U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 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

52–161 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–426 

THE FUTURE OF NATIONAL SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

AND MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 28, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Chief of Staff 

JAMES REID, Deputy Chief of Staff 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT 

MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, 

Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking 

Member 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 28, 2009 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV submitted by Hon. 

Frank R. Lautenberg .................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 8 

Statement of Senator Johanns ............................................................................... 8 

Statement of Senator Warner ................................................................................. 9 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Statement of Senator Isakson ................................................................................. 28 

WITNESSES

Hon. Ray LaHood, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Steve Heminger, Member, National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission ...................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Ned S. Holmes, Texas Transportation Commissioner, and Chairman, Transportation Transformation Group ......................................................................... 35 

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

James Corless, Director, Transportation for America .......................................... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Anne P. Canby, President, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership ............. 43 

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

APPENDIX

American Society of Civil Engineers, prepared statement ................................... 61 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Ray LaHood by: 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 68 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 69 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 71 

Response to written questions submitted to Steve Heminger by: 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 74 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 74 

Response to written questions submitted to Ned S. Holmes by: 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 75 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 75 

Response to written questions submitted to James Corless by: 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 76 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 77 

Response to written questions submitted to Anne Canby by: 

Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg ............................................................................... 77 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 79 

(1) 

THE FUTURE OF NATIONAL SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION POLICY 

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND

MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND

SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The Committee will come to order. 

First, I thank everyone who is here for being here with us today. 

I am sorry to convey the news that Senator Rockefeller has been 

injured and he is not ready to come back. It is said that he is in 

good shape but it will take a while for some bone-healing to be in 

order. He asks that his statement be included in the record, and 

I will include the statement in the record, unless there are any objections. That will be the first document in this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

I am excited about today’s hearing and regret that I cannot be in attendance. 

Our national surface transportation system provides the physical foundation for 

our economy, allowing people and goods to move throughout the country. Unfortunately, investment has not kept up with demand in the system over the past few 

decades. As a result, our physical infrastructure is in disrepair, congestion plagues 

our highways, ports, and railroads, and limited financial resources are available to 

fix the broken system. In addition, the transportation sector continues to be the 

largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the United States. 

The upcoming reauthorization of Federal surface transportation programs is a 

prime opportunity to prepare our transportation system for 21st Century demands. 

With an additional 120 million people in the country expected by 2050, significant 

changes must be made to make sure movement remains accessible, efficient, and affordable. 

In order to correct our existing shortcomings and prepare our system for the next 

generation of users, we must set far-reaching goals and objectives that span across 

individual modes and develop reliable standards and methods for attaining them. 

We must take a holistic approach to solving our transportation challenges, especially furthering the connection to our rural communities, in order to remain competitive in a global economy, reduce the consequences of climate change, and maintain safety and efficiency in our daily lives. 

2 

I recognize the hard work Senator Lautenberg has done to make intercity passenger rail a more viable transportation alternative throughout the country, and 

look forward to working with him closely to prepare our entire transportation system for the next 50 years. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to be here with our colleagues, Senator Thune from South Dakota and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from the great State of Texas, a great Senator representing the great state. Now, have I done enough? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to be here with Senator 

Hutchison and Senator Thune. 

Today in America we are being overtaken by congestion. Our surface transportation is wallowing in all kinds of difficult things. 

Travelers and shippers experience crippling delays on our highways and our skyways. Congestion is so bad that you almost cannot go anyplace where there is a significant roadbed that does not 

have more traffic by far than it used to have. If you look just at 

2007, it was one of the worst years on record for flight delays, more 

than one in four flights was late. I think I took only the late ones. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Just as an example, the other day I flew 

up to LaGuardia Airport which is near my house in New Jersey, 

and I got in an airplane, a rather new airplane. They closed the 

door. The pilot gave us his quick review and said the flight time 

would be about 36 minutes and expected that we would have an 

on-time departure. And within a couple of minutes, he said, oh, and 

I just got news that we have a 2-hour ground delay. A 2-hour 

ground delay for a 36-minute flight does not seem to make sense. 

Well, we have seen that in almost every place that there is any volume of flight traffic. 

In 2008, while the number of flight delays went down slightly, 

the length of those delays went up. And safety is an even more important concern. Last year more than 37,000 men, women, and 

children lost their lives on our roads. We all know the impact that 

America’s vehicles are having on global warming. To overcome 

these challenges, we need a national transportation policy that will 

reduce delays, improve safety, create jobs, and reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions, as well as reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

This year Congress will reauthorize our Nation’s surface transportation programs. In the past, this legislation has been more 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘highway bill,’’ but highways alone 

cannot meet the transportation needs of the future. The reality is 

that Congress will be producing a surface transportation bill, a bill 

that recognizes the critical role of mass transit and passenger and 

freight rail service. Most mass transit reduces our dependence on 

foreign oil. It relieves stress and congestion on our already overburdened roads and bridges and saves commuters money on gas and 

other costs associated with traveling by car. 

In my State of New Jersey, we are ready. The term ‘‘shovel 

ready’’ is generally used. Mr. Secretary—and I will introduce you 

in just a minute, you and I have had a running debate about how 

soon we are going to get going on these things. So ‘‘shovel ready’’ 

seems to be the easiest way to convey our readiness to get to work. 

Well, we are ready to build a new Hudson River rail tunnel that 

3 

will create 6,000 construction jobs a year and remove 22,000 cars 

from the roads each day. And like transit, passenger rail reduces 

not only congestion, but toxic emissions and fuel consumption. 

We took the first step toward revitalizing passenger rail last year 

when an Amtrak bill that I was fortunate to author, was signed 

into law. Amtrak’s record ridership shows that Americans crave a 

travel option that is more convenient, less hassle than a car or a 

plane. And I am pleased that President Obama shares my commitment to passenger rail. More than $9 billion for Amtrak and highspeed rail was provided in the economic recovery law, which was 

a bold step by the President. 

But we need to do more. Between now and 2050, America’s population is expected to reach 420 million people. By the way, I remind 

everyone that in 1970, the American population was 200 million 

people. So we are headed to building the world’s biggest beehive. 

In order to meet the demands of our Nation’s travelers, keep our 

businesses competitive in the world’s economy, and create jobs, we 

need to establish a bold vision for a national surface transportation 

system. We need to make our system better not only for ourselves, 

but for the generations yet to come. And I look forward to hearing 

from today’s witnesses about how we can make that happen. 

And I would ask Senator Thune if he has an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding today’s hearing on the future of national surface transportation 

policy. I am very pleased to be able to serve as the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you, 

Mr. Chairman, as well as with the Senator from Texas and the 

Senator from West Virginia and many other members of this Committee as we focus on the pressing surface transportation issues 

that are facing our country. 

This is our Subcommittee’s first hearing, and I want to extend 

a warm welcome to the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, 

a former colleague from the House days, who is joining us today 

as our first witness. I think his presence is reflective of the importance of the transportation agenda that is ahead of us, and I look 

forward to working with him as we consider an array of issues involved with reauthorizing our Nation’s surface transportation programs which expire, I might add, in September. 

Like many members of the Committee, I represent a state that 

is mostly rural. Rural states face unique challenges when it comes 

to transportation, while playing a crucial role in transport of goods 

and people. South Dakota is a state that is very large in size and 

has an extensive highway network, but a low population density. 

It also contains large tracts of Federal lands. These factors make 

it very difficult for states like mine to maintain and provide for a 

modern national transportation system. 

Of course, states in our area of the country are a vital part of 

our national transportation system, our highways serve as connectors for traffic and commerce that benefit citizens from other 

States. In fact, more than two-thirds of the truck traffic on highways in South Dakota neither begins nor terminates in the State. 

4 

Our roads also provide access to many of the Nation’s great national parks and are essential in transporting agricultural goods to 

the market. So there is a real national interest in facilitating interstate commerce mobility that requires good highways in, and connecting across, rural states. 

In order to meet our national transportation needs, it is essential 

that we maintain the viability of the Highway Trust Fund. While 

some have suggested that the Trust Fund be eliminated or significantly altered, I feel this is unwise and would have a particularly 

negative effect on large rural states such as mine and, in turn, 

travelers throughout the country. 

For example, there are about 19 people per lane-mile of Federal 

aid highways in South Dakota while the national average is about 

128 people per lane-mile. Furthermore, our per capita contribution 

to the Highway Trust Fund of $150 per person exceeds the national 

average of only $109 per person. 

So clearly, there is a lot more to consider than simply coining one 

state as ‘‘donee’’ and another state as ‘‘donor.’’ It is far more complicated and would result in enormous ramifications to the transportation system as we know it if we make knee-jerk changes to 

the distribution from the Highway Trust Fund without considering 

the far-reaching implications to the traveling public. 

Finally, I would like to talk briefly about the Build America 

Bonds Act of 2009, which I have joined in sponsoring with Senators 

Wyden, Wicker, Collins, and Klobuchar. Our legislation would provide $50 billion in new funding for transportation projects such as 

roads, bridges, transit, rails, and ports. In turn, Build America 

Bonds would create jobs for economic recovery and ultimately help 

to save lives by making needed improvements to our Nation’s 

transportation system. 

While our legislation is not a substitute for fixing the Highway 

Trust Fund, it would provide valuable supplemental funding for 

transportation projects. I hope that the Senate will seriously consider this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you. I look forward to hearing from 

today’s witnesses and want to welcome Secretary LaHood to our 

first committee hearing. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What we are going to have is 5-minute 

opening statements for those who would like to make them, and I 

now call on Senator Pryor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Chairman, thank you, but I will just submit 

mine for the record. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Pryor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS

I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member and other members of this 

Subcommittee for holding this important hearing today to discuss the future of national surface transportation policy. 

I look forward to working with all members of this Committee and our witnesses 

in the coming weeks and months to address the many issues and needs of our Nation’s surface transportation system. 

5 

As we work to reauthorize the Federal surface transportation programs enacted 

as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), we will face a wide range of issues that will 

largely depend on funding. 

The largest challenges facing Congress in this reauthorization process will rest in 

developing policy to provide adequate funding and streamline existing programs to 

better meet the critical surface transportation needs of our country. 

I think this hearing provides an excellent opportunity for our Subcommittee to 

hear from an excellent panel of witnesses. I hope in this hearing the Subcommittee 

will learn more about the issues and needs of our transportation system and explore 

the potential solutions for providing our citizens with a surface transportation system that matches today’s demands and plans for future needs. 

I especially look forward to hearing from Secretary LaHood as he’ll discuss the 

Administration’s vision for the future of surface transportation and provide an update on the progress made on infrastructure investments provided in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

Again, I thank the witnesses and members for participating today. I expect this 

to be a very productive hearing. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator Hutchison? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do thank you 

for holding this hearing today. It is the first hearing of this Committee to consider the many important issues we do confront in reauthorizing our Nation’s surface transportation programs which expire in September. 

I believe there is a proper Federal role in promoting the safety 

and security of our national transportation system, and I hope this 

hearing marks the beginning of a thorough debate on this issue. It 

is my hope that we can together reform the Federal role in a manner that will better meet our States’ transportation priorities. 

I want to welcome, obviously, Secretary LaHood and also Ned 

Holmes, who will be on the second panel, who serves on the Texas 

Transportation Commission and is Chairman of the Transportation 

Transformation Group. 

It has been more than 50 years since President Eisenhower 

signed legislation to create the interstate system, and construction 

on the final span of national highway was finished nearly 20 years 

ago. Yet, highway users in all 50 states are still paying into the 

national highway system through a formula designed around the 

now obsolete purpose of completing the interstate system. Many of 

those states, including Texas, are forced to bear an unfair burden 

through the current funding scheme whereby a far greater portion 

of our gas tax dollars are being diverted away from critical transportation needs in our State. 

In my view, the existing funding formula is no longer serving the 

best interests of each state and the traveling public. Our transportation mission should evolve to maintaining and improving this 

valuable infrastructure. We must add highway capacity in areas 

where population and commercial growth is exceeding what our infrastructure can withstand. Our funding structure must change to 

meet these shifting priorities. 

That is why today I am introducing the Highway Fairness and 

Reform Act of 2009, along with Senators Martinez, Cornyn, and 

Kyl. Our bill would give states the choice to opt out of the Federal 

6 

highway program and instead be rebated Federal fuel taxes collected within our borders. It would cut the overwhelming majority 

of Federal strings attached but would require that rebated taxes be 

spent on surface transportation projects. This option would allow 

all states to receive a more equitable distribution of gas tax dollars 

while ensuring funds are directed toward improving transportation 

in the high-growth areas within those states. 

The policy of revenue-sharing was instituted in 1956 because 

some states with a lot of land mass but lower populations were unable to generate enough revenue to build the roads comprising a 

truly national highway system. Even though the highway system 

is complete, the current formula continues to send some states excess revenues, while the roads and residents of donor states, those 

paying in more than they are receiving back, are short-changed. In 

short, the gas tax revenues of these states like Texas, Arizona, 

Florida, Ohio, and more could be spent on bike trails in Vermont 

or bridges in Madison County rather than on crumbling or congested highways in Miami or Cincinnati. 

I also think that as we address the proper Federal role in transportation, we need to alleviate states from the unnecessary burdens 

that have accumulated over the years. For example, of the Federal 

funding that states do receive, there are no fewer than 108 federally mandated programs that must be factored into decisions on 

how the money will be spent. Once the state decides to begin a 

transportation project, using some of its Federal highway funding, 

it takes an estimated 12 to 15 years of bureaucratic process before 

the state can even break ground. This level of Federal micromanagement fails to acknowledge that our state and local leaders 

are best positioned to carry out the present transportation mission 

which should be maintenance and improvement. 

My legislation is designed to ensure interstate equity and to 

allow states to efficiently maintain and improve their highways 

while removing unnecessary regulatory burdens. Opt-out states 

would be required to maintain their interstate highway system but 

could determine which Federal programmatic requirements could 

be eliminated. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing. I think 

this is the time to start this debate, and I hope that we can come 

to agreement on what is equitable for all of our states, not just 

some. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the Future of Surface 

Transportation Financing. This is the Committee’s first hearing to consider the 

many important issues we confront in reauthorizing our Nation’s surface transportation programs, which expire in September. I believe there is a proper Federal role 

in promoting the safety and security of our national transportation system, and I 

hope this hearing will mark the beginning of a thorough debate on this important 

issue. It is my hope that together we can reform the Federal role in a manner that 

will better meet our states’ transportation priorities—a goal we all share. 

I want to welcome today’s witnesses, and I am pleased that not only are we joined 

by the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, but also by Ned Holmes, who 

serves on the Texas Transportation Commission and is Chairman of the Transportation Transformation Group. I know each of the witnesses will provide us with useVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 May 21, 2010 Jkt 052161 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52161.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
7 

ful insights into the many transportation challenges facing our country and how we 

may best secure adequate funding among competing demands. 

It has been more than 50 years since President Eisenhower signed legislation to 

create the Interstate System, and construction on the final span of national highway 

was finished nearly 20 years ago. Yet, highway users in all 50 states are still paying 

into the national highway system through a formula designed around the now-obsolete purpose of completing the Interstate System. And, many of those states, including Texas, are forced to bear an unfair burden through the current funding scheme, 

whereby a far greater portion of our gas tax dollars are being diverted away from 

critical transportation needs in our state. 

In my view, the existing funding formula is no longer serving the best interests 

of each state and the traveling public. Our transportation mission should evolve to 

maintaining and improving this valuable infrastructure. We must add highway capacity in areas where population and commercial growth is exceeding what our infrastructure can withstand. Likewise, our funding structure must change to meet 

these shifting priorities. 

That is why today, I am introducing the Highway Fairness and Reform Act of 

2009, along with Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and Martinez. Our bill would give states 

the choice to opt-out of the Federal highway program and instead be rebated Federal fuel taxes collected within their borders. It would cut the overwhelming majority of Federal strings attached, but would require that rebated taxes be spent on 

surface transportation projects. This option would allow all states to receive a more 

equitable distribution of gas tax dollars, while ensuring funds are directed toward 

improving transportation in the high-growth areas within those states. 

The policy of revenue sharing was instituted in 1956 because some states with 

a lot if land mass but lower populations were unable to generate enough revenue 

to build the roads comprising a truly national highway system. Even though the 

highway system is complete, the current formula continues to send some states excess revenues while the roads and residents of ‘‘donor states,’’ those paying in more 

than they are receiving back, are shortchanged. In short, the gas tax revenues of 

these states like Texas, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and more could well be spent on the 

bridges of Madison County or bike trails in Vermont, rather than on crumbling or 

congested highways in Miami or Cincinnati. 

I also think that as we address the proper Federal role in transportation, we need 

to alleviate states from the unnecessary burdens that have accumulated over the 

years. or example, of the Federal funding that states do receive, there are no fewer 

than 108 federally mandated programs that must be factored into decisions on how 

the money ill be spent. And once a state decides to begin a transportation project 

using some of its Federal highway funding, it takes an estimated 12 to 15 years of 

bureaucratic process before a state can even break ground. This level of Federal 

micromanagement fails to acknowledge that our state and local leaders are best positioned to carry out the present transportation mission: maintenance and improvement. 

Our legislation is designed to ensure interstate equity and to allow states to most 

efficiently maintain and improve their highways, while removing unnecessary regulatory burdens. Opt-out states would be required to maintain their Interstate Highway System, but could determine which Federal programmatic requirements, such 

as highway enhancements and design standards, would be continued. To ensure 

that our Nation’s roads are safe for all American motorists, safety provisions under 

the Federal highway program, like the minimum drinking age, would continue to 

fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Transportation Secretary. 

The Federal highway system is one of our Nation’s greatest cultural and economic 

advantages, and it must be maintained for the prosperity of future generations. 

However, its preservation must not cost some Americans more than others, nor be 

micromanaged by those who are least equipped to know the intricacies of existing 

congestion and traffic-flow issues. No state should be forced to send its gasoline 

taxes to Washington and get it back with mounds of regulations and a cut in the 

mound returned. 

I thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing to begin our Committee’s work on reauthorization, and I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Going from side to side, I would call now on Senator Begich for 

5 minutes, please. 

8 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

going to limit my statement and just get into the Q and A at some 

point here, but I just want to say thank you, Mr. Secretary, for 

being here. 

I do have some questions regarding specifically kind of Alaskan 

issues. I beg to differ with the Senator from Texas in regards to 

the needs when 52 percent of our state is still owned by the Federal Government through the Department of the Interior and the 

need that we have in regards to infrastructure and roads. But I 

will ask you some specific questions on that. 

Along with that, I am going to be interested in having additional 

conversation regarding, as a former mayor, how you see local governments and the role they can play in regards to our highway system. 

And then the third is, I believe, in one part of what the Senator 

from Texas talked about regarding the regulatory process of the 

Federal Government is so burdensome and very costly to the highway system that I want to put on the table an idea in regards to 

where there might be states or local communities that have had 

very good, solid reputations with maybe the EPA, the Corps, Federal Highway, whatever those many different regulatory bodies are, 

that there is a way to streamline those for doing good behavior because we do not want to reward the ones that do poorly designed 

roads and end up paying for it later, environmentally or otherwise, 

but in order to streamline it. 

And there are several examples I can give you. In Anchorage, 

Alaska we did not use Federal money. We used State money, in 

some of our urban areas where we went through wetlands and 

other areas, did great mitigation. The project is fantastic. The environmental community supports it. But because of what we did, we 

shaved probably 2 years off the project and almost $2.5 million in 

process. 

I think the goal is to get these projects done but do them in the 

right way. And I think there are ways to maybe modify these Federal regulations to allow more flexibility for those well-performing 

communities, again not rewarding the bad ones because those are 

the folks that we have got to watch out for, but well-performing 

and recognizing very sensitive environmental issues that may be in 

the new development of especially urban roads. 

So I just want to kind of put that on there again. I am looking 

forward to the Q and A and have some back and forth. Thank you 

very much. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator Johanns? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

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

Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. 

I will speak very, very briefly. There are just two or three things 

that I did want to highlight, however. 

9 

Of course, I come from a state that is a mix of urban centers and 

very, very rural areas. In our State, our railroads are very important. In fact, we are the home of Union Pacific in Omaha. Railroads 

in Nebraska move a lot of freight. They do not move a lot of passengers. The state is just not set up for that kind of railroad transportation. 

So, when we look at surface transportation, we really concentrate 

and focus on not just the railroads but roads and bridges. That is 

our lifeblood. That is our lifeline between farm and ranch to market. So, I am very, very anxious to hear how we work together to 

provide the funding necessary to do those kinds of projects. 

In a state like Nebraska, we also have some significant issues because if you look just at traffic count, you would never build a road 

in some parts of the state, but it is so much more than traffic 

count. It is moving people to critical services, to market their products. It really, again, is the lifeblood of that community to have a 

good road system and good bridges. 

I also want to lend my support to some comments made by Senator Begich relative to the regulatory process. As a former county 

commissioner, mayor, and governor, I can tell you we would tear 

our hair out just in terms of the slowness of the process. Some of 

that is tied up in very, very difficult environmental issues. Roads 

and bridges do cross rivers and streams and sensitive environmental areas, but it does add significant cost to get the project 

done. 

So, Mr. Secretary, again I really appreciate your being here, look 

forward to working with you, anxious to hear what you have to say. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator Warner? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also say 

greetings to the Secretary. 

I was hoping, as Senator Johanns went through that list of 

things, you would not forget the Governor component because as a 

former Governor grappling with the Federal transportation funds 

or lack thereof is something that continues to stymie us. And many 

in the audience who live in the greater Washington area know the 

challenges we have had to confront. 

One of the things I am anxious to hear—and I think Senator 

Hutchison raised some of this in terms of the old formulas. I really 

do hope we take this opportunity to think beyond the silos within 

your Department. I know when you first came before us for your 

confirmation, you, I think very appropriately, pointed out you were 

willing to take a fresh look at how we look at all of our various 

aspects of surface transportation. 

I, for one, personally believe that a much greater emphasis on 

multimodal analysis is terribly important. I, for one, believe that 

many of our old VMT and other formulas need to be reexamined 

and, prior to my tenure, I worked closely with the bipartisan policy 

group who had a transportation initiative that I think has done 

some quite good work about different types of criteria we ought to 

10 

be using from issues, as my colleagues have mentioned, in terms 

of productivity, energy usage, safety, a whole host of criteria beyond just the amount of fuel consumed or vehicle miles traveled. 

So I, like my colleagues, am anxious to work with you going forward. 

Particularly for all of us who live in the greater Washington 

area, if there is ever a case of how transportation has not worked 

because of the failure of the jurisdictions to work together, because 

of the failure to have an adequate planning process, the failure to 

have a real focus on multimodalism, as well as the fact of inadequate funding sources, greater Washington ought to be the case 

study. It sure would be great if we could all agree that this ought 

to be the definition of how we get it right in the 21st century. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the Secretary’s comments. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Senator Warner. 

Senator Cantwell? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to add 

my statement to the record. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you for that wonderful contribution. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

Chairman Lautenberg, thank you for holding this important hearing. 

As we prepare for the upcoming highway bill reauthorization, I think it is important for the Subcommittee to take a step back and look at the goals for our national 

surface transportation system and consider what the appropriate Federal role is. 

I believe the overall goal of our surface transportation system is to move people 

and goods, efficiently, safely, and with the smallest environmental impact as possible. Reducing congestion is essential to meeting the overall goal. 

We must lessen the environmental impact of our surface transportation system 

in the air, on water, and on land. The transportation sector is the second largest 

source of greenhouse gas emissions after utilities. Cars stuck in stop-and-go traffic 

release considerable amounts of greenhouse gases and pollutants. 

We need to ensure there are alternative modes available to move people—transit 

systems, intercity rail, bicycle paths, and sidewalks—and in Washington State, a 

sustainable ferry system. We also need to integrate plug-in hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles, along with their corresponding infrastructure, into our transportation planning and programs. Back home, a number of new parking garages are 

already setting aside parking places for recharging batteries. But we need to approach this on a national scale. 

In Washington State, we are attempting to reduce contaminated run off from 

highways and roads because it is a primary source of pollution for our state’s 

streams, rivers, and the Puget Sound. The more braking in stop-and-go traffic, the 

more copper comes off brakes pads and ultimately into Puget Sound. Yet another 

good reason for reducing road congestion. 

Improving safety will also reduce congestion. Roadway incidents and the subsequent rubbernecking are one of the leading causes of congestion. 

The efficient movement of people and freight increasingly relies on making multimodal connections. At the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, containers are unloaded 

from ships arriving from overseas. Most of these containers get placed on rail, some 

placed on trucks for direct shipments, some placed on trucks heading to local warehouses, and some placed on ships for delivery at other points nearby along the coast. 

To improve freight mobility, it is important that we reduce congestion on these key 

freight transportation corridors. Farmers in my state also rely on an integrated surface transportation system that includes trucks, rail, and barges to get their produce 

11 

to market. The next surface transportation bill should make improving freight mobility as one of its guiding principles. 

So what is the appropriate Federal role in the transportation system? Let me 

start with the obvious ones. 

First, the Federal Government has a responsibility to maintain and improve the 

Interstate Highway System. The Interstate highways represent slightly more than 

1 percent of the Nation’s highway miles, but carries approximately one quarter of 

U.S. highway traffic and three quarters of long-haul track traffic. 

Second, the Federal Government needs to ensure the condition of the roads connecting to Federal and tribal lands. 

Third, the government must help reduce congestion by adding capacity, supporting alternative modes of transportation, and providing incentives for state and 

local governments to use traffic management tools such as congestion pricing to reduce traffic. 

Then there is improving highway safety—in both urban areas, as well as the rural 

two lane road—protecting the environment, and supporting projects that improve 

freight mobility. 

What actions are required? 

For starters, it will require continuous planning and coordination by stakeholders 

at all levels of government. 

It will require us to supplement our current system for financing surface transportation, which is done today by and large through a fuel tax. We need to keep all 

options on the table. 

It will require a willingness to work through a number of practical issues surrounding congestion pricing. 

It will require a willingness to take risks and insert new technologies such as intelligent transportation systems. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Udall? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to 

put my statement in the record and then just touch on a couple of 

points that I hope Secretary LaHood touches in his testimony. 

You have talked a lot, I think, about rural transportation and livability in rural communities. So, I hope you can talk a little bit 

about that initiative, Secretary LaHood. I know that you are new 

on the job. 

One of the other areas that I am very interested in, though, is 

drinking and driving and bringing down the fatality rate. I wonder 

what kind of new thinking is going on within the Department to 

keep pushing this in terms of lowering those numbers. My State 

of New Mexico is looking at things like ignition locks, all sorts of 

a variety of different things in order to keep people from getting 

back in cars. I do not know whether those have been looked at at 

the Federal level, but I would be very interested in your thoughts 

on that. 

And then railroad safety. You say in your testimony that freight 

and passenger transportation is expected to be increased two and 

a half times over the next 40 years. And I am wondering what the 

balance is going to be. Are you pushing more on passenger, as Senator Johanns talked about, more freight? I hope that we move like 

our Governor, Governor Richardson, did to push commuter rail especially in the big areas. 

Your transportation plan, I believe, has 10 regions where you are 

looking at the overall, when you unveil this, of high-speed rail. 

