Congress. Because 

without your cooperation, there will be no bill, and that, as you 

mentioned is one of the few vehicles in which we hope to have bipartisan cooperation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good. And of course, where private capital 

wants to come in, it has to be an investment, and the investment 

has to have a return, and that means there has to be a revenue 

stream. And for a considerable amount of our infrastructure requirements, there is no present revenue stream. In many cases, it 

would be hard to figure out how to generate one. 

49 

I was at the Factory Bridge in West Warwick just a few days 

ago. It was built in the 1950s. It needs to be rebuilt. You are never 

going to put a toll on it; it is not going to be that big of a bridge. 

You actually need real money in order to get those kinds of infrastructure projects done. 

I am sure I am emphasizing what a lot of my colleagues have 

said, but in addition to creative financing and regulatory elements, 

there has to be a strong core of real spending for those types of 

projects. Otherwise, they simply won’t get done. I hope you understand and accept that. 

Ms. CHAO. We do. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the last thing I will mention is that as 

you may know, Rhode Island is a coastal State. Everybody lives 

within half an hour of the shore. We don’t have a ton of coastal 

States here, but our Ranking Member sure is a coastal State. On 

our side, there are a bunch. I think Senators Wicker and Sullivan 

are two coastal Republicans, if I am not mistaken. Coastal States 

are seeing a particular problem, particularly with the sea level rise 

projections that NOAA and that State coastal officials are predicting. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Whitehouse, I think Senator Shelby 

would consider his State a coastal State as well. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So he would. So he would. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So we have some issues about this problem, because the sea level rise projections are accelerating fairly 

fast. In many cases, local communities don’t have the resources to 

do the planning and do the updating, so they can understand what 

the conditions are that they need to build to. There is no point 

building to a set of conditions that are not going to be the case in 

20 years, not if you are building infrastructure. 

One of the things we have seen, in Rhode Island, at least, is that 

the FEMA mapping for flood risk is badly erroneous. So one of the 

things I will be pressing you all on, and I hope my coastal colleagues will be able to do so in full bipartisan fashion, is that as 

we are investing in coastal infrastructure, we need to also make 

sure we are investing in the planning and the data so that we 

know to what conditions these things must be built. That is often 

beyond the capability of the local community. 

To the extent that the FEMA mapping is as erroneous in other 

places as it has proven to be in Rhode Island, then actually a lot 

of people are being misled about what the conditions are going to 

be. 

If you could put an asterisk next to my comments, the takeaway 

being, remember this coastal problem, and trying to make sure 

that part of this bill helps get the planning right, so that the infrastructure is built efficiently and in the way it needs to be, and in 

a way that defends from the encroachment of seas and bays whose 

waters are measurably rising. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you very much. I am not aware of this issue, 

but I will certainly be aware, be educated about it, and also mention it to the White House. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is kind of like the Federal Government, 

FEMA is telling people one thing, and it just isn’t accurate. 

50 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Can you talk a little bit about transit oriented development and 

the role you feel that is going to play in the long-term transportation plan that you have for the country? 

Ms. CHAO. I grew up in an urban area, so I have always used 

public transit. I would expect to be very supportive of that as well. 

I have also lived in a rural area, in a rural State, and they have 

different needs as well. But overall, I am very supportive of transit. 

Senator MARKEY. Senators Schatz and Merkley and I worked 

hard to make sure that there was a provision in the FAST Act a 

couple of years ago that was included in terms of developing guidance on the development of a transit oriented development strategy 

for the country. Have you got any idea what the status is of that 

provision in the law in terms of implementing a plan? 

Ms. CHAO. I do not, and I am remiss in that. But after this hearing, I will go immediately and find out. 

Senator MARKEY. The issue of fuel economy standards is very important to me as well. In 2007 I was the House author of the law 

to authorize the increase in the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive in our country. There is now a point in time 

where there is a reevaluation that is apparently going to take place 

of those regulations, heading toward that goal of reaching 54.5 

miles per gallon by the year 2025. 

