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

26–726 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–74 

THE USE OF TIFIA AND INNOVATIVE FINANCING 

IN IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE TO ENHANCE 

SAFETY, MOBILITY, AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 12, 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 

JULY 12, 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 ................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Mayer, Anne, Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside, California ................................................................................... 4 

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

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 19 

Aument, Jennifer, Group General Manager, Transurban North America, 

Tysons, Virginia ................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 39 

Coes, Christopher, Vice President for Real Estate Policy and External Affairs, 

Smart Growth America, and Director, LOCUS: Responsible Real Estate 

Developers and Investors, Washington, DC ....................................................... 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 50 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter to Senators Enzi and Sanders from Senators Barrasso and Carper, 

March 10, 2017 ..................................................................................................... 71 

Statement of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, July 12, 2017 ........................................................................................ 80 

(1) 

THE USE OF TIFIA AND INNOVATIVE FINANCING IN IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE TO 

ENHANCE SAFETY, MOBILITY, AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Boozman, Wicker, Ernst, 

Cardin, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Duckworth, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

This is the sixth hearing our Committee has held this year on 

improving our nation’s highways, bridges, and water projects. As 

these hearings have shown, infrastructure is critical to our nation’s 

prosperity, and the needs and solutions for rural and urban areas 

are frequently different. 

Solutions to address and pay for fixing our nation’s crumbling 

roads and bridges are not one size fits all. Private financing—especially for transportation projects—tends to be much less effective in 

sparsely populated parts of our country. It can play an important 

role in and around large population centers. 

Big ticket projects that cost billions of dollars—or even projects 

that cost hundreds of millions of dollars—are rare in rural and 

small States like Wyoming. Large projects are frequently critical 

for urban areas. Many of these projects are made possible through 

financing, combining Federal, State, and local assets. 

Today we are here to receive testimony from experts about the 

range of financing options that can be used to rebuild our transportation infrastructure. Leveraging public funding to maximize private investment is a tool that the Administration strongly supports. A primary existing mechanism is the loans and loan guarantees provided by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, commonly referred to as TIFIA. TIFIA loans have 

been used successfully for the construction of critical transportation 

infrastructure. 

Today we will hear about a TIFIA success story in California 

from Anne Mayer, the Executive Director of the Riverside County 

2 

Transportation Commission; Jennifer Aument, of Transurban, will 

testify about other innovative transportation funding options and 

ways we can improve and broaden TIFIA so more of our communities can benefit; and Mr. Christopher Coes will share Smart 

Growth America’s ideas about how to improve the program for 

smaller and transit-oriented projects. 

I believe that, working together in a bipartisan way, this Committee can find transportation solutions that work for both rural 

and urban America. 

I will now turn to Ranking Member Carper for his comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

To our witnesses, welcome. Very nice to see you. We are glad you 

are here. 

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you for calling the hearing on 

TIFIA. It is an important source of low cost financing, as we know, 

for thousands of critical projects across our country, and that includes Delaware. 

I am going to take a minute to describe why it is important to 

us. 

Senator Barrasso and I sometimes talk about the 80/20 rule, 

which we first learned from Mike Enzi, who once described his 

ability to work very well with Ted Kennedy, a very liberal Democrat, and Mike Enzi a very conservative Republican, who were the 

co-leads on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. 

They got a lot done. 

I once asked Mike Enzi, how are you and Ted Kennedy able to 

get so much done, and he said, we believe in the 80/20 rule. I said, 

what is that? He said, the 80/20 rule, Ted and I agree on 80 percent of the stuff; we disagree on 20 percent of the stuff. So what 

we do is we focus on the 80 percent where we agree. 

On this Committee’s broad agreement with the leader, this 

Chairman, and before him Senator Inhofe and Barbara Boxer had 

broad agreement on a lot of the transportation and infrastructure 

items. And there is, I think, special agreement on TIFIA. One of 

the things we like about TIFIA I will mention in a minute is how 

much other money—private sector money, public money, State and 

local money—that we can leverage through TIFIA. 

But our State has just closed its first TIFIA loan. We did it last 

year for a project on U.S. 301. And if you are leaving Washington, 

DC, you get on Route 50 heading east, trying to get to those great 

Delaware beaches, and pretty good Maryland beaches too. But you 

get on Route 50 heading east, and you get to a point you can go 

south and head to the beaches or head north on the 301. 

U.S. 301 is a four-lane highway. It is a beautiful stretch of road, 

one of the loveliest stretches of road on the east coast. A four-lane 

road, and it goes all the way through Maryland to the Delaware 

line, where it becomes a two-lane road, a two-lane road, and on a 

busy day it gets to be a very crowded two-lane road. 

But we have a project underway on U.S. 301 that will make it 

easier for drivers to travel through our State and get up to I–95, 

if they want to, or find someplace in Delaware to go to. It will also 

3 

make our community safer by taking large trucks off our smaller 

local streets, and our State will repay a $211 million loan with toll 

revenues and other State transportation funds. 

The U.S. 301 project has a total construction cost of over $400 

million. That is a lot of money for a little State. That is more than 

three times as much funding as Delaware receives annually, in 

fact, from the Federal Highway formula programs. 

Without this loan, the U.S. 301 project could never have been 

completed. And again, it is not just for Delaware; it is actually for 

a lot of folks that are moving a lot of commerce that is moving 

through that part of our country. 

The TIFIA loan helped to leverage, as I said, other bonds and 

State funding for the project and provided a lower interest rate and 

beneficial repayment terms that help the State take on such a big 

project. 

Across the country, the story is very much the same. TIFIA is 

a critical component of a funding package for large projects. It 

helps to leverage non-Federal funding, including State, local, and 

private dollars. 

It is important to recognize, though, TIFIA is not the solution for 

all types of projects. There are certain types of projects that have 

not received loans through TIFIA. TIFIA has provided loans for 

just 64 projects total since it was authorized in 1998. Think about 

that. How many years is that, 19 years? Nineteen years. Do the 

math. That is about four projects a year. But the vast majority of 

these projects have ranged in total cost from about $200 million to 

$3 billion, so there are some big ones. 

The President has called on Congress to expand the TIFIA program in order to encourage more non-Federal investments, and— 

stop the presses—I think he is right. As we consider that call, we 

should acknowledge that TIFIA is a useful tool, not replacement for 

direct grants to States and cities. 

We should also look for opportunities to make TIFIA available 

for a wider range of projects, and that includes smaller projects as 

well as multi-billion dollar investments that have the potential to 

transform regional economies like the project we are doing in Delaware. 

The FAST Act expanded eligibility for small and rural projects, 

and for projects to build transit oriented developments. However, 

to date, none of these project types have received TIFIA loans. 

We look forward to working with the Chair, colleagues on the 

Committee, including Senator Inhofe, to expand and broaden this 

program, and I look forward to hearing the testimony and suggestions for doing so from our panel today. 

Welcome, everybody. Bienvenido, as we say in Delaware. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to invite Senator 

Harris to introduce one of our witnesses from her home State of 

California. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking 

Member Carper. I appreciate and agree wholeheartedly that there 

are so many issues that are presented to this Committee and to all 

of us as Senators, the vast majority, in fact, that are not even biVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:31 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26726.TXT SONYA
4 

partisan or non-partisan, and it is critical that we approach them 

that way. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to introduce Anne 

Mayer from California. 

It is good to see you again. I welcome you warmly to the U.S. 

Senate. 

She is the Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, also known as RCTC. Riverside County is the 

tenth most populous county in the nation and home to over 2.3 million people. It is also located approximately 60 miles east from the 

ports of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, making it a major 

transportation corridor for the goods in and out of the United 

States. 

Residents and visitors to Riverside are used to sharing their 

highways with a high volume of trucks, but as the population continues to grow, so does congestion. This is part of a State that suffers from poor air quality, mostly due to the number of vehicles 

moving through it, so that growing traffic also threatens public 

health. 

As head of RCTC, Ms. Mayer oversees the safe and reliable mobilization of the people and all the international and domestic products that pass through the region. She has over 34 years of service 

as a transportation official and civil engineer. Previous to her current role, she served as the District Director of the California Department of Transportation’s geographically largest district, which 

is District 8 in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. And with 

her extensive knowledge and experience, Anne has led RCTC to 

look for different solutions to meet the challenging transportation 

demands in Riverside County. 

During her tenure, she steered RCTC into successfully receiving 

one of the United States Department of Transportation’s earliest 

TIFIA loans to expand State Route 91, a project that cost a total 

of $1.4 billion. She has also helped expand Southern California’s 

commuter rail line, MetroLink, to expand service from Los Angeles 

into Southwest Riverside County. 

Riverside County is a model of how a transportation agency can 

leverage Federal resources and bring jobs and transportation to a 

community that needs both. Therefore, it is my distinct pleasure to 

hear from Anne about how we can efficiently and effectively accelerate the development of infrastructure improvement projects for 

the benefit not only of California, but the entire nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much. 

I want to remind the witnesses that your full written testimony 

will be made part of the official hearing record, so please try to 

keep your statements to 5 minutes so that we may have time to 

questions. I look forward to hearing the testimony of each of you, 

beginning with Ms. Mayer. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE MAYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, RIVERSIDE, 

CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MAYER. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. 

5 

Senator Harris, thank you for the kind introduction. 

Thank you all for the opportunity to testify about our experience 

with TIFIA and recommendations for the future of the program. 

I would like to start by thanking this Committee for your work 

on the FAST Act. The FAST Act made TIFIA a more user friendly 

and effective program for regional transportation agencies like 

ours. 

TIFIA is an important program that provides a flexible and low 

cost source of financing that allows State and regional governments 

to put less money into debt repayments and more money into 

projects. 

Let me take a minute to describe how TIFIA has helped our 

county. As was mentioned, Riverside County is both geographically 

and economically diverse, spanning over 7,000 square miles, with 

both urban and rural areas. We have the population of New Mexico 

in the area the size of New Jersey. 

Riverside County is what we call a self-help county. Our voters 

have approved sales tax measures for transportation on two occasions. The combination of local and Federal dollars can lead to 

transformative projects that change thousands of lives for the better. 

The $1.4 billion 91 corridor improvement project has been 

RCTC’s largest undertaking to date, with the TIFIA program providing a loan of $421 million. The TIFIA loan was absolutely essential to the financing of the project. Without it, we would have faced 

costly delays or increased costs from issuing municipal debt. The 

project opened to traffic in March 2017, and I am very pleased to 

report that the results have been overwhelmingly positive. 

Now we are seeking to do even more with the TIFIA program. 

We are currently in the process of applying for another TIFIA loan 

of $152 million for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project. This 

$471 million project will add two tolled express lanes in northwest 

Riverside County. 

We have learned many lessons from our extensive work with the 

TIFIA program. With the leadership of this Committee, Congress 

has made the TIFIA program more stable by creating a predictable 

application and approval process. 

In the years between financing the 91 and the I–15 projects, 

there has been a decreased appetite for financial risk out of the 

TIFIA office. We welcome rigorous Federal review to ensure the integrity of the TIFIA program, but would ask that the review not 

be overly onerous or costly for project sponsors. 

Because of uncertainty created with the change in Administrations, we were concerned about delays in approving the I–15 

project. We had to pencil out what would happen if we had to abandon the TIFIA program. We estimated that financing the I–15 

project without TIFIA, and using more traditional bonds, would 

cost RCTC an additional $25 million. Thankfully, the Council on 

Credit was able to convene last month and approve our TIFIA loan, 

which now awaits Secretary Chao’s decision. 

I commend every employee who works on this program for the 

integrity with which they administer it. We have had challenges, 

but we have addressed them head on and together as a team. 

6 

Given our experiences with the TIFIA program, I would like to 

highlight a few of our recommendations. 

Maintain mode neutrality; continue the rolling application process; maintain a high bar for financial feasibility for TIFIA projects, 

but not so high that project sponsors cannot afford the time or the 

cost to apply; continue the Build America Bureau and Federal 

Highway Administration efforts to address permitting issues with 

other regulatory agencies; and encourage the integration of TIFIA 

requirements into other approval processes. 

In conclusion, TIFIA must continue as an essential financing 

source for revenue backed transportation projects, and must remain insulated from politics and stay focused on objective measures such as credit worthiness and deliverability of projects. 

As Congress and the Administration look to pursue an infrastructure initiative and prepare for the reauthorization of the 

FAST Act in 2020, please look to RCTC as a resource. We stand 

ready to assist you in your efforts. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify today, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mayer follows:] 

7 


26726.001

Anne Mayer, P.E. 

Executive Director 

Riverside County Transportation Commission 

As the Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation 

Commission (RCTC), Anne Mayer leads a staff of 50 with an annual 

budget of $782 million. RCTC is the regional transportation agency 

for Riverside County, the nation's tenth most populous county with a 

geography roughly the size of New Jersey. Under Anne's leadership, 

RCTC has delivered on promises made to the voters of Riverside 

County's Measure A half-cent sales tax measure and ensured that transportation projects 

and programs support quality of life and the economy in Riverside County. Anne 

spearheaded the initiation of inland Southern California's first innovative finance and 

innovative project delivery efforts, which are coming to fruition on State Route 91 and 

Interstate 15. She has also led the successful delivery of the first FTA Small Starts 

project in the region: The Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension, a historic expansion of 

commuter rail service in Southern California. 

Anne is past chairwoman and current board member of the Self-Help Counties Coalition, 

and Mobility 21, Southern California's public-private transportation advocacy coalition. 

She is the recipient of the WTS-Inland Empire Chapter's Woman of the Year award and 

the Athena of Riverside women's leadership award, in addition to numerous other 

recognitions. 

Prior to joining RCTC in 2005, Anne was the Caltrans District 8 Director where she 

supervised the operations, maintenance, and engineering of the largest territory of any 

Caltrans district in California. Anne is a graduate of Michigan State University and is a 

Registered Civil Engineer with over 34 years of service in the transportation profession. 
8 


26726.002

Testimony of Anne Mayer 

Executive Director 

Riverside County Transportation Commission 

Before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

The Use of TIFIA and Innovative Financing in Improving Infrastructure 

to Enhance Safety, Mobility and Economic Opportunity 

July 12, 2017 
9 


26726.003

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee. My name is Anne Mayer 

and I am the Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before you today about the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, our experience with the program, and our recommendations for the 

future of the program. As a strong supporter of the TIFIA program, I welcome the opportunity to tell 

you about a smart federal investment and the value of a partnership between the United States 

Department of Transportation (US DOT) and local agencies that are faced with the daily responsibility of 

building and maintaining transportation infrastructure. 

On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, I would like to start by thanking this 

Committee and Congress for your work on the FAST Act. The passage of the FAST Act in 2015 was 

critical to our area in California and the nation as a whole. Your continued leadership on transportation 

issues is very much appreciated by me, the members of my agency, and the residents of California. The 

FAST Act built on important policy reforms in MAP-21 that made TIFIA a more user-friendly program so 

that self-help regional agencies, such as RCTC, can better leverage our local taxes and tolls to build more 

infrastructure that improves the nation's critical infrastructure and our communities. 

TIFIA provides a flexible and low-cost source of financing that allows state and regional governments to 

put less money into debt repayments and more money into pavement, tracks, and capital improvements 

that benefit society. The federal government's ability to provide affordable financing tools that are not 

otherwise available on the private market is a savings for taxpayers as well as an accelerator of jobcreating transformative infrastructure improvements. The alternatives are higher-priced financing tools 

that squeeze limited budgets or pay-as-you-go funding that defers improvements for years or decades. 

There are many governments around the country, such as RCTC, that have their own revenue streams 

that can use this program, which is why the expansion of TIFIA in MAP-21 and the FAST Act was so 

critical to meet the demand to upgrade our nation's infrastructure. 

Yet, while TIFIA is an essential tool to have in the federal infrastructure toolbox, it is only one tool that 

benefits a narrow category of projects and should not be seen as a panacea to the nation's 

infrastructure deficit. As my testimony will detail, TIFIA has been the cornerstone of the two flagship 

express lane (toll) projects at RCTC over the last decade, however a vast majority of the projects in my 

agency's 30-year local sales tax measure cannot use TIFIA or public-private partnerships (P3) and must 

have adequate sources of traditional grant funding from our state and federal governments. Congress 

must continue its strong support of TIFIA and encourage innovative financing while simultaneously 

increasing its grant funding commitments, just as many states throughout the nation, including 

California, have done in recent years. 

Riverside County and the Riverside County Transportation Commission 

Let me start by telling you about Riverside County. Riverside County is both geographically and 

economically diverse- spanning over 7,000 square miles with both urban and rural areas. We have the 

population of New Mexico in an area the size of New Jersey. 

To the west and south are Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego counties while to the north and east are 

San Bernardino and Imperial counties and the state of Arizona. A wide array of industries and 

employers thrive in Riverside County, including but not limited to: public and private higher education 

2 
10 


26726.004

institutions, leading technology firms, medical and healthcare facilities, vineyards and wineries, farming, 

music festivals, state and national parks and monuments, tourism, and goods movement. 

Located adjacent to Los Angeles County, which has two of the largest port complexes in the world, 

Riverside County is home to some of the largest warehousing and distribution centers in the country. 

Transportation in Riverside County is severely impacted by goods being distributed all over the United 

States. Primary rail and highway freight corridors, including Interstates 10 and 15 and Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) rail lines, bisect the county. These corridors facilitate 

the distribution of economically vital goods, but not without leaving a large air quality and congestion 

impact on Riverside County. 

In 1976, California Governor Edmund G. Brown created RCTC as a county transportation commission and 

regional planning agency with the intent to enhance public transit, prioritize highway and transit 

projects, improve air quality, and other related goals. Today, RCTC plans and implements transportation 

and transit improvements, assists local governments with funding for local streets and roads, facilitates 

goods movement, provides commuters with congestion relief on local highways, operates tolled express 

lanes, and ensures everyone has access to transportation. 

The agency is governed by a board with elected representatives from all 28 cities in Riverside County, 

the five County Supervisors, and one Governor's appointee. Riverside County is currently the lO'h most 

populous county in the country with over 2.1 million residents. 

Riverside County is what we call a "self-help" county. While we are very supportive of the federal 

transportation program and the funding we receive from it, we know that we have to do more to meet 

the transportation needs of our residents. 

In 1988, as the population of Riverside County was increasing, the agency proposed a half-cent sales tax 

measure to Riverside County voters. This sales tax measure, known as Measure A, required a two-thirds 

approval of the voters, of which 78.9 percent voted yes. The original Measure A was a 20-year plan that 

promised to deliver critically important mobility improvements throughout Riverside County. 

I am proud to say that RCTC delivered on those promises to the voters and because of our commitment 

to fulfilling our promises, the voters in the county have approved an extension of Measure A for another 

30 years with a new expiration date of 2039. 

RCTC's role has become increasingly challenging as Riverside County's population continues to boom. 

Our continued population increases have created long commutes for Riverside County residents and has 

placed an unprecedented demand on the transportation network. An abundance of affordable housing 

and a lack of well-paying jobs creates a transportation conundrum many of the neighboring counties in 

southern California do not experience. Residents are drawn to more affordable and newer housing in 

Riverside County, which has a price differential that is approximately 51 percent lower than in 

neighboring Orange County. This results in commutes that often begin before 5 o'clock in the morning. 

A similar phenomenon occurs in the southwestern region of Riverside County relative to commutes into 

San Diego. The residents of one of our cities, Lake Elsinore, are occasionally cited by some surveys as 

having the longest average commute (by time spent driving) in the nation. 

What's more, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) published an economic forecast in 

2015 that estimates Riverside County's population will approach 3.5 million in 2040. These projections 

3 
11 


26726.005

force us at RCTC to constantly plan for the future and to be creative in doing so- which is why we need 

an equally creative federal partner. 

Shortly after the adoption of our voter-approved sales tax program, RCTC developed a plan to deliver 

transformative projects in Riverside County. We were already on the leading edge of integrated 

planning with our Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). This integrated plan focused on the 

balance between quality of life; community identity, form, and focus; choice; refining and redefining the 

development process; incentives; stakeholders as part of the team; and collaboration. Our commitment 

to these critical components set the stage for innovation. In 2004, local governments in Riverside 

County established the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority and developed the 

largest, most comprehensive multiple species habitat conservation plan (MSHCP) in the United States. 

