U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–675 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

ALIGNING FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 

POLICY TO MEET 21ST-CENTURY NEEDS 

(116–7) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2019 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chair 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, 

District of Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice Chair 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey 

GREG STANTON, Arizona 

DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida 

LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas 

COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas 

SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas 

ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa 

JESU ́ S G. ‘‘CHUY’’ GARCI ́A, Illinois 

ANTONIO DELGADO, New York 

CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire 

ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota 

HARLEY ROUDA, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

JENNIFFER GONZA ́ LEZ-COLO ́ N, 

Puerto Rico 

TROY BALDERSON, Ohio 

ROSS SPANO, Florida 

PETE STAUBER, Minnesota 

CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey 

GREG STANTON, Arizona 

COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas 

SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas 

ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa 

JESU ́ S G. ‘‘CHUY’’ GARCI ́A, Illinois 

ANTONIO DELGADO, New York 

CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire 

ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota 

HARLEY ROUDA, California 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

TROY BALDERSON, Ohio 

ROSS SPANO, Florida 

PETE STAUBER, Minnesota 

CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of 

Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 6 

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

WITNESSES 

Hon. Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio, Texas, on behalf of the 

National League of Cities: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP, Secretary, Washington State Department 

of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Darran Anderson, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Texas Department 

of Transportation, on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

John Kevin ‘‘Jack’’ Clark, Executive Director, Transportation Learning Center: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Al Stanley, Vice President, Stanley Construction Company, Inc., on behalf 

of The Associated General Contractors of America: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 42 

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

Michael Terry, President and CEO, Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo), on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA): 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Report, ‘‘A Preventable Crisis: The Costs of a Hudson River Rail Tunnel 

Shutdown,’’ submitted for the record by Hon. Espaillat ................................... 78 

Page

VI 

Report, ‘‘Planning Ahead: County Planning, Land Use and Zoning Strategies 

for Affordable Housing,’’ submitted for the record by Hon. Garcı ́a .................. 81 

Letter of February 1, 2019, from Mark W. Mitchell, Mayor, City of Tempe, 

AZ, et al., submitted for the record by Hon. Stanton ........................................ 95 

Letter of March 13, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, submitted for the record by Hon. 

Norton ................................................................................................................... 101 

Letter of March 11, 2019, from James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western Governors’ Association, submitted for the record by Hon. Norton ............ 103 

Letter of May 7, 2019, and Congestion Maps, from Tori Emerson Barnes, 

Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and Policy, U.S. Travel Association, 

submitted for the record by Hon. Norton ........................................................... 107 

APPENDIX 

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Ron Nirenberg ......................... 113 

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP .. 114 

Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP ..... 118 

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Darran Anderson .............................. 118 

Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Darran Anderson ................................ 121 

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for John Kevin ‘‘Jack’’ Clark ................. 122 

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Therese W. McMillan ....................... 126 

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Al Stanley ......................................... 128 

Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Al Stanley ............................................ 128 

Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Mike Terry ........................................ 132 

vii 

MARCH 8, 2019

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ‘‘Aligning Federal Surface Transportation 

Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs’’ 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on Wednesday, March 13, 

2019, at 10 a.m. in HVC 210, Capitol Visitor Center, to receive testimony on ‘‘Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs.’’ The purpose of the hearing is to examine if and how Federal-aid highway and Federal transit programs and policies need to change in order to meet current and future transportation challenges. The Subcommittee will hear from representatives of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the National 

League of Cities, the American Public Transportation Association, the Association 

of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the Associated General Contractors of 

America, the Transportation Learning Center, and the Texas Innovation Alliance. 

BACKGROUND 

THE FEDERAL ROLE IN SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT

The Federal Government has continued its strong role in surface transportation 

investment, in partnership with States, since the 1916 Federal Aid Roads Act. The 

enactment of the landmark Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (1956 Act) (P.L. 84– 

627) made significant Federal investment in America’s system of roads and bridges. 

This Act established formula grant programs to distribute Federal surface transportation funds to States through specific eligible categories. The 1956 Act also established a dedicated funding mechanism through the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). Secure funding, along with a long-term 13-year authorization, gave States the certainty and continuity needed to develop and begin construction on the Interstate 

System and other surface transportation projects. 

Congress has enacted a number of authorization bills in the decades following the 

passage of the 1956 Act to modify the Federal-aid highway program, create the Federal transit program, provide ongoing funding to States for the construction and 

maintenance of the Nation’s surface transportation network, and extend the highway-related taxes deposited into the HTF. Congress has sustained the pattern of 

long-term, multi-year authorization bills to continue steady, predictable funding levels to facilitate project planning and construction. Since 1991, major authorization 

bills include: the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) 

(P.L. 102–240) enacted in 1991, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA–21) (P.L 105–178) enacted in 1998, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109–59) enacted 

in 2005, and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21) (P.L. 

112–141) enacted in 2012. 

Most recently, Congress enacted the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act 

(FAST Act) (P.L 114–94), on December 4, 2015. The FAST Act provided $281 billion 

in funding for highway, transit, and highway safety programs and reauthorized 

those programs for 5 years. The FAST Act is set to expire on September 30, 2020. 

In the 116th Congress, a priority for the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

is developing and enacting a bill to reauthorize Federal highway, public transit, and 

highway safety programs. 


P:\Hearings\116\head.eps
viii 

1 CBO report, ‘‘Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2017’’ 

October 2018. 2 ARTBA Bridge Report, 2018. 

3 ASCE Report Card, 2017. 

4 U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 

to 2060,’’ 2015. 5 U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, ‘‘DOT Releases 30-Year Freight Projections,’’ 

2016. 6Transportation Research Board, ‘‘Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate 

Highway System: A Foundation for the Future,’’ 2018. 

HIGHWAY TRUST FUND SOLVENCY

Federal surface transportation investments are funded through Federal excise 

taxes levied on motor fuels and on related products such as tires and freight trucks, 

which are deposited into the HTF. Congress has not adjusted the motor fuel excise 

taxes since 1993, and the purchasing power of these taxes have fallen over 40 percent in the last 25 years. Improved vehicle fuel efficiency has further eroded Federal 

revenues. As a result, revenues coming into the HTF have not kept pace with expenditures from authorized programs. 

Congress has had to transfer $144 billion from the General Fund and other funds 

to keep the HTF solvent since 2008. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that over the next 10 years, the HTF will fall $159 billion short based on 

continuing currently authorized highway, transit, and safety program levels. An additional $5 billion is necessary to ensure that there is a prudent balance in the HTF, 

which brings the shortfall to $164 billion. This does not include any higher investment levels to meet growing surface transportation needs. Without a solvent HTF, 

Congress cannot enact a long-term, multi-year authorization bill. 

CONDITION OF OUR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, from 2003 to 2017 Federal 

spending on infrastructure, including surface transportation programs, decreased by 

nearly 20 percent, adjusted for inflation.1 This reduction has resulted in a growing 

backlog of investment needs. One in three interstate bridges have repair needs, and 

nearly 9 percent of the Nation’s bridges are structurally deficient.2 One out of every 

five miles of highway pavement is in poor condition nationwide, and more than two 

out of every five miles of America’s urban interstates are congested.3

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has identified a more than $1 

trillion gap in current surface transportation funding in order to fix what we have, 

meet future needs, and restore our global competitiveness. Similarly, according to 

the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 2015 Conditions & Performance Report, there is an $836 billion backlog of unmet capital investment needs for highways and bridges. DOT estimates that all levels of government need to invest approximately $143 billion per year to improve the conditions and performance of our 

roads and bridges. We need to invest $37.3 billion per year at all levels of government to improve the conditions and performance of all roads. The cost of bringing 

the Nation’s rail and bus transit systems into a state of good repair is estimated 

at $90 billion, and we would need to invest $26.4 billion per year to accommodate 

the high-growth scenario of future transit ridership. We currently underinvest by 

approximately $9.5 billion per year at all levels of government on transit capital investments. 

MEETING 21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES

The next surface transportation reauthorization bill will only continue to facilitate 

economic growth, ensure global competitiveness, and create jobs, including family 

supporting jobs, if Congress makes the necessary investments in the Nation’s surface transportation system. Congress will also need to ensure that Federal surface 

transportation programs can address current and future challenges. In the coming 

decades, our transportation system will come under immense pressure and face significant challenges. America’s population is expected to grow to approximately 400 

million by 2051.4 Freight volumes will continue to soar as freight tons are expected 

to increase by 40 percent over the next 30 years.5 The Transportation Research 

Board’s recent report on the future of the Interstate System concluded that the 

Interstate System must be preserved and rehabilitated, while also renewed and 

modernized to adapt to the Nation’s changing demographic, economic, climate, and 

technological landscape.6 This hearing is the Subcommittee’s first step of its process 

to develop a long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill. The hearing will 

provide an opportunity for Members to consider potential changes to Federal surface 

ix 

transportation policies and programs in order to address current and future challenges. Witness testimony is likely to touch on the following areas: 

• Strengthening the model of a Federal, State, and local partnership, 

• Improving roads, bridges, and public transit systems, 

• Moving people and goods safely and more efficiently and reducing congestion, 

• Harnessing innovation and incorporating technology to improve mobility, 

• Ensuring a qualified transportation workforce, 

• Building stronger and more resilient infrastructure, and 

• Improving project delivery and protecting the environment. 

WITNESS LIST 

• The Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, city of San Antonio, on behalf of the National League of Cities 

• Mr. Roger Millar, Secretary, Washington State Department of Transportation, 

on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

• Mr. Darran Anderson, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Texas Department 

of Transportation, on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance 

• Mr. Jack Clark, Executive Director, Transportation Learning Center 

• Ms. Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission, on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

• Mr. Al Stanley, Vice President, Stanley Construction Company, Inc., on behalf 

of the Associated General Contractors of America 

• Mr. Michael Terry, President and CEO, IndyGo—Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association 

(1) 

ALIGNING FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO MEET 21ST-CENTURY 

NEEDS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

(Chair of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. It is time for us to come to order and begin. 

I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the subcommittee 

be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today’s hearing and 

ask questions. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Finally, we are having the first hearing of our Subcommittee on 

Highways and Transit. I particularly look forward to collaborating 

with my good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Davis, and with 

Members on both sides of the aisle. 

Bear in mind that this subcommittee and full committee have 

the reputation for being the most bipartisan in the Congress. There 

is a reason for that. We are dealing with what everybody wants. 

The enthusiasm about our subcommittee is clear. This subcommittee is larger than almost all of the other full committees in 

the House. Everybody wanted to get on board. I think what that 

does is signal the importance of the underlying subject matter. 

We, of course, are at the end—at least by 2020—of the FAST Act. 

The FAST Act was written by all of us. I was very pleased to work 

with Mr. Graves and with Mr. Shuster. I intend to run this subcommittee in the same bipartisan way. We need everybody. 

The FAST Act was a significant achievement because it was the 

first full authorization act in 10 years. The chief problem for us— 

and perhaps it remains a problem—is that we had to do a 6-year 

bill in 5 years, because there was no increase in funding. 

We have a tall and very different order this time. Obviously, we 

have got to maintain what we have, and we have not done a good 

job of doing that. But at the same time, we have got to modernize 

our entire system. And there are entirely new—at least for the subcommittee—issues: climate change, you can’t build roads or transit 

the way you used to, with climate change bearing upon us. 

So we regard this as a transformational moment in our work, as 

we try to figure out how do you move people and goods, in what 

2 

amounts to a new era for transportation and infrastructure than 

even a few years ago. 

The challenge is huge, and it means that infrastructure at every 

level and all modes of transportation have to be looked at anew, 

and not in the way we looked at it even at the last reauthorization. 

The importance of this bill, I supposed, is seen by the priority it 

has been given. It is H.R. 2. You know, there is H.R. 1 and there 

is H.R. 2. It means that this bill is important to the entire country. 

We will not be able to do a bill worthy of the American people 

if we think the way we did last time, or if we pit one mode against 

another. What we need now is adaptable infrastructure that has to 

work together, particularly to avoid congestion. 

This committee has to lead in accommodating one mode of transportation that will get people from one place to another, and they 

then may need another mode of transportation. So we will be depending not only on the usual modes of transportation—transit and 

autos—driving, that is—but we will be looking closely at biking 

and expediting walking, and even scooting, which I love to talk 

about. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NORTON. Would love to do. 

Indeed, while this hearing is important, I am very interested in 

holding subcommittee hearings on these alternative modes of travel. 

Transit investment is indeed a more critical part than it was at 

the last reauthorization. The Committee on Ways and Means has 

already begun leading. Some on the other side of their aisle talked 

about something I thought we had laid to rest some time ago, and 

that is that we are to stop funding transit with Federal dollars. Are 

they crazy? We need more transit. That is clean energy. I can’t 

imagine it, and we are not going to go down that road again. It 

shut down this committee the last time it was raised. 

The future of the Highway Trust Fund cannot be avoided. But 

when we talked about transit—before I get to that, when we talked 

about transit I recalled that from the last—from one of the last 

hearings we had people from rural areas—I remember the director 

of the Tennessee Department of Transportation indicated how important transit was to all the counties of Tennessee, and we better 

not just talk about that as an urban matter. 

In the last authorization—technology was a very small part of 

our bill, or even our discussion. It is a major part of what we have 

to do if we are serious about our crippled congestion, and if we are 

serious about doing something about it. There are troubling signs 

of slippage in the skill of our labor pool. We will be having hearings 

on that matter. 

The Committee on Ways and Means has already met to discuss 

the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. I won’t get into that. 

The debate goes on, but whatever happens with funding, we 

must do our work to get a bill by 2020 for the American people. 

[Ms. Norton’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

3 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. I 

look forward to collaborating with my Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, and Members 

on both sides of the aisle. 

Our Subcommittee, at 56 Members, is larger than almost all (18 of 21) full Committees in Congress. It is good that we have so much interest—because we have a 

hefty agenda. Moving a surface transportation authorization bill is the top priority 

of the Subcommittee this Congress. The FAST Act expires at the end of September 

2020, and the Members of this Subcommittee are responsible for developing the next 

bill. 

Today’s hearing is the first step in the authorization process. We will hear from 

stakeholders at different levels of government and the private sector who will advise 

us on which areas of Federal highway and transit policy warrant a fresh look. 

In this authorization, we need to restore and maintain the roads, bridges, and 

transit systems we have, particularly at a time when the changing climate threatens the longevity of these assets. We need to modernize so that transportation policy 

evolves and reaps the benefits of technology. We must also transform our transportation network to move people and goods more safely and efficiently. 

I represent the District of Columbia, a densely populated city that—along with 

Maryland, Virginia, and the Federal government—provides a transportation system 

for over six million people. Congestion, transit woes, and deteriorating bridges are 

challenges my region faces on a daily basis. These same challenges are found across 

the country. 

Today, we have with us the Mayor of the nation’s fastest growing city—San Antonio, Texas, who will share his story of tackling congestion and delivering mobility. 

We can’t achieve these goals if we continue to think in outdated ways, by pitting 

one mode against another. We will need adaptable infrastructure that can accommodate any mode of transportation that will get a person from here to there—driving, 

transit, biking, walking, even scooting. We must direct investment to the most efficient and effective solutions. 

Transit investment is a crucial part of this equation. At last week’s infrastructure 

hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means, some Members on the other side 

of the aisle raised the tired argument that we should stop funding transit with Federal dollars. We have heard the argument that transit funding only helps urban 

areas. Access to transit is critical for every American—including in rural areas. For 

colleagues new to the Subcommittee, allow me to quote from testimony we heard 

in two hearings last Congress. 

In a hearing on the future of the Highway Trust Fund, Mr. Jack Schroerer, the 

Director of the Tennessee DOT stressed the critical role transit plays in providing 

accessibility in rural areas. He stated: ‘‘In Tennessee, we fund transit in all 95 counties . . . it is an integral part of our rural areas to get people to the doctor and hospitals... Almost all that money is Federal dollars, comes from FTA, and we put it 

to good use, and people in our rural counties use it a lot.’’ 

At a separate hearing, we heard Julia Castillo, head of the Heart of Iowa Regional 

Transit Agency testify on the importance of public transit options in rural Iowa. Ms. 

Castillo stated in her testimony: ‘‘People who live in more rural areas need the same 

types of services as those in urban areas and even though it may be more challenging and sometimes more expensive, we need to find ways in which to efficiently 

meet those needs so their independence, freedom, quality of life and ability to grow 

and prosper where they live is not compromised.’’ 

In the next authorization, we must also harness technology and innovation. Innovation has the power to address crippling congestion problems. It has the promise 

of saving lives and ushering in dramatic safety gains. And it has the ability to 

seamlessly connect people to a choice of transportation options. But these gains can 

only be realized if we find the right balance in public policy to protect consumers, 

workers, and taxpayers while spurring innovation. This Committee must play a 

strong role in finding and supporting that balance. 

We must also ensure that we have a skilled labor pool to take on the challenge 

of building 21st-century infrastructure. In a long-term reauthorization bill, we must 

prioritize investing in human capital and worker training. We must also ensure a 

level playing field for women and minority contractors. I’m pleased to welcome Al 

Stanley who is here today on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
4 

ica. Mr. Stanley, we welcome your insight into industry needs and best practices on 

workforce development. Thank you for being here today. 

Of course, our Subcommittee cannot get a bill to the President’s desk without 

finding the means to pay for these investments. For that, we need the Committee 

on Ways and Means to act to raise Federal revenue. It is time for Congress to step 

up and address the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. I am pleased that the 

Ways and Means Committee took the first step and held a hearing on this pressing 

issue last week. 

As the funding debate goes on, we must do our work on this Subcommittee and 

develop a sound plan that directs investment to projects and priorities that will 

move our country forward. Thank you to the witnesses for sharing your ideas on 

that front this morning. I look forward to your testimony. 

Ms. NORTON. Now I am going to ask the ranking member to 

make his opening statement at this time. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and it is a pleasure 

to be able to have this opportunity to work with you. I am very 

thankful to our leader, Ranking Member Graves, for giving me this 

opportunity to chair this—to be the ranking member of this subcommittee. Sorry about that. Sometimes old habits are hard to 

break. 

I really want to thank, too, my good friend and the chairman of 

the full committee, Peter DeFazio. I have got a great working relationship with the chairman, and our years that we have served together on this committee. 

And he is—he and also Chair—Madam Chairman Holmes Norton, they want to work with us. They want to get things done. And 

that is really where I think this committee can rise above, and this 

subcommittee can rise above the partisan politics that we see kind 

of take over what is happening here in Washington. 

You know, you mention the size of this subcommittee. It is actually six times the size of the full committee I serve on that I am 

the full committee ranking member of, the Committee on House 

Administration. But it also shows the importance of where we are 

as a nation, when it comes to reinvesting and rebuilding our crumbling roads and infrastructure. And if this subcommittee is any indication, this will be where that bipartisan agreement comes from. 