If we do that, then we back out 2 million barrels of oil a day that 

we import. We are still importing 3 million barrels of oil a day from 

OPEC. Clearly that is the best way that we can use in order to 

back out that oil, so that are not sending young men and women 

over to the Middle East to protect oil tankers coming to our country, but rather that we are ensuing that are not consuming oil unnecessarily here in our own country. 

Can you talk about that reevaluation of the rule and what the 

status is at the Department of Transportation? 

Ms. CHAO. In 2011, when the initial rule was promulgated, there 

was supposed to be a mid-year review. That mid-year review, to my 

understanding, was accelerated, which is why we reinstated it 

again. So the Department of Transportation and EPA are working 

on this. We should be on target in terms of coming up with a midyear review by 2018. Mid-term review. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you think that it is in America’s best interest to try to meet that 54.5 mile per gallon goal? It was tied mostly 

to national security backing out that oil, creating an energy independence for our country. Do you have a general philosophy about 

how rapidly you would like to see a transformation of our automotive sector? 

Ms. CHAO. While I was Deputy Secretary for Transportation in 

1989, I worked on the CAFE issues back then. Certainly, those 

standards were much lower, and we have certainly improved on 

them. 

But back then, there was also the discussion on how to balance 

protection of our environment, increasing the fuel economy of autoVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:32 Aug 01, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26349.TXT SONYA
51 

mobiles while not providing any dampening or hampering of economic growth. 

So I think those discussions are still ongoing. We of course all 

care about the environment. We want to do the right thing. What 

is reasonable, what is feasible, I think these are all discussions 

which we need to have with you and other Members of the Congress, the Senate and the Congress. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. The industry itself, year after year, 

has enjoyed historic increase in sales. I think that is a reflection, 

actually, of how welcoming the public is to this automation, this 

cool factor that is being built into these vehicles, the additional fuel 

economy standards. And the Elon Musk review, which I think 

every auto manufacturer is going to have to make in 2018, as he 

sells 400,000 all-electric vehicles at $35,000 apiece. I think we 

should ensure that that gets factored in very clearly into any reevaluation that takes place. I think that is in and of itself going 

to trigger a ‘‘game over’’ for traditional ways of looking at automotive technology in our country. 

So we thank you for your service. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, to you and the Ranking Member, and to the Secretary, that 

I am ready to go anywhere, anytime, to work on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. I am ready to work with anybody at any time. I 

think it is absolutely imperative for our country that we have a bill 

that passes and passes this year. Hopefully we can do so quickly. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Carper, any closing thoughts or questions? 

Senator CARPER. Again, thanks so much for joining us today and 

for your responses to our questions and for your leadership. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit 

a letter from the Coalition of Road Safety Advocates for the record, 

please. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

52 


26349.021

May 16,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

The Honorable Thomas Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

As you prepare for tomorrow's hearing, "Improving America's Transportation Infrastructure: 

The Road Forward," our broad and diverse coalition would like to express our opposition to any 

efforts to increase federal truck size and weight limits including the creation of any "pilot 

programs" or special interest exemptions to evade current limits. We respectfully request that 

this letter be included in the hearing record. 

This hearing is very timely considering it is "Infrastructure Week 2017," which brings critical 

attention to the urgent need for our country to invest in a safe and efficient multimodal 

infrastructure system. Current trends show that truck crashes are too frequent and too often are 

fatal. In 2015, 4,067 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks. According to data 

from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), this is an increase of more than 4 percent 

from the previous year and a 20 percent increase from 2009. Furthermore, this is the highest 

fatality number, and the first time truck crash deaths have exceeded 4,000, since 2008. Truck 

crash injuries are also rising significantly. In 2015, 116,000 people were injured in crashes 

involving large trucks. This is the highest number of injuries since 2004, and there has been a 57 

percent increase in the number of people injured in large truck crashes since 2009. The annual 

number of deaths and injuries is completely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in any other 

mode of transportation. 