Since its creation, more than 403,000 acres of habitat have been preserved and numerous 

transportation projects have benefited from streamlined environmental approvals using Riverside 

County's advance mitigation plan. As a result of this plan, we are achieving key quality of life goals: 

protecting our environment and delivering needed transportation projects. The plan has proven that 

growth and conservation can co-exist. 

Two recently completed projects are the Perris Valley Line (PVL) commuter rail extension and the State 

Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 CIP). Both projects were able to advance in part due to 

federal investment in transportation. 

The PVL project was a 24-mile extension of commuter rail service that previously originated in Riverside 

and terminated in Los Angeles, but now originates further south in Riverside County in the city of Perris. 

This project is not only an extension of a critical rail backbone system but also allows for expanded 

transit services connecting residents to local and regional jobs. Completion of this project would not 

have been possible without an investment from a US DOT Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small 

Starts grant. 

The 91 CIP was an extension of the first tolled express lanes in the United States the very successful 

SR-91 Express Lanes in Orange County, owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). 

Similar to the PVL project, the 91 CIP would not have been possible without a significant partnership 

with US DOT. This project was also significant in that it marked the first time RCTC pursued alternative 

forms of financing, including tolling, to finance a major infrastructure project. The key to making this 

work was being able to utilize a TIFIA loan. 

Success on State Route 91 

The 91 CIP has been RCTC's largest undertaking to date. With a cost of $1.4 billion, the project was 

delivered using the design-build procurement and project delivery method. The TIFIA program was a 

critical piece of our financing puzzle and is the reason for our success, providing a Joan of $421 million, 

which primarily funded construction. With the exception of a $39 million state of California 

contribution, this $1.4 billion project was solely funded by RCTC; no additional federal or state grants. 

This project and RCTC had no other sources of funding which made the TIFIA loan absolutely essential. 

The 91 CIP added approximately 10 miles of two tolled express lanes in both directions of the existing 

freeway, a general purpose lane in each direction, numerous interchange and bridge improvements, and 

4 
12 


26726.006

enhanced public transit options along one of the busiest commuter corridors in the nation. See 

Attachment 1. 

The project opened to traffic on-time in March 2017 and the results have been overwhelmingly positive. 

The toll lanes are averaging more than 250,000 cars per week - 40 percent higher than our original 

projections at project opening. Revenues generated from toll users are also exceeding expectations -

and are as much as 60 percent higher than we expected. Toll revenues will pay down debt as well as 

cover operations and maintenance of the facility. This is a true user-pay project with any excess 

revenues being used to provide additional transportation benefits within the corridor. 

More importantly, the overall project has delivered the promised improvements. The overall level of 

congestion on the freeway has improved, resulting in significant quality of life benefits that will be 

quantified in the near future in terms of time savings, air quality, and safety improvements. 

Moreover, the economic impact of the project cannot be overstated. A study conducted by Beacon 

Economics prior to construction projected the creation of more than 12,800 jobs and a $3.5 billion 

economic and time savings benefit. Additionally, a 2.3 percent permanent increase in base taxable sales 

is expected as a result of the project. Given the initial success of the project, we believe we will exceed 

the projections. 

The TIFIA program enabled a project that increased transportation capacity, created jobs and economic 

opportunity, and thanks to the tolling component of the project, provides a sustainable form of funding 

to maintain the infrastructure it created. 

Interstate 15 Tolled Express Lanes Project 

Given our commitment to Riverside County residents and our experience with the 91 CIP, RCTC is 

seeking to do even more with the TIFIA program. Even with the 91 CIP and PVl in progress, we 

remained focused on providing additional infrastructure improvements to our residents. We made a 

promise to our residents that as soon as we completed the 91 CIP we would roll right into improving the 

connecting Interstate 15 (1-15) corridor. In fact, we awarded a design-build construction contract for the 

1-15 Express lanes Project (1-15 ElP) only three weeks after opening the 91 CIP to traffic. 

We sought and have received an invitation to apply for another TIFIA loan for the $471 million 1-15 ELPwhich will add two tolled express lanes to approximately 15 miles of the 1-15 in northwest Riverside 

County. See Attachment 2. This application for a $152 million loan, which will primarily fund 

construction, received support from the US DOT Council on Credit and Finance within the last three 

weeks and, in fact, we appear on schedule to close our financing next week on July 18. Prior to financial 

close, we await the final step in the TIFIA loan process: signature and approval from Transportation 

Secretary Elaine Chao. 

For both the 91 CIP and the 1-15 ELP, TIFIA is an invaluable tool. The $573 million in federal loans 

translates into a total combined investment of nearly $2 billion in critically needed infrastructure in one 

of the nation's fastest growing regions. 

5 
13 


26726.007

Our experiences and lessons from the TIFIA program 

RCTC's experience with the TIFIA program on two major infrastructure projects within the last five years 

is positive and confirms that this is an important tool for regional governments to use to meet their 

transportation financing needs. Our experience confirms that US DOT's creation of the Build America 

Bureau (BAB), and the subsequent expansion of its role through the FAST Act, has created a more userfriendly experience. US DOT is fortunate to have the career professionals who work on this program 

and act in the interest of federal taxpayers. 

While we have had a positive experience with this program, we have also learned some lessons that we 

hope can serve as a basis for continued improvements to the TIFIA program. The challenges and risks to 

the SR-91 and 1-15 projects have not come from the financial, engineering, or technical realm. Instead, 

the majority of our challenges have come from factors in Washington beyond our control. 

When we first started working on the 91 CIP, we faced uncertainty and anxiety. In 2011, when we first 

expressed formal interest in the TIFIA program, the TIFIA program was funded at a much lower level 

than it is today - which was far less than what was needed to finance the many creditworthy projects 

being proposed throughout the country. US DOT held annual competitions for its limited TIFIA budget, 

meaning that billion-dollar projects that took years, even decades, to develop were subjected to a 

complex process here in Washington, D.C. Even with this uncertainty, our Commission took the financial 

and political risk of advancing the 91 CIP, not knowing if we would ever be one of the fortunate few to 

receive limited TIFIA funding. Knowing we might not succeed the first time, we began to apply for TIFIA 

earlier than we really needed to, theorizing that applying early and often would put us in a "pipeline" 

and make us more familiar to the staff overseeing the TIFIA program. The pressure to compete and 

overcome the uncertainty created by TIFIA's limited budget and political selection process was 

expensive in time and money. Thankfully, after four attempts, the 91 CIP was accepted into the TIFIA 

program and the project was financed on-schedule. 

Another crucial factor in our 91 CIP financing and project success was the very high-level federal focus 

placed on the project delivery process. Then Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrator 

Victor Mendez placed the 91 CIP project in the Enhanced Environmental Review Process, which, 

combined with the FHWA Every Day Counts program, set a positive tone in cutting red tape and making 

timely decisions. Federal reviews were expedited and returned promptly. This set a positive tone of 

importance among other federal agencies and with Caltrans. As a result, our Environmental Document 

was approved in only 63 months. This was made possible thanks to the leadership and efforts of FHWA 

staff. 

Around the same time, Congress passed MAP-21, which increased the TIFIA program budget ten-fold, 

allowing US DOT to accept TIFIA applications on a rolling basis rather than once every fiscal year. The 

change in law relieved creditworthy applicants such as RCTC from the burden of uncertainty, meaning 

that we could focus our resources on getting projects ready to go. With the leadership of this 

Committee, MAP-21 and the FAST Act made much needed improvements to the TIFIA program -

providing a more stable and predictable application and approval process. Now, the focus is on the 

timeliness, readiness, and creditworthiness of the project. 

In the years between financing SR-91 and 1-15, we have noticed a decreased appetite for financial risk 

out of the TIFIA office. In the interest of protecting federal taxpayers, professional US DOT staff have 

6 
14 


26726.008

looked at our financial numbers with a higher degree of scrutiny and skepticism. At RCTC, we also have 

a very limited appetite for risk, especially when it comes to billions of local taxpayer dollars. Therefore, 

RCTC's financial policies and strategies are more conservative than might be necessary. Layering our 

conservative financial approach over that of the TIFIA program can create significant issues. While we 

welcome rigorous federal review to ensure the sustainability and integrity of the TIFIA program, we 

encourage US DOT to monitor its lending requirements to ensure they proportionally balance risk 

among local and federal taxpayers and fulfill the objective of the program to provide a flexible, 

subordinate financing source. 

At only one point during the 91 CIP or 1-15 ELP TIFIA applications did RCTC ever consider abandoning the 

program in favor of more expensive traditional financing. This occurred a few months ago near the end 

of several months of successful negotiations of the 1-15 ELP TIFIA loan agreement. RCTC became 

concerned when considerable uncertainty emerged about the ability of US DOT to move our application 

to the US DOT Council on Credit and Finance. The Council on Credit and Finance is comprised of political 

appointees, many of whom at this time are either not yet nominated or confirmed. The prospect of not 

having the approval body installed to move our TIFIA loan forward in order to keep our project on 

schedule presented the most significant risk in the entire process. Delaying our approval by the Council 

on Credit and Finance and Secretary of Transportation, even by one month, means halting an active 

construction contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars and incurring significant penalties our local 

taxpayers would owe to that contractor as a result. Further, delaying approval would mean missing a 

construction season and potentially delaying completion of the project by up to one year. 

Deeming this delay risk to be unacceptable, RCTC aggressively began to develop a Plan B that did not 

include TIFIA late in the game. We estimated that financing the 1-15 ELP without TIFIA and using more 

traditional bonds would cost RCTC an additional $25 million in premiums. That is $25 million that would 

not be available to build other needed infrastructure in Riverside County. However, if it meant keeping 

the 1-15 ELP on-schedule and avoiding the costs of delay, it was a cost we would have to accept. 

Thankfully, the Council on Credit and Finance was able to convene two weeks ago and approve our TIFIA 

loan, which now awaits Secretary Chao's decision. 

Despite the difficulty of getting into the TIFIA program the first time and some late-breaking unexpected 

uncertainty on our second loan, I am pleased to say that from day one, every member of the TIFIA and 

Build America Bureau staff has demonstrated the highest degree of professionalism and commitment to 

their jobs. I commend every employee who works on this program for the integrity with which they 

carry out their responsibility to protect federal taxpayers and invest in infrastructure that improves 

communities throughout the United States. They have negotiated with RCTC in good faith and with 

transparency. When we have had challenges, we have addressed them head-on together as a team. 

By accessing the TIFIA program, we have learned many lessons. The 91 CIP, a user-funded project 

utilizing a TIFIA loan, was a new experience for the professionals at Caltrans and Federal Highway 

Administration's California Division. RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA worked collaboratively to integrate the 

TIFIA program's unique structure with traditional approval processes for large projects as best we could. 

Many of these conversations between agencies were difficult and required all of our organizations to 

change the way we thought about doing business. Despite the discomfort brought by change, we all 

agreed that the 91 CIP was too important to California and the federal-aid highway system to allow 

bureaucracy and traditional process to stand in the way. Communication between state, federal, and 

local agencies was frequent at all levels, including my regular communication with the Director of 

7 
15 


26726.009

Caltrans and the FHWA Administrator. All of us were "all in." I am confident that without this level of 

collaboration, the 91 CIP would not have been completed on-schedule or on-budget. It is this continued 

level of collaboration that we look forward to with the 1-15 ELP as well. 

Recommendations for Congress 

Given our experiences with the TIFIA program, I would like to highlight several recommendations for 

your consideration. 

1. Continue to provide funds for the TIFIA program. Fully funding the FAST Act authorized levels for the 

TIFIA program will enable the program to provide the financing needed to advance qualified 

projects. Stable and reliable funding for the program will limit disruptions to the application process 

and just as important, will limit costs associated with project approval delays due to lack of sufficient 

program funding. 

2. Maintain mode neutrality for the TIFIA program. Projects applying for TIFIA assistance should be 

judged on their financial feasibility, repayment capability and their ability to move forward once 

financing is approved - and not be selected based upon any arbitrary desire to advance one 

transportation mode or outcome over another. 

3. Continue the current rolling application process. It is important to encourage project sponsors to 

apply for assistance when their project is ready - by establishing their creditworthiness and their 

readiness to proceed. Project sponsors should not have to rush to apply prematurely in order to get 

in the queue for financial assistance. It is also important that projects be scrutinized by US DOT on a 

continuous basis and not a limited basis. This allows proposed projects to continue to advance and 

avoids unnecessary and costly delays. 

4. Maintain o high bar for financial feasibility for TIFIA projects- but not so high that project sponsors 

cannot afford the time or cost to apply. It is important that the federal government protects the 

taxpayer investments made by the TIFIA program. At the same time, is important that the steps 

necessary to show creditworthiness and financial feasibility not be so stringent as to discourage the 

use of the program. 

5. Put into practice Congress' allowance for up to 49% of project costs to be financed by TIFIA. 

Although MAP-21 and the FAST Act provide that up to 49% of project costs can be financed by TIFIA, 

BAB has indicated to RCTC and other applicants that they prefer to limit TIFIA to 33 percent of 

project costs, which was the limit under SAFETEA-LU. Congress' intent with raising TIFIA's share was 

to make projects more affordable and assist project sponsors to stretch their programs further. 

Putting this intent into practice will accelerate infrastructure investment in urban and rural areas. 

6. Continue the Build America Bureau and FHWA efforts to address permitting issues with other 

regulatory agencies. It can be daunting and intimidating for project sponsors to navigate the maze 

of federal agencies and permitting requirements. While at RCTC we have substantial experience in 

8 
16 


26726.010

these areas, expanding the pool of interested TIFIA program participants will require continued 

assistance from USDOT to successfully apply to the program. 

7. Encourage integration of TIFIA requirements into ather approval processes. TIFIA is a unique tool 

that is not a part of the approval process for most projects. Therefore, many US DOT procedures do 

not contemplate how the TIFIA process impacts other aspects of funding or project development. 

This can lead to conflicting directions to applicants from different offices within US DOT. The Build 

America Bureau can assist with reconciling these intra-agency differences. 

8. Streamline the Letter of Interest process in order to provide greater schedule certainty far TIFIA loan 

applicants. Congress established clear deadlines for project sponsors and USDOT to follow with 

regard to TIFIA applications. While an important part of the application process, more can be done 

to reduce the uncertainty that exists under the current letter of Interest process. The Build America 

Bureau should help ensure that applicants do not face unnecessary delays - allowing better 

planning, procurement, and implementation of TIFIA projects. 

Conclusion 

Congress' leadership and commitment to passing the FAST Act, which provides five years of stable 

transportation funding, was critical to agencies like RCTC that plan multi-year, billion-dollar capital 

improvement projects years in advance. RCTC thanks the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works and all members of Congress for passing the FAST Act. 

TIFIA must continue as an essential financing source for major revenue-backed transportation projects. 

The program must remain insulated from politics and focused on objective measures such as 

creditworthiness and deliverability of projects. Congress should encourage and reward self-help 

revenue-raising at the state and local levels while simultaneously increasing federal funding levels for 

infrastructure to match and supplement those self-help efforts. local governments, whose 

representatives are closest to the people, and who take responsible financial and political risks to do 

these projects for the benefit of their communities and the nation, should be rewarded, recognized, and 

motivated by federal funding and policy to continue doing so. We have much work to do to bring our 

nation's transportation system into a condition that fulfills our economic, environmental, and quality of 

life potential- and we can only accomplish that in partnership with one another. 

As Congress and the Trump Administration look to pursue an infrastructure initiative and prepare for 

the reauthorization of the FAST Act in 2020, please look to us at RCTC as a resource. RCTC stands ready 

to assist you in your efforts. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify today and I look forward to answering your questions. 

9 
17 


26726.011

ATTACHMENT 

SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project 

10 
18 


26726.012

ATIACHMENT2 

1-15 Express Lanes Project 

11 
19 


26726.013

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "The Use of TIFIA and Innovative Financing in Improving Infrastructure to 

Enhance Safety, Mobility, and Economic Opportunity" 

July 12, 2017 

Responses of Anne Mayer- Executive Director of the Riverside County 

Transportation Commission, to questions from Senator Carper 

1. Financing programs such os TIFIA are important tools to meet infrastructure needs but they do 

not replace federal grant funding. Would you agree with that statement? 

TIFIA is an important tool, especially when there is a dedicated source of funding, such as tolls, 

to repay the loan. However, it is not and should not be a replacement for federal grant funding. 

While many local governments, such as the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 

have stepped up to the plate with local revenue sources to improve local infrastructure needs, 

the federal government is an important partner in this process. Financing programs such as 

TIFIA can address a certain component of our infrastructure program but it will not replace the 

need for continued federal support to address funding gaps. 

2. For the Riverside County Transportation Commission, how much of the value from TIFIA would 

you ascribe to its low cost of capital, as opposed to features such as deferred repayment 

during project ramp-up? 

The availability of the low cost of capital for RCTC's first TIFIA loan on the State Route 91 

Corridor Improvement Project resulted in a savings of approximately $519 million. On RCTC's 

second TIFIA loan on the Interstate 15 Express lanes Project, savings are estimated at $142 

million. 

3. The FAST Act reduced TIFIA funding by 70 percent. Has that reduction in funding affected 

RCTC's ability to secure TIFIA loans or attract private capital or other impacts? 

While the reduction in TIFIA funding did not impact the ability of RCTC to secure a TIFIA loan for 

the Interstate 15 Express lanes Project, it is important that the program be funded at 

appropriate levels that provide for stability and certainty for future project sponsors. 
20 


26726.014

4. The FAST Act also lowered the TIFIA cost threshold for local projects. Would RCTC consider 

TIFIA a good financing option for a $10 million loan for a local project, and if not, what 

changes to the program would make TIFIA more attractive for small, local projects? 

From our experience with the TIFIA program to date, the program as it exists today would not 

be a good financing option for a $10 million loan for our local projects. The costs to obtain a 

TIFIA loan and the complex process to attain such a loan would outweigh the possible value for 

the borrower. The costs that would make such a loan prohibitive for smaller projects include: 

professional services such as attorneys, financial advisors, traffic and revenue consultants, and 

independent engineers, as well as TIFIA's legal and financial team. In addition, the application 

and approval process may be too involved to move forward without significant economies of 

scale· which would not be available for smaller projects. 

Possible changes to the TIFIA program that might attract small projects would be related to the 

creditworthiness requirements and the loan negotiation process. The following changes could 

reduce the costs and complexities of the TIFIA program: 

a. Require only one investment grade rating rather than two to execute a loan; 

b. Use investment grade traffic and revenue studies information, primarily sensitivity 

scenarios, for TIFIA creditworthiness assessments rather than requesting other 

scenarios; and 

c. Allow more flexibility in negotiating certain terms and conditions (T&C) in the TIFIA loan 

in order to minimize the administrative burden of an agency managing a small TIFIA 

loan. 

2 
21 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Ms. Mayer. 

Ms. Aument. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER AUMENT, GROUP GENERAL 

MANAGER, TRANSURBAN NORTH AMERICA, TYSONS, VIRGINIA 

Ms. AUMENT. Good morning. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee, thank you for your 

leadership on transportation and for the opportunity to speak to 

you today on the benefits available through TIFIA and other efforts 

to leverage private sector financing and innovation to deliver transportation improvements. 

My name is Jennifer Aument, and I am the Group General Manager-North America for Transurban. 

Transurban is the largest infrastructure company in Australia 

and among the largest toll road builders and operators in the 

world. We manage and develop urban toll road networks by 

partnering with governments to deliver innovative transportation 

solutions. Transurban has delivered $25 billion to upgrade capacity, ease road congestion, and provide travel time savings in the cities in which we operate. 

There is much discussion in Washington right now and among 

members of this Committee about the potential to leverage private 

capital to help available funds go further. I am pleased to be here 

today to provide concrete examples of how this model is working 

to deliver transformational transportation projects that unlock congested cities, provide travelers with more options, create thousands 

of jobs, and inject billions into the economy. 

Here in the United States, like California, Virginia has established itself as a key leader in embracing innovative transportation 

solutions. We are fortunate to have had the opportunity to work 

with the Commonwealth to deliver a $3 billion Express Lanes network on the Capital Beltway and I–95 just across the river in Virginia. It is among the best examples in the country of how States 

can successfully leverage private capital and partnership to meet 

critical transportation needs. 

The 495 and 95 Express Lanes projects are 45 miles of dynamically priced high occupancy toll lanes. The Express Lanes, which 

run parallel to the existing regular lanes, provide options for travelers to pay a toll to avoid the infamous congestion of the region. 

Carpools and transit vehicles may access the lanes at no charge. 