As everyone here knows, the FAST Act that provided $281 billion 

for Federal surface transportation programs expires at the end of 

September of 2020. Madam Chair and I, along with Chairman 

DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, we will work together to develop a long-term strategy on how to address our Nation’s infrastructure needs. But it has got to be a bipartisan bill to put a reauthorization forward. 

With this being our first hearing on reauthorization, I think it 

is important to note how critical this bill is to ensuring a good 

quality of life for all Americans, and to supporting our economy. 

This bill, surface reauthorization bill, will allow the Federal Government to continue its longstanding role in infrastructure investment. But we have got some big challenges and some opportunities 

before us. Now let me highlight a few of them. 

First, the Highway Trust Fund is not able to meet our surface 

transportation needs as they stand today, let alone our future 

needs. Congress and the administration must come together and 

find a way to shore up the Highway Trust Fund, providing sustainable funding for our Nation’s infrastructure needs. 

5 

Second, while our current system has significant needs, we must 

also begin to prepare for the future. Underinvestment has taken its 

toll on the system’s ability to move people and also freight. We face 

increasing congestion, delays, and safety issues. Not only is adequate infrastructure investment important to mobility, it also creates jobs and allows our economy to prosper. 

Third, as this process moves forward, it is essential we find ways 

to build more efficiently so we can stretch the Federal dollar. We 

need to identify and attack hidden project costs by streamlining the 

project delivery process and reducing burdensome regulations. And 

this committee has a history of doing so. 

And lastly, by incorporating technologies and other innovations, 

we have the opportunity to increase safety and efficiency in our entire surface transportation system. 

I believe we can look forward to and I believe we can do these 

things and come to an agreement. And I look forward to working 

with my colleagues on these very important issues. 

And I want to take an opportunity to say thank you to each of 

the witnesses that are here today, too. And I look forward to your 

testimony. 

[Mr. Davis’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

As everyone here knows, the FAST Act, which provided $281 billion for federal 

surface transportation programs, expires on September 30, 2020. Chairwoman Norton and I, along with Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, will work 

together to develop a long-term, bipartisan bill to reauthorize surface transportation 

programs. 

With this being our first hearing on reauthorization, it is important to note how 

critical this bill is to ensuring a good quality of life for all Americans and to supporting the U.S. economy. The surface transportation reauthorization bill will allow 

the federal government to continue its long-standing role in infrastructure investment. But we have some big challenges and opportunities before us. Let me highlight a few of them. 

First, the Highway Trust Fund is not able to meet our surface transportation 

needs as they stand today, let alone our future needs. Congress and the Administration must come together and find a way to shore-up the Highway Trust Fund, providing sustainable funding for our Nation’s surface transportation programs. 

Second, while our current surface transportation system has significant needs, we 

must also begin to prepare for the future. Underinvestment has taken its toll on 

the system’s ability to move people and freight—we face increasing congestion, 

delays, and safety issues. Not only is adequate infrastructure investment important 

to mobility, it also creates jobs and allows our economy to prosper. 

Third, as the reauthorization process moves forward, it is essential that we find 

ways to build more efficiently—to stretch the federal dollar. We need to identify and 

attack hidden project costs by streamlining the project delivery process and reducing 

burdensome regulations. 

And lastly, by incorporating technologies and other innovations, we have the opportunity to increase safety and efficiency in our surface transportation system. 

In closing, to quote the greatest band of the 90’s and 2000’s, ‘‘if today was your 

last day, and tomorrow was too late,’’ can we reach an agreement on reauthorization? I believe we can and look forward to working with my colleagues this Congress 

to achieve this goal. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. I am going to go to the—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to go to—— 

6 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks. 

Ms. NORTON. If he will let me. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NORTON. To the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. First, I would like to give you this, Eleanor [giving a box to Ms. Norton]. I am a bit pressed for time, and 

I will miss some of your testimony because I have to have my third 

call in 3 days with the FAA about 737s. 

So just briefly, we have a little cognitive dissonance this week. 

We have the President’s budget, which again proposes, you know, 

cuts pretty much across the board in transportation, on one hand, 

but then talks about the fairy dust of leveraging $200 billion of 

Federal money into $1 trillion of investment, something we all 

know is impossible. It was part of the plan last year by D.J. 

Gribbin, which I am not aware of a single Member of Congress supporting, because it was so fanciful. It was based in so-called asset 

recycling, privatization, tolling, whatever. 

We need to do something real, and it is long overdue. We held 

the first hearing in the full committee on the cost of inaction, doing 

nothing. And now we are going to start talking about how we fund 

and move forward with the longer term bill. 

You know, CRs hurt, in terms of construction. States will delay 

major projects if we are in CR mode, because they don’t know what 

the long-term prospect is for a major project. I was one of the few 

Democrats to vote against the so-called Recovery Act, because it 

was all based in shovel-ready projects, running out and putting 

down pavement on top of pavement, as opposed to addressing some 

of the major deficiencies in the system, the bridges, or whatever 

you wanted to address with real investment, where you get secondary and tertiary employment effects. Contractors didn’t buy any 

new equipment, because they knew it was a 1-year thing to go out 

and put down a little bit of pavement. So the manufacturers of 

equipment didn’t get the orders, and so on and so on, down the 

line. 

We need a long-term vision. We need long-term funding. The 

Committee on Ways and Means did hold a hearing last week, the 

first hearing, substantive hearing, by that committee on infrastructure funding, in almost a decade. So that is progress. 

But again, people wanted to fall to easy solutions. Oh, all we 

need is an investment bank. Or, oh, let’s go to vehicle miles traveled tomorrow. We can’t and we won’t. As far as a private investment bank goes, we have already got TIFIA. Yes, if you want to 

have a private investment bank, that is great. But you are still 

competing for the same 12 percent of the projects that can fund a 

revenue stream to repay those projects. That means we have got 

another 88 percent of need here. 

There is no transit system in the world that makes money. So 

we can’t pretend that we are going to suddenly have massive private investment in rebuilding the $100 billion of deficit we need 

just to bring existing transit up to a state of good repair, which 

would attract a lot more riders, let alone building out new transit 

options for people. 

7 

So, you know, we are here to make the case. We know the policies we need, we know we need more investment. We have to make 

the case to America, we have to make the case to this administration, we have to make the case to some of our colleagues here in 

Congress, that you can’t just paper this over again. 

The FAST Act papered it over. They pretended to, you know, create money. We are actually borrowing money to put in the trust 

fund right now. We are not admitting it because we had illusory 

phoney pay-fors that the Republicans stuck in the bill. But it was 

status quo funding. That was not adequate. 

I did, after a long battle, get a provision in the bill that says any 

additional real funds allocated by Congress will immediately flow 

through the policies in this bill. So we don’t have to have a lengthy 

authorization fight to get some money out there soon. 

We are, at the same time, working on a long-term reauthorization, which, as Eleanor said, will be iterative. It is going to be the 

first 21st-century authorization, and it will be different than the repetitive things we have done, building on the Eisenhower legacy, 

which was a great legacy. But it is time to move on to more progressive things. 

[Mr. DeFazio’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis, for holding this hearing. 

Without question, the most imperative work this Subcommittee will undertake in 

the 116th Congress is crafting a surface transportation authorization bill. 

Although the deadline when highway and transit programs expire—September 

2020—may seem a comfortable distance on the Congressional calendar, we don’t 

have time to spare. We must find a solution immediately to a very real and very 

looming funding crisis in order to make reauthorization possible. 

We are just one week away from the official start of spring—and the start of the 

construction season in many parts of the country. Thanks to the FAST Act, States 

and local governments go into this construction season with certainty when it comes 

to highway and transit investments. That will not be the case for much longer. 

Planning projects, signing contracts, and hiring workers will all grind to a halt next 

year if Congress fails to enact a reauthorization bill. 

When we get too close to the wire on passing an authorization—or when the 

amount or availability of Federal funding becomes uncertain with Continuing Resolutions and government shutdowns—it has real effects on stalling highway and 

transit projects. Earlier this year, we saw evidence of this, when Oklahoma announced that 45 projects were being delayed due to the government shutdown. In 

the spring of 2015, as Congress was beginning its process to develop the FAST Act, 

several States announced they would delay the start of projects over uncertainty 

about whether and when Federal funds would come. 

Last week, the Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing on finding a sustainable solution to highway and transit funding. The hearing demonstrated once 

again that there is near unanimous support among stakeholders for finding real revenues. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL–CIO, and the American Trucking 

Associations were all in firm agreement that the cost of inaction to businesses, 

workers, and the economy is real. Even more importantly, the unequivocal willingness of the business community to pay higher user fees in order to have better infrastructure is equally real. This is consistent with the message this Committee has 

heard from stakeholders for years. 

It is time for this clear willingness to translate into action by Congress to do the 

right thing and raise real revenues. At the hearing, many Republican members of 

the Committee advocated for private investment, pushing State and local governments to do more on their own, and stripping transit out of the Highway Trust 

Fund. Let me be clear—this is the opposite of raising real revenue. This lowest-comVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
8 

mon-denominator mentality does nothing to address structurally deficient bridges, 

crippling congestion, or the need to build more resilient infrastructure. In fact, it 

does the opposite by cementing underinvestment as a strategy. 

I see plenty of opportunity in the upcoming surface transportation bill to improve 

highway and transit programs. We can save time and money in project delivery 

through smarter design, increased accountability, and tougher procurement rules. 

We can learn from and reward State innovation, and we can provide more local control over transportation dollars. We can harness the power of technologies to reduce 

congestion and increase safety. We can invest in electrification and other strategies 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And with every dollar, we can create and sustain more good-paying American jobs and support U.S. manufacturing. 

But all of that will only become a reality if we get serious about finding the money 

and come to agreement that there is no time to wait. Thank you, Madam Chair, 

and I look forward to the testimony. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So, with that, I have to go take a call from the Administrator, but I will be back. Thank you very much, I appreciate 

it. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank our distinguished chairman for giving me a gavel. There is nothing more precious than having your 

own gavel. And it even has my name on it. So I appreciate that 

very much, sir. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. NORTON. As I think was mentioned, this hearing is being 

held here. This is not our hearing room. Our hearing room will be 

available in May. Therefore, you will see our Members having to 

come all the way over from, usually, Rayburn. 

For example, I have another very important committee meeting 

going on right now. I just can’t go, so I regret that. But Members 

will come in when they can, and we understand. 

We really have here a cross-section of witnesses to open today’s 

hearing, so that we begin to get the lay of the land. 

We have the mayor of the city of San Antonio—the fastest growing city, I believe, in the United States—Mayor Ron Nirenberg. 

Mr. Roger Millar, who is the secretary of the Washington State 

Department of Transportation, is here on behalf of the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

We have Darran Anderson, the director of strategy and innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation, but he is here on 

behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance—a very important new 

area for us. 

Jack Clark, the executive director of the Transportation Learning 

Center. 

Therese McMillan, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations. 

Al Stanley, vice president of Stanley Construction Company on 

behalf of Associated General Contractors of America. 

And Michael Terry, who is president and CEO of IndyGo, Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, here on behalf of the 

American Public Transportation Association. 

So we will start with Mr. Nirenberg. But before we begin, we 

would like Mr. Carson, my good friend from Indianapolis, to introduce Mr. Terry, who is a constituent from his own district. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, your excellency, Chairwoman Norton, 

and to Ranking Member Davis, for allowing me to speak today. I 

9 

am going to have to leave. I know this isn’t my committee, but I 

have another commitment. 

I am honored to introduce a friend and fellow Hoosier, Mike 

Terry. Congressman Pence knows Mr. Terry, as well. 

IndyGo is the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation. It 

is our largest transportation provider in the great Hoosier State, 

and it has been led by Mike Terry since 2009. And Madam Chair, 

under his great leadership, IndyGo was awarded funding under the 

Obama administration to build the first green bus rapid transit 

program in the country. 

Despite the current administration’s recommendations to terminate this funding, Mike’s steady leadership helped win a voter initiative that added State funding to this transit program, and he 

worked with our congressional delegation to secure the appropriations needed to build an innovative system that we believe will be 

a smart model for other mid-sized cities. 

Mr. Terry, thank you for your leadership and for testifying today 

to share your thoughts with my colleagues. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Carson. 

Without objection, our witnesses’ full statements will be included 

in the record. 

Since your testimony, your entire testimony, will be made a part 

of the record, we ask that you limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. 

Mayor Nirenberg, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RON NIRENBERG, MAYOR, CITY OF SAN 

ANTONIO, TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE 

OF CITIES; ROGER MILLAR, PE, FASCE, FAICP, SECRETARY, 

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE 

HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; DARRAN ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND INNOVATION, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE 

TEXAS INNOVATION ALLIANCE; JOHN KEVIN ‘‘JACK’’ CLARK, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION LEARNING CENTER; THERESE W. MCMILLAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, ON BEHALF 

OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS; AL STANLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, STANLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA; AND MICHAEL 

TERRY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION (INDYGO), ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

(APTA) 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member 

Davis, and members of the subcommittee. I am Ron Nirenberg, the 

mayor of San Antonio, Texas, the Nation’s seventh largest and fastest growing city in the United States. I am honored to be here 

today on behalf of the residents of San Antonio and also the National League of Cities, the Nation’s oldest and largest network of 

cities, towns, and villages across America. 

10 

Right now there are over 2,000 local officials here in DC meeting 

with their Members of Congress to emphasize a simple message: 

Invest in America’s infrastructure. 

America’s cities and local leaders are ready to work with this 

committee to reauthorize our essential transportation programs. 

We believe that investing in infrastructure should be Congress’ top 

priority this year. 

As mayors, we are tasked with fixing everything under the sun, 

from street maintenance and congestion to air quality and pollution. And as fellow Texan, President Lyndon B. Johnson, once remarked, ‘‘When the burdens of the Presidency seem unusually 

heavy, I always remind myself it could be worse. I could be a 

mayor.’’ 

The challenges that cities and towns must confront are great and 

growing, but so are the opportunities for investment and innovation. We believe that the greatest opportunity in front of this committee is to partner and to collaborate with America’s mayors and 

the National League of Cities to address our shared infrastructure 

priorities. We believe that Congress should focus on three key 

areas: modern mobility, regional connectivity, and safety. 

Cities believe the mobility of our citizens should be the new 

measure of success in the next reauthorization. This focus on mobility is to move people in the most efficient, effective, and safest 

way possible. Today the transportation marketplace is undergoing 

a technological revolution. It is unmistakable. From ridesharing to 

e-scooters, entrepreneurs are innovating to meet the demand for 

more and better transit options. We believe in supporting innovation with responsible rules of the road, and by investing in infrastructure that is durable and adaptable to the future. 

In San Antonio we are working on a framework for modern mobility called ConnectSA. This initiative builds off past community 

planning efforts around land use, buses, bikes, and roads. The goal 

is to integrate all of our infrastructure investments to achieve a 

more efficient transportation network that moves people more safely and more effectively. ConnectSA will leverage first- and last-mile 

technology, build an advanced rapid transit network over 500 

square miles on dedicated lanes, and improve the bus system for 

more frequent ridership. We have a menu of local revenue options 

to fund this investment, but a Federal partnership is absolutely 

necessary for success. 

Our cities are rapidly growing, and we have to provide more 

transit choices to alleviate traffic congestion and to grow our economy. The U.S. is now the most congested developed nation in the 

world, with Americans spending an entire workweek each year 

stuck in traffic. And San Antonio, by 2040, will add another million 

more people. And with the additional cars we will lose yet another 

workweek in traffic. We have to be proactive in addressing this 

challenge. 

The fastest growing region in the Nation is the 74-mile corridor 

anchored by Austin and San Antonio. Achieving the full economic 

potential of this mega-region requires investing in regional 

connectivity and reducing congestion. Current congestion risks this 

growth coming to a grinding halt. By 2040 the Interstate 35 corridor between San Antonio and Austin will exceed or rival DallasVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
11 

Fort Worth. We are working with our metropolitan planning organizations to expand capacity and utilize technology, and a regional 

rail line continues to hold enormous promise. We need a Federal 

partner that invests in regional connectivity to expand our economy. 

Finally, a transportation system is only as effective as it is safe. 

In addition to modern mobility and regional connectivity, safety is 

a top priority for our cities. This is an ongoing crisis that deserves 

more attention. Cities—along with our health professionals, safety 

workers, transportation leaders—believe that zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on our roads. So we are all working towards Vision Zero efforts. Saving lives on our Nation’s roads is a 

shared priority. 

Additional funding for safety nets that are both data-driven and 

evidence-based would make our transportation system much safer. 

The cities and mayors of America are here to be your partners on 

progress for surface transportation. We urge you to make investing 

and infrastructure, modern mobility, regional connectivity, and 

safety your top priority. America’s economy will only move as well 

as its transportation system. And our children and grandchildren’s 

quality of life depends on us making bold decisions together. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[Mr. Nirenberg’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio, 

Texas, on behalf of the National League of Cities 

Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Ron Nirenberg, Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, the nation’s seventh largest 

city and the fastest growing city in the U.S. I am honored to be here today on behalf 

of the city of San Antonio and the National League of Cities (NLC), the nation’s oldest and largest network of cities, towns and villages across America. 

REBUILD AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE

Cities are ready to work with this Committee to increase infrastructure investment and to reauthorize our essential transportation programs. In fact, right now 

there are over 2,000 local officials in D.C. here to meet with their Members of Congress to reiterate that infrastructure must be Congress’ top priority this year. We 

ask that this Committee work with local leaders to forge a bipartisan path forward. 

Local leaders want to play a larger role in rebuilding America’s infrastructure in 

collaboration with our Federal and state partners. Every day, city leaders hear from 

our citizens, and they’re quick to tell us—they want modern mobility options that 

are efficient, reliable, cost-effective, and safe. From budget commitments to bonding 

to ballot initiatives, local officials have shown that when given the opportunity to 

leverage Federal investments in our regions and give our citizens the mobility they 

want, we will follow through. 

Today, you have asked for our feedback on aligning our transportation policy to 

meet cities’ needs across the country. We believe strongly the U.S. needs to shape 

its transportation approach for the future with both our growing megaregions and 

our small towns in mind. Cities like San Antonio are growing rapidly along with 

congestion that demands new approaches, not just more lanes. We should all be 

equally invested in bridging the urban-rural divide in our country because investing 

in what connects every American is a predictor of success for both rural and urban 

areas. To accomplish this, local leaders encourage Congress to focus on three key 

areas: investing in mobility, regional connectivity, and data-driven safety programs. 

