U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–231 PDF 2015

MEETING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF 

RURAL AMERICA 

(114–24) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 24, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Paul Trombino III, P.E., Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, 

on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut ....................... 45 

Hon. Bob Fox, Commissioner, Renville County, Minnesota, on behalf of the 

National Association of Counties: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois ..................................... 55 

Mike Steenhoek, Executive Director, Soy Transportation Coalition: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Steve Woelfel, President, Jefferson Lines, on behalf of the American Bus 

Association: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Post-hearing expansion of remarks ................................................................. 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Charles L. ‘‘Shorty’’ Whittington, President, Grammer Industries, Inc., on 

behalf of The Fertilizer Institute: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Agricultural Retailers Association, written statement of Richard Gupton, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and Counsel, and ‘‘Interested Parties 

for Hazardous Materials Transportation Priority Issues Justification’’ .......... 85 

American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners, written statement 

of Larry Milsow, President .................................................................................. 117 

Institute of Makers of Explosives, written statement of Cynthia Hilton, Executive Vice President ............................................................................................. 122 

National Congress of American Indians, written statement ................................ 126 

Rural County Representatives of California, written statement of Paul A. 

Smith, Senior Legislative Advocate .................................................................... 133 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 95231.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 95231.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 95231.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 95231.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 95231.005
(1) 

MEETING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF 

RURAL AMERICA 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:29 p.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. We will call this subcommittee hearing 

to order. And I want to say good afternoon to everybody attending 

this hearing, which is going to focus on the transportation needs 

of rural America. 

And I want to let everybody know that it is possible we may have 

a vote during this hearing. So I would ask unanimous consent that 

the subcommittee be permitted to declare a recess subject to the 

call of the chair during today’s hearing. And, without objection, 

that is so ordered. 

Rural roads are rarely in the spotlight, and they generally don’t 

command the attention because they don’t suffer from the severe 

congestion that we see in our cities and the suburbs, and they are 

often not in the limelight for flashy ribbon cuttings. But rural 

roads and bridges are what knit our highways together into an 

interconnected national system that make it possible for freight to 

move seamlessly throughout the country and for tourists to enjoy 

road trips at low cost and allow other motorists to travel conveniently on short trips or long distances. 

Even today, 71 percent of all lane miles of public roads and 73 

percent of all the Nation’s bridges are located in the rural areas. 

In my home State of Missouri, the role of rural roads is even more 

pronounced. Eighty-two percent of the public roads and 81 percent 

of the bridges are in rural areas, and these roads carry 40 percent 

of the travel in our State. 

Missouri farmers and ranchers depend heavily on these roads to 

get their products to market domestically and internationally because local and rural roads often provide the critical last-mile connection to rail facilities, our inland waterways, and our ports. And 

they provide the infrastructure for the only form of public transportation most rural communities have, and that is local or intercity 

bus service. 

I think our rural roads and bridges demonstrate why we need a 

strong Federal highways program. A network of efficient, interVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Oct 14, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\HT\6-24-1~1\95231.TXT JEAN
2 

connected roads is critical to moving people and goods around this 

country. 

Also, and importantly, rural States tend to be more dependent on 

Federal highway programs because many rural roads are lightly 

traveled or used predominantly by cars and trucks merely passing 

through the State. Without the Federal program, rural States 

would not fund highway and bridge projects that are important to 

the Nation, but which are not a State or local priority. 

Finally, safety is a significant problem on rural roads, where over 

half of our fatalities occur. And I fully support MAP–21’s trigger for 

higher investments on rural roads if the fatality rate increases 2 

years in a row. 

I continue to work with Chairman Shuster on achieving a longterm surface transportation reauthorization bill that will provide 

reliable funding to all of our States. And I know the chairman is 

talking to the Ways and Means Committee, Paul Ryan, about that 

even as we speak. And while we need to pass another short-term 

extension by the end of July, I am hopeful that we are going to be 

able to pass a long-term bill later this year. 

And, in the meantime, this committee is going to continue to 

work on a bipartisan basis on the policy provisions for the reauthorization bill. State and local governments are very dependent on 

us to remain a strong partner in delivering transportation projects, 

providing funding certainty for the first time in a decade. 

I want to welcome all of our witnesses here today. I know some 

of you have traveled a long way, and I look forward to your testimony. 

And I now turn to Ranking Member Norton for her opening 

statement. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Chairman Graves, for holding this 

hearing on the transportation needs of rural America. 

I believe there is an important shared community of interest between rural and urban America that I think many Members are 

unaware of and I want to address in at least part of my opening 

remarks. 

Nearly three-quarters of all bridges and lane miles of public road 

are located in rural areas. One-third of all vehicle miles traveled 

in this country occur in rural areas. Freight traverses these roads 

and bridges every day as goods move from our Nation’s ports, manufacturing centers, and distribution hubs, eventually to reach consumers. 

Our national parks, national forests, wildlife refuge and recreation areas are largely located in rural areas. These roads and 

bridges must be 100 percent funded by the Federal Government. 

Economic activity from these Federal lands of which I speak, 

most of them in rural areas that hold these resources, add significantly to local economies. In 2013, visitors to our national parks 

spent $14.6 billion in communities within 60 miles of a park. 

One of my top priorities in this reauthorization bill is boosting 

funding for the Federal Lands Transportation Program, which I believe will have a disproportionately positive effect on rural areas, 

which are disproportionately dependent on these 100 percent federally financed roads and bridges. 

3 

MAP–21 made some significant policy changes that affect infrastructure in rural areas. As we will hear in testimony today, MAP– 

21 shifted funding from locally owned infrastructure eligible for 

Federal aid. Commissioner Fox’s testimony cites that MAP–21 actually reduced funding available to locally owned highways and 

bridges by an astounding 30 percent. 

So, while I appreciate the need to focus on meeting the transportation needs of rural America, this Congress must move beyond 

simply talking about needs and start coming up with solutions. 

And time is running out on us. The July 31 deadline looms before 

us when highway and transit program authorizations expire and 

the Highway Trust Fund is set to fall to dangerously low levels. We 

now have just 18 days left before the deadline to pass an extension 

and find new revenues to shore up the trust fund. 

There is no excuse for why, yet again, we have come down to the 

wire on this. In May, Congress wasted the opportunity to act. Now 

we are running through another construction season on fumes. 

Without certainty over the future of highway transportation funding, States and local governments have slowed and delayed 

projects, delayed signing contracts, and delayed hiring workers. 

We have known for years that we need a sustainable solution to shore up the Highway Trust Fund. The shortfall is $92 billion over 

the next 6 years just to maintain current funding levels. The longer 

we wait to fix this problem, the more expensive it will become to 

preserve our infrastructure. 

In May, when the House was asked to vote on the last extension, 

I noted that the real test will be how quickly Congress moves after 

we pass an extension to develop a funding plan for a long-term bill. 

The Senate has now given us a start we cannot afford to miss. 

This morning, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee agreed to the highway title of a bipartisan 6-year surface 

transportation bill. The bill provides $278 billion for highway programs through 2021, which includes modest increases for core programs as well as funding for a new freight program and new assistance for major projects. 

We are now just 18 days away from the deadline to reauthorize 

and fund our Nation’s roads, bridges, and transit systems. If Congress does not identify additional revenues for the Highway Trust 

Fund by July 31, the Department of Transportation will have to 

delay or deny reimbursements to States at the height of the construction season. 

I know that our subcommittee chairman and Chairman Shuster 

stand firm in wanting our committee to move a robust long-term 

bill. Leadership and the tax-writing committees must now reveal 

their plan to resolve this crisis so that Members on both sides of 

the aisle can consider it in the light of day before they are asked 

to pass yet another patch. 

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you very much. 

Now I would like to welcome our panelists; we have five today: 

the Honorable Paul Trombino III, who is the director of the Iowa 

Department of Transportation. He is testifying on behalf of the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. We have the Honorable Bob Fox, who is commissioner of 

4 

Renville County, Minnesota, who is testifying on behalf of the National Association of Counties; Mr. Michael Steenhoek, who is the 

executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition; Mr. Steven 

Woelfel, who is president of Jefferson Lines, which provides service 

in my district and in areas like Bethany, Maryville, and St. Joseph. 

Mr. Woelfel will be testifying on behalf of the American Bus Association. And we also have Mr. Charles ‘‘Shorty’’ Whittington, who 

is the president of Grammer Industries, Incorporated, and he is 

testifying on behalf of The Fertilizer Institute. 

I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. And, without objection, that is so 

ordered. 

And since your entire written testimony is going to be included 

in the record, we would request that you limit testimony to 5 minutes. 

And, with that, we will start with Director Trombino. Thank you 

for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. PAUL TROMBINO III, P.E., DIRECTOR, 

IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; HON. BOB FOX, COMMISSIONER, RENVILLE COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ON BEHALF OF 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; MIKE 

STEENHOEK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOY TRANSPORTATION 

COALITION; STEVE WOELFEL, PRESIDENT, JEFFERSON 

LINES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION; 

AND CHARLES L. ‘‘SHORTY’’ WHITTINGTON, PRESIDENT, 

GRAMMER INDUSTRIES, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE 

Mr. TROMBINO. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to provide input on the transportation needs 

facing rural communities throughout the country. 

Again, my name is Paul Trombino. I serve as the director of the 

Iowa Department of Transportation, and I am currently the vice 

president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

Iowa’s location near the center of the country affords both opportunities and challenges. The State features a diverse range of surface transportation options, including highways, freight rail lines, 

waterways, public transit, all of which contribute to its economy 

and provide essential services to its citizens. 

This infrastructure is also the focus of heavy demand from both 

domestic and international traffic, creating repair and capacity 

needs throughout the system. To meet this challenge, we are continually making improvements while prioritizing safety and mobility. 

My main message this morning is to share with you the experience of State DOTs, including my State of Iowa. As traditional 

sponsors of transportation projects, State DOTs possess the unique 

expertise and familiarity with Federal statutory and regulatory requirements associated with project design, procurement, and construction in rural communities. 

5 

I urge prompt action on a well-funded, long-term surface transportation bill that clearly reflects and serves the national interests 

in rural parts of the country as well as in our urban centers. 

No matter the geographic region, the simple unifying fact is that 

America needs a Federal transportation program that provides robust investment levels coupled with long-term funding stability 

that serves our national priorities. Furthermore, the Federal program should continue to provide States with flexibility by streamlining regulations and program requirements while not diminishing 

the percentage of funds distributed by formula. 

Transportation powers the creation of wealth in our Nation and 

all States, unleashing the opportunity for economic activity. Iowa’s 

economy is dependent on a robust and diverse transportation system that moves products to the global marketplace. Iowa’s transportation system has long provided our State’s businesses a competitive advantage, and that remains true today in a global economy. 

State DOTs play a critical role in ensuring that we have a safe, 

reliable, efficient transportation network. In fact, this past February, my Governor, Governor Terry Branstad, signed into law a 

10-cent increase in the State fuel tax, passed by Iowa’s House and 

Senate with bipartisan support. Supported by the counties, business associations and organizations, groups like the Iowa Farm Bureau and Association of Business and Industry, this action will 

raise an estimated $215 million in additional resources per year to 

invest in our State roads and bridges. 