Both projects utilize the TIFIA program, as well as Private Activity Bonds. The innovative financing approach enabled the Commonwealth of Virginia to leverage private capital to translate $492 

million in public investment into $3 billion worth of transportation 

improvements. When factoring in construction costs as well as operations and maintenance, which Transurban is responsible for, the 

Commonwealth’s direct return on its investment is 29 times for the 

495 Express Lanes and 110 times for the 95 Express Lanes project. 

The projects, which were both delivered on time, on budget, and 

with industry leading safety records, also created more than 28,000 

jobs during construction and generated $6.3 billion in economic activity. 

Now in operation, the Express Lanes serve nearly 100,000 

carpoolers and 940 bus trips every day. We save commuters 

22 

225,000 hours of delay a month, which is why it is no surprise that 

recent surveys show that more than 90 percent of frequent toll paying customers give the lanes rave reviews. 

The success of Virginia’s Express Lanes network would not have 

been possible without the TIFIA program. Thanks to the program’s 

flexible terms and attractive interest rates, TIFIA enables major 

projects to be delivered that might not otherwise be possible. 

As both a long time TIFIA advocate and borrower, Transurban 

believes that administrative and policy changes are necessary to 

ensure the program can continue to deliver on its policy mission 

and realize its full potential in helping to meet our nation’s transportation needs. 

TIFIA can build on the success that it has had under the leadership of this Committee and produce even greater transportation 

outcomes by promoting consistency in its loan terms and conditions; strategically managing risks across its portfolio to enable it 

to support more projects, while also protecting taxpayers; and providing greater certainty and speed in the evaluation and approval 

process. 

Projects benefit when borrowers can depend on consistency in 

major terms over time, and can have confidence in an underlying 

risk framework within which terms are defined and loan decisions 

made. This consistency is critical to the project planning project 

and the sponsors’ ability to work with our government partners to 

develop transportation projects that meet policy needs and can ultimately be financed and delivered. 

When developing major projects, certainty and process in timing 

is also critical, particularly when private investors are involved. 

Transurban recently made the difficult decision not to pursue 

TIFIA to support the 395 Express Lanes project. Looking at all aspects of the project, we decided that the potential costs associated 

with the uncertainty around the terms TIFIA would require for the 

395 loan, as well as the timing and process for approval, outweighed the benefits that a TIFIA loan could provide. 

Fortunately, we worked with Virginia to find another solution 

that enabled us to move forward with the project, which breaks 

ground in a couple of weeks. But that solution may not—in fact, 

will not be available for other projects. Policies that drive transparency and certainty in process and terms will ensure that TIFIA 

can continue to support transformational projects like the Express 

Lanes. 

Beyond TIFIA reform, the Federal Government can take additional steps to help increase the pipeline of transportation projects 

and attract more private investment. Private Activity Bonds have 

been a cornerstone of the P3 industry in the U.S., supporting 16 

of the 20 privately financed major projects that have closed over 

the last decade. 

It is critical that Congress increase PABs authorization to support growing demand for the program and expand the program to 

accommodate new, more innovative and diverse projects, including 

brownfield projects. 

The U.S. could also benefit from replicating certain programs 

from around the world that have proven to attract private investment and help States increase the total funding available for infraVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:31 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26726.TXT SONYA
23 

structure, including Australia’s Asset Recycling Model. If merited 

in the U.S., this kind of Federal incentive program could unlock billions in proceeds to support new projects. In fact, Transurban estimates the top 10 existing U.S. public toll roads alone have the potential to unlock as much as $150 billion for new transportation 

projects. 

These kinds of programs, combined with a long-term sustainable 

public transportation funding, will enable the U.S. to put the best 

of government and the private sector to work to help rebuild our 

infrastructure, create jobs, and get the economy moving. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and Committee members, thank you again for inviting me to be part of this dialogue 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Aument follows:] 

24 


26726.015

Jennifer Aument 

Group General Manager, North America 

Transurban 

Jennifer Aument oversees Trans urban's business in North America. where she is responsible for the development. financing, 

construction and operations of major toll road infi:astructure. She also serves on the global leadership team tOr the $20 bi !lion 

international toll road owner and operator. 

Jennifer and her team at Transurhan \vere among those who pioneer~d the use of public-private partnerships tOr major 

transportation infrastructure in the United States and were the first to use a number of innovative Hnancing and technology 

strategies in the development of major toll road projects. including the 495. 95 and 395 Express Lanes in Northern Virginia. 

Under Jennifer's tenure. these projects have \von multiple industr) awards fOr financing. innovation, safety and technology 

from groups such as the American Road & Transportation Bui!d(:rs Association. Engineering Nev.s~Record. Intelligent 

Transportation Soddy of America and the International Bridge. Tunnel and Turnpike Association. 

As a leader in the transportation industry. Jennifer has advised state governments across the country on issues relaled to 

transport policy, innovative finance and public-private partnerships, and currently serves on advisory boards for the Eno 

Center for Transportation. the American Road & Transportation Builders Association and George Mason Unhersity. She was 

recently named among the .. Outstanding \Vomcn in the Building Industry" and Commercial Real Estate 'Nomen's "Woman 

of Impact.·· 

Jennifer has been appointed to key positions hy both Republican and Democratic governors, including commissioner and 

executive committee member lOr the Virginia Port Authority one of the largest shipping enterprises in the United States. 

Jennifer also serves in number or community leadership roles. including as chairman of the Northern Virginia Chamber of 

Commerce and a member of the board of directors fOr one of the region· s largest nonwprotit organizations. Northern Virginia 

Family Services. 

Prior to joining Transurban in 2006, JennifCr worked for Bechtel Infrastructure to develop the Washington Metrorail Silver 

Line. She began her career working in the West Virginia state legislature and went on to work as a public affairs and policy 

advisor to energy. infrastructure and tinancial services companies. including major multinational corporations such as HSBC. 

Suez Energy and General Motors. 

She holds a Masters of Business Administration from The George Washington University and a bachelor's degree in 

journalism and political science from We-st Virginia University. 
25 


26726.016

<><>t•rnr'n" of Jennifer Aument 

Group General Manager, North America 

Transurban 

:Transurban 

Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing on "The Use of TIFIA and Innovative Financing in Improving 

Infrastructure to Enhance Safety, Mobility, and Economic Opportunity" 

July 12, 2017 
26 


26726.017

Introduction 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and members of the Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the 

benefits available through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 

(TIFIA) and other efforts to leverage private sector financing and innovation to deliver 

transportation improvements. My name is Jennifer Aument, and I am the Group General 

Manager of North America for Transurban. 

Transurban is the largest infrastructure company in Australia and among the largest toll 

road builders and operators in the world. We manage and develop urban toll road 

networks by partnering with governments to deliver innovative transportation solutions. 

Transurban has delivered $25 billion to upgrade capacity, ease road congestion and 

provide travel time savings in the cities in which we operate. We are currently working to 

deliver nearly $7 billion in additional improvements - construction of which is expected to 

put nearly 20,000 people to work. 

Our partnerships with governments on both sides of the world have helped them deliver 

greater transportation and economic outcomes with their tax dollars. To be clear- our role 

is to enhance public transportation revenue - not replace it. Long-term, sustainable public 

funding remains the critical foundation for the nation's transportation program. 

There is much discussion in Washington, D.C. right now about the potential to leverage 

private capital to help available public funds go farther. It is often discussed in the abstract 

-translating one dollar into ten, or 200 million dollars into a trillion. I am pleased to be 

here today to provide concrete examples of how this model is working both here in the 

United States and around the world to deliver transformational transportation projects that 

unlock congested cities, provide travelers with more options, create thousands of jobs and 

inject billions into the economy. 

P;::!nP? nf 14 
27 


26726.018

The Australian experience: leveraging private capital and innovation 

Australia has long embraced opportunities to leverage private capital. Currently 

Transurban is working with our government partners in Australia to overhaul some of the 

country's most critical transportation corridors. 

NorthConnex is an $AUD3 billion, five-and-half mile tunnel project in Sydney, Australia. 

Currently under construction, this public-private partnership between New South Wales 

and Transurban will unlock the city's most congested corridor- pulling as many as 5,000 

heavy commercial vehicles per day off local streets and helping commuters bypass the 

grueling, daily stop-and-go of twenty-one traffic lights. By leveraging its partnership with 

Transurban, the government is delivering greater improvements than originally planned, a 

decade faster, and for a billion dollars less than initial estimates. 

Similarly, transformational improvements are underway in the city of Melbourne, where 

Transurban is working with the state of Victoria on finalizing the more than $AUD5.5 billion 

West Gate Tunnel project, which will be delivered and largely funded by the private sector. 

This new tunnel will use the latest technologies to relieve congestion on the city's major 

port access route, improve driver safety, create a new direct freight link to the Port of 

Melbourne and remove significant volumes of trucks from local neighborhoods. 

Innovation at home: the Virginia Express Lanes 

Here in the United States, Virginia has established itself as a key leader in embracing 

innovative transportation solutions. Our partnership with the Commonwealth for the $3 

billion Express Lanes network on the Capital Beltway and Interstate 95 just across the 

river in Virginia is among the best examples in the country of how states can effectively 

engage in public-private partnerships. 

The 495 and 95 Express Lanes projects are 43 miles of dynamically priced high 

occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. The Express Lanes, which run parallel to the existing regular 
28 


26726.019

lanes, provide an option for travellers to pay a toll to avoid the region's infamous 

congestion. Carpools and transit vehicles may access the lanes at no charge. 

Both projects utilize the TIFIA program and Private Activity Bonds (PABs). The innovative 

financing approach enabled the Commonwealth of Virginia to leverage private capital to 

translate a $492 million public investment into $3 billion worth of transportation 

improvements. When factoring in construction costs as well as operations and 

maintenance, which Transurban is responsible for, the Commonwealth's direct return on 

its investment is twenty-nine times for the 495 Express Lanes and 110 times for the 95 

Express Lanes. 

The projects, which were both delivered on time, under budget and with industry leading 

safety records, have also provided substantial economic impacts for Virginia - creating 

more than 28,000 jobs during construction and generating $6.3 billion in economic activity. 

Now in the operations phase, the projects have also delivered on the promise of relieving 

congestion, providing faster and more reliable trips, and enabling new express bus routes 

and other transit improvements. 

In the last quarter, our Express Lanes customers experienced average time savings during 

rush hour of twenty-four minutes on the 495 Express Lanes and forty-nine minutes on the 

95 Express Lanes. On busy summer vacation travel days, 95 Express Lanes customers 

can save as much as three and a half hours across a single, 30-mile trip. The network 

delivered to our customers a cumulative savings of more than 225,000 hours in January 

alone - saving local travelers more than $5.5 million in delay costs. 

The Express Lanes have also strengthened HOV and transit in the corridor by providing a 

faster, toll-free travel option to carpoolers and buses during all times of the day. We serve 

more than 100,000 carpoolers and approximately 940 bus trips every week day across the 

network. 

Paae 4 of 14 
29 


26726.020

According to research from this past May, the traveling public sees value in the Express 

Lanes. A majority of local residents say the lanes benefit the region. More than 80 

percent of toll-paying customers describe them as a good option. Support is particularly 

high among frequent users, of which 90 percent say they derive personal benefit from the 

toll roads. 

Virginia is building on the success of this network. Later this month, the Virginia 

Department of Transportation and Transurban will break ground on the 395 Express 

Lanes, and we are also working on plans to extend the lanes south along 1-95 to 

Fredericksburg. Through a $165 million FASTLANE grant, Virginia is able to leverage 

$565 million in private capital to advance a number of multi-modal improvements across 

these corridors, which serve a number of important Department of Defense assets, 

including the Pentagon and Washington Headquarter Services. Virginia is also leveraging 

substantial private capital to overhaul the congested Interstate 66 corridor. 

Opportunities to leverage more private capital to meet transportation needs 

Congress has the opportunity to adopt policies that will provide more United States 

communities with the resources, tools and incentives they need to advance the kinds of 

projects that are transforming regions like Sydney, Melbourne and Northern Virginia. 

Over the last decade, significant progress has been made nationally in developing policy 

frameworks and educating states and local governments on the benefits of the publicprivate partnership model. While technical assistance is valuable, there is an even more 

impactful role the federal government could play, including: 

Funding and strengthening the existing TIFIA program; 

- Expanding the use of Private Activity Bonds; and 

Providing meaningful financial incentives to encourage states to maximize public 

funding and assets, such as asset recycling. 
30 


26726.021

These innovative financing programs are important elements of what must be a 

comprehensive program which also includes the adoption of new, sustainable funding 

sources: expansion of user pay and tolling options; the streamlining of environmental and 

regulatory reviews: and policies that promote the full utilization of advanced technologies 

to expand mobility and improve safety. 

With that in mind, I would like to offer comments and recommendations in three specific 

areas: TIFIA, PABs and asset recycling. 

Enhancing the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 

The success of Virginia's Express Lanes network would not have been possible without 

the TIFIA program. 

Transurban is pleased to have been among the first to use TIFIA, and we understand well 

the positive impact the program has had. Thanks to the program's flexible terms and 

attractive interest rates, TIFIA enables major projects to be delivered that might not 

otherwise be possible. 

Every year we are proud to host policy makers from around the world who visit our 

projects to learn about TIFIA and seek to mirror the program's success in their countries. 

We also have great respect for the dedicated and professional TIFIA team, who manage 

the program on a very modest administrative budget. and we place tremendous value on 

the partnership we have had with them for more than a decade. 

As both a long-time TIFIA advocate and borrower, Transurban believes that administrative 

and policy changes are necessary to ensure the program can continue to deliver on its 

policy mission and realize its full potential in helping to meet our nation's transportation 

needs. TIFIA can deliver greater transportation outcomes by: 

1) Promoting consistency in its loan terms and conditions; 

Page 6 of14 
31 


26726.022

2) Strategically managing risks across its portfolio to enable it to support more 

projects, while also protecting taxpayers; and 

3) Providing greater certainty and speed in its evaluation and approval processes. 

Promoting consistency in its loan terms and conditions. 

There is a continuum of credit standards upon which any lender makes decisions, and 

lenders must assess and refine those standards to reflect changing market dynamics. No 

borrower would expect otherwise. 

But projects benefit when borrowers can depend on consistency in major terms over time, 

and can have confidence in an underlying risk framework within which terms are defined 

and loan decisions made. This consistency is critical to the project planning process and 

to sponsors' ability to work with their government partners to develop transportation 

projects that meet policy needs and can ultimately be financed and delivered. 

Our experience is that TIFIA's terms and risk profile shift from one project to the next, and 

even within the negotiation of a single transaction. These changes are well intentionedoften designed to address a risk identified in the last project or to anticipate new 

issues. However, sizeable shifts in terms over time can have the unintended consequence 

of creating greater uncertainty and risk, which drives up project costs, delays project 

implementation, and reduces the benefits that can be delivered. 

For example, one of the key benefits of TIFIA is its subordinate position in the capital 

structure, which reduces the risk for senior lenders- maximizing the availability of capital 

and reducing the overall cost of capital. This feature has been instrumental in promoting 

TIFIA's policy directive to provide "facilitative" financing that brings other lenders and 

investors to the table. Over time, TIFIA has required terms that increasingly reflect senior 

debt status - progressively chipping away at a key benefit and policy objective of the 

program. 
32 


26726.023

Policy and administrative recommendations to address this trend could include: 

Publishing an underlying risk framework and underwriting standards within which 

loans can be negotiated - providing a clear and more consistent road map for both 

the TIFIA team and its applicants. 

Creating a federal advisory committee to evaluate industry trends and periodically 

assess the effectiveness of TIFIA's risk framework in meeting its policy objectives. 

Providing some level of "grandfathering" for key terms that have already been 

negotiated for projects in development should TIFIA's underlying risk framework be 

subsequently changed. 

Strategically managing risks across its portfolio to enable it to support more projects, while 

also protecting taxpayers. 

The 495 Express Lanes project could not have been financed without TIFIA. High 

occupancy toll lanes were an untested concept at the time. Virginia and Transurban were 

seeking to finance and deliver the project amidst the global financial crisis. And we knew 

that the traveling public would take some time to adjust to new travel options, so the 

project would require a long ramp-up period before it could fully support its debt 

obligations. 

Tl FIA shared these risks on the 495 Express Lanes, and it has paid off for taxpayers and 

area commuters. 

TIFIA was designed to take these kinds of risks. The program supports a portfolio that 

enables TIFIA to balance risks across projects of varying characteristics and 

complexities. It also requires a capital charge to offset the impact of some inevitable 

defaults. And it is resourced with practitioners who have industry experience in managing 

portfolios. 

Paae 8 of14 
33 


26726.024

By managing risks across its portfolio, TIFIA can support the kinds of projects -like the 

495 Express Lanes - that wouldn't otherwise be possible, and without putting taxpayers at 

undue risk. 

In recent years, however, the TIFIA program has become increasingly risk averse. While 

some of these changes have been appropriate to address changing market dynamics, the 

program may ultimately shift too far away from projects like the 495 Express Lanes 

towards low-risk projects that could more easily secure financing from more conventional 

alternatives. 

For example, while TIFIA applies a capital charge based on a project's risk profile to offset 

the impacts of potential default, it is increasingly seeking to further de-risk projects by 

requiring less flexible terms and standards in loan and inter-creditor agreements. The 

program must balance these extra protections with the additional costs and delays they 

may require. 

Policy and administrative recommendations to ensure TIFIA can continue to take a 

portfolio approach may include the following: 

- Congressional reporting that is focused not just on individual project performance, 

but the risk profile of the overall TIFIA portfolio, effectiveness of the credit review 

process and alignment with policy objectives. 

Primary dependence on the capital charge as the appropriate means to address 

project risk, instead of unnecessarily layering capital charges with risk-averse terms 

in loan and inter-creditor agreements. 

Reinforcement of TIFIA's role in supporting higher risk projects as part of its 

mission. 

Providing greater certainty and speed in its evaluation and approval processes. 

Transurban recently made the difficult decision not to pursue TIFIA to support the 395 

Express Lanes project. 

PP!aA 9 nf 14 
34 


26726.025

Looking at all aspects of the project, Transurban decided that the potential costs 

associated with the uncertainty of the TIFIA process outweighed the benefits that a TIFIA 

loan could provide. 

Because of the trends described earlier, the project team faced uncertainty around the 

terms TIFIA would require for the 395 loan, as well as the timing and process for approval. 

In isolation, these challenges would have been manageable. But context is critical on 

major projects. Our design-builder could only hold the committed construction price for a 

few months, after which there could be increases in fuel, labor or other costs. The project 

also faced the risk of rising interest rates. To provide certainty for Virginia, Transurban 

had committed a $10 million bond that would be payable if we could not finance the project 

on schedule. 

We were confident that the TIFIA team would do everything they could do to advance the 

process, but the risk was too high. A review of recent transactions found that financing 

timelines ranged from five to 15 months. Early indications were that some key terms could 

be inconsistent with previous TIFIA loans. 

Fortunately, Virginia provided a loan from the Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank -

a smaller, state-based program similar to TIFIA- to enhance the viability of the project and 

enable the team to deliver the full scope of planned transit and highway improvements. 

The decision to proceed without TIFIA was in no way a reflection on the TIFIA team, but 

on the realities project sponsors face when advancing major transportation projects. 

In the case of the 395 Express Lanes, Virginia was able to provide a solution to make the 

project work, and we look forward to breaking ground on improvements later this 

month. For some major projects across the country, there may not be viable alternatives 

to TIFIA financing. 

Page 10 of 14 
35 


26726.026

That is why it is critical that Congress and TIFIA continue to find ways to accelerate and 

provide more certainty in the approval process. 

Potential administrative and policy solutions include the following: 

Provide greater transparency for borrower on the loan review and approval process. 

Schedule regular and frequent TIFIA credit council meetings to facilitate timely and 

consistent decision-making. 

Prioritize high-impact projects that address critical transportation or safety needs, 

generate substantial economic impacts, and transfer material risk away from 

taxpayers. 

Prioritize projects that leverage private capital, whose investors often require 

greater certainty in process. 

Expedite reviews for projects with strong credit worthiness and experienced 

sponsors. 

Provide sufficient administrative funding to support program growth and accelerated 

timelines. 

- Require regular reporting on time required to advance a project from bid selection to 

financial close, to more effectively track timelines prescribed in MAP-21. 