INVEST IN CITIZENS’ MOBILITY

Cities believe the mobility of our citizens should be our new measure of success 

in the next reauthorization. Cities of all sizes are not only piloting technology-driven 

12 

solutions with their partners but are harnessing new mobility options in their existing pain points and throughout their regions. Without a doubt, we also acknowledge 

these new mobility options are not replacing our existing strategic transportation 

investments. In fact, they are more important than ever because innovators are 

leveraging them. Ride hailing use our roads and curb space. Rapid buses move on 

dedicated road lanes. Bikeshare and scooters use bike lanes and transit exchange 

points. Traffic management solutions leverage our city signs, lights and broadband. 

Investing in mobility is about committing to innovation and building off our strategic assets. 

In San Antonio, we are embracing this strategy. We are building a framework for 

modern mobility called ConnectSA. We are focused on better access for all our citizens by leveraging innovative transit options and improving traffic flow through our 

city. Our goal is to seamlessly integrate last-mile options like scooters and bikes and 

to invest in reliable and frequent buses for an advanced rapid transit network while 

we manage congestion to accommodate our future growth. 

Local officials also recognize that innovation is currently not equally distributed. 

However, if Congress could right-sized Federal programs for urban, growing and 

small communities, new mobility models could move more quickly into small and 

medium communities. Communities of all sizes see tremendous value in right-sizing 

technology and mobility models to allow greater on-demand service for both seniors, 

workers heading to major employers, and for late-shift workers to have a dependable ride home. Investing in mobility like this could change the lives of so many 

of our residents at home. 

INVEST IN REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY

The U.S. is now the most congested developed country in the world, with Americans spending an entire work week each year stuck in traffic. More than two out 

of every five miles of the nation’s urban interstates are congested, and most of them 

flow straight through our major urban cores. Creating and sustaining a transportation network that works—a platform for commerce and human interaction—is one 

of the oldest and most important functions of government. 

The fastest growing region in the Nation is the 74-mile corridor anchored by San 

Antonio and Austin. This is the western half of the Texas Triangle, and America’s 

next great metropolis. We have all the elements of a successful metro economy: 

world-class universities, an educated and expanding workforce, a burgeoning tech 

community, relatively affordable land and a business friendly environment. Achieving the full economic potential of this San Antonio-Austin mega-region requires investing in connectivity to reduce congestion. Current congestion risks this growth 

coming to a grinding halt. By 2040, the Interstate 35 coordinator population will 

rival the Dallas-Fort Worth area’s current size. We are working with our metropolitan planning organizations to expand capacity and utilize technology, and a regional 

rail line continues to hold enormous promise. 

We need a Federal partner that invests in the essential connectivity options that 

will keep our regions growing. A regionally driven strategy can build partnerships 

and bold solutions that fit each area’s needs. One size will not fit all, but no one 

is better equipped to evaluate and prioritize than those on the ground at the local 

and regional level. New programs, Federal Surface Transportation Block Grants, 

Transit New Starts, Transportation Alternatives, multimodal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) and Better Utilizing Investments to 

Leverage Development (BUILD) grants, and smaller grants like Mobility on Demand will all be critical to a future of innovative mobility and regional cooperation. 

Demand for these grants far exceeds the amount of available funds. Each year, 

USDOT sees many times more applications for BUILD grants than they have funds 

available which should be a startling statistic if we are committed to meeting America’s intermodal needs for the future. 

INVEST IN DATA-DRIVEN SAFETY

In the U.S., crashes and collisions on the roadways are the leading cause of death 

for people between the ages of 5 and 24 and the cause of over 2.5 million injuries. 

Cities—along with our health professionals, our public safety workers, our transportation leaders—believe that zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on our 

roads. In the Road to Zero coalition, we are proud to be joined by over 900 partners 

to: 

• Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based strategies 

• Advance life-saving technology in vehicles and infrastructure 

• Prioritize safety by adopting a safe-systems approach and creating a positive 

safety culture 

13 

Cites, like San Antonio, are leading Vision Zero efforts, but saving lives on the 

nation’s roads is a joint responsibility. Additional funding to safety efforts that are 

both data-driven and corridor-driven, taking systems-based approaches, and deploying technical experts across regions could drive results. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, this reauthorization’s transportation investment could bring new mobility, connectivity and safety to our hometowns. Cities believe that Congress must 

continue to be a steady Federal investment partner in infrastructure through the 

Highway Trust Fund, and it has become an economic and safety risk to not adequately fund a multimodal transportation system. We encourage Congress to set a 

new revenue course for the future that also course corrects our policies to leverage 

the innovation happening in transportation and invest in the mobility for our citizens. 

Cities are ready to step up and be a true partner in these efforts. I look forward 

to any questions you might have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mayor Nirenberg. 

Mr. Millar, secretary of the Washington State Department of 

Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials, you may proceed for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member 

Davis, for inviting me to participate in this hearing. I am Roger 

Millar, the secretary of the Washington State Department of 

Transportation. 

Today it is my honor, on behalf of the State of Washington and 

AASHTO, which represents the transportation departments of all 

50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico—so it is my honor to 

present on their behalf. 

I am going to focus my comments today on strengthening the 

Federal-State-local partnership model, improving the delivery of 

projects to save time and money, utilizing innovation to address 

mobility challenges, including safety, state of good repair, congestion, and universal access, and supporting good jobs in a qualified 

transportation workforce. 

As the Congress considers FAST Act reauthorization, AASHTO 

urges that you retain the current highway and transit program 

framework. This includes retaining the current mass transit account within the Highway Trust Fund and retaining relative distributions. Additionally, we strongly recommend that Federal funds 

continue to be provided through the existing formula-based structure directly to the States. And we urge Congress to enact a revenue solution for the Highway Trust Fund, and to address the $7.6 

billion rescission of unobligated contract authority that is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2020. 

States are eager to find ways to improve the delivery of projects 

to save time and money, while properly engaging diverse stakeholders and protecting the environment. Over the past several decades, significant progress has been made towards the goal of improving project delivery, including through provisions in 

SAFETEA–LU, MAP–21, and the FAST Act. 

As you all know, NEPA is not a permit you apply for. It is, rather, a broad, transparent environmental review and decisionmaking 

process. 

In Washington State, 90 percent of our projects in our last three 

major transportation packages since 2005 have been delivered on 

14 

or ahead of schedule and on or under budget. So project delivery 

has not been a problem in Washington State. 

In Washington State, 94 percent of our projects are already excluded from NEPA through the use of categorical exclusions. The 

project types that we invest in have been proven to not negatively 

impact communities or the environment. 

For our large projects that require detailed NEPA documents, we 

find that the robust community and agency involvement we participate in and lead upfront leads to better outcomes, adherence to 

budget and schedule, and broad acceptance and support for the 

projects. 

Each State DOT has its own experience. Speaking on behalf of 

all the AASHTO members I can tell you that some of our States 

believe the NEPA process still takes too long and is too costly. 

Federal programs should support State DOTs that take innovative approaches to improving mobility. We continue to evolve from 

highway builders of the last century to stewards of the 21st-century multimodal transportation system. 

At WSDOT we recognize that we can’t build our way out of congestion, and so we are instead focused on an actionable path forward in a congested world with limited resources. We are working 

on innovative approaches that encompass cooperative, automated 

transportation, mobility on demand, transportation system management and operations, transportation demand management, addressing the complex relationship between transportation and land 

use, providing a more complete suite of multimodal transportation 

choices, and making targeted investments in roadway capacity. 

We are using managed lanes and congestion pricing, where appropriate, to improve mobility and move more people on the infrastructure we have in place. We are making investments in items 

like ramp meters and variable speeds message signs to improve our 

capacities. 

We are expanding our nationally recognized commute trip reduction program to address travel modes other than the commute, because we find that today only 16 percent of our total traffic is commute traffic. The rest of it is people going about their business in 

different ways. 

Finally, State DOTs need a well-trained and diverse workforce to 

deliver 21st-century transportation programs. The Washington 

State DOT expects to lose a significant number of our employees 

through retirement in the next 5 years, including 31 percent of our 

maintenance staff and 41 percent of our engineers. If you look at 

our Washington State ferries, the men and women who drive our 

boats, 75 percent of them are eligible to retire in the next 5 years. 

And that is not a license you pick up down at the DMV. 

We also have significant gaps in our available workforce for our 

contractor and consulting partners. State DOTs can’t deliver our 

programs without qualified personnel. So Congress should continue 

to support important programs like STEM education, on-the-job 

training, supportive services, and disadvantaged business enterprise supportive services to help us bring the people we need to the 

workforce to deliver the program. 

In conclusion, we remain committed to assisting Congress in the 

development of strategies to ensure long-term economic growth, 

15 

and enhance quality of life through robust, multimodal transportation investments. 

Thank you again for the honor and the opportunity to testify 

today. 

[Mr. Millar’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP, Secretary, Washington State Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide the perspective of the nation’s state departments of transportation on aligning Federal surface transportation policy to meet 

twenty-first century needs. 

My name is Roger Millar, and I serve as Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and as a member of the Board of Directors 

and Chair of the Council on Public Transportation of the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the great State of Washington and AASHTO, which represents the 

transportation departments of all 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. 

I joined WSDOT as Deputy Secretary in October 2015 and was appointed Secretary of Transportation in August 2016. I’ve spent over 40 years working in the 

transportation industry at the local and state level and in the private sector. The 

prominent theme that has run through my career has been planning and implementing transportation systems that are not ends unto themselves; but rather the 

means toward economic vitality, environmental stewardship, social equity, public 

health, and aesthetic quality. 

I oversee an agency that is the steward of Washington State’s multimodal transportation system and responsible for ensuring that people and goods move safely 

and efficiently. In addition to building, maintaining, and operating the state highway system, WSDOT operates the largest ferry system in the Nation, sponsors the 

Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service, owns and operates 16 airports, 

and owns a 300-mile short-line freight rail system. We work in partnership with 

others to maintain and improve local roads, railroads and airports, as well as to 

support mobility options such as public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian programs. 

Having this important conversation on the future direction of Federal surface 

transportation policy could not be timelier in light of the discussion around an infrastructure package and pending reauthorization of the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act. Given the ever-increasing pace of change in our world— 

through technological advances, workforce challenges, demographic changes, environmental instability, and economic uncertainty—there is tremendous opportunity 

to make Federal policy more proactive, flexible, and adaptable. 

State DOTs have already taken signification action in modernizing our policy and 

technical development at AASHTO, with our Board of Directors approving a reorganization of the AASHTO committee structure in 2016. This was the culmination of 

an 18-month effort led by a committee of state DOT CEOs and senior DOT officials. 

This modernized committee structure is inclusive of all disciplines, addresses stateidentified priorities and emerging issues, and is intended to be more efficient and 

nimbler in its decisionmaking. 

Perhaps the hallmark of this change is putting all modes of transportation on 

equal footing when it comes to policymaking. AASHTO now formulates transportation policy through its six modal councils—active transportation, aviation, highways and streets, public transportation that I now chair, rail transportation, and 

water transportation—plus a special committee on freight, which I chaired until recently, all of which support the new AASHTO Transportation Policy Forum as the 

holistic policymaking body for the Association. 

My remarks today center around the following key points: 

• Strengthening the Federal/State/local partnership model 

• The current Federal program structure for highway and transit programs 

must be preserved. 

• Congress needs to enact a permanent revenue solution for the Highway Trust 

Fund. 

• Improving the delivery of projects to save time and money 

16 

• States are eager to find ways to improve the delivery of projects to save time 

and money, while properly engaging diverse stakeholders in program and 

project development, upholding environmental safeguards and providing resiliency. 

• Utilizing innovation to address mobility challenges, including safety, state of 

good repair, congestion, and universal access 

• Federal programs should support state DOTs that take innovative approaches 

to transportation system management, demand management, and improved 

mobility. 

• The Federal program must support and provide sufficient flexibility to allow 

state DOTs to harness innovation and technology. 

• Supporting good jobs and a qualified transportation workforce 

• Congress should continue to fund programs that support the development of 

a diverse and robust workforce suitable for staffing the development and delivery of twenty-first century transportation programs. 

As you examine what works well and what doesn’t, I urge you to make sure that 

policies that work effectively are not discarded or nullified in the name of major reform. 

STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL PARTNERSHIP MODEL

The current Federal program structure for highway and transit programs must be 

preserved. 

The state DOTs have the utmost appreciation for your Subcommittee’s leadership, 

along with your House and Senate peers in partner committees to shepherd the 

FAST Act in December 2015. This legislation has ensured much-needed funding stability in the federally supported passenger rail, freight, safety, highway, and transit 

programs through 2020. 

To further build on the Federal surface transportation’s solid foundation, we believe that it is time for all transportation stakeholders—led by Congress and the 

President—to begin work on reauthorizing the FAST Act now. We are extremely 

grateful for the work of this Subcommittee in that regard. We need to ensure a 

smooth transition upon the FAST Act’s expiration on September 30, 2020, without 

the need for disruptive extensions of the program. 

As part of the work of AASHTO’s Transportation Policy Forum, we are currently 

in the process of gathering expert input from our wide range of technical and modal 

committees comprising leaders from all state DOTs. We’re also seeking our industry 

partners’ input during this process prior to our formal adoption later next year, in 

order to maximize the inclusivity of perspectives in our policy recommendations to 

come. 

As FAST Act reauthorization gets under way, AASHTO urges Congress to retain 

the current highway and transit program framework as the core foundation on 

which modernizing policy improvements can be made. This means not only retaining 

the current Mass Transit Account within the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and their 

relative distributions of receipts in place since 1983, but also maintaining the current maximum non-Federal match ratios for both highway and transit programs. 

Furthermore, we strongly recommend that Federal funds continue to be provided 

through the existing formula-based program structure directly to states rather than 

looking at untested new approaches that will require more time and oversight. 

For over one hundred years, we as a nation have enjoyed the fruits of the Federal 

Government’s highly successful partnership with state DOTs to build and maintain 

our surface transportation system. Beginning with the Federal-aid Road Act of 1916 

establishing the foundation of a federally funded, state-administered highway program that has been well-suited to a growing and geographically diverse nation like 

ours, Federal investment in all modes of transportation have allowed states and 

their local partners to fund a wide range of projects that serve the interest of the 

Nation as a whole. 

The Federal surface transportation program’s inherent flexibility defers project selection and investment decisionmaking to state and local governments. And these 

important decisions are based on extensive public input from local communities and 

businesses to address their unique needs and ensure goods get access to a larger 

market than ever before. Formula programs remain the optimal approach to serve 

all corners of our country, improving mobility and quality of life in urban, suburban, 

and rural areas. 

Congress needs to enact a permanent revenue solution for the Highway Trust Fund. 

I’m sure you have already heard these numbers, but they bear repeating. The investment backlog for transportation infrastructure continues to increase—reaching 

17 

$836 billion for highways and bridges and $122 billion for transit according to the 

US Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) 2015 Conditions and Performance report. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers, upon whose Board of Direction I sit, has identified a $1.1 trillion funding gap for surface transportation between 2016 and 2025. It is also telling to look where our nation stands relative to 

global peers in infrastructure quality and economic competitiveness. The 2018 Global Competitiveness Report rankings from the World Economic Forum on infrastructure quality has listed the United States at just ninth place overall. 

Yet at the same time, in order to simply maintain the current HTF spending levels adjusted for inflation after the FAST Act, Congress will need to identify $114 

billion in additional HTF receipts to support a 6-year bill through 2026. All the 

while the purchasing power of HTF revenues has declined substantially mainly due 

to the flat, per-gallon motor fuel taxes that have not been adjusted since 1993, losing over half of its value in the last quarter century. Doubling the Federal gas tax 

today would bring us back the purchasing power of that tax in 1993. Catching up 

to late-twentieth century Federal investment levels will not keep the United States 

competitive moving forward into the twenty-first century. 

These dire trends mean that absent a revenue fix by 2020, the HTF is expected 

to experience a significant cash shortfall leading to an estimated 51 percent drop 

in Federal highway obligations from the year before, or from $47 billion to $23 billion, and a zeroing out of Federal obligations from the Mass Transit Account in 2021 

and 2022. In the past, such similar shortfall situations have led to the possibility 

of a reduction in Federal reimbursements to states on existing obligations, leading 

to serious cash-flow problems for states and project delays. Simply put, this is a devastating scenario that we must do all we can to avoid. 

In addition to the massive cash shortfall issue facing the HTF, the FAST Act included a $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated highway contract authority to take effect on July 1, 2020, as a means to bring the spending baseline back to the 2015 

level on paper. Unfortunately, the contract authority rescission is a budgetary artifice that at best impedes the flexibility of state DOTs to meet their individual infrastructure needs by disrupting transportation planning and timely delivery of 

projects; and at worst, the cumulative effect of rescissions—with over $22 billion enacted since 2002—can wipe out the entire balance of contract authority held by 

states which will lead to hard funding cuts to Federal dollars authorized under the 

FAST Act. 

We in the transportation industry do everything in our power to build important 

projects as fast as possible, but due to the nature of large capital programs, the lack 

of stable, predictable funding from the HTF makes it nearly impossible for state 

DOTs to plan for large projects that need a reliable flow of funding over multiple 

years. Transportation projects large and small around the country will be put at 

risk near the expiration of the FAST Act if Congress fails to address both the impending HTF shortfall and repeal of the FAST Act rescission. 

Such delays have serious economic consequences both in the short- and long-term, 

as these projects employ thousands of companies and hundreds of thousands of 

workers every year. More importantly, these projects are what connect the traveling 

public to the many facets of their lives. Once completed, they help stimulate economic growth and improve quality of life in every community where they are built. 

Federal funding currently covers approximately 20 percent of WSDOT’s budget. 

We use the vast majority of our Federal funds to preserve the National Highway 

System. While the Federal fuel tax has not been raised since 1993, Washington 

state has increased its Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax by over 26 cents since 2003 to a total 

of 49.4 cents. While our state legislature has stepped up to the plate to address the 

need for transportation investment in Washington, those investments have not adequately provided for the preservation of our roads, bridges, ferries, train sets, and 

aviation infrastructure. Our current annual unfunded preservation need is approximately $700 million. 

Predictable funding from the Federal Government to maintain the National Highway System in a state of good repair is necessary if we are to compete effectively 

in a global economy. Washington is one of the most trade-centric states in the Nation, with almost $600 billion in annual trade-related economic activity. Preserving 

our transportation system in a state of good repair and managing the capacity of 

that system effectively are essential to moving products to market. In the next decade, with current funding levels, we are likely to see bridges closed, speed limits 

reduced, and routes not adequately preserved, significantly impacting the ability of 

businesses to compete globally. 

Based on FY 2018 ending balances, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

projects Washington State will be faced with a $117 million rescission in 2020. If 

18 

rescinded, we would be left with no apportionment balances at the end of the FAST 

Act. 

We must take advantage of the short window of time we have right now to head 

off the dual threat of a HTF funding cliff and a large rescission in 2020. If we miss 

this opportunity for action, the extremely costly and disruptive scenario for transportation programs all around the country will become all but inevitable. 