Maybe I missed it, but I did not see anything on the Southwest. 

I did not see anything on El Paso, Denver, Albuquerque, connecVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 May 21, 2010 Jkt 052161 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52161.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
12 

tions there, north, south, or east and west. I do not know whether 

that is because the states have not gotten together to push you. I 

am just wondering what we need to do to get on the map in that 

particular respect. 

So, it is wonderful to have you here again. I saw you at a town 

hall meeting with Bernie Sanders up in Vermont. You are obviously making it around the country. You have got a lot of energy 

that you bring to this job, and we are happy to have you here 

today. I hope you can address a couple of those questions. Sorry, 

I am going to have to slip in and out of here, but we look forward 

to hearing from you. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing today. I also want to thank Secretary LaHood and the distinguished panelists for sharing their insights into our 

Nation’s transportation needs. 

We must ensure that our National Surface Transportation Policy is guided by the 

need to promote economic growth while protecting public safety and the environment. 

Efficient transportation fuels job growth and enhances our quality of life. Yet 

America’s transportation system relies heavily on foreign oil and pollutes the air 

with greenhouse gas emissions. We must therefore encourage alternatives to automobiles and look at ways to reinvigorate rail transportation for both passengers and 

freight. 

We all remember the dramatic—and fatal—collapse of the Mississippi River 

Bridge in Minnesota. Although such collapses are thankfully rare, many Americans 

do not realize just how much of our Nation’s transportation infrastructure is crumbling. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives most of the country’s infrastructure a ‘‘D’’ grade due to lack of investment over the decades since this infrastructure was built. 

President Obama’s stimulus plan is helpful but—as Secretary LaHood has pointed 

out—it will not be enough to meet all of our Nation’s transportation challenges. 

Yet infrastructure challenges are not the only safety hazards we face. This committee has the important responsibility of ensuring that transportation policies help 

ensure public safety—for roads, rail, and pipelines. In my state, tragic accidents 

have highlighted the dangers of each of these types of hazards. 

One safety problem we confront is drunk driving, which continues to kill far too 

many Americans. One third of traffic fatalities in my state involved alcohol-impaired 

drivers—even though New Mexico is aggressively addressing this problem through 

a combination of enforcement and education efforts. I therefore appreciate Secretary 

LaHood’s strong commitment to safety and his interest in exploring innovative ways 

to reduce death and injury from impaired driving. 

Finally, as Congress considers Federal transportation reauthorization, I will be 

looking for ways to ensure coordination and cooperation at the Federal, state, and 

local level to ensure that transportation funds are spent efficiently and wisely. 

I want to thank our panelists again for sharing their thoughts on how we can not 

only meet today’s transportation needs but also build a strong foundation for future 

generations of Americans. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

I am going to call on the Secretary momentarily. 

I have several charts that I think we can hand out to everybody 

that will show you what the investments have been like in rail, as 

well as aviation and highways. They will help you to see the comparison and to try to get some understanding across the board. 

What we are looking for here is a balanced transportation policy. 

We cannot ignore the problems of the urban states and we dare not 

forget about the contribution made by the rural states in our country. But the needs definitely in the transportation modes are quite 

different. 

13 

That is why I was so pleased when President Obama selected 

former Congressman Ray LaHood to take this job not only because 

he was quite a vote of trust, as well as respect, but because Mr. 

LaHood was a conscientious Republican and he cared about the 

general interests in a very direct way. So, he comes here with good 

credentials, and we are pleased to see Ray LaHood here. He has 

already shown his commitment to change about how we travel by 

supporting funding for new high-speed rail lines and mass transit 

across the country and in my region. I look forward to working 

with him to achieve the vision that we both foresee for our country. 

Secretary LaHood, please, let us have your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RAY LAHOOD, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking 

Member Thune and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

inviting me here today to highlight the policy priorities of the Department of Transportation and outline some of the challenges we 

must overcome. 

Transportation has always been critical to America’s economic 

health and competitiveness. From the construction of the Erie 

Canal to the interstate highway system, our ability to facilitate the 

safe and efficient flow of people and commerce has accounted for 

much of our success. 

Today the stakes are higher than ever. President Obama recognizes that strengthening our transportation infrastructure is tied to 

broader efforts to restore our economy and put Americans back to 

work. Clearly, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was 

designed in part to do just that, and I believe we are succeeding. 

Of the roughly $48 billion allocated for transportation under the 

Recovery Act, we have already made nearly $38 billion available to 

more than 2,800 surface and aviation improvement projects. More 

than $9 billion of these funds have been obligated in nearly every 

state and territory. This summer, we will begin awarding a portion of the $8 billion 

to deserving rail corridor projects around the country. This investment will jump start the development of a world-class, high-speed 

rail system and strengthen our existing rail infrastructure. 

Through these investments, we are helping to restore a measure of 

hope to the middle class by putting men and women back to work 

in good-paying local jobs. 

But we must understand that the Recovery Act is not an end in 

itself. It is, rather, the beginning of a new direction for transportation policy in this country. Several trends suggest we need to find 

new ways to preserve and invest in multimodal transportation solutions that meet the evolving needs of urban, rural, and suburban 

communities. For instance, a rapidly aging population is becoming 

less mobile and seeking alternatives to the automobile. 

Meanwhile, demand for public transit in congested metropolitan 

areas is at an all-time high. Our domestic seaports and intermodal 

rail and truck freight systems experience delays that impede the 

efficient, cost-effective movement of imported goods. And the increase in vehicle miles traveled on our roadways has outpaced population growth by almost four to one. 

14 

We cannot continue down this path. And we cannot expect the 

transportation policies of the past to take us where we need to go 

in the future. We must realign our priorities and our investments 

so we can focus on national and regional transportation solutions 

that promote safety, economic growth, and make our communities 

more livable and sustainable in the long run. 

We are tackling these challenges head on. For example, we are 

actively exploring new approaches and performance measures to 

help reduce transportation-related fatalities across all modes. 

To support livable communities, our Department is working with 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development on specific initiatives to encourage the development of more affordable housing 

near transit. This is imperative, given that American families 

spend nearly 60 percent of their household budget on housing and 

transportation. 

We are coordinating with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce our dependence on oil and 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by setting new fuel efficiency 

standards for autos and trucks. 

And we are also investing in cleaner, alternative-fuel buses and 

environmentally sustainable technology for transit and aviation. 

We will work closely with Congress on a new transportation authorization bill that we hope will give communities the ability to 

prioritize investments in local roadways, transit, and bicycle and 

pedestrian paths. One size will not fit all as urban and rural communities seek to preserve their unique qualities while encouraging 

economic growth. 

We also need innovative approaches to financing our transportation needs for the years to come. President Obama’s Administration is committed to investing in transportation systems that work 

for all Americans and enable us to compete in a global economy for 

years to come. 

I assure the Committee that as we move forward, we will adhere 

to the highest standards of accountability and transparency and 

seek measurable results for all that we do. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am happy to receive any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary LaHood follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RAY LAHOOD, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, and members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the policies that 

will guide our Federal transportation programs in meeting our Nation’s economic, 

safety, social, and environmental goals. 

Before I address the question of future policy directions, it is essential that we 

take account of the very serious economic problems facing the Nation and the efforts 

underway by the Department to rapidly and efficiently allocate the transportation 

funds made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA). These funds are being used by states and localities to both create and retain jobs and, at the same time, to make important improvements to the national 

transportation system. Of the $787 billion of spending and tax law changes in 

ARRA, over $48 billion will be invested in transportation infrastructure; a good portion of those funds are already in the hands of recipients and work is underway on 

hundreds of projects. We are working diligently at the Department of TransporVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 May 21, 2010 Jkt 052161 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52161.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
15 

tation to ensure these funds are distributed and that project work is started as 

quickly as possible so that jobs are created, economic growth begins again. 

Turning to the longer-term transportation policy, we need to consider that over 

the next 50 years the U.S. population is expected to rise by over 60 percent, and 

the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to quadruple. As our population grows, and as 

incomes rise, the demand for transportation will grow accordingly. The question is 

how will we respond to this demand? 

Since 1970, there has been a 173 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT; 

the total miles traveled by all U.S. vehicles), while the population grew 47 percent. 

In other words, VMT increased at almost four times the rate of population growth. 

Notwithstanding some anticipated reduction in VMT growth in the near term, reflecting the current downturn in the economy, this growth trend is clearly 

unsustainable. 

In the past, population and economic growth have always led to large increases 

in highway travel. This is because most communities’ have built transportation systems that only allow people and goods to move by road. This Administration believes that people should have options to get to work, school, the grocery or the doctor that do not rely solely on driving. We want to transform our transportation system into a truly multimodal system with strong alternatives to driving in order to 

maximize highway capacity, combat traffic congestion, reduce our reliance on oil and 

decrease greenhouse gas emissions. 

President Obama has already begun to chart a different course. Beginning with the ARRA, $8 billion was included for passenger rail investment. The Department 

of Transportation has released a strategic plan outlining the President’s vision to 

rebuild existing rail infrastructure while developing a comprehensive high-speed 

intercity passenger rail network through a long-term commitment at both the Federal and state levels. We will begin accepting applications for this funding this summer. ARRA also provided $8.4 billion for transit capital improvements that will enhance local transportation and help relieve congestion. 

Addressing the mobility needs of our citizens, we must keep in mind that an aging 

population will increasingly challenge our transportation system. The percentage of 

the population over 65 will almost double during the next 50 years, from 12 percent 

to 21 percent. Those older people—the people just graduating from college today— 

will demand a high level of mobility. This population should be able to maintain 

a high level of mobility without having to rely only on the automobile. Public transportation, that provides convenient and affordable transportation service, must be 

available. Transit-oriented, mixed-use development can especially benefit our older 

citizens. We need to continue our efforts to coordinate government and non-profit 

transportation services to make it easier for older adults—as well as people with 

disabilities and people with low incomes—to live independently and get where they 

need to go. 

Within metropolitan areas, non-work-related trips will continue to become a larger percentage of all trips, as the population ages and the percentage of population 

in the workforce declines. Some of this non-work-related travel will take place during peak commuting hours, as workers combine several errands into one trip on 

their way to and from work. Some will take place outside of traditional peak commuting hours, contributing to the spreading of the peak traffic hours over the entire 

day. That is why investments in alternatives to driving and livable communities are 

so important: it will allow many of these trips—such as school drop-offs or trips to 

the post office—to bypass the roads all together, making room for those that must 

rely on highway travel. Innovative policies such as road pricing can, where appropriate, significantly reduce congestion by providing users with incentives to shift 

non-essential travel to off-peak hours or seek alternatives to peak driving. The 

availability of reasonable alternatives to driving is crucial to the success of such innovation. 

Over the next 40 years, we expect the demand for both freight and passenger 

transportation to increase by about two-and-a-half times. Since 1970, exports as a 

percentage of GDP have almost doubled, and imports have tripled. Moreover, the 

U.S. manufacturing base is increasingly shifting to high-value, high-tech products 

like pharmaceuticals and instruments, in which we retain a comparative advantage. 

These high-value products require an expedited transportation system that relies increasingly on overnight truck and air freight delivery. Our increasing reliance on 

imports of lower-value manufactured goods (and parts for domestic manufacturers) 

places a growing reliance on key ports of entry, such as the San Pedro Bay ports 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Puget Sound ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and the 

Port of New York and New Jersey, one of the busiest on the East Coast. Landside 

connections to these ports, linked to an efficient domestic intermodal rail and truck 

freight transportation system, will be important to keeping the delivery costs of 

16 

these commodities low. Overall, the shift in GDP from goods production to services 

production will cause freight vehicle-miles traveled to grow more slowly than GDP, 

but the growth will still be large. 

Overall, we can anticipate an economy in the year 2050 four times as large, with 

surface transportation demands increasing by perhaps two-and-a-half times. How 

will our transportation system handle these demands? We certainly cannot more 

than double the number of lanes-miles of highways. Lane-miles of highway have increased by only 5.42 percent over the past 24 years, and an extrapolation to 2050 

suggests that highway capacity will only increase by 10 percent by that year. So 

we can anticipate that highway capacity will not keep up with transportation demand, if we continue to invest our transportation dollars as we have in the past. 

With these great challenges it is essential that our transportation policies be 

framed so that we can meet these demands and at the same time be consistent with 

the major goals I have established for guiding the actions of the Department of 

Transportation: economic recovery; safety; and livable and sustainable communities 

will be the key organizing themes as we in the Department reformulate existing 

policies and develop new policy directions for the future. I would like to expand just 

a bit on these goals and how they will guide policies for the future. They will be 

important themes as we prepare reauthorization ideas and proposals for both surface and air transportation. 

Economic Recovery 

Surface transportation investment is an important element of President Obama’s 

Economic Recovery and Reinvestment efforts to put people back to work and reinvigorate the economy. I have already mentioned the tremendous cost that congestion 

exacts on the Nation’s economy. Improving the efficiency and reliability of our surface transportation system will be vital to enhancing the Nation’s productivity and 

competitiveness in an increasingly global economy. Good transportation allows people to get to jobs and businesses to access wider pools of labor, suppliers, and customers. The ability to efficiently move freight will be critical to our economic recovery. Without renewal and restoration of our transportation infrastructure, it will not 

be able to support the needs of a growing economy. We need to better integrate the 

different transportation modes so that they work better in achieving lower costs and 

improved service quality. 

Safety 

Safety will continue to be a high priority for the Department. The total number 

of transportation-related fatalities in the country is unacceptable. Concerted efforts 

to improve safety are needed in all surface transportation modes including auto, 

truck, transit, rail, bus, motorcycle, and pedestrian safety. Innovation and technology will be critical to improving vehicle and infrastructure safety. We must also 

explore innovative ways to reduce deaths and serious injuries caused by impaired 

driving, failure to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, and other high risk behaviors. As safety problems vary from state to state, data-driven, performance-oriented 

programs must be established to identify the most cost-effective strategies to improve safety in each jurisdiction. 

Livable and Sustainable Communities 

One of my highest priorities is to help promote more livable communities through 

safe, reliable and accessible surface transportation choices. Actions on many fronts 

will be required to enhance transportation’s contribution to strong and connected 

communities. A livable community requires that transportation solutions be tailored 

to the needs of the individual community or region as one-size-fits-all solutions are 

no longer viable. 

Our initial focus will be on expanding the transportation choices available to 

American families. All segments of the population must have access to transportation services to get to work, housing, medical, educational, shopping, and other 

essential activities. Linking transportation and land-use planning to promote improved access to transit and creating walkable, bikeable communities will increase 

overall mobility and benefit all Americans. 

The average working American family spends nearly 60 percent of its household 

budget on housing and transportation costs, making these two areas the largest expenses for American families. Affordable housing near transportation is an important element of livable communities and we have already started working with 

HUD to help provide American families with more choices for affordable housing 

near jobs and improve their range of transportation options while lowering their 

transportation costs. 

Livability is not just an urban idea. The Department is working to improve livability of rural Americans as well. Many rural communities face tough choices as 

17 

they try to attract economic development. They want to grow and attract new jobs 

but do not want to lose the unique character of the area. Transportation investments in these communities can be designed in a way to support new development 

while maintaining the small town character that makes these communities home. 

The Obama Administration considers a comprehensive energy plan that will generate clean energy jobs, reduce our reliance on oil, reduce pollution and natural resources impacts, create more livable communities, and attack climate change, a 

major priority. The President has announced a series of aggressive actions to lower 

greenhouse gas emissions. These actions include improving the fuel efficiency of 

automobiles, intensifying U.S. actions on energy efficiency and renewable energy 

through the Recovery Act, and asking Congress to pass comprehensive legislation 

to address carbon pollution. DOT recently issued new fuel economy standards for 

passenger cars and light trucks for model year 2011 and is coordinating with the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to develop standards for 2012–2016. Sustainability also means that as we plan for transportation 

and make system improvements that we enhance the natural environment. 

These goals will help guide the Department in policy formulation and in reformulating our programs where needed. Our actions will also adhere to several other 

themes that are central to this administration’s objectives and way of doing business: 

Accountability, Transparency, and Performance 

Key tenets of the Obama Administration are accountability, transparency, and 

performance in Federal programs. Congress demands it, the public demands it, and 

it is the right thing to do. New processes will be needed to implement performancebased programs. In some cases this may require changes to long-standing procedures. Performance-based programs cannot be implemented overnight, but when 

fully implemented they will provide the means to improve investment decisions, improve the performance of our transportation systems, and improve our stewardship 

of taxpayer dollars. As we recently pointed out in the President’s Budget for Fiscal 

Year 2010, greater use of economic analysis will be needed in transportation planning and project development. When planning begins with an accurate analysis of 

the benefits and costs of transportation investments, we can ensure that the taxpayer is getting the greatest return on project spending. 

Innovative Programs and Projects 

Innovation traditionally has been a hallmark of progress in transportation. Challenges today may be different from the past, but the role of technology and innovation is just as important. Technology will be central to our efforts to improve safety, 

reduce congestion, and manage our infrastructure more effectively. NextGen and the 

ITS program are examples of technological breakthroughs that are close on the horizon that will greatly improve the safety and efficiency of our national aviation system and our surface transportation systems. We must continue to invest in research 

and development as important elements of our overall policy development. Absent 

research and development to identify and develop smarter and more environmentally friendly transportation solutions that will fully, effectively and efficiently 

address the challenges facing our transportation system, we will have no choice but 

to apply old and inadequate technologies to solve new and more complex problems. 

Our nation can ill-afford the financial and system performance costs of attempting 

to address 21st century challenges with 20th century solutions. 

Innovation is not limited to new technologies, however. Innovations in the way we 

deliver programs and in the way we incentivize optimal user behavior will be just 

as important in our efforts to improve all aspects of transportation system performance. We should also be adopting principles of economic return and cost-benefit 

measurement in the planning processes that prioritize future system investments. 

In conclusion I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me to discuss the 

goals and themes that will guide the development of policies during my tenure at 

the Department of Transportation. While the immediate needs of economic recovery 

are the primary concerns today, we must also prepare for the future when the Nation’s and the world’s economies are back to normal. We have established guiding 

principles to ensure that our transportation systems meet the challenges of the 21st 

Century and support our energy, environmental, and livability goals for all citizens. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

You noted that congestion is all over, whether in the largest cities or in the more distant communities. And it has had a tremenVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 May 21, 2010 Jkt 052161 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52161.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
18 

dous negative impact on our economy, delays, highway wear and 

tear, and it is facilitated by insufficient trackage for freight rail. 

So in the next surface transportation bill, what do you think we 

ought to do to address this congestion that prevents us from functioning and that creates the other problems that we all are aware 

of that plagues both travelers and freight traffic in terms of rail? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think we have 

to make a commitment to continue to make sure that the state-ofthe-art interstate system that we have in this country is well maintained. We built a state-of-the-art system and we need to make 

sure that it is maintained. 

But we also have to offer opportunities for people that want to 

get out of their automobiles, that want to use light rail, that want 

to use transit, that want to use Amtrak, that want to use other 

modes of transportation. In the economic recovery, our portion of 

it, the largest share of the dollars is for roads and bridges, but we 

also have money committed for airport repair. We have runway repair. We have money committed, $8 billion, for transit. We have 

more money committed for high-speed rail than we have ever had. 

And I think that is an indication that this Administration will 

make a commitment to not only continue to maintain our Highway 

Trust Fund, but to really look at priorities for how do we move people from rural communities into opportunities to go to doctors appointments and hospital appointments and those kind of things, to 

go to the grocery store, but also for people who want to get out of 

their cars, make other forms of transportation available to them. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I have a chart here. At best from a distance, only the color variation is available. But there is a very thin 

line here that is rail investment. This is highway and then air. I 

hope that these charts have been distributed. If not, we will get 

them to you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

But what we have is pitifully small investments in rail. 


428LAUT1.eps
19 

The car has been such a convenience for America to get in and 

go someplace. The problem is that going someplace means that you 

have to have the ability to jump over lots of cars in front of you. 

The patterns have changed substantially. I have seen it in my 

own state. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the 

country, more people per square mile than any other state. So we 

have to get around as efficiently as possible. 

We have essentially built light rail lines that connected some cities and found out that hardly anybody boarded those lines in the 

earliest days but now there are opportunities for businesses to 

come to essentially transit-type villages around the stations, which 

is a European concept. Development does take place and jobs occur 

along light rail lines. 

But the one thing also that we dare not ignore is the contribution 

that rail freight makes to our society. Freight traffic is projected to 

increase nearly 70 percent by 2020. In the last administration, 

DOT failed to develop a complete freight policy program. 

Now, does your Administration now—and it is yours—and your 

Department have a strategy to improve the efficiency of freight 

transportation, as well as the safety side of things? 

Secretary LAHOOD. You know, I take your point on this, Mr. 

Chairman. I think it is a good point. I think it was the point that 

Senator Johanns was also making. Freight rail is very important 

in America and we should have a very strong freight rail system 

and plan and program. I have met with some of the freight rail 

folks, some of the CEOs of these companies. They have come by to 

see me. We are committed to working with you, the Senate and the 

House, to make sure we have a comprehensive freight rail system 

that is safe because it makes an enormous contribution in our 

country. 

Could I say one word about light rail, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Sure. 

Secretary LAHOOD. I was in Houston recently and rode on a light 

rail system that goes from downtown Houston and delivers people 

to one of the finest medical centers anywhere in the world, Children’s Hospital, M.D. Anderson, and many other facilities. And for 

poor people who cannot afford to get in an automobile and drive 

the 15 or 20 miles, this is one of the best light rail systems. It is 

proof that people will use light rail if you provide them the opportunity. And to be able to deliver these folks to the best medical care 

perhaps in the world, I think is an example of where we need to 

replicate that in places around the country. It works. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And I mentioned to Senator Hutchison, 

who knows that I used to run a good-sized computer company, and 

we located in Houston above a road that was just being developed. 

And it was suggested that there might be a light rail system there. 

And I heard skeptics say, oh, you cannot have a light rail system 

here. And when we hear something like this, you ain’t got no 

choice, as they say. I agree. 

Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, in your written testimony, you state that—and I 

quote—‘‘this Administration believes that people should have options to get to work, school, the grocery, or the doctor that do not 

20 

rely solely on driving. We want to transform our transportation 

system into a truly multimodal system with strong alternatives to 

driving in order to maximize highway capacity, combat traffic congestion, reduce our reliance on oil, and decrease greenhouse gas 

emissions.’’ 

And then you go on to say that President Obama has already 

begun to chart a different course and highlight that with the economic stimulus package. $8 billion was included for passenger rail 

investment. 

South Dakota is one of four states that is not served by Amtrak, 

and so it will not benefit much from any of that money. We rely 

on driving. That is not going to change much during this administration regardless of how much we try to transform our transportation system. And while bus transportation can be an option for 

certain travel, people out here should not kid themselves. Public 

transportation does not exist as a practical matter for average 

South Dakotans to attend a PTA meeting or to get to church on a 

Sunday. It just is not a reality. 

So I guess my question is sort of a broader one. How does the 

Administration’s vision to transform our transportation system impact rural states like South Dakota? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, Senator, I will go back. When I started 

answering the Chairman’s question, I made the point that we have 

to maintain a commitment to our interstate system. It is a stateof-the-art system, and people around the world come to America to 

look at our interstate system because they know it works. We cannot give up on our opportunities to make sure that that is a wellmaintained system, particularly in states where you have no other 

form of transportation. So we are going to be committed. We are 

not giving up on the interstate system. We know, particularly in 

rural areas and states like you come from, that it is the mode of 

transportation, and we will be committed to it. 

Senator THUNE. I want to say that in your written testimony you 

did acknowledge rural America with regard to the issue of livable 

and sustainable communities. 

I think the biggest food fight that happens around here in Washington generally is the fight between donor and donee states when 

it comes to a highway bill reauthorization. It is probably the least 

pleasant part of any highway bill, and I am afraid that is likely to 

hold true for the forthcoming debate that we will have about the 

next bill. 

But the real issue here is going to be funding and how we come 

up with the funding that is necessary to truly maintain a national 

transportation system. So I guess I am curious to know what your 

views are concerning the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund and 

what are your thoughts about how best to strike the proper balance 

among urban and rural states. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, look it, we would not have the interstate system that we have without the Highway Trust Fund. It was 

a good mechanism for funding roads, but it is a system that is 

clearly inadequate to do all the things that we want to do, that you 

all want to do. So I have said, everywhere that I have been going, 

we need to think outside the box. We need to think about publicprivate partnerships. 

21 

We need to think about your bill that would hopefully create 

some kind of an infrastructure bank, you know, the Buy America 

Bonds. I hope that you all get around to debating that bill and perhaps including it. I think it is one of the alternatives that we can 

use when we think outside the box about not eliminating the Highway Trust Fund. We should use it but we know that it is inadequate. 

In some states where they have congestion, they put these HOT 

lanes which they have built with tolls in order to add a lane on a 

road that allows people then, if they need to go faster, if you need 

to put a bus on there, you have these lanes. And they have been 

built by using tolls. Tolling bridges is a good way to build bridges. 

We have lots of opportunities where people want to build bridges 

too. 

There are four or five different alternatives other than the Highway Trust Fund. 

I mean, I will tell you this, and I know this causes some people 

heartburn. The Administration is not going to be for raising taxes 

to increase the Highway Trust Fund. With the kind of economy 

that we have today, it is not the time to be raising the gas tax. 

So we are committed to thinking about a lot of alternatives. The 

one that we just simply think is the wrong time is raising the gas 

tax. 

But there are other alternatives, and one of them is your bill, 

Senator, and we think it is a pretty good approach. I hope you all 

get around to debating that, and I hope it can be included as one 

of the alternatives. We need some alternatives to fund all the 

things we want to do. 

I want to say a word about broadband because I think it does affect states like you represent. In the economic recovery plan, there 

is money in the bill that if we are going to lay down roads, if we 

are going to build new roads, there is opportunity to put the fiber 

in the ground and begin to think about how we broadband states. 

You know, I am from a state where if you go south in Illinois, the 

technology is not there to do what people can do in Peoria or Chicago. And there is some money in the economic recovery to really 

begin to think about how we broadband states and particularly in 

rural America. And you can do it when you begin the construction 

of a rail line or a highway, and we hope there will be continued 

funding to do that. We think it is an important part of really connecting America technologically. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I had another question but with 

that endorsement of my bill, I think I will quit while I am ahead. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That is not unanimous consent. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Hutchison? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am wondering if I could get an endorsement for my bill. That was a joke. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. I do want to ask you, though, on that because I am sure you would not want to endorse it without even 

looking at it. But a question is since the highway system was completed 20 years ago, do you think that it is time for us to start lookVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 May 21, 2010 Jkt 052161 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52161.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
22 

ing at perhaps different ways of dividing this up where you have 

some high-growth states that are hurting for highway money and 

then you have these areas that are so congested, as you have pointed out? And of course, tolling one lane to build another is, I think, 

a very legitimate way to do it with local input. 

But do you think it is time to look at this formula to determine 

how is the fairest way to have a Federal role for the states? And 

if so, what are your thoughts about what would be maybe the next 

step for maintenance and keeping the highways up but not necessarily adding to the system? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Senator, I am going to leave the debate on 

the formula to you all. You know, I think it is better left to Congress. 