Expanding Private Activity Bonds 

Over the last decade, PASs have been a cornerstone of the transportation P3 industry, 

supporting sixteen of the twenty privately financed, major projects that closed over this 

time. 

As governments look to increase the volume and breadth of projects delivered as P3s it 

must be anticipated that growing demand for PASs will require a significant increase in 

PASs authorization. Further, eligibility refinements will be needed to support new, diverse 

and innovative applications for PASs. 
36 


26726.027

The need to remove the $15 billion cap on PABs has long been a topic of discussion, but 

the need goes further. When PABs eligibility was expanded under SAFETEA-LU to 

become available for surface transportation projects, the P3 market was opened up for 

investment. However, PABs are still eligible only for greenfield, not brownfield, projects. 

Opening up the eligibility requirements for PABs issuances to include both greenfield and 

brownfield projects would incentivize more private investment in existing assets (including 

asset recycling) by reducing the cost of capital differential for private investors, enhance 

existing P3 projects by providing private sponsors with more cost-effective financing tools 

and reduce the amount of the public contribution toward P3 projects. 

Providing incentives through asset recycling 

In addition to improving existing programs, the United States could benefit from replicating 

certain programs from around the world that have proven to successfully attract private 

investment and help states increase the total funding available for infrastructure 

investment. 

In 2014, Australia established the Asset Recycling Initiative (ARI), which incentivized state 

and local governments to sell or lease public assets to the private sector to raise funds for 

infrastructure improvements. If a state privatized an existing public (brownfield) asset such 

as a port, electricity transmission network or roadway, Australia's federal government paid 

the state government an additional fifteen percent of the negotiated lease or sale price. To 

receive this payment, the state had to reinvest the proceeds from the asset privatization 

into greenfield infrastructure projects. 

In the 2016/17 year, the Australian federal government finalized agreements with four 

states and territories worth $AUD3.3 billion, which will unlock $AUD23 billion in 

infrastructure spending. 

Page 12 of 14 
37 


26726.028

As an example, Sydney Metro is Australia's largest public transportation project, and when 

complete in 2024 it will deliver thirty-one metro stations (including underground stations) 

and new metro rail, connecting people across Sydney to areas of employment. While the 

concept had been proposed for many years, the project's second stage remained 

unfunded until 2014 when the New South Wales Government announced its commitment 

to an asset recycling program which funded the Metro project. 

As a part of their asset recycling program, New South Wales leased the ports of Sydney 

and Newcastle as well as its electricity distribution network. Proceeds from these leases, 

combined with incentive payments of $AUD1.695 billion from Australia's federal 

government to New South Wales, have allowed for the delivery of more than $AUD20 

billion worth of new infrastructure projects. 

Looking at how the asset recycling model could be applied here, our review of the top ten 

public toll road agencies in the United States values them at up to $260 billion. After 

considering existing debt on these projects, we believe through an asset recycling-type 

program, these ten public toll agencies could generate as much as $150 billion to support 

greenfield projects. 

Conclusion 

I'd like to again thank Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and the committee 

members for inviting me to be part of this important dialogue. 

Leveraging private capital to meet transportation needs is not a new or abstract 

concept. It's a proven approach that leaders - like our partners in Virginia - are putting to 

work in their communities to improve mobility, provide travellers more choices, create 

substantial jobs and generate larger returns on their transportation investments. Federal 

programs like TIFIA and PABs are helping to fuel these innovative projects- supporting 

critical improvements that are transforming some of our most congested cities, and many 

of which may never have been possible without these programs. 

Paae 13 of 14 
38 


26726.029

Congress has the opportunity to champion new policies that will build on the success of 

programs like TIFIA and PABs and provide meaningful opportunities for private investors 

to work alongside our partners in government to help rebuild America's infrastructure. 
39 


26726.030

Questions from Senator Carper: 

(1) Financing programs such as TIFIA are important tools to meet infrastructure 

needs but they do not replace federal grant funding. Would you agree with that 

statement? 

Yes. Public-private partnerships and innovative financing programs such as TIFIA can be 

effective tools to help governments deliver more with tax dollars, but they are not a 

replacements for public funding. Long-term, sustainable public funding remains the critical 

foundation for the nation's transportation program. 

Public funding, public-private partnerships and innovative financing tools can be combined to 

generate greater transportation outcomes than might otherwise be possible. 

For example, Transurban -in partnership with Virginia -- has been involved in projects 

receiving TIFIA investment as well as federal grants. In the case of TIFIA, Transurban has 

seen the TIFIA program enable the Commonwealth of Virginia to leverage private capital to 

translate a $492 million public investment into $3 billion worth of transportation 

improvements. In 2016 Virginia received a $165 million FASTLANE grant and is using it to 

leverage $565 million in private capital to advance a number of multi-modal improvements 

across corridors in Northern Virginia. 

(2) In response to a question from Senator Cardin, you indicated that in order to 

get projects through the TIFIA process more efficiently, one way the TIFIA 

Program could benefit is from added transparency. Could you elaborate on 

what you think might be helpful in promoting transparency to accelerate 

processing of TIFIA applications? 

When developing major public-private transportation projects, sponsors must balance the 

financial impact of delays, risk allocation, the scope of improvements and the cost of 

financing. While TIFIA requires a draft term sheet relatively early in the process, project 

details inevitably change through the development and procurement processes. There 

remains uncertainty in terms, risk allocation, and timing of decisions associated with the 

TIFIA program. It is difficult for sponsors to anticipate when decisions will be made and to 

what extent final loan terms will be consistent or inconsistent with previous TIFIA loans. This 

makes it difficult to meet project timelines and can lead to substantially increased costs, 

including those related to escalating construction costs, interest rate changes and bond 

obligations to state partners that require strict deadlines for financing. 

Administrative and policy solutions to address this issue could include the following: 

Publish an underlying risk framework and underwriting standards within which loans 

can be negotiated -providing a clear and more consistent road map for both the 

TIFIA team and its applicants. 

Provide sufficient administrative funding to support program growth and accelerated 

timelines. 

Require regular reporting on time required to advance a project from bid selection to 

financial close, to more effectively track timelines prescribed in MAP-21. 
40 


26726.031

Schedule and post regular and frequent TIFIA credit council meetings to facilitate 

timely and consistent decision-making. 

Prioritize high-impact projects that address critical transportation or safety needs, 

generate substantial economic impacts, and transfer material risk away from 

taxpayers. 

Prioritize projects that leverage private capital, whose investors often require greater 

certainty in process. 

Expedite reviews for projects with strong credit worthiness and experienced 

sponsors. 

As mentioned at the July hearing, Transurban used the TIFIA program for both the 495 and 

95 Express Lanes projects, and has seen first-hand how the program can deliver tangible 

benefits in leveraging private sector investment that creates confidence for both the public 

and private partners who are delivering the project For our latest project, the 395 Express 

Lanes, we were confident that the TIFIA team would do everything they could to advance the 

process, but the risk of delaying financial close was too high. Fortunately, Virginia provided 

a loan from the Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank- a smaller, state-based program 

similar to TIFIA so that Transurban could make the project work. Since the 395 Express 

Lanes project is not using TIFIA financing, Transurban is paying a higher cost for capital but 

in order to have a successful project we needed the confidence to ensure we could reach 

the financial close deadline that had been previously negotiated with our state partner. The 

decision to proceed without TIFIA was in no way a reflection on the TIFIA team, but on the 

commercial realities and risks assumed by project sponsors when advancing major 

transportation projects. 

(3) In response to a question from Senator Carper, you stated that Congress may 

want to look at strategies to incentivize States to move projects forward for 

review within the TIFIA Program. What are some strategies you could offer that 

would create the right sort of incentive structure at the State level? 

Federal transportation policy could provide meaningful incentives and assistance for states 

to move transportation projects forward. The federal government could provide technical 

assistance or technical grants to project sponsors who are applying for a TIFIA loan, 

reducing administrative costs or providing grants to cover the costs or undertake targeted 

outreach to states where shovel-ready projects exist Additionally, greater transparency and 

certainty of the timeline could incentivize state borrowers. 

While these reforms would be valuable, there is also a greater facilitator role that the federal 

government can play through an Asset Recycling program comparable to the one Australia 

has successfully implemented. Australia's Asset Recycling Initiative incentivized state and 

local governments to sell or lease public assets to the private sector to raise funds for 

infrastructure improvements. If a state privatized a public brownfield asset such as a port, 

electricity transmission or roadway, Australia's federal government paid the state 

government an additional 15 percent of the negotiated lease or sell price. To receive this 

payment, the state had to reinvest proceeds from the asset privatization into new greenfield 

infrastructure projects. In the 2016/17 year, the Australian federal government finalized 
41 


26726.032

agreements with four states and territories worth -$3.2 billion, which will unlock $23 billion in 

infrastructure spending. 

Creating a similar plan here in the United States that incentivizes states to sell or lease their 

public assets to the private sector would allow states to bourgeon their available resources 

for infrastructure spending. 

(4) For Transurban, how much of the value from TIFIA would you ascribe to its low 

cost of capital, as opposed to features such as deferred repayment during 

project ramp-up? 

The low cost of capital is an attractive part of the program but it's not just about the rate, it's 

about flexible terms that help sponsors better manage higher-risk stages of projects. 

The greatest asset TIFIA provides is in the financing of projects considered risky. The 495 

Express Lanes project could not have been financed without TIFIA given the unproven 

concept of managed lanes and the project's expected longer ramp-up period. Those first 

years of a new toll road project are filled with uncertainty as local drivers are cautious of the 

new rules of the road, hesitant to pay the cost of the toll, and stick to their normal commuting 

patterns. Five years into operations, the 495 Express Lanes is still in a ramp-up period and 

has not yet hit steady-state revenue levels. The flexible terms from TIFIA such as 

capitalized interest (Cap-1) during construction and flexible interest and principal payment 

terms during ramp-up have been invaluable to the 495 project. 
42 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much for sharing your 

testimony. 

Mr. Coes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER COES, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

REAL ESTATE POLICY AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SMART 

GROWTH AMERICA, AND DIRECTOR, LOCUS: RESPONSIBLE 

REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS, WASHINGTON, 

DC 

Mr. COES. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of this Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the importance of TIFIA and financing 

transit, transit oriented development, and local infrastructure 

projects. 

I am Christopher Coes, Vice President at Smart Growth America, 

leading the LOCUS and TOD Finance and Advisor programs, representing billions of dollars in real estate assets ready to invest in 

America’s crumbling infrastructure, while revitalizing its neighborhoods. 

There is a pent-up demand for walkable communities in urban, 

suburban, and rural markets. According to a recent Smart Growth 

America report, in the country’s 30 largest metro areas, walkable 

neighborhoods has a 74 percent price premium over non-walkable 

neighborhoods. Despite the obvious economic physical benefits, 

there are many barriers to meeting this demand, including financing the up-front costs of public infrastructure and development, 

particularly near transit stations and suburban town centers, and 

along rural Main Streets. If left unaddressed, this pent-up demand 

will drive prices higher, exacerbating the current housing shortage 

and creating more displacement. 

Smart Growth America and LOCUS worked very closely with 

this Committee to ensure the FAST Act made significant improvements to the TIFIA program by expanding the project eligibility to 

include TOD and local infrastructure projects, as well as lowering 

the overall project threshold from $50 million to $10 million. These 

changes ensure that TIFIA can be used to facilitate greater private 

investment in both infrastructure and economic development. 

Since the passage of the FAST Act, we have worked very closely 

with USDOT toward the implementation of these reforms. I welcome the opportunity today to share with you my perspective and 

some recommendations to help TIFIA meet its goals and bring in 

more private investment to the problem of public infrastructure. 

Our first observation is that current prospective applicants are 

still unclear about TIFIA’s project eligibility and its transportation 

and planning requirements. For example, there is an uncertainty 

on whether this current USDOT will accept statute allowing TIFIA 

to finance commercial development typically used to pay for public 

infrastructure. Without clear guidance or clear DOT policy guidance, the Bureau staff is very reluctant to move projects forward. 

This type of uncertainty is deadly to public-private partnerships. 

Our second observation concerns the enormous transaction costs 

associated with applying. The TIFIA, by statute, requires projects 

to secure an investment-grade rating to demonstrate credit worthiness. This makes projects under $75 million absolutely unworkable. 

43 

The cost of obtaining just one letter from a credit rating agency can 

range from $300,000 to $400,000, and it must be paid regardless 

if the loan is actually approved. This does not include the additional legal and financial consulting it takes to actually process a 

loan. 

This Committee should allow applicants to demonstrate their 

credit worthiness using more economical and market tested methods like providing financial statements, project cash flows, or providing collateral. 

The third observation is the need to provide greater outreach to 

small and rural communities. While the present Bureau staff provides great support, it is a DC operation that lacks a robust outreach capacity for project pipeline development, particularly for 

smaller towns and rural communities. Based on a lot of the work 

we do in these communities, we find that many of these communities are unaware of TIFIA, do not have the capacity to travel to 

DC, let alone apply for the program. This Committee should provide greater capacity to USDOT to do more targeted outreach to 

small towns and rural communities. 

Last, there is a need to expand TIFIA’s eligibility. Unlike the 

RRIF program, residential development is not an eligible component in the TIFIA program. Mixed use and mixed income TOD 

projects significantly increase transit ridership, allowing transit 

agencies to recover more of their costs from the fare box revenue 

than rely on taxpayer money. We urge the Committee to allow residential—specifically affordable and attainable housing—to be eligible. 

Further, TIFIA’s eligibility should be expanded to include some 

of the latest innovations in surface transportation, including 

broadband, green infrastructure, and supporting local revolving infrastructure funds. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Committee for its support for the TIFIA program. I also appreciate the opportunity to 

share some of our ideas on how to accelerate the private investment into public infrastructure while rebuilding and building more 

inclusive and vibrant communities, which I believe is a clear winwin. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coes follows:] 

44 


26726.033

Christopher Coes 

Vice President for Real Estate Policy and External Affairs 

Smart Growth America 

Christopher Cocs is the Vice President for Real Estate Policy and External 

Affairs at Smart Growth America. Under his leadership, he oversees 

Smart Growth America's real estate programs including LOCUS: 

Responsible Real Estate Developers and Investors, the National 

Brown fields Coalition and TOD Finance and Advisors, Inc., a for-profit 

subsidiary of Smart Growth America. 

Mr. Coes has led LOCUS and Smart Growth America's national and regional public policy and 

advocacy efforts on a range of issues including securing over $20 billion in transitoriented 

development and local infrastructure financing and a national complete streets policy included in 

the recent federal transportation legislation, FAST Act. Under Mr. Coes leadership, LOCUS has 

grown to become a national leader known to be unafraid to tackle some of the toughest 

challenges facing the smart growth real estate industry today. In 2014, Coes launched the 

Attainable Housing and Social Equity Initiative that has assisted local communities to develop 

place-based, market-driven strategies aimed at encouraging economic growth while ensuring 

accessibility and social equity in great walkable urban places. 

Over the past three years, Mr. Coes has advised cities on community revitalization and 

sustainable and equitable economic development, including serving as an advisor to USDOT's 

LaddcrSTEP Pilot Cities (Atlanta and Baton Rouge). In addition, Mr. Coes has facilitated 

numerous deal-making opportunities that have produced over $1 billion in new smart growth real 

estate deals. 

Prior to joining LOCUS, Christopher served as a Consultant for Government Affairs and 

Campaigns at M+R Strategic Services. As a consultant, Christopher worked with various clients 

including Transportation for America- a broad, diverse and unprecedented coalition advocating 

for a national vision for a 21st-century transportation system. For three years, Christopher served 

as Transportation for America's Senior Campaign Advisor and Deputy Director. In addition to 

his work on transportation and real estate issues, Christopher brings over ten years of experience 

in government relations, advocacy and coalition building and program management. Mr. Coes 

currently serves as an active member of Urban Land Institute and serves as Treasurer and the 

Board of Directors Director of African American Real Estate Professional of DC. 

Mr. Coes received a BAIMA in Government and Politics from St. John's University, specializing 

in Public Administration. 
45 


26726.034

Testimony of Christopher A. Coes Vice President, Srnart Growth America to the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing on The Use of TIFIA and Innovative Financing in Improving lnfrastructur·e to 

Enhance Safety, Mobility, and Economic Opportunity 

July 1.2, 201.7 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and members of the EPW committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. 

I am Christopher Coes, Vice President of Real Estate Policy and External Affairs at Smart 

Growth America and head a number of Smart Growth America's real estate programs, 

including LOCUS: Responsible Real Estate Developers and Investors, the National Brownfields 

Coalition and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Finance and Advisors, Inc., a for-profit 

subsidiary of Smart Growth America which provides TIFIA/RRIF consulting services to transit 

agencies and real estate companies. 

Smart Growth America (SGA) is a national non-profit organization dedicated to researching, 

advocating and bringing better development strategies to urban, suburban and rural 

communities across the country. 

Whether in urban, suburban or rural markets, there is pent-up demand for walkable 

communities with great amenties and a sense of place. According to a 2016 SGA report, in the 

country's 30 largest metro areas walkable development has a 74 percent premium over nonwalkabe neighborhoods. While communities, developers and transit agencies understand the 

enormous economic and fiscal benefits of walkable development they face many barriers to 

meeting this demand including financing the upfront cost of public infrastructure and 

development, particularly near transit stations. If left unaddressed, this pent-up demand will 

drive prices higher still exacerbating the housing shortage and leading to displacement. 

SGA and LOCUS, working with this Committee and Congress in a bipartisan manner ensured 

the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act made significant improvements to 

TIFIA and Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement and Financing (RRIF) to give local communities 

the financing tools to rebuild their infrastructure and accelerate the creation of walkable 

communities. One of the most significant improvements made by the FAST ACT was 

expanding the project eligibility under TIFIA to include transit-oriented development and local 

projects as well as lowering the project threshold from $50 million to $J.O million. These 

changes ensure that federal transit investments get the maximum return and provide P3 

opportunities to improve public infrastructure. From the developers' perspective, TIFIA 

financing, because of its flexible repayment terms, is a critical tool to facilitate private 

investment to build economically thriving, transit-oriented development (TOD) that is 

affordable to the average American. 

the 
46 


26726.035

We fully applaud the Committee's inclusion of TOD and local projects in TIFIA. TOD projects 

create many positive outcomes for both the private sector and the public sector- a clear "winwin.~~ 

Since the passage of the FAST Act, we have worked closely with the Build America Bureau 

(Bureau) towards the implementation of these reforms and I welcome the opportunity today to 

share with you our perspective on this work and ideas on how to ensure TIFIA continues to 

provide the financing tools needed to make the most of federal transit investments, meet the 

market demand for walkable development, and create public-private partnerships (P3s) 

opportunities to bring private money to the problem of public infrastructure. 

Lack of a Clear TOO Policy Has Created Uncertainties for TOO Applicants 

Immediately following the passage of the FAST Act, US DOT moved quickly to begin the 

implementation process of the FAST changes. In January 2016, US DOT held a roundtable with 

transit agencies and developers to discuss TOD and gather input on implementation. In March 

2016, US DOT announced the notice of funding availability and request for comment to gather 

ideas on how to best implement the new FAST Act changes. In the last nine months, the 

LOCUS developer's coalition has arranged nearly a dozen meetings between prospective 

applicants (transit agencies, developers and localities) and the Build America Bureau. During 

those meetings, we have observed the Bureau staff's inability to provide answers or clarity on a 

range of applicant questions due to the lack of clear guidance from the previous or current US 

DOT leadership. For example, there is uncertainty on whether US DOT will maintain the broad 

interpretation of capital projects as described in the 49 U.S.C. 5302(3)(G)(v), particularly its 

ability to provide credit assistance for the construction of space for commercial uses. Or how 

US DOT intends to manage the TIFIA planning requirements given most TOD portions of a 

project not directly related to a transportation facility are not included in those plans and 

programs. Without clear guidance, the Bureau's staff is reluctant to move projects forward for 

fear that they may place the program at risk should a loan fail. As a result viable P3s sit thereready to go on the private side-and in limbo on the public side. This type of uncertaintyuncertainty about timing-is deadly to P3s. 

Recently, US DOT Deputy Secretary Jeffrey Rosen and his team met a number of prospective 

TOD applicants to hear their concerns regarding the overall process and made a commitment 

to provide guidance in the near future. While we are confident that US DOT will issue guidance 

very soon, this uncertainty raises the level of skepticism among potential applicants ofTIFIA (or 

federal financing of TOD) as a viable option. 