In addition to this massive death and injury toll, our nation's roads continue to receive a grade of 

"D" from the American Society of Civil Engineers. The report revealed that one of every five 

miles of highway pavement is in poor condition and that there is a significant and increasing 

backlog of rehabilitation needs. Additionally, one in eleven of the nation's 615,000 bridges in the 

National Bridge Inventory were structurally deficient. 

Any proposals that would allow heavier and longer trucks on our nation's roads and bridges will 

further endanger the safety of motorists, and inflict even more damage and destruction to our 

infrastructure and should be rejected. 

In fact, attempts to increase truck size and weight limits were defeated during the last 

Congressional session by both the Senate and the House in strong bipartisan votes. In addition to 

documented safety and infrastructure problems, the American public consistently and 

overwhelmingly rejects bigger and heavier trucks in countless opinion polls. 

Furthermore, Congress directed the U.S. DOT to conduct a Comprehensive Truck Size and 

Weight Study in the 2012 MAP-21 law (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century Act 
53 


26349.022

(MAP-21), Pub. L. 112-141). In April oflast year, U.S. DOT transmitted the completed study to 

Congress and recommended that no changes be made to federal truck size and weight laws. 

Trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds have a greater number of brake violations, which are a major 

reason for out-of-service violations. Alarmingly, trucks with out-of-service violations are 362 

percent more likely to be involved in a crash, according to a North Carolina study by the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Tractor-trailers moving at 60 mph are required to 

stop in 310 feet - the length of a football field - once the brakes are applied. Actual stopping 

distances are often much longer due to driver response time before braking and the common 

problem that truck brakes are often not in top working condition. In 2016, violations related to 

tires and/or brakes accounted for five of the top ten most common vehicle out-of-service 

violations. Moreover, increasing the weight of a heavy truck by only 10 percent increases bridge 

damage by 33 percent. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that the 

investment backlog for bridges, to address all cost-beneficial bridge needs, is $123.1 billion. The 

U.S. would need to increase annual funding for bridges by 20 percent over current spending 

levels to eliminate the bridge backlog by 2032. 

The study also found that introducing double 33 foot trailer trucks, known as "Double 33s," 

would be projected to result in 2,478 bridges requiring strengthening or replacement at an 

estimated one-time cost of $1.1 billion. It is important to note that this figure does not account 

for the additional, subsequent maintenance costs which will result from longer, heavier trucks. 

Moreover, double trailer trucks have an 11 percent higher fatal crash rate than single trailer 

trucks. They also require more stopping distance, take more time to pass, have bigger blind 

spots, cross into adjacent lanes and swing into opposing lanes on curves and when making right 

angle turns. Simply put, bigger trucks mean bigger safety problems. 

We strongly oppose any so-called "pilot program" to allow heavier trucks in a select number of 

states because it opens the flood gates to widespread disregard for well-researched and wellsupported national policies. The piecemeal approach also makes enforcement and compliance 

more difficult, burdens states with reasonable truck weights to succumb to pressure for higher 

weights, and creates deadly and costly consequences for highway safety and infrastructure. 

Despite misleading claims to the contrary, research and experience shows that allowing bigger, 

heavier trucks will not result in fewer trucks. Since 1982, when Congress last increased the gross 

vehicle weight limit, truck registrations have increased 95 percent. The U.S. DOT study also 

addressed this assertion and found that any potential mileage efficiencies from use of heavier 

trucks would be offset in just one year. 

Annual truck crash fatalities are equivalent to a major airplane crash every other week of the 

year. Any change overturning current truck size and weight laws will further strain and erode 

our crumbling infrastructure, present dire safety risks and disrupt efficient intermodal freight 

transportation. It is critical that any proposals which would increase the size or weight of trucks 

be rejected, including pilot programs and measures to preempt state limits. Thank you for your 

consideration of our position. 

Sincerely, 
54 


26349.023

Joan Claybrook, Chair 

Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways and 

Former Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration 

Jacqueline Gillan, President 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

Georges C. Benjamin, MD, Executive 

Director 

American Public Health Association 

Chuck Baker, President 

National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association 

John Lannen, Executive Director 

Truck Safety Coalition 

David Tennent, Executive Director and CEO 

Railway Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers 

Association 

Jack Gillis, Director of Public Affairs 

Consumer Federation of America 

Andrew McGuire, Executive Director 

Trauma Foundation 

Mike Drudy, Executive Director 

Railway Systems Suppliers, Inc. 