States are also actively involved in assisting transit service, particularly in rural areas and for seniors and special-needs individuals. Of the 35 public transit systems in Iowa, 16 serve the rural 

region areas of our State, making Iowa one of only a few States offering public transit service in every county. 

By its very nature, there are many challenges to providing adequate rural transit services that meet the growing demands for access to medical care, employment, education, shopping, and recreation. Rural regions and communities across the United States 

have urgent infrastructure needs, as economic and recreational demands increase. 

Given this reality, we cannot address our Nation’s 21st-century 

surface transportation investment needs without reaffirming the 

strong partnerships that form the bedrock of the national transportation program. State DOTs are using their inherent position between the Federal Government and local entities to effectively coordinate funds while working to meet national goals and performance standards required by MAP–21. 

My State of Iowa continues to ascertain what amongst our current transportation system is most affordable and how our agency 

can improve these elements to optimize our value and efficiency for 

customers and residents. Keeping Federal program prescription to 

a minimum amount will allow State DOTs to continue pursuing innovative approaches to meet system-specific challenges. Committing to these principles will continue to provide much-needed benefits to those in Iowa and elsewhere throughout the country. 

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, 

and I am happy to respond to any questions that you may have. 

6 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you very much. 

Commissioner Fox. 

Mr. FOX. Thank you. 

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the transportation needs of rural America and also for inviting me to testify on behalf of the National Association of Counties. 

NACo is the only association representing the Nation’s 3,069 

counties, which own 39 percent of the national bridge inventory 

and 45 percent of the Nation’s roads, including 28 percent of the 

Federal-aid highway system. Most of these roads and bridges can 

be found in rural America, where transportation infrastructure 

serves as a lifeline for our citizens and plays a critical role in the 

movement of goods to market. 

My name is Bob Fox. I am a county commissioner in Renville 

County, Minnesota. Renville County is a rural county with a population of 15,000 located approximately 100 miles west of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. 

Roughly two-thirds of the Nation’s counties are considered rural, 

with a combined population of 60 million. Unfortunately, rural 

counties face a number of challenges in providing adequate transportation infrastructure to meet the needs of our communities, region, and national economy. 

Today I would like to highlight some of these challenges and provide recommendations for ways Congress can support rural America in the reauthorization of MAP–21. 

First, America’s rural counties are experiencing declining populations, which reduce our tax base and, in turn, affect our ability 

to fund transportation projects. Counties rely on local revenue 

sources, such as property taxes and local option sales taxes, to 

make infrastructure investments. In the case of Renville County, 

most of our local funding for highways is derived through a local 

tax levy. However, most States limit counties’ ability to raise revenue for capital projects, with 43 States having some type of limitation on property taxes collected by counties. 

Second, rural counties are experiencing increasing and shifting 

demands on their transportation infrastructure. Rural counties’ 

economies are often built on a foundation of agriculture and natural resources, industries that rely heavily on truck transport. In 

the 50 to 60 years since my county’s infrastructure was built, there 

have been substantial changes in the agriculture sector that have 

resulted in high productivity and the use of larger and heavier machinery. 

Third, rural counties are facing rising costs for transportation 

projects. My county has seen a dramatic increase in the cost of 

projects. Just a few years ago, we would budget for road construction projects at less than $300,000 per mile. Today, the same 

project will cost nearly $1 million per mile. 

These problems are only compounded by the state of the Highway Trust Fund and short-term funding extensions. The longer we 

wait, the more damage our infrastructure sustains and the more 

expensive projects become, which rural counties simply cannot afford. 

7 

As a result of the challenges I have mentioned, rural counties 

need a strong Federal partner and a surface transportation program that supports the needs of rural America. There are several 

ways that Congress can better support rural transportation. 

First, Congress should make more Federal highway dollars available for locally owned infrastructure. While MAP–21 made meaningful reforms in many areas, it unfortunately shifted funding 

away from the types of locally owned infrastructure that are eligible for Federal aid by an estimated 30 percent. 

Second, Congress should restore funding to bridges off the National Highway System. While we are grateful that Congress continued the set-aside for off-system bridges and urge you to maintain this set-aside, we are concerned over a major funding gap that 

was created for highway bridges, or on-system bridges, that are not 

on the designated National Highway System. 

And, third, Congress should better address the safety on highrisk rural roads in the reauthorization of MAP–21. Road safety is 

one of the greatest concerns for rural counties, with a fatality rate 

on rural roads about 21⁄2 times higher than urban roads. 

And, finally, we urge Congress to increase the role of counties in 

statewide planning processes. We are keenly aware of the investments needed and would like to be a partner in addressing the mobility, safety, and economic needs of our communities and the infrastructure we own. 

Ultimately, the quality of rural transportation is critical to the 

vitality of our national economy. Therefore, we urge you to consider 

the unique challenges facing rural counties and the recommendations we have made for you today. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Commissioner Fox. 

Mr. Steenhoek. 

Mr. STEENHOEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Norton, and members of the subcommittee. 

I think agriculture can accurately be described as trying to attach a garden hose to a fire hydrant. The good news is that U.S. 

farmers are producing more and they are more efficient at doing 

so. 

And the good news is also that we have more and more people 

from more and more countries demanding what U.S. farmers are 

producing. To use the example of the soybean industry, when you 

look at a field of soybeans in the United States, you can assume 

that half of what you are looking at will be consumed outside this 

country. One-quarter alone will be consumed in China. 

So, while we have increased supply trying to satisfy increased demand, the concern is that we do not have increased connectivity between supply and demand, and transportation is that connectivity. 

For agriculture, it is that system of roads and bridges, highways 

and interstates, our rail infrastructure, our inland waterway system, and our ports. You could argue that agriculture has the most 

diverse and elongated supply chain of any industry in existence. 

So, since our transportation system is not keeping pace with increased supply and demand, you can accurately say that we are 

trying to attach a garden hose to a fire hydrant. 

8 

One of the key areas of focus for this subcommittee is our Nation’s system of roads, bridges, highways, and interstates. Much attention, and rightly so, has been devoted to exploring approaches 

to providing sufficient revenue for our surface transportation system. 

In my opinion, the fundamental flaw of how we try to finance our 

surface transportation system is that we have a fixed source of revenue trying to meet the needs of an escalating cost. Everyone can 

concede, regardless of your political persuasion, that the cost of 

building and maintaining roads and bridges goes up over time. Yet 

we have an 18.4-cent tax per gallon of gasoline, 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel. 

So it may be unintentional, but it is inevitable that when you 

have such a fixed source of revenue trying to meet the needs of an 

escalating cost, funding gaps will materialize with time. The current estimate is that we have a $15 billion annual shortfall each 

year. 

According to research funded by the Soy Transportation Coalition 

and conducted by Indiana University, if we would have indexed the 

fuel tax in 1993, the last time the fuel tax was adjusted, we would 

have an additional $133 billion at our disposal to improve our 

transportation system. 

When it comes to transportation, predictability of funding is almost as important as volume of funding. The current approach unfortunately employed by Congress of addressing this long-term 

need via unpredictable short-term legislative actions is having a 

punitive effect on our transportation system. 

It is the hope of many that Congress will not only provide increased funding but also provide that funding in a multiyear format. To be honest, when it comes to transportation, I would rather 

have the Federal Government be predictably good than sporadically 

great. 

While more funding and more predictable funding are important, 

we need to embrace opportunities to get more out of the transportation system we have while also practicing better stewardship of 

the taxpayer dollars that are currently being deployed. 

A couple examples: We think expanding semi weight limits on 

the Federal interstate and highway system from a 5-axle, 80,000- 

pound configuration to a 6-axle, 97,000-pound configuration would 

not only enhance freight movement, it would also have a beneficial 

impact on motor safety and infrastructure wear and tear. 

Another example: We think more widespread use of technology 

for evaluating rural bridges would allow us to better diagnosis the 

problem, reducing unnecessary closures and restrictions while also 

making taxpayer dollars stretch further. 

A final thought. I think it is healthy for policymakers and the 

broader public to ask the question, do we want our Nation to consume from the rest of the world, or do we want to be a Nation that 

produces for the rest of the world? And I would think most Americans, whether you have ever met a farmer, whether you have any 

touchpoint with agriculture, whether you have any knowledge of 

agriculture, still aspires for the United States to be a country that 

still produces and makes things. 

9 

And I would argue that agriculture is one of those industries, 

perhaps the best example of an industry that can provide sustained 

competitive advantage not only for rural America but for the broader economy. But it will never become realized if we don’t have a 

transportation system equal to that task. 

Thank you, and I look forward to questions. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Steenhoek. 

Mr. Woelfel. 

Mr. WOELFEL. Good afternoon, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. 

I am here today from Jefferson Lines in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 

representing the members of the American Bus Association. I am 

truly appreciative of the opportunity to testify on the transportation and connectivity needs of rural America. 

The ABA represents some 3,500 member organizations, encompassing the entire motorcoach group travel industry, including bus 

operators like Jefferson Lines, tour companies, hotels, restaurants, 

and destinations. In total, the motorcoach travel and tourism industry provided over 600 million passenger trips in 2013, it supported 1.4 million American jobs, and it produced over $175 billion 

in economic impact. Simply put, motorcoach transportation serves 

more communities in America than any other mode of transportation. 

The company that I work for, Jefferson Lines, is a 96-year-old, 

third-generation company that employees over 225 people, and annually we serve over 600,000 passengers in 13 States throughout 

America’s heartland. 

Jefferson Lines has always been a pioneer in partnering with 

States, communities, and public transit to provide rural 

connectivity. We led the way in 1980 when we developed probably 

one of the Nation’s first interline transit feeder programs in central 

Iowa. And we continue to build on that success by expanding service through cooperative agreements, such as reestablishing intercity bus service from Kansas City to Branson, Missouri, so that 

today we provide service to 18 different communities across the 

State of Missouri, including Cameron, Bethany, Maryville, and St. 

Joseph in northern Missouri. In Minnesota, we serve more than 65 

rural communities, with approximately 90 percent of the population of that State being within a 25-mile radius of a Jefferson 

Lines location. 

The challenge within our industry is that these examples are 

unique rather than the norm, and if our national goals are to ensure intermodal connectivity, reduce taxpayer burden, and improve 

efficiency, then we need to expand the public-private partnership 

initiatives beyond mere transportation finance concepts and better 

work together to connect rather than to compete. 

Today, the request is that you consider the following three initiatives to maximize the use of tax dollars through better integration 

of public and private systems. 

First, with surface reauthorization, we ask that you integrate 

private intercity bus networks in the transportation planning and 

facility development process. Include us upfront in the development 

of transportation improvement planning. And if Federal dollars are 

applied to multimodal transportation facilities, those facilities 

10 

should be designed and operated in consultation with local private 

bus operators in order to expand access and improve connectivity. 

Secondly, we would ask that you improve the access of intercity 

bus networks to airport facilities and introduce a new pilot program to the Essential Air Service program. Unfortunately, there 

are still too many cases where private carriers are prevented from 

connecting passengers to airports. In some cases, there is an outright ban on operations. On others, it is accomplished through the 

application of excessive fees. 

We feel a multimode approach can transform how rural communities access both large- and medium-hub airports since motorcoach 

transportation is generally less expensive, more environmentally 

efficient, and, in many instances, time-competitive to Essential Air 

Service. So we would like the Essential Air Service reform to include a new pilot program which transforms a segment of today’s 

EAS program into an Essential Transportation Program, providing 

motorcoach service connections to large- and medium-hub airports. 