TIFIA Lender Risk 

TIFIA has built a successful track record for approving loans with similar underwriting and 

traditional dedicated revenue streams like user fees and taxes. With the inclusion ofTOD and 

local projects in TIFt A, these projects offer new revenue streams such as value capture and real 

estate generated revenues. It is crucial that US DOT and the Bureau have the best information 

Testimony of Christopher A. Coes Vice President, Smart Growth Amerrica to the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

July 12 1 2017 
47 


26726.036

and expertise as it performs its risk analysis and conducts underwriting process evaluations to 

improve eligibility standards. 

For example, during the underwriting process for the redevelopment of Denver's Union Station 

project, federal officials at the TIFIA office were skeptical that the established Tax Increment 

Financing (TIF) district around the station would provide the needed funds to repay a TIFIA 

loan. According to the federal government's risk analysis, the Union Station project would only 

create wo,oo square feet of retail-a taxable revenue stream- by 20:19. However, according to 

private analysis, over 40o,ooo square feet of retail development had already been built within 

the TIF district, with another :t,ooo,ooo square feet of retail development in the pipeline. 

The failure to adequately capture the development potential ofTOD projects will result in 

increased delays for applicants or trigger an overly pessimistic risk forecast, resulting in a larger 

credit subsidy than necessary. The Committee should provide funding for the Build America 

Bureau to obtain additional training or acquire support from other federal agencies with 

experience TOD projects, such as Department of Housing and Urban Development, US 

Department of Agriculture or the Economic Development Agency. 

In addition, the Committee should move the Build America Bureau towards a portfolio 

approach when evaluating projects. Today, TIFIA uses a more project-based risk analysis, and 

this level of analysis creates a default selection criterion that favors a more risk-averse approach 

that makes innovation projects like TOD and local infrastructure, challenging. While 

maintaining sound underwriting requirements, we believe TIFIA should use a portfolio 

approach to analyze and aggregate risks by project type and try to achieve an overall balance of 

risk and return. These steps taken together will maximize the volume of credit assistance TIFIA 

provides over the life of the authorization while ensuring greater accessibility for smaller 

projects. 

Reducing TIFIA Transaction Cost 

Another significant challenge with the TIFIA program for TOD and local projects is the 

enormous transaction cost associated with applying for small projects. For example, TIFIA 

requires projects to secure an investment grade rating to determine creditworthiness. This 

requirement is a requirement that has always existed in the TIFIA program and is appropriate 

for large projects. However, when Congress reduced the project threshold from $50 million to 

Uo million the same large project requirements were applied. This makes small projects 

unworkable. The cost of obtaining one letter can range from $3oo,ooo to $4oo,ooo and must be 

paid whether or not the loan is ultimately approved. This does not include the additional legal 

and financial consultants required to process a TIFIA loan. 

Smaller projects like TOD when compared to a traditional TIFIA project put relatively little 

capital at risk. Unlike the RRIF program and traditional lenders, TIFIA does not allow applicants 

to demonstrate their creditworthiness using other more economically and market-tested 

methods. This creates a significant cost barrier for smaller projects like TOD and local 

infrastructure. We urge the Committee to allow TIFIA, like the RRIF program, to waive the 

requirement for a credit rating letter for projects under a certain threshold and instead allow 

applicants to demonstrate their creditworthiness by providing collateral; the applicant's 

Testimony of Christopher A. Coes Vice President, Smart Growth Amerrica to the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public \tVorks 

July :t21 2017 
48 


26726.037

audited financial data (if available), including balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow 

statements; or cash flow projections from a project. Frankly, credit rating letters are not the 

means used by the private sector to assess these projects anyway, rather it is these latter 

means (balance sheet etc.) and this would bring the TIFIA program in line with industry 

practice. 

Additionally, the Committee should encourage US DOT to develop an application process that 

is more user-friendly and streamlined for smaller projects. Specifically, create a streamlined 

"pre-approval online application" similar to conventional lenders where the applicant is able to 

submit project description, credit, financial and information and documentation and receive a 

pre-approval determination. 

More Outreach to Small Towns and Rural Communities 

The Build America Bureau's staff supporting the TIFIA program is well respected across the 

country. Some of their staffers, like Roger Bohnert, Jodie Misiak and Duane Callender have 

gone above and beyond to meet with prospective applicants and to provide as much 

information possible. Yet, the Bureau is a Washington, DC-based office and lacks a robust 

outreach capacity for pipeline development, particularly from distressed, small town or rural 

communities. For example, in the last year Smart Growth America has provided technical 

assistance for dozens of small town and rural communities interested in rebuilding their 

infrastructure and revitalizing their downtowns. What we have learned from our work is that 

many communities particularly smaller towns and rural communities were either unaware of 

TIFIA, or did not have the capacity to travel to DC or afford the transaction cost to effectively 

apply for TIFIA loans. 

This Committee should ensure that US DOT does more targeted outreach to small towns and 

rural communities that have not been successful in applying forTIFIA financing. This could be 

achieved by partnering with organizations like ours, the National Association of County of 

Officials or leveraging USDA Rural Development field staff to ensure these communities are 

aware ofthe opportunities available to them and ensure that they are educated on their 

eligibility and on how to successfully apply for TIFIA financing. 

Expand TIFIA Project Eligibility 

For the first time, the FAST Act made transit-supportive TOD projects eligible in TIFIA and 

RRIF. However, unlike the RRIF program, the TOD residential development is not eligible for 

TIFIA financing. Given that successful TOD projects contain a mix of uses that incorporate 

residential and commercial development into the same space, TIFIA has become a less 

attractive tool when compared to RRIF financing. We urge the Committee to allow TOD 

residential development (specifically attainable housing) to be eligible. New residential 

opportunities affordable to families with a range of incomes, coupled with expanded 

commercial and business development along a transit corridor, will increase transit ridership, 

allowing transit agencies to recover more of their costs from fare box revenue and rely less on 

taxpayer support. 
49 


26726.038

In addition to including attainable housing as an eligible project, we believe TIFIA eligibility 

should be expanded to include the latest innovations in surface transportation and 

infrastructure such as broadband, autonomous vehicles, green infrastructure and infrastructure 

revolving funds. The inclusion of these projects will increase the volume of credit assistance and 

assist more communities to meet their unique infrastructure and financing needs. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Committee for its leadership in making TIFIA more 

accessible to meet the needs of local communities by expanding project eligibility and lowering 

the cost threshold for TOO and local infrastructure projects. We believe that TIFIA can help 

communities harness the economic potential near transit stations while creating inclusive and 

safe neighborhoods. To fully take advantage of this opportunity it is crucial that the TIFIA 

program recognizes and accommodates the unique needs of TOO and local projects by 

providing clarity and certainty with the respect to the above-mentioned topics. 

This Congress and this Administration has made infrastructure and rebuilding our American 

neighborhoods are major priority. Smart Growth America's real estate coalition, 

LOCUS, represent billions of dollars in real estate assets that stand willing and ready to invest in 

America's crumbling local infrastructure while creating economically vibrant and social inclusive 

communities near transit and passenger rail stations. 

We hope to serve as a resource to he Committee and the Administration to ensure TIFIA 

achieves this shared goal. 

Coes Vice Growth r\merrica to the 

Comr--rnttee on Envircmrnent dnd Public \Norks 

July 

6 
50 


26726.039

1. Financing programs such as TIFIA are important tools to meet infrastructure needs but tl1ey do not 

replace federal grant funding. Would you agree with that statement? 

2. The FAST Act reduced TIFIA funding by 70 percent. Has that reduction in 

market for public-private partnerships, led to states seeking other avenues to projects, 

sent private capital looking elsewhere or t1ad any other impact? Please provide specific examples, 

if possible. 

The primary issue with the P3 market hasn't been funding or financing levels. it's 

local government on P3 legislation and procurement. Secondly, it's the lack of appropriate 

financial and legal advisory support for states and local governments looking to develop P3's. Lastly, a 

major impediment to the P3 market is assemble funding sources and 

navigate through the planning, environmental and permitting processes necessary to advance 

projects. 

3. TIFIA offers an opportunity to address infrastructure financing challenges facing local communities, 

including the potential for locally-generated investment funds and cooperatives. What 

recommendation should Congress consider to ensure local stakeholders can effectively utilize the 

program? 
51 


26726.040

www.smartgrowthamtmca.org 

4. How can TIFIA financing or public private partnerships be better leveraged to support emerging 

Innovations and "smart cities"? 

1) Transit-Oriented Development (commercial and attainable residential) 

2) Connected and automated vehicles V21N2X technologies such as Dedicated Short Range 

Communications, Roadside units, signal timing priority, signal phase and timing, etc, 

3) Technologies that provide vehicle tracking, emissions testing. weather and other sensing 

capabilities to eni1ance real· time and archival situational awareness. Integrated planning 

and payment systems including transit. shared mobility, parking, etc., 

4) Public WiFi, dynamic messaging and transit information screens at all bus stops, transit 

stations, etc. 

5. Not all transportation projects are created equal when it comes to their ability to create new jobs, 

expand the gross regional product, increase property values and tax bases, and improve the 

overall quality of life of Americans. What should Congress consider to ensure that programs like 

TIFIA & RRIF lead to environmental, economic, and social outcomes that get the maximum return 

and leverage P3 opportunities? 
52 


26726.041

\\WW.smartgrowthamerlca.org 

6. While creditworthiness should always be the baseline for an award of credit assistance, extreme 

weather events have created a heightened need - particularly in coastal States - for more resilient 

infrastructure. Would it be beneficial for Congress to include objective evaluation criteria to ensure 

climate resiliency to protect the public investment over the long-term? What other policy 

characteristics, if any, might be helpful in creating a more performance-based program? 

Yes, it would be beneficial for Congress and the Administration to include an asset management 

criterion to evaluate projects applying for credit assistance. There are two types of criteria that could be 

considered: maintenance of effort criteria and outcome criteria. Most important are the maintenance of 

effort criteria. Congress should require those who receive credit assistance to demonstrate that they 

can maintain the asset once built Applicants should also demonstrate that maintaining that asset will 

not jeopardize maintenance of their system, if applicable, 

Congress might also consider otl1er measures, like whether the asset can withstand expected severe 

weather occurrences, climate change or if the project supports the national goals listed in 23 USC 

150. This would ensure that federal funds are not being wasted on communities with no long term 

economic or climate resilience plan. 

7. What safeguards should be put in place to ensure foreign entities purchasing local assets do not 

have unintended national security or consumer protection consequences when using public 

dollars? 

The Committee on Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is authorized to review transactions 

that could result in of a U.S. business by a foreign entity, We would suggest expanding tl1is 

committee to include a panel that would review infrastructure specific deals, that if transit related 

infrastructure is purchased by parties outside of the United States, would be closely reviewed in order 

to make certain that safety of the public defense or economy a priority. 

8. You mentioned that a "portfolio approach" may help local communities to better leverage TIFIA 

Could you elaborate on what legislative or administrative changes to the TIFIA Program would enable 

the program office to take such an approach? 

Today, TIFIA uses a more project-based risk analysis. This level of analysis creates a default selection 

criterion that favors a more risk-averse approach that makes innovation projects like TOD and local 

infrastructure challenging. While maintaining sound underwriting requirements, we believe Congress 

should encourage USDOT to develop a credit risk management process to analyze and aggregate 

risks by project type (i.e, rural. small, TOD) and try to achieve an overall balance of risk and return 
53 


26726.042

comparable to the existing credit risk threshold. By combining different types of projects and fostering 

synergy between infrastructure investments, a diversified portfolio with good financial returns on some 

projects would compensate for (cross-subsidies) the higher risk projects, which nevertheless achieve 

good non-financial social and econornic impacts. Inherent in this approach would be an explicit 

acknowledgement that US DOT would be taking on more credit risk to advance critical projects 

focused on socio-economic impact and benefits than just financial. These steps taken together will 

maximize the volume of credit assistance TIFIA provides over the life of the authorization while ensuring 

greater accessibility. 
54 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much for your testimony and that of all of the members of the panel today. 

Ms. Mayer, you talked about how the TIFIA funding had benefited Riverside County Transportation Commission in terms of your 

ability to plan, to program, to deliver major transportation improvements. I think you pointed out that you were able to avoid 

delays and additional expenses all because of the way that the system worked. 

You recommended, I think, keeping the rolling application process going. I am wondering, are there things that you would share 

in terms of any programmatic hurdles you might have experienced 

in applying, and what we could do better if you had an opportunity 

to change anything about the process for applying and for receiving 

the funding? Are there some changes that we ought to be looking 

at? 

Ms. MAYER. Thank you, Senator. I definitely think that the 

change to a rolling application process was a huge improvement in 

the program. There is also a process in advance of the formal application, it is the letter of interest process, and it is an important 

step. 

However, that process does not have schedule certainty, so I 

would make a recommendation that the letter of interest process 

have some schedule certainty to it so that project sponsors can anticipate how long that process will take, as well as start to identify 

how much it might cost. So I think that that would be an important improvement. 

Senator BARRASSO. So when someone put in a letter of interest, 

they would have a pretty good understanding of the timing it 

would take until they would hear back. Should we set a specific 

amount of time? What are your thoughts there? 

Ms. MAYER. I would recommend that you do. In the FAST Act 

there is statutory requirements for reviews on the applications 

themselves, so I would recommend a similar policy or statute that 

would put deadlines and timelines in for the letter of interest process as well. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Ms. Aument, you have experience working to advance large scale 

transportation projects, Virginia 495 and 95 Express Lanes. We are 

talking about legislation to improve the infrastructure, both urban 

and rural. Do you have any thoughts on how we could assist small 

projects, rural agencies, to make better use of the investments and 

the leveraging opportunities? 

Ms. AUMENT. Thank you, Senator. You know, first and foremost, 

the large urban projects, like the ones that I have described, do go 

a long way into help supporting rural communities as well, and 

how they do that is, if you look at a project like 95, where Virginia 

was able to get 110 times their investment, that really helps their 

public dollars go much further and frees up resources that then 

they can direct to communities that may not have multi-billion dollar Express Lane project potential. So that is the first important 

role that these projects can play, and TIFIA has certainly enabled 

that. 

Our advice to rural communities and rural States across the 

country is to, one, engage the private sector in helping to look at 

55 

the assets that you may have and find more creative ways to make 

them viable for private investment. One thing that we have seen 

and is happening successfully in States like Pennsylvania with 

their bridges program, Kentucky with their broadband program, is 

while an individual project, in Pennsylvania, for instance, a bridge 

project, might not be viable as a candidate for private investment, 

by bundling a series of smaller projects, it can develop a system or 

a network that may be a bit more suitable candidate to this kind 

of private investment. 

Senator BARRASSO. Because, as you mentioned, 110 to 1 of the 

ratio. We are informed that for every Federal dollar through the 

TIFIA program, it leverages, on average, about 40 to 1. So you had 

an incredible response there and success. 

Talk a little bit more about how the ratio depends on project size 

and what a rural transportation agency undertaking a smaller 

scale might expect. You talk about bundling projects together. I 

don’t know if you have additional thoughts on that. 

Ms. AUMENT. Definitely. I think what you are going to see is, 

first and foremost, the opportunity to leverage a dollar into two dollars. With the critical transportation needs that we have in this 

country, we will certainly want to look at policies that provide as 

many opportunities as possible to take those dollars as far as they 

will go. That is really going to range on the size of the project. It 

is going to range on the level of private participation on the project, 

the risk profile of the project, and again, will range across the 

board. 

If you look at 495, for instance, for every TIFIA dollar we deliv- ered $20 of private capital and then $40 of transportation infrastructure. And I think, again, you will see that range across the 

country and across different kinds of projects with different risk 

profiles and sizes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. I want 

to thank you for holding the hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses for coming in. 

I would like to mention a few things. First is that I think on our 

side we are very eager to work with the Administration on an infrastructure bill. The Committee held a hearing not too long ago 

with Secretary Chao, who said that she would have the outline of 

an infrastructure bill to us shortly, and we eagerly await that outline so that we can begin to work. I do think that there is a role 

for TIFIA and its water cousin, WIFIA, in such a bill, but I think 

we also have to be aware that these programs are not a sufficient 

solution, although they are necessary. 

Rhode Island has actually seen very little use of TIFIA, and none 

of WIFIA, partly because the organizations that would take these 

projects on very often have debt capacity that is available to them; 

they have different ways that they can borrow money. They don’t 

want to borrow more money. What they are looking for is more 

support. And if they are borrowed out, then it takes WIFIA and 

TIFIA a little bit off the table or reduces the viability. 

In a small State, smaller projects can also be burdened by the 

enormous overhead of getting through the WIFIA and TIFIA procVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:31 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26726.TXT SONYA
56 

ess. So if you are building something enormous, like the Express 

Lanes through Virginia that millions of people are going to drive 

down, then that is one thing. So I think we are going to be looking 

at the WIFIA and TIFIA programs, if they reappear in this bill, 

and ways to try to make them more accessible to smaller States 

and to make them more competitive with other forms of borrowing. 

The other thing that I want to mention, since today appears to 

be the day that the massive ice shelf has broken off the Antarctic, 

the way the physics of that works is that when the ice shelf breaks 

away, it is like a dam that has been holding back the land-borne 

ice, which then accelerates its flow. 

I know ice doesn’t go very fast when it flows, but if you look at 

the sped up film of glaciers, you can see they really look like slow 

motion rivers running into the sea. So we are going to see, as this 

dam of ice shelf breaks off, heightened travel of land-borne ice and 

snow into the sea, and that is going to continue to raise sea levels, 

and all of that continues to put pressure on coastal States like 

Rhode Island. 

So I hope very much that, as we look at WIFIAs and TIFIAs, we 

can at least be thinking about the prospect of a coastal IFIA, because the power of the ocean against the land is an astonishing 

thing, and the damage that it can do when it comes ashore, powered up by storms, lifted by sea level rise, is really significant. It 

requires planning in advance to be able to do the protective measures that are necessary, whether they are hardening of infrastructure or whether they are protecting dunes and marshes and other 

ameliorating natural infrastructure that can protect the upland, or 

whether it is being able to respond when bad things happen and 

you have to do things that I have had to do, like walk down the 

beach in Rhode Island and see people’s houses in the water and see 

a legacy of many generations that has gone to that home for seaside recreation lost irrecoverably to the seas. 

So whether it is roads or other types of infrastructure, very often 

sewage facilities are downstream so they can take advantage of 

gravity. If you are a coastal State, that means that they tend to 

be located near the water level, and that tends to be near the coast, 

and that puts them in harm’s way, and that means that they are 

infrastructure that needs attention. 

And we are actually looking, Mr. Chairman, at things like having 

to figure out ways to relocate emergency vehicles, because in a bad 

storm the roads that serve neighborhoods can be blocked off by 

high water, and as we, I think very unfortunately, saw in New Jersey or New York, if you can’t get the fire trucks through the water 

to the neighborhood and a fire goes off, then it just goes catastrophic in a hurry. 

So we are having to look at our emergency infrastructure in 

Rhode Island to make sure that, at 6 or 7 feet of sea level rise or 

in 100-year storm conditions, we haven’t walled our citizens off 

from the emergency services that they pay for. 

So it is a really serious issue for Rhode Island and I think other 

coastal States to address the problem of the new pressures on our 

coasts of storms and seas, and I look forward to working with all 

of my colleagues and with the organizations that are represented 

here to try to make sure we do a good job of that. 

57 

And I thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for being here. This has been a great hearing. 

Ms. Mayer, there is lots of talk around Washington about reducing the amount of time it takes to obtain permits and get projects 

built. Can you talk about some recommendations that you have for 

reducing permitting timelines without sacrificing environmental 

protections, public transparency, or other public interest? 

Ms. MAYER. Certainly. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I think a great example of that would have 

been the bridge that was rebuilt in Minneapolis, when it collapsed, 

which was done in a year, and that project probably would have 

taken 20 years. 

Ms. MAYER. Correct. And the challenge is trying to bring that 

sense of urgency to projects that are delivered on a non-emergency 

basis. 

I am very proud that Riverside County is home to two habitat 

conservation plans, and we believe that the use of habitat conservation plans to have advanced mitigation for transportation 

projects really does not only allow us to protect the environment, 

but it also allows us to get our projects delivered. 

The Western Riverside County Habitat Conservation Plan was 

implemented well over a decade ago. The State and Federal resource agencies are signatories to that plan as well. We have put 

over 400,000 acres into conservation, protecting 146 species, and 

what it has done for transportation projects is make sure that our 

transportation projects can get through a process in a rapid 

timeline. 