James P. Hoffa, General President 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

Thomas D. Simpson, President 

Railway Supply Institute 

John Risch, National Legislative Director 

SMART-TD (UTU) 

Karen Wiley, MSN, RN, CEN, 2017 

President 

Emergency Nurses Association 

Linda Bauer Darr, President 

American Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association 

Steve Owings, Co-Founder 

Road Safe America 

Daphne Izer, Co-Chair 

Parents Against Tired Truckers (P A TT) 

Brad Roseberry, Vice President 

Coalition Against Bigger Trucks 

Janette Fennell, Founder and President 

KidsAndCars.org 

Michael Brooks, Acting Director 

Center for Auto Safety 
55 


26349.024

Linda Wilburn 

Weatherford, 0 K 

Board Member, PATT 

Mother of Orbie Wilburn 

Killed in a truck crash 9/2/02 

Gary Wilburn 

Weatherford, OK 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Father ofOrbie Wilburn 

Killed in a truck crash 9/2/02 

Larry Liberatore 

Severn, MD 

Board Member, PATT 

Father of Nick Liberatore 

Killed in a truck crash 6/9/97 

Kate Brown 

Gurnee, IL 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Graham Brown 

Injured in a truck crash 5/2/05 

Julie Branon Magnan 

South Burlington, VT 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 1/31102 

Wife of David Magnan 

Killed in a truck crash 1/31/02 

Tami Friedrich Trakh 

Corona, CA 

Board Member, CRASH 

Sister ofKris Mercurio, Sister-in-Law of Alan 

Mercurio, Aunt of Brandie Rooker & 

Anthony Mercurio 

Killed in a truck crash 12/27/89 

Santiago Calderon 

Arcata, CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 4/10/14 

cc: Members of the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

Ed Slattery 

Lutherville, MD 

Board Member, PATT 

Husband of Susan Slattery 

Killed in a truck crash 8116/10 

Sons Matthew & Peter Slattery critically 

injured 

Morgan Lake 

Sunderland, MD 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 7/19/13 

Peter Malarczyk 

Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Son ofRyszard and Anita Malarczyk 

Killed in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Monica Malarczyk 

Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Son of Ryszard and Anita Malarczyk 

Killed in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Alan Dana 

Plattsburgh, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Son of Janet Dana, Uncle ofCaitlyn & 

Lauryn Dana, Brother-in-law of Laurie Dana 

Killed in a truck crash 7/19/12 

Michelle Novak 

Delevan, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Aunt of Charles "Chuck" Novak 

Killed in a truck crash 10/24/10 

Michelle Lemus 

Los Angeles, CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 4/10/14 
56 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

When we met in my office earlier this month, we talked about 

a number of revenue options to actually pay for stuff, including 

transportation. 

One of the options that we mentioned then, I didn’t touch on it 

today, it was an idea that had a lot of support in the last Congress, 

deemed repatriation, an element of, to actually form corporate tax 

reform. Two trillion dollars of overseas profits by multi-national 

companies. The idea was to deem it repatriated, it is just sitting 

offshore, deem it repatriated and maybe tax it at 15 percent, not 

35 or 40 percent. It would raise about $300 billion. It is a big onetime, big one-time. 

There are some who thought we could use that to fund transportation going forward. Actually, it is a big one-time. But it is big. 

We have all these projects of national importance. We talked about 

going to the east coast, in New York City. Well, if you go to New 

York City and come out in New York City you have to go through 

these tunnels that are 90, 100 years old. I have been stuck in those 

tunnels before; you probably have as well. 

There is a tunnel that goes under Baltimore that was built in the 

Civil War. But there are all kinds of projects of national importance that I think could be funded by a big one-time, like the kind 

of money that we are talking about from deemed repatriation. It 

couldn’t be used to fund transportation, roads, highways, bridges 

going forward. I don’t think it is appropriate for lowering the corporate tax rate going forward, because it is a big one-time. Something could be in the base. But I wanted to mention that. 