Finally, the ABA requests the committee’s reauthorization bill 

contain language explicitly stating that all costs of connecting unsubsidized intercity bus service can be used by States as in-kind 

match for section 5311(f)-supported bus service. 

The in-kind match program started in 2007 as a pilot program, 

and today there are 22 States that use this program to connect 

more than 400 communities. Because of its success, Congress permanently authorized the program in MAP–21 and expanded the eligible in-kind match to include all costs of the unsubsidized connecting intercity bus service. 

Despite this authorization by Congress and a letter from this 

committee’s bipartisan leadership making clear that Congress intended that all costs of a connecting service be available as an inkind match, unfortunately the FTA chooses to continue to limit the 

in-kind match to only capital costs. Therefore, further congressional 

action is necessary on this point. 

As we look towards the next surface transportation reauthorization, we have an opportunity to expand the transportation network 

in a very cost-effective way by incorporating private motorcoach operators from the very beginning of the planning process rather 

than in ad hoc and one-off projects and by joining the public and 

private networks together, including air service, as a way to add 

connectivity, expand service, and maximize public investment in 

passenger transportation. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before the 

committee today. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you. 

Mr. Whittington. 

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Good afternoon, Chairman Graves, Ranking 

Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. My name is 

Charles ‘‘Shorty’’ Whittington. I am the president of Grammer Industries, Incorporated. We are a leading trucking firm in the Midwest and the Southeast. We are headquartered in Grammer, Indiana. 

When I founded the company in 1968, we had a staff of 4 people, 

and we have grown to over 150 employees today. We are among the 

leading trucking firms for the fertilizer industry specifically transVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Oct 14, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\HT\6-24-1~1\95231.TXT JEAN
11 

porting anhydrous ammonia fertilizer. Anhydrous ammonia is the 

leading nitrogen fertilizer. 

I am proud of the employees at Grammer Industries and proud 

to serve rural America to do our part and to help feed the world. 

I am here today on behalf of The Fertilizer Industry, which is a 

national trade association representing the fertilizer industry. TFI 

represents companies that are engaged in all aspects of the fertilizer supply chain. This includes fertilizer manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, brokers, and retailers. 

TFI’s members play a key role in producing and distributing vital 

crop nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. 

These products are used to replenish soils throughout the United 

States and elsewhere to facilitate the production of healthy and 

adequate supplies of food, fiber, and fuel. 

Fertilizers make it possible for farmers to grow enough food to 

feed the world’s more than 7 billion people. Research has confirmed 

that 40 to 60 percent of the crop yields are attributed to the use 

of commercial fertilizers. 

The fertilizer industry depends on a safe and efficient transportation network to deliver its products. While fertilizer shippers utilize waterways and rail to move their products, all fertilizer 

shipped in the United States travels on the roadways at some point 

between the production and the ultimate application by the farmer. 

In 2011 and 2012, 61 million tons of fertilizer products were sold 

in the United States. The delivery of fertilizer products in a timely 

manner is critical to farmers. There is only a narrow window of opportunity to apply the right fertilizer source at the right rate at the 

right time and the right place. Limited nutrient access during key 

utilization periods reduces crop yields, which means lower production and potentially higher food prices for consumers. 

Grammer Industries works closely with the fertilizer industry, 

often as one of the last legs of the distribution network. 

In recent years, rail marketplace congestion, rising rail and shipping rates, and service issues have made roadways more important 

than ever. For many rural areas, the Federal highway system provides essential connections to terminals, warehouses, and intermodal hubs. This is vital to farmers and for those who serve them 

and, ultimately, the consumers who rely upon a stable supply of affordable food. 

The Federal highway system is one of the reasons American 

farmers are so successful in feeding the Nation and the world. In 

2014, U.S. agricultural production accounted for $43.3 billion of 

trade surplus. This doesn’t happen without an efficient, balanced 

transportation network. 

Specific to roadways, efficient interstate connections are essential. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge crosses the Ohio River 

between Cincinnati, Ohio, and northern Kentucky, carrying both 

Interstates 75 and 71. The value of the freight crossing the bridge 

is estimated to be 3 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product. 

Maintaining the integrity of these types of interstate connections 

should be a priority. 

One issue of concern for me and many in the trucking industry 

is that, over the years, it has become increasingly difficult to recruit and retain commercial vehicle drivers. The American TruckVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Oct 14, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\HT\6-24-1~1\95231.TXT JEAN
12 

ing Associations estimates the driver shortage between 35,000 and 

40,000 drivers annually. 

Roadway congestion is another issue. The American Transportation Research Institute estimates that congestion costs in the 

trucking industry were more than $9 billion in 2013. I would encourage members of the subcommittee to focus on congestion, bottlenecks, pavement methodologies, all of which can maximize limited resources for long-term investment and network efficiency. 

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not thank you, Chairman 

Graves, for all your help in clarifying the hours-of-service requirements for farmers and their suppliers in MAP–21. Your efforts on 

this and everything else to help the transportation of agricultural 

commodities and the agricultural exemption are greatly appreciated and have made a very positive difference. 

Thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Norton, for 

this subcommittee and this opportunity to testify on behalf of TFI. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Whittington. 

And now we will move to Member questions, and we will start 

with Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question I want to direct to two of the panelists, Mr. 

Steenhoek and Mr. Whittington. 

And I will start with you, Mr. Steenhoek. 

As you know, there is a driver shortage in rural America, and 

it has had a big impact on many companies that ship goods in 

many regions of the country. The FMCSA [Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration] requires a short-haul truck driver that 

crosses State lines to be at least 21 years of age, even if the CDL 

[Commercial Driver’s License] minimum age in two adjoining 

States is 18 years of age. 

For example, a 20-year-old trucker for an implement dealer in 

Missouri would not be able to deliver a tractor to an Arkansas farm 

because of those Federal rules. I live in Arkansas; Chairman 

Graves lives in Missouri. So, you know, we have that obstacle to 

overcome. 

Do you believe that a reciprocity rule between States would be 

a better policy and perhaps alleviate some of the problems related 

to those driver shortages? 

Mr. STEENHOEK. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. 

I think that that does make a lot of sense. 

And I think you identified one of the real dilemmas facing our 

surface transportation system. It would be convenient if the choices 

before us were more trucks or fewer trucks. Really, the question 

before us is, what degree of density or congestion of trucks are we 

going to be realizing in the future? 

And the unfortunate fact is that, whether you are bullish or 

bearish on the U.S. economy, the projected demand for trucking is 

going up over time. Our estimations show a 50-percent increase in 

demand for trucking between now and the year 2040. So the question is, how are we going to respond to that? 

If you respond with the status quo, that certainly is available to 

us, but that will result in a greater density, which we believe will 

result in a higher probability of accidents and casualties. Or you 

can do things like, you know, some of these reciprocal arrangeVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Oct 14, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\HT\6-24-1~1\95231.TXT JEAN
13 

ments that you just cited. We talked about expanding semi weight 

limits. 

The fact is supply of trucking services is not keeping pace with 

demand for trucking services, and what is going to yield? And what 

are the commonsense approaches to address it? And I think you 

just cited one of them. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. 

Mr. Whittington, your comments? 

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes. I certainly appreciate the question. This 

is a really big deal in the trucking industry today. I stated we are 

probably 40,000 drivers short today. We need somewhere in the 

neighborhood of 10,000 new drivers every day. 

The 18-year-old in the State of Indiana can drive within the 

State of Indiana, but he cannot cross the line, like in your situation 

in Arkansas or Missouri. I think that there is a movement afoot 

possibly to help develop a pilot program and a reciprocity with the 

different States. That may be a 150-, 200-mile radius, would be a 

program that would be very helpful. 

The industry really has a problem in the fact that, if you have 

an 18-year-old and we got to wait until he is 21 to cross a State 

line, his opportunity for other employment is coming at him. And 

I don’t know of any young man that is going to wait 3 years to wait 

to drive a truck across a State line. 

So we certainly need Congress’ help to do that. I think the insurance industry had a problem with it for a while, but I think with 

the new technology that is out there, the cameras, the training 

techniques, and just the technology that is in these trucks today 

makes it an opportunity that we can monitor that driver in a proper manner. But we will need help to cross a State line. Very good 

idea to do. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. 

And you mentioned, the technology that we have in the cabs of 

these trucks and the safety measures that have been taken, I 

think, certainly bears reconsidering this approach. 

Mr. Trombino, you are from Iowa. Maybe you would like to weigh 

in on that issue. 

Mr. TROMBINO. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I was 

going to mention two things. 

As I have had the opportunity to talk to the public and especially 

commercial freight movement, I always ask the question, what is 

the biggest impediment to commercial freight movement in the 

United States, much less in our State? Is it regulatory, or is it infrastructure? And I am not trying to say there are not infrastructure issues. Typically, the answer is it is regulatory issues. Those 

are a lot of challenges, the differences between States. And those 

challenges create that challenge for truck drivers and other things. 

One of the areas that we have been focused on in our State is 

driver training. As it stands right now, if a person is a resident of 

another State, they can’t take CDL driver training a lot of times 

through a company and get their CDL license either in our State 

or the other State. They actually have to change their residency to 

do that. And that has created a huge challenge for us in our State 

because we have a lot of large trucking firms that are doing their 

14 

own education, and then we are helping them do the actual testing 

at the end. 

And so that is one area that we would like to see improvement 

on that I think also then—the more reciprocity, the more movement, that you can see that we are all working together to get people into the system to be drivers is a key ingredient for us in the 

future. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. 

And, gentlemen, I appreciate all of you being here today. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you. 

Ranking Member Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, by the way, Mr. Trombino, I have been working with the 

trucking industry on the notion of training, as well. I would like 

to see a minimum standard that all States could observe that 

would really treat this like an interstate system. 

But I notice that you, Mr. Trombino, and you, Mr. Fox, may have 

somewhat different views, because one of you, Mr. Trombino, represents State DOTs and Mr. Fox, counties. And there is an old dialogue that goes on between local—I mean, for that matter, cities as 

well, but certainly counties and States. 

And, Mr. Trombino, your testimony says that State DOTs have 

a strong partnership with local governments in their respective 

States. Mr. Fox, however, in his testimony, says local elected officials should have an elevated degree of involvement in decisionmaking processes. 

So I wonder, since you are both at the same table, you might 

want to comment on what improvements Congress could make to 

whatever is the planning and project selection process, understanding there are State priorities of course, to ensure that local 

transportation priorities have at least a fair shot of being funded, 

for example, at the county level while maintaining the integrity of 

the State decisionmaking authority. 

Perhaps we could get some agreement right here. 

Mr. TROMBINO. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton. 

The first thing I would say is, I can only speak from my experience, obviously, in our State, for number one. And the States that 

I work with also and the people I communicate with, we want to 

have a good working relationship. It is required for us to have a 

very good working partnership to deliver transportation improvement projects across our State. That means having a good working 

relationship with MPOs [metropolitan planning organizations], in 

our case a lot of RPAs, regional planning affiliations, and counties 

and local cities and communities. 

It is one of the things that we strive for all the time, because understanding their needs is a critical piece for us, ultimately, as 

stewards of the system—as I like to say, we are all stewards of the 

transportation system—and delivering the system that meets all of 

those needs. 