We have shortened the environmental process by, on average, 2 

years by using the habitat conservation plan. So we have a decade’s worth of proof that it is possible to build projects and protect 

the environment. It is possible to have streamlining at the same 

time we have conservation that really is meaningful. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Now, that is a good story. What has that done 

to your cost in the sense of getting these projects done in an expeditious way? 

Ms. MAYER. It has really reduced the cost not only of the delay 

in a project environmental process, but also in terms of having 

mitigation on a project by project basis. That can be very costly, 

and it sometimes is not very effective. So by having an up front 

contribution to the habitat conservation plan, which our sales tax 

measure did, by having that up front contribution, we get the investment in the land up front, and we believe that it has saved us 

millions of dollars both in real costs, as well as time. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Coes, you mentioned that broadband should be eligible under 

TIFIA. How do you envision TIFIA being able to help communities 

complete those important broadband infrastructure projects which 

have become a necessity these days? 

Mr. COES. Well, particularly in rural communities, broadband is 

an essential tool to be connected to the broader economy, and what 

we are finding with a lot of the real estate developers we are workVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:31 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26726.TXT SONYA
58 

ing with is that it is a vital asset to redevelopment, and we believe 

by adding broadband as an eligibility, you now incentivize communities, along with their private sector actors, to bundle projects together to actually bring those types of services to those communities. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. And you mentioned in your testimony 

that we needed a more targeted outreach for small towns because 

they simply don’t understand the benefit of TIFIA. What would be 

your recommendation? How can we see the TIFIA program more 

utilized? 

Mr. COES. Well, I, for one, am very supportive of interagency collaboration. Today, USDA, Department of Agriculture, actually has 

an enormous field staff on the ground, and I believe if USDOT 

works collaboratively with USDA, we can be able to provide those 

resources directly to those communities. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Ms. Mayer, do you agree that while programs such as TIFIA are 

important, there is need for direct Federal funding for transportation programs? This is especially important for States like mine, 

where TIFIA may not be a viable option, given a very rural nature 

in much of our State. 

Ms. MAYER. Absolutely. TIFIA is a wonderful tool, and we will 

use it on the projects where it makes sense to do so, but not only 

is our agency dependent on, and do we rely on those direct Federal 

grants, but so do all of our cities, as well as the counties. So, absolutely, Federal grants are very, very important. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses for their testimony. 

The TIFIA program is very important in all States, and Maryland has utilized it for some very important programs. We are now 

using it in our Purple Line for transit, which is a major commitment of funds, and the TIFIA is one part of that equation. Without 

that, it would be difficult to see the project move in the manner 

that we hope that it will, with 16 miles of track and 21 new stations, which is critically important to the Washington community. 

So I recognize its importance, and I understand that there are 

certain standards that have to be met for a project to be eligible. 

But I want to get your thoughts. Senator Cochran and I have 

worked long and hard to preserve transportation alternative programs so that you can—as you do transit infrastructure, you are 

able to enhance local communities, that they can have pedestrian 

and bike paths, that they can have the types of enhancements that 

are important for a community to continue to grow and thrive. 

I know that there are certain restrictions in the TIFIA program 

which are challenging for these types of projects because of the size 

requirements, et cetera. Do you have any suggestions on how we 

could make the TIFIA program more appropriate for these types of 

projects, particularly that are desired by our local governments? 

They are the ones, in my view, that have the closest understanding 

59 

of the needs in their community. How can they better utilize this? 

Is there something we can do to make it easier? 

Mr. COES. Senator Cardin, thank you for that question. First, 

thank you for your leadership on this issue. I know we worked very 

closely with your staff on the Complete Streets policy that has been 

really critical to advancing and providing pedestrian safety across 

the country. 

The simple answer to that is in the FAST Act we were able, 

working with Rails to Trails, lower the threshold for projects to $10 

million for those types of projects. However, one of the challenges 

we are still seeing is the fact that the TIFIA program only provides 

gap financing. We believe for these types of projects, and rural 

projects as well, if we allow TIFIA to take a higher level of the percentage of the total project cost, it would be more advantageous for 

these types of projects. 

In addition, I cannot emphasize enough the level of transactional 

costs that comes with applying for TIFIA. As I mentioned before in 

my testimony, just getting an investment grade rating takes about 

$400,000. And for a lot of local communities that are budget 

strapped, that is an enormous hurdle. And I believe that one of the 

opportunities that we have is to provide more resources so local 

communities can actually reduce that cost barrier. 

Senator CARDIN. Yes, ma’am, did you want to respond? 

Ms. AUMENT. I was just going to add, Senator, if I may, that the 

policies of this Committee have expanded the eligibility of TIFIA 

into new projects, including community projects. What we found is 

that you now have a potential backlog of projects, because it takes 

about the same amount of resources to do underwriting for a $10 

million project as it does for a $3 billion project. 

So looking at not just expanding the eligibility, but ensuring the 

TIFIA program has the administrative funding it needs to manage 

that, and also getting those projects, both small and large, through 

the program more efficiently. That means transparency in process; 

it means really an underwriting risk framework to guide decisionmaking, and prioritizing projects where there is a particular need 

for time sensitivity, like when private capital is involved. Those 

kinds of reforms, along with expanding eligibility for different 

projects, will make sure that all projects, large and small, can move 

through the process quickly. 

Senator CARDIN. So here is how we need you to help us. Let’s say 

I run a small business, an entrepreneurship committee, and we 

look at ways in which we can make costs less for small business, 

recognizing that their transactional costs can mean the difference 

between business and going out of business. It seems like we have 

a similar problem here because those underwriting costs are just 

not manageable for a relatively smaller project, and the delay 

issues means that it is fatal, rather than just delaying the project. 

So, can you help us with how we could address that problem, 

perhaps for certain defined projects, the smaller projects, so that 

we don’t have that type of cost and delay? 

Mr. COES. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN. Would you get us that information? 

Mr. COES. Absolutely. 

60 

Senator CARDIN. I would welcome that, because I think all of us 

want particularly the reduced transaction costs for our local governments that are working on much tighter budgets and much 

tighter timelines than perhaps a major expansion of a transit system or a major transportation infrastructure project. 

Mr. COES. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE [presiding]. On behalf of the Chairman, we recognize Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. I do appreciate that. 

[Remarks made off microphone] tax-exempt facility bonds. These 

bonds provide a number of benefits and opportunities for privatepublic partnerships, but road and bridge projects are currently excluded. Is that correct? 

Ms. MAYER. Senator, I didn’t hear the first part of your statement. 

Senator WICKER. With regard to tax-exempt facility bonds. 

Ms. MAYER. I am not familiar with the use restrictions on tax facility bonds. I would have to check that and get back to you, and 

we can certainly do that after the hearing. I apologize. 

Senator WICKER. OK, is anyone on the panel familiar with 

whether road and bridge projects are currently eligible for tax-exempt facility bonds? 

Ms. AUMENT. Senator, I can actually speak not to that specific 

bond, but to private activity bonds, which is a form of tax-exempt 

bonds that have been used very successfully in public-private partnerships. There is a limitation on private activity bonds right now 

which we believe is handicapping the market in terms of opening 

up opportunities. Currently, they are only allowed for greenfield or 

new projects. Expanding private activity bonds to include more innovative projects, a larger number of projects, and brownfield 

projects we believe will go a long way to help build the pipeline and 

provide opportunities for private investment here in the U.S. 

Senator WICKER. OK. And who can speak to me about revenue 

streams with regard to the FAST Act, and particularly my interest 

in rail service between New Orleans and Orlando? 

Mr. Coes, let me ask you, then. The FAST Act mandated that the 

FRA convene a working group to evaluate the restoration of intercity passenger rail between New Orleans and Orlando, a corridor 

that was significantly impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Transportation options are essential to economic development for rural 

areas. 

However, startup projects such as these will likely take a good 

deal of time to build up large enough user bases to generate the 

revenue stream. So what funding mechanisms can medium sized 

municipalities and medium sized local communities use to fund 

projects like passenger rail service? 

Mr. COES. Well, thank you, Senator, for that question, and Senator, again, thank you for your support for the rail. As you know, 

Transportation for America, with John Robert Smith, is a huge advocate, has been working on this issue for a long time. 

Senator WICKER. Old friend of mine. 

Mr. COES. Old friend of all of ours, sir. 

61 

With that being said, one of the recommendations I outline in my 

written testimony is the fact that we are increasingly finding that 

private developers, who I work with, are willing to bring private 

capital to the table to allow these infrastructures to move forward. 

However, right now, currently, RRIF program provides residential 

and commercial development opportunities to do that. 

However, in the TIFIA program there is not that ability to allow 

private developers to bring their residential and commercial revenues to the table to help finance those projects. So I think one of 

the immediate recommendations would be to make the TIFIA and 

RIFIA program both copasetic to allow more real estate revenue to 

be allowed to help provide more funding for these infrastructure 

projects. 

Senator WICKER. And what is it going to take to do that? 

Mr. COES. Statutory change. 

Senator WICKER. I see. Well, I would certainly like to work with 

other members and with the panelists in that regard. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I am happy to yield to Senator Duckworth. 

Thank you. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I want to thank the Chair and Ranking Member for convening 

today’s hearing, and I want to thank our witnesses for participating in this very important conversation. 

Mr. Chairman, our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling. I appreciate this Committee’s engagement to address this challenge, but a 

21st century transportation system is simply not going to materialize without the full and coordinated engagement of Congress, 

the White House, and our States. 

We are 7 months into the Trump Administration, and we still 

haven’t seen any meaningful details of the President’s infrastructure plan. In fact, the President’s budget proposal is a net negative 

for infrastructure investment, cutting nearly $150 billion from critical programs over the next decade. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to insert the 

President’s budget document into record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 


26726.043

Not only does President Trump's Budget fail to make good on his $1 trillon infrastructure promise, startingly it also slashes funding for a number of existing infr

programs including over $96 billion in cuts directly to the Highway Trust Fund. 

Trump's budget does propose $2008 for his new private sector focused infrastructure plan- however he proposes paying for that plan by cutting existing road

and transit spending. Rather than providing any increase in infrastructure spending to address with the $2 trillon national infrastructure backlog, President Trum

cutting existing dollars from States, Cities, and local communities and using those funds to pay wealthy hedge funds and Wall St. to build more toll road

T ------ --- Bud ----------------- Inf1 Bud --- s et __________ (in bill' ,--- ---------, 

Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 

Trump Budget Infrastructure Proposal 5 25 40 50 40 20 10 5 5 0 

Trump Budget Infrastructure Cuts {break out in the chart below) -10.3 -10.6 -10.7 -11.8 -16.5 -26.2 -27.9 -29.3 -30.8 -31.8 

Current Infrastructure Shortfall (HTF) 0 0 0 -8 -19 -20 -22 -22 -24 -24 

_______!!>tal Investlllent Above (:urrent Levels -5.3 14.4 29.3 30.2 4.5 -26.2 -39.9 -49.8 -55.8 

D -------- --------

.. 

-- -- ------ 'ledB kd fT --- Bud get c ____ .. ---------------, Inf1 (' .............. 'II' , 

Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 

Cuts to Highway Trust Fund -919 -5,546 -15,164 -16,833 18,156 -19,436 -20,399 Cuts to the US Army Corps of Engineers -1,100 -1,100 -1,100 -1,100 -1,100 -1,100 -1,100 -1,100 -1,100 -1,100 Cuts to TIGER -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 Cuts to Capital Investment Grants (New Starts) -1,200 -1,502 -1,637 -1,812 -1,866 -1,962 -2,012 -2,112 -2,312 -2,325 Cuts to Amtrak -760 -760 -760 -760 -760 -760 -760 -760 -760 -760 Cuts to Other Rail Grants (CRISI, Fed-State Partnership) -42 -42 -42 -42 -42 -42 -42 -42 -42 -42 Cuts to EDA -207 -207 -207 -207 -207 -207 -207 -207 -207 CutstoCDBG -3,060 -3,060 -3,060 -3,060 -3,060 -3,060 -3,060 -3,060 -3,060 -3,060 Cuts to HOME -950 -950 -950 -950 -950 -950 -950 -950 -950 -950 Cuts to Public Housing Repairs/Revitilization -1,451 -1,451 -1,451 -1,451 -1,451 -1,451 -1,451 -1,451 -1,451 -1,451 

Cuts to USDA Water Infrastructure Program -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 -500 

Cuts to Superfund Cleanup -326 -326 -326 -326 -326 -326 -326 -326 -326 -326 Cuts to the Brownfield Program -34 -34 -34 -34 -34 -34 -34 -34 -34 -34 

Cuts to the St. Lawrence Seaway -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 -7.6 Cuts to the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) -125 -125 -125 -125 -125 -125 -125 -125 -125 -125 Cuts to the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 Cuts to the Delta Regional Authority -22 -22 -22 -22 -22 -22 -22 -22 -22 

TOTALS: -10,596 -10,731 -11,825 -16,506 -26,220 -27,939 -30,842 -31,818 
63 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Instead of creating jobs that boost local, regional, and national economies by rebuilding our roads, bridges, 

and water systems, President Trump and congressional Republicans made the conscious decision to prioritize eliminating health 

care for 20 million Americans and providing tax cuts for the 

wealthy. 

Mr. Chairman, the opportunity costs of inaction are simply skyrocketing, born by a distracted White House and an uncoordinated 

Congress. 

Tomorrow, Senator Carper and I, along with Senators Stabenow, 

Booker, and others, are holding a roundtable discussion to highlight the nexus between water quality and public health and the 

challenges many communities face regarding drinking water and 

wastewater investments. Water infrastructure by itself requires an 

estimated $650 billion in investments over the next 20 years, and 

I invite all of my colleagues to come and participate. 

We are simply just scratching the surface of addressing our infrastructure needs. In the process, men and women across America 

are missing out on jobs that would be created through investments. 

Earlier this year, Senate Democrats put forth a common sense 

blueprint for addressing these challenges, and it is my hope that 

today’s hearing, and others like it, are bearing the case for robust 

investments that prioritize safety, public health, and jobs creation. 

Ms. Mayer, your written testimony suggests that financing tools 

like TIFIA and public-private partnerships are critically important, 

but are no substitute for traditional grant funding. I agree with 

you. Financing mechanisms are important, but you still need that 

core investment to leverage other dollars. 

The President’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposes cuts to infra- structure programs across the board to about $150 billion over 10 

years. In your opinion, what would be the consequences to communities just like yours should the President’s proposed budget cuts 

ever be enacted? Would it help or hurt? 

Ms. MAYER. The loss of Federal grant funding would be very detrimental to our ability at the regional level, as well as at the local 

level, to get our projects built. There simply isn’t sufficient funding 

to be able to build the projects that we need. We are fortunate we 

have a local sales tax measure that brings in revenues that we can 

use to build our projects, but it is simply not enough; we need the 

Federal grant program. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. And do you have projects that have low or 

simply no returns on investment that would be outside of any type 

of a public-private partnership? You can’t get people to come in and 

invest in filling potholes, right? 

Ms. MAYER. Most of our projects are outside of the type of eligible projects that we would consider for a TIFIA process, whether 

those be local road projects, widening projects, commuter rail. We 

were just talking about rail projects as well. Most of those are outside of those types of programs, so we would absolutely see a need 

to make sure that we had those Federal grant programs going. And 

it is particularly critical for us in our rural areas. Riverside County 

has both urban and rural areas. Those rural jurisdictions definitely 

count on that funding just for the most essential services and 

projects. 

64 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Mr. Coes, in your opinion, does the Trump budget help or hurt 

efforts to expand transit oriented development? 

Mr. COES. Currently, the proposed budget would be a setback for 

transit oriented development partly due to the fact that a lot of the 

funds that are coming through HUD and DOT actually provide 

some of the necessary subsidies to allow communities to build those 

local infrastructures. In addition to that, the current Administration has the opportunity to actually implement the current changes 

in the FAST Act that could also help in that area as well. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. In your written testimony, Mr. 

Coes, you highlight some of the challenges that rural communities 

face in addressing their infrastructure needs through programs like 

TIFIA. People think of Illinois and they think of Chicago, but they 

don’t realize how large a State I represent and how it is mostly 

rural, with Chicago in one end of it. 

Of the five TIFIA leveraged projects in Illinois, all of them are 

in the Chicagoland area. With the Administration’s preference for 

incentivizing more private investments in infrastructure projects, 

rural America is likely to lose out. 

What can we do, Mr. Coes, to ensure more attention is paid to 

rural communities in the context of financing opportunities like 

TIFIA? 

Mr. COES. There are two recommendations I would put on the 

table. First, USDOT should collaborate directly with the Department of Agriculture, who have field staff on the ground in those 

communities to better leverage the program. And the second would 

be to allow the TIFIA program to actually be open to more local 

infrastructure revolving funds like CFIs, who are actually on the 

ground in these communities who can be able to distribute those 

funds much more readily and easier. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I do want to note for the record President Trump’s budget actually eviscerates the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development Office, including zeroing out infrastructure and small business funding and eliminating the Undersecretary for Rural Development. I don’t see how we can move forward with those cuts. 

Thank you so much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I noticed, when you were giving your opening statement, Ms. 

Mayer, that you listed many of the things that we have done, going 

back even before MAP–21, to try to get more projects done. I 

thought, and I commented to the Chairman, I said the one thing 

she left out in her list was streamlining. Then later you corrected 

that when you responded to a question from Senator Boozman. 

But I think it is important that we get into that, and I would 

like to hear from each one of you, because this became a very contentious thing. When I chaired this Committee and we were able 

to do two or three of these, Senator Boxer and I, we had a disagreement, and finally we worked it out so that that agreement did 

work. In fact, we had the program, the TAP Program, that is a 

good example, where 2 percent would be going to ART, and then 

65 

that was changed, so that was expanded a little bit when we did 

our FAST Act. 

So I would like to have the three of you just make any comments 

you want to make about the significance of streamlining in these 

projects. 

Ms. MAYER. The importance of streamlining can’t be overstated. 

It has been a basic principle for my board’s platform for well over 

a decade in that we have to continuously find ways to do things 

faster and more effectively. 

From a streamlining standpoint, there are a couple of programs 

that I would point to. Federal Highway Administration administered the Every Day Counts program. They also had an enhanced 

environmental review program. Our State Route 91 project was in 

the environmental program, and it really made a difference. What 

it did was create a high level of attention at the Federal agency 

level to ensure that discussions were taking place, reviews were 

happening on a timely basis, and if we, as a project sponsor, ran 

into trouble, we had a resource to go to to help facilitate the problem. I think the Build America Bureau has the opportunity to really help us with additional streamlining. 

Senator INHOFE. Do the other two agree essentially with her 

comments on that? 

Ms. AUMENT. Of course. 

Mr. COES. [Nodded affirmatively.] 

Senator INHOFE. One of the things I can remember, and I go all 

the way back to prior to coming to the Senate, I was in the House 

committee, and people have forgotten one of the big problems we 

had with the Highway Trust Fund back then is we had too much 

surplus. Remember those days? You were probably too young to remember that, but you can remember reading about it. 

So we acknowledge we know what has happened to that, and we 

know the problems that now exist and how important it is. The 

most popular project the Government does is transportation. 

So, having said that, in one of our Committee hearings that we 

had, and it has already been covered a little bit by the Chairman, 

we had five witnesses, and these witnesses were from the contracting community. And talking about the 3P, they all agreed, four 

out of five agreed it was very important and a very important part 

of the project that comes up. But they all said, except it doesn’t 

work as well in rural areas. 

Now, we have talked about this a little bit. It happens that everyone on this side of the dais is from a rural State. So I would 

like to have comments from any of you who have not weighed in 

on the problem in using 3Ps in the rural area, and maybe a possible solution to weigh in now. 

Ms. AUMENT. Senator, that is a great question as we look to how 

can we make dollars go further in all kinds of communities. Again, 

I want to reinforce that don’t overlook large urban projects and P3s 

and their role in freeing up resources to help meet needs in rural 

communities. 

I would also underscore that in States across the country, as 

rural communities look at networks and systems, instead of just individual projects. As a private investor, an individual project may 

not make sense. An individual big project might not be financially 

66 

viable. But by putting across a network, either a network across 

the community, across the State, it is something that could work 

for private investment. 