But I want you all to know that we are going to be committed 

at DOT to maintaining the interstate highway. We should do that. 

That has to be a priority. The interstate was built with the hardearned dollars of taxpayers, and it is a state-of-the-art system and 

we need to maintain it. 

The formula I am going to leave for you all to figure out, and 

whatever you decide, DOT will implement. 

Senator HUTCHISON. But let me ask you this. This is something 

that you can affect. This is the book of laws that affect what you 

require of state departments of transportation when you are giving 

Federal money. That was 1998. This is the book for 2008. You have 

heard the complaints from highway departments of the delay that 

is necessary because of all of the Federal regulations and mandates. 

My question is, are you looking at this with maybe a view toward 

lowering the number of strings and requirements and mandates 

that would lower the amount of time that it takes from planning 

a highway that would use Federal funds to completion? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Absolutely. I think that I can safely say that 

we have proven that with $48 billion, we put together a team of 

people that goes to something that Senator Warner and I have 

talked about. How do you break down the modes? We created a 

TIGER Team, and that’s an acronym for something. But what it 

really means is that—— 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary LAHOOD. What it really means is that we took all the 

modes and they get together every day and talk to one another 

about how we get the $48 billion out the door, meet all of our requirements, no earmarks, no boondoggles, no sweetheart deals, but 

the money is spent correctly. And we have proven that we can do it with $48 billion. I think 

we can do it with whatever dollars you give us, which will be much 

more than $48 billion. It takes people talking to one another at 

DOT and making sure that things are done by the book, but we 

do not string people out for years and years and years. 

Every time I come before the Senate, I hear this complaint. It is 

a legitimate complaint. And we are going to be committed to 

streamlining how we get money out the door so that people can do 

the things that are necessary to get around the country. 

Senator HUTCHISON. What role will the Administration play in 

the reauthorization bill? Are you going to present a bill? 

23 

Secretary LAHOOD. We are going to present some principles to 

the Congress that we think are very important, some transportation principles. We want to be in the room. We want to be in the 

game. We want to be available when folks are writing the bill. So 

we are working with the President and his team at OMB to develop these principles. As soon as we have them, you will all have 

them, and you will know what direction the President wants to 

take with transportation and the authorization. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. 

Senator Begich? 

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

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here. If I can ask 

you just a couple questions. One, I just want to get the hard issue 

out of the way for me at least. 

A couple months ago, I sent you a letter regarding a comment 

you made, and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to expand 

on it. And that is, as a former mayor, I am biased, of course, and 

you can probably imagine that. I think when we had your confirmation, I mentioned that too. And it was the comment that they 

simply do not have the ability to do what we want to do. 

I guess I would just like you to expand on that because, of 

course, I think in a lot of ways some of the large city local governments have been able to achieve some great things in regards to 

their road infrastructure. I just want to get your thoughts on that 

comment about how you see local communities participating in direct allocation from DOT to directly get dollars onto the street literally. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Senator, I have met with a number of mayors. Mayor Hickenlooper put together a group of mayors. He is the 

Mayor of Denver. He put a group of mayors together. And we just 

had a meeting—I do not know—2 or 3 weeks ago talking about how 

we can interface better with our Department and mayors who have 

to work through governors and state DOTs in order to fix up their 

infrastructure. 

One of the things we talked about—the metropolitan planning 

organizations were good in terms of building the interstate system 

and fixing up roads. But you have mayors like Mayor Daley in Chicago and other big city mayors that have reached out well beyond 

their cities. They have gone out into the suburban area. 

Senator BEGICH. Regional, yes. 

Secretary LAHOOD. They have gone regional and they have done 

it because it benefits them, but they know it benefits other mayors 

out in these other communities. 

And I hope that when you are all writing this new transportation 

bill, that you will look at an opportunity to restructure how planning is done for infrastructure beyond just the urbanized areas out 

into the rural areas, out into the suburban areas so that it can be 

inclusive for mayors so that when dollars are spent, your point of 

contact does not always have to be the governor or the state DOT. 

It could be a region of the country that has the capability. 

I mean, one of the things under the stimulus plan under our part 

was we needed to get the money out the door in 120 days because 

24 

that is the way you all wrote the bill. In order to do that, we had 

to have relationships with state DOTs and governors who had the 

mechanism to check all the boxes to make sure it was done right. 

Some small cities do not have that capability. 

Senator BEGICH. Understood. 

Secretary LAHOOD. But if they hook up with other cities and 

other suburban mayors and other rural mayors with a big city 

mayor, they can all work together to get it right. 

And that is what I am really hoping. We need to restructure the 

way that we get the money out the door so we can be inclusive. 

Senator BEGICH. Perfect. That gives me a lot of opportunity then, 

and that is what I am looking for. I think you are right. It is more 

of a regional approach that mayors are doing now versus just their 

city or their community. 

In Alaska, we have a system called the Marine Highway System, 

which is a transportation network for southeast Alaska, Juneau, 

Sitka, Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, and so forth. It is never 

really part of the Federal highway transportation bill because they 

do not view it as transportation. The fact is that is our highway. 

That is the only way you move freight, people to hospitals, and so 

forth. 

How do you view those types of systems where that is the exclusive way to move from one place to the next. There is no road. 

There is air but no road transportation. And it is cost prohibitive 

because you would be building bridges decades centuries later. 

Secretary LAHOOD. In our Department, we have an agency called 

MARAD—— 

Senator BEGICH. I know MARAD well. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yes. Again, we need to work with you as we 

get into the authorization bill about providing some opportunities 

for states just like yours. I mean, the folks in MARAD believe in 

what you are talking about. And we have talked about it in the 

agency and we have talked about it as a part of authorization. 

We are willing to work with you. In the authorization bill, this 

is the creative thinking of the 21st century, if you will. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me ask you one more. On this, I may not 

have all the information right, but I became aware of it and I just 

want your thoughts on it. 

I think it was in 1967 or so, but the Coast Guard managed permitting bridges when it was with the Transportation Department. 

Then the Coast Guard got shifted to Homeland Security in 2003. 

The permitting is still over there with the bridges. 

Do you see the Federal Highway Administration really managing 

that into the future, and is that something we should look at within the reauthorization putting permitting of bridges within the—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. I will tell you this. 

Senator BEGICH. I do not want to get your agency to agency, but 

I just—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. No. Look it, we would love if Congress would 

give Coast Guard back to DOT. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary LAHOOD. There was a lot of heartburn when Coast 

Guard was taken away, and if you all want to give it back to 

us—— 

25 

Senator BEGICH. I am not sure I want to get into that, but I am 

more interested in the permitting on the bridges. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Look it, I will look at it, Senator. 

Senator BEGICH. But you are not closed to it. 

Secretary LAHOOD. I am not closed to it, but I doubt if Coast 

Guard wants to give up that kind of responsibility. But certainly, 

if Congress decides that is a better way to go, we will live with 

that. 

Senator BEGICH. I will leave it at that. My time is out. Thank 

you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Warner? 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Secretary, I have got some questions, but 

I have got to go back to one of your earlier comments. I completely 

understand during these challenging times why the Administration 

does not want to take on the question of gas tax, a declining longterm source of revenue anyway. And trust me, I still bear the scars 

from getting whooped really bad on a transportation referendum 

for this region in 2002 when I was Governor. 

But I do hope that we will continue to make the case that our 

current transportation funding sources at the Federal or the State 

level are basically bankrupt. The Highway Trust Fund cannot meet 

even maintenance needs, let alone new starts. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Agreed. 

Senator WARNER. And while I am all for public-private partnerships—and no state has probably done more in public-private than 

the Commonwealth of Virginia—but it is not free money. Sometimes the private sector deals would come in and would not pass 

business school 101 type classes in terms of being bad deals for the 

taxpayers. 

While tolling is one viable option, I hope we would not walk 

away from the continuing education process that we do not have 

enough funding to meet our core transportation needs. I can tell 

you for our state there is recognition it is a bipartisan issue. It is 

one that we have got to take on, but I recognize the constraints you 

are under, but we have to continue making the case that there 

needs to be additional funding. 

On the broadband, I also want to make one quick comment on 

that. We were very big advocates of that, and the minimal amounts 

of new construction we were doing during my term as Governor, we 

put in place a policy to always put in the dark fiber even if it was 

not immediately needed. But enormous challenges at the Federal 

level in terms of needing additional Federal go-aheads. So I would 

love to continue. I know Senator Klobuchar has got a bill on this. 

I would love to work with you on that because we are going to need 

some authority because of the jumbled masses of all the other 

right-of-ways that you have to deal with. I would urge you to think 

as boldly as possible there. 

Earlier you heard me talk—and we have talked again about 

multimodal. Let me ask my two questions very quickly. One is the 

jump-ball amount of multimodal funds that were available in the 

stimulus package—do you feel like you are making good progress 

on how you are going to assess those projects that are available for 

26 

those jump-ball multimodal funds, number one, in terms of how we 

get to really the right criteria? 

And number two, we all talk about productivity measures, mobility, other non-VMT-type assessment tools. It is easy to talk about 

at the macro level. To actually to write it into regulations and how 

you drill down on that is a real challenge. Do you feel the Department has enough data collection capabilities to be able to get the 

information to make the assessment if we are going to use new assessment tools about which projects are going to be awarded Federal funding, if we are going to move away from the more simplistic 

VMT and other current—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, I mean, I think we have plenty of tools 

in the Department. I think we can make these assessments. 

Was your first question about the discretionary money? 

Senator WARNER. The first question was about the discretionary 

multimodal money, which I was a big advocate for, thinking it was 

a great first step and a great way to have a beta test of a new, fairly unrestricted pot of money looking at multimodal, a way to maybe 

try out some new assessments on how you are going to evaluate 

the projects that applied for those funds. How do you feel that is 

going? 

Secretary LAHOOD. We just sent our criteria to OMB. We hope 

we will get it back very quickly. We think we can use this money 

in very, very creative ways. In the one pot, we have $28 billion for 

roads. We have $8 billion for transit, $8 billion for high-speed. So 

we are looking at things like ports and multimodal opportunities 

around ports and some other opportunities that did not exist in the 

economic recovery or to build on some opportunities that were 

there where we really did not have the dollars. 

So we think we are going to come up with some pretty creative 

ideas for people. And we think people in the country, when they see 

the criteria, are going to come up with some very creative ideas. 

Senator WARNER. And you think this criteria will be out there so 

that as the Congress takes on the next reauthorization bill, that we 

will see your criteria that might be able to be used to be—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. Absolutely. You will see it very soon, probably within the next, hopefully, 10 days or so. Absolutely. I think 

it will be a creative use of the money. 

Senator WARNER. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to continue on that same discussion and thank you 

for being willing to look at this from a perspective of continuing to 

improve the ability of commerce to flow effectively through our 

ports and to their destinations. Obviously, the Northwest relies 

heavily on our port systems for our economic well-being. That is 

moving products into the country and agricultural products out of 

the country. 

And so we have created a Freight Mobility Strategic Investment 

Board that meets every year to determine which of these projects 

should be funded from state funds so that we are best facilitating 

freight mobility. That is, obviously, not just for us within the state 

but through the Nation. The board, obviously, briefs Members of 

27 

Congress on their list of projects, and so it helps us in prioritizing 

these from an economic perspective. 

One of the ideas circulating around in the new highway bill is 

to create a separate national account for freight mobility projects. 

Does the Administration have a position on this? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, we do not. As I said, we have sent some 

principles to the President and his team and to OMB. We hope to 

be able to share those with you very soon. So at this point, I think 

it is premature for me to comment specifically on that. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK. Well, I hope that you will consider the 

success of the programs that have been implemented at the state 

level and the fact that, obviously, in our current economic situation, getting products moving means jobs and it means jobs for not 

just the Pacific Northwest but for everyone. And it has been very 

successful from a strategic perspective. So I look forward to working with you on that. 

A second question is the same priorities for another economic engine of the Northwest, our Washington State ferry system that operates 22 vessels and 20 ferry terminals and serves nearly 23 million people annually. I think at one point in time I saw that the 

ferry system basically served more than Amtrak as it relates to 

various populations. 

But one of the questions that I have is, obviously, the funding 

program. You know, the ferry systems overall are weighed together, both those that are moving tourists and moving integral 

parts of a transportation system. We use it as part of our national 

highway system in moving population centers to and from work locations. And so I would like to get your thoughts on the adequacy 

of the current program, and do you think we need to think about 

altering that distribution formula? 

Secretary LAHOOD. I do think that we need to—we are going to 

be making some announcements. We will receive some funds in the 

economic recovery, our portion, for some ferry grants, and we are 

going to be making those announcements very soon. 

We also have spoken out. When the ferry boat operators on the 

Hudson River saved people’s lives by rushing to the US Airways 

flight, we paid great compliments to them. We know these ferry 

systems are very, very important, not the least of which for what 

they did on the Hudson River, but also for the kind of transportation opportunities they provide in states like yours and other 

states. 

I hope that Congress will put more of a priority on it. Look, we 

will support you on that. We think these ferry systems are very important. 

Senator CANTWELL. It is not a paved highway system, but it is 

moving lots of people. So, I personally think we need more in the 

account, and I think we need to recognize that part of the system 

that is an integral part to moving people in employment centers. 

So I look forward to working with you on that. 

Secretary LAHOOD. I agree. 

Senator CANTWELL. And I will have a couple of other questions, 

Mr. Chairman, for the Secretary about privatization on infrastructure, including highways and some of your thoughts about where 

we should go from there. 

28 

But thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

We are joined by Senator Isakson from Georgia, and we welcome 

him to take his 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, I will not take that long, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to apologize to the Secretary for not being here for his entire 

statement, but I am in another markup of an equally important appointee by the Administration. 

But I did want to come by to say that I have told everybody this 

is the best pick the President has made. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. I do not say that because we are in desperate 

need of Federal money for highways, but it might not hurt. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ISAKSON. But I had the privilege, when I was elected to 

the House in 1999, of meeting Ray LaHood. From the very first 

time I walked in and he was presiding over the House with that 

rather authoritative scowl that he can get on his face, I was impressed by his ability to command a large group of pretty independent-thinking people. 

And we have a significant challenge in the United States transportation system, and I know Ray and I have talked about this. My 

state has one of the largest ports on the eastern coast of the United 

States, the major port receiving automobiles. We have the compressed natural gas Elba Island facility there which, of course, is 

of national significance. We have probably as many miles of interstate as just about anybody but maybe Texas and California. We 

have a rapid transit system in the City of Atlanta. We have the 

busiest airport in the United States of America and the largest airline in the world. So I am going to spend a lot of time at Ray’s office trying to talk about challenges that we have. 

But I want to welcome you to the Administration. You have been 

a great friend of transportation when you were in the House as a 

member of the Committee, and I look forward to working very 

closely with you as we meet the challenges that we all face in the 

years ahead. 

So that is why I made a special effort to get here. I wanted that 

on the record. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, thank you, Senator Isakson. I appreciate that. I also want you to know that your Governor took time 

to come by our office, and we had a visit for an hour on many of 

the things that you just mentioned and many of the different transportation issues that your state is facing. He is providing lots of 

good leadership. So I look forward to working with you. 

Senator ISAKSON. We are proud to have you. Thank you. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your presence and for 

your participation in the discussion. You, obviously, have known 

but note maybe more particularly when you are in front of this 

29 

Committee that we have our differences. These are not party differences as much as regional or state differences. And the physical 

characteristics of South Dakota are much different than New Jersey. 

But we are obliged by history to patch together a common interest in transportation. For this rich country of ours to be in its state 

is unacceptable by any measure. We put the transportation system 

together in a piecemeal form. We have not necessarily put money 

where our funds are most needed, but rather, where the strength 

is most garnered. And we have got to change that. We have to get 

balance in our transportation system. 

I have now been in the Senate 25 years, and one of the things 

that brought me to the Senate was what I saw happening in the 

New York-New Jersey region with traffic. We were in a business 

there that depends on movement of material. And we are still not 

caught up with what we have to do, in my view, by way of rail 

service, good planning for aviation service, and making sure that 

more rural communities are not left out of the opportunity to participate in America’s growth and interests. 

So we have got quite a bundle of things to put together in a good, 

sensible fashion. It is going to take reason. It is going take time. 

But we trust your hand, Mr. Secretary, to help us level these conditions so that we can get on with something that is better for America, that protects our kids from being enveloped by pollution, that 

permits more time with family and work instead of just sitting on 

the highways and burning up fuel that we no longer can afford to 

import like we do. The world is changing around us, and we must 

not let it change without us. So, I thank you very much. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We call our second panel: Mr. Heminger, 

Ms. Anne Canby, James Corless, and Ned Holmes. 

Mr. Heminger and Mr. Holmes, I know that each of you has a 

time constraint. I want to try to accommodate you. You are important witnesses and we want to hear from you. What are your timeframes like? Do you have to catch planes out of here? 

Mr. HEMINGER. Mr. Chairman, mine is 4:30. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. At the airport? 

Mr. HEMINGER. Leaving here. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Leaving here. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Yes, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. 

And you, Mr. Holmes? 

Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Chairman, I am riding with him. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. So the two trapped in the middle will 

please forgive me. 

We welcome you, and as you have heard, we are onto something 

big. Your contribution is important. Mr. Heminger, the Commissioner of National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue 

Study Commission, and you are the Executive Director of the San 

Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 

Ms. Canby, we know that you are the President of the Surface 

Transportation Policy Partnership and also are a former commisVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 May 21, 2010 Jkt 052161 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52161.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
30 

sioner of the DOT in my home State of New Jersey. Now, that is 

a mix of things. 

Mr. Corless, you are Campaign Director for Transportation for 

America. 

Mr. Holmes, we already met, said hello. You are, I recall, the 

Commissioner of the Texas Transportation Commission. 

Each of you will have 5 minutes to present your summarized papers. Mr. Heminger, I will call on you first. 

Is it Heminger or Heminger? 

Mr. HEMINGER. I will answer to either one, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. All right, Steve. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF STEVE HEMINGER, MEMBER, 

NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND 

REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION 

Mr. HEMINGER. Thank you very much, sir, and I appreciate the 

courtesy about letting me go first. 

As you mentioned, I served with great pleasure on the National 

Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. I 

was appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but today I speak 

on behalf of nine Commissioners who signed our final report, five 

of them appointed by Republican officeholders, four by Democratic 

officeholders. 

We reached a bipartisan result. 

And I think I noted one of my colleagues, Tom Skanky from the 

State of Nevada in the audience, and I would like to acknowledge 

him as well. 

Our blueprint for the Nation’s future transportation policy is 

comprised of three key elements: reform, restructuring, and reinvestment, the 3 R’s. 

First, reform. Our Commission’s fundamental finding is this, that 

the Federal surface transportation program should not be reauthorized in its current form. Instead, we should make a new beginning. 

We must reform how the Nation upgrades and expands its network 

from how we pick the projects in the planning process to how we 

build them in the field. Federal investment should be guided by a 

national surface transportation strategic plan that employs benefitcost analysis and performance-based outcomes just as in the private sector. In particular, we believe the Nation should set ambitious and achievable performance goals for our surface transportation system, such as cutting traffic fatalities in half by 2025. 

Another aspect of our reform agenda is shortening the time to 

complete environmental reviews in conjunction with other measures that speed the design and construction of new highway, transit, and freight capacity. All members of the committee talked 

about this earlier. 

One example. Last September a new replacement interstate 

bridge was opened for traffic in downtown Minneapolis only 13 

months after the tragic collapse of its predecessor. This stands in 

stark contrast to the 13 years that the average major highway 

project takes to advance from project initiation to completion. If 

Minnesota can do it, so can the rest of the Nation. And if we can 

do it in an emergency, why can we not do it all the time? 

31 

Second, restructuring. As you noted, there are 108 separate categorical surface transportation programs in current law. It is safe 

to say that any agency of Government with more than 100 priorities really has none at all. Our commission report, Transportation 

for Tomorrow, recommends replacing this plethora of programs 

with 10 new initiatives to guide Federal investment in areas of 

genuine national interest, such as upgrading the Nation’s roads 

and bridges and transit systems to a state of good repair, improving our global gateways and national goods movement system, and 

restoring mobility in congested metropolitan areas of greater than 

1 million people that will be the engines of our economic recovery 

and prosperity. 

Finally, three, reinvestment. Our report estimates that the U.S. 

needs to invest at least $225 billion annually for the next 50 years 

to repair our existing network and to build the more advanced facilities we will require to remain competitive in a global economy. 

We are spending less than 40 percent of this amount today. To 

boost investment, we will need to raise new revenue from the private sector, as well as all levels of government, Federal, State, and 

local. The additional public funding, we believe, should come primarily from users of the system who will benefit the most from its 

improvement, whether in the form of higher fuel taxes and truck 

weight charges or a new fee on passenger rail tickets and container 

cargo. While no one likes higher taxes or fees, if we want a better 

transportation system, we are going to have to pay for it. There is 

no free lunch. 

It was noted earlier that U.S. population is projected to reach 

420 million people, a 50 percent increase from the year 2000 by 

2050. In short, the Nation will be faced with a massive increase in 

passenger and freight travel in the years to come, and we must accommodate this future travel demand in far more sustainable ways 

than we have in the past, such as through increased reliance on 

urban and intercity passenger rail. 

Faced with these daunting challenges, Federal surface transportation policy has reached a crossroads. I think Senator Hutchison 

today—her proposal to let some states opt out of the Federal program represents one path forward. 

Respectfully, my Commission colleagues and I urge you to take 

a different approach. We urge you to blaze a new path toward a 

more robust Federal program refocused to protect our national security, enhance our international competitiveness, and safeguard 

our enviable quality of life. 

If I can conclude my oral remarks with a quotation from President Eisenhower, father of the interstate system—and we use this 

quotation at the beginning of our report. So, I would like to conclude my testimony with it. President Eisenhower said: ‘‘Our transportation and communication systems are dynamic elements in the 

very name we bear, ‘United States.’ Without them, we would be a 

mere alliance of many separate parts.’’ 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heminger follows:] 

32 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE HEMINGER, MEMBER, 

NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Committee. 

My name is Steve Heminger, and I am Executive Director of the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC is the metropolitan planning organization 

for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It allocates more than $1 billion per 

year in funding for the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the region’s surface transportation network. MTC also serves as the Bay Area Toll Authority 

(BATA) responsible for administering all toll revenue from the seven state-owned 

bridges that span the Bay. BATA has a ‘‘AA’’ credit rating and has issued over $5 

billion in toll revenue bonds to finance bridge, highway, and transit construction 

projects. 

I was appointed to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 

Commission by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was a rare privilege to serve on that 

commission, just as it is a distinct honor to appear before this Committee today to 

discuss our Commission’s findings and recommendations. In my brief testimony, I 

would like to summarize our 2 years’ worth of work in a format that is familiar to 

all of us from school days: the 3 R’s. Our blueprint for the Nation’s future transportation policy is comprised of three key elements: reform, restructuring, and reinvestment. 

1. Reform 

Our Commission’s fundamental finding is this: the Federal surface transportation 

program should not be reauthorized in its current form. Instead, we should make 

a new beginning. We must reform how the Nation upgrades and expands its transportation network, from how we pick the projects in the planning process to how 

we build them in the field. Federal investment should be guided by a national surface transportation strategic plan that employs benefit cost-analysis and performance-based outcomes, just as in the private sector. In particular, we believe the Nation should set ambitious and achievable performance goals for our surface transportation system, such as cutting traffic fatalities in half by 2025 or reducing urban 

traffic congestion by 20 percent from today’s levels over the same period of time. 

Another aspect of our reform agenda is shortening the time to complete environmental reviews, in conjunction with other measures that speed the design and construction of new highway, transit, and freight capacity. In an era when—until the 

recent recession—steel and concrete prices were rising at 7–10 percent annually, we 

can no longer afford to wait a decade or more to move transportation projects from 

concept to completion (see Exhibit 1). 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 


428HEMIN1.eps
33 

For example, last September a new replacement Interstate 35W bridge was 

opened for traffic in downtown Minneapolis only 13 months after the tragic collapse 

of its predecessor span. This stands in stark contrast to the 13 years that the average major highway project takes to advance from project initiation to completion, 

according to the Federal Highway Administration. If Minnesota can do it, so can the 

rest of the Nation. 

2. Restructuring 

There are 108 separate categorical surface transportation programs in current 

Federal law. It is safe to say that any agency of government with more than 100 

priorities really has none at all. Our commission report—Transportation for Tomorrow—recommends replacing this plethora of programs with 10 new initiatives to 

guide Federal investment in areas of genuine national interest such as: upgrading 

the Nation’s roads, bridges, and transit systems to a state of good repair; improving 

our global gateways and national goods movement system to ensure U.S. international competitiveness; and restoring mobility in congested metropolitan areas of 

greater than 1 million population that will be the engines of our economic recovery 

and prosperity (see Exhibit 2). We also propose to restructure the U.S. Department 

of Transportation so it can better accomplish this streamlined mission. 

3. Reinvestment 

Transportation for Tomorrow estimates that the U.S. needs to invest at least $225 

billion annually for the next 50 years to repair our existing transportation network 

and to build the more advanced facilities we will require to remain competitive in 

a global economy (see Exhibit 3). We are spending less than 40 percent of this 

amount today. To boost investment, we will need to raise new revenue from the private sector as well as all levels of government—Federal, state, and local. The additional public funding should come primarily from users of the transportation system 

who will benefit the most from its improvement, whether in the form of higher fuel 

taxes and truck weight charges or a new fee on passenger rail tickets and container 

cargo. While no one likes higher taxes or fees, if we want a better transportation 

system we are going to have to pay for it. There is no free lunch. 


428HEMIN2.eps
34 

Source: Commission staff analysis. 

When we released our Commission report in January 2008, we called on the country to ‘‘create and sustain the preeminent surface transportation system in the 

world.’’ Since that time, members of the Commission have testified numerous times 

before committees of both houses of Congress and have made presentations to dozens of industry, civic, and community groups throughout the Nation. Our call for 

a comprehensive overhaul of Federal surface transportation policy has resonated 

strongly with many key stakeholders and decision-makers. 

By 2050, the total U.S. population is projected to reach 420 million, a 50 percent 

increase from the year 2000. This growing society will demand higher levels of goods 

and services, and will rely on the transportation system to obtain them. If history 

is any guide, this will cause travel to grow at an even faster rate than population 

itself. As part of an increasingly integrated global economy, the U.S. will see greater 

pressures on its international gateways and domestic freight distribution network 

to deliver products to where they are needed. In short, the Nation is faced with a 

massive increase in passenger and freight travel in the years to come. And we must 

accommodate this future travel demand in far more sustainable ways than we have 

in the past, such as through increased reliance on urban and intercity passenger 

rail. 

Faced with these daunting challenges, Federal surface transportation policy has 

reached a crossroads. Will it continue to function as it has since the substantial 

completion of the Interstate Highway System in the late 1980s, essentially as a 

block grant program with little accountability for specific outcomes and burdened 

by widespread congressional earmarking? Or will it advance concerted actions to 

confront the transportation challenges facing the Nation as a whole? My Commission colleagues and I urge you to blaze a new path toward a more robust Federal 

program refocused to protect our national security, enhance our international competitiveness, and safeguard our enviable quality of life. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Holmes? 