IMPROVING THE DELIVERY OF PROJECTS TO SAVE TIME AND MONEY

States are eager to find ways to improve the delivery of projects to save time and 

money, while properly engaging diverse stakeholders in program and project development, upholding environmental safeguards and providing resiliency. 

Over the past several decades, significant progress has been made toward the goal 

of improving the delivery of transportation projects. This progress has been spurred 

by streamlining measures enacted in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21), and the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act. 

Several of the streamlining measures involve the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and project delivery. Successful measures that WSDOT uses every day: 

• New and revised NEPA categorical exclusions (CEs) to expedite routine activities and projects that don’t impact the environment; 

• Expanded programmatic agreements with FHWA; and 

• Combined documents that all Federal agencies can use for their decisionmaking. 

In Washington, we’ve benefited from each of these improvements. Because the 

NEPA process is scalable, the vast majority (94 percent) of work in our state is excluded from NEPA through the use of CEs. Since 2005, approximately 90 percent 

of WSDOT capital projects have been delivered on or ahead of schedule and on or 

under budget. 

As you know, NEPA is not a permit; rather it is a broad, transparent environmental review and decisionmaking process. Our biggest multimodal projects do require detailed analysis under NEPA. Even for these large projects, we find the robust community and agency involvement up front leads to better outcomes, adherence to budget and schedule, and broader acceptance and support. 

Each state DOT has its own experience. Speaking on behalf of all AASHTO members, I can tell you that even with the improvements to USDOT’s NEPA processes, 

many feel it still takes too long and is too costly. 

AASHTO has outlined the following ideas for future streamlining: 

• Continue to expand programmatic agreements within USDOT and with the 

Federal resource and regulatory agencies; 

• Extend the use of USDOT agency NEPA CE’s to other Federal agencies when 

they are engaged in transportation related activities; and 

• Make the current NEPA assignment more efficient for those states who are able 

to use that option. 

Multiple laws and regulations are considered in the NEPA process, or as we say 

they fall ‘‘under the NEPA umbrella.’’ To achieve further streamlining, focus must 

be paid to not only making continued improvement in the NEPA process itself, but 

also in making the NEPA process work more efficiently with other Federal requirements, all while remaining responsible stewards of taxpayer resources and both 

human and natural environments. 

To make the NEPA process work more smoothly with other substantive environmental requirements, USDOT and state DOTs should work with Federal environmental agencies to develop programmatic approaches to streamline environmental 

processes. 

In Washington, we have a great example of approach. In January of this year, 

we started implementing a new programmatic agreement for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Our partners on this are FHWA and its Western 

Federal Lands office, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the state historic preservation office in consultation 

with 34 federally recognized tribes. As a result, my staff is able to undertake Section 

106 compliance on behalf of FHWA and FTA. 

Programmatic agreements greatly reduce the time and cost needed to meet environmental requirements, while maintaining resource protection and consultation. 

But development of these agreements requires time and resources. To ensure success in developing programmatic agreements, it is essential that adequate Federal 

resources be dedicated to this effort, both within the USDOT and within Federal 

resource agency budgets. 

19 

Under current NEPA regulations, each Federal agency adopts its own list of CEs 

applicable to actions that the agency carries out. If multiple Federal agency approvals are needed for the same project, and only one agency has an applicable CE, then 

that agency can issue a CE, but the other Federal agencies must prepare an Environmental Assessment, slowing down the process unnecessarily. While an existing 

law allows any USDOT agency to use any other USDOT’s agency’s CE, this authority has two important limitations: (1) applies only to USDOT multimodal projects, 

and (2) it does not apply to agencies outside the USDOT. Allowing CEs to be interchangeable between Federal agencies could significantly streamline projects. I have 

two scenarios where this would expedite and simplify approvals while still protecting the environment. 

• First scenario: If the US Army Corps of Engineers is the only Federal agency 

involved in a state funded transportation project (bridge replacement), allow the 

Corps to apply a CE from FHWA’s CE list. 

• Another scenario: If there are multiple Federal approvals needed for a project, 

allow the other agencies to defer to the NEPA lead. At present, if a roadway 

project requires a new lease or land purchase from a Federal land management 

agency (National Park Service, US Forest Service, BLM), that agency can’t use 

FHWA’s CEs. Instead, they have to do an environmental assessment for the 

property action. 

Regarding the formal assignment of NEPA, I need to point out that this voluntary 

program is not an option for all state DOTS. This is due to state laws and/or different experiences in each state DOT. That said, AASHTO members support the effort to improve the program for those states that both desire them and are willing 

to be held responsible for Federal authorities. 

Currently, Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah are participating in 

the NEPA assignment program made available to all states in MAP–21. Based on 

their collective experience, specific changes that will make this program both more 

efficient and attractive to interested states include: 

• Simplifying the assignment application and audit processes; 

• Allowing states to assume all of the responsibilities of the USDOT with respect 

to engineering and other activities related to environmental review, consultation, permitting or other action required under any Federal environmental law 

for project review or approval; 

• Allowing states in this program to be solely responsible for the development of 

their policies, guidance and procedures so long as Federal laws and the USDOT 

requirements and guidance are met; 

• Removing the pre-condition for a state to have taken on NEPA assignment for 

highways prior to being able to take on NEPA assignment for rail and transit 

projects; and 

• Adding NEPA assignment authority to Title 49 to allow states to assume the 

Federal NEPA responsibilities of any USDOT modal administration. 

For state DOT’s without NEPA assignment, like WSDOT, we have successfully 

negotiated programmatic NEPA agreements. These agreements allow the state DOT 

to carry out routine interagency coordination tasks, while maintaining regular communication with USDOT. USDOT retains responsibility for all final decisions. Often 

these programmatic agreements eliminate confusion, redundancy and frees up 

USDOT’s limited staff resources. We view this as a model for other FHWA approvals. 

AASHTO has identified a number of areas where Congress could provide states 

with additional assignment authority to make determinations in lieu of seeking 

FHWA approval. Examples include Federal funds obligation management, project 

agreements, right-of-way acquisition, preventive maintenance, repayment of preliminary engineering and right-of-way costs, and credits toward non-Federal share, 

among many other possible areas of current Federal oversight. This kind of authority would reduce time-consuming processes while preserving the intent and integrity 

of Federal policy. 

To foster the development and testing of new, innovative practices and approaches 

aimed at expediting project delivery while maintaining environmental protections, 

we ask Congress to consider establishing a project delivery innovation program. 

Thanks to the states’ partnership with FHWA, we’re currently working on a limited version of such an innovation program through Special Experimental Project— 

or SEP–16. Under this initiative which in the past has yielded innovations in contracting and public-private partnerships, FHWA is soliciting proposals for delegation 

of various FHWA responsibilities directly to States. There is a wide range of potential applications if SEP–16 criteria can be met. Some possible examples include: 

20 

• States approving modifications to Stewardship and Oversight agreements without preapproval by FHWA, subject to FHWA’s ongoing oversight of the State’s 

compliance with Federal requirements; • States taking the full responsibility for approving a new or modified access 

point on the Interstate System; and • States developing a definition for ‘‘high-risk’’ Interstate projects that allows 

States to assume the full range of responsibilities for these efforts. 

Another innovative practices example WSDOT has embraced is the design-build 

project delivery method as a ‘‘tool in the toolbox.’’ For some projects, design-build 

can bring innovations to solve challenges more quickly and more cost-effectively. 

WSDOT is one of many state DOTs that are using design-build more often. We have 

learned a lot since our first design-build project in 2001, and we’ve had some great 

successes. Last year, we used design-build to replace the Wildcat Bridge on U.S. 12 

in Yakima County. By using design-build, the creativity the private-sector designer 

brought to the table resulted in the project being completed with just 17 days of 

substantial construction, over 13 months ahead of schedule and saved the Department a third of the budgeted cost ($3.7 million of $12 million budgeted). 

In addition to efficiently delivering our projects, we need resources to build more 

resilient infrastructure. Many of our existing assets were not designed to meet today’s needs, or to withstand the changes we expect in the future. In addition, we 

know more today than we did in the 1950’s and 1960’s when much of the national 

transportation network was completed. We need to retrofit and we need to build in 

resilience. We’re also working to manage stormwater so that our communities are 

protected from flood events and water-borne pollutants. 

In Washington, we’re burdened with thousands of undersized culverts, built to the 

Federal standard at the time of construction, that prevent adult salmon from reaching upstream habitat and/or prevent juvenile salmon from migrating downstream. 

Our culverts contribute to the decline of salmon runs—which in turn, impacts the 

economy and cultural heritage of the Pacific Northwest. In response to longstanding 

obligations under treaties between the Federal Government and Pacific Northwest 

Native American tribes, we are now under a Federal court order to fix enough culverts to open up 90 percent of the blocked habitat by 2030 at an estimated cost of 

over $3 billion. 

UTILIZING INNOVATION TO ADDRESS MOBILITY CHALLENGES, INCLUDING SAFETY, STATE

OF GOOD REPAIR, CONGESTION, AND UNIVERSAL ACCESS

Federal programs should support state DOTs that take innovative approaches to 

transportation system management, demand management, and improved mobility. 

At WSDOT, we are focused on an actionable path forward in a congested world 

with limited resources. The Practical Solutions Goal in our Strategic Plan calls for 

collaborating with our partners to address transportation problems/ opportunities 

within available resources, making the right investments in the right locations at 

the right time. It acknowledges that we are stewards of a complex transportation 

system with a route network that is essentially complete. We have an obligation to 

the people we serve to bring our multimodal transportation system to a state of good 

repair, to make sure that it operates safely, that it moves people, goods, and services as efficiently as possible, that we manage demand for limited and expensive 

system capacity, and that we, at times, add capacity to the system. 

WSDOT recently completed a high-level analysis of what highway lane capacity 

would be required for a person to be able to drive the posted speed limits, at all 

times, on the Interstates through the three most congested areas of the state (The 

Central Puget Sound, Vancouver, and Spokane). We determined that it would require an additional 451 lane miles of highway at an estimated cost of approximately 

$115 billion. Funding the construction of these facilities over a twenty-year period 

would require a $2.25 to $2.50 per gallon increase in the state gas tax. This analysis 

assumed no growth in population and employment and no induced demand and did 

not include the cost of accommodating the resulting increased traffic on other state 

highways and local roadways or of mitigating the environmental consequences of 

the investment. 

While additional capacity is sometimes the answer in specific locations, we acknowledge based upon the evidence above and the preponderance of data from other 

states that we cannot build our way out of congestion. We are instead working on 

innovative approaches to move forward in a congested environment that encompass 

transportation system management and operations, transportation demand management, addressing the relationships between transportation and land use, providing 

a more complete suite of multimodal transportation choices, and making targeted 

21 

investments in roadway capacity. To make these changes requires a coordinated and 

leveraged approach. Flexibility and predictability in funding to develop and implement these programs will be more important to our success in the twenty-first century than capital investment made project-by-project without accompanying robust 

investment in the life cycle stewardship of the transportation system. 

Transportation system management and operation projects can be coordinated 

with transportation demand and active transportation projects to eliminate or at 

least delay the need for major system expansion. Funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program has been helpful to our efforts to support 

transportation demands management with innovative local projects. We are 

transitioning from 25 years of focus on employment at large worksites—our nationally recognized Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program—to add smaller employers 

and other trips, including off peak trips. In addition, transportation system management and operation investments like transportation management centers, ramp meters, active transportation management systems, and variable speed limits signs can 

be used to improve the efficiency of our existing roadways and prepare us for the 

capabilities of new technology coming our way. 

We are also using managed lanes and congestion pricing where appropriate to improve mobility and move more people on the infrastructure we have in place. 

WSDOT has taken advantage of funding from past and current Federal programs 

including the 2007 USDOT Congestion Initiative and its Urban Partnership Agreements and the Value Pricing Pilot Program to help us explore and test these concepts. With our Interstate 405 Express Toll Lanes, launched in 2015, we are able 

to move 35 percent more vehicles in the peak hour when compared to a similar 

number of lanes and daily travel volumes on Interstate 5. These managed lanes also 

provide an attractive corridor for bus rapid transit systems and other public transportation investment. 

The Federal program must support and provide sufficient flexibility to allow state 

DOTs to harness innovation and technology. 

We are at a global inflection point in the transportation arena that is as significant as when the engine replaced the horse and buggy and Eisenhower’s initiation 

of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Today, there is dramatic change underway as the development and deployment of new technologies are 

resetting the relationships between the vehicles that transport people and goods and 

our multimodal transportation infrastructure. Our transportation systems are also 

responding to societal change, including a reduction in home-based commute trips 

as a percentage of the total demand on the system, a rapidly growing cohort of our 

population that do not possess driver’s licenses, the urbanization of our metropolitan 

regions with an increased demand for walkable neighborhoods, a desire to maintain 

and enhance mobility in rural America, and an increased reliance on our transportation system for home delivery of retail goods and services. These and other factors 

are fundamentally changing the ways we move goods, services and people on our 

transportation system. 

Concrete, asphalt, and steel are no longer the only important materials for transportation agencies. They have been augmented by data as the new asset that will 

save lives, provide transportation choice and improved mobility to all of our citizens, 

enhance program and operational efficiency, protect our environment, and create 

jobs. It is important now, more than ever, that we not only optimize relationships 

at local, tribal, state and Federal levels to ensure our transportation system is a 

steward and not a bottleneck of continued innovation, but expand out partnerships 

with the private sector, who’s value to shareholders and the public is also dependent 

upon a sustainable, efficient, and reliable transportation system. 

Technology creates new capabilities for transportation agencies to effectively manage and operate our roadways. The key to harnessing approaching technology is positioning and funding transportation agencies to leverage new technological opportunities. 

State DOTs continue to evolve from highway builders of the last century to stewards of multimodal twenty-first century transportation systems, and we see technological innovation as an important new tool in our nation’s transportation toolbox 

as we strive to provide safe mobility and access to everyone. 

To better prepare for and leverage emerging technologies, AASHTO has recently 

established the Cooperative Automated Transportation (CAT) coalition, of which I 

serve as co-chair. The goals of this effort include creating a clearinghouse of connected and automated vehicle policy frameworks, bringing new multimodal mobility 

tools to our nation’s communities, identifying funding opportunities and financing 

models to enable near-term investments, and developing model regulations that will 

facilitate near-term pilots and deployments. 

22 

As the owners and operators of a significant portion of the multimodal transportation infrastructure throughout the country, state DOTs are at the forefront of preparing for deployment of new transportation technologies, including connected and 

automated vehicles (CAVs) and Mobility on Demand (MOD). 

Maintaining and preserving the current infrastructure in a state of good repair 

that meets the needs of current system users, while preparing for the benefits of 

the transformative technologies that are being introduced almost daily has given 

new meaning to workforce development and inclusionary collaboration within and 

between agencies. In response, many state DOTs are reorganizing or refocusing 

their project development and business processes to include preparing for 

multimodal trip planning and ticketing systems, vehicles equipped with Automated 

Driving System (ADS), and other innovations with the increasing ability to connect 

vehicles to each other and the infrastructure. 

While encouraging consistency in traditional roadway design and traffic control 

device investments can assist in deployment of new technologies, taking steps to improve roadway pavement markings and signage and protecting the 5.9 GHz spectrum currently reserved for transportation safety and connectivity purposes will 

have lasting near and long-term benefits for both CAV and MOD. 

State, tribal, and local governments remain the primary authority concerning 

operational safety of our transportation system, regardless of the technologies involved. For CAV this includes regulating the operation of motor vehicles after such 

vehicles have been constructed, the operators of those motor vehicles, as well as establishing the rules of the road on how motor vehicles can be safely operated on 

public roadways. I say this because your Subcommittee’s assistance in helping to 

clarify Federal and non-Federal authority over motor vehicle ‘‘performance’’ as Congress deliberates on nationwide CAV policy will be crucial to state, tribal, and local 

governments. 

For MOD this state, tribal, and local government role will encompass new protocols for partnerships between public infrastructure owners and operators and their 

counterparts in the private sector to ensure that all Americans benefit equally from 

MOD, that data is shared transparently between service providers, and that public 

investment in multimodal transportation infrastructure and services is optimized. 

Beyond the national-level efforts by AASHTO and its members, Washington State 

has also placed the development of an enabling, cooperative automated transportation policy at the forefront. Beginning with a Governor’s Executive Order and followed by Legislative action, public and private sector decisionmakers and stakeholders from every corner of the state have partnered together to engage in spirited 

discussion that will impact all aspects of our profession, from redefining long-range 

planning policies to revisiting and realigning near-term project priorities. WSDOT 

is an active partner and leader in this effort while emphasizing an inclusive, multimodal and integrated approach to automation and connectivity. 

For example, some of WSDOT’s near-term priorities include: 

• increased use of public rights of way for telecom partnerships; 

• infrastructure investments in roadway pavement markings and signing; 

• supporting our local transit systems and private partners in providing first and 

last mile connections to transit; and 

• expanding infrastructure investments to enable use of the 5.9 Ghz spectrum in 

a technology neutral manner. 

SUPPORTING GOOD JOBS AND A QUALIFIED TRANSPORTATION WORKFORCE

Congress should continue to fund programs that support the development of a diverse 

and robust workforce suitable for staffing the development and delivery of twenty-first century transportation programs. 

Inclusion and workforce development are two of the three goal areas of the 

WSDOT Strategic Plan. Like many states, Washington has an increasingly diverse 

population. By 2050 there will be no majority ethnic group in our state. We approach this demographic reality as an opportunity. A workforce with diverse backgrounds and perspectives to draw from will make Washington more competitive in 

the twenty-first century global marketplace. Through Inclusion, WSDOT is strengthening our commitment to diversity and engagement in all WSDOT business processes, functions and services to ensure every voice is heard. This goal has both an 

internal and an external focus to assure that we have an inclusive and diverse 

workforce while at the same time, meeting our Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 

goals and creating opportunities for underrepresented populations to do business 

with us. 

Like other AASHTO members, workforce development is a priority in Washington 

State. WSDOT expects to lose a significant number of our employees through retireVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
23 

ment in the next 5 years, including 31 percent of our maintenance staff and 41 percent of our engineers. We also have a significant gap in the available workforce for 

our contractor and consultant partners. State DOTs can’t deliver our programs without qualified personnel. WSDOT wants to be an employer of choice and is creating 

a modern work environment. We’re proactively working to find the best possible talent for the agency, while taking steps to retain our quality workforce. As part of 

our Workforce Development goal, we listen and act on employee feedback and we 

provide training and other opportunities for development. At the same time, we 

evaluate systems to achieve and maintain competitive compensation. 