And one of my biggest things that I think is very important at 

the Federal level is to provide the least amount of prescription that 

is possible. In other words—— 

15 

Ms. NORTON. Well, let me ask Mr. Fox, then, because I want to 

see what kind of understanding we can get. 

You know, States get the money. This is the way our country is 

structured. We are not trying to do anything different. And there 

is the allegation that the States, therefore, favor State roads and 

bridges. 

You heard Mr. Trombino. I am sure you would agree, in large 

part, with almost everything he said. Is there anything we should 

be doing here to facilitate better understanding between the counties and the States? Could we be helpful? Or are we going to leave 

you all to fight it out in the next bill, as well? 

Mr. FOX. Congresswoman, thank you for the question and your 

comments. 

We do have a good working relationship, but I think, as county 

officials, we think we can have a better working relationship. And 

that is why we asked to be at the table as we proceed forward. 

My discussion—and from a rural county, where I come from, is 

that I don’t have the same problem as some regional center has, 

maybe, with a rush hour. I have a rural rush hour in October that 

is the biggest headache I have because I have semi trailers of corn, 

soybeans, and sugar beets. And I think, sometimes, at a local rural 

level, there are different ways to look at things. You know, we can 

put a traffic counter out, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. 

So I think we have to have an open dialogue, open discussion, 

and we have to be at the table working together to spend the Federal dollars so we get the most bang for our dollar. And we can see, 

where we have spent dollars, there is good economic development. 

So we want to spend our dollars wisely. 

Ms. NORTON. It looks like what we should do is to perhaps have 

some language that says there should be better communication between counties and States. Because I can see you have different interests but yet there is a desire on the part of each of you to see 

the problem. And I have my own version of the problem, or, at 

least, not the District, which is a city and a State, but most cities 

would say the very same thing. 

We don’t want to instruct you. We simply want to take note of 

it and not wait until the next hearing to resolve views that may 

not be on the same page as we find them today. 

I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman, so I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Barletta? 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Steenhoek, with respect to your testimony regarding the soybean industry’s self-funded study about the benefits of 97,000- 

pound single-axle trucks, I don’t doubt that these heavier trucks 

would benefit your members, but at what cost to the public is my 

question. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation studied this issue over 

the past 3 years and just issued a report where the Department 

could not justify the very trucks you are asking us to approve. 

While there wasn’t enough data to come up with national crash 

rates, they found shockingly higher crash rates as well as more 

brake problems in the two States that they studied that have these 

trucks today. In Idaho, for example, the crash rates were 99 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Oct 14, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\HT\6-24-1~1\95231.TXT JEAN
16 

cent higher for these trucks, and in Michigan the crash rates for 

these trucks were 400 percent higher. They also found over $2 billion in additional bridge costs, and 

that cost doesn’t even include the vast network of local roads across 

the country. 

Now, in light of this evidence, would you really suggest that we 

bypass safety and bridge infrastructure to encourage the spread of 

these heavier trucks? 

Mr. STEENHOEK. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

And I think it is important to underscore that, when I had a discussion with my board of directors—and these are soybean farmers 

from throughout the United States—and we were discussing 

whether or not to even visit this issue, one of the common comments from my farmer directors was: The last thing we want to 

promote is something that is going to endanger ourselves, our kids, 

and our grandkids. 

The reality is, when you live in a rural State, your probability 

of encountering a semi traveling at a high rate of speed is exponentially greater than those who live in urban America. So that is the 

last thing that we would want to do. 

So we took an approach of, let’s not come to this with a conclusion in search of evidence. Let’s let the data speak to us. 

And you cited the DOT comprehensive size in truck study that 

was just recently—some of the data that was just released. Yes, the 

Department of Transportation did not—they said, we need more information, we need more data in order to make a prescriptive 

statement. But when you actually look through the statistics, I 

found that to be quite compelling in favor of expanding semi weight 

limits to a 6-axle, 97,000-pound configuration. 

One of things from a—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Excuse me. You did, but the United States Department of Transportation didn’t. 

Mr. STEENHOEK. I am sorry? 

Mr. BARLETTA. The U.S. DOT didn’t find enough evidence to say 

that they could recommend that. 

Mr. STEENHOEK. Right. They stated they needed more data in 

order to make a prescriptive statement, in order to make some kind 

of recommendation. Yes. 

But what meant more to me was actually saying, well, what does 

the data in the report say on these key performance indicators, 

these things that matter most to us, motor safety being number 

one. Number two is infrastructure wear and tear; and, number 

three, what kind of cost savings—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. How about the crash test results in Idaho and 

Michigan that were 99 percent—the two States they did study that 

were 99 percent higher, and in Michigan, over 400 percent higher? 

How would you relate to those? 

Mr. STEENHOEK. Well, I mean, I guess we can start arguing over 

which data you are using, which data I am using. The data that 

I have repeatedly seen over years is that motor safety is more a 

function of the number of semis, less a function of the weight of 

individual semis. And when you have that additional axle, you provide additional braking friction so that stopping distances are comparable to an 80,000-pound, 5-axle configuration. 

17 

But I think this whole issue of—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. However, the extra axle wouldn’t matter on a 

structurally deficient bridge, though. 

Mr. STEENHOEK. Right. And—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. You could have 10 axles and—— 

Mr. STEENHOEK. And I appreciate you making that comment, because I think to have an intellectually honest discussion about 

this—and we highlight this in our report and in our marketing materials, is that the issue of bridges, that is the most important. 

I mean, there is widespread acknowledgment that with that additional axle you are reducing the imprint on the road. If you are 

comparing the 6-axle 97 to a 5-axle 80, it is about 35 pounds less 

on a road. Bridges, they don’t really care about the number of 

axles; they just care about the aggregate weight that they are compelled to support. 

And so we think that, if we were to proceed with this proposal, 

if it were ever to be instituted, a component of that should be, for 

those who are electing to load heavier, there should be a fee associated with that, and the money of which would be used for our 

bridges. 

One, I think, of the benefits is that—you know, this is not a hypothetical. You are citing examples; I can cite examples, as well. 

This is not a hypothetical exercise. This is something that we see, 

a lot of States, they have higher weight limits, and they are individual States. Some States they have grandfathered in prior to 

weight limits being frozen at that 80,000 pounds. And we can look 

at other countries, and we can point to see is it actually working 

or not. We think the evidence is compelling in support of it. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Fox, would you be concerned about possible 

increases of the truck size and weight, knowing that they have 

never studied the impact on our local roads and bridges? 

Mr. FOX. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

Yes, we are concerned, and our biggest concern is the point you 

made about the bridges. That is the very biggest point. As a county, in Renville County, we do have about 10 miles of roads that we 

do allow in the wintertime 97,000 pounds, but on those 10 miles 

of roads there are no bridges. And that is for the sugar beet industry to move product. 

But it is a concern, especially on the bridges and especially as 

you get further out from the main roads. That is really where the 

problem comes, because a farmer wants to fill his truck when he 

leaves the field, and he might have to drive on a township road 

which is gravel before he even gets to a main artery. So it is a concern. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member, for having this hearing. 

And thanks to all of the witnesses that are here. 

I am from the State of Texas and the city of Dallas. And we are 

rural, and we are urban. One depends on the other. I have all 

urban in my district, but I do have six interstates that come 

18 

through my district, and I think that we probably experience every 

possible transportation issue there could be. 

But I want to know from you, what is more important than reauthorizing a highway bill? 

Mr. FOX. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. 

The most important thing I see with the authorization is that we 

have certainty and we can start planning for the next 3 to 5 years. 

And on top of that is economic development. If we have good 

roads and good infrastructure, businesses will come and businesses 

will build or a business that is there will expand. And that is 

where it is for counties. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

I noticed that there were comments in some of the testimony 

about having local input from cities or entities closer to the issue. 

I am from a very large State, and we believe that, as well. 

I am trying to remember whose testimony it was that mentioned 

that. Can somebody speak up? 

You did? 

Mr. WOELFEL. Yes, Congresswoman Johnson, I think that that 

was my testimony. 

You know, one of the things that we were asking for was to allow 

better collaboration between public and private entities when it 

comes to transportation needs. We firmly believe that, to expand 

opportunities for transportation, intermodal facilities are required. 

And we are not looking to compete with public entities. We want 

to expand and cooperate with public entities. And all we are really 

asking for is, perhaps, when you are doing the planning either for 

a facility or doing the planning for a transportation project, to include the private motorcoach operator upfront in the planning. And 

perhaps we have a private way to solve that issue as opposed to 

a public. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Now, there was a mention of to expand the necessary flexibility 

that has been mentioned. 

I think, Mr. Trombino, you mentioned that in your testimony. 

Could you elaborate on that a bit? 

Mr. TROMBINO. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

On flexibility, I can’t say enough. For us, as we work with local 

cities, our regional areas, we want to allow—as we push those dollars down to the local level, the more flexibility that they have from 

an investment perspective, the key ingredient is the less prescription there is in the program. 

And so a lot of the good things that happened under MAP–21, 

programs were consolidated. Eligibility still remained, which, in 

our State, one of the things we did was we pushed a lot of those 

dollars to the local level to allow them to really make those decisions. Because, ultimately, they know what to do on the local system. And the more that we have flexibility to do that, I think, between the State and the local regional level, even at the local city 

or county level, the more that opportunity, where the dollars are 

coming, so that they have flexibility to meet their needs—because 

the needs, as I say, in the northwest part of the State versus the 

southeast part of the State, they have different transportation 

needs. But if those dollars come in and allow flexibility, they can 

19 

meet whether it is a bridge issue on one side or maybe it is an enhancement type of transportation alternative project that they 

would like to do, rather, for their communities. 

So those types of things I think are the most important. And at 

the State level what we want to do is get those dollars to them and 

let them make that investment and get that turned around as 

quickly as possible. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

My time is up. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Gibbs. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thanks for being here today, panelists. 

And I appreciate the comments from the soybean industry and 

the trucking industry, Mr. Whittington. 

One point I want to make—I think you all agree with me—why 

it is so important for agriculture, you know, in our global marketplace. And if the transportation costs are higher because our infrastructure can’t get there, delays and times, that adds to the bases 

and lower prices for farmers. They will end up paying that price, 

the cost, and that—it really affects our competitiveness in the global marketplace. 

But, Mr. Trombino, I am just curious. You said that Iowa just 

raised their gas user fee by 10 cents. What does that make their 

State tax now, State user fee? 

Mr. TROMBINO. On the gasoline? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yeah. 

Mr. TROMBINO. So the gasoline goes to about 30 cents a gallon. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. TROMBINO. Diesel, a couple of cents more than that, about 

32. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Also, I hear from my State, Department of 

Transportation and stuff, that trying to get permits for construction 

and working through the permit process takes so long, you know, 

Fish and Wildlife and other agencies. 

You know, what are some of the obstacles you are facing getting 

new construction permits filed and approved? And how long is it 

taking? 

Mr. TROMBINO. From our perspective, especially as we have now 

ramped up our program, that was one of our biggest concerns, is 

the permitting process itself does take time, especially water quality issues. Those are usually the typical things that we run into. 

As you think of our State, we have a lot of tributaries, a lot of 

riverways. So it is very rare that our projects wouldn’t touch at 

some point, water quality, wetland mitigation, all those types of 

issues. 