Also, you have indicated the Administration wants to be especially helpful and direct funding to rural communities, where they 

can’t always have these public-private partnerships and tolling 

may not work so well. I would just ask you not to forget the urban 

areas. There are some urban areas where, frankly, they don’t have 

the money, either; they don’t have the wherewithal to raise the 

money. 

As I said earlier, I think a third of our States actually have a 

prohibition on public-private partnerships. Thirty-five States, they 

have never had public-private partnerships, not even one. Texas, I 

think, just took the idea off the table. So I would just ask you, don’t 

forget those urban areas. 

As it turns out, Mr. Chairman—I was shocked to learn this, but 

80 percent of the people in this country live within 62 miles of one 

of our coasts. Think about that. Eighty percent of the people in this 

country. That doesn’t mean we should forget the folks who live in 

between the coasts. But that is a lot of people, with a lot of transportation needs. 

I want to mention, the Department of Transportation apparently 

has delayed some important rules to require performance targets 

for our infrastructure, performance targets. I don’t know if you 

have had a chance to get into this. But we put in legislation, and 

we said, we are going to fund what works. Fund what works. And 

in order to find out what works, we put in these performance targets to actually measure performance toward those targets. 

Vince Lombardi, football coach, Green Bay Packers, he used to 

say, unless you’re keeping score, you’re just practicing. And he 

57 

never said this, but what you can’t measure, you can’t manage. So 

with that in mind, we put in these performance measures. I think 

the rules are now scheduled to be effective on May 20th. I think 

they have been delayed twice already. 

I just want to ask if you can commit today to allowing those rules 

to go forward and go into effect as scheduled. Again, they have 

been delayed twice. The May 20th; are you familiar with this? You 

may not be. 

Ms. CHAO. I am aware of the performance, of the requirements 

for performance evaluations. I am not aware that the deadline is 

May 20th. That is 3 days from now. 

Senator CARPER. We will follow up with QFRs, questions for the 

record. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. We think it is a good idea, finding what works, 

do more of that. If you don’t have performance measures, it is hard 

to know. 

Finally, one of your major responsibilities, you mentioned three 

things you were going to focus on. One of them was safety. And 

just take a moment and tell us how the Department is responding 

to the safety crisis on our roads today, including the rising number 

of pedestrian fatalities. Delaware is very high in pedestrian fatalities, which causes great concern. Would you give us a glimpse into 

what you are thinking of doing on the safety side, particularly on 

the pedestrian safety side? Forty thousand people died on our 

roads, highways and bridges last year. Forty thousand. It is going 

up, not down. 

Ms. CHAO. When I was Deputy Secretary of Transportation, the 

total number of fatalities on the highways was 51,000. So when I 

came back, in January of this year, I was so pleased to hear that 

the number has dropped down to about 39,000. Unfortunately, in 

the last 2 years, 2015 and 2016, that number has increased again, 

7 percent, 8 percent respectively. 

So we are very concerned about that. And we have asked a number of the agencies that are involved, Highways, NHTSA, to work 

together to see why this is happening and find out what the root 

is. Then we will have a clear course of action. 

Senator CARPER. I close with this, Mr. Chairman and Madam 

Secretary. If we have good performance measures, and one of those 

is very likely to include safety, fatalities, that sort of thing, if we 

have good performance measures in place, and we are measuring 

performance, we ought to have an idea of which States are actually 

being more effective in reducing fatalities and the States where 

they are going up. 

And the idea being, look at those States as laboratories of democracy, find out what is working to reduce fatalities, do more of that. 

Thank you so much. Good luck. We were happy to be with you 

today. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. We are so grateful that you would 

spend your time with us this morning. Thank you for open answers 

that you have given to each of the questions. Some of the other 

58 

members of the Committee may have some written questions that 

they will submit, but I am very grateful for your testimony today. 

With that, our hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

Æ