428HEMIN3.eps
35 

STATEMENT OF NED S. HOLMES, 

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER, AND CHAIRMAN, 

TRANSPORTATION TRANSFORMATION GROUP 

Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchison, Senator Begich. I am honored to be here as member of the Texas 

Transportation Commission and also as Chairman of the Transportation Transformation Group, or T2. 

Texas is a high-growth state with significant congestion. TxDOT 

formed the 2030 Committee. It was a panel of transportation experts and business leaders. It estimated that Texas will require 

$14 billion a year just to maintain the status quo. We currently 

have around $3 billion a year, a huge shortfall. 

With SAFETEA–LU expiring this year, we have a challenge and 

an opportunity to create a new vision. As Secretary LaHood so eloquently stated, sustainable funding mechanisms that expand and 

enhance our infrastructure investments are critically needed now. 

Funding is not sustaining our current needs, much less those of the 

future. The longer we wait to act, the more it will cost to address 

the problems. 

Inflation has dramatically increased costs and decreased the purchasing power of motor fuels tax. To compound the situation, fuel 

taxes are declining. In Texas, the state fuel taxes were 8 percent 

lower this April compared to last April, and that is in a highgrowth state. States have to choose between maintenance and new 

capacity. In Texas, our forecasts indicate that in 2012, gas taxes 

will only be sufficient to pay for a portion of much-needed maintenance. 

Other troubling Federal funding issues are the Federal Highway 

Trust Fund which is trending toward insolvency and rescissions 

which have been almost $14.5 billion to date, with another $8.5 billion this year. Texas’ share of the total by the end of this year will 

be nearly $2 billion. We urge you to end the rescissions. 

T2 was formed to address these challenges. We are an alliance 

of State DOTs from Florida, Indiana, New Hampshire, Texas, and 

Utah, port and toll authorities, think tanks, academic institutions, 

financial and engineering firms. We believe that national transportation policy needs to be transformed from a process-based system 

to a goal-based system that maximizes flexibility and enhances the 

roles of the public sector and the private sector partners. 

T2 elected not to engage in past debates such as donor-donee 

fights and the gas tax issues. The reforms that are needed transcend those issues. We believe the Federal Government should be 

primarily responsible for establishing a customer-focused, longrange vision of surface transportation that includes all modes of 

moving people and goods. 

We suggest that Congress empower states to set goals, make decisions, and deliver projects that implement that national strategy. 

States must be accountable and transparent and their performance 

measured. 

We support the continuation of the Federal motor fuel tax, coupled with significant program reforms and additional innovative financing methods. We also believe that our current static per-gallon 

fuel charge is not a sustainable, long-term method to fund our system. We support the transition from a fuel-based funding system 

36 

to a user-fee system such as VMT pricing. The lengthy time for 

transition will require revenue enhancements, a suggestion made 

by recent Federal study commissions. 

In summary, T2 emphasizes a multimodal approach with flexibility in all areas, fewer and less restrictive Federal funding categories, and more sustainable financial models and business strategies. In Texas, we need flexibility to blend transit, rail, and highways. In New Hampshire, they need flexibility for Commissioner 

George Campbell’s rail revitalization to link Concord and Boston. 

Florida has created a strategic intermodal system that includes airport, highway, rail, and seaport facilities which will require more 

flexible funding. Utah, Indiana, and other states also need flexibility to solve their own unique transportation issues. 

Our citizens deserve a renewed focus on customer service, reduced congestion, improved air quality, and improved quality of life 

for our increasingly urban nation. Infrastructure investment also 

promotes economic growth and prosperity, a promising legacy to 

leave for our children. 

The needs of our Nation are great and your task is very difficult. 

On behalf of TxDOT and T2, I appreciate your time and I thank 

you very much for your service. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holmes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NED S. HOLMES, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER, 

AND CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORTATION TRANSFORMATION GROUP

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ned Holmes. Thank you for inviting me to testify. I am honored to be here. I am here wearing two hats today, one as a Texas 

Transportation Commissioner and the other as Chairman of the Transportation 

Transformation Group. Before I finish, I want to put on a third hat as a transportation consumer. 

Texas is a big state with a big transportation system and big problems. Texas has 

more paved lane-miles than any other state—192,150 to be exact—and it is the responsibility of our Commission to maintain and improve our transportation system. 

We have more bridges than any other state, just over 51,000. Our state’s population 

is forecast to grow from 23 million to 34 million by 2030. 

There are many positive aspects of living in a high growth state, but one of the 

unfortunate realities is the mounting congestion that accompanies the population 

growth. Our Commission convened a panel of transportation experts and business 

leaders to determine the transportation needs in Texas. This group, the 2030 Committee, recently concluded that highway traffic delay in urban Texas has increased 

more than 500 percent in the last two decades. The average urban Texas commuter 

spends an extra 32 hours in traffic each year, 60 percent more than a decade ago 

and that extra delay costs them $6.7 billion per year (2007). The price tag to meet 

the state’s needs, defined as not getting any worse, is $315 billion from 2009 

through 2030. Each high-growth state has a similar story to tell. 

I do not believe that our national transportation system is facing a looming crisis 

because that crisis is already here and is destined to decline further unless we all 

take meaningful action to improve funding. Population, income and economic activity have risen for many years, increasing the demand for transportation, but infrastructure has not kept pace. While the economy is currently experiencing a downturn, history shows that it will come back strong, and that a reliable transportation 

system lays the foundation for economic growth and productivity. Funding is not 

sustaining our current needs, much less those of the future. The investment choices 

that we make today are the legacy that we are leaving to our children, either the 

opportunity for growth, or the problem of how to fund a deteriorating system. The 

longer that we wait to act, the more it will cost to address the problems. 

Inflation has dramatically decreased the purchasing power of the motor fuels tax 

while increasing construction and maintenance costs over time. To compound the 

situation, motor fuels taxes are declining. In April, Texas state motor fuels taxes 

were over 8 percent lower than the same time last year. States have to choose between maintaining their aging infrastructure and adding new capacity because 

37 

there isn’t enough funding to do both. Soon there won’t be enough to do either. In 

Texas our current forecasts indicate that will occur in the first quarter of 2012. 

Funding is even more complicated by dozens of Federal programs with narrow 

focus and often competing priorities. Many states that have borrowed in the past 

few years to fill the funding gap are now reaching their debt capacity. The Federal 

Highway Trust Fund is having solvency issues, adding yet another layer of uncertainty for future funding. This is a dire picture, and it calls for a new approach to 

fund our transportation system. The opportunity for change is before us now. 

To help address the transportation challenge to Texas and the Nation, I participated in forming the Transportation Transformation Group, known as T2. We are 

an alliance of state departments of transportation from Florida, Indiana, New 

Hampshire, Texas and Utah, port and toll authorities; think tanks, academic institutions, financial and engineering firms. We have explored the details of major studies produced over the past year related to reauthorization and a summary of their 

views is included in your packet. We concluded that national transportation policy 

needs to be transformed from a process- based system to a goal-based arrangement 

that maximizes flexibility and enhances the roles of the state and local public sectors and their private sector partners to solve the growing problems of congestion 

and mobility. 

Fundamental reform of transportation policy is needed to retain our status as a 

global leader. Since the old means are no longer sustainable, new methods are critical for success. T2 seeks to move beyond past debates: whether fuel taxes can be 

increased and the fight among donor-donee states. The reforms needed transcend 

those issues. Our Federal transportation policy has evolved from a goal of completing the interstate system to a program with a vague central focus and more recently, inadequate funding. Customer needs, both motorists and shippers, should 

drive the transformation. We believe the Federal Government should primarily be 

responsible for establishing a long-range vision of surface transportation that includes all modes for moving people and goods, as well as the providers and customers of the system. 

We also firmly believe that states and their regional partners can deliver that vision if provided enough latitude. 

Once Congress defines the strategy and the policy framework, we suggest empowering states to set goals, make decisions, and deliver projects that implement the 

national strategy. The states must then be accountable and transparent; using performance measures to prove how they have met the goals they set. Common performance measures would likely include safety, environmental stewardship, reduced 

congestion, well-maintained roads, and improved economic opportunity. 

We support the continuation of the existing Federal motor fuel tax coupled with 

significant program reforms and additional innovative financing methods which are 

made fully available to the states. We also believe that our current static per gallon 

fuel charge is not a sustainable means to fund our system. We support the transition from a fuel tax-based funding system to a fee-based system, such as vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) pricing and at a pace acceptable to Congressional leaders. 

Revenue enhancements will be needed to bridge the transition from one revenue 

source to the other, a suggestion made by both recent Federal study commissions. 

Transformation should redefine the roles of the Federal, state and local governments. The stimulus bill includes features that could provide a foundation for a 

transformed relationship, including: 

• Providing the bulk of Federal funding to states by formula; 

• Giving states the flexibility to deliver projects; and 

• Measuring the results for all to see. 

Building on this start, transportation transformation should encourage and enable 

states to employ business strategies and innovative finance techniques that help 

meet transportation goals. These might include tolling, congestion pricing, high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, VMT pricing, and the full range of public private partnerships mechanisms to bring additional resources to solving transportation issues. The 

unmet needs are so great, it will take all options. 

By way of example, there are two outer loops being planned in Texas, Loop 9 in 

Dallas and the Grand Parkway in Houston, that are each estimated to cost over $5 

billion. These are complex projects that will require multiple funding sources. There 

are many similar needs throughout the Nation. 

T2 supports flexibility and access to all available tools from which states and regions can develop creative solutions to best meet their transportation goals and 

solve their diverse transportation problems. That is how great innovators solve 

problems, not by identifying which box to check. The process should not drive the 

38 

solution. We currently have to plan transportation projects around the rigid limitations of the funding categories, a frustrating exercise at best. Project priorities 

should not be set according to available balances in funding categories. America’s 

transportation innovators need to be given the flexibility and incentives to creatively 

solve the challenges we face, including mixing modes, delivery methods and funding 

sources. 

If Congress will define the vision and give us the flexibility to fulfill it, we will 

answer the challenge. All forms of project delivery, funding sources and financial options in any combination need to be available, including: 

• Blending different modes and fund sources in one project; 

• An expanded Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 

(TIFIA) program, allowing eligible projects to proceed and the development of 

additional projects in the near term; 

• Ability to tap private sector capital (public private partnerships) as states and 

regions choose; 

• Uncapped use of private activity bonds (PABs); 

• Strategic sourcing procurement techniques for materials such as steel; 

• Loosened Federal tolling restrictions at state and local discretion and increased 

number of exemption options under current programs; 

• Concession-based comprehensive project delivery and operation; 

• Modified accelerated depreciation; 

• Investment tax credit; and 

• A transportation investment bank. 

In summary, T2 emphasizes flexibility in all areas, fewer and less restrictive Federal funding categories, and more sustainable financial models and business strategies. All states, whether high growth or low growth, big or small, will benefit from 

having flexible options which will allow the creation of custom solutions to meet 

their goals. In Texas, we need flexibility to blend transit, rail and highways. We are 

currently struggling to find funds to improve rail to road crossings, a major safety 

and congestion issue in urban and rural areas. In New Hampshire, they need flexibility for Commissioner George Campbell’s rail revitalization to link Concord and 

Boston, which will regenerate downtowns, create jobs, and protect the environment. 

Florida, Utah, Indiana and other states each have their own unique transportation 

issues and added flexibility will facilitate their solutions. 

Citizens will benefit by a renewed focus on customer service, reduced congestion 

which improves our quality of life and the prosperity that added infrastructure investment allows. We also deserve added levels of accountability and transparency, 

having easy-to-use Internet information, knowing where public funds are being 

spent, and the status of current projects. As a citizen these benefits appeal to me. 

On behalf of the Texas Transportation Commission, the Transportation Transformation Group and the Holmes family of mobility consumers, I appreciate your 

time and thank you for your attention. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Holmes. I listened with amazement. I know Texas is big. I have been through 

Texas and many places, but when I hear that you have more paved 

lanes than any other state more than I think California, more 

length, and the high number bridges and so forth. You called off 

problems that each state has. And you left out New Jersey. So I 

do not know if the implication is that we are perfect in what we 

are doing or whether or not we are just too far down to get into 

line. But I can tell you transportation is the lifeblood of New Jersey, and we have to be able to do it. 

It is so interesting. And I will take no further time. But I mentioned the breadth of the differences that we have in our society. 

There are wholesome differences. These states are different, and 

we cannot just have a one-size-fits-all. So I hope that we can all 

cooperate. 

Anyway, we are thankful to have you here. 

Mr. Corless? 

39 

STATEMENT OF JAMES CORLESS, DIRECTOR, 

TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA 

Mr. CORLESS. Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, 

Members of the Subcommittee, I am James Corless. I am the Director for Transportation for America, or T4 America. You have got 

T2. I promise we are not twice as big. T4 America. 

Thank you very much for inviting us today to testify on the future of our national surface transportation policy. T4 America is 

the country’s broadest and most diverse transportation coalition 

with more than 270 member organizations nationwide in the fields 

of transportation, housing, environment, public health, real estate, 

safety, and social equity. 

Mr. Chairman, T4 America is grateful for your leadership on 

both Amtrak and ARC, the new mass transit tunnel connecting 

New Jersey with Midtown Manhattan that is set to break ground 

in June because they are paving the way for a 21st century transportation system. 

We are here today because we believe, while Congress has the 

chance to rewrite our Nation’s transportation law every 6 years, 

the chance to truly change national transportation policy comes 

only once in a generation. The upcoming authorization of the Federal transportation bill presents just such an opportunity. 

But we know, as do you, the challenges ahead of us in this authorization are immense. The Federal transportation program had 

a brief moment on the national media stage in last year’s Presidential election, but it was not a positive one. It was the ‘‘bridge 

to nowhere’’ that became a symbol of what needed to be fixed in 

Washington. And now we find ourselves with the Highway Trust 

Fund going broke and the difficult political reality that we are 

going to have to ask the American people to pay more if we are 

going to keep the Federal transportation program solvent. 

Of course, if we are going to ask the public to pay more, they will 

want to know exactly what they are getting for their money. It is 

our responsibility to provide America with a new vision. We have 

done this before. President Lincoln pledged to link the coasts of our 

Nation with a transcontinental railroad in the 19th century. Nearly 

100 years later, the Members of Congress who sat in your very 

seats were inspired to create the interstate highway system. 

And now we need a vision for a 21st century transportation system, a system that should be smarter, safer, cleaner, and provide 

more choices for all Americans, a system that T4 America believes 

ought to be based on the following six national transportation objectives: economic competitiveness; the preservation and maintenance of existing assets; safety, and improved public health; energy 

conservation and security; protecting the environment and addressing environmental justice; and finally, providing equal access to 

transportation options in urban, suburban, and rural communities. 

Using these objectives as a framework, the new transportation 

bill should define specific, measurable targets that transportation 

agencies must meet. T4 America is specifically recommending the 

following performance targets over a 20-year period: to improve the 

share of transportation facilities that are well-maintained and in 

good condition by 20 percent; to reduce traffic-related crashes by 50 

percent; to reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita by 16 percent; 

40 

to triple the rates of walking, biking, public transportation, and 

passenger rail use; to reduce the transportation-generated levels of 

carbon dioxide by 40 percent; to reduce vehicle delay per capita by 

10 percent; to increase the share of freight carried on rail by 20 

percent; to achieve zero population exposure to health-harming levels of air pollution; to reduce household expenditures on housing 

and transportation by 10 percent; finally, to increase by 50 percent 

the number of essential destinations accessible for low-income, senior, and disabled populations. 

Now, unfortunately, we do not have currently a performancedriven transportation planning process. In order to get there, we 

are going to have to invest more in robust data collection efforts 

and provide significant technical assistance to transportation agencies at all levels of government. 

Finally, T4 America believes that there should be a renewed 

commitment to rural areas in the next Federal transportation bill. 

We are calling for a new program designed specifically for small 

cities and rural regions because there are such a number of key 

issues that we believe need to be addressed, such as developing 

rural road safety measures that prioritize cost-effective solutions; 

developing public transportation, van pools, ride-sharing for rural 

areas that can realize efficiencies through the use of technology, 

shared vehicles and volunteer services; reinvesting in rail freight 

and short line railroads; supporting stronger coordination of transportation and land use in rural areas to preserve rural town character and promote local economic development efforts; and finally, 

elevating the capacity of rural planning to promote greater cooperation with state departments of transportation. 

As Congress considers the upcoming transportation authorization, T4 America stands ready to assist you in developing a new 

vision for a world-class transportation system through strong national transportation objectives, performance targets, and programs 

that meet the needs of our cities, suburbs, and rural areas. 

Thank you again for inviting Transportation for America to testify before this Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Corless follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES CORLESS, DIRECTOR, 

TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for inviting Transportation for America to testify today on 

the future of our national surface transportation policy. Transportation for America 

is the country’s broadest and most diverse transportation coalition. Our members 

hail from the fields of transportation, housing, environment, public health, real estate, safety, and social equity, representing more than 270 different organizations. 

We work closely with local elected officials and transportation practitioners. And together, we are calling for a 21st Century transportation system that is smarter, 

safer, and cleaner—and provides real choices for all Americans. 

Transportation investments are our Nation’s best tool to improve our economic 

competitiveness, reduce energy usage and curb greenhouse gas emissions, provide 

good paying green jobs and increase economic opportunity and quality of life for all 

Americans. The upcoming rewrite of our Federal transportation law represents a 

once in a lifetime opportunity to develop a new national transportation vision and 

leave behind a legacy for our children and grandchildren. 

Lack of a Compelling National Surface Transportation Policy 

Unfortunately, our Nation lacks a cohesive national surface transportation policy 

and consequently cannot adequately address many of our transportation challenges 

41 

let alone address other pressing national issues. Today our strength as a nation is 

specifically being limited by: 

• a dependency on petroleum that threatens our national security, drains household budgets, exacerbates climate change, undermines public health, and imperils the U.S. economy; 

• a haphazard, inefficient relationship between our transportation systems and 

our land development patterns; 

• a backlog of crumbling, unsafe, and obsolete transportation facilities; 

• an outmoded freight transportation system that is over-capacity and incapable 

of efficiently linking the U.S. national economy into the global economy; and, 

• a transportation system that provides few options for aging Americans, low-income families and others who are unable or can’t afford to drive. 

The Need for a National Vision, Objectives and Performance Targets 

First and foremost, the next Federal surface transportation bill must articulate 

a clear and compelling vision for a new National Transportation System; one that 

prepares for and responds to the myriad challenges facing our Nation today and tomorrow. While the 1956 Interstate Highway Act met the needs of our country in 

the mid-twentieth century, America in the 21st Century needs a complete national 

transportation system that includes safe, well-maintained interstates, highways, 

high speed rail, public transportation, bicycling and pedestrian networks to face the 

ongoing challenges of energy security, global warming, changing demographics, public health care costs, and global economic competition. 

Transportation for America therefore calls on Congress to develop a new national 

vision for a 21st Century transportation system, and to clearly define the national 

interest and purpose of the Federal transportation program through the establishment of National Transportation Objectives. Specifically, Transportation for America 

proposes the following six objectives: 

1. Improve Economic Competitiveness, System Efficiency and Workforce Development Opportunities; 

2. Improve Transportation System Conditions and Connectivity; 

3. Ensure Safety for All Transportation Users and Improve Public Health Outcomes; 

4. Promote Energy Conservation and Achieve Energy Security; 

5. Ensure Environmental Protection, Restore Climate Stability and Resolve Persistent Environmental Justice issues; 

6. Provide Equal and Equitable Access to Transportation Options in Urban, 

Suburban and Rural Communities. 

Only by defining a set of objectives for our transportation system can we then 

identify and follow through with a set of measures to achieve them thereby addressing the numerous challenges facing this Nation. 

Ensuring Accountability by Measuring Performance 

Transportation for America further recommends that Congress establish National 

Transportation Performance Targets for states and regions to evaluate progress on 

achieving the National Transportation Objectives. This combination of measures 

should be powerful drivers of change since no single measure can fully assess 

achievement of a particular national goal, since all are complex, are dependent on 

many variables and have multiple ways in which they can be evaluated. Consistent 

with typical planning horizons, targets could be set for 20 years. Financial rewards 

and penalties based on progress toward NTO’s should serve as a basis for accountability. 

Transportation for America recommends the following key performance targets be 

embedded in new transportation legislation as a means for ensuring national 

progress toward the National Transportation Objectives: 

• Increase the share of surface transportation facilities in a state of good repair 

by 20 percent in 20 years. 

• Reduce traffic-related crashes by 50 percent in 20 years. 

• Reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled by 16 percent in 20 years. 

• Triple walking, biking, public transportation, and passenger rail use in 20 

years. 

• Reduce the transportation-generated CO2 levels by 40 percent in 20 years. 

• Reduce vehicle delay per capita by 10 percent in 20 years. 

42 

• Increase the share of freight carried on rail by 20 percent in 20 years. 

• Achieve zero population exposure to at-risk levels of air pollution in 20 years. 

• Reduce household expenditures on housing and transportation by 10 percent in 

20 years. 

• Increase by 50 percent the number of essential destinations accessible within 

30 minutes by public transportation or a 15-minute walk for low-income, senior 

and disabled populations in 20 years. 

The Importance of Rural Transportation 

Transportation for America strongly believes that there should be a renewed commitment to rural areas in the next Federal transportation bill. In our forthcoming 

policy proposal for the Federal transportation authorization, we call for a new funding program designed specifically for small cities and rural regions. There are a 

number of key issues that we believe need to be addressed for rural areas: 

• Developing rural road safety measures that prioritize quicker and more cost-effective solutions for all users; 

• Developing effective, flexible forms of public transportation, vanpools and ridesharing for rural areas that can realize efficiencies through the use of technology, shared vehicles and volunteer services. 

• Addressing freight demand through reinvestment in short haul freight railroads. 

• Supporting stronger coordination of transportation and land use in rural areas, 

particularly to preserve traffic capacity by managing growth along roadway corridors that are prone to haphazard development. 

• Elevating the status of rural planning districts by providing additional planning 

funds and providing rural regions greater access to and cooperation with decisionmakers within state departments of transportation. 

Our Nation’s Transportation Future 

In the future, our Nation’s surface transportation system should provide the foundation for personal opportunity, robust commerce and a healthy population. It 

should achieve national goals for economic development, environmental sustainability and equitable access. It should be a modern, 21st Century system, investing 

strategically in new capacity with care and upkeep of existing infrastructure. Public 

transit systems, high-speed intercity rail corridors, roadway facilities, waterways, 

ports, bridges, bicycle and pedestrian facilities all should be kept in a state of good 

repair. The trillions of dollars in asset value of the systems and facilities built over 

the past century should be protected and enhanced. 

The transportation program should be designed to invigorate local and regional 

economies and facilitate efficient inter-regional commerce. It should reduce energy 

use and greenhouse gas emissions by supporting more sustainable land use and 

travel patterns. Our national transportation investments should help provide affordable housing opportunities near good public transit service and employment centers 

and should promote walking and bicycling as economical and healthy modes. America’s surface transportation system should enable us to compete successfully in a 

global economy and should be a model for other nations to follow. 

Transportation for America supports a rejuvenated, redirected national transportation program that would result in a national mobility network providing a vital, 

complete array of mobility choices easily accessible to the vast majority of Americans—whether walking, bicycling, driving or traveling on public transportation—in 

a unified, interconnected, energy-efficient manner. Such a system will serve our national interests, add value to communities, contribute positively to public health and 

safety, and reflect the values of equity and fairness that have been hallmarks of our 

Nation’s domestic policy. 

As Congress considers the upcoming transportation authorization, Transportation 

for America stands ready to assist its efforts in developing a world leading and sustainable transportation system that will turn this Nation back into a world leader 

on surface transportation policy. Again, thank you for inviting Transportation for 

America to testify before this Subcommittee. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Now, Ms. Canby, please. 

43 

STATEMENT OF ANNE P. CANBY, PRESIDENT, 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PARTNERSHIP 

Ms. CANBY. Thank you, Senator, Ranking Member Thune, and 

other Members of the Committee. I am very pleased to be here this 

afternoon representing the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership and also as a founding member of the OneRail Coalition. 

STPP commends the Committee for holding this hearing to 

launch a discussion on the need for a national surface transportation policy. We strongly support the idea of defining a national 

policy that makes the connection between our surface transportation policies and other critical national issues. 

There is a long history in defining national transportation policy, 

which is spelled out in my full statement, from Secretary Coleman’s statement back in 1975 to SAFETEA’s ‘‘bridges to nowhere.’’ 

Suffice it to say, we have yet to establish a meaningful policy for 

surface transportation with clear objectives, goals, or accountability. 

The negative reaction to ‘‘bridges to nowhere’’ created, however, 

a positive result in the sense that people are beginning to talk 

about the need for a clearer sense of national purpose, calling for 

meaningful outcomes, and for greater accountability in the expenditure of Federal resources. The Transportation Policy and Revenue 

Study Commission that my colleague, Steve Heminger, served on 

addressed this issue head on in its report, saying that new revenue 

should be accompanied by a performance-based approach that identifies priorities and avoids parochial and wasteful spending. 

Establishing a clear national policy would create a framework for 

moving to such an outcome-driven performance-based set of programs and, hopefully in my lifetime anyway, away from a donordonee set of issues. Integrating modal systems into national, state, 

regional, and local networks would yield system efficiency and productivity benefits for all users. 

The current program structure could be described, I would suggest, as a jumble of functional, modal, and system-related mechanisms to distribute funds to state transportation and transit agencies. Rail programs currently have no connection to the highway or 

transit programs. This structure makes it extremely difficult to integrate the various forms of transportation into an efficient network. 

With energy and climate challenges facing our Nation, STPP believes it is critical that a national policy should encompass rail, 

pipeline, and waterborne systems, along with highway, transit, and 

bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 

National policy is best served if the relationship between the 

Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector is 

truly a partnership. The Federal-State relationship, as described in 

section 145 of Title 23, providing for a ‘‘federally assisted State program’’ has constrained the Federal role in terms of policy direction 

and accountability for national policy outcomes. Federal leadership 

is critical to direct and oversee implementation of national policies 

across sectors and modes and to ensure that transportation contributes to the national solutions for some of the challenges we face. 

To measure performance, we have to know what it is we want 

to accomplish. Today congestion and time delays have become the 

44 

de facto performance indicators, along with the physical condition 

of our roads, bridges, and transit facilities. In our view, this is too 

narrow a perspective especially in light of President Obama’s agenda to implement energy and climate policies, to restore America’s 

prosperity, and to reduce our health care costs. His agenda calls 

out for synergies between transportation policy and other sectors of 

national interest. 

Clearly, transportation affects a number of sectors: its heavy reliance on fossil fuels, as has been noted, as well as a significant 

share of our carbon emissions, the impact on our pocketbooks, our 

economic leadership, and our health, just to name a few. 

Objectives should address both the internally focused areas of 

safety, system connectivity, network efficiency, and asset preservation, as well as key external links between our transportation system and energy use, carbon emissions, reasonable access for all 

users, and sustainable development patterns. 