So that is one of the overriding challenges, is that now, with the 

amount of work that we are going to expand—we have added a little over $500 million to our 5-year program. That is one of our 

overriding issues that we are trying to sit down with, you know, 

those partner organization agencies—— 

Mr. GIBBS. You are talking about water quality. You know, the 

EPA is just in the process of implementing a new expansion of 

their jurisdiction of waters to the United States. Is that a concern 

to you? 

20 

Mr. TROMBINO. Yes. It is a very large concern because of the impact it could mean cost-wise, schedule-wise on our projects. 

Mr. GIBBS. And it—— 

Mr. TROMBINO. Plus on the agricultural—— 

Mr. GIBBS [continuing]. Would be a need for additional permits 

from the Army Corps? 

Mr. TROMBINO. Yes. So, again, all of that rolls together because 

all those permits—I sort of view them as one. Depending on the 

navigable water, Army Corps then falls into that, which we have 

a lot of major projects in that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Currently, even without that new rule in place, when 

you start a construction project and you have got to get through 

the permits and stuff, what would be the kind of timeframe—you 

know, get the permits to actually turn the first shovel of dirt and— 

you know, is it one-third of the total process getting the permits 

or is it 20 percent? What kind of timeframe were you looking at 

getting through all the—— 

Mr. TROMBINO. You know, again, if you—a lot of those start early 

in the design process. But, overall, as you get towards the end, it 

probably takes at least 3 to 6 months for sure just at the end point 

for a construction perspective because there is additional planning 

that we have to show that we are actually needing the original permit that we have received. 

Mr. GIBBS. I guess I have another question for you, too, or maybe 

anybody might want to answer this question. 

When we talk about the intermodal transportation system, extremely important for agriculture and other industries, how do you 

envision making that intermodal system work, you know, between 

the water, rail, roads, without increasing the cost dramatically of 

new construction? Go ahead. 

Mr. TROMBINO. If I may, Congressman, one of the things that we 

have done and I think is very unique is supply chain design on our 

entire State. It gets to the global competitiveness that you raised 

before. 

As I like to say on the agricultural side, a 21st-century farm-tomarket system is a road, rail, and water system because that is 

where our products are moving, much less our people, also. 

And we have taken a supply chain design that really exists in 

the private practice and applied that across the State so we can see 

and model and we actually know every commodity movement in 

our State from one county to another and from one county to another county in the United States and to 40 different countries. 

And what that does is it really allows us to look at the movement 

of product and commodity flow, which I believe—and we already 

have some analysis that shows—we can reduce costs in not only 

the transportation investment, but actually the cost to businesses 

and the agriculture industry in moving those products. 

And a lot of those investments aren’t the true typical investments that we think of in the transportation system. There are 

connectivity issues. There are freight consolidation issues. And 

those are the areas where we think we can lower the overall transportation cost and lower business cost overall. 

21 

Mr. GIBBS. So I was actually tracking what, say, agricultural 

commodities are leaving the State and how to get to the best place 

with intermodal connections. 

Mr. TROMBINO. Absolutely. And that is exactly what we have 

done and what we are—we are actually working with eight companies right now where we are doing supply chain design for them 

because we think, in the end, we can lower their transportation 

costs and make the right improvements in the system that shows 

a real rate of return. We can calculate the math, as I like to say, 

and show the rate of return. 

Mr. GIBBS. That is great. Thank you. 

And I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mrs. Kirkpatrick. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Norton. 

You will notice that I have some pictures of my district up on the 

screen. We should not forget that, along with States and counties, 

Native American tribes represent another governmental entity that 

is a part of a rural transportation system. 

The Navaho Nation spans three States: Arizona, New Mexico, 

and Utah. My district includes the Arizona portion of the Navaho 

Nation. Because of its size, the Navaho’s transportation network 

provides a primary conduit for both Native Americans and non-Natives traveling between these three States. 

This winter Navaho children in just one school district alone 

missed 10 days of school because the dirt road that is their only 

route to school became impassable due to mud. The photos provided on the screen here tell the story of this problem far better 

than my words can. 

What you see here is the reality for too many schoolchildren on 

the Navaho Nation. School districts on the Navaho Nation often 

wake up to these mud emergencies and, when they do, they call 

their counties for help. 

County public works are the boots on the ground, helping repair 

and maintain tribal roads that are regional connector roads for 

both tribal members and other county residents. I would like to 

thank the counties in my district for stepping up and doing, quite 

frankly, what the Federal Government is not doing, even though it 

has primary responsibility for these roads. 

I am calling on this committee to join me in seeking a Government accountability study to help us see how the condition of tribal 

roads, especially the dirt roads, is hurting the ability of students 

in our tribal communities to get an education. 

Thank you, staff, for working with me on getting these pictures 

before the committee. 

My question is for you, Mr. Fox. Does NACo work with the tribal 

governments? And, if so, in what capacity? 

Mr. FOX. Yes. We work with them more at home than run 

through our association. But I believe there is a Commissioner 

White from Arizona that I know is in that area that sits on our 

rural action group, and we have discussed roads and transportation. 

I know back home we do not have a reservation in our county, 

but we have reservations on two corners of our counties. And I 

22 

know that, in Minnesota, the county governments work with those 

reservations on road projects and trying to do projects maybe simultaneously or together. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. As you can see from the photos, it really is 

a dire need in these communities and puts our children’s safety at 

risk. 

Again, Mr. Fox, in your testimony, you raise the important issue 

of safety of rural roads. Your testimony correctly notes that MAP– 

21 reduced requirements that encouraged States to invest in improving safety. The $90 million that was previously set aside each year for improvements on high-risk rural roads was eliminated and replaced 

with a new rule that only has provided about $12 million in fiscal 

year 2015. 

Is this reduced level of required funding adequate, in your estimation? 

Mr. FOX. Can you explain further? Is the number reduced? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. The $90 million that was previously set aside 

for improvements was eliminated and then it was replaced with a 

new rule that provides only $12 million in 2015. 

Mr. FOX. I guess I am really not in a place to answer the exact 

number—— 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. OK. Well, let me ask another question. My 

time is running out. 

But could you elaborate on NACo’s proposal to help us reduce 

deaths on rural roads? 

Mr. FOX. Well, I guess it is a partnership. Again, we go back to 

partnerships. Is it putting the rougher edges on roads as we place 

them for safety? We have put up solar LED lights, stop signs in 

certain places in our county for safety. 

There are multiple things. I think it is kind of cafeteria style. 

There are things we can do out there. We have to maybe learn 

from other States, from other pieces of the puzzle here, and put 

them together and make those rural roads safe. 

I mean, there is so many times that rural roads—people get on 

them and put the pedal down and let’s go. They are not used to 

a slow-moving vehicle, you know, a tractor pulling a large implement that is only going 25 miles an hour and you are going 55 or 

60 miles an hour. So—— 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. My time is expired. But I appreciate the attention to the rural safety issues. It think it is really important. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Fox, you represent the counties. We worked on 

the MAP–21 legislation and tried—you try to be fair in the distribution between urban and rural areas. It is very difficult. 

Unfortunately, the divisions sometimes reflect the representation 

in Congress that is very hard to change. You have got urban members. They compose the bulk of the membership, and they run 

away with the bulk of the money. It is hard to overcome. 

I have been screwed by the Democrats, and I have been screwed 

by the Republicans in redistricting. And the last time they gave me 

a rural district of 10 previous years—which is kind of a good education because I had an urban corridor around Orlando—I was 

stunned that the small counties I represented at—getting this new 

23 

perspective, when they didn’t have the capacity to participate, not 

even the people to even write the damn grants, let alone administer the grants or compete in the grants—so the people who need 

it the most are the least likely to participate. 

And most of this largesse from Washington is given out on a political basis. It is administrative earmarks. We had a bill—some of 

these guys won’t remember. We had 1,199 earmarks, and we had 

an impasse. So it gave the Bush administration almost $1 billion in those earmarks, and they went behind closed doors. They took that in their 

discretionary money, and they divided it between five urban areas. 

One happened to be Mr. Oberstar’s area. Another one, Ms. Pelosi. I bitched about it. So I got $62 million of the $1 billion, which 

we put on—they were into this market and tolls, and all of those 

fell through. So the urban people rule even with my party when we 

had control. 

Devolution. OK. Iowa, you like devolution? We gave you a lot of 

devolution. A lot of the States—California, Texas, Florida—are 

starting to take up their own permitting and some of those things 

that have delayed it. 

What are you doing? 

Mr. TROMBINO. Again, I would strongly encourage—— 

Mr. MICA. Are you doing it? 

Mr. TROMBINO. Am I doing what? 

Mr. MICA. Devolving. We gave authority in MAP–21 for you to 

have more authority. Some States have taken it. Have you? 

Mr. TROMBINO. We have taken—I would say we have taken a little bit, not like California—— 

Mr. MICA. A little bit. 

But, see, the intent was to give you the authority. You come here 

complaining about from above, and I gave you the authority and 

very few have used it. We also tried to limit—we tried to—well, 

OK. I have a good one for you. 

The guy sitting behind you worked with me on this. We eliminated or consolidated 50 programs. I have had the dingdong from 

DOT in here and said, ‘‘Well, how many positions have been eliminated?’’ Because we eliminated or consolidated 50 out of 100-andsome. 

We started with about four—was it, Jim?—or six basic ones. And 

the dingdongs are all still there. They did not eliminate one position. 

I spoke about this this morning. The TIFIA program, which we 

dramatically increased, ought to be a good one to take on because 

it is a good program, not enough capacity. 

I was on a plane the other day and I said, ‘‘What are you doing?’’ 

He says, ‘‘I am going back to Washington.’’ 

‘‘Why?’’ 

He says, ‘‘We have got a TIFIA project that I have to finance in 

the private sector in 30 to 60 days.’’ He says, ‘‘I have been a year 

coming to Washington to get the dummies to approve the simplest 

thing.’’ 

You guys don’t complain about that? 

Mr. TROMBINO. I—— 

Mr. MICA. Is it any better? Come on. Come on. 

24 

Mr. TROMBINO. Is it better? I would actually say yes. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Mr. TROMBINO. Under MAP–21, the programs are definitely better. 

Mr. MICA. A lot better. 

Mr. TROMBINO. Yeah. 

Mr. MICA. The bus guy, you were good. They should not spend 

a damn penny of Federal money that doesn’t welcome intermodal 

bus service. Right? 

This guy was very modest. They transport more people than any 

other means of transportation with no subsidy programs. Right? 

Speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Just say yes 

or—— 

Mr. WOELFEL. Well, there are some subsidy programs. But yes. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah. But they are—yeah. 

Mr. WOELFEL. But for the most part—— 

Mr. MICA. And for the most part, you are private sector. 

Mr. WOELFEL. Private sector. 

Mr. MICA. You move people. You provide public transportation. 

You make a profit. Many of you are listed—— 

Mr. WOELFEL. Correct. 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Or privately owned. Most of you. Right? 

Mr. WOELFEL. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. OK. And you need to talk to some of the people on the 

other side. They don’t get it. And they are supposed to be the 

champions of the poor, and those poor they leave at the end of the 

town, not in a federally subsidized intermodal center where somebody can connect to transportation. 