So I would encourage those mayors and Governors and their 

teams to bring private investors in and really engage to get feedback on what networks or systems within their communities might 

indeed stack up as a financially viable P3 project. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Mr. COES. The only thing I would add to your comments is the 

fact that oftentimes smaller projects do not generate the revenue 

stream in order to support it. However, our experience is that if 

you actually tie those infrastructure projects to economic development, you are able to generate new revenues, maybe from the retail, maybe from commercial or residential, that can underwrite 

those infrastructure projects. And we find that a lot in a lot of 

rural towns and areas. So my recommendation would be to think 

about more innovative ways to pay for the infrastructure projects 

using real estate and other economic development means. 

Senator INHOFE. Ms. Aument, when I saw your resume, your 

background and the fact that you work with a lot of other countries, my first thought was we keep trying to do a lot of the same 

things over again. Is there anything you can think of that has been 

used in some of these other countries that maybe we haven’t properly explored? 

Ms. AUMENT. Absolutely. You know, the U.S. Federal Government, and very much some of the policies advocated by this Committee, has played an increasing role, and very effective role, in the 

last 10 years in providing education to States and localities across 

the country in helping to provide resources that will enable these 

professionals to look at public-private partnerships, and we have 

seen real progress in that area. And State and cities across the 

country are taking that information and those best practices and 

putting them to work to move transportation projects forward. 

Where I think the natural next step would be for the Federal 

Government to really enhance meaningful opportunities for private 

investment is to move from educator to incentivizing States and localities to look at these kinds of projects. And I think that is an 

important shift. 

Australia has a concept that has worked very successfully in that 

country called asset recycling, where the Federal Government provided a 15 percent bonus, for lack of a better word, for States who, 

when they look around and they looked at their infrastructure, and 

they said what assets, be it electrical grid, ports, toll roads, what 

assets would have more value in the hands of the private sector. 

And the Federal Government would provide a 15 percent bonus or 

incentive for States to privatize those assets. And those funds, both 

through the privatization and through the bonus, were then redirected to help support greenfield projects and great projects like 

the Sydney Metro. 

So that would be an incentive program I would encourage you to 

look at, or if not word for word that policy, at least that theme of 

moving from educator and facilitator to incentivizing. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, my time has more than expired, but this 

is a very common thing to do at these meetings. If you would supVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:31 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26726.TXT SONYA
67 

ply us with, or me, for the record, other ideas that you have. I have 

a feeling you could go on for quite a while on this subject. Would 

you do that for me? 

Ms. AUMENT. Of course. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This has been a good 

hearing, and I was mentioning, in a sidebar conversation with the 

Chairman, you are exceptionally good witnesses; very knowledgeable and very clear and concise in your responses. It doesn’t always 

happen. Sometimes we are not very clear and concise in our questions either. 

I know we keep coming back to the idea that TIFIA works in a 

lot of places; it doesn’t always work in rural areas. A couple of you 

commented on that. 

Ms. Mayer, do you have anything you want to add in terms of 

I think in your area of California you have—I used to live in California when I was in the Navy. But you have nine metropolitan 

areas; you have rural areas as well. Just mention one or two maybe 

additional features to the TIFIA program that might make it more 

attractive as a financing tool in rural areas. Anything come to 

mind? 

Ms. MAYER. What comes to mind, although we haven’t had the 

opportunity to use it yet, there is a provision that allows for master 

agreements in the TIFIA program, which is a master agreement 

with a sponsoring agency that would allow a bundle of projects, as 

was mentioned before, to come forward. 

In the rural area we see this as a real potential opportunity to 

explore how we could use a master agreement process to bring forward a suite of projects, as opposed to just a single project. The 

challenge there is finding the revenue stream with which to pay 

back the loan. But we see exploration of the master agreement and 

the bundling concept perhaps as the best way of trying to approach 

the rural question that you pose. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Without getting into the details, I 

would ask the other two witnesses to react to that, to what Ms. 

Mayer said. 

Ms. AUMENT. About the TIFIA, I am really glad that you brought 

that up, because I mentioned earlier the case study of 395. Because 

of the uncertainty in the timing of the process, we chose not to use 

TIFIA. It would have made perfect sense had we had that agreement available when we did the 95 Express Lanes, to be able to 

move that forward. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Coes. 

Mr. COES. The only thing I would add is, yes, the master credit 

agreement creates a great opportunity. In addition to that, I think 

there should be some encouragement for USDOT to take more of 

a portfolio approach in terms of the risk management of rural 

projects, or particularly smaller projects. I think that, in and of 

itself, would create more incentive for local communities to take advantage. 

68 

Senator CARPER. Did the three of you rehearse this before the 

hearing started? That was pretty good. 

I think it was in 2012 when GAO found that projects which received credits through the TIFIA program tend to be large, high 

cost highway projects. More recently, I think last year, TIFIA report to Congress showed that about two-thirds of the TIFIA program’s credit assistance goes to finance highway projects only. 

In what ways can we further help multi-modal and intermodal 

projects to leverage TIFIA financing? 

And I would direct that question to you, Mr. Coes. 

Mr. COES. As I stated in my written testimony, I think what we 

are finding now, particularly working with transit oriented development and biped infrastructure through the TIFIA process, the 

transactional cost is a major hurdle. 

The second piece, I think, is one that is more cultural in the bureaucracy of DOT. If you are a staffer who, for the past 15 years, 

have been working on financing highway projects, you get really 

good at it. I think when you begin to increase the eligibility, the 

staff may have little expertise in underwriting those projects. So I 

believe one of the things that we want to think about moving forward is either providing USDOT the capacity to gain greater expertise in these new projects that may be lacking on the staff or allowing them to acquire that outside. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Another question, if I could, for Ms. Mayer. Are you ready for another one? 

Ms. MAYER. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. All right. In Riverside County, I think you have 

already talked a little bit about SR 91 projects. Contract originally 

I think it included a non-compete clause, is that right, to protect 

the private partners’ profits? Those clauses prevented, I am told, 

the public agency from building any new lanes, even when congestion increases to the point, I understand, of being dangerous. And 

ultimately I think it was the Orange County Transportation Authority had to buy out the private partner in order to expand the 

number of lanes. 

Given this experience, what are the protections that might be 

helpful in safeguarding public interest? 

Ms. MAYER. At the time that the State of California issued a concession to the private sector for the Orange County toll lanes, it 

was typical to include a non-compete clause which was very prohibitive. My understanding at this point, and perhaps my colleague 

could address this more directly, is that non-compete clauses are 

not typically found in those kinds of concessions anymore. Certainly, with the public ownership of the tolled express lanes, there 

are no non-compete clauses. We have to make sure we understand 

what happens if we add other projects, but those non-compete 

clauses are no longer typical, and it was absolutely damaging to 

our ability to move people through that corridor with that non-compete clause in place. 

Senator CARPER. Just very, very briefly, yes or no, do you agree 

with that? 

Ms. AUMENT. It is atypical to have anything. We certainly don’t 

have anything in our network that would prohibit the State from 

69 

moving forward with other transportation projects. And I will underscore that they are in the driving seat when they have these 

transactions. They have a number of levers to pull, and if those 

competing facilities are a priority to ensure that they are left flexible, that is absolutely in the control of the State. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

I sometimes say I learn more from my mistakes than the things 

I do right, and maybe this was a good lesson for us to learn from 

a mistake. 

If I could, back to Mr. Coes. You ready for another one, Mr. 

Coes? OK. Bring it on? Bring it on. 

In 2012 MAP–21 began a new era of performance management, 

as you know. I like to say we can’t manage what we can’t measure, 

and that includes measuring performance to make sure that we 

maintain our existing roads before we start to build some new 

ones. 

Would it be prudent for USDOT’s Build America Bureau, which 

administers the TIFIA program, as you know, for them to consider 

performance metrics in the TIFIA program, such as having States 

fix it first, prior to expanding their systems? 

Mr. COES. Overall, I think, interesting enough, this is an issue 

that our organization cares about very deeply. We do believe that 

we should be investing in our existing communities. Once we have 

done that, we should then think about greater capacity. 

In terms of the Bureau, I would say this. Every project is different. However, we do believe that the Bureau should take a view 

that projects that are coming through the pipeline should have the 

ability to be sustainable over the long term, and that could be done 

in different ways: one, through the underwriting process, in terms 

of whether or not this project can financially support itself over the 

long term, as well as will there be long-term support by the community to invest in this project. 

So those two items I think that would be one of the ways we can 

increase public performance measures through the TIFIA program 

particularly through the Bureau. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

And maybe one for all three, then I am done. 

The President’s budget proposed to increase TIFIA’s contract au- thorities we know to, I think, about $1 billion per year. But just 

over a year ago, in the FAST Act, Congress reduced the program 

from $1 billion a year to its current authorization of $275 million 

because it was more money, apparently, than DOD could process 

and more than was needed. In your opinions, what level of capitalization would make sense and be useful? 

Ms. Mayer. 

Ms. MAYER. I think it is important to make sure that there is 

sufficient capital there. There may be times where $1 billion might 

be too much, but project delivery is very cyclical, and I think predictability for project sponsors is important. So having an understanding that there is at least a base level authorized would be 

very, very important, so that we know the program will be there 

when we need it. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

Ms. Aument. 

70 

Ms. AUMENT. Senator, TIFIA can only leverage tax dollars to deliver more if there are projects for TIFIA to support. So you can 

put all the money that you want into the TIFIA program, but if 

there are not projects, a pipeline of projects in cities and States 

across the country ready to receive that TIFIA and to be able to 

move forward to serve communities, then it won’t do any good. 

So I think I agree that sufficiently funding TIFIA is very important, but also looking, at the same time, at strategies to incentivize 

States to move projects forward, efforts to streamline the process 

to ensure projects can move forward in a quick fashion, those are 

the kinds of efforts that are necessary to build that pipeline and 

unlock a lot of the private capital that is waiting to invest. But it 

is the lack of projects that is the real obstacle for us. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Coes, just a quick word, please. 

Mr. COES. I would like to agree with my colleagues. In addition 

to that, I think one of the lessons we have learned in other loan 

programs is that those programs have partnered with local banks 

on the ground who have been able to do transactions with loan 

guarantees to be the aggregator of these projects. So I think that 

is one strategy to think about how to increase the volume. 

But I agree with the colleagues that you can increase money, but 

if there are no projects, it doesn’t make any difference. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks. 

Thank you. In the Olympics, Mr. Chairman, sometimes the figure skaters or other performers, at the end of their performance, 

the judges hold up a number from 1 to 10, and I can’t speak for 

my other colleagues who have left, but I would say you got 9s and 

10s from Delaware, and my guess is from other States, too. Very 

nicely done. 

The other thing I would say, this is really important stuff, and 

we are struggling to find things to agree on to work on together. 

This is certainly a big one. And the idea of not just roads, highways, bridges, but I think a couple of you mentioned broadband, 

deployment of broadband, water sewer treatment, and that kind of 

thing. It all kind of works together to create that nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation, which we know we 

need a lot more of. 

So thank you for adding a lot to the conversation. And I expect 

we will be back to you to ask some more questions offline. Thank 

you so much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This was excellent. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

I agree we have had an outstanding panel. They have done a great 

job in answering our questions. 

As you know, members may submit written questions to you over 

the next couple weeks, so we would ask that you respond quickly, 

if you could. I want to thank each of you for being here, for your 

time, for your testimony, for sharing your expertise and your 

knowledge. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

71 


26726.044

United ' States 11'- ~mate 

\1arch I 0, 2017 

The Honorable Michael Fnzi, Chaimum 

The llonorab!c Bernard Sanders, Ranking Member 

Committee on the Budget 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chainnan Enzi and Ranking Member Sanders: 

in response to your letter of February 7, 2017, we present the following views and estimates f(H· 

certain programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

Reserve Fund 

The Committee requests a reserve fund to address any budgetary impacts from Committee 

legislative initiatives. 

Current Legislative Initiatives 

lnti·astructure Bill 

The Committee intends to move comprehensive legislation to authorize and implement impmiant 

infrastructure pwgrams. We intend to include transportation infrastructure as well as 

Environmental Protection Agency drinking water and wastewater infrastructure assistance 

programs and Army Corps of Engineers water resources inJrastructure in this larger package. 

EndanRered Species Act !!ill 

The Committee is conducting oversight of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which will serve 

as n basls for legislation to improve the act. 

Nuclear Enerzy Innovation and Modernization Act 

The Committee intends to move legislation to establish new transparency and accountability 

measures over the "luclcar Regulatory Commission's budget and fee programs, and develop the 

NRC regulatory infrastructure necessary to cnahlc the licensing of advanced nuclear reactors. 
72 


26726.045

Diesel Emissions Act Reauthorizalion 

The Committee intends to move legislation to reauthorize the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act 

program. 

Cost Savings 

The Majority supports implementation of federal environmental laws through the cooperative 

federalism structure of these statutes and intends to conduct oversight to identify efficiencies and 

cost savings that will result from such an approach. The Majority also intends to look for 

opportunities to reduce or eliminate programs under the jurisdiciion of the Committee that are 

redundant, ineffective, or inefficient. 

Agency Programs 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

The Committee supports EPA efforts to protect public health and the environment, increase job 

opporttmities, aud promote community revitalization. The Committee supports adequate ftmding 

for EPA and state implementation of !ederal environmental laws. The Committee intends to 

conduct oversight to identify cost savings through efficiencies in EPA programs. 

Water lnfi·astrucwre 

The Committee supports programs for maintaining and enhancing drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure and urges that the budget resolution support robust funding for these important and 

successful programs. The national need for investment in water and wastewater infrastructure 

through the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs) and Drinking Water State Revolving 

Funds (DWSRFs), which are managed by EPA, continues to far outpace the amount of funding 

that is available from all levels of govemment. 

The Congressional Budget Ofttce (CBO) baseline for the Water Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act of2014 (WJFIA) is $20 million. The WlFIA program is a powerful tool for 

addressing water infrastructure needs. The Committee supports EPA WIFIA funding at the 

aUlhorized level for FY 2018: $45 million. However, because only 15 percent ofWIFIA funds 

support small projects found in rural areas, WIFIA funding cannot come at the expense of 

funding for state revolving loan funds. 

Other EPA Water Program Funding 

The Committee strongly supports fimding out of the State and Tribal Assistance Orant Account 

for stale nonpoint source reduction programs tmder Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and state 

water pollution control programs under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. 

2 
73 


26726.046

Toxic Substances Conlro/ 

The Committee supports implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 

21st Century Act (Public Law 114-182), which was enacted on June 22,2016. While the 

legislation imposes additional administrative costs on EPA, it authorizes EPA to collt-ct fees 

from chemical manufacturers and processors to offset these costs. We suppott funding to 

implement the legislation, which CBO estimates to require an increase of$17 million inl'Y 2018 

above baseline funding, and appropriation of all fees that are collected. 

Cleaning up Supe1jimd Toxic Waste Sites 

For PY 2018, the CBO baseline level of fimding for the Superfimd program is $1.122 billion. 

This funding supports EPA personnel who oversee private party cleanups, as well as removal 

and remedial actions that EPA itself carries out. The Committee is interested in actions the 

agency intends to take to increase the annual pace of cleanups with baseline funding. 

Cleaning up Brovmfields 

In 2002, Congress enacted the nation's brownllelds cleanup and redevelopment program, 

authorizing $200 million annually for site assessment and cleanup projects, of which $50 million 

annually is authorized for ce11ain state programs. Brownlields are areas where contamination 

issues inhibit redevelopment efforts. The federal brownlields program is one of EPA's most 

popular and successful programs. The CBO baseline for PY 2018 is $82 million for the Stale and 

Tribal Assistance Grants that fund brownfields projects. The baseline level of additional tlmding 

thai is provided as part of EPA's categorical grants for state programs is approximately $50 

million. The Committee strongly supports the brownfields program. 

Prevenring and Cleaning Up Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 

Leaking underground storage tanks are a threat to our nation's groundwater quality. This 

program is funded by the Leaking Underground Storage Tank fee of$0.001 per gallon that is 

part of the federal gas tax. These receipts are placed into the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

Trust Fund, which is anticipated to have a balance of $505 million at the beginning ofFY 2018. 

Fees should be used for the purpose for which they arc collected. The Committee supports the 

underground storage tank program and notes the importance of its state and tribal technical 

assistance and grants to protect underground sources of drinking water. 

Science and Technology 

The Committee suppmts EPA's Science and Technology programs. The programs as well as the 

associated laboratories should continue to be regularly reviewed and evaluated. The Committee 

believes that the federal government has a role to play in research and development efforts for a 

new generation of cost effective energy and environment technologies that solve our nation's 

greatest environmental chaUenges. These efforts should be based on sound science that is 

objective and tmnsparent. 

3 
74 


26726.047

Air and C/imale Programs 

The Majority has consistently opposed requests from the previous administration to increase 

funding levels for climate change programs. During the FY 2017 process, the previous 

administration requested $235 million to pursue greenhouse gas reductions and $1.3 billion for 

the Global Climate Change Initiative, including $750 million for the Green Climate Fund, which 

Congress did not authorize or support. The previous administration also requested $50.5 million 

for implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which is being challenged in federal court. The 

Supreme Court has issued an unprecedented stay against the Clean Power Plan, halting its 

implementation pending further federal judicial proceedings. The Majority believes that the FY 

2018 budget should significantly reduce funding for these and other climate programs 

established by the previous administration, and reallocate funding to other priorities that directly 

improve the environment and public health. 

The Majority believes EPA should refocus resources on implementing the primary goals of the 

Clean Air Act. Those goals are achieving healthier air, addressing radiation issues, and 

enhancing science and research in an open and transparent way. The EPA should also refocus 

resources to better assist states and other regulated entities with compliance activities in order to 

improve application of key air quality programs. 

The Minority believes climate change poses a significant risk to public health, the nation's 

economy and quality of life, and feels that significantly reducing carbon pollution is imperative. 

Accordingly, the Minority supports adequate funding for programs that cut carbon and other 

greenhouse gas pollution from stationary and mobile sources. This includes funding for 

voluntary programs at EPA, programs through the agency's international office, and state 

assistance programs. 

The Majority supports EPA's efforts to streamline consideration of air permits and 

implementation plans and to develop policies that create consistent application of agency 

enforcement across all regions. The Committee supports EPA's efforts to implement the 

Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recommendations focused on improving the 

agency's performance and the efllciency and effectiveness of its programs consistent with the 

GAO's June 14,2016 study entitled, "Status of GAO Recommendations to EPA." More 

generally, the Committee believes that EPA should make every effort to carefully analyze and 

account for the impacts that its regulatory decisions have on health and economic productivity at 

the local, state, regional, and national levels. 

The Committee supports funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), established 

pursuant to the 2005 Energy Policy Act. DERA is a voluntary program that incentivizes 

equipment and vehicle owners to retrofit existing heavy-duty diesel vehicles and engines with 

new technology, or replace engines and equipment through the disbursal of federal at1d state 

grants and rebates. Diesel engine retrofits are one of the most cost effective ways to obtain 

reductions in air pollution and to reduce the risk of premature death from particulate matter. The 

EPA reported in 2016 that funding requests for the DERA rebate program exceeded available 

funds by as much as 35 to 1 and requests for the DERA grant program exceeded available funds 

by 7 to 1. 

4 
75 


26726.048

The Committee supports a strong federal commitment to state and local air quality grant 

programs as a mechanism to assist state and local govemments in implementing and complying 

with federal environmental requirements. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration 

On December 4, 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) was signed 

into law. For the first time since 2005, Congress enacted long-term, five-year legislation to 

improve the nation's surface transportation infrastructure, including roads, bridges, transit 

systems, and rail transportation networks. This Act refonns and strengthens transportation 

programs, refocuses national priorities, ensures long-tenn certainty, provides more flexibility for 

states and local governments, streamlines project approval processes, and maintains a strong 

commitment to safety. 

The transportation needs of the United States demand a thnding level sufficient to sustain and 

strengthen the nation's surface transportation network, which is a backbone of the economy. The 

continuation of mandatory contract authority to fund highway prognuns is essential to provide 

predictable long-tetm funding and to give states the ability to enter into commitments that would 

obligate the federal goverrunent. 

A strong federal transportation program will improve America's quality of life and will help meet 

the needs of the nation's growing economy. Americans and businesses benefit every day from 

high-quality transportation infrastructure through shortened travel times, increased productivity, 

and improved safety. 