WSDOT and other AASHTO members appreciate Federal interest in and support 

for our inclusion and workforce development efforts. Initiatives that would benefit 

from increased Federal support include: 

• Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math (STEAM) programs, including internships for high school and college students at state DOTs; 

• On the Job Training Supportive Services (OJT/SS) programs to provide support 

(day care, transit fare, lunch money, etc.) to people seeking training to enter 

into apprenticeships in the transportation construction trades; 

• Capacity Building Mentorship programs sponsored by State DOTs, the contracting community, and other agencies to bring disadvantaged business enterprises into the transportation sector; 

• Programs like the Sustainability in Prisons Project that provide offenders the 

skills to work with state DOTs when they return to the community; 

• Environmental Justice and Cultural Competency training for state DOT employees, managers, consultants, local agency partners, and others; and 

• Flexible schedule and open office environment initiatives that improve state 

DOT employee work environments. 

CONCLUSION

State DOTs remain committed to assisting Congress in the development of strategies to ensure long-term economic growth and enhanced quality of life through robust multimodal transportation investments. Just last month, hundreds of state 

DOT leaders from all corners of our country were only a few blocks away attending 

AASHTO’s 2019 Washington Briefing. 

Over 4 days of productive discussions, many of my colleagues were on Capitol Hill 

meeting with their respective congressional delegations. As they did then, and as 

I do again now, AASHTO and the State DOTs will continue advocating for the reaffirmation of a strong Federal-state partnership to address our surface transportation 

investment needs. 

Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today, and I am happy 

to answer any questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Next is Mr. Darran Anderson, director of strategy and innovation 

at the Texas Department of Transportation, who is testifying on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance. 

You may proceed, Mr. Anderson. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member 

Davis, thank you again for inviting me to be here today. Again, my 

name is Darran Anderson. I am the director of strategy and innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation, and I am speaking on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance today. I appreciate 

the opportunity to provide testimony before the subcommittee and 

to share our experience with the alliance. 

In short, the Texas Innovation Alliance is an action network of 

local, regional, and State agencies as well as research institutions 

who are galvanized to be a capability multiplier for mobility innovation. The mission of the alliance, which includes cities and regions across the State, is to strategically develop, launch, and sustain a portfolio of advanced mobility projects across the State of 

Texas to improve the lives, safety, and economic prospects of Texans. 

24 

As Texas continues to grow, the alliance proactively develops 

tools beyond traditional infrastructure, including innovative technologies, policies, and processes. The alliance partners include our 

largest cities: Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, rapidly growing cities 

such as Fort Worth, Austin, El Paso, Arlington, and Frisco, and regional partners such as Bryan-College Station and the Coastal 

Bend area. The alliance is open to any Texas locality or region that 

is interested in pursuing mobility solutions, as well as our research 

institutions. 

Individually, communities have limited capacity and capability to 

develop mobility solutions and to prepare our infrastructure for the 

coming transformations. But together we have the ability to leverage our resources and our expertise and share across those cities 

and regions. 

Texas is at a pivotal moment, where the rate of population 

growth, infrastructure needs, and technological advancement are 

challenging our ability to provide quality mobility services. Texas 

population is expected to nearly double by the year 2050. It is critical that we manage this disruption proactively, rather than allow 

rapid urbanization to stifle our State’s economy and reduce our 

quality of life. 

While the alliance is working well, the Federal Government continues to play a critical role in allowing for new technologies. We 

thank this committee for your work on MAP–21 and the FAST Act 

to streamline programs and gain efficiencies at the Federal level. 

Texas has realized time and cost savings because of the flexibility 

afforded by converting 70 funding silos into today’s 6 Federal highway programs, and by providing States the opportunity to assume 

responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The alliance is seeking to mirror those successes by not duplicating each other’s initial innovation efforts, through sharing best 

practices between the alliance members, and through fostering an 

open exchange of what has and hasn’t worked in their communities. The alliance partner members have demonstrated that local 

and regional governments are a key enabler to achieving our mobility goals, but the Federal authority to resource new technology in 

our core funding areas is critical. 

To help enable the best use of technology to improve transportation mobility, we offer these suggested improvements for consideration in reauthorizing the FAST Act. 

First, make technology eligible for Federal funding across all 

USDOT programs. 

Second, clarify that infrastructure-based ITS capital improvements equipment required for the implementation of Vehicle-to-Everything, or V2X, as well as advanced mobility improvements are 

eligible uses under the State transportation block grant program. 

And finally, when a public entity applies for transportation innovation grants with private-sector partners, we would like to have 

our proposal partners recognized by USDOT as sole-source contractors for the purposes of the grant, if awarded, rather than having 

to later need to also competitively bid to be part of that project 

after award, when they were part of the initial proposal. 

25 

The current approach stymies, rather than promotes the use of 

public-private partnerships. I have included more details on these 

items in my written testimony. 

In 2017, Governor Greg Abbott signed the senate bill 2205 in 

Texas, which cleared the way for driverless vehicles to legally operate on Texas roadways. Laws such as senate bill 2205 encourage 

safe technology innovation in Texas. 

Additionally, TxDOT has coordinated programs that identify, research, review, and test emerging technologies, and those inform 

the focus of the Texas Innovation Alliance. 

As we usher in the next generation of technologies, an entrepreneurial approach is needed for States to take a leadership position, 

also to advance safety and the quality of life, to enable support for 

a 21st-century workforce, and to continue attracting and growing 

business. 

On behalf of the alliance I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today regarding the work we are doing in Texas. 

[Mr. Anderson’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Darran Anderson, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Texas Department of Transportation, on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance 

INTRODUCTION

Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis, thank you for inviting me to be 

here today. My name is Darran Anderson and I am the Director of Strategy and 

Innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and am here on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance (Alliance). I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony before the subcommittee today, and to share our experience creating 

and organizing the Texas Innovation Alliance. 

In short, the Texas Innovation Alliance is an action network of local, regional, and 

state agencies, as well as research institutions who are galvanized to be a capability 

multiplier for mobility innovation. The mission of the Alliance is to strategically develop, launch, and sustain a portfolio of advanced mobility projects across the State 

of Texas, to improve the lives, safety, and economic prospects of Texans. 

TEXAS INNOVATION ALLIANCE OVERVIEW

Building upon the momentum of the USDOT Smart City Challenge, the Texas Department of Transportation and the city of Austin issued a call to action in 2016. 

Metropolitan regions from around the state stepped forward, uniting as the Texas 

Innovation Alliance to address the state’s most pressing mobility challenges. 

As Texas continues to grow, the Alliance proactively develops tools beyond traditional infrastructure, including innovative technologies, policies, and processes. Alliance partners include our largest cities—Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio; small, 

but rapidly growing cities, such as Frisco; and regional partners, such as Bryan-College Station, and the Coastal Bend area. The Alliance is open to any Texas locality 

or region that is interested in pursuing mobility solutions (see Appendix A). 

Individually, communities have limited capacity and capability to develop mobility 

solutions and prepare our infrastructure for the coming transformations. Together, 

we have the ability to leverage our resources and expertise. In fact, as I speak the 

Alliance is working on submission of an application for the Federal Highway Administration’s Automated Driving Systems Demonstration Grant. Texas partners within 

the Alliance are taking a collaborative approach in offering a robust and diverse set 

of data, use cases, and deployments to help guide national Automated Vehicle guidance and rulemaking. 

The Texas Innovation Alliance uniquely allows for this individualized problem 

identification and shared solutions. This enables Texas’ cities and regions to connect 

with public and private sector partners; leverage investment to maximize impact at 

a lower cost; enable rapid deployment and sustainable solutions; develop best practices and lessons learned; and, build awareness and create unified communications. 

26 

Texas is at a pivotal moment—where the rate of population growth, infrastructure 

needs, and technological advancement are challenging our ability to provide quality 

mobility services. With five of the nation’s 15 fastest growing cities located in Texas 

and the population expected to nearly double by the year 2050, it is critical that 

we manage this disruption proactively rather than allow rapid urbanization to stifle 

our state’s economy. 

HOW CONGRESS CAN HELP

While the Alliance is working well from a grass roots basis with state assistance 

and the resources of our research partners, the Federal Government continues to 

play a critical role in allowing for new technologies. We thank this committee for 

your work on MAP–21 and the FAST Act to streamline programs and gain efficiencies at the Federal level. Texas has realized time and cost savings because of 

the flexibility afforded by converting 70 funding silos into today’s six Federal highway programs, and by providing states the opportunity to assume responsibilities 

under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Alliance is seeking to mirror 

those successes by not duplicating efforts, through sharing best practices, and 

through fostering an open exchange of what has and hasn’t worked in their communities. 

To help enable not only the Alliance’s efforts, but for all cities, regions, and states 

seeking how to best use technology to improve transportation mobility, we offer 

these suggested improvements for consideration when reauthorizing the FAST Act: 

• Make technology eligible for Federal funding across all USDOT programs. 

• Clarify that infrastructure-based ITS capital improvements equipment required 

for the implementation of Vehicle-to-Everything or V2X are an eligible use 

under the State Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP). This would include: 

• Data collection and analysis; 

• Maintenance; 

• Integration; 

• Fiber and the data ecosystems to manage transportation operations; and, 

• The costs associated with systems, software, and equipment required for V2X 

implementation. 

• We also support policy under the State Transportation Block Grant Program 

(STBGP) that would provide funding eligibility for advanced mobility improvements to include data infrastructure and analysis, smart mobility improvements 

such as smart truck parking, smart work zones, smart pavements, mobility-ondemand platforms, smart fleet, and alternative vehicle charging infrastructure. 

• Finally, when a public entity applies for discretionary grants, such as the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technology Development 

grant with private sector partners, we would like to have our partners recognized by the Federal Highway Administration as sole source contractors for the 

purposes of the grant, if awarded. It is extremely difficult to bring in a private 

partner during the application process if they will later need to competitively 

bid to be part of the project. The current approach stymies, rather than promotes the use of Public-Private Partnerships. 

THE NEXUS OF TXDOT, ITS RESEARCH PARTNERS, AND THE TEXAS INNOVATION

ALLIANCE

In 2017, Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2205 which cleared the way for 

driverless vehicles to legally operate on Texas roadways. Laws such as SB 2205 ensure that rapidly evolving technology on the whole spectrum of operation remains 

safe on Texas roadways. To that end, TxDOT has a coordinated effort to research, 

review, and test emerging technologies that will someday have a great impact on 

the transportation network, thereby informing the focus of the Texas Innovation Alliance. This effort includes reliance on some of our other state technology leaders, 

such as: 

The Texas Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) Task Force was created 

in January by Governor Greg Abbott and is led by TxDOT. This task force 

will serve as a repository of information for all on-going Connected and Automated Vehicle projects in Texas and will facilitate progress in advancing CAV 

technology through hosting industry forums and reporting lessons learned 

through public and private entities’ efforts to implement CAV technology. 

For example, the Southwest Research Institute, located in San Antonio, is 

working with other academic partners in Texas to collaborate with Texas’ new 

CAV Task Force. The Institute is a leader in Connected and Automated VehiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
27 

cle (CAV) research and technologies and has worked with USDOT and Texas 

universities to provide a full-service test track for these technologies. 

The State Transportation Innovation Council (STIC) along with TxDOT’s Research Program contributes valued and innovative research ideas with the potential to bring solutions and opportunities to Texas. Areas of focus such as 

resiliency, improved traffic management systems, predictive analytics, as well 

as emerging technologies such as the impacts of artificial intelligence to 

TxDOT operations, and physical innovations or changes needed to accommodate autonomous and connected vehicles on our system are all research areas 

that inform the Alliance. 

The STIC also facilitates the rapid implementation of innovative technology 

and shares its deployment outcomes at all levels of state government and 

throughout the private and non-profit sector, including the Alliance, to ensure 

smart, efficient investment in Texas highway and transportation infrastructure. 

The Texas Technology Task Force is directed by the Texas State Legislature 

to explore all types of emerging technologies, including automated and connected vehicle technologies, and recommend those technologies on which 

TxDOT should concentrate for future use in Texas’ infrastructure. 

CONCLUSION

As we usher in the next generation of technologies, a paradigm shift has already 

begun in transportation. An entrepreneurial approach is needed for Texas to take 

a leadership position, enabling our state to support a 21st century workforce and 

to continue attracting and growing businesses. 

It is worthy to note that local leadership from the Alliance’s regional team partners, including mayors, councilmembers, Metropolitan Planning Organization board 

members, and transit board members, have all emphasized that the local and regional governments are a key enabler to achieving our mobility goals, but that Federal authority to resource new technology in our core funding is extremely important. 

Additionally, our research partners such as those in the Texas Innovation Alliance, including the Southwest Research Institute, the Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas at Austin, and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute are also key in identifying those technologies that will cause disruption and 

rapidly change our landscape. 

On behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today regarding the work we are doing in Texas not only to explore 

technology and innovation to enhance mobility, but to bring them to fruition. With 

a people-first, problem-based approach partners of the Texas Innovation Alliance are 

committed to working together to align local, regional, and state priorities for the 

benefit of our communities. Recognizing the value of collaboration, the Alliance 

stands together in pursuit of innovation and applies an entrepreneurial approach 

to be the leading model in developing new mobility solutions. 

APPENDIX A

[Appendix A is retained in committee files and is available at http:// 

ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/fed/federal-surface-transportation.pdf, pages 6–7.] 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. I know that 

two of our witnesses already have been from Texas. I don’t know 

what you are trying to tell us here. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. NORTON. But we are listening. 

Next I am pleased to welcome Jack Clark, who is the executive 

director of the Transportation Learning Center. 

Mr. Clark? 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank 

you, Ranking Member Davis, for the opportunity to be here today. 

As indicated, my name is Jack Clark. I represent the Transportation Learning Center. You have background on me and the organization in your written materials. I look forward to sharing more 

on that in the question period. But right now I want to focus on 

28 

the core problem I am here to address, and the committee, I believe, needs to address, as well: the workforce crisis in public transportation. 

Approximately 400,000 people work in public transportation; 90 

percent of them are moving vehicles or maintaining those vehicles 

and the systems required to keep transit running. 

In every transit agency large and small, new technologies are 

changing the way work needs to be done. I share a small but revealing story from several years back when I was dealing with a 

general manager in a medium-sized transit agency completing a 

bus purchase. He heard from the vendor asking, ‘‘How many 

laptops would you like,’’ and he initially thought this was some 

kind of bonus for his office staff, until he realized that those 

laptops were key, essential tools for his bus mechanics. Those 

laptops diagnose and keep track of all sorts of problems in the engine, and they also keep track of advanced electronic and multiplex 

systems that have been common in buses for more than a decade. 

The skills needed for people maintaining railcars, signaling, electrical power systems, and other systems are even more advanced 

than what bus mechanics need to know. In the face of all those 

challenges, both the age and the skill mix, transit spends far too 

little on training. 

Taking a look simply at the percentage of payroll devoted to 

training, the Paris Metro, which is a one-to-one comparison, spends 

about 8 percent of its payroll. The Federal Highway Administration 

sets a goal of 3 percent of its payroll for its contractors should go 

to training. The average transit agency spends between 0.66 and 

0.88 percent of its payroll on training. 

There are some bright spots. My organization works a lot to develop registered apprenticeship as a solution to the transit skills 

crisis. We think it makes a lot of sense. There is a lot of support 

for apprenticeship across both aisles in Congress, and now across 

two administrations. There is also a lot of support for apprenticeship around the world. It is simply a commonsense solution, which 

says there is technical training you can learn in a classroom and 

a lot you can learn in a very highly structured, on-the-job learning 

environment. 

And we are seeing some progress in some areas in developing 

those apprenticeship programs. We are also seeing some obstacles. 

I would note, just in passing, that while we are talking about a 

transit skills crisis here—and I note Associated General Contractors of America is also on this panel—we won’t be hearing about 

a similar skills crisis on the highway construction side because registered apprenticeship works there. It is a system that the organized building trades and the contractors have developed for over 

a century, and it delivers a skilled workforce. It also delivers very 

highly developed pre-apprenticeship programs that allow opportunities for underrepresented populations to come into the workforce 

and into highly skilled jobs. Transit, and its apprenticeship programs, need to develop similar programs. 

The profile of the skilled worker in transit is still older white 

males. And it is both a moral imperative and a practical necessity 

that transit develop a more diverse workforce in its skilled ranks. 

29 

I would note that the transit—the—other people noted this—the 

transit workforce is much older than the average workforce. The 

average transit worker is almost 51, compared to the average worker across all industries being about 40, 41, 42. That means that the 

skill—the demographic crisis is quite severe. 

Thank you for your time. I have more in my written testimony. 

I would ask that you include human capital and specific metrics in 

human capital in reauthorization, authorize a national transit 

front-line workforce resource that could function like the National 

Transit Institute, and that the mandate that FTA work closely 

with other Federal agencies, particularly Department of Labor and 

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, on workforce 

issues. 

And in all the work the Congress is doing, remember that workforce is a key part of what needs to happen in infrastructure. It is 

not going to happen without a skilled workforce. Thank you very 

much. 

[Mr. Clark’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of John Kevin ‘‘Jack’’ Clark, Executive Director, 

Transportation Learning Center 

Good morning. My name is Jack Clark. I serve as Executive Director of the Transportation Learning Center (the Center), a not for profit organization with offices in 

Silver Spring Maryland that does national work in transportation with a particular 

emphasis on the public transportation sector. The Center focuses its efforts on the 

challenge of improving training for frontline workers in public transit, the drivers, 

mechanics, technicians, cleaners and helpers who comprise 90 percent of the transit 

workforce. Members of our Board of Directors include leaders in management and 

labor and some major advocates. Amalgamated Transit Union International President Larry Hanley serves as Chair of our Board. American Public Transportation 

Association President Paul Skoutelas and Community Transportation Association 

Executive Director Scott Bogren also serve on the Board. 

The Center practices labor-management partnership in its daily work. None of us 

involved in this work is naive. Labor and management do have and will continue 

to have major differences and conflicting interests, particularly on zero-sum issues 

such as how resources are distributed between hourly wages and other priorities an 

agency might have. Those conflicts are not going away; nor should they. Unions represent a very large share of public transit workers, and workers through their 

unions can, do and should pursue collective bargaining to advance their interests. 

Likewise, managers can, do and should use the process to assert their rights and 

interests. 

While recognizing the inevitable areas of conflict, the Center has benefited from 

an insight that former US Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall offered to its Board 

more than a decade ago. Dr. Marshall noted that in the broad picture of interactions 

between labor and management, conflict, particularly zero-sum conflict, comprises 

a small fraction of how the two sides can interact. In areas like safety for the riding 

public and for the workforce, labor and management should have common interests. 

Similarly, workers and managers share an interest in improving the overall quality 

of the riders’ experience in transit; both want a strong and reliable system that 

serves the public well and can count on needed public support for ongoing and expanded funding. 