In my own city of Orlando, they moved a Megabus out to the end of town to an intermodal center. I got $28 million. It is a great earmark, but they screwed over the poor people on it, and Greyhound 

at the other end of town, people who would most likely use the connection to public transportation. You guys need to get on it and 

puff it up a little bit. 

Have I got any more time, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. No. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Just getting started. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Maloney. 

Mr. MALONEY. I thank the gentlemen for your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Ranking Member. 

You know, I want to refocus your attention on bridges, if I could. 

Commissioner Fox, I was interested in your testimony in this regard. 

And, Director Trombino, maybe these are questions best directed 

to you. 

As I think you know, MAP–21 made significant changes to the 

way we fund bridges. Prior to MAP–21, all bridges were eligible for 

the Highway Bridge Program. That program was eliminated, consolidated with four other programs into two new programs, the National Highway Performance Program and the Surface Transportation Program. 

And here is where it gets a little confusing. But under the new 

rules, two-thirds of the money goes to the program that supports 

25 

23 percent of the bridges and one-third of the money goes to the 

Surface Transportation Program that supports 77 percent of the 

bridges. 

So the question is: How is that working for the counties? And 

how is it working in States like Iowa? And I am working right now 

on bipartisan legislation that would restore funding eligibility to all 

the Nation’s bridges, regardless of how they are designated, and 

would also fix some of the funding levels. 

But I am very interested in your thoughts on how the funding 

of bridge repairs is being affected by these changes in MAP–21 and 

what we should be doing about it. 

Mr. FOX. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

On the county level, there is a problem. We have got too many 

bridges that need repair. So, first of all, we need reauthorization 

of MAP–21 and we need to find a way to fill some of the funding 

gaps that were created with the last program. 

In my own county, we probably put four or five bridges in the 

file waiting for a program to see if they qualify. So everything is 

shovel-ready and, if the money comes, we have got the project. 

And so it is to come up with a system that we can get the money 

out and get it to the counties. 

Mr. MALONEY. And is that because most of those bridges are eligible only for funding under the Surface Transportation Program, 

where there’s fewer dollars and more competition for those dollars? 

Mr. FOX. Competition is the big thing. 

Mr. MALONEY. And is it therefore reasonable to think that, if we 

restored the eligibility of those bridges to funding under either program, you would get more bridges done? 

Mr. FOX. We hope that would be the scenario. Yes. 

Mr. MALONEY. And, you know, I should say, in my own part of 

the world in the Hudson Valley of New York, we have, I believe, 

67 bridges that are structurally deficient. I have been to these 

bridges. I have seen firsthand the frustration of the local officials 

on this. 

What does it mean to a State like Iowa, Director Trombino? 

Mr. TROMBINO. Structurally deficient number of bridges, we have 

a significant amount in our State. As I like to say, we have 5,000 

structurally deficient bridges out of 25,000. The vast majority are 

on the local system. We only have 105 on the entire State system. 

So this is a predominant local issue, which is why, when we saw 

MAP–21 and some of the flexibility dollars like TAP, we passed all 

of those dollars to the locals. And that gave them the flexibility to 

use those—because they could use it on bridges, if they chose to— 

so to let them set that priority. 

We thought it was very important that, in our case, the Transportation Commission not set that priority. Pass that to the locals, 

let them figure that out, and let them make those decisions. 

And we would also support—and I think AASHTO supports 

that—for those bridges that aren’t eligible. Again, let’s let the 

locals make that decision. They know which are the right ones. 

And, unfortunately—and this is the conversation we have had in 

our State—all the bridges aren’t affordable. I can’t fix the 25,000 

bridges in our State. It is not affordable and, honestly, we are not 

26 

willing to pay for that. So we have to figure out which are the right 

ones. 

At the end of the day, we think the locals are the right ones to 

make that decision on the local system. We want to work with 

them to help them make those good decisions. 

Mr. MALONEY. And just so I’m clear for the record, so, therefore, 

legislation like what I am proposing, again, bipartisan legislation 

that would restore funding eligibility to all these bridges regardless 

of designation and that would fix them to funding levels in the 

NHPP program and Surface Transportation Program, you would 

support that legislation? 

Mr. TROMBINO. Yes. 

Mr. MALONEY. And just in the closing time I have, let’s say we 

do nothing on this and it is allowed to persist under the current 

formulas. 

What would the effect of that be in places likes Iowa, in places 

like other rural counties you have been discussing, Mr. Fox? Either 

one. 

Mr. FOX. I guess, if we do nothing, the problem will only get 

worse and the collapse that we witnessed in Minnesota back in 

2005, which was in a metropolitan area, someday will happen in 

a rural area just as well. 

It might not be with rush-hour traffic and busloads, but there 

will be a semi load of grain or a large piece of machinery. Because 

it is very important that we keep our bridges up and our transportation put together, and that is why we need the reauthorization 

of the MAP–21. 

Mr. TROMBINO. What I was going to say is it is a severe economic 

impact. When you look at the local system with noncontiguous 

farming and the way the operations, especially in the rural area, 

function, those bridges become major impediments for them from 

a movement perspective, which add costs to the products which 

likely, at some point, will make them not competitive in a global 

marketplace. 

So economics is the most important issue here. And I don’t think, 

from an economic perspective, we can afford for you not to deal 

with the funding and move forward with the program. 

Mr. MALONEY. Thank you very much. 

Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Webster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Trombino, the committee here has done a lot of discussion 

and hearings on public-private partnerships and identifying the 

role of P3s in the development and delivery of transportation systems. 

What is the Department of Transportation in Iowa—what is their 

experience with P3s? And, also, could you discuss the challenges or 

maybe even opportunities for developing and implementing P3s in 

connection with rural projects in rural areas? 

Mr. TROMBINO. From the State of Iowa, two things. The first 

thing that I would point out is, one, we are a pay-as-you-go State. 

We don’t bond at all at the State level. We have no bonding at all 

on the transportation system. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Do you have toll roads? 

27 

Mr. TROMBINO. No. We have no toll roads. 

And so where we view P3s is the opportunity. A lot of times 

there is a potential, I think, for us to do some things off-system 

that could really help freight consolidation. Could be cross-docking. 

Could be lots of intermodal things that really enable and improve 

the efficiency of the system ultimately. And those are the areas 

that we are specifically looking at from a P3 perspective. 

And I think the overriding challenge for us in our State on the 

P3 side is exactly what I talked about. We don’t have tolling, and 

I don’t really see tolling as an opportunity for us in the future because of the way our system is set out, you know, on a grid side. 

And so I don’t really view that as a long-term solution. 

Where I do see that there is a public-private partnership is off 

what I would call a highway system and railway system is in the 

riverway system specifically. I really do view that there is a strong 

opportunity to change the operation and make significant improvement, which will enable significant freight and commodity movement up and down both the Mississippi and the Missouri. 

Mr. WEBSTER. The State I am from, Florida, and I know your 

State are both one of the few States that have legislative-approved 

coordinating councils especially in the area of transportation disadvantaged. 

Do you have any experience with transportation coordination and 

maybe some unique things that have happened when you have 

tried to do that in the rural areas? 

Mr. TROMBINO. Thank you. 

One of the, I think, unique things that we do in our State especially is we have what we call our mobility managers. We have mobility managers that cover all of the areas of the State from a regional perspective to really help connect people with transportation 

issues, especially what I would call transportation challenges in 

getting to medical appointments and other things like that. 

And that is really to help not only rural transit providers, but, 

also, a broader understanding of opportunities to connect people 

even from private ventures that also provide those types of transit 

services. 

So that is one of the things I would bring forward, is that we 

have a pretty broad mobility manager program that we think fits 

really well. It is one of the key linkages for us to have transit coverage across all of our counties. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Does Medicaid drive most of that or—— 

Mr. TROMBINO. That has been one of the biggest challenges, is 

that the way the Medicaid law change is is that that availability 

to use dollars for transportation through Medicaid is not available, 

as I understand it. So we have supplemented that through our own 

State dollars trying to offset—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. Just general revenue or transportation dollars? 

Mr. TROMBINO. Transportation dollars that we use for transit. So 

we have tried to do it in that way as best we can, but it is very 

limited dollars. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Woodall. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

28 

I am thinking about something Mr. Steenhoek said when he 

began. He said, ‘‘I would rather have the Federal Government be 

predictably good than sporadically great.’’ I sometimes have that 

feeling myself around here. 

Is that a universally shared view as we are talking about grappling with these issues? Can I ask each? Would you rather us be 

predictably good than sporadically great? 

Mr. Trombino. 

Mr. TROMBINO. Yes. I would actually say consistency, from a program perspective, is the key ingredient. In transportation, I have 

often subscribed to this at our State level when we talked about 

it, is we just need predictable revenue over a long period of time 

because the infrastructure—it is such a capital level of work. The 

longer it is just this nice steady flow over time—we don’t need big 

jumps and gaps. I think that is actually a bad investment strategy 

for the transportation system. 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Fox, would you—— 

Mr. FOX. I will have to answer this as myself. And I would say 

yes because I could not talk for 3,000 counties—— 

Mr. WOODALL. Fair enough. 

Mr. FOX [continuing]. In that question. But I agree that predictability is the most important piece that we have. 

Mr. WOODALL. All right. 

Mr. Woelfel. 

Mr. WOELFEL. I would agree. You know, we are looking from the 

private sector at long-term capital investments. And in order to 

make those investments, we would want some type of consistency 

and predictability in being able to justify. 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Whittington. 

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I would like to think of this as a baseball 

player. There’s not many baseball players that hit a home run 

every time they bat. I would rather see a good 330 baseball hitter 

every day of the week. 

And if I might have one comment for Ranking Member Norton 

back there, a lot of the things that happen here that Congress 

does—they do really great things, but when it gets down to the 

State level or the county level, the interpretation changes so much. 

We had the same thing in the ag exemption. The Federal agency 

decided to interpret what they thought you did. And you did a 

great job, but interpretation is great—— 

Mr. WOODALL. Well, let’s talk about that a little bit. Because my 

experience has been the opposite. I have seen a lot of things that 

Congress has done well that the administration has then taken and 

done something bad with. But, generally speaking, I see Congress 

do something that is kind of mediocre or pretty good, and my guys 

at the local level find a way to do something amazing. 

And I wanted to ask about that from a county perspective. I represent one of the most conservative counties in Georgia. They rejected a Federal gas tax increase. They rejected a transportation 

special local option sales tax increase. But they just did a $200 million bonding initiative to widen a major State road going through 

their territory because it matters to them. 

Six months from the day of the vote to the letting of the contract. 

It is going to be another 6 months until ground is broken. Twelve 

29 

months from the day of the vote to widen the road to the day construction begins on that project. Find me a Federal project that is 

moving that quickly. They can do it and the taxpayer trusts them 

to do it in ways the taxpayer does not trust me to raise those same 

dollars. 

Given that, trying to be predictably good instead of sporadically 

great, I wonder if we don’t need to narrow the focus of what the 

Federal highway system needs to be. Do we need interstate highways connecting America? Of course we do. Do we need major national freight carters to bring the products to market that you all 

have talked about? Of course we do. 

Do we need three different federally maintained highways between Baltimore and Washington, DC, that are never more than 

4.5 miles apart in U.S. 95, U.S. 1, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway? I am not sure that we do. In fact, I would argue we most certainly do not. 