Failing to provide a safe, reliable, efficient transportation system creates disruptions that waste 

money, time, and fuel, and undermines the global competitiveness of America's businesses. 

According to the 2015 Urban Mobility Report issued by the Texas Transportation Institute, 

traffic congestion continues to worsen in American cities of all sizes, creating a $160 billion 

annual drain on the U.S. economy in the fonn of6.9 billion lost hours and 3. I billion gallons of 

wasted fuel. This represents an average financial burden of $960 per commuter, every year. 

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's report titled, "2015 Status of the Nation's 

Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance," only 36 percent of highway 

miles traveled are on roads that are in "good" condition and nearly 20 percent are on roads that 

are in "poor" condition. In addition, there are almost 58,800 bridges nationwide that are 

stmcturally deficient and in need of repair or replacement. 

The FAST Act will help ensure that states have the tools and the certainty to make new 

investments, fight growing congestion, and maintain the mobility of goods and services 

necessary to keep lhe economy growing. The FAST Act will help pave the way for the next 50 

years of American excellence in infrastructure and make America the best place to do business. 

The Committee supports implementation of the FAST Act and we support funding at the 

authorized levels. The two Continuing Resolutions that provide appropriations for the period of 

5 
76 


26726.049

October l, 2016 through April 28, 2017, provide for a total of $24.3 billion in obligation 

limitation for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This is nearly $600 million lower 

than the level at which FHW A would be operating for the same time-period under the FAST Act, 

which passed in 2015 with strong bipartisan support. The Committee supports funding levels 

authorized by the FAST Act, which provided for $43.266 billion in obligation limitation for 

FHWA in FY 2017 and $44.234 billion in FY 2018. The Continuing Resolution also funded the 

Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, referred to as FASTLANE grants, 

at a slightly lower level than authorized. The Committee supports funding for this program at 

the authorized level. 

The Minority notes that the Federal-Aid Highway Program has historically been funded 

primarily through revenues from the federal gas and diesel tax, which was last raised over twenty 

years ago, as well as revenue from taxes on truck sales, use, and tires. Revenue from these 

federal taxes was insufficient to meet the baseline funding levels provided in MAP-21 or the 

FAST Act, and the shortfall continues to grow. The FAST Act provided funding through 2020 

by transferring $70 billion from general revenues. According to a March 2016 estimate from the 

Congressional Budget Office, in 2020 the Highway Trust Fund will need $107 billion in 

additional ftmding in order to maintain current spending plus inflation from 2021 through 2026. 

U.S. Army Cm·ps of Engineers, Civil Works 

The Committee supports more robust funding for the Army Corps of Engineers at a level 

consistent with the Corps' capability. Investment in the civil works program of the Army Corps 

of Engineers offers many benefits. Congress recognized these benefits when it authorized 

construction of many important water resources projects in the Water Resources Refonn and 

Development Act (\VRRDA) of2014 (Public Law 113-449) and in the Water Infrastruch1re 

Improvements for the Nation Act of2016 (WifN) (Public Law 114-322). The nation's network 

of coastal ports and inland navigation systems is essential for the movement of raw and finished 

goods tluoughout the U.S. and overseas. Investing in these systems is necessary to ensure U.S. 

economic competitiveness in the global economy. The value of flood, hurricane and stonn 

damage reduction measures and the cost of inadequately investing in this infrastructure has been 

demonstrated repeatedly by multiple natural disasters in recent years. Benefits also accrue from 

unde11aking environmental restoration projects around the country, including in the Everglades, 

Upper Mississippi River, Missouri River, Coastal Louisiana, San Francisco Bay and countless 

other rivers and coasts. 

The FY 20 !8 CBO baseline for appropriations out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

(HMTF) is $1.278 billion, even though receipts from user fees and interest during FY 2017 are 

estimated to be $1.802 billion. In WRRDA 2014, Congress established a target level of 

appropriations from the HMTF tor FY 2018 of74 percent of the harbor maintenance taxes 

received in FY 2017, which would be $1.333 billion. The Committee recommends that the 

budget resolution include, within the context of overall increases in funding for the civil works 

program, increased cxpendihrres from the HMTF as specified in WRRDA 2014. 

Receipts into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund in FY 2017 are estimated to be $106 million. 

These receipts are collected from a tax on diesel fuel used on 12,000 miles of inland waterways, 

6 
77 


26726.050

which Congress increased in December 2014\o address the backlog of inland waterway projects. 

The Committee supports full use oflnland Waterways Trust Fund receipts for the purpose for 

which the tax is coHected, i.e., construction and major rehabilitation of locks and dams on the 

inland waterways. 

In Section 30!6 ofWRRDA 2014, Congress amended the National Levee Safety Program to 

require a one-time review of all levees in the inventory, to establish levee safety guidelines, to 

establish a levee hazard potential classification system, and to authorize technical assistance and 

materials to states, communities, and levee owners. In addition, the 2014 amendments authorized 

$30 million a year for the Corps to provide levee rehabilitation assistance to states, Indian tribes, 

and local goverrunents. This program has not yet received funding so it is not part of the CBO 

baseline. The Commitlee supports implementation at the authorized levels. 

WI PIA, discussed above, also authorized a secured Joan program for Corps of Engineers water 

resources infrastructure. Secured loans are a very cost effective way to provide federal assistance 

for this critical intrastructure. The Corps WIFIA program is not part of the CBO baseline. The 

Committee supports funding at the authorized level for FY 2018 of$45 million. 

The WIIN Act also authorized the Corps of Engineets to employ innovative approaches to 

address t1ooding, as well as maintaining its reservoirs. The Committee supports adequate 

funding to implement these authorities. 

Economic Development Administration (EDA) 

Funding at EDA supports a broad range of programs, including a public works program to 

empower distressed communities to revitalize, expand, and upgrade their infrastructure. EDA 

also provides teclmical assistance through Economic Adjustment Assistance, which enables 

regions to respond to sudden or long-term economic changes, natural disasters, or other major 

disruptions to their economy. 

The Committee supports funding EDA at an appropriate level to allow it to continue creating 

jobs and to increase economic vitality in local communities. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Committee supports the mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to work with 

others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. We support FWS functions such as the agency's management of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, fisheries programs, and endangered species programs. The 

Committee supports a robust level of funding in the FY 20 !8 budget for these important 

activities. 

The Majority believes that the FWS should focus more broadly on the three tenets of the 

Endangered Species Act: listing, conservation, and recovery. We are concerned that the FWS 

currently devotes too few resources to consultation with states and other stakeholders, and to full 

recovery of endangered and threatened species and their subsequent downgrading and delisting. 

7 
78 


26726.051

We are concerned that the FWS currently devotes too many resources to listing actions driven by 

litigation rather than science-based determinations. 

The Minority believes that changes inland use, industrial activities, and other activities 

accelerate the rate at which species are threatened and become extinct. The Minority requests 

that FWS li.mding levels be sufficient to enhance the agency's ability to protect and recover 

listed species and help state.s ensure that imperiled species are managed proactively to avoid the 

need for ESA listing. 

General Services Administ.-ation, Public Building Services 

The Committee is concerned by the General Services Administration's (GSA) reliance on 

long-term leases. Nonetheless, we recognize the GSA's efforts to be proactive in its leasing 

agenda by taking measures such as negotiating for more desirable terms from property 

owners, consolidating space to reduce rentable square feet, increasing housing efficiencies, 

and in some cases relocating into government-owned properties. 

The Committee intends to conduct oversight to identifY oppm1unities for efficiencies and 

cost reductions at GSA, including reducing the federal real estate footprint. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

The Committee believes nuclear energy makes vital contributions to our nation's energy 

mix. Given the economic challenges nuclear plants and uranium producers are facing, we are 

increasing our scrutiny of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) resources. In particular, 

the NRC has grown substantially over the last decade to accommodate projected development of 

new plants. This industry growth did not materialize and has in fact been replaced by a decrease 

in the size of our nuclear industry as evidenced by premature plant shutdowns. While the 

Majority appreciates the NRC's efforts to adjust the size of the agency, the M~ority believes 

additional reductions are needed to align the NRC's resources with its reduced workload. 

The Majority notes that under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the NRC has a mandate to review 

and issue a decision regarding the Department of Energy's construction authorization application 

to build a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The mandate was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which issued a writ of mandamus compelling the 

NRC to resume its review. The Majority notes that the Department of Energy has identified the 

lack of a disposal path for high-level radioactive waste as a reason for increased federal 

envirorm1entalliabilities. 

8 
79 


26726.052

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the programs within the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works. We look forward to working with you as you 

prepare the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2018. 

Sincerely, 

Ranking Member 

9 
80 


26726.053

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

OF STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

AASHID 

ST:\TE.\!ENT OP 

The American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials 

REG,\RDI~G 

The Use ofTIFIA and Innovative Financing in 

Improving Infrastructure to Enhance Safety, Mobility, 

and Economic Opportunity 

BEFORE THE 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the United States Senate 

0:'\f 

July 12, 2017 

American :\ssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

444 ~orth Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 249 

Washington, D.C., 20001 

202-624-5800 

\\t\V'w.transportation.org 

info@aashto.org 
81 


26726.054

INTRODt!CTIQN 

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is pleased to 

provide comments as part of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's hearing entitled 

"The Use ofTIFIA and innovative Financing in Improving Infrastructure to Enhance Safety, Mobility and 

Economic Opportunity." Representing all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 

AASHTO serves as a liaison between State departments of transportation (state DOTs) and tbe Federal 

government. AASHTO again thanks the Committee and Congress tor passage of the Fixing America's 

Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) in 2015. 

AASHTO welcomes the opportunity to comment and provide recommendations for the Committee to 

consider related to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and the 

changes made to it by the FAST Act. In addition to the statutory changes made by Congress. AASHTO 

welcomes the opportunity to comment on the US Department of Transportation's (USDOT) 

implementation ofTIFIA, and the USDOT's guidance tor awarding TIFIA credit assistance. AASHTO 

has been a strong supporter of the TlFIA program since its inception and continues to evaluate program 

policies and procedures on behalf of its members and other stakeholders. AASHTO provides these 

comments and recommendations from the perspective of improving access to TIFIA for all eligible 

project sponsors and maximizing the public benefit derived from program assistance. 

The FAST Act mandated the creation of a National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance 

Bureau (Bureau), branded as Build America Bureau by the USDOT. The Bureau, since its establishment, 

has been responsible for administering the application processes of US DOT credit programs including 

TIFIA and the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program. We recommend that 

the USDOT continue outreach activities to state DOTs, other project sponsors. and transportation 

stakeholders in order to carefully consider the many policy and technical aspects of enhancing the 

Bureau's impact. We believe the Bureau, as it continues to grow and evolve, should consolidate key 

US DOT functions and improve the effectiveness of the designated programs, including TIFIA-as 

intended by Congress. AASHTO recommends that the US DOT provide regular updates to this 

Committee and to Congress on the plans and activities of the Bureau and provide opportunities for 

stakeholders to comment on specific alternatives and issues that arise in that process. 

The FAST Act permits the use of certain Federal-aid funds to cover the subsidy and administrative costs 

of credit assistance (specifically Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funds. National Highway 

Performance Program funds and Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program funds). 

AASHTO appreciates that the FAST Act reduced the annual funding authorizations for the TIFIA 

program from the prior levels. But the $1.435 billion authorized during fiscal years 2016-2020 could 

fund approximately $20 billion ofTIFIA loans assuming an average subsidy rate of seven percent, which 

reflects the 14 to 1 leverage ratio of credit assistance to TIFIA funding cited in a recent US DOT Notice of 

Funding Availability (NOF A). That amount of credit assistance is almost as much as the $22.2 billion of 

total credit provided in the first 17 years of program history (fiscal years 1999-20 15). Thus the FAST 

Act's TIFIA authorization levels will support dramatic program growth (over historical levels) during the 

next five years. 

~tatement for the Record from the 

American ~\ssociat.ion of State High\vay and Transportation Officials (:\_-\SHTO) 
82 


26726.055

j3 

To further support the TIFIA program, Congress made two other important changes to TlFIA funding in 

the FAST Act. It eliminated the provision requiring an annual redistribution of excess (a percentage of 

unobligated and uncommitted) funding and authorized the use of certain Federal-aid funds to cover the 

subsidy and administrative costs of credit assistance, as stated in the NOF A. 

It is our understanding that because Congress enabled the US DOT to retain its significant accumulated 

balance of excess budget authority by eliminating the annual redistribution, the ability to use certain 

Federal-aid funds to pay for TIFIA loans is intended to be a "relief valve" to enable project sponsors to 

pursue TIFIA loans in future years if the TIFlA subsidy funding (including the accumulated balance) 

proves to be insufficient to address program demand prior to the next reauthorization. 

While the FAST Act included modest funding increases for Federal-aid highway programs, infrastructure 

needs still far outpace resources available to state DOTs. AASHTO believes that encouraging (or 

requiring) state DOTs to utilize their federal-aid funds to pay for TIFIA loans while ample TIFIA subsidy 

funding remains available is neither efficient nor equitable. That would result in states seeking TIFIA 

loans having to reallocate resources from their regular program accounts to the state DOT's TIFIA 

account. It also would have the effect of reallocating TIFIA program funding tram those state-sponsored 

projects to other projects, effectively cross-subsidizing other TIFIA projects with the states' federal-aid 

funding. 

AASHTO believes that the decision to utilize Federal-aid funding in lieu of or in conjunction with TIFIA 

subsidy funding to pay for credit assistance should be a decision of the project sponsor. Many state and 

local sponsors ofTIFIA-assisted projects provide significant public subsidies to help finance their 

projects. It is possible that some might consider utilizing federal-aid funding to help pay for loan subsidy 

costs as part of their public subsidies. We agree that the US DOT and project sponsors should evaluate 

such possibilities. But project sponsors should not be pressured to pay for TIFIA loans when TIFIA 

funding provided by Congress for that specific purpose is available. In the event of a TIFIA program 

funding shortfall in a future year, a project sponsor with access to federal-aid funding authorized to pay 

for credit assistance can decide whether to use its funding for that purpose or wait for additional subsidy 

funding to be provided by Congress (or decide to finance its project without TIFIA credit assistance). 

J!:LIGJBLE PROJECTS 

AASHTO supports the FAST Act modifications intended to improve access to TIFIA assistance. Notable 

examples of these include: accommodations for rural infrastructure projects, such as a lower minimum 

eligible cost threshold and a reduced interest rate; and codification of the practice of allowing availability 

payments made by a state pursuant to a public-private partnership (P3) concession to be eligible for 

Federal-aid reimbursement. In addition, AASHTO recommends the US DOT to increase TIFIA project 

cost share to up to 49 percent. 

Part of the FAST Act"s enhanced focus on rural projects includes the ability to use a TIFIA loan to 

capitalize a rural projects fund within a State Infrastructure Bank (SIB). The SIB would be responsible 

for navigating the TIFIA application process, including deciding how to secure its TIFIA capitalization 

loan in a manner that satisfies the US DOT's creditworthiness standards. Upon approval and receipt of the 

loan commitment from the US DOT, the SIB would be responsible for making loans to rural projects 

eligible for SIB assistance under 23 U.S.C. 610. We wish to emphasize that in addition to lower cost 

thresholds and interest rates, the rural project provisions ofTIFIA (as modified by the FAST Act) also are 

intended to improve access by streamlining the application process tor such projects-to the extent they 

satisfy criteria established by the FAST Act. We believe that many rural projects (including rural projects 

Statement for the Record from the 

.-\merican .\ssociation of State H1g:hway and Transportation Officials (.-\.-\SHTO) 
83 


26726.056

funds) will satisfy the criteria and should be accommodated by the streamlined application process the 

US DOT is required to develop under the FAST Act. 

14 

Another significant eligibility provision of the FAST Act relates to transit-oriented development (TOD) 

projects. While not in the direct jurisdiction of this Committee, we would like to raise an issue that may 

impact the overall TIFIA program. 

The new TOD component of the definition of"Project" in the TIFIA statute appears to be a significant 

expansion of program eligibility. While the definition begins with "public infrastructure," it includes 

'·capital project described in 49 U.S. C. 5302(3)(G)(v), and related infrastructure." We note that the 

definition of a capital project in section 5302(3)(0) includes "a joint development improvement that 

enhances economic development or incorporates private investment, such as commercial and residential 

development" and that it may include, among other things, "construction of space for commercial uses." 

Furthermore, the Federal Transit Administration (FT A), in its "Notice of FT A Transit Program Changes, 

Authorized Funding Levels and Implementation of Federal Public Transportation Law as Amended by the 

(FAST) Act and FT A Fiscal Year 2016 Apportionments. Allocations, Program Information and Interim 

Guidance," published in the Federal Register on February 16,2016 (VoL 81, No. 30, Part II), states under 

the section describing amendments to the definition of a "Capital Project'' that: 

The construction of space for commercial uses. including the outfitting of commercial space is now an 

eligible expense as a part of a joint development project. Language was removed stating that construction 

of space for commercial uses docs not include outlitting of commercial space (other than intercity bus 

station or terminal) or a part of a public facility not related to public transportation. 

Since TIFIA eligibility generally extends to capital projects as defined in section 5302 and specifically 

includes joint development improvements that may include construction of space for commercial uses, we 

therefore conclude that "public infrastructure" for purposes of satisfying the definition of an eligible 

TIFIA project now accommodates both the construction and the outfitting of commercial space as long as 

such commercial space is related physically or functionally to public transportation and meets the other 

requirements of section 5302. We believe this may have major implications for project sponsors seeking 

to finance TOD projects involving transit facilities, rail stations, bus stations and intermodal facilities. 

Congress may wish to revisit this issue and clarify the extent of this significant TOD project eligibility as 

provided by the FAST Act. 

Finally, under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act, Congress explicitly 

increased the allowable project costs that could be covered under TlFIA assistance to 49 percent. 

However, as a matter of policy, the US DOT has capped TIFlA project cost share at 33 percent. AASHTO 

recommends increasing TJFJA cost share to the statutory maximum especially given the aforementioned 

balance in TIFIA subsidy funding that currently exists. 

APPLICATION PROCESS 

As we previously noted, the FAST Act requires the US DOT Secretary to "make available an expedited 

application process or processes available at the request of entities seeking secured loans under the T!FIA 

program that use a set or sets of conventional terms" within 180 days of the date of enactment. AASHTO 

supports this requirement, as many sponsors--especially those advancing smaller projects-have 

commented on the often lengthy and uncertain process for obtaining credit assistance from the US DOT. 

We agree with the US DOT's approach for satisfying this requirement by refining the existing TIFIA term 

sheet and the two loan agreement templates. We emphasize that many rural projects (including SIB rural 

projects funds) should qualify for a streamlined process because of their smaller size (by definition not 

more than $100 million) and the nature of their pledged security (rrequently tax-backed or other sources 

Statement for the Record from the 

American .\ssociation of State Highway and Transportarion Officials (.-\...\SHTO) 
84 

Æ 


26726.057

!5 

besides project-generated revenues). AASHTO encourages the US DOT to develop a simpler, faster and 

more reliable application process for all project sponsors but especially for the smaller projects with 

simpler terms. This may be an area that requires additional Congressional action in subsequent 

legislation. 

Finally, we note that it has been 16 years since the TIFIA regulations have been updated. The only two 

TIFJA rules were promulgated in 1999 and 2000- both addressing the initial statutory language enacted 

by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century (TEA-21) in 1998. Both the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21" Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012 and the FAST Act in 2015 made significant changes 

to the TIFIA program affecting project eligibility, credit standards, selection criteria, the application 

process and program funding. While the TIFIA Program Guide is a valuable tool that should be updated 

regularly. AASHTO believes that the US DOT needs to update the TIFIA regulations through the proper 

public notice and comment rulemaking procedure. The TlFlA program is a major tool for federal 

assistance and should not be managed primarily by program guides and unwritten policies. Especially as 

TIFIA and other major program functions get absorbed into or managed by the new Bureau, the US DOT 

should provide ample notice. invite public comment, and set forth clearly how the Bureau will coordinate 

with other USDOT agencies and offices and manage the important responsibilities assigned to it by 

Congress through the FAST Act. This is an area that will require oversight from this Committee and the 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

C:ONC.LUSlON 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations related to the TlFIA 

program. We at AASHTO stand ready to assist you as you exercise oversight of this important financing 

program and look to reauthorize it in 2020. 

Statement for the Record from the 

~\merican ~-\ssociation of:,-\tatc High\vay and Transportation Officials (~-\...\SHTO)