Dr. Marshall knows that even in those areas of shared interest, sharp conflict can 

and does arise. He was positing, and the Center’s Board has generally accepted the 

concept that common interests do exist between labor and management. Building 

on those common interests can result in better outcomes for all. 

The Center bases its work on just such a common interest: training for the frontline workforce. A more skilled workforce clearly benefits managers. More skilled 

workers can get the job done faster and better. Improved training offers transit 

workers opportunities for upward mobility in their careers. Cleaners or helpers, for 

example, can become skilled mechanics. Training can also enhance skills, knowledge 

and abilities of highly experienced transit workers who need to learn how advancing 

30 

technologies affect how they do their jobs. When really excellent training, developed 

and executed on a partnership basis, is implemented, the performance of the whole 

organization improves and the workplace moves to a new culture that values lifelong learning. 

That ideal picture does occur occasionally. If that dynamic were the rule rather 

than the exception in public transit, the work of the Transportation Learning Center 

might not be needed. 

Sadly, adequate training for the frontline workforce remains rare in transit. 

One might posit that training does not occur because there is not a great need. 

To the contrary, transit is suffering through a skills crisis that will only become 

worse. 

Start by looking at just a simple and easily understood metric: the age of the 

workforce. 

For the economy as a whole, everyone comments on the problem of our aging 

workforce. Retirements of the baby boom generation no longer loom as a future 

issue to be confronted. It is happening now across the economy. Finding both the 

sheer number of workers required and filling the gap left by retirement of skilled 

workers concerns all employers. 

Consider, though, that for all occupations and industries in the US, the median 

age of workers is 42 years of age. In transportation and warehousing, the median 

age is over 44. The median age in bus service and urban transit is nearly 51. 

Figure 1—Median Age of Workers for Selected Transportation Sectors 

We see that the aging workforce issue, widely understood as a crisis for the overall economy, stands as an even larger challenge for transit. 

Looking at only the age distribution understates the workforce challenge for transit. About 400,000 people work in public transportation now. Of that figure, 90 percent currently work in the frontline occupations I referenced earlier. Because of retirements and other exits from transit employment, transit has a very large number 

of jobs to fill. In 2015, the Center helped research a major study for the US Department of Transportation, the US Department of Labor and the US Department of 

Education on the future of the transportation workforce. Based on data through 

2014, the best estimate at that time was that transit needed to hire, train and retain approximately 126 percent of its current workforce over a 10-year period. No 

one has done the research to update those estimates, and we are halfway through 

the 10 years. The Center works closely with a large number of transit locations. We 

know from daily experience in work with those locations that hiring and training 

a sufficient number of people provides a continuing challenge. 

Most of my testimony will address issues around technical training for skilled 

maintenance work, but I want to take a moment to address the issue of exits from 

transit employment other than retirements. In general, transit maintenance workers, particularly skilled maintenance staff, tend to stay in their jobs for a long time. 

For bus drivers, the picture is more complex. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\Clark-1.eps
31 

Hiring and retaining bus drivers poses a major challenge for the industry. Wages certainly are part of the problem. As the ‘‘Fight for $15’’ movement makes further 

gains, driving a bus at a starting wage of $15 per hour looks less attractive. Operator assaults, widely publicized in the areas where they happen, certainly discourage potential applicants from applying in the first place. I wish to state my strong 

support for H.R. 1139, legislation sponsored by Representative Napolitano and supported by transit labor. This legislation does not mandate any particular remedy for 

the problem of assault beyond identifying whether there is a need to address the 

problem, and if there is, bringing together workers and managers to develop a plan. 

H.R. 1139 also requires that data be collected and analyzed on a national level so 

that policymakers know what the scope of the problem is. Good data can drive good 

policy. Lack of data leads to bad guesses. 

I will return to the issue of operator training and retention in the context of national work the Center is doing on apprenticeship. 

As Members of Congress know, in a number of areas, transit service is expanding. 

That adds to the workforce challenge. In every transit agency, large and small, new 

technologies are changing the way work needs to be done. I share an amusing but 

revealing story from a conversation several years ago with a General Manager at 

a medium-sized agency. He was completing a procurement for a major bus purchase. 

In the final negotiations to close the deal, the bus vendor asked how many laptop 

computers the agency wanted to include. Delighted by this question, the General 

Manager thought he was getting some kind of bonus for his office staff until he realized that the laptops were a required tool for bus mechanics. 

Those laptop computers provide the basic diagnostic tool for bus maintenance. 

Complex electrical, electronic and multiplexing systems have been commonplace on 

transit buses for well more than a decade. Buses have hybrid systems that require 

training on high voltage electricity. Fully electric buses provide a growing proportion 

of bus purchases. 

For railcars, signaling, wayside and power equipment, even higher levels of skill 

are required to maintain systems properly. 

In some locations, training to deal with these advanced technologies occurs regularly and is done well. Sadly, once again, that is the exception, not the rule. 

A reasonable measure of the commitment to training by any employer is the percentage of payroll devoted to training. The Federal Highway Administration seeks 

a minimum of 3 percent of payroll devoted to training for projects it funds. High 

performance US firms often spend 4–5 percent of payroll on training. In a direct 

transit comparison, the Paris Metro spends a bit more than 8 percent of payroll. 

A careful analysis in a study overseen by the Transit Cooperative Research Program 

shows that the average US transit agency spends between 0.66 and 0.88 percent of 

payroll on training. 

Figure 2—Public Transportation Training Investment 

Look at Federal funding for transit. Nearly all the money goes to physical capital 

while scant resources are devoted to the building the skills of people who will maintain that infrastructure. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\Clark-2.eps
32 

Figure 3—Annual Federal Investment in Transit 

Note: Physical Capital Investment is based on the 2016 Federal capital funds from 

the 2018 APTA Fact Book. Human Capital Investment includes annualized funding 

for the 2015 FTA Innovative Workforce Development programs ($9.5 million over 2 

years) and $5 million a year for the National Transit Institute in the FAST Act. 

Before closing out this testimony, I will review this discrepancy between physical 

and human capital and recommend action in the reauthorization of the FAST Act. 

Having cited multiple problems and shortcomings in transit training, I will highlight an approach that already shows great promise and can deliver sustainable results for training transit workers: registered apprenticeship. 

Quite simply, apprenticeship combines classroom instruction with on-the-job 

learning. Most workers learn most of their skills in practical application. For the 

highly technical aspects of maintenance, learning basic and advanced principles of 

electricity, for example, cannot be optional. Applying that learning under the guidance of more experienced workers reinforces and strengthens the apprentice’s comprehension of the principles. 

The Center, under a grant from the US Department of Labor, is working to develop individual apprenticeship programs in a number of transit agencies. More 

broadly, the Center endeavors to make registered, joint labor-management apprenticeship programs the new norm for how the transit industry addresses the workforce and skills crisis. 

In the rest of the advanced industrial world, apprenticeship has established itself 

as the norm for training. Germany, which enjoys a substantial trade surplus in 

manufactured goods, relies heavily on apprenticeship to fill the ranks of its highly 

skilled workforce. In the US, apprenticeship has enjoyed bipartisan support from 

successive Administrations and from both parties in Congress. 

Specific to this subcommittee’s jurisdiction, on the highway construction side, we 

are not seeing the dire skills shortages spelled out here for the transit workforce. 

Construction unions have more than a century of experience with joint apprenticeship programs, and those programs work well to address ongoing and future needs. 

Like all sectors of the economy, construction does face issues with an aging workforce as well as a need to diversify the pool of candidates qualifying for journey level 

jobs. There, too, the building trades joint apprenticeship programs are demonstrating the capacity to respond to the challenge. The Multi-Craft Core Curriculum (MC3), developed by the building trades apprenticeship directors, serves as 

a model for effective pre-apprenticeship training. 

Apprenticeship for skilled maintenance work in transit clearly makes sense. Wellstructured apprenticeship with good mentoring and possibly with some pre-apprenticeship options can also help transit address some glaring problems in its workforce 

profile. Simply put, the skilled maintenance workforce in transit remains overwhelmingly male and nearly as overwhelmingly white. Transit cannot adequately 

address its workforce shortages unless it reaches out to the entire workforce. More 

inclusive outreach and training for the well-paid jobs the transit industry offers is 

a moral imperative; it is also a practical necessity. 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\Clark-3.eps
33 

Figure 4—Percentage of Women in the Workforce 

Figure 5—Employment in Transportation Jobs by Race 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\Clark-4.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\Clark-5.eps
34 

Figure 6—Employment in Transportation Jobs by Ethnicity 

Source (Figure 4–6): Data Report on Transportation Workforce Needs by the U.S. 

Departments of Education, Transportation and Labor. 

Having identified apprenticeship as a promising approach, we return to the hard 

reality that training never rises to a priority level for transit. Bus maintenance is 

by far the largest maintenance craft. On the bus maintenance side, the Center has 

identified several small to midsize agencies that have a sincere interest in establishing an apprenticeship program but are severely handicapped because they do not 

have the time or resources to implement such a program. These agencies typically 

do not have a training department or have limited training staff barely able to keep 

pace with refresher and new technology training. Providing classroom instruction to 

apprentices, which constitutes about one-third of the program, becomes extremely 

difficult with such limited resources. Making matters worse is that nearly all agencies, large, medium and small, are lacking technicians, putting increased pressure 

on them to make buses road ready for revenue service. This pervasive condition 

makes it extremely difficult to spare senior technicians as mentors needed to provide apprentices with on the job training, which makes up the remaining and essential apprenticeship activity. 

The Center also works on developing apprenticeship for bus drivers (or as some 

locations call them, transit coach operators). That may seem counter-intuitive. After 

all, bus operators do not need to learn advanced electronics or similar technical material. Earlier in the testimony, I referred to high turnover among bus drivers. As 

noted, operator assaults play a role there. So does the ordinary and grinding routine 

of driving a bus. New hires work the least desirable shifts in the worst neighborhoods. Training focuses on earning the Commercial Driver’s License and on how to 

handle a large vehicle in traffic. The larger challenge for people aspiring to be bus 

drivers is how to deal with the public. Turnover among new hires can be very high. 

One large city gave me an estimate that 50 percent of new hires were still driving 

a bus a year after completing training. Another city, which has paid a lot of attention to operator training, has about 60 percent retention over that 1-year period. 

These are not sustainable numbers. 

Operator apprenticeship started at Valley Transit Authority (VTA) in San Jose, 

California. The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 265 initiated the program, 

and its members played a large role in making it work. Mentors, selected by the 

union and approved by management, volunteer to work with new drivers. They offer 

their insights and experience, sometimes riding with the new driver, often by phone, 

a few times every year in a conference setting. By chance, VTA launched its pilot 

apprenticeship program at the same time as it ran a traditional class. Union and 

management agreed that the new program required additional resources so that 

only one cohort would benefit. Eighteen months later, VTA looked at the two cohorts. VTA does a lot better than most on retention as a general rule. More than 

70 percent of driver trainees who started in the traditional class were still driving 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\Clark-6.eps
35 

a bus for VTA. For the cohort that went through the full mentoring and apprenticeship, nearly 100 percent were driving a bus 18 months later. 

VTA also saw a rise in customer satisfaction, a drop in absenteeism and improved 

safety. Those are results we want to replicate across the transit industry. VTA and 

ATU Local 265 created a Joint Workforce Initiative (JWI) to oversee apprenticeship 

and training across all occupations. Once again, San Jose provides a model that 

should be replicated. 

By definition, apprenticeship takes places at the local level. Sharing across locations can help people learn and improve what they are doing. The Center has taken 

that cross-location learning a major step further. Bringing together subject matter 

experts from both labor and management and from different locations, the Center 

has developed Consortium work for delivery of instructor-ready courseware for rail 

car technicians, signals maintainers and transit elevator-escalator mechanics. Agencies, even large agencies, often lack the capacity to develop new and up-to-date 

courses on their own. Consortium material enhances the training department’s ability to deliver courses. 

To recap, we have seen some data on the skills crisis facing public transit. Neither 

the transit agencies nor the Federal Government is addressing the need for training 

adequately. 

What, if any relevance, does all of this have for reauthorization. 

I would advance several recommendations: 

1. Make human capital count by counting human capital. The FAST Act could require more attention to human capital. Dr. Beverly Scott, an experienced General Manager at several agencies and a major industry leader on workforce 

issues, proposes that the National Transit Data base be required to include 

basic workforce measures. She proposed this as part of rulemaking process on 

Transit Asset Management arguing that human capital needs to be assessed 

as much as physical capital. She notes that GAO as early as 2001 cited lack 

of a strategic approach to workforce as a major problem across all public sector 

entities. If agencies are required to report on human capital and know that it 

is a responsibility funders take seriously, then human capital will become a 

higher management priority. Elements of human capital she proposed to include in the National Transit Data Base: 

a. Total Labor Cost (payroll, contingent and contract worker pay, benefits excluding consultants); % of Operating Expense; 

b. Workforce Profile—# Total Employees (Full-Time/Part-Time), Major Job 

Classifications, ‘‘Key Positions’’ (industry-wide by mode), Average Age, Tenure, EEO Profile and Underutilization Target Groups—annual progress; 

c. Total # Annual Vacancies/3-Year Average (‘‘new’’ positions; attrition/turnover 

rates (including promotions)); by ‘‘Key positions’’; 

d. 5-Year Hire and Retirement Projections (Retirement ‘‘Eligibility’’ and ‘‘Likelihood’’ based on historical agency experience); 

e. Average Time to Fill Positions—‘‘Key Positions’’, by Major Job Classification; 

f. Annual Absenteeism Data by Major Job Classification/Total and Agency Cost; 

g. Total Training, Apprenticeship & Employee Development Investment; % of 

Budget; 

h. Mandatory Employee Training/Completion Rates; 

i. Annual Safety Training/Certification Completion Rates; 

j. Employee/Passenger Injury Data (Human Factors primary; contributing factor); 

k. Prepare a H.R. Risk Registry (5-Year Planning Horizon), which identifies 

major workforce challenges (current, emerging, and future) and plans to address. 

2. Authorize funding (the Secretary shall, not the Secretary may) for a national 

resource center for frontline workforce training at a level equal to current funding for the National Transit Institute. Naturally, I propose that the Transportation Learning Center play that role. So long as the national workforce center 

must reflect both labor and management interests, must address diversity of 

the incoming technical workforce, must focus on apprenticeship, then the Center can compete for the designation. Win or lose, we will know that the issues 

that need to be addressed are addressed. 

3. Require that USDOT coordinate workforce efforts with other Federal entities, 

particularly the US Department of Labor’s National Office of Apprenticeship 

and the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education at the US Department of Education. In numerous instances, particularly at the state level, transit is excluded from Federal training funds because funds are reserved for private sector employers. As documented here, transit under-invests in training, 

largely because transit is underfunded. The jobs in transit offer career ladders 

36 

and family sustaining wages. DOT should advocate with other Federal funders 

to maximize the opportunity for transit agencies to benefit from workforce 

funds. 

4. This subcommittee and its members will help shape any Federal infrastructure 

package that may go well beyond the scope of the FAST Act and will almost 

certainly include funding for upgrading transit infrastructure. I am not addressing in this testimony how infrastructure will be financed, but I do want 

to emphasize that while infrastructure spending can and will create jobs, there 

needs to be corresponding increases in workforce funding to prepare people for 

those jobs. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. I thank you for that reminder. There was a time 

when we thought these people just floated into this industry. That 

is not the case today. 

Next is Therese McMillan, executive director of the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. 

Ms. McMillan? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, my 

name is Therese McMillan. I am the executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the federally designated 

MPO for the nine-county San Francisco Bay area. And in that role 

we not only conduct long-range planning and project prioritization 

for the bay area’s 7 million residents, we also are the recipient of 

the Federal Transit Administration formula and Federal Highway 

Administration funds. 

Put simply, a strong Federal role in our Nation’s multimodal 

transportation system has been essential for the entirety of our Nation’s history. But transportation is not just about moving people 

and goods, as was noted. It is about access to opportunity and quality of life, and we believe it is time for the Federal Government to 

do more. 

We at MTC and the Nation’s other MPOs look forward to working with you to reauthorize the FAST Act, to strengthen our economy, and create new opportunities for well-paying jobs that can rebuild our Nation’s ailing transportation infrastructure, while continually striving to make travel both safer and more reliable within 

and across the Nation’s diverse communities. 

The local State-Federal partnership model enshrined in the 

FAST Act is a model that works. In the bay area our local commitment to this model includes over $1.5 billion annually of sales tax 

and toll dollars dedicated to our multimodal transportation system. 

All are voter-approved. Even still, our residents recognize that 

more needs to be done as they continue to experience daily our congested roadways and increasingly aging and crowded transit systems. 

In 2017 our State legislature, committed to holding up its end of 

the partnership bargain, voting by a two-thirds majority a historic 

transportation funding package comprised of a wide array of user 

fees that generates over $5 billion annually. These funds are solely 

dedicated to rebuilding and improving California’s streets, highways, and bridges, and public transit systems. And the cornerstone 

of that bill was restoring the gas tax to its purchasing power in 

1994 and indexing it into the future. 

Providing for continued growth in the U.S. economy demands a 

much larger Federal commitment to the local-State-Federal partVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
37 

nership. As a member of the family of MPOs, we especially call 

upon Congress to expand the share of funds that are invested in 

the Nation’s metropolitan areas, the engines of our Nation’s economy. Two programs in particular have been vital to regions’ ability 

to create solutions to challenges we face at the local level across 

the country. 

Specifically, the surface transportation block grant program, 

which we continue to call STP, and the congestion mitigation and 

air quality, or CMAQ program, enable the flexibility that creative 

solutions demand across very different communities. 

As an example, in the bay area we are now using this flexibility 

to direct STP and CMAQ dollars to cities and counties as an incentive to build more housing at or near existing transit stops and 

other transportation services. This strategy leverages Federal 

funds by enhancing significantly a transportation project’s mobility 

and access benefits, encouraging those who can now live closer to 

transit and those projects to actually use it, which in turn helps to 

curb congestion and reduces longer auto trips and carbon emissions. 

Importantly, STP and CMAQ programs deliver funds to an array 

of projects that improve people’s lives at a very local level, giving 

taxpayers more confidence and visible certainty about how Federal 

money is being spent and invested in their communities. 

Therefore, we urge you to invest more funds in STP, and to directly allocate those block grants to MPOs nationwide, so that their 

residents can benefit from projects selected at the regional level, 

consistent with priorities developed in the regional transportation 

plans. 

In addition we would ask you to restore the local distributed 

share of STP to a historic level of 62.5 percent, if not higher. Directing more dollars to metropolitan areas serves all of our interests. The bay area and other metro areas continue to drive national 

economic output, and in these areas new innovations are most 

often made and new technologies are being developed and deployed. 