For national policy to have any meaning, it is important to connect objectives with outcomes expected from Federal programs and 

funding support. My statement provides more description of that. 

Provisions under the current law ensuring accountability are insufficient or nonexistent. Only one program that I am familiar 

with, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, is tied to a national 

purpose with specific goals and consequences for failing to meet 

them. And having lived through the initiation of that law, I can tell 

you it was a challenge in the early years. Other programs may 

have a clear purpose, but no goals or accountability for results. 

Aligning program structure, funding distribution factors, and use 

of funds in support of our national policies would go a long way to 

meaningful accountability. More detail is provided also in my full 

statement. 

A good step in the next authorization would be to require a report that measures the performance of the transportation system 

in the context of national goals. STPP believes that Congress 

should establish a baseline year from which to measure the performance of all elements of the system, from local walking trips to 

regional work trips, to shipment of products and markets around 

the Nation and to the world. 

The report should examine emerging trends that affect the performance of our transportation system, assess the critical impediments to achieving national goals and propose strategies for success. 

Further, we suggest including an analysis of expenditures for 

surface transportation by program and by type of investment for all 

modes in this report, along with surveys on how the public thinks 

the system is in fact performing. 

A critical component—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The rest of your statement will be included 

in the record. If you could conclude. 

Ms. CANBY. Thank you. Let me do that. 

We believe it is essential to have a statement of national purpose 

supported by clear objectives with goals and regular reporting. And 

we stand ready to work with you to achieve this. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Canby follows:] 

45 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNE P. CANBY, PRESIDENT, 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PARTNERSHIP

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune, Subcommittee Members, I am 

Anne Canby, President of the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, a national 

transportation reform coalition. STPP is a founding member of the Transportation 

for America coalition and OneRail, a coalition of passenger and freight rail organizations committed to advancing rail as a cornerstone of our Nation’s transportation 

network. Over the years, I have directed two state transportation departments (DE 

& NJ). 

We commend the Committee for holding this hearing to discuss the need for a coherent national surface transportation policy to shape Federal surface transportation programs and guide the investments made by the public and private owners 

and operators of our various transportation systems. 

STPP strongly supports the idea of defining a national transportation policy, particularly one that acknowledges the connection between our surface transportation 

policies and other critical national issues. A national policy should be supported by 

clearly stated objectives with specific goals. The objectives and goals should be 

backed up with a requirement to track progress, or lack thereof, toward meeting national goals. Regular reporting on performance would provide focus for our national 

transportation priorities and desired outcomes. For too long the U.S. Transportation 

Department has been more of a rule keeper than a policy implementer. 

Background 

Back in 1975, then Secretary William Coleman issued a Statement of National 

Transportation Policy in which he called for ‘‘a more safe, efficient, diverse and competitive transportation system’’ and highlighted five areas—the Federal role, U.S.- 

International concerns, Federal-state relations, government and the private transportation sectors, and the public interests-enhanced quality of life. (A copy of the 

Excerpts from the 1975 Statement is attached.) Thirty some years later these issues 

are still relevant. 

There here have been periodic trend reports since then, but little to no focus on 

how the system is performing relative to a set of defined national goals. 

The 1991 authorization of the surface transportation program, ISTEA, included a 

declaration of policy (Sec. 2) which described the nature of the transportation system and stressed the need for an energy efficient system that links American enterprise to world commerce, and improves productivity while addressing the mobility 

needs for the elderly, persons with disabilities and economically disadvantaged persons. A copy of the declaration is attached to my written statement. 

In the next authorization, TEA–21, this policy was removed. Some elements were 

listed under the state and metropolitan planning sections to be ‘‘considered’’ in the 

development of the long-range transportation plans. However, there are no consequences for failure to do so. 

The most recent authorization, SAFETEA, was project heavy and failed to include 

policy goals, becoming an embarrassment, as critics tarred it as building bridges to 

nowhere. 

In the absence of any clearly defined national purpose, congestion and time delays 

have become the de facto performance indicators along with the physical condition 

of our roads, bridges, and transit facilities. In our view, this represents too a narrow 

perspective, especially when one considers the role and impact of our surface transportation system across a wide array of sectors—on climate emissions, energy dependence and use, on our public and personal pocketbooks, economic efficiency, our 

health, and the well being of our communities. 

As you are aware, there is a strong connection between our carbon emissions and 

transportation. Similarly, transportation plays a major role in our Nation’s energy 

dilemma. With 97 percent of transportation fuel derived from fossil fuels, the transportation sector is particularly vulnerable to any disruption in oil supplies and price 

escalation. 

To date the approach has been to focus on technology (CAFE and alternate fuels) 

to reduce transportation’s share of energy use and GHG emissions. Both are necessary, but together will not produce the level of emission reductions necessary to 

bring transportation related emissions down to 60–80 percent of 1990 levels. 

In terms of our pocketbooks, transportation today represents an average of 18 percent of household expenditures, second only to housing. Higher than food, health 

care, or education. For families in the lower income brackets, transportation can 

represent as much as 30 percent of expenditures. As we seek to shore up America’s 

middle class, we should focus both on improving incomes and also on reducing the 

cost of transportation to our families. Our reliance on auto-based transportation is 

46 

forcing families to acquire depreciating assets and in many cases depriving them of 

ever having access to enough credit to purchase a home and build wealth as so 

many American have done in the past. 

Sustaining our economic leadership in the world requires an efficient, resilient 

transportation network with every mode carrying its share of trips. We have come 

to realize that meeting our Nation’s transportation demands will require more than 

expanding our overburdened highway system. We must ensure that other modes 

will play a greater role in moving people and goods to their destinations. 

Finally, with health costs rising and our population aging, facilitating physical activity as part our transportation agenda will not only improve our health, reduce 

obesity, a rising health threat, but reduce the rise in health care costs. The longer 

we stay healthy, the lower our costs. 

These are all issues of national significance and transportation is connected to 

each one of them. 

President Obama’s commitment to implement energy and climate policies, to restore America’s prosperity, and to reduce our health care costs, provides the opening 

to link transportation with other sectors of national interest. 

Establishing a national surface transportation policy with clear objectives, goals, 

outcomes, and regular reporting on the progress toward meeting them can help create synergies that do not exist today. 

Moving Forward 

The negative reaction over ‘‘bridges to nowhere’’ from the SAFETEA law created 

a positive result in the sense that people began to talk about the need for a clearer 

sense of the Federal purpose, what outcomes we should be working to achieve, and 

the need for greater accountability in the expenditure of Federal resources. We 

began to hear questions like—what is our money buying, how will our lives be better with this investment, how will our economy function more efficiently. 

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission addressed this issue head on in its report released in early 2008—saying that new revenue should be accompanied by ‘‘a performance-based approach that identifies priorities, and avoids parochial and wasteful spending.’’ 

The financial crisis facing the Federal Highway Trust fund has also forced the 

question of what the Federal role in surface transportation should be. 

National Policy 

STPP and our partners agree that a clear sense of national purpose (why do we 

have this legislation) with clear goals and meaningful accountability for meeting 

them (what will we get with this investment) are essential if we are going have a 

transportation system that is capable of delivering the services to support America’s 

economy in the 21st Century. Establishing a sense of purpose with accountability 

for outcomes will also help build support for additional financial resources for transportation investment. 

With energy and climate challenges facing our nation, STPP believes it is critical 

that any definition of our surface transportation system include rail, pipeline and 

waterborne systems along with highway, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Over time as technology advanced, we have tended to build individual modal 

systems. We have not truly integrated these modes into an energy efficient network. 

This may be our next challenge. 

The current program structure reflects this mono-modal approach. Taken together 

today’s highway and transit programs comprise a jumble of functional, modal, and 

system related mechanisms to distribute funds to state transportation and transit 

agencies. Rail programs currently have no connection to the highway and transit 

programs. This structure makes it extremely difficult to integrate the various modes 

into an efficient network. 

Establishing a clear national policy sets the stage to move away from today’s programmatic fragmentation to an outcome driven, performance based set of programs 

in which each mode from—sidewalks to intercity rail lines—plays a key role in providing access to education, healthcare, jobs, shopping and entertainment, domestic 

and international markets, distribution centers, and manufacturing facilities. I include the local network because, if we ignore it, too many trips move to the regional 

or interstate networks overloading them and adding to congestion. 

The integration of modal systems into national, state, regional, and local networks 

will yield system efficiency and productivity benefits for all users and provide options for all types of trips. 

Federal Role 

STPP has had concerns for some time over the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the states described in Section 145 of Title 23 as providing for ‘‘a 

47 

federally-assisted State program.’’ For all intents and purposes, this language has 

constrained the Federal role in terms of policy direction, oversight and accountability for outcomes that are clearly in the national interest. We believe the relationship between the Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector 

should be a partnership, with each level of government playing a role in delivering 

results that address our goals for the Nation. 

As our Nation begins to tackle the challenges of climate change and greenhouse 

emissions, our dependence on fossil fuel, the demands of an aging population on our 

health care system, and creating a framework for renewed prosperity for America’s 

communities and the families who live in them, Federal leadership is critical to direct and oversee implementation of national policies across sectors. We believe the 

Secretary should be responsible for overseeing the implementation of national policy 

and have the ability to adjust policies, programs, and priorities to meet national objectives. The Secretary should also be responsible for overall coordination among the 

various surface modes as well as with the aviation sector. 

STPP commends Secretary LaHood for his leadership with Secretary Donovan at 

HUD for their sustainable communities’ initiative to help American families gain 

better access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs. This is s good first step in recognizing the synergies of multiple Federal 

programs. It is worth noting that this initiative includes the development of ‘‘livability’’ measures. 

Objectives 

In order to measure performance, one has to know what it is we want to accomplish. Establishing a clear set of objectives is an important role for the Congress and 

the Federal transportation department. The objectives should provide the framework for Federal programs. Objectives should address both the internally focused 

areas of safety, system connectivity, network efficiency, and asset preservation, as 

well as the key external links between our transportation system and other sectors—energy use, carbon emissions, reasonable access for all users, sustainable 

land-use and development. The objectives should also represent the importance for 

America to be innovative and to reposition our economy for a new prosperity. 

Goals 

STPP believes it is important to establish outcomes expected from Federal programs and funding support. We have worked closely with our partners, including 

Transportation for America, on defining specific national goals to be met over the 

next 20–25 years. These include: 

• Safety—Reduce traffic-related fatalities and injuries by 50 percent. 

• Asset Preservation—Increase the share of surface transportation facilities in a 

state of good repair by 20 percent. 

• Energy and Climate 

—Reducing per capita VMT by 16 percent. 

—Double walking, biking, public transportation, and passenger rail use. 

—Increase the share of freight carried on rail by 20 percent. 

—Reduce the transportation generated CO2 levels by 40 percent. 

• Congestion—Reduce delay per capita by 10 percent. 

• Health—Achieve zero population exposure to at-risk levels of air pollution. 

• Prosperity—Reduce the combined household + transportation costs by 25 percent. 

• Access—Increase by 50 percent the number of essential destinations accessible 

to adequate public transportation. 

Accountability 

Today, the words ‘‘accountability’’ and ‘‘transparency’’ are frequently used when 

talking about government programs. STPP is a long-time supporter of the need to 

measure and report on the performance of the transportation system against national goals. Unfortunately, provisions in the existing surface transportation programs ensuring accountability are insufficient or nonexistent. 

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program is currently the only 

program that is tied to a national purpose with specific goals and consequences for 

failing to meet them. Other programs—Interstate Maintenance (condition of the Int. 

system), Safety (reducing fatalities and injuries), Safe Routes to Schools (safe pedestrian pathways)—have a clear purpose but no goals or accountability for results. 

An example of our overall ignorance about how Federal funds are spent came to 

light in the aftermath of the collapse of the I–35 bridge in Minneapolis. An examination of the expenditure of Federal bridge funds showed that a number of states had 

48 

not made full use of their bridge funds, others had rescinded these funds, and others 

had large unobligated balances. There was little awareness of this outside the 

FHWA and the specific state transportation department. 

The structure of the highway program—the relationship between contract authority and the annual obligation limit—enables some programs to be underfunded 

while other programs are fully utilized. This arrangement makes it possible to undermine the intent of specific programs. 

It is time that we require performance and results for the billions of Federal dollars provided to improve our surface transportation system and ensure it functions 

efficiently. From STPP’s perspective, performance must be a basic element of the 

next authorization. 

Clearly it would be helpful if accountability measures were built in to the law. 

These could include changing the factors used to distribute funds via formula programs to reflect national objectives, using criteria for discretionary programs that 

also reflect national goals, providing bonuses or restrictions to grantees on the use 

of funds depending on progress toward meeting goals, and/or adjusting the Federal 

match to provide incentives/disincentives to address national objectives. Aligning the 

program structure, funding distribution factors, and use of funds in support of our 

national policies would go a long way to meaningful accountability. 

Regular progress reports create transparent evidence on how well we are doing 

to meet national objectives and they provide the basis for any adjustments that may 

be needed to assure we stay on course. 

STPP believes Congress should require the Transportation Department to report 

on a regular basis on the performance of the Nation’s surface transportation system, 

including all parts of the surface network from the local walking trip to the regional 

trip to work and the shipment of products to markets around the Nation and to the 

world. This should be a performance based rather than a needs based report. 

We should establish a baseline year from which to measure progress. This report 

should describe the current performance of the system, including all of its parts, examine emerging trends that could affect the performance of the transportation system, assess the critical impediments to achieving the national goals, and propose 

strategies for success. 

STPP suggests that an analysis of the expenditures for surface transportation by 

program and by type of investment should be part of any performance reporting. 

As we say ‘‘follow the money’’ to learn what is really going on. Today, the Secretary 

is required to provide a report to the Congress on the obligation of highway funds 

(Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 104(j)). (A copy of the language is attached to my statement). The last report sent to Congress is for FY 2005. 

In our view, public policy benefits from an open and transparent reporting of how 

funds are spent and whether objectives are being met. Over time this transparency 

shapes our decision-making process. 

In addition to regular reporting on the performance of the transportation system, 

STPP believes it is important that there be opportunities for a broad array of entities including non-profit organizations to provide their ideas and suggestions as to 

how best to assess the performance of the transportation system. 

The ability to monitor performance against the goals requires the availability of 

data and the allocation of sub-targets. A critical component of a performance based 

approach must include a strong data collection and research component. STPP believes the Transportation Department must strengthen its data collection, analysis, 

and reporting capacities and require that this information be made available on the 

Internet in an easily accessible and understandable format in a timely manner. For 

a meaningful performance regime to come into being, additional effort is required 

to further refine the targets, particularly the allocation of sub-targets, and assure 

consistent, but not necessarily identical, measures across the country. 

Summary 

Overall, STPP is pleased that this Committee is launching a discussion about national surface transportation policy. 

We believe it is time to have a clear statement of national purpose, accompanied 

by goals, objectives, and performance reporting for our surface transportation system; that the goals should include areas affected by the transportation sector, such 

as energy and climate; that there be meaningful accountability for results that reflect issues of national interest. 

We stand ready to work with this Committee to help make this a reality. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the future of national 

transportation policy. 

49 

ATTACHMENT 1 

Declaration of Policy: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

It is the policy of the United States to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient and environmentally sound, provides the 

foundation for the Nation to compete in the global economy, and will move people 

and goods in an energy efficient manner. 

The National Intermodal Transportation System shall consist of all forms of 

transportation in a unified, interconnected manner, including the transportation 

systems of the future, to reduce energy consumption and air pollution while promoting economic development and supporting the Nation’s preeminent position in 

international commerce. 

The National Intermodal Transportation System shall include a National Highway System which consists of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and those principal arterial roads which are essential for interstate and regional commerce and travel, national defense, intermodal transfer facilities, and 

international commerce and border crossings. 

The National Intermodal Transportation System shall include significant improvements in public transportation necessary to achieve national goals for improved air 

quality, energy conservation, international competitiveness, and mobility for elderly 

persons, persons with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged persons in urban 

and rural areas of the country. 

The National Intermodal Transportation System shall provide improved access to 

ports and airports, the Nation’s link to world commerce. 

The National Intermodal Transportation System shall give special emphasis to 

the contributions of the transportation sectors to increased productivity growth. Social benefits must be considered with particular attention to the external benefits 

of reduced air pollution, reduced traffic congestion and other aspects of the quality 

of life in the United States. 

The National Intermodal Transportation System must be operated and maintained with insistent attention to the concepts of innovation, competition, energy efficiency, productivity, growth, and accountability. Practices that resulted in the 

lengthy and overly costly construction of the Interstate and Defense Highway System must be confronted and ceased. 

The National Intermodal Transportation System shall be adapted to ‘‘intelligent 

vehicles,’’ ‘‘magnetic levitation systems,’’ and other new technologies wherever feasible and economical, with benefit cost estimates given special emphasis concerning 

safety considerations and techniques for cost allocation. 

The National Intermodal Transportation System, where appropriate, will be financed, as regards Federal apportionments and reimbursements, by the Highway 

Trust Fund. Financial assistance will be provided to State and local governments 

and their instrumentalities to help implement national goals relating to mobility for 

elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged persons. 

The National Intermodal Transportation System must be the centerpiece of a national investment commitment to create the new wealth of the Nation for the 21st 

Century. 

ATTACHMENT 2 

Excerpts from the September 1975 Statement of National Transportation 

Policy by the Secretary of Transportation 

1. The Federal Role—Predominant Concerns of the Federal Government 

a. The Federal Government should define its role vis-a-vis State and local governments by exercising responsibility pursuant to Constitutional and statutory authority; 

(1) In international commerce; 

(2) Over interstate commerce, particularly in supporting the development, viability, and modernization of major interstate networks in rail, highways, air, 

and water; 

(3) In defining and working to advance national priorities through persuasion, 

incentive, regulation and enforcement where the magnitude of the problems and 

their national importance require a Federal response (e.g., safety, revising the 

city centers, energy conservation); 

50 

(4) In shoring up weak elements of the transportation system on a temporary 

basis where the national interest is served by helping to preserve diversity and 

prevent nationalization; 

(5)To assist States and municipalities on the basis of shared responsibility and 

priorities; 

(6) In direct, selective investments in research and development, planning and 

activities that are in the interest of national security and other exclusively Federal concerns. 

b. The Federal Government must move in the direction of encouraging more rational public and private financing of capital and operating costs in the transportation sector, consistent with: 

(1) Sound fiscal policy and cost controls, including vigorous assessment of the 

inflationary impact of Federal actions; 

(2) Increased participation, where possible, of State and local governments in 

projects primarily benefiting their residents; 

(3) More equitable use of Federal subsidies, insuring that they are necessary 

to achieve a clearly defined national interest and minimizing their detrimental 

impact on competing modes; 

(4) Careful assessment of the costs and benefits of alternative uses of Federal 

funds; 

(5) Recognition of the real costs of transportation services, including their environmental consequences; 

(6) Allocating limited Federal resources on the basis of comparative merit without reference to fixed trust fund revenues; 

(7) Encouraging the user to pay for full cost of federally financed services and 

facilities, except where the public interest correctly dictates a subsidy; 

(8) Economic and regulatory policies that enable transportation industries to 

earn a reasonable rate of return on investment, attract capital, provide expanding job opportunities and protect the legitimate needs of the employee, consumer and investor; 

(9) Reasonable labor policies and practices that will enable the efficient use of 

Federal transportation funds in reducing unemployment and poverty. 

c. The Federal Government should improve its performance measures—in assessing the effectiveness of alternative Federal programs and policy options and evaluating the health and progress of the transportation system—even though the diversity in transportation needs and costs of providing services make infeasible the formulation of uniform performance standards for all States and localities. 

d. Government must promote consumer participation in public decisionmaking. 

2. U.S.-International Transportation Concerns 

a. In a world of increasing internal interdependency, transportation most protect 

vital national interests by: 

(1) Enabling the United States to compete effectively in the world market; 

(2) Enabling people, freight, and mail to travel abroad at the lowest possible 

price, consistent with good, safe, and regular service and an appropriate rate 

of return on capital; 

(3) Enabling U.S. carriers to compete effectively with foreign carriers; 

(4) Supporting national security requirements; 

(5) Reducing dependency on foreign energy resources; 

(6) Supporting continued U.S. leadership in technology through sound research 

and development planning. 

3. Federal-State-Local Relations 

Most transportation activity involves primarily local movement. Consequently, the 

largest share of existing Federal assistance programs requires shared Federal, 

State, and local priorities and decisionmaking. The extent of Federal financial participation and program control is a function of the national priorities served. As we 

decentralize authority and increase State and local program flexibility, States and 

localities must improve program management and, where possible, increase their financial participation in projects that primarily benefit their residents. We have a 

further responsibility to define residual Federal interests—connections to interstate 

commerce, preserving urban centers, overall national economic and social wellVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:04 May 21, 2010 Jkt 052161 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52161.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
51 

being, civil rights etc.—and to simplify the process by which responsiveness to these 

national priorities is assured. 

4. Government and the Private Transportation Sectors 

a. A dynamic, competitive, and effective private sector should meet the Nation’s 

transportation needs to the maximum extent feasible. 

b. The private sector and government should interact effectively, performing functions and pursuing priorities for which each is best suited, working in a mutually 

reinforcing way where appropriate and at ‘‘arms length’’ where necessary. 

c. Representing 10 percent of the Gross National Product, the transportation sector must attract adequate capital for sound investment in the future and promote 

a stable and growth-oriented economy by exercising fiscal responsibility, helping to 

control inflation, and creating employment opportunities. 

d. The Government must promote increased efficiency, energy conservation, capital development, job opportunity, and productivity through economic and regulatory 

policies that create a climate conducive to healthy competition among financially 

viable suppliers, carriers, operators, and modes. In responding to specific short-term 

economic ills of an industry, direct Federal subsidy should be considered as a last 

resort. 

e. We should seek balanced reform of the Federal regulatory process—not deregulation, sudden chaotic changes, or abrupt policy reversals. We must also realize that 

financial commitments have been made under existing regulatory ground rules, and 

we should be cautious in the application of theoretical solutions . . . Increased emphasis must be given to competition and the market mechanism as a more of effective judge of efficient resource allocation and a more reliable barometer of consumer 

preference. 

f. We should determine the most efficient restructuring in various modes and encourage new methods of intermodal cooperation. 

g. As economic regulatory charges are implemented, we also recognize that large 

financial sums have been invested in reliance, in part, on the present regulatory 

system. Therefore, some otherwise laudatory reforms will have to be altered or 

staged over a transitional period to enable appropriate adjustment to market conditions. We should evaluate the consequences of each modification to assure that the 

financial viability of the industry is preserved and other public interests are being 

served. 

h. Whereas less government intervention through economic regulation is desirable, this should not be at the expense of consumer protection or the financial wellbeing of the industry. Government should devote sufficient resources to the development and enforcement of reasonable standards of safety, environmental protection 

and civil rights, consistent with cost-benefit analysis where appropriate. 

i. The strength of our transportation system lies in its diversity, with each mode 

contributing its unique and inherent advantages, and responding to different consumer demands at various levels of cost and quality of service. The Government 

should preserve and encourage this diversity by: 

(1) Promoting equal competitive opportunity for all forms of transportation; 

(2) Encouraging cooperation, connectivity, and integration among the modes. 

5. Public Interests—Enhanced Quality of Life 

a. The transportation sector should contribute substantially to an improved quality of life by: 

(1) Attaining high standards of safety; 

(2) Protecting our air and water from pollution, reducing excessive noise, and 

supporting sound land use patterns and community development; 

(3) Bringing people together and closer to the variety of benefits that our culture and economy offer; 

(4) Minimizing the waste of human resources that results from congestion, inadequate transportation service, and inefficiency in transport operations; 

(5) Providing the lowest cost services to the consumer consistent with safety, 

a reasonable rate of return on capital, a sound government fiscal policy, and 

other public interests; 

(6) Promoting the most efficient use of scarce, finite, and costly energy supplies; 

(7) Creating and maintaining employment and capital opportunities. 

b. Our transportation system should be accessible to and provide equal job opportunities for all our citizens—with special recognition of the needs and potential contribution of the elderly, the handicapped, the poor, minorities, and women. It must 

52 

respond to varying demands of the tourist, the family, and business. The consumer 

should be an active participant in the formulation of transportation policy. 

ATTACHMENT 3 

Title 23—Chapter 1 

Section 104 

(j) Report to Congress.—The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report, and also 

make such report available to the public in a user-friendly format via the Internet, 

for each Fiscal Year on—— 

(1) the amount obligated, by each State, for Federal-aid highways and highway 

safety construction programs during the preceding Fiscal Year; 

(2) the balance, as of the last day of the preceding Fiscal Year, of the unobligated apportionment of each State by Fiscal Year under this section and sections 105 and 144; 

(3) the balance of unobligated sums available for expenditure at the discretion 

of the Secretary for such highways and programs for the Fiscal Year; and 

(4) the rates of obligation of funds apportioned or set aside under this section 

and sections 105, 133, and 144, according to—— 

(A) program; 

(B) funding category or subcategory; 

(C) type of improvement; 

(D) State; and 

(E) sub-State geographic area, including urbanized and rural areas, on the 

basis of the population of each such area. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you all for your excellent testimony. 

I think it is kind of a breath of realism that is being discussed 

today. We know that we have got to include all parts of our country 

and all means available to solve this problem. We are so delinquent 

it is awful when you think about the deficient bridges that pervade 

our system and the inadequacy of highways. 

When President Eisenhower came up with his plan, and it was 

Senator Moynihan of great memory who called attention to the fact 

that this brilliant system had a secondary effect and that is, it permitted people to leave the cities, abandon the problems, get out of 

town, and as a consequence, we found all of these cities without the 

proper income or the appropriate energy that it took to build these. 

So we are in kind of a second phase of building America, and I 

think that we can do it and will do it. 

I will ask a question here. There have been a number of policy 

goals mentioned today, and those are to relieve congestion, improve 

safety, facilitate freight movement. And you are transportation experts. What can you, in summary form, deliver as a specific goal 

that you think should be established? 

Now, in your presentations, there were several things mentioned 

by each of you. Is there a particular thing that you think that we 

should focus on to get this job done, or is it too amorphous to say 

that there is a single thing? Sir? 

Mr. HEMINGER. Mr. Chairman, if I could start. In our report, we 

identified 10 new focus areas for the Federal program. As I said in 

my testimony, there are over 100 now, and they are not really 

focus areas. I do not know how you could focus on 100 things. We 

recommend that there be a performance objective for each of those 

10 areas. Other areas of Federal policy where the Federal Government invests in certain activities come with accountability. This is 

53 

one of the few places where that accountability is largely lacking. 

The money is invested and projects are certainly built, but there 

is no standard or measurement against which to judge success or 

failure. Did we increase or reduce congestion? Did we increase or 

reduce fatalities? 

If you look at the evidence that we have racked up in what I 

would call the T era, ever since the substantial completion of the 

interstate in the 1980s, fatalities have not improved. They have improved slightly recently just because we are driving less for the 

most part. Congestion has gotten considerably worse. Goods movement has bogged down to a crawl in many ports. So, by most objective measures—and I think the amount we have invested over that 

period is something around $600 billion of Federal money—things 

have gotten worse. 