And if we are going to be predictably good, we are going to have 

to find a way to take what has been an incredible erosion of the 

buying power of the Federal gas tax dollar and claim some success. 

And if that means now you have counties doing things that counties were not burdened by doing before, but they are burdened to 

have to do now—when you tell me 43 States have limitations on 

the kind of taxes that counties can raise, I tell you that, in this 

new transportation funding economy, we may have to go talk to 

those 43 States, that you may not get a free pass to say, ‘‘I hope 

Washington, DC, and those Federal taxpayers will come through 

for me because I don’t trust my counties to get it done.’’ 

I think we are in a different place today. I think we trust our 

counties in ways we do not trust our Federal representatives. I 

think we trust our States in ways that we do not trust our Federal 

representatives. 

And my great hope is, as we are trying to solve a problem, we 

don’t try to solve the ‘‘How do we pump more Federal dollars into 

a system that we know is not squeezing the maximum value out 

of those dollars today?’’ 

And my hope is we find those parts of the system that we are 

squeezing the maximum value of the dollars out, we find ways to 

give States and localities the flexibility to serve the constituencies 

that each of you represent. 

I am grateful to you all for being here, and I am grateful to the 

example that each of your industries set for us. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Massie. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whittington, I appreciate that you mentioned the Brent 

Spence Bridge and the fact it carries 3 percent of our domestic 

product. For folks not familiar with that, that is I–71 and I–75 

come together and cross the same bridge. And that comes into my 

district from Ohio. 

And what troubles me—and this gets to the point Mr. Woodall 

was making—I see projects in my State and projects at the county 

level—in fact, I was a county executive—I see projects there, yet 

I see the big projects not getting done. 

30 

And I see the small projects getting built without tolls, yet the 

big projects, the ones that are true interstate commerce, we are 

talking about, ‘‘Well, these are the ones we need to toll.’’ 

But they wait until the need gets so great and there is so much 

pressure that they can get that kind of a revenue-generator on a 

project like that, yet they are doing internal parkways. And I am 

not saying they are not important, but they aren’t what I would 

say constitutes interstate commerce priorities. 

Mr. Whittington, how do we get the Highway Trust Fund focused 

back on interstate-type priorities with a Federal nexus? 

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Well, Congressman, I will try to attempt that 

in a couple of different ways. 

I think that the communication—and you have heard it here 

today—between a county official and a State official and the Federal officials is what is really important out there and what are we 

going to get the bang for the buck from. 

And I think that—and I agree, Congressman Woodall, with what 

you are saying in the fact that the local people can seem to get 

things done. But what does the big picture look like? 

And if we can work some kind of a system that we have the big 

picture out there and it doesn’t have all kinds of redtape and 

things to do that and we see—I am from Columbus, Indiana, a 

great community where a leader 40 years ago had a vision that has 

made that town unbelievable with all of the assets that it has and 

the roadways that go through there. 

But I think we have got to get back and we have got to get the 

local people involved so that they can feel like they are doing something and they are respected for doing that. 

I get really mad. I talk to my friends and I say, ‘‘You have got 

to go talk to your congressman and get something going that really 

works.’’ 

‘‘I am not going there. He won’t listen to me. He doesn’t care.’’ 

So we have got to reinvent the wheel on a lot of those kinds of 

things. And I think—you know, you are from the Cincinnati area 

there and northern Ohio. 

You can go all the way around the river and you can go over on 

the east side of town or you can go on the west side of town, but 

I think it is—when we talk about congestion in the world today 

and the number I threw out there at $9 billion, a truck today is 

a dollar and a half a minute. 

So every time you see a truck sitting in line out here at a traffic 

accident or the bridge is closed and he has got to go an extra 30 

miles, you figure what that cost is, and it is going to ultimately cost 

the consumer. 

The numbers that I came to town with the other day was talking 

about, if we could sell that every dollar that the Government could 

spend on roads and bridges today will give $15 back to that community, do you think we could get the job done? And I think there’s 

numbers out there that can support those kinds of things. 

Mr. MASSIE. Well, in a lot of cases, to Mr. Woodall’s point, I 

would argue that is a great incentive for the community to fund 

that project and we need to start making hard decisions about 

what are Federal projects and what are local projects and where 

that funding should come from. 

31 

I have sponsored a bill that would—instead of causing this crisis 

every year where we have this $10 billion to $13 billion shortfall 

in the Highway Trust Fund, it would take mass transit, which I 

would say are local projects—sidewalks and bike paths—put them 

in the general fund and let the Highway Trust Fund be self-sustaining for projects like interstate bridges. 

That is not to say those other things aren’t useful. But if there 

is a $15 return for every dollar invested in the community in mass 

transit, then let the community make the investment. But I am 

concerned that the commerce of this country, like you spoke about, 

is going to suffer if we don’t get to these projects. 

And when I was a local county executive, if I could get State 

money to build a bridge or Federal money to build a bridge, I wanted the State money because the Federal money required a 

hydrological study, an archeological study, a historical study, and 

prevailing wages, you name it, and an $80,000 project quickly became a $400,000 project. That is another thing I think we need to 

look at. 

And I thank the chairman. My time is expired. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Hardy. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. 

I come from a little place called Mesquite, Nevada. It is about 80 

miles northeast of Las Vegas. Eighty-six percent of my electorate 

is out of the urban area of Las Vegas. 

There are 17 counties in Nevada, 6 of which I have are rural 

counties, which equates to about 290 miles north to south by about 

500 miles east to west. So I have a large rural district. Eighty-six 

percent of that is held by the Federal Government. 

So it is pretty easy to try to evaluate where the needs are in the 

urban areas. As a matter of fact, the State legislature, which I was 

part of the last time, created an indexing tax which helps fund 

those projects within Clark County for the next 3 years because we 

can’t wait on the Federal Government any longer. 

I would like to ask each of you kind of a little different question. 

Being a member of the Regional Transportation Commission for 

over 14 years in the Clark County area myself and being a past 

public works director for about 7 years, I found that it is a lot easier to maintain than to reconstruct. 

Have any of you got the same beliefs in that—— 

Mr. FOX. Congressman—— 

Mr. HARDY [continuing]. As far as maintaining highways 

versus—— 

Mr. FOX. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

Yes. Maintain is much simpler than starting construction over. 

But the problem is, in some of our agriculture as in the Midwest, 

we don’t have wide enough shoulders on those roads for the farm 

equipment of the 21st century. So we have to make some decisions 

on which roads we are going to reconstruct and what roads that we 

just overlay. 

Mr. HARDY. The reason I ask the question is, you know, with 

that 86 percent being held by the Federal Government, it is hard 

for us to make a decision. Do we go out in the rurals and try to 

upgrade our infrastructure out there that are basically held by the 

32 

Federal Government or the Interstate Highway System, NDOT, so 

to speak, or do we try to do things at home? 

So without having a funding bill in place, it leaves us to try to 

determine do we fix the problems within the urban corridors immediately because we need to make sure we have that economic improvement because that is what attracts economics to your community, is a good infrastructure, or do we let things fall apart, which, 

you know, most of that—the interstate system we have within Nevada goes across Federal lands, which I think it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to take care of that. 

But, on the other hand, it is one of those corridors with—it packs 

all the produce back and forth from California, clear across the 

Midwest, which, in turn, comes back to the Midwest, to the west 

coast, with grains and other. 

So I guess what I am getting at is: Do you feel like we are failing 

our job? Because we have got to do something quick, in my opinion, 

because you can’t plan down the road without a long-term spending 

bill. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEENHOEK. Well, I think you are spot on. And for local communities, whether it is a county or a State, they are trying to determine, ‘‘What do we need to do to maintain and improve this system?’’ 

But in order to decipher what you need to do, you need to know 

what they are going to do. And ‘‘they’’ is the Federal Government. 

And so, you know, it is back to at least be predictable, you know, 

your whole point about maintaining the system. 

The nice thing about these assets is that they are not like cell 

phones, what you purchased 10 years ago is obsolete today. I mean, 

these are bridges and roads that, if you maintain them, yes, eventually, they do need to be replaced, but you can dramatically elongate the useful life of these assets if you do preventative maintenance. And in many areas of the country we have failed to do so. 

Mr. HARDY. Mr. Trombino, in your testimony, I think you were 

spot on with the Federal and States relationship and having flexibility, and I think you said that Iowa was able to be creative with 

folks that have no money, I guess, and with our $18 trillion of debt, 

we need to be creative. 

Could you kind of elaborate on some of that creativity that you 

had? 

Mr. TROMBINO. Yeah. A couple of things I want to say. 

The first thing was stability in funding, that the most important 

thing is for us to maintain the system. Right? Because we want to 

extend life overall. 

And I think this gets to Mr. Steenhoek and what he was saying. 

From an asset perspective, managing the system, we have things 

that are in good condition, we have things that are in fair condition, we have things that are in poor condition. 

If we chase the poor, we don’t have enough money, and what will 

happen is the good and fair will actually turn into poor. And so 

that strategy is very important for us to focus on, the good and fair, 

extend the life of that system long term. And, ultimately, that will 

free up dollars. 

33 

And we have shown that by just making changes in the 

amount—the types of treatments that we use to maintain the system, to expand it. We were able to save $270 million over 10 years 

that will actually bend the life of the curve and allow us to use it 

towards those poor infrastructures. So those are the types of things 

that we are doing. 

In addition, I would say our supply chain is really the key ingredient because it is going to allow us to look at bridges differently. 

Just as Commissioner Fox was talking about, bridges with maybe 

10 cars a day, but really intensive times of the year, well, maybe 

we should really treat those differently, and the supply chain will 

allow us to look at those things differently in the future. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Woelfel, let me come to you. In your testimony, you emphasize the need to expand intermodal connectivity with rural transit 

services through more public-private partnerships beyond just the 

traditional finance concept that we think of as public-private partnerships. 

In your opinion, on the Federal level, what would you think is 

the greatest impediment to expanding the private sector role in our 

transit systems? 

Mr. WOELFEL. I would think the biggest challenge with that 

would be the third thing that I had asked this subcommittee to 

consider, which is looking at the MAP–21 reauthorization where 

you included total cost of operating and capital to be used as a local 

match. That is 50 percent more funds that are available from the 

private sector to work with intermodal and public transit operators. 

And I think, by not having that extra 50 percent—you know, I 

think there is some private investment that is out there that is 

looking at it saying, ‘‘We are not going to participate in that.’’ 

[Mr. Woelfel has provided a post-hearing expansion of his remarks below:] 

Motorcoach transportation provided over 600 million passenger trips in 

2013 and is consistently cited as the fastest growing mode of intercity 

transportation, yet our bus operators and passengers continue to be treated 

as second-class citizens or nonexistent in terms of Federal, State and local 

transportation planning. The lack of integration or consideration of intercity 

bus operations in the State and local planning processes, in and of itself, 

represents the greatest impediment to creating more public-private partnerships in passenger transportation. 

A good place to start addressing this impediment would be through simple 

policy changes to title 23. Requiring consideration and inclusion of intercity 

bus systems in the development of transportation plans by States and metropolitan planning organizations, would increase the opportunities for public-private collaboration. 