As we look to the future, the field of transportation may be 

poised to undergo as much change in the next decade as any time 

since the automotive age. For those of us that have been in the 

transportation field our entire career, the pace of this change is astounding. Overnight, cities are finding their streets and sidewalks 

teeming with new e-bikes, or e-scooters, deployed by the latest 

shared mobility startups. In my home in the San Francisco Bay 

area, we are seeing these changes up close with the likes of Tesla, 

Uber, Lyft, Google’s Waymo, Apple Car, Cruise Automation, and 

dozens more. 

And as with all technological breakthroughs, there are risks as 

well as benefits. Building the highway and communications platform necessary for a connected and autonomous future is a fundamental Federal responsibility we would urge this committee to take 

up. 

In addition to the technological change, we are preparing ourselves in the bay area region to be more resilient in the face of a 

changing climate and, in particular, sea level rise. One visible local 

example is State Highway 37, which travels through Marin, SoVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
38 

lano, Napa, and Sonoma Counties in the north of our region. This 

20-mile corridor is regularly backed up with traffic and too often 

shut down due to flooding during the winter season, including 

twice in the last few weeks. What is more, it is also highly vulnerable to complete inundation, due to sea level rise 30 years from 

now. 

Improvements for the project are designed to improve ecological 

enhancements upfront, in tandem with reducing the roadway flooding vulnerability. As this committee considers the future of the 

Federal transportation program, I would encourage you to 

prioritize projects like this that will help communities across the 

Nation adjust to a changing climate. 

In conclusion, Madam Chair and committee members, America’s 

diverse metropolitan areas are prime to tackle the myriad mobility 

and related access challenges of the future, be they technical, financial, environmental, or societal in nature. We seek and ask a 

strong Federal partnership to help support the solutions to address 

those challenges. And in doing so, to seize the opportunities this 

country should extend to all of its people. 

Thank you for having me here today. 

[Ms. McMillan’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning. My name is Therese McMillan. I am the Executive Director of the 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the federally-designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. In 

that role, we not only conduct long-range planning and project prioritization for the 

Bay Area’s 7 million residents, we also are the recipient of Federal Transit Administration formula and Federal Highway Administration funds. 

Put simply, a strong federal role in our nation’s multimodal transportation system 

has been essential for the entirety of our nation’s history. It is a core federal responsibility. But transportation is not just about moving people and goods around. It is 

about access to opportunity and quality of life and we believe it is time for the federal government to do more, much more. 

We at MTC and the nation’s other MPOs look forward to working with Congress 

to reauthorize the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act—to 

strengthen our economy, to create new opportunities for well-paying jobs that can 

rebuild our nation’s ailing transportation infrastructure, while continually striving 

to make travel both safer and more reliable within and across all of the nation’s 

diverse communities. 

BAY AREA PERSPECTIVE

With hundreds of miles of interstate freeway and rail lines, thousands of buses 

and rail cars, three international airports, a major West Coast seaport and a freight 

railhead that serves both urban and rural America, the Bay Area serves as a complex, multimodal hub, as well as a destination. Providing adequate funding to maintain, operate and expand this transportation system to meet the needs of today and 

tomorrow is an endless challenge. Local voters have contributed enormously to that 

endeavor, but we also depend greatly on contributions from our state and federal 

partners. 

The local/state/federal partnership model enshrined in the FAST Act is a model 

that works. In the Bay Area, our local commitment to this model includes over $1.5 

billion annually of sales tax and toll dollars dedicated to our multi-modal transportation system—all voter-approved. Even still, our residents recognize that more resources are needed, as they continue to experience daily our congested roadways, 

and increasingly aging and crowded transit systems. 

39 

1For the project list, see the ‘‘Top 10’’ Plan Bay Area Capital Projects graphic on page 4 of 

MTC and ABAG’s 2019 Report to Congress (https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2019lReportltolCongress-MTC-ABAG.pdf) 

In 2017 the California Legislature committed to holding up its end of the partnership bargain, voting to support—by a two-thirds majority—a historic transportation 

funding package comprised of a wide array of user fees that generates over $5 billion annually statewide. These funds are solely dedicated to rebuilding and improving California’s streets, highways and bridges, and public transit systems. The cornerstone of the bill was restoring the gas tax to its purchasing power in 1994 and 

indexing it into the future. 

Though federal dollars account for only 10 percent of the Bay Area’s total trans- portation investments—or $29 billion through 2040—they are critical to delivering 

major projects that will improve connectivity between the region’s population and 

job centers, and that will continue our outsized contribution to the nation’s economic 

growth. Seven of the Bay Area’s 10 largest transportation investments through 2040 

have received or anticipate receiving billions in federal transit capital grants primarily from the FAST Act’s Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program.1 Given the 

scope of these major projects, even with significant state and local matching funds, 

it is impossible to conceive of how these projects can be built without CIG funds. 

In addition, Bay Area transit operators are forecast to receive approximately $2.6 

billion in FAST Act core formula funding through 2020, which is prioritized for vitally-needed state of good repair projects. Additionally, as described in the next section, flexible FAST Act highway funding allows Bay Area cities and counties to invest in local transportation priorities that improve safety, spur economic development, encourage construction of affordable housing, and help the region meet climate change and air quality improvement goals. 

Accordingly, we recommend that the FAST Act reauthorization grow the core 

highway and transit programs that have proven effective in delivering essential 

funds for states and regions to address their pressing capital investment and state 

of good repair needs. 

CASE FOR A BIGGER FEDERAL PROGRAM/(FLEXIBLE INVESTMENT CAPACITY FOR REGIONS

AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANT PROGRAM)

Flexible Investment Capacity for Regions 

Providing for continued growth in the U.S. economy demands a much larger federal commitment to the local-state-federal partnership. As a member of the family 

of MPOs, we especially call upon Congress to increase federal investment flexibility 

directly available to the nation’s metropolitan areas for local mobility needs, an investment strategy that serves all our interests. 

The Bay Area and other metro areas continue to drive national economic output, 

and it is in these areas where new innovations are most often made, and where new 

technologies are being developed and deployed. Flexible, metro-level funding allows 

for regions to implement creative solutions to address the myriad challenges that 

confront different communities across the nation. Two programs in particular have 

been vital to MTC’s ability to create solutions to challenges we face at the local 

level. Specifically, the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, which we continue to call STP, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality—or CMAQ program, provide the flexibility that creative solutions demand across very different 

communities. 

As an example, in the Bay Area, where our housing crisis is contributing to record 

levels of traffic congestion, we are using this flexibility to direct STP and CMAQ 

dollars to cities and counties as an incentive to build more housing at or near existing transit stops and job centers. Cities and counties that approve new housing construction and adopt housing-supportive local plans are rewarded with additional federal funds that they may direct to a wide range of transportation projects, from Vision Zero safety improvements to local street and road maintenance. This strategy 

supports the Bay Area in making progress toward a number of our performance 

goals: transit and job center-oriented development helps curb congestion and reduce 

longer auto trips to minimize on-road mobile source emissions and pavement wear 

and tear. 

Two unique elements of the STP and CMAQ programs enable MTC to effectively 

leverage these federal dollars. First, the programs’ broad project eligibility helps 

these funds serve as an effective incentive, as locals are able to direct the funds to 

their highest priority projects. Second, because the funds are distributed at the 

metro area level, MPOs are able to invest these funds to provide innovative regional 

solutions that span jurisdictional boundaries. Projects such as the Clipper card (our 

40 

multi-operator transit-fare payment card) or our regional bikeshare program are 

harder to pay for with funds that are awarded to specific transit operators or local 

jurisdictions for specific projects (if voter approved) or for mode-siloed investments. 

Importantly, the STP and CMAQ programs deliver funds to an array of projects 

that improve people’s lives at a very local level—giving taxpayers more confidence 

and certainty about how federal money is being spent and invested in their communities. This combination of flexibility and accountability is the right way to meet the 

challenges before us now, and to adapt to the uncertain and rapid change we anticipate ahead. 

Therefore, we urge Congress to invest more funds in STP and to directly allocate 

these block grants to MPOs nationwide so that residents living outside of California—where suballocation is provided for in state law—can also benefit from 

projects selected at the regional level, consistent with the priorities developed in the 

regional transportation plans. In addition, we would ask you to restore the local distributed share of STP to its historic level of 62.5 percent, if not higher. 

Capital Investment Grant Program 

The Bay Area has developed an aggressive $26 billion investment plan to improve 

transit connectivity between the region’s population and job centers. CIG funding— 

matched 2-to-1 by state and local dollars—is key to advancing priorities that will 

not only address critical regional core capacity and expansion needs, but will contribute to the nation’s economic growth. For example, Caltrain, a vital link in the 

Bay Area’s transportation network connecting San Francisco to San Jose and to the 

nation’s most high-profile tech companies, secured a $647 million full funding grant 

agreement in 2017, accelerating an electrification project (PCEP) that has been in 

the works for more than two decades. PCEP will help create over $2.5 billion in economic value and address one of the Bay Area’s principal barriers to economic growth 

by relieving traffic on the increasingly congested Interstate 280 and U.S. Route 101 

corridors. Modernizing Caltrain will put Americans to work and significantly increase rail commuting capacity to Silicon Valley, one of the most economically productive areas in the United States. In the coming years, Bay Area transit operators 

will be seeking more than $3 billion in new CIG commitments for the region’s next 

generation of transit capacity projects, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 

Silicon Valley Phase II, Caltrain Downtown Extension and BART Transbay Corridor 

Core Capacity. 

CHANGE IS COMING (PLANNING FOR UNCERTAINTY AND INVESTING IN A

TRANSFORMATIVE AND ADAPTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK)

As we look to the future, the field of transportation may be poised to undergo as 

much change in the next decade as it has at any time since the dawn of the automotive age. For those of us who have been in the transportation field our entire career, the pace of change is astounding. Overnight, cities find their streets and sidewalks teeming with new e-bikes or e-scooters deployed by the latest shared mobility 

start-up. In my home in the San Francisco Bay Area we are seeing these changes 

up close, with the likes of Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Google’s Waymo, Apple Car, Cruise Automation and dozens more. And as with all technological breakthroughs, there are 

risks as well as benefits. Building the highway and communications platform necessary for a connected and autonomous future is a fundamental federal responsibility we would urge this committee to embrace. 

In addition to technological change, we are preparing ourselves in the region to 

be more resilient in the face of a changing climate, and in particular, sea-level rise. 

One visible local example is State Highway 37, which travels through Marin, Solano, Napa, and Sonoma counties. This 20-mile corridor is regularly backed up with 

traffic and too often shut down due to flooding during the winter season, including 

twice in the last few weeks. What’s more, it is also highly vulnerable to complete 

inundation due to sea-level rise 30 years from now. Improvement projects are designed to provide ecological enhancements up front in tandem with reducing the 

roadway flooding vulnerability. 

As this committee considers the future of the federal transportation program, I 

would encourage you to support communities across the nation in making our transportation networks responsive to the technology-fueled transformation in how people 

and goods move, and to the changing climate. 

Planning for an Uncertain Future 

New technologies are expected to transform how people will connect, travel and 

transport freight. Extreme weather and rising sea levels challenge us to adapt and 

develop more resilient infrastructure. Like states and regions throughout the nation, 

the Bay Area is grappling with how to best incorporate the uncertainties posed by 

41 

climate change and transformative transportation technologies into our planning 

and near-term investment decisions. 

MTC has recently undertaken Horizon, a new effort to plan for—and help shape— 

a range of possible futures. By expanding beyond traditional long-range scenario 

planning, which holds fixed certain transportation and land-use assumptions, Horizon will help inform big questions facing the transportation industry, such as: 

• How might automation help solve the first-mile/last-mile transit challenge, reducing barriers to transit ridership? What type of investments are needed to get 

us there? 

• What roadway investments could maximize the opportunities associated with 

the shift to connected and autonomous vehicles, and expedite short-term safety 

benefits? 

• How do we prepare or adapt our transportation systems to be resilient against 

rising sea levels? 

Ultimately, this effort is designed to enable planners to analyze a potential 

project’s performance across a range of different futures and lead to better decisionmaking by policy makers with regard to project prioritization. Though the benefits 

may be significant, this planning effort requires substantial time and resources. Because it is a break from traditional planning, Horizon is a wholly separate effort 

that MTC will complete in advance of developing the region’s federally mandated 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan update. 

This committee could consider expanding the scope of the long-range planning 

process to include new mobility-related technology considerations, and increase 

planning funds to help regions and states better address complexities around transformative transportation technologies and climate change. Increased planning funding will also support states and MPOs in fulfilling current performance-based planning mandates, which were added in the 2012 transportation authorization without 

a commensurate increase in planning resources. Importantly, we recommend retaining existing flexibility for planners to innovate, specifically in how they incorporate 

new mobility-related technology considerations into the planning process. 

The committee could also consider creating a pilot program to generate best practices for states and MPOs to be responsive to a new mobility paradigm and to uncertainties posed by climate change. The United States Department of Transportation 

could provide state and regional pilot program participants with tools (e.g., data sets 

and case studies) to incorporate the transportation system impacts of mobility-related technologies and to incorporate climate change considerations into transportation system performance evaluations. 

Investing in a 21st Century Transportation Network 

Metro areas drive the nation’s economy, house much of the nation’s critical infrastructure and will be the test beds of large-scale deployment of new mobility-related 

technologies that are expected to transform how people and goods travel. These 

areas will require substantial investment to adapt our infrastructure to be resilient 

to a changing climate and to be responsive to a new mobility paradigm. Federally 

supported, near-term infrastructure improvements will provide the dual benefit of 

immediately mitigating carbon-emitting congestion while preparing our nation for 

the future. For example, a high-speed communications infrastructure backbone 

would support near-term congestion-reduction and air quality improvement strategies like smart traffic signal operations while laying the foundation for future vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications. 

The committee should consider creating a new flexible program to make our 

transportation networks more resilient in the face of a changing climate and more 

responsive to the technology-fueled transformation in how people and goods move. 

To be most effective, the program should be highly flexible, mode-neutral and include formula and discretionary components. Eligible projects should include capital 

and operational investments that improve both near-term and long-term system 

safety and performance. Examples include programs to support deployment of autonomous vehicles, including vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicleto-everything (V2X) communications technologies; priced managed lanes; transportation demand management programs; strategic micro-transit investments; advanced parking freight delivery and incident management systems; alternative fuel 

charging infrastructure and other advanced technologies to support a clean transportation system; and climate mitigation/resiliency improvements. The formula component of the program should be allocated to large metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), the nation’s population and job centers with the most immediate 

needs. Discretionary grant funding should additionally support states, local governments, transit agencies and ports in efforts to upgrade freight corridors and other 

42 

critical infrastructure. The discretionary component should have a rural set-aside to 

ensure such communities also have access to program funds. 

In lieu of a new program, the committee could also consider providing resources 

for 21st century transportation investments through existing FAST Act programs, 

including STP, a revised Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, and a significantly expanded and revised Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment program by expanding project eligibility within these programs. 

In conclusion, Madam Chair and Committee members, America’s diverse metropolitan areas are primed to tackle the myriad mobility and related access challenges 

of the future—be they technical, financial, environmental or societal in nature. We 

ask for a strong federal partnership to help support the solutions required to address them—and in doing so, to seize the opportunities in this country that should 

extend to all of its people. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. McMillan. 

Al Stanley, vice president of the Stanley Construction Company, 

on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. STANLEY. Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to be part 

of today’s hearing. My name is Al Stanley, and I am a highway site 

work and civil construction builder from Huntsville, Alabama. 

Stanley Construction Company was established in 1961 by my 

father. At that time the major emphasis was on landscaping for 

residential and commercial clients, and there were only three employees. Today our company has grown into a diverse business enterprise, completing numerous commercial projects as well as State 

and Federal projects. 

I am here today representing the Associated General Contractors 

of America and currently serve on AGC’s board of directors. I also 

served in 2009 as the president of Alabama AGC’s State chapter. 

AGC is a national organization representing 26,000 businesses involved in every aspect of the construction industry. 

Madam Chairwoman, in AGC’s written testimony we have pointed out the conditions and needs facing our Nation’s transportation 

infrastructure, both urban and rural. As we approach the expiration of the FAST Act, Congress must address today’s upkeep, maintenance, and expansion, while also looking to the transportation 

needs of the future. 

Choices must be made to advance transportation to the next level 

by modernizing the system by making the best use of available and 

upcoming technology. The transportation network is on the cusp of 

technological change that will impact how we plan, design, and 

build our projects; how we inventory and plan maintenance in our 

transportation assets; and how vehicles that use the system are 

driven, and how they interact with each other, with the infrastructure. 

Indeed, Madam Chairwoman, the future of transportation is exciting. However, nothing is guaranteed, and the gravest threat to 

the advancement of transportation infrastructure is the long-term 

solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. 

Shortly after the FAST Act expires, additional revenue of some $18 billion per year will be needed just to maintain current funding 

levels. Failure to address the funding’s ongoing revenue shortfall 

undermines the ability to advance our infrastructure to the next 

level. 

43 

AGC believes the Highway Trust Fund revenue sources should 

be real, reliable, dedicated, sustainable, and derived from users and 

beneficiaries of our surface transportation system. They should be 

sufficient to end the chronic shortfalls, and support increased investment, and they should be dedicated solely to surface transportation improvements. Increasing the Federal motor fuels tax is the 

simplest and most effective way to achieve this goal, but several 

other viable options do exist. 

AGC is part of the Mileage-Based User Fee Alliance. We believe 

that user fees based on road usage in the future is the most fairest 

way of collecting the revenue needed for road improvements and 

transportation technology advances. We urge you to continue supporting the State pilot programs that were initiated in the FAST 

Act, and hope that you will also institute a national trial program 

to advance the concept from the beta stage to reality. 

While the Federal Government fails to act, States continue to 

make significant commitments to investment and transportation 

infrastructure. Currently, in my own State of Alabama, the Governor’s Rebuild Alabama plan increases funding for roads and 

bridges by raising the State’s gasoline tax 10 cents per gallon. The 

Federal Government must do their fair share, as States rely on 

Federal aid funding for the majority of their capital improvements. 

While funding is critically important, AGC also believes this legislation should improve project delivery by removing impediments 

that slow down planning and design and construction of needed infrastructure. 

AGC is very appreciative for the work this committee has done 

in helping enact bipartisan environmental reforms in MAP–21 and 

in the FAST Act. But more can be done, and improvements upon 

those enacted reforms can be made. We have included some recommendations in our written testimony that has been submitted. 

In addition, we urge this committee to consider two issues that 

cause construction delays. 

First, transportation improvement projects that interface with 

railroad properties are often subject to significant restrictions and 

delays imposed by railroad owners. Obtaining fair and equitable 

railroad agreements, as well as ensuring that commitments are 

made in a timely manner are often a struggle, and add time and 

cost to transportation projects. My written testimony includes recommendations to improve this process. 