So, I guess like that old joke goes, if it is not working, stop doing 

what you are doing. That is the first thing you do. 

And so I do believe that in each area of Federal investment, 

there ought to be a performance objective and there ought to be 

consequences if it is not met, either positive or negative, carrots or 

sticks. And I think the best way to develop those measures actually 

is not for the Congress to establish them, but for the Congress to 

require that DOT work with the States and the metropolitan areas 

to establish standards. Let people have some flexibility in the 

standards they choose—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Fair enough. 

Mr. HEMINGER.—then hold them accountable to them. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. It was said in these premises before—and 

I extend it because I did not like the way it was presented at the 

time. It was trust and verify. The fact is that you have got to go 

along and see what you are doing. 

Mr. Holmes, you are on a tight timeline. So I ask you for your 

response. 

Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think you heard a common thread really that ran through all 

four presentations, and that is flexibility, accountability, transparency. If we have, I think it is, 109 different funding categories, 

we also recommended reducing those significantly, and then having 

the states develop their plan that meets the broad goals that the 

Federal DOT outlines in conjunction with Congress and then measuring those results. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I learned one thing in the business I ran. 

The business I ran was called ADP, and I was the founder of that 

company. It has over 40,000 employees today. And the one thing 

I learned in my business years is that when it is such a massive 

program that you want to introduce, you have got to do it piecemeal. And I have seen it here in Government. We have seen it in 

health care. We have seen it in the FAA. As soon as you tackle it 

at this size, you just never get anywhere until the money is gone. 

Ms. Canby, do you want to volunteer? And I ask the indulgence 

of my colleagues here for a moment. 

Ms. CANBY. Thank you, Senator. I certainly would. 

It seems to me that, first, we need to be clear on why we have 

a national program, what it is we are trying to accomplish, and define that very clearly so that then the agencies that are actually 

54 

implementing have the flexibility to figure out how best to deliver 

it in their particular situation, whether it is in your state, my 

state, South Dakota, Texas, or Alaska or wherever, and then hold 

people accountable for reaching and addressing national interests. 

Now we are all addressing different interests in our own ways, and 

it is not adding up to dealing with an energy problem or a climate 

problem or a health issue or whatever the national concern might 

be. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. Corless? 

Mr. CORLESS. Senator, we provided, obviously, in both our written and oral remarks, at least six over-arching objectives, and I 

think you, obviously, want to get down from a point where you 

have 108 programs to something manageable. 

But I would say we think whatever objectives we choose in the 

next authorization, it actually has to be a package because there 

are a number of complementary but quite different goals we are 

trying to accomplish, I think, both in terms of safety, congestion, 

repairing and maintaining our system, energy security, climate stability, public health. So those things have to work together as a 

package. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I will try to move it along and give my colleagues equal time. 

But the one thing that I see here—and I have skilled colleagues 

at this table, people who know government from all sides. Even the 

junior member has been a mayor, and they say there is no place 

like a mayor’s job to feel the pain and the inadequacy at the same 

time. 

I will say this. To me, the problem is of such magnitude, such 

importance that this kind of a forum is by no means a way to get 

the kind of information that we have. I talk to Senator Hutchison 

as the next senior person here and say that I think somehow or 

other this has to develop into a more traditional meeting format 

where these things can be discussed at length, and it is not in a 

5-minute squeeze that we do it. I would reserve the opportunity to 

invite each of the four of you to a panel discussion that may take 

some time, but I think we can develop some thoughts. 

Please, Senator Hutchison, it is up to you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Am I next you mean? Oh, OK. 

Well, I think that is a very good idea actually because I think 

having heard their different views, they have studied this. They 

have had commissions and they have some good ideas. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I misplaced his ranking position. Go 

ahead. Kay, I am sorry. 

Senator HUTCHISON. See, I had left, and I did not realize that 

John had not already gone. You go ahead. I do not mind. 

Senator THUNE. Let me just ask you all sort of a general question about the funding issue and how can we most responsibly provide for continued, adequate funding to ensure we truly continue 

to have a national transportation system. Some of you kind of 

talked about it a little bit around the edges, but does anybody care 

to take that one on? 

Mr. HEMINGER. Senator, I will speak on behalf of our Commission which spent 2 years, days of testimony on that subject. And 

55 

one way you can characterize what we did is we spent about 2 

years looking for an alternative to the fuel tax because no one likes 

it and it is hard to raise. We could not find one. I know I regret 

to report that to you. You probably regret to hear it. 

We took a lot of testimony on public-private partnerships, and 

they will play a role in the future, but I think a fairly modest one. 

About half of our current investment shortfall is just meat and potatoes maintenance of our existing system, and there are not a lot 

of investment bankers lining up to pay for that. A lot of our transit 

systems, the new systems we need to build, will operate at a loss, 

not a profit. So, there is no financial return there in many of them, 

conceivably. 

So, I think where you will see private capital play a role is in 

high-growth areas with a lot of congestion. I think a number of 

freight improvements could very well benefit from that strategy. 

But for the most part, I think we are going to need public investment. The only two places we saw where that investment could 

come from—one is the fuel tax, the traditional source, and the second is the general fund. And we strongly oppose the notion of essentially converting this user fee program, which has been a user 

fee program for 60 years now, into another general fund drain on 

the U.S. treasury which, God knows, is under strain already for a 

lot of other reasons. 

So, as unwelcome as that message might be, we believe the fuel 

tax has continued to play a major role. As you know, it has not 

been adjusted here in Washington since 1993. That is true in many 

States. In my State of California, it is 1989. Secretary LaHood said 

earlier that he was not sure now is a good time. I am not sure it 

is either, but I will tell you $2 gasoline might be a better time than 

$4 gasoline. And it is only a matter of time before that is where 

we are again. 

So our report does emphasize the use of user fees, whether it is 

the fuel tax or a container fee for freight improvements or a ticket 

tax for rail improvements. We think all the users have a stake in 

the system and ought to help pay for its improvement. 

Senator THUNE. Does anybody else want to comment on that? 

Mr. HOLMES. I would like to make a couple of comments. We believe that the continuation of the fuel tax is important, in fact, critical. The time that it is going to take to transition from the fuel 

tax to another type of user fee is going to be lengthy, but ultimately the fuel tax is a dinosaur. As the average miles per gallon 

in the fleet in America increases, funding for the transportation 

system, if it is solely based on that, is in terrible jeopardy. It is, 

obviously, difficult to increase. Witness the fact that it has not increased in California since 1989; in Texas, since 1991; the Federal 

level, since 1993. 

We think that there needs to be a very broad array. It is not 

going to be solved out of one source. The public-private has a role, 

but it is a limited role. In Texas, we looked at a number of different 

toll opportunities that might be subject to private interest. There 

were about 90 different toll projects. There were only a handful of 

those that would be subject to an appropriate public-private type 

partnership. There were only a handful that would attract the interest of investment bankers, as Steve said, because most of them 

56 

require toll equity as opposed to being toll rich. So it is going to 

take, I think, a fairly long time to move from a total reliance on 

a fuel tax to other user fees. 

Senator THUNE. Let me direct this one, if I might, to Mr. Corless. 

I appreciate your comments. Those are both very insightful. 

You had suggested addressing freight demand through reinvestment in short haul freight railroads. How much funding do you believe would be needed to effectively improve short line rail movements? 

Mr. CORLESS. Senator, I know we have been working with NADO 

and others on this question. I do not have a number for you today, 

but I am happy to get back to you certainly with something. I 

would also defer to my colleague here, Anne Canby, with the 

OneRail Coalition, among others, who may have a more specific answer. 

But we do know that the short line railroads are in desperate 

need of repair. We do know that they are an asset and that we 

need to actually reinvest in them fairly quickly. 

Senator THUNE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much all your testimony and responses. Thanks. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We will go back. Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

I would like to ask Mr. Holmes. Obviously, in your testimony you 

basically have said that the Federal Government is many times an 

impediment to being able to build the highways that are so needed 

in a high-growth state like Texas, and you propose some solutions 

from your transportation research group. 

My question is on the bill that I have introduced that would 

allow states to opt out with the requirement that they maintain the 

Federal highway system, but then allow them to make other 

choices in the transportation needs with their own transportation 

dollars. What would be your thought about legislation like that, 

and if you have other thoughts, what would those be? 

Mr. HOLMES. It sounds, Senator, as though that bill would provide significant increased flexibility to the states to design and implement their systems in accordance with appropriate Federal 

standards. I think that would be a tremendous benefit. Basically 

there is not enough money and there is not enough flexibility, and 

it takes too long to produce a new asset. 13 years to produce a new 

roadway is incredibly counterproductive. To shorten that cycle, provide more money, less time, more flexibility would be a great benefit. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. I really do appreciate your coming because we are all dealing with these issues of high growth and 

having to look for innovative ways to fund our transportation systems. Of course, we all, I think, have dealt also with the issue of 

congestion and trying to build transportation infrastructure when 

a place already congested is the most expensive way to go, which 

Houston, your hometown, is learning right now. It was my hometown as well. 

Let me ask both of you, Mr. Holmes and Mr. Heminger. Mr. 

Heminger was on the commission that basically said that private 

investment should be a relatively small part of the solution, and it 

was a bone of contention among the commissioners whether that 

57 

was something that should be considered a major part. The State 

of Texas has gone into private partnerships pretty heavily, and I 

would like to ask you, Mr. Heminger, what was the debate and how 

did you all come out on the side of it not being as important and, 

Mr. Holmes, why it has become a major focus of the Texas solutions. First, Mr. Heminger. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Senator, as you said, we did have a vigorous debate on our Commission about it. I think it was, in large part, responsible for the fact that three members of our Commission did 

dissent, including the former Secretary of Transportation, Mary 

Peters. 

I think we all saw a greater role for private capital to play. I 

think where we disagreed is how big that role can be, not necessarily should be, but can be. And given the fact that a lot of our 

investment need, as I described in my earlier answer, I think is 

such that it will not attract private capital, then you are left with 

the issue that, well, if private capital can take care of 15 or 20 percent—and I think it is somewhere around that range, if that—what 

do we do with the other 80 percent? How are we going to raise the 

revenue for that? And I think the dissenters on our Commission 

did not want to support an increase in the fuel tax, but we, the majority, really did not see any other way around it. 

I would note, in conclusion, that there was another commission 

created by Congress. You were not satisfied with one. You created 

two in the last transportation bill. And they essentially came to the 

same conclusion, that over the long haul, we ought to move toward 

a new user fee, something like that tracks vehicle miles of travel, 

but in the short term, we really have no alternative but to raise 

the fuel tax to continue the program and to grow it as it needs to 

grow. 

Senator HUTCHISON. So your point was really not that it was not 

effective, just that it could not be relied on to make the big differences that are necessary. 

Mr. HEMINGER. It really cannot be viewed, I do not think, Senator, as a replacement for the fuel tax. The fuel tax is the workhorse of our Federal surface transportation program and I think for 

the next 15 or 20 years, until we have a replacement, it has to continue to be or we have to resign ourselves to much diminished 

funding levels. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Holmes? 

Mr. HOLMES. I happen to agree with that. I think it seems like 

Texas has moved in the direction of PPPs very heavily, but in point 

of fact, out of the 87 toll projects that TxDOT looked at a couple 

of years ago, there were less than 20 percent of those that would 

be susceptible to a private interest. So, while it is an incremental 

help and a very important one, it will not solve the overall problem. 

It can be utilized in very congested areas where traffic counts are 

extremely high. It works in those areas. It does not work in rural 

Texas or in rural South Dakota or wherever there is not sufficient 

traffic volumes in order to recover the cost and maintenance of the 

roadway. 

One of the things that is beneficial, though, about a PPP or any 

type of toll road is that not only does it help pay for the capital 

costs, but it pays for the ongoing maintenance into the future. 

58 

Texas currently needs about $4 billion a year just to cover maintenance and we have a total of $3 billion for maintenance and new 

capacity. 

Senator HUTCHISON. It is rough. Thank you very much and 

thank you for coming up from Texas because I know the problems 

you are facing. 

Mr. HOLMES. It was raining there. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Are the two of you OK on your time? 

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HEMINGER. I am just about out. If there is one more question, I would be happy to field it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am going to ask my colleague, Senator 

Begich, to try to—— 

Senator BEGICH. Mr. Chairman, I will just reserve my questions. 

I will make a general comment, and that is I agree with you. As 

a new person here, I will be honest with you. These formats are 

very cumbersome to really get to the meat of how to deal with this 

very complex issue. So, I really encourage your idea because, for 

example, what Senator Hutchison just talked about, the public-private partnerships—you know, the country that does the most of 

this—actually they have huge operations within their bureaucracy 

to manage these—is France, and they do it on water, sewer, roads. 

They do it on core infrastructure. There is very credible information and great experience that if we go down that path in any 

way—but I would be very interested in that work session because 

I think there is a wealth of information here that I would like to 

extract out of our witnesses and because I have questions about the 

regulatory process. How do we streamline that, for example? Some 

we require for putting benches in and some things like that. In 

Federal right-of-ways, we require NEPA. It is just a ridiculous 

process for simplistic things that we should be able to resolve. 

So I will reserve my questions. I thank all of you. I know the 

Chairman is interested in having something that we can have more 

engagement, and I think that is going to be great to extract more 

out of you. 

They can then catch their plane. But why would you want to be 

going to a place that is raining when you can be here? But I will 

leave that for you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I thank all of you for your time and your 

contribution. I think it was a very good session. I would like to follow on with some kind of a transportation conference mechanism. 

It may be at some places across the country that we have to go. 

This is too serious, too important, and flashes of ideas do strike a 

bell. 

I come out of the computer business, and if you had asked me 

10 years ago what I would have thought was a good idea to raise 

revenues, I would have said to tax cable to the right-of-way. But 

that has gone away. We do not need that anymore, but other ways 

of generating revenue that these rights-of-way can provide. So, we 

thank you all for your thoughtful and excellent presentations. 

Senator Hutchison? 

59 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it was 

very helpful. I think we have a good body of information now, and 

I hope that we can come to some conclusions that will not just be 

another highway authorization bill that is just what we have done 

in the past because I think we have new challenges. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. This hearing is over. 

[Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(61) 

1 ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country’s oldest national civil engineering organization. It represents more than 146,000 civil engineers individually in private practice, government, industry, and academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and professional society organized 

under Part 1.501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Thune and Members of the Subcommittee: 

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1 is pleased to submit this Statement for the Record of the April 28, 2009 hearing held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security: The Future of 

National Surface Transportation Policy. 

ASCE’s 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure graded the Nation’s infrastructure a ‘‘D’’ based on 15 categories, the same overall grade as ASCE’s 2005 Report Card. In 2009, roads received a grade of D¥ as compared to a grade of D in 

2005; bridges received a grade of C, the same as in 2005; transit received a D as 

compared to a D+ in 2005; and rail received a grade of C¥, the same as in 2005. 

The lack of improvement in grades is caused by many factors, including deferred 

maintenance on the Nation’s aging surface transportation systems, insufficient funding from all levels of government, and from a lack of compelling national leadership. 

While we appreciate that the Subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over all 

modes of the Nation’s surface transportation, we are providing the following comprehensive comments because we believe for Congress to enact a progressive and 

effective Surface Transportation Program, it is imperative that the Subcommittee, 

and the Congress, work to develop an integrated, multi-modal national surface 

transportation system. 

Throughout the 20th Century, our Nation’s leaders envisioned large scale infrastructure plans that inspired the public and contributed to unprecedented economic 

growth. Now much of that infrastructure is reaching the end of its design life, and 

we users and owners are experiencing increasing problems with deterioration across 

all public infrastructure. From the Works Progress Administration projects completed during the Great Depression to the creation of the Interstate Highway System in the Fifties, the Twentieth Century will be remembered as a time when 

Americans took pride in building a strong and lasting foundation. 

Currently, most infrastructure investment decisions are made without the benefit 

of a national vision. That strong national vision must originate with strong Federal 

leadership and be shared by all levels of government and the private sector. Without 

a strong national vision, infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. 

While the Report Card points out serious deficiencies in the Nation’s infrastructure as well as the need for focused and visionary leadership and adequate funding, 

these can be addressed. The key solutions offered by ASCE are ambitious and will 

not be implemented overnight, but Americans are capable of real and positive 

change. The Five Key Solutions are: 

• Increase Federal leadership in infrastructure; 

• Promote sustainability and resilience; 

• Develop Federal, regional and state infrastructure plans; 

• Address life cycle costs and ongoing maintenance; and 

• Increase and improve infrastructure investment from all stakeholders. 

Bridges 

Usually built to last 50 years, the average bridge is now 43 years old. According 

to the U.S. Department of Transportation, of the 600,905 bridges across the country, 

62 

as of December 2008, 72,868 (12.1 percent) were categorized as structurally deficient 

and 89,024 (14.8 percent) were categorized as functionally obsolete. While some 

progress has been made in recent years to reduce the number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges in rural areas, the number in urban areas 

is rising. 

To address bridge needs, states use Federal as well as state and local funds. According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), a total of $10.5 billion was spent on bridge improvements by all levels 

of government in 2004. Nearly half, $5.1 billion was funded by the Federal Highway 

Bridge Program—$3.9 billion from state and local budgets, and an additional $1.5 

billion in other Federal highway aid. AASHTO estimated in 2008 that it would cost 

roughly $140 billion to repair every deficient bridge in the country—about $48 billion to repair structurally deficient bridges and $91 billion to improve functionally 

obsolete bridges. 

Simply maintaining the current overall level of bridge conditions, that is, not allowing the backlog of deficient bridges to grow, would require a combined investment from the public and private sectors of $650 billion over 50 years, according 

to AASHTO, for an annual investment level of $13 billion. The cost of eliminating 

all existing bridge deficiencies as they arise over the next 50 years is estimated at 

$850 billion in 2006 dollars, equating to an average annual investment of $17 billion. 

While some progress has been made recently in improving the condition of the 

Nation’s rural bridges, there has been an increase in the number of deficient urban 

bridges. At the same time, truck traffic over the Nation’s bridges is on the rise— 

a matter of great concern as trucks carry significantly heavier loads than automobiles and exact more wear and tear on bridges. The investment gap is accelerating and the failure to invest adequately in the Nation’s bridges will lead to increased congestion and delays for motorists, wasted fuel, the further deterioration 

of bridge conditions, and increased safety concerns. Once Congress works to address 

these problems in the 2009 authorization of the Surface Transportation Program, 

it should establish a goal that less than 15 percent of the Nation’s bridges be classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete by 2013 and should provide the 

funding needed to accomplish that. 

Roads 

Our Nation’s economy and our quality of life require a highway and roadway system that provides a safe, reliable, efficient, and comfortable driving environment. 

Although highway fatalities and traffic-related injuries declined in 2007, the drop 

is most likely attributable to people driving less. Still, in 2007, 41,059 people were 

killed in motor vehicle crashes and 2,491,000 were injured. Motor vehicle crashes 

cost the U.S. $230 billion per year—$819 for each resident in medical costs, lost productivity, travel delays, workplace costs, insurance costs, and legal costs. 

Next to safety, congestion has become the most critical challenge facing our highway system. Congestion continues to worsen to the point at which Americans spend 

4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost of $78.2 billion a year in wasted 

time and fuel costs—$710 per motorist. The average daily percentage of vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) under congested conditions rose from 25.9 percent in 1995 to 

31.6 percent in 2004, with congestion in large urban areas exceeding 40 percent. 

And as a result of increased congestion, total fuel wasted climbed from 1.7 billion 

gallons in 1995 to 2.9 billion gallons in 2005. 

Poor road conditions lead to excessive wear and tear on motor vehicles and can 

also lead to increased numbers of crashes and delays. According to the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), while the percentage of VMT occurring on roads 

classified as having ‘‘good’’ ride quality has steadily improved, the percentage of ‘‘acceptable’’ ride quality steadily declined from 86.6 percent in 1995 to 84.9 percent 

in 2004, with the lowest acceptable ride quality found among urbanized roads at 

72.4 percent. These figures represent a failure to achieve significant increases in 

good and acceptable ride quality, particularly in heavily trafficked urbanized areas. 

Compounding the problem is steadily increasing demand on the system. From 

1980–2005, while automobile VMT increased 94 percent and truck VMT increased 

105 percent, highway lane-miles grew by only 3.5 percent. From 1994–2004, ton 

miles of freight moved by truck grew 33 percent. Without adequate investment and 

attention, the negative trends will continue, as will the adverse consequences. 

It is clear that significant improvements and system maintenance will require significant investments. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue 

Commission studied the impact of varying investment levels (medium and high) and 

produced the following ranges of average annual capital investment needs (in 2006 

dollars): 

63 

• $130 billion–$240 billion for the 15-year period 2005–2020; 

• $133 billion–$250 billion for the 30-year period 2005–2035; 

• $146 billion–$276 billion for the 50-year period 2005–2055. 

The lower end of the ranges reflect the estimated costs of maintaining key conditions and performance measures at current levels, while the higher end ranges 

would allow for an aggressive expansion of the highway system, which would provide improved conditions and performance in light of increasing travel demand. 

Even at the lower range of estimates, an enormous gap exists between the current 

level of capital investment and the investment needed to improve the Nation’s highways and roads. 

The challenges imposed by our highway infrastructure require a large increase in 

capital investment on the part of all levels of government and other sources as well. 

An overstressed infrastructure will slow freight delivery, create unpredictability in 

supply chains, diminish the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and increase the 

cost of consumer goods. There must also be a significant change in the way we manage the system, which should include the use of emerging technologies and innovative operational strategies. 

Legislation to replace SAFETEA–LU, which expires on September 30, 2009, must 

address the following issues if it is to set the stage for the major reforms needed 

to ensure the viability of our surface transportation system. First, it must more 

clearly define the Federal role and responsibilities, and from that definition, the 

framework for a performance-based and fully accountable system can emerge. Second, it is clear that the current funding model for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) 

is failing. The latest projections by the U.S. Department of Treasury and Congressional Budget Office indicate that by the end of FY 2009, the HTF will have a negative balance if no corrective action is taken. 

While acknowledging the need to move to a new, sustainable funding system in 

the long term, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission has recommended an increase of 5–8 cents per gallon in the gas tax per 

year over the next 5 years to address the current projected shortfall. And the recently released report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission calls for a 10 cent per gallon increase in the Federal gasoline tax 

and a 15 cent per gallon increase in the Federal diesel tax while also acknowledging 

the need to transition to a mileage-based user fee. Finally, the legislation must encourage innovative thinking and solutions from all sectors—public, private, and academia. 

Transportation is a significant contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. 

As a result of increased congestion, total fuel wasted climbed from 1.7 billion gallons 

in 1995 to 2.9 billion gallons in 2005. Gasoline and diesel taxes cannot be relied 

upon in the future to generate the HTF revenues when national policy demands a 

reduction in both the reliance upon foreign sources of energy and the Nation’s carbon footprint. Private investment in greenhouse-gas-reducing technologies must be 

stimulated by establishing a market value for greenhouse gas emissions over the 

long term through the auctioning of emissions credits, and a significant portion of 

the revenues from emissions credits should be allocated to the Highway Trust Fund 

and other infrastructure financing methods to support technology investment as 

well as the necessary investments in ‘‘green’’ upgrades to the Nation’s public works 

infrastructure. However, while Congress works to develop a comprehensive energy 

and climate change policy and considers transitioning to a system that more directly 

aligns fees that a user is charged with to the benefits the user derives, an increase 

in the gas tax is necessary to meet surface transportation funding needs. 

Transit 

In recent years, transit use has increased more rapidly than any other mode of 

transportation. Ridership increased by 25 percent from 1995 to 2005—to 10.3 billion 

trips a year, the highest number of trips in 50 years. An estimated 34 million trips 

are taken on public transportation each weekday and of those trips, 59 percent are 

taken by individuals commuting to and from work, 11 percent by individuals traveling to and from school, and 9 percent by individuals traveling to and from leisure 

activities. By moving workers and shoppers, transit is increasingly becoming a 

major economic factor. 

In 2004, there were 640 local public transit operators serving 408 large and small 

urbanized areas and 1,215 operators serving rural areas. In addition, there were 

4,836 specialized services for the elderly and disabled in both urban and rural areas, 

representing a total increase in these types of services since 2002. These systems 

operate more than 120,000 vehicles. Transit rail operators controlled 10,892 miles 

of track and served 2,961 stations. Between 2000 and 2004, the number of urban 

64 

transit vehicles increased by 13.4 percent, track mileage grew by 3 percent, and the 

number of stations grew by 4.8 percent. Also during that time, the number of passenger miles traveled by all transit passengers increased at an annual rate of 1.3 

percent. Passenger growth on transit rail lines grew at an even greater rate, 4.3 

percent. 

SAFETEA–LU authorized more than $45 billion in transit investments. However, 

the increased popularity of transit—as evidenced by robust increases in transit ridership and strong support for local funding initiatives—has led to growth in both 

the number and size of transit systems in the U.S. While new investment brings 

badly needed transit service to more Americans, existing systems continue to require investments to replace aging infrastructure; thus, the revenue that is available must be spread further than ever before. At the same time, dwindling revenues 

in the HTF impact the transit sector’s financial health at a time when more Americans are relying on it for travel. 

While mass transit can be an affordable and environmentally friendly travel alternative to automobiles, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) estimates that approximately half of Americans do not have access to reliable transit 

systems. A 2005 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development and the U.S. Census Bureau found that only 54 percent of American 

households have access to bus and rail transit and only 25 percent have what they 

consider a good alternative to such transit. 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rates system conditions on a five-point 

scale—one being poor and five being excellent. FTA’s 2006 Conditions and Performance Report indicates that the condition of the Nation’s transit infrastructure remained largely unchanged during the past 4 years. The estimated average condition 

of the urban bus fleet was 3.08 in 2004, a minor improvement from 3.07 in 2000. 

The average bus age was reported to be 6.1 years, down slightly from 6.8 years in 

2000. The estimated average condition of rail vehicles was 3.5 in 2004, down from 

3.55 in 2000. 

While bus and rail fleet conditions have remained essentially the same, rail transit station conditions have worsened. Only 49 percent of stations are in adequate 

or good repair and 51 percent are in substandard or worse condition. In 2000, 84 

percent of stations were rated as adequate or better. The FHWA notes that differences in ratings are due to a change in the methodology used to evaluate station 

conditions since the last report. The condition of other structures such as tunnels 

and elevated structures has improved: 84 percent were in adequate or better condition in 2004 compared to 77 percent in 2000. 

Funding increased modestly between 2000 and 2004. Indicating an increase in 

service demand, 23 of 32 (72 percent) of local ballot initiatives for public transportation—or initiatives with a public transit component—were passed in 2008, authorizing nearly $75 billion in expenditures. Much of this local revenue is intended to 

match Federal investments. Total capital spending from all sources was $12.6 billion in 2004, up from $12.3 billion in 2002, and up more than 140 percent during 

the past 15 years. Federal contributions totaled $9.8 billion in 2008. 