If our national goal is to ensure intermodal connectivity, reduction of taxpayer burden and improved efficiency, then we need to expand public-private partnership initiatives beyond transportation finance concepts. To be 

clear, we are not proposing to replace public transportation systems; rather, 

we are seeking to expand opportunities, through simple changes to the 

transportation planning structure, so we can better connect public and private systems for the benefit of all transportation users. By integrating public and private assets, transportation planners can maximize and focus the 

34 

use of tax dollars, while ensuring the transportation needs of the public are 

met. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what existing regulations are there that prevent private carriers from entering the marketplace and receiving 

Federal transit dollars or are there any? 

Mr. WOELFEL. I am not aware of any. Obviously, anytime you are 

looking at Federal funds, there are strings attached with it. But, 

overall, there are no requirements that prevent that. 

I think it is strictly—you should take a look at the total cost of 

doing that, once again, 3,500 small businesses that are predominantly working in this industry, looking at where to put their 

funds. Jefferson Lines and a small group of carriers choose to work 

in the fixed-route industry where we interline and work with public 

transit officials. 

But as costs go up, you know, we obviously, as private entities, 

are looking at a long-term solution at, ‘‘How do we recover our investment?’’ 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, before I finish with you, you know, if you 

go to the FMCSA Web site, you can go and they have devoted an 

impressive amount of time to resources, for safety scores, and, you 

know, a look before you book kind of trip planner. They have got 

iPhone and Android safe bus apps, all of this so that you can 

choose based on a safety score. 

Now, I don’t know about you. Normally, I don’t do that. But I 

wish we had somebody here testifying from them today. But the 

GAO has indicated that those scores are inaccurate. 

And so, instead of really spending time and effort to improve 

safety, they are spending time and effort marketing the scores that 

are inaccurate so that another app will get put on an iPhone that 

perhaps doesn’t get used. 

So, with that being said, I mean, what would you do if we did 

away with the CSA [Compliance, Safety, Accountability] program? 

I mean, what would you replace it with? 

Mr. WOELFEL. Well, I think, as private operators, you know, safety is always nonnegotiable. I think, as any private operator, you 

are going to operate safe. If you don’t operate safe, you are not 

going to be in business. 

I don’t think we need a Federal app to put out scores that perhaps—and you are correct. The Government Accountability Office 

has said that there’s some reliability issues with that. 

You know, I think the private sector may—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. You are being gracious. Reliability issues. They 

went a lot further than that, but go ahead. 

Mr. WOELFEL. You are correct. You are correct, Congressman 

Meadows. 

But I think, as a private industry, you know, we bring a lot of 

good ideas. We know how to run a good business. We obviously 

favor—those companies that are not operating safely, we support 

them being put out of business. 

It is those companies that operate safely continuing to get challenged. For instance, Jefferson Lines, we get an audit every year. 

We know that we operate safely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

35 

Mr. WOELFEL. We are probably not the company that is creating 

some problems. So there’s other companies where you want to emphasize or perhaps you want to spend your resources to focus on 

safety. 

There’s other ones where, you know, you want that interset. I 

think, Congressman Woodall, you had mentioned something about, 

you know, perhaps instead of three roads, you only need one or two 

roads. 

I would offer the same thing from a safety standpoint. Where are 

you going to allocate your resources to really focus on safety and 

where—you know, or don’t you? If you don’t have a problem, don’t 

spend the money on the problem. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I have got other questions, but I am out of time. 

I will yield back. I will submit those for the record. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had just one more question to ask, particularly in light of Mr. 

Hardy’s question and Mrs. Kirkpatrick’s question. 

Mr. Hardy said something that is quite amazing, that 86 percent—I think that is the figure you used—of your district is essentially Federal land, and Mrs. Kirkpatrick talked about Indian 

Country. 

Now, both of those are funded by the Federal Government. In 

other words, it doesn’t come out of States allocation. 

And I must tell you that, although I have some of these Federal 

roads in my district, I didn’t even know—and I have been here 

quite a long time—I didn’t even think about this Federal part of 

the surface transportation bill. 

I indicated some of the economic activity that occurs within 60— 

I think within 60 miles of a park generates $15 billion in revenue. 

Now, a lot of that is through rural country because it is land adjacent to parks, which tend to be out and not really, you know, in 

the cities or in the urban areas. 

Because Congress, including me—I must tell you I paid almost 

no attention to this Federal portion—does not realize these agencies have separately an $11 billion backlog. And so I asked, ‘‘Well, 

what does that amount to a year?’’ Eight hundred fifty million dollars compared—we gave them $300 million in MAP–21. 

I have a bridge here. I have one bridge that the park service just 

closed two lanes of, the Memorial Bridge, that will cost $250 million to fix. And yet there is only $300 million for the entire country. 

I guess I should ask first Mr. Fox because many of these parks 

are adjacent to counties not near urban areas. Have you looked 

into and do you agree that economic activities around these Federal 

lands are crucial to local communities surrounding these lands in 

terms of the revenue that was generated? 

I ask you that because I remember, when the Federal Government closed down, the State of Utah actually funded its parks because such an important portion of its funding came from people 

who come to these parks and come across the roads that I’m asking 

you about. 

So have you noticed and have you had occasion to note the economic activity that comes to your State or to the States and counVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Oct 14, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\HT\6-24-1~1\95231.TXT JEAN
36 

ties from this Federal land portion funded by the Federal Government? 

Mr. FOX. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. 

The Federal Lands Access Program, known as FLAP—62 percent 

of the colonies have Federal lands within their jurisdiction, and 

FLAP has benefitted many counties that struggle to fund projects 

within lieu of taxes. 

But rural counties, in general, face a number of challenges. And 

I do not have the economic numbers that you are asking for. But 

the challenges require an adequate transportation infrastructure 

just to meet the needs of the community or that region. 

And I think, as a county official, that is our job, to work within 

our local area and our region and to work with the State partners 

and the Federal partners to provide that transportation infrastructure need. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you do have these issues in your counties and 

States, but they may not have obvious impact—well, unless you get 

into the situation Mrs. Kirkpatrick got into where she said that the 

children had missed 10 schooldays because the Federal road was 

just closed down. 

Unless we get more attention from the counties and the States 

that are affected, I am not sure that we are going to be able to do 

anything more for those Federal lands. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. With that, we just started a vote. And 

so it is kind of perfect timing. But I would like to thank each of 

our witnesses for being here today. Your testimony is going to be 

very helpful as we move through this process. 

And, with that, I would ask unanimous consent that the record 

of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses 

have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to 

them in writing and unanimous consent that the record remain 

open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in today’s record. 

Without objection, that is so ordered. 

If no other Members have anything to add, this subcommittee 

stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

37 


Insert offset folio 6 here 95231.006
38 


Insert offset folio 7 here 95231.007
39 


Insert offset folio 8 here 95231.008
40 


Insert offset folio 9 here 95231.009
41 


Insert offset folio 10 here 95231.010
42 


Insert offset folio 11 here 95231.011
43 


Insert offset folio 12 here 95231.012
44 


Insert offset folio 13 here 95231.013
45 


Insert offset folio 14 here 95231.014
46 


Insert offset folio 15 here 95231.015
47 


Insert offset folio 16 here 95231.016
48 


Insert offset folio 17 here 95231.017
49 


Insert offset folio 18 here 95231.018
50 


Insert offset folio 19 here 95231.019
51 


Insert offset folio 20 here 95231.020
52 


Insert offset folio 21 here 95231.021
53 


Insert offset folio 22 here 95231.022
54 


Insert offset folio 23 here 95231.023
55 


Insert offset folio 24 here 95231.024
56 


Insert offset folio 25 here 95231.025
57 


Insert offset folio 26 here 95231.026
58 


Insert offset folio 27 here 95231.027
59 


Insert offset folio 28 here 95231.028
60 


Insert offset folio 29 here 95231.029
61 


Insert offset folio 30 here 95231.030
62 


Insert offset folio 31 here 95231.031
63 


Insert offset folio 32 here 95231.032
64 


Insert offset folio 33 here 95231.033
65 


Insert offset folio 34 here 95231.034
66 


Insert offset folio 35 here 95231.035
67 


Insert offset folio 36 here 95231.036
68 


Insert offset folio 37 here 95231.037
69 


Insert offset folio 38 here 95231.038
70 


Insert offset folio 39 here 95231.039
71 


Insert offset folio 40 here 95231.040
72 


Insert offset folio 41 here 95231.041
73 


Insert offset folio 42 here 95231.042
74 


Insert offset folio 43 here 95231.043
75 


Insert offset folio 44 here 95231.044
76 


Insert offset folio 45 here 95231.045
77 


Insert offset folio 46 here 95231.046
78 


Insert offset folio 47 here 95231.047
79 


Insert offset folio 48 here 95231.048
80 


Insert offset folio 49 here 95231.049
81 


Insert offset folio 50 here 95231.050
82 


Insert offset folio 51 here 95231.051
83 


Insert offset folio 52 here 95231.052
84 


Insert offset folio 53 here 95231.053
85 


Insert offset folio 54 here 95231.054
86 


Insert offset folio 55 here 95231.055
87 


Insert offset folio 56 here 95231.056
88 


Insert offset folio 57 here 95231.057
89 


Insert offset folio 58 here 95231.058
90 


Insert offset folio 59 here 95231.059
91 


Insert offset folio 60 here 95231.060
92 


Insert offset folio 61 here 95231.061
93 


Insert offset folio 62 here 95231.062
94 


Insert offset folio 63 here 95231.063
95 


Insert offset folio 64 here 95231.064
96 


Insert offset folio 65 here 95231.065
97 


Insert offset folio 66 here 95231.066
98 


Insert offset folio 67 here 95231.067
99 


Insert offset folio 68 here 95231.068
100 


Insert offset folio 69 here 95231.069
101 


Insert offset folio 70 here 95231.070
102 


Insert offset folio 71 here 95231.071
103 


Insert offset folio 72 here 95231.072
104 


Insert offset folio 73 here 95231.073
105 


Insert offset folio 74 here 95231.074
106 


Insert offset folio 75 here 95231.075
107 


Insert offset folio 76 here 95231.076
108 


Insert offset folio 77 here 95231.077
109 


Insert offset folio 78 here 95231.078
110 


Insert offset folio 79 here 95231.079
111 


Insert offset folio 80 here 95231.080
112 


Insert offset folio 81 here 95231.081
113 


Insert offset folio 82 here 95231.082
114 


Insert offset folio 83 here 95231.083
115 


Insert offset folio 84 here 95231.084
116 


Insert offset folio 85 here 95231.085
117 


Insert offset folio 86 here 95231.086
118 


Insert offset folio 87 here 95231.087
119 


Insert offset folio 88 here 95231.088
120 


Insert offset folio 89 here 95231.089
121 


Insert offset folio 90 here 95231.090
122 


Insert offset folio 91 here 95231.091
123 


Insert offset folio 92 here 95231.092
124 


Insert offset folio 93 here 95231.093
125 


Insert offset folio 94 here 95231.094
126 


Insert offset folio 95 here 95231.095
127 


Insert offset folio 96 here 95231.096
128 


Insert offset folio 97 here 95231.097
129 


Insert offset folio 98 here 95231.098
130 


Insert offset folio 99 here 95231.099
131 


Insert offset folio 100 here 95231.100
132 


Insert offset folio 101 here 95231.101
133 


Insert offset folio 102 here 95231.102
134 


Insert offset folio 103 here 95231.103
135 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 104 here 95231.104