The FTA estimates that an additional $6 billion should be spent annually to 

maintain current conditions; however to improve conditions, a total of $21.6 billion 

needs to be spent annually. These estimates are supported by the recent findings 

of the Federal Surface Transportation Study and Revenue Commission. Assuming 

a constant level of investment relative to 2006 dollars, transit ridership will continue to increase unimpeded to between 18 and 20 billion trips annually. If funding 

is increased, however, transit ridership will be able to increase more rapidly and 

the physical condition of the Nation’s transit systems will improve. With a ‘‘medium’’ level of funding—between $14 and $18 billion a year—the Commission estimates that between 26,000 and 51,000 new vehicles could be added to the system 

and that between 1,100 and 1,500 additional miles of rail track could be laid. In 

addition, average condition will increase to 4.0 and the system will be able to accommodate between 12 and 14 billion trips annually by 2020. During that same time 

period, with a ‘‘high’’ level of funding—between $21 and $32 billion annually—between 51,000 and 96,000 new vehicles could be added to the fleet and between 3,000 

and 4,400 miles of track could be laid. The number of annual trips could increase 

to between 13 and 17 billion. 

The 2008 State and National Public Transportation Needs Analysis, commissioned 

by APTA and AASHTO, estimated the total funding requirements for various 

growth percentages. Assuming a moderate annual passenger growth rate of 3.52 

percent, $59.2 billion must be spent annually by all levels of government in order 

to improve both infrastructure condition and service performance. Total expenditures by all levels of government in 2007 were $47.05 billion. 

65 

Freight Rail 

The U.S. freight rail system is comprised of three classes of railroad companies 

based on annual operating revenues: 8 Class I freight railroad systems; 30 Class II 

regional or short-line railroads; and 320 Class III or local line-haul carriers. 

Approximately 42 percent of all intercity freight in the United States travels via 

rail, including 70 percent of domestically manufactured automobiles and 70 percent 

of coal delivered to power plants. As of 2006, Class I railroads owned and operated 

140,249 miles of track. However, most traffic travels on approximately one-third of 

the total network, which totals 52,340 miles. 

After years of shedding excess capacity, railroads have been increasing infrastructure investment and spending in recent years. In 2006, overall spending on rail infrastructure was $8 billion, a 21 percent increase from 2005. More specifically, 

spending on construction of new roadway and structures increased from $1.5 billion 

in 2005 to $1.9 billion in 2007. Increased spending on maintenance of railroad networks and systems has become necessary as investments are made in more costly 

signaling technology, heavier rail, and the improved substructure necessary to accommodate heavier trains. 

Demand for freight transportation is projected to nearly double by 2035—from 

19.3 billion tons in 2007 to 37.2 billion tons in 2035. If current market shares are 

maintained, railroads will be expected to handle an 88 percent increase in tonnage 

by 2035. However, as many look to rail as a more efficient and environmentally 

friendly freight shipper, rail’s market share could increase and lead to additional increases in freight rail tonnage. An estimated $148 billion in improvements will be needed to accommodate the 

projected rail freight demand in 2035. Class I freight railroads’ share of this cost 

is estimated at $135 billion. Through productivity and efficiency gains, railroads 

hope to reduce the required investment from $148 billion to $121 billion over the 

period 2007 through 2035. 

Passenger Rail 

Amtrak, the Nation’s only intercity passenger rail provider, carried 28.7 million 

riders in Fiscal Year 2008, an 11.1 percent increase from Fiscal Year 2007. Further, 

the 2007 ridership represented a 20 percent increase from the previous 5 years. Corridor services linking major cities less than 500 miles apart, such as Milwaukee-Chicago, Sacramento-San Francisco-San Jose and the Northeast Corridor are experiencing the fastest growth. Increased ridership has led to increased revenue, and Amtrak received $1.355 bil- lion in Federal investment in Fiscal Year 2008. However, an additional $410 million 

in immediate capital needs have been identified, including acquiring new cars to 

add capacity. In addition, upgrades to comply with the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) and improve overall conditions of the 481 stations in its network are estimated at $1.5 billion. 

While electrical power in the Northeast Corridor cushioned some of the blow of 

increased fuel prices in 2008, it also represents a major infrastructure challenge for 

Amtrak. Upgrading the electrical system in the Northeast Corridor, parts of which 

were installed in the 1930s, is among the immediate needs identified. Failure of 

these critical systems could bring the entire line to a halt, which would impact not 

only Amtrak, but also the 8 commuter railroads that share the Northeast Corridor. 

In the long term, the Passenger Rail Working Group (PRWG), which was formed 

as part of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, determined that an annual investment of $7.4 billion through 2016, totaling 

$66.3 billion, is needed to address the total capital cost of a proposed intercity rail 

network. It is further estimated that an additional $158.6 billion is needed between 

2016 and 2030 and, and that an additional $132.2 billion must be invested between 

2031 and 2050 to achieve the ideal inter-city network proposed by PRWG. These 

costs do not include the mandated safety upgrades for freight rail lines that carry 

both passenger as well as freight traffic and for those routes that carry toxic chemicals as required by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 

While the investments set forth by the PRWG are significant, the benefits would 

be significant as well. The PRWG estimated a net fuel savings of nearly $4 billion 

per year by diverting passengers to rail if the proposed vision was adopted. In addition, the investments would reduce the need for even greater capacity investments 

in other modes. 

Intercity passenger rail faces particular concerns not faced by other modes of 

transportation, such as the lack of a dedicated revenue source. Amtrak owns and/ 

or operates 656 miles of track that are maintained and upgraded using funds from 

its general operating budget, impacting its ability to fund other projects. The annual 

congressional appropriations process has provided minimal funding in recent years, 

66 

leading to a major backlog of deferred track maintenance on the track that Amtrak 

owns and operates, more than half of which is shared with commuter and freight 

railroads. For the remainder of its 21,095-mile network, Amtrak relies on freight 

rail lines that make maintenance and upgrade decisions on the basis of their own 

business models and shareholders’ interests while preserving Amtrak’s statutory 

rights for access. Freight and passenger rail interests are becoming more aligned 

as both require increases in rail network capacity, but successful alignment of interests will require both a public and private investment. 

ASCE supports the development, construction and operation of an expanded passenger rail transportation system within the United States, including advanced 

technology high speed ground transportation (HSGT) systems. As regional and 

intercity transportation corridors in the United States become increasingly congested, investments in intercity passenger rail systems, including HSGT, are increasingly attractive as part of an overall transportation mobility strategy to provide 

added capacity and high quality service. Investments in this technology are cost effective, environmentally responsive and energy efficient and should be considered as 

companion investments to traditional highway and air modes. These investments include both conventional wheel-on-rail systems and new technologies. Other nations, 

in Europe and Asia in particular, have invested heavily in the development and construction of new HSGT systems and intercity passenger rail networks over the past 

four decades. While the U.S. has spent substantial sums in highway and air passenger networks, North America has lagged in the development and implementation 

of efficient, relatively non-polluting, and high-capacity intercity passenger rail and 

HSGT networks. The $8 billion included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act along with $5 billion (over the next 5 years) proposed by the President 

in his FY 2010 budget for HSGT provides a foundation for developing a comprehensive high-speed intercity passenger rail network. 

Substantial investments in freight and passenger rail infrastructure will help to 

maximize efficiencies and ultimately reap broad benefits for passengers, shippers 

and the general public. 

Expanding Infrastructure Investment 

Establishing a sound financial foundation for future surface transportation expansion and preservation is an essential part of authorization. Despite increased funding levels in TEA–21 and SAFETEA–LU, the Nation’s surface transportation system 

requires even more investment. 

ASCE supports the following items for surface transportation infrastructure investment: 

• A 25 cent-per-gallon increase in the motor fuels user fee. To maintain the current conditions of the surface transportation infrastructure, as defined by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s Conditions and Performance (C&P) Report, 

a 10-cent increase is necessary. The additional 15-cent increase would go toward 

system improvement including congestion relief, freight mobility, and traffic 

safety. 

• A maintenance of effort requirement to ensure that all levels of government are 

making comparable financial commitments to improve the Nation’s surface 

transportation system. 

• The user fee on motor fuels should be indexed to the Consumer Price Index 

(CPI), in order to preserve the purchasing power of the fee. 

• All motor fuels should be taxed equitably. 

• The Highway Trust Fund balances should be managed to maximize investment 

in the Nation’s infrastructure. 

• Congress should preserve the current firewalls to allow for full use of trust fund 

revenues for investment in the Nation’s surface transportation system. 

• The authorization should maintain funding guarantees. 

• Tolling, vehicle taxes, state sales taxes, congestion pricing, container fees, and 

transit ticket fees must all be considered in the development of revenues for the 

maintenance and improvement of the surface transportation system. 

• The current flexibility provisions should be maintained. The goal of the flexibility should be to establish an efficient multi-modal transportation system for 

the Nation. 

• The development of a freight mobility program to guarantee the efficient movement of freight and reduce system congestion. 

• The creation of a permanent commission to determine the levels at which motor 

fuel user fees should be set, and when those fees should be increased. 

67 

• Efficiency in delivering infrastructure projects to shorten delivery times and decrease costs. 

ASCE supports the need to address the issue of future sources of revenue for surface transportation funding. Congress should allow for the exploration of the viability of the most promising funding options that will maintain the viability of the 

HTF. In particular, the impacts of increased fuel efficiency and alternate fuel technologies such as fuel cells should be studied. A mileage-based system for funding 

our Nation’s surface transportation systems also needs further study. A large scale 

demonstration project, to follow up on the work done in Oregon, should be executed 

to determine the practicality of such a program. The data will be critical in determining how to generate HTF revenue as the Nation’s dependence on gasoline as a 

fuel source for automobiles is reduced. 

While recognizing that innovative financing is not a replacement for new funding, 

ASCE supports innovative financing programs and advocates making programs 

available to all states where appropriate. Additionally, the Federal Government 

should make every effort to develop new programs. These types of programs include 

the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, State Infrastructure 

Banks, and Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles. It should be noted, however, that 

innovative financing does not produce revenue, and should not be seen as an alternative to increasing direct user fee funding of surface transportation infrastructure. 

Innovative financing techniques can greatly accelerate infrastructure development 

and can have a powerful economic stimulus effect compared to conventional methods. This is the current approach in South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, 

and Texas, where expanded and accelerated transportation investment programs 

have been utilized. 

ASCE recognizes Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) as one of many methods of 

financing infrastructure improvements. ASCE supports the use of PPPs only when 

the public interest is protected and the following criteria are met: 

• Any public revenue derived from PPPs must be dedicated exclusively to comparable infrastructure facilities in the state or locality where the project is 

based; 

• PPP contracts must include performance criteria that address long-term viability, life cycle costs, and residual value; 

• Transparency must be a key element in all aspects of contract development, including all terms and conditions in the contract. There should be public participation and compliance with all applicable planning and design standards, and 

environmental requirements; and 

• The selection of professional engineers as prime consultants and subconsultants 

should be based solely on the qualifications of the engineering firm. 

ASCE supports the development of criteria by governing agencies engaging in 

PPPs to protect the public interest. Examples of criteria include input from affected 

individuals and communities, effectiveness, accountability, transparency, equity, 

public access, consumer rights, safety and security, sustainability, long-term ownership, and reasonable rate of return. 

ASCE is greatly appreciative of the investment made by the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 toward restoring and upgrading the Nation’s surface 

transportation system. This much needed down-payment represents a significant 

first step toward enhancing the Nation’s deteriorating surface transportation system 

while simultaneously creating millions of jobs. 

ASCE also appreciates the infrastructure investments included in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget blueprint, as well as the proposal calling for the establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank. We believe that the budget submission accurately recognizes that infrastructure improvements are not only necessary, 

but that they will create and sustain jobs and provide a foundation for long-term 

economic growth. 

Conclusion 

Transportation is a critical engine of the Nation’s economy. It is the thread which 

knits the country together. To compete in the global economy, improve quality of 

life and raise the standard of living, we must successfully rebuild America’s public 

infrastructure. Faced with that task, the Nation must begin with a significantly improved and expanded surface transportation system. The 2009 surface transportation authorization must be founded on a new paradigm; instead of focusing on the 

movement of cars and trucks from place to place, it must be based on moving people, goods, and services across the economy. Beyond simply building new roads or 

transit systems, an intermodal approach must be taken to create a new vision for 

68 

the future. Included in this new vision must be plans to deal with the possible effects of climate change, a strong link to land use, sustainability of the system, the 

use of commodities, and anticipation of the expected changes in the population’s demographics, especially age and urbanization. 

ASCE looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and assisting in its efforts 

to help develop a progressive surface transportation authorization bill which is 

founded on a strong national vision, adequate funding and new technology, and 

which creates an integrated, multi-modal national transportation system second to 

none. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

HON. RAY LAHOOD

Question 1. How can we ensure that taxpayer dollars in the next surface transportation bill are spent to meet specific performance goals to relieve congestion, improve safety, and facilitate freight movement? Does the DOT currently have tools 

to track the progress toward these goals? 

Answer. The Department has advocated that transportation funds be focused on 

projects that produce measurable outcomes in terms of economic, environmental, 

and safety benefits for both passenger and freight movements. The analytical tools 

needed to measure these benefits exist, but in many cases States and metropolitan 

areas have not been using them. However, progress is being made as the Department has reached agreement with the States on fifteen (15) highway safety program 

performance measures for implementation beginning in FY 2010. Application of analytical tools will allow our transportation dollars to yield greater overall value and 

productivity than under current Federal programs that do not hold State and local 

transportation agencies accountable to any significant degree for spending their 

funds in a manner that achieves maximum net benefits and attainment of national 

goals. 

Question 2. Major transit projects like the Hudson River Rail Tunnel, which is 

ready to build in New Jersey, often take a long time to be completed, and any delays 

can result in millions and sometimes billions of dollars in extra costs. What can the 

Department of Transportation do to speed delivery of projects like the Hudson River 

Tunnel? 

Answer. I, together with Federal Transit Administrator, Peter M. Rogoff, intend 

to focus on streamlining the project evaluation process under the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) New Starts program, which funds major capital public 

transportation projects such as the Hudson River Tunnel project. Certainly, as stewards of Federal taxpayer dollars, and in a fiscal environment where resource demands far exceed available funding, it is important that FTA—and local project 

stakeholders—have good information on which to base resource allocation decisions. 

However, I am concerned that unnecessary delays in the evaluation process may be 

causing project costs to creep upward unnecessarily. In 2006, FTA hired Deloitte 

Consulting to analyze the New Starts program and to identify opportunities for 

streamlining. FTA has begun to implement Deloitte’s recommendations while conducting its own ‘‘bottom up’’ streamlining review of the entire program. 

In addition, FTA believes that it can make the environmental review process more 

efficient by taking full advantage of the flexibility inherent in the National Environmental Policy Act process and other environmental regulations. To this end, FTA 

has aggressively developed pertinent guidance and enhanced its outreach and training efforts. For example, FTA produced and published a manual entitled ‘‘Keys to 

Efficient Development of Useful Environmental Documents’’ (September 2007), 

which was designed to promote production of concise, readable documents for the 

benefit of the public and agency decision-makers. Collectively, these measures 

should greatly accelerate project delivery while assuring adequate protection for the 

quality of the human environment. 

Question 3. As we look to reauthorize our motor carrier and highway safety programs, how can we make our highways safer for all travelers? 

Answer. The Department’s top priority is to ensure the safety of all travelers. We 

plan on working closely with Congress as it develops a reauthorization proposal that 

enhances public safety. 

In order to make progress in achieving our safety goals, I believe Congress should 

take a comprehensive approach to safety, including the four Es: engineering, enforcement, education, and EMS. Research has shown that States that have improved highway safety have done so by addressing all these areas. While all States 

would benefit from safety activities in each of these four areas, their effectiveness 

may differ among States, depending on the specific safety problems they encounter. 

69 

Therefore, I also believe that a national program must provide enough flexibility to 

allow States to focus on their particular safety problems. 

There are many good ideas to help address surface transportation safety, but I 

believe we need to make sure reauthorization addresses safety in a comprehensive, 

flexible fashion. I am confident that the Congress, working with the Administration, 

can develop a reauthorization bill that makes our highways safer for all travelers. 

Question 4. How would having a defined national surface transportation policy, 

which does not currently exist, better enable you to make decisions regarding more 

efficient and effective implementation of current surface transportation-related programs or assess the need for potential changes to those programs? 

Answer. Current surface transportation programs, because of statutory modal and 

programmatic restrictions, often do not allow for directing investments toward 

transportation improvements that efficiently address these national surface transportation goals. These same restrictions are major impediments to addressing policy 

priorities which can often best be achieved with multi-modal solutions. If the Department had increased flexibility to allocate Federal transportation funds, it could 

direct resources in a manner that uses the efficiency advantages of the individual 

modes working together for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Key to addressing national (and international) problems like improving freight delivery or improving environmental conditions is retaining funding and policymaking authority at the 

Department. Currently, most Federal transportation programs devolve funds which 

are granted to the states and localities, where decisions are made. DOT does not 

have the ability now to set and pursue goals for the Nation. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

HON. RAY LAHOOD

Question 1. Secretary LaHood, President Obama has called for one million plugin electric vehicles by the year 2015, a goal I strongly support and was pleased to 

have authored legislation with then-Senator Obama and Senator Hatch to provide 

tax incentives for consumers to buy plug-ins. Additionally, the hope is by 2015 there 

will be other alternatively fueled vehicles on the road in significant numbers. But 

plug-ins, electric vehicles, and other alternatively fueled vehicles will require a fueling infrastructure that corresponds to drivers’ local and long-distance driving patterns. What do you see as the Federal Government’s role in developing an infrastructure for alternatively fueled vehicles? What do you see as the Department’s 

role? 

Answer. Battery-equipped electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids will probably require recharging for a prolonged period of time, and, for both economic and environmental reasons, are best charged using off-peak electricity. This suggests that most 

charging stations should be located at homes or in places where vehicles are normally parked overnight. Expensive ‘‘convenience’’ electricity might be provided at 

places where vehicles might be parked for several hours during the day. A ‘smart’ 

recharging station should be able to charge the ‘correct’ hourly price for electricity, 

whenever the station is used. 

These operational details suggest that the design and deployment of recharging 

stations should be integrated with the ‘smart grid’ initiative. Within this context 

there are opportunities to integrate recharging stations with various federally-funded transportation facilities. 

In the case of renewable fuels, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is working on R&D and safety issues related to both ethanol pipelines 

and to batching ethanol and ethanol blends in existing products pipelines. This 

work, if successful, may eventually permit ethanol and ethanol-blended fuels to be 

more widely distributed around the United States. 

Question 2. In Washington State, I have encouraged communities pursuing Federal funds for developing new Park & Rides or garages to set aside several parking 

spaces for recharging batteries. Do you think it would be beneficial to require all 

new Park & Rides or parking garages supported by Federal funds set aside a percentage of parking spots for recharging batteries? 

Answer. It is likely that there will be substantial regional variation in the early 

penetration of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, based on local circumstances. It 

is also likely that the design of recharging stations (and vehicles) will undergo a 

substantial evolution over the next five or 10 years, as operational experience with 

early designs is reflected in subsequent modifications. Therefore a uniform national 

requirement at this juncture would often put the wrong equipment in the wrong 

place. 

70 

A more targeted approach might be preferable, for example, funding the deployment of recharging stations in communities where there is an integrated program 

to promote the deployment of electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. 

Question 3. In 2007, the States of Washington, Oregon and California submitted 

a proposal to the Department under Corridors of the Future program requesting 

funds for the Columbia River Bridge Crossing project between Oregon and Washington, intelligent transportation system improvements, and an alternative fuels 

corridor. The proposed alternative fuels corridors would consist of service stations 

for fueling alternatively powered vehicles along the I–5 right of way. One possible 

permutation is a public-private partnership with local utilities to develop recharging 

stations for plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles. 

I recognize that Title 23 Section 111 places restrictions on what State transportation departments can do with respect to permitting automotive service stations or 

other commercial establishments for serving motor vehicle users that would be constructed or located on the rights-of-way of the Interstate System. Secretary LaHood, 

do you have the ability to grant waivers to State transportation departments from 

the restrictions in Title 23 Section 111 if you determine it is in the public interest 

to do so? More broadly, what are your thoughts about having services for alternatively fueled vehicles available along the Interstate System’s right-of-way as one 

means for jump-starting the development of the infrastructure necessary to meet 

the President’s 2015 goals for plug-in electric vehicles? 

Answer. The Department does not have broad authority to waive statutory requirements, even if it would be in the public interest to do so. I do think that we 

need to fully examine all available options to ensure that the infrastructure necessary to support use of alternative fuel vehicles, including electric vehicles, is put 

into place as quickly and efficiently as possible. 

Question 4. Secretary LaHood, as you know, the EPA uses one formula to establish the fuel economy rating placed on the vehicle’s window sticker, and the Department of Transportation uses a different formula for fuel economy to calculate a manufacturer’s fleetwide fuel economy average—the basis for the Federal CAFE standards. 

This has meant that the miles per gallon tests automakers use to meet CAFE 

standards are actually quite a bit more generous than the miles per gallon on a window sticker label or a driver would get in real world driving conditions. 

I am concerned that this dynamic will be exacerbated when it comes to plug-in 

electric vehicles. A Department of Energy pilot program in Seattle and other communities is showing that driver technique and route selection make all the difference for a plug-in hybrid to realize the full fuel economy savings potential. Has 

NTHSA given thought how it will calculate the contribution of plug-in hybrids to 

calculating a manufacturer’s fleetwide fuel economy average? 

Answer. The fuel economy value differences largely reflect differences in statutory 

requirements. For determining the compliance of passenger cars with the CAFE 

standards, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires EPA to use the same 

laboratory test procedures that EPA used for emissions testing for model year 1975 

or ones that give comparable results. EPA uses 1975 test procedures for light trucks 

as well. 

The current fuel economy ratings on vehicle window stickers are based on new 

adjustment factors that EPA adopted in response to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

That Act required EPA to update or revise adjustment factors to better reflect a variety of real-world factors that affect fuel economy and use those factors in generating the fuel economy ratings. The new factors are used by EPA to adjust the 1975 

laboratory test results downward to reflect real world driving conditions. 

As to the fuel economy values for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the 1975 statutory test procedures will still be used. NHTSA is working with EPA to determine 

what the appropriate miles per gallon conversion values to assign to a plug-in vehicle using stored electricity versus using electricity generated by an on-board gasoline powered engine. These conversion values will then be used to constitute a single 

miles per gallon value that will factor into a manufacturer’s overall fleet value. 

Question 5. Secretary LaHood, your predecessor Secretary Peters believed in a 

strong private sector role in funding our future transportation investments. I think 

we need to look into the possibility of long-term leases where they make sense, but 

need to do so cautiously. The public benefit would have to be clearly stated. There 

would need to be accountability measures in place to ensure that the concerns of 

users and other citizens will not be ignored. And safeguards would have to ensure 

that privatization efforts do not just benefit private entities. 

Private sector financing can work when there is a revenue stream that can be 

used to finance future investments. But for the majority of nation’s transportation 

71 

system, that simply is not possible. Most, if not all, rural transportation projects and 

many urban mega projects don’t pencil out for the private sector, and can’t be tolled 

at a rate high enough to build the project. 

What has the Department learned from the handful of surface transportation infrastructure privatization deals to date? 

Answer. The Department has learned that several State and local governments 

consider the long-term lease of existing toll roads to be an important tool which can 

realize significant upfront value that can be spent for transportation or other public 

purposes. Long-term leases are one tool in the tool box and each potential project 

must be judged on its own merits. The public benefit must be clearly stated and 

understood. 

To date, four projects for the long-term lease, or concession, of existing toll roads 

have closed in the United States. These are as follows: 

1. The Chicago Skyway, which closed in January 2005, 

2. The Indiana Toll Road, which closed in June 2006, 

3. The Pocohontas Parkway near Richmond, Virginia, which closed in June 

2006, and 

4. The Northwest Parkway near Denver, Colorado, which closed in August 2007. 

The City of Chicago received $1.8 billion from a concessionaire for a 99-year lease 

of the Chicago Skyway. In return, the concessionaire was granted the right to collect 

and keep all toll revenues during the 99-year term. The City used the proceeds to 

redeem other City of Chicago debt, $500 million to fund a long-term reserve account, 

$375 million to fund a midterm annuity account, and $100 million to fund various 

City of Chicago programs, such as home heating assistance and assistance for the 

disabled to make home modifications. 

The State of Indiana received an upfront payment of $3.8 billion from a concessionaire for the 75-year lease of the Indiana Toll Road. This payment fully funded 

Indiana’s 10-year road improvement plan. In addition, the payment provided funding to each county in Indiana, and counties where the Indiana Toll Road is located 

received one-time payments of between $40 million and $120 million for local transportation projects. 

The concession payments in the case of the Pocahontas Parkway and the Northwest Parkway were used to help bridge a gap in financing these projects. 

Question 5a. Has the Administration taken a position on the long-term leasing or 

privatization of infrastructure, including highways? 

Answer. In general, the Department supports efforts by State and local governments to look for new and creative ways to expand beyond traditional approaches 

to funding transportation infrastructure. We have not taken a specific position on 

the long-term leasing of existing transportation infrastructure. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

HON. RAY LAHOOD

Question 1. Secretary LaHood, you state in your testimony that the Dept. of 

Transportation is working to improve livability and sustainability in rural areas. 

Isolated small towns face particular challenges to attracting jobs and economic investment. You note that transportation investment in rural communities can be designed to support new development while not ruining their small town character. 

Could you elaborate on this point? 

Answer. Livability is an important part of all transportation considerations for 

major metropolitan areas as well as small town, rural America. The Department 

recognizes that not all strategies for building livable communities will work for both 

urban and rural areas; one-size-fits-all solutions are not optimal standards of practice. It is imperative to ensure that both metro and rural areas have the technical 

capacity and funding flexibility to create and maintain a transportation infrastructure that fits their individual community needs. This flexibility in design and implementation will help small towns maintain their character while still providing the 

needed infrastructure improvements to attract jobs and economic investment. 

Question 2. Transit authorities in small towns and rural areas face particular 

challenges with funding their operations. Yet Federal transportation assistance is 

historically reserved for capital investments rather than funding operations and 

maintenance at the local level. How does the Dept. of Transportation intend to promote transit, vanpools and rideshare initiatives for rural America given the significant fiscal challenges rural communities face when trying to fund their transit operations? 

72 

Answer. I appreciate your concern regarding the particular funding challenges 

facing transit operators in small towns and rural areas around our Nation. Addressing these unique challenges has long been an area of focus for FTA’s formula programs. 

While capital investments are the focus of Federal assistance for large urbanized 

areas, I note that all recipients of FTA’s ‘‘other than urbanized areas’’ formula program (commonly referred to as Section 5311) and recipients in urbanized areas of 

less than 200,000 in population under FTA’s Urbanized Area formula program (Section 5307), can use formula apportionment funds for transit operations. Under these 

two programs, FTA formula fund recipients, including those in New Mexico’s small 

towns and rural areas, are currently eligible to utilize Federal funds toward operating assistance at up to a 50-percent Federal cost share. 

In addition, all recipients of FTA Section 5307 and 5311 formula funds may use 

capital funds for expenses that support operations—that is, for preventive maintenance. Preventive maintenance for vehicles and non-vehicles includes all the activities, supplies, materials, labor (wages, salaries, and benefits for maintenance workers, as well as casualty insurance), services, and associated costs required to preserve or extend the functionality and serviceability of the asset in a cost effective 

manner. Preventive maintenance is funded at an 80-percent Federal share. 

I am committed to working to assist transit providers in small towns and rural 

areas as they explore all Federal resources that are available to help develop and 

fund transit, vanpool, and rideshare services. One of FTA’s goals is to ensure that 

affordable mobility is available to all citizens, and supporting efforts to promote and 

fund transit, vanpools, and rideshare programs in nonurbanized areas is a major 

component of our Section 5311 program. FTA is pleased that the number of rural 

counties participating in the program has grown significantly since the passage of 

SAFETEA–LU and the increased financial support for the 5311 program. Additional 

funding for Section 5311 provided by the Act has resulted in increased mobility for 

many people living in rural areas across America. 

In addition to capital and operating assistance available from FTA’s formula programs, I want to highlight the Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP), a vital 

resource that provides training and technical assistance to transit operators in small 

towns and rural areas. Each State has an RTAP program that is keyed to the technical assistance needs of its transit providers; and, these include the promotion of 

mobility management initiatives such as ridesharing. FTA sponsors a national 

RTAP program as well, that develops information and materials for use by local operators and state administering agencies and supports research and technical assistance projects of national interest. 

Question 3. Secretary LaHood, you noted that safety will continue to be a high 

priority for your department and that we must explore ‘‘innovative ways’’ to reduce 

death and injury from impaired driving. The State of New Mexico is aggressively 

addressing the problem of drunk driving through a combination of enforcement and 

education efforts. Yet in 2007 alone, there were still 133 fatalities involving alcoholimpaired drivers in my state. Although the last highway bill provided grant programs to help states tackle drunk driving, it is a still a problem of great concern. 

What more can the Dept. of Transportation do to further efforts to reduce drunk 

driving? Do ignition locks or other new technologies under evaluation at the Federal 

or state level show promise for reducing impaired driving? 

Answer. The State of New Mexico is to be commended for their remarkable rate 

of progress over recent years in reducing drunk driving. Governor Richardson recently announced that the number of DWI-related deaths in New Mexico has decreased 35 percent since 2002. Even at this reduced level, there are still far too 

many drunk-driving deaths—in New Mexico and across the Nation—and we need 

to continue looking for every possible remedy for this problem. 

I believe the Department can assist States by highlighting effective strategies and 

providing technical assistance and available resources that allow States flexibility 

in implementing solutions that best address their specific problems. States need 

support in assessing and adopting a range of potential countermeasures, including 

effective public awareness campaigns, law enforcement operations, and improvements in adjudication and sanctioning systems, including the use of ignition interlocks. Interlocks have shown great promise in helping to reduce recidivism, and we 

intend to continue to promote them as a key part of a State’s comprehensive impaired driving programs. 

Question 4. Secretary LaHood, in your written testimony, you state that the Dept. 

of Transportation expects freight and passenger transportation to increase by about 

two-and-a-half times over the next 40 years. This means more trucks as well as traffic on our rails. In my state, safety at railroad crossings is an important issue since 

73 

we have had several fatal accidents. These accidents have taken place with cars at 

grade crossings and with people walking along tracks when they should not be. The 

Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2008 included grants to states for grade crossing safety and the ‘‘Operation Life Saver’’ program to raise public awareness of railroad safety hazards. What actions will your department take to address rail safety 

and provide adequate funding to meet critical needs such as improved grade crossing controls and Positive Train Control? 

Answer. To address rail safety, my chief priority is to ensure that the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) as a 

whole continue to implement the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. The Act 

mandates more than 40 rail safety rulemakings, studies, and model state laws, including a rulemaking to establish the essential functionalities required for positive 

train control systems that the Act requires to be installed on major freight and passenger railroads by 2015 (section 104). The Act also includes a range of measures 

to improve highway-rail grade crossing safety, including fostering the development 

and implementation of effective new technologies for use at highway-rail grade 

crossings (section 210). Highway-rail grade crossing safety is a central focus of my 

Department and is supported by the efforts of the Federal Highway Administration, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in addition to those of FRA. 

Overall, we will seek to ensure that the Department’s rail safety efforts are properly 

funded, recognizing that, in promoting rail safety, the Department is also promoting 

transportation efficiency, which benefits our Nation economically, environmentally, 

and in other ways. 

Question 5. It is my understanding that there are no current plans for including 

the southwest region of the United States in efforts to promote high speed rail. Why 

is the southwest region not being considered for high speed rail projects? What 

needs to be done at the Federal, regional, or state level for the southwest to be considered for high speed rail initiatives? 

Answer. The Department’s strategic plan, Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, 

included a discussion of the ten designated high-speed corridors in the background 

section in identifying efforts that had been undertaken by the Federal Government 

over the past twenty years to lay the groundwork for an expansion of high speed 

rail and intercity passenger rail in America. The corridor designations were based 

on State applications for corridors expected to achieve 90 miles per hour for grade 

crossing safety purposes. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides $8 billion to the Secretary for expenditure on three different rail passenger 

programs with the allocation among the programs to be decided at the Secretary’s 

discretion. The three programs are capital investment grants to support intercity 

passenger rail service (authorized by section 301 of the Passenger Rail Investment 

and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA)), congestion grants (authorized by section 302 

of PRIIA), and high-speed rail corridor development (authorized by Section 501 of 

PRIIA). Only the high-speed rail corridor development program is limited to designated high-speed rail corridors listed in PRIIA (also see 49 U.S.C. § 26106(b)(2)). 

This is not a limiting factor because of the broad discretion provided to the Secretary under the Recovery Act. The strategic plan indicates that DOT will have 

three separate ‘‘tracks’’ for funding under the Recovery Act and available annual appropriations: (1) grants to complete individual projects eligible under the intercity 

passenger rail service program (§ 301) and the congestion program (§ 302) for the 

benefit of existing services; (2) cooperative agreements to develop entire segments 

or phases of corridor programs eligible under the intercity passenger rail service 

program (§ 301) and high-speed rail corridor development program (§ 501) benefiting 

new or existing services; and (3) cooperative agreements for planning activities (including development of corridor plans and State Rail Plans eligible for funding 

under Section 301 of PRIIA) using non-Recovery Act funds. This third track provides States an opportunity to prepare themselves for any funding remaining in 

subsequent application processes under the Recovery Act and/or future year appropriations. Applicants located in the southwest region of the United States are eligible to apply for grant funds under any of the three tracks to the same extent as 

applicants in other regions of the country. Application requirements building on the 

proposed strategy outlined in pages 13–18 of the strategic plan were identified in 

the Department’s application guidance that was issued on June 17, 2009. The Federal Railroad Administration held a series of High-Speed and Intercity Passenger 

Rail Workshops to seek input from the rail community in seven regions across the 

country. One of those sessions was held in Houston, Texas on May 29, 2009. 

74 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

STEVE HEMINGER

Question 1. One of the recommendations of your commission was to condense the 

108 existing Federal surface transportation programs into ten programs. How would 

condensing these existing programs improve our surface transportation system? 

Answer. Any agency of government with more than 100 priorities really has none 

at all. Consolidating the number of Federal surface transportation programs down 

to 10 (as recommended by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue 

Study Commission on which I sat) would focus Federal aid in the policy areas that 

really matter to national goals such as national security, economic competitiveness, 

and energy independence. 

Question 2. Transportation accounts for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in 

the United States. How can we focus our transportation investments to reduce the 

impact of the transportation sector on global warming? 

Answer. We must first acknowledge that the vast majority of reductions in CO2

emissions in the transportation sector will come from technological improvements to 

the vehicles and fuels that comprise our on-road motor vehicle fleet. At the same 

time, we will need to pursue strategies that reduce the number of miles that each 

person travels by motor vehicle on an average day. This does not mean eliminating 

auto use, nor does it mean prohibiting new road construction. Rather, it means offering commuters and other travelers better options to auto travel for some of the 

trips they make—options such as public transit, ridesharing, telecommuting, and 

the like. It also means that Federal policy should permit metropolitan areas to experiment with congestion pricing and other demand management strategies that 

convey more of the full cost of travel to motorists as a way of encouraging them to 

travel by other modes, especially at congested times of day. 

Question 3. There has been little Federal investment in our freight rail infrastructure, even as we face a significant increase in freight traffic. What should be the 

Federal Government’s role in maintaining and enhancing freight-related infrastructure? 

Answer. Congress has the constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce, yet in surface transportation there is neither a national goods movement 

strategy nor a Federal freight investment program. If the next surface transportation authorization does nothing else, it should remedy this oversight. Such a Federal freight program should invest in both truck/highway and freight rail capacity, 

while at the same time encouraging a greater share of goods to be moved by rail 

for both traffic congestion and energy consumption purposes. Obviously, public investment in privately-owned freight rail infrastructure must be shown to have a 

public benefit, but our national commission work convinced us that pairing public 

and private investment in freight rail capacity is in the national interest. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

STEVE HEMINGER

Question 1. Mr. Heminger, you state that there are far too many different Federal 

transit grant programs, with each one often containing different sets of rules, eligibility restrictions, and requirements. This can place extra administrative burdens 

on our state and local officials. How could the Federal transportation program requirements be streamlined to provide more flexibility for state and local officials 

while still ensuring accountability and transparency? 

Answer. Our national commission report devoted considerable attention to this 

subject, and as the old saying goes, ‘‘the devil is in the details.’’ I would direct the 

committee to Chapter 6 of our final report for full details of our streamlining proposals. 

Question 2. As a member of the Senate Bike Caucus, I appreciate how commuting 

to work by bicycle burns calories rather than fossil fuels. What policies or initiatives 

should be included in our future surface transportation plans to encourage greater 

use of bicycles and improve safety where drivers and cyclists share the same roadways? 

Answer. Our commission report advocated creation of a ‘‘Metropolitan Mobility’’ 

program that would be performance-driven to reduce traffic congestion and auto 

emissions in our major metropolitan areas. It is my firm belief that local officials 

in many of those areas would likely include an expansion of bicycle and pedestrian 

facilities in their plans to achieve those performance objectives. 

75 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

NED S. HOLMES

Question. Last year, more than 37,000 people were killed and millions more were 

injured on our Nation’s highways. How can Congress help more effectively enforce 

safety regulations on our highways? 

Answer. Safety is a top priority for all of us, and an important goal. With the need 

to develop new surface transportation legislation before us, now is a good time to 

adopt a new approach for Federal policy. An opportunity exists to redefine Federal 

priorities, transition to an outcome based approach, and allow states more flexibility 

to develop alternative funding, contracting and operating solutions. Clearly defined 

performance measures will add transparency to assessing state performance in 

meeting national goals, and funding can be linked to performance. 

Instead of considering procedural methods such as the enforcement of safety regulations, Congress could focus on national transportation system priorities, goals that 

reflect these priorities, and desired outcomes. An outcome based policy instead of 

a process based policy will change the way Federal programs are created and funds 

are distributed. By focusing on the vision and goals for the national transportation 

system, Congress can lead us to a modally integrated system that enhances our role 

in the global economy. 

For each system-wide goal, such as reducing fatalities, states will be empowered 

to develop performance measures and accurately track progress to meet these performance measures. States will have flexibility to develop a variety of programs that 

meet the needs of their unique situations, as long as desired outcomes are achieved. 

The ultimate measure for the safety goal will be how many lives are saved, the 

states will be responsible, and funding will be tied to performance. This outcome 

based approach will result in more transparent and accountable state programs and 

a simpler, more strategic Federal program. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

NED S. HOLMES

Question 1. Mr. Holmes, relocating freight rail out of congested urban areas is an 

issue across the country, including in your home state of Texas. In the border areas 

of Texas and New Mexico, several proposed rail relocation projects could potentially 

reduce congestion, improve border security, and increase safety. Yet freight-related 

projects of national significance that compete with state projects remain a challenge 

for our state DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations. What more can be 

done at the Federal level to assist freight rail relocation projects? 

Answer. Not surprisingly, the biggest obstacle for relocating freight rail is lack of 

funding. In Texas, funds that are dedicated to the state highway fund may not be 

spent on rail. Our urban centers are actively pursuing rail funding options at the 

regional level, with some success to date. The most recent attempts for expanded 

regional taxing authority in state law did not pass. We have identified over $10 billion in freight rail relocation projects that would provide a substantial public benefit. While we have some funds to perform preliminary studies, we don’t have funds 

to plan, design and construct the projects. These projects could provide more congestion relief for area commuters than the same funds spent on area road projects. 

Both a modally integrated national transportation vision and more flexible funding 

would accelerate our efforts to reduce congestion through rail relocations. For example, if reducing congestion were a performance measure for mode-neutral transportation funds, rail relocations may reduce more congestion than other projects being 

considered. There are also many complex issues related to security and customs, at 

both our borders and ports, which could be better addressed through additional 

funds and a national approach. 

Texas was pleased by the modal flexibility of the stimulus funds, and one rail 

project was funded with the potential still remaining to fund others. However, due 

to a lack of funds to develop rail projects, there are few ‘‘shovel-ready’’ rail projects 

in Texas, so we were not able to take advantage of the modal flexibility as much 

as possible. Projects could be accelerated if more funds were available for development efforts such as planning in addition to other project costs. 

TxDOT is in the process of updating its statewide rail system plan to identify 

projects throughout the state and we are also considering the creation of a rail division. Through these efforts, we hope to improve awareness of rail needs, benefits, 

and obstacles. These rail efforts include moving both people and freight. There are 

also a number of railroads and organizations in Texas that are actively working to 

advance freight and commuter rail including the Gulf Coast Freight Rail District, 

76 

an organization in the Houston region that includes multiple cities and counties, 

and on whose board I serve. 

Question 2. As a member of the Senate Bike Caucus, I appreciate how commuting 

to work by bicycle burns calories rather than fossil fuels. What policies or initiatives 

should be included in our future surface transportation plans to encourage greater 

use of bicycles and improve safety where drivers and cyclists share the same roadways? 

Answer. If the Federal transportation program transitions to outcome based initiatives in lieu of process based programs, there could be mode neutral funding that 

better facilitates cycling and other alternative modes of travel perhaps through national goals such as air quality improvement or planning for multi-use development 

and livable, sustainable communities. Bicycle safety could be improved through the 

broader goal of improved safety along with state performance measures that specifically addresses cyclists. It is important that data for cycling related accidents is accurately compiled for tracking purposes to measure performance, and to determine 

how to best address the risks. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

JAMES CORLESS

Question 1. The Federal, state, and local governments currently all play a role in 

determining transportation priorities and deciding what projects should be funded. 

How can we ensure that regional projects are contributing to meeting our national 

transportation goals? 

Answer. Congress should set clear goals and targets for making the transportation 

system safer, cleaner and less congested by including a coherent set of national 

goals and performance targets in the next Federal transportation bill. Articulating 

performance targets and holding states and local governments accountable for meeting these goals will help Americans spend less time and money when they choose 

to drive, while improving the performance of all modes of transportation. By providing states and local governments the flexibility to plan and build transportation 

projects that best meet local needs while demonstrating progress toward national 

goals, the Federal Government can ensure that regional projects are contributing to 

national goals. 

Question 2. Transportation accounts for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in 

the United States. How can we focus our transportation investments to reduce the 

impact of the transportation sector on global warming? 

Answer. Transportation alternatives such as biking, walking, and transit, paired 

with more efficient land use, are critical tools if we are serious about addressing 

climate change. These strategies can significantly reduce global warming emissions, 

and they help reduce our dependence on oil, save people money at the gas pump, 

save communities money on infrastructure costs, and deliver the kind of vibrant, 

walkable places that are in demand. Research has shown that compact development 

patterns reduce carbon emissions from automobiles by up to 10 percent, compared 

to typical sprawl-type developments. Public transportation in the U.S. already saves 

an estimated 6.9 MMT of carbon each year. Effective system management also has 

a vital role to play both in making our transportation system more efficient and allowing us to measure results so we know what we’re getting for our money. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Transportation Demand Management (TDM), 

and other technology solutions are showing remarkable promise in squeezing more 

productivity out of our existing transportation networks. In the recently completed 

long range transportation plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission determined that one of the most cost-effective investments is a package of operational and technology improvements to the regional freeway system. 

Question 3. There has been little Federal investment in our freight rail infrastructure, even as we face a significant increase in freight traffic. What should be the 

Federal Government’s role in maintaining and enhancing freight-related infrastructure? 

Answer. Improving goods movement by investing in multimodal long-distance 

freight is a critical component of Federal transportation legislation. At the Federal 

level, these efforts must include new national incentives to create efficient connections from ports and distribution centers to national freight corridors, including 

state-of-the-art intermodal facilities to transfer freight between rail and truck, expanded cross-country rail freight mainlines, and improvements in the condition of 

short line railroad track. Reducing emissions while keeping our economy moving 

77 

also requires targeting Federal investments where they are the most efficient and 

effective. Port infrastructure improvements, such as mechanisms for reducing pollution from ships, trucks, trains, cargo-handling equipment, and harbor craft and increasing the efficiency of shifts between marine, truck, and rail modes, not only benefit the economy but the climate the environment as well. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

JAMES CORLESS

Question 1. Mr. Corless, in your testimony, you stress the importance of a Federal 

commitment to transportation for rural areas and support additional funds for rural 

planning districts. You also recommend that rural areas should develop flexible 

forms of transportation such as vanpools and ridesharing. I know from discussions 

with transportation agencies in New Mexico that it can be especially difficult for 

rural districts to support the operation and maintenance of such services. How can 

the Federal Government encourage sustainable public transportation options for 

rural Americans? 

Answer. Rural communities face a number of challenges in providing accessibility 

and mobility, challenges that are amplified by global changes in the economic marketplace, as well as demographic shifts within the US. Nearly every community 

struggles with insufficient funding to maintain and improve substandard or unpaved roads, improve public transit services, and upgrade or replace substandard 

and deteriorating bridges. Developing effective, integrated forms of public transportation, vanpools and ridesharing for rural areas can provide increased transportation choices to travelers while realizing efficiencies through the use of technology, 

shared vehicles and volunteer services. Dispersed, very low-density land uses make 

it harder for transit, active transportation and ridesharing strategies to succeed. 

Small towns and rural areas should be provided the tools and technical assistance 

by the Federal Government to adopt smart growth policies that link transportation 

and land-use decisions, increasing the viability of public transportation options. 

Question 2. As a member of the Senate Bike Caucus, I appreciate how commuting 

to work by bicycle burns calories rather than fossil fuels. What policies or initiatives 

should be included in our future surface transportation plans to encourage greater 

use of bicycles and improve safety where drivers and cyclists share the same roadways? 

Answer. Nonmotorized transportation is a critical element of any multimodal 

transportation program, creating affordable travel options, reducing energy use, and 

promoting improved health. The Federal Government must begin by breaking down 

the existing barriers or funding silos that separate planning and design for pedestrian and bicycle projects from that of highway or transit modes. Policies that require new roads to be built as ‘‘complete streets’’ will also ensure that all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders are accommodated in the transportation system. The policy would improve safety, reduce congestion and air pollution 

and create a stronger sense of community. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG TO

ANNE CANBY

Question 1. The Federal, state, and local governments currently all play a role in 

determining transportation priorities and deciding what projects should be funded. 

How can we ensure that regional projects are contributing to meeting our national 

transportation goals? 

Answer. The metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have responsibility for 

identifying projects of a regional nature through their long range transportation 

plan and the selection of projects to be incorporated into the TIP (Transportation 

Improvement Program). 

The planning process must require that MPOs and state transportation agencies 

explicitly demonstrate how their plan addresses all national objectives and goals included in the Federal surface transportation statute. Current law only requires that 

national polices be ‘considered.’ As indicated in my statement, these should include 

key external issues, such as energy use and climate related emissions. Second, the 

law must include a mechanism that automatically redirects Federal funds to those 

areas where states or MPOs are falling short of meeting their goals. For example, 

if a region is failing to meet its goal for the reduction of fatalities, they should be 

required to increase the amount of funds spent on safety improvements. Similarly, 

if the shortfall is for climate related emissions, then funds would be required to be 

78 

allocated to programs and projects that will provide increased travel options, such 

as transit, rail, walking and bicycling, implementation of land-use development patterns that enable people to shift from their cars. Finally, MPOs and states must report on a regular basis to the U.S. Transportation Department on their progress toward meeting the national goals. These reports should be readily available for public review via websites. If all of these processes were in place, it would be possible 

to determine if national goals were being met and corrective action would be automatic. 

Question 2. Transportation accounts for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in 

the United States. How can we focus our transportation investments to reduce the 

impact of the transportation sector on global warming? 

Answer. The first step would be to establish the linkage between our transportation investments and the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the transportation sector by changing the mission of the national surface transportation program. Establishing a national transportation objective for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions and linking this to transportation outcomes would be a first step toward 

accomplishing this. Second, would be to strengthen the transportation planning 

process to make the long range plan the governing document rather than the TIP 

by focusing on establishing objectives and goals and measuring outcomes based on 

the plan. Requiring regular reporting on progress toward meeting established goals, 

along with mandatory reallocation of Federal funds if there is a shortfall in meeting 

a milestone or goal would put in place a self-enforcing mechanism. The 

prioritization of projects in the TIP should be required to support achieving the objectives and goals in the long-range plan. The long-range plan should be subject to 

a NEPA analysis, which is not the case today. 

Additionally, national programs, particularly those that support new capacity investments, should include the goal of reducing transportation related greenhouse 

gas emissions. This could be accomplished by giving states and MPOs the flexibility 

to invest in the most effective greenhouse reduction projects regardless of mode. Including eligibility for passenger and freight rail along with transit and bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities for those programs that focus on adding new capacity would 

give the states and MPOs this flexibility. Any new funding sources for capacity programs should be mode neutral so no one mode feels that ‘their’ funds are being diverted. 

Including discretionary as well as formula based approaches in the overall program structure could provide an incentive for metro regions, states and even multistate partnerships to focus their creative energies on exploring new approaches with 

new partners on investments that reduce GHG emissions. The ARRA High Speed 

Rail program has fostered numerous discussions that might not have happened 

under a normal formula driven program structure. In addition, the $1.5 billion discretionary TIGER fund is fostering new multi-state partnerships with rail carriers 

to expand capacity along significant freight corridors facilitating a shift from truck 

to rail. The CSX Gateway and Norfolk Southern’s Heartland corridors are both examples of multi-state initiatives with private rail operators. 

Question 3. There has been little Federal investment in our freight rail infrastructure, even as we face a significant increase in freight traffic. What should be the 

Federal Government’s role in maintaining and enhancing freight-related infrastructure? 

Answer. Heightened awareness of the growth of freight volumes in concert with 

the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has focused on the need to expand rail 

freight capacity and market share for rail freight, particularly intermodal freight. 

There is an need for additional public and private capital. Examples of how the Federal Government can provide financial support for added investment in rail include 

expanding eligibility in Federal surface transportation programs to include rail 

freight, providing low cost loans through a multi-modal infrastructure bank, use of 

investment tax credit for specific public benefit related investments, such as lowering greenhouse gas emissions and reducing energy use, and potentially by allowing rail companies to sell emission credits or receive allowances through a cap and 

trade program. Expanding program eligibility establishes the flexibility for states to 

make investment decisions best suited to achieving national objectives and goals. 

Low cost loans and investment tax credits expand private capital to support improving rail infrastructure. Including rail in climate programs reflects the value and 

benefit that rail contributes to reducing carbon emissions in the transportation sector. 

Investing public resources in private assets, e.g., rail infrastructure, can be justified by clearly defining the public benefits derived from such an investment. Public 

benefits could be numerous, including reducing the need for public investment in 

79 

highways and ongoing maintenance costs, improved highway safety, reduced energy 

use and climate emissions. The Federal Government could provide a best practices 

guide for determining public benefits that justify public investment. 

The current surface transportation program structure needs to move beyond single mode programs to incorporate multimodal eligibility tied to achievement of national objectives. To support multi-modal programs, the Federal Government should 

support the research to establish methodologies for cross modal analysis to determine the costs and benefits of various investment options. Work in this area is 

being pursued by the Canadian government. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

ANNE CANBY

Question 1. Ms. Canby, you note in your testimony the need for energy efficient 

transportation. Ridership on commuter rail systems across the country has been 

continuously growing to meet passenger demand. I have seen this first hand with 

our popular Rail Runner service from Belen to Santa Fe. What should the Federal 

Government do to further encourage commuter rail? 

Answer. The allocation of Federal funds currently is weighted heavily toward the 

state transportation agencies, which routinely favor highway investments over other 

modes. The Federal Government should increase the authority of the regional planning organization (MPOs) to select transportation projects for their region by increasing the share of Federal funds over which they have direct programming control. The regional planning organizations are often more open-minded in terms of 

looking at transit or rail options as alternatives to driving and expanding travel 

choices. Past research by STPP illustrates that MPOs tend to include more transit 

and bicycle/pedestrian projects in their capital programs than the state transportation agencies. 

As you are aware, the PRIIA required implementation of PTC. Providing the 

funds to install PTC would augment safety and reduce pressure surrounding liability issues. 

The allocation between highway and transit funds was established in the early 

1980s when transit received 20 percent of new gas tax revenues. This has become 

an ongoing argument over the proper allocation. Clearly today, there is a tremendous demand to add more transit options in our metro regions as well as our rural 

areas both to provide greater travel options as well as to reduce our energy use and 

greenhouse gas emissions. With the need to add new revenues, the source(s) should 

be mode neutral to fund new capacity which would make it easier to allocate a 

greater share of resources to support transit and rail options. 

Question 2. As a member of the Senate Bike Caucus, I appreciate how commuting 

to work by bicycle burns calories rather than fossil fuels. What policies or initiatives 

should be included in our future surface transportation plans to encourage greater 

use of bicycles and improve safety where drivers and cyclists share the same roadways? 

Answer. There are numerous policies and initiatives that could be included in 

Federal surface transportation legislation to foster the use of bicycle transportation. 

First, would be for the Federal Government to strengthen data collection for bicycle 

and pedestrian trips by establishing (1) a consistent national bicycle and pedestrian 

count and survey methodology to assess levels, trends and safety of bicycling and 

walking; (2) a national database of bicycle and pedestrian information generated by 

these consistent methods and practices; and (3) by providing funding support for 

data collection. 

The long-range transportation plans prepared by both states and MPOs must integrate bicycle and pedestrian networks for all communities. Standards for the design of streets and roads must include providing for bicycle and pedestrian travel. 

Fatalities and accidents should be reported in proportion to the percent of trips by 

each mode. This will draw attention to the higher rate for bicycle and pedestrian 

accidents than for motor vehicle accidents. Allocation of safety funds should be proportional to the percentage of fatalities by mode. 

Initiatives and activities such as bike sharing programs and bike parking facilities 

should be routinely eligible program activities. 

The surface transportation legislation should establish a Complete Streets policy 

requiring that all road projects that utilize Federal funds shall include appropriate 

provisions to accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and disabled travelers. 

Æ