Second, relocating underground utilities and highway right-ofway continues to be one of the leading causes of delay in completing projects. Underground utilities that are incorrectly marked 

poses a significant safety risk to workers, and can impact thirdparty business operations. AGC participates in the Common 

Ground Alliance that grew out of a study directed in TEA–21 to 

look at the issue of utility relocation. AGC encourages the CGA 

best practices be used more universally. 

In conclusion, the needs of our transportation infrastructure are 

clear. Now is the time to act in a bipartisan way to provide a stable 

and growing revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund, while enacting a surface transportation reauthorization that meets the need 

of our growing economy and our growing population, as well. 

44 

Thank you for this opportunity to present our position, and we 

look forward to questions. Thank you. 

[Mr. Stanley’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Al Stanley, Vice President, Stanley Construction 

Company, Inc., on behalf of The Associated General Contractors of America 

Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, thank you for 

inviting me here today. My name is Al Stanley. I am a highway, site work and civil 

construction builder from Huntsville, Alabama. I am currently serving on the Board 

of Directors of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC). AGC is a national organization representing 26,500 businesses involved in every aspect of construction activity in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC. AGC members 

build the highway, bridge, airports, transit systems, rail facilities and other transportation projects that keep America running. 

Infrastructure in general, and transportation infrastructure in particular, is an 

issue that has no partisan bounds. Transportation impacts our daily lives whether 

we live in rural American communities or in our great urban meccas. It impacts everything from our ability to get to work, the cost and availability of the products 

we rely on both in our personal lives and in our businesses, to the global competitiveness of our nation’s economy. 

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE WHILE ADDRESSING TODAY’S NEEDS

The vision of transportation and political leaders in the mid–20th century to 

imagine and invest in the Interstate Highway System (IHS) has paid and will continue to pay significant benefits to generations of Americans. The IHS was the leading factor in America’s growth since World War II and made the United States the 

world’s economic leader that it is today. The IHS has grown to not only provide the 

primary corridors for passenger and freight movement within large urban centers 

and between metropolitan and rural areas but it also provides the necessary connections between state and local roads systems and other transportation modes including, railroads, marine ports, airports, and public transit. 

Today’s transportation and political leaders are faced with new choices that can 

equally impact future generations. The first choice is to address the need for upkeep, maintenance and expansion of the existing transportation system to meet today’s needs. 

But just as important, choices need to be made to advance transportation to the 

next level by modernizing the system making the best use of available and upcoming technology developments. The transportation network is on the cusp of technological change that will impact how we plan, design and build projects; how we inventory and maintain our transportation assets; and how vehicles that use the system are driven and how they interact with each other and with the infrastructure. 

Transportation investment drives these technology advances. Advances made in 

autonomous vehicle technology is driven by transportation needs and, once available 

commercially, will rely on a good transportation network to operate safely and efficiently. 

There has been a technology boom in transportation construction that is increasing productivity and enhancing quality. Contractors are making widespread use of 

drones, estimating and project management software, automated machine guidance 

systems on equipment, 3D modeling, paperless projects, e-construction, precast-slide 

in bridges and the list goes on. States are managing construction projects through 

e-construction and keeping track of asset conditions through electronic models. Most 

of this technology is developed and manufactured in the United States. New materials and treatments are being developed to lengthen the life of the infrastructure 

once put in place. 

In the longer-term, these improvements will enhance economic competitiveness 

and improve quality of life by reducing travel delays and transportation costs, improving access and mobility, improving safety, and stimulating sustained job 

growth. 

AGC commends Congress for its leadership in enacting into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015. The FAST Act provided 

5 years of stability that our Federal-aid highway and transit programs had not seen 

since 2008. As we get closer to the expiration of the authorization, our nation’s 

transportation infrastructure needs continue to grow. As a result of sustained economic growth, increased population, emerging technologies and aging infrastructure, 

45 

it is critically important that the next reauthorization bill not only looks to the future but does not fail to address the needs that we are facing, and—in some cases— 

ignoring today. 

THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM’S NEEDS CANNOT SUSTAIN A

STATUS QUO APPROACH TO INVESTMENT

Despite the importance of transportation investment to the U.S. economy, there 

remains a significant need for improvement and growth. The 2015 AASHTO Transportation Bottom Line Report found that annual investment in the nation’s roads, 

highways and bridges needs to increase from $88 billion to $120 billion and from 

$17 billion to $43 billion in the nation’s public transit systems, to improve conditions and meet the nation’s mobility needs. The investment backlog for transportation infrastructure continues to increase, reaching $836 billion for highways and 

bridges and $122 billion for transit according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has identified a $1.1 trillion 

funding gap for surface transportation between 2016 and 2025. 

The Road Information Program (TRIP) reports that increases in vehicle travel 

since 2000 have resulted in a significant increase in wear and tear on the nation’s 

roads. Vehicle travel growth, which slowed significantly because of the Great Recession and the subsequent economic recovery, has since returned to pre-recession 

growth rates. From 2000 to 2016, vehicle travel in the U.S. increased by 16 percent. 

The rate of growth in vehicle miles of travel has accelerated since 2013, increasing 

by 6 percent between 2013 and 2016. Travel by large commercial trucks, which 

place significant stress on paved road and highway surfaces, continues to increase 

at a rate approximately double the rate for all vehicles. And, it is anticipated to continue to grow at a significant rate through 2030. Travel by large commercial trucks 

in the U.S. increased by 29 percent from 2000 to 2016. The level of heavy truck 

travel nationally is anticipated to increase by approximately 56 percent from 2018 

to 2045, putting greater stress on the nation’s roadways. 

From coast to coast, major streets and freeways in most U.S. communities are 

showing significant signs of distress. Reports provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), based on data submitted annually by state departments of 

transportation on the condition of major state and locally maintained roads and 

highways show that forty-four percent of America’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. One-third of the nation’s major urban roadways—highways and 

major streets that are the main routes for commuters and commerce—are in poor 

condition. These critical links in the nation’s transportation system carry 70 percent 

of the approximately 3.2 trillion miles driven annually in America. Forty-five percent of America’s major urban interstates experience congestion during peak hours. 

Based on Texas Transportation Institute calculations, TRIP estimates that traffic 

congestion in the U.S. in 2017 resulted in 7.3 billion hours of delays—an average 

of 45 hours annually per commuter—and costing the Nation $176 billion in the 

value of lost time and wasted fuel. The nation expects to add another 60 million 

people over the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the value of goods shipped annually (in 

inflation adjusted dollars) is expected to increase by 104 percent by 2045—and by 

91 percent for goods shipped by trucking. Without additional capacity, congestion 

can only be expected to increase. Americans rely heavily on motor vehicles for mobility. Travel in private vehicles accounts for 88 percent of all person miles of travel. 

Air travel accounts for 8 percent of all person miles of travel, while transit (including buses and trains) accounts for 1 percent. 

In fact, a 2017 global traffic congestion report by INRIX found that 16 out of the 

100 most congested urban areas globally are in the U.S., with the most congested 

urban areas in order being Boston (8th), Washington, DC. (19th), Chicago (23d), 

New York (40th) and Los Angeles (47th). 

Driving on roads in need of repair costs U.S. motorists $130 billion a year in extra 

vehicle repairs and operating costs, amounting to $599 per motorist. Nine percent 

or 54,259 of America’s bridges are structurally deficient, meaning there is significant deterioration to the major components of the bridge. And most troubling, we 

have seen a significant increase in traffic fatalities, which have gone up 14 percent 

between 2014 and 2017 from 32,675 to 37,133. And the traffic fatality rate on the 

nation’s non-Interstate rural roads is nearly two-and-a-half times higher than on all 

other roads. 

Our transportation infrastructure needs do not discriminate between rural and 

urban America. Many of the transportation challenges facing rural America are like 

those in urbanized areas. However, rural residents tend to be more heavily reliant 

on their limited transportation network—primarily rural roads and highways—than 

their counterparts in more urban areas. Residents of rural areas often must travel 

46 

longer distances to access education, employment, retail locations, social opportunities and health services. America’s rural heartland plays a vital role in our economy 

as home to a significant share of the nation’s population, many of its natural resources, and popular tourist destinations. It is also the primary source of the energy, 

food and fiber that supports America’s economy and way of life. 

US DOT reports that in 2015, 15 percent of the nation’s major rural roads (arterials and collectors) were rated in poor condition, 21 percent were rated in mediocre 

condition, 16 percent were rated in fair condition and 48 percent were rated in good 

condition. In 2016, 10 percent of the nation’s rural bridges were rated as structurally deficient. 

A concern in the rural areas of our country is motorist safety. As TRIP points out, 

‘‘The higher traffic fatality rate found on rural, non-Interstate routes is a result of 

multiple factors, including a lack of desirable roadway safety features, longer emergency vehicle response times, and the higher speeds traveled on rural roads compared to urban roads.’’ Many of the safety deficiencies on rural roads can be fixed. 

These include narrow lanes, limited shoulders, sharp curves, exposed hazards, pavement drop-offs, steep slopes and limited clear zones along roadsides. 

THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT ARE

WELL-DOCUMENTED

The positive relationship between transportation capital investment, economic 

output and private sector productivity has been well documented for decades by 

business analysts, economists and the research community. A safe, reliable and efficient transportation network helps businesses increase access to labor and materials, increase market share and expand their customer base, reduce production 

costs, access global markets and foster innovation. A 2017 study performed for 

NAIOP—the Commercial Real Estate Development Association—by Professor Stephen Fuller of George Mason University found the $1.16 trillion in construction 

spending in 2016: 

• Contributed $3.4 trillion to U.S. GDP. 

• Generated $1.1 trillion in new personal earnings. 

• Supported a total of 23.8 million jobs throughout the U.S. economy 

Enhancing critical transportation assets will boost the economy in the short-term 

by creating jobs in construction and related fields. In the longer-term these improvements will enhance economic competitiveness and improve the quality of life by reducing travel delays and transportation costs, improving access and mobility, improving safety, and stimulating sustained job growth. 

A SUSTAINABLE, LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO FUNDING THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND MUST

BE A PRIORITY

Prior to the expiration of the FAST Act next year, Congress must take the opportunity to fix the Highway Trust Fund and look at ways to enhance the existing Federal transportation infrastructure programs. While the FAST Act was a welcome reprieve from the uncertainty created by the many delays and short-term extensions 

of authorization that led up to its passage, it still left a great deal of uncertainty 

about future surface transportation investments. The FAST Act temporarily stabilized Federal highway and public transportation investment by transferring $70 

billion from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury to supplement an estimated $208 

billion in HTF revenue from existing sources over the 5-year duration of the bill. 

When the FAST Act expires, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $159 

billion in additional funding would be required to maintain current spending levels 

plus inflation from fiscal years 2022–2029. Failing to address the fund’s ongoing revenue shortfall leaves open the possibility of disruptive uncertainty for states and the 

construction industry once the FAST Act expires. Without an extension and new 

revenue, AASHTO estimates that states will see about a 50 percent reduction in 

highway funding from FY 2020 to the following year and $47 billion to $23 billion 

in FY 2021. We urge you to act sooner rather than later. In the past failure to meet 

the deadline resulted in numerous short-term extensions that caused project cancellations, higher costs and delay of improvements affecting safety, efficiency and 

economic development. 

With the hope that the legislation will not just keep the country treading water 

but will instead provide the kind of investment needed to propel our economy into 

the future, AGC urges you to provide real, reliable, dedicated and sustainable revenue sources derived from the users and beneficiaries of the system for the Highway 

Trust Fund that supports increased Federal surface transportation investments. 

AGC’s preferred method to address the solvency of the trust fund is an increase in 

the Federal motor fuels tax—something that has not been done since 1993. RecogVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
47 

nizing the growing number of electric and hybrid vehicles, we also recommend Congress consider imposing an annual registration on electric and hybrid vehicles. 

In 2009, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Commission concluded that the U.S. needs a new approach to transportation infrastructure financing, stating that ‘‘Direct user charges are the most viable and sustainable long-term, 

user pay option for the Federal Government.’’ The commission recommended moving 

to a vehicle mile traveled (VMT) fee or mileage-based user fee (MBUF). The VMT 

is a user charge based on miles driven in a specific vehicle as opposed to the current 

excise tax on fuel consumed. At its simplest, the fee would be cents per mile. A VMT 

would ensure that all users are paying their ‘‘fair share’’ to keep roads and bridges 

in a state of good repair regardless of the type of vehicle they drive. 

To make it work on a national scale, a VMT system needs to be tested, piloted 

and refined at the state and local level. In the FAST Act Congress provided some 

$95 million to states to undertake pilot programs to look at implementation of a 

VMT fee. Thus far, 11 states have been awarded funds to enter into pilots, with 

many more states exploring VMTs. Many lessons are being learned from these pilots 

including privacy protection, equity by income, geography and vehicle type, cost of 

administration and complexity of implementation. If we are to transition to a VMT 

as an eventual replacement for the motor fuels tax it is imperative that a robust 

national pilot program is included in a reauthorization bill. 

Public Private Partnerships (P3s) have been given much emphasis in the past few 

years. Clearly, there is a place for P3s in addressing current and future transportation needs. P3s bring additional financing options to the table to address transportation needs that would not be there without Federal encouragement. In addition, 

P3s shift risk away from state DOTs and bring new players into the operations and 

maintenance mix. However, P3s are not the universal answer to the funding shortfall. Only certain types of projects are attractive to P3 development. These are primarily revenue generating projects and largely in dense urban areas. While encouragement for P3s should continue, it must be understood that they are an enhancement and not alone the solution to the funding shortfall. 

CONTINUED FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PARTNERSHIP IS CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF

OUR NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

The partnership between Federal, state and local governments is critical to our 

transportation infrastructure. This partnership is as important as ever and must be 

continued for our country to meet the transportation needs of our growing economy. 

As such, state and local governments have taken it upon themselves to raise revenue to supplement their respective programs. 

According to the USDOT’s 2015 Conditions and Performance report, state and 

local governments provided 80 percent of $217 billion invested in state and local 

road-related programs and 74 percent of $43 billion invested in transit-related programs compared to 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively, contributed by the Federal Government. States continue to make significant commitments to invest in 

transportation infrastructure as evidenced by successful enactment of transportation 

revenue packages in 33 states since 2012. Unfortunately, the Federal Government 

has not kept up its end of the bargain by failing to adjust the user fees that provide 

funding for much of our Federal surface transportation investments. 

Federal leadership and commitment are crucial ingredients for ensuring the continued success of this long-standing partnership. The certainty of Federal investments help state departments of transportation (DOTs) make needed investments 

in the major freight corridors that drive national and regional economic growth. The 

1 million miles of roadways eligible for the Federal aid highway program account 

for 25 percent of total miles but carry 84 percent of all traffic. The 48,000 miles of 

the Interstate Highway System, which is the backbone of the U.S. economy, carries 

25 percent of all traffic, including over half of the miles driven by freight trucks delivering goods across the country. Federal investment also accounts for 82 percent 

of rural and 64 percent of urban transit agency capital outlays, in infrastructure 

and rolling stock. Federal-aid funding remains critical to state-level capital investment in highways and bridges, averaging 52 percent of that state investment in recent years. 

Highway accessibility was ranked the No. 1 site selection factor in a 2017 survey 

of corporate executives by Area Development Magazine. Labor costs and the availability of skilled labor, which are both impacted by a site’s level of accessibility, 

were rated second and third, respectively. Seventy-three percent of the $27.7 trillion 

worth of commodities shipped to and from sites in the U.S. is transported by trucks 

on the nation’s highways. An additional 14 percent is delivered by rail, water, parcel, U.S. Postal Service or courier, which use multiple modes, including highways. 

48 

The formula-based distribution of funds through the Federal-aid highway program 

has worked well over the years and should be maintained. In order to have a strong 

national system, it is important that all segments of the system receive support. The 

formula-based funding also garners political and public support. Support for transit 

investment has also come from the Highway Trust Fund. With the growing use of 

transit in many communities, the traditional 80–20 share of Highway trust Fund 

revenue between these two transportation modes should be maintained. However, 

additional revenue sources must be found to support transit infrastructure needs. 

FURTHER IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PERMITTING PROCESS

AGC is very appreciative for the work this committee has undertaken in helping 

enact bipartisan environmental reforms in MAP–21 and the FAST Act. But more 

work can be done and improvements upon those enacted reforms can be made. 

AGC members have pointed to a host of technical and procedural problems that 

government agencies face, in general, during document preparation and interagency 

reviews: they inevitably lead to inconsistencies in the environmental approval process, schedule delays and costs overruns. Such uncertainty spurs legal challenges, 

which can ultimately threaten the viability of the project. AGC has worked closely 

with the administration and supports its efforts to further improve the environmental review and permitting process. Additionally, we have shared our extensive 

environmental recommendations to the House and Senate in testimony or statements for the record. 

Three of these reforms that would have substantial positive impacts are: 

• First, require a merger of the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean 

Water Act 404 permitting processes with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

issuing permits at the end of the process, using the NEPA-generated information; • Second, allow the monitoring, mitigation and other environmental planning 

work performed during the NEPA process, and included the final Environmental Impact Statement / Record of Decision, to satisfy Federal environmental 

permitting requirements, unless there is a material change in the project; and • Third, develop a reasonable and measured approach to citizen suit reform to 

prevent misuse of environmental laws. 

IMPROVING PROJECT DELIVERY DECREASES COSTS

Transportation improvement projects also face delays from a host of third-party 

impacts that occur leading up to or during construction. There is much room for improvement in this arena. 

Coordination with Railroads: 

Transportation construction projects that interface with railroad properties are 

often subject to significant restrictions and delays imposed by railroad owners. Obtaining fair and equitable railroad agreements as well as ensuring the commitments 

are made in a timely manner are often a struggle and add time and cost to transportation projects. 

AGC recommends that USDOT be authorized to establish consistent requirements, commitments, and timeframes with all public and private railroad owners 

to facilitate transportation work within and across railroad rights of way and provide USDOT the authority to enforce those provisions with the railroads. As such, 

we ask Congress to require USDOT to establish model agreements for standard activities conducted by the state DOTs in railroad right-of-way (and vice versa) and 

provide guidance on the establishment of agreements for special or more complex 

activities. 

Utility Relocation: 

Relocating underground utilities in highway right-of-way, while undertaking road 

improvement projects, continues to be one of the leading causes of delay in completing projects once the construction phase has started. Underground utilities that 

are unmarked or incorrectly marked pose a significant safety risk to the construction workforce, DOT employees and the public. Damage to utility facilities can be 

costly to all parties to the contract and negatively impact the collaborative spirit on 

jobs and lead to litigation. Current rules allow for states to be reimbursed with Federal funds when the state pays for utility relocations for project construction. The 

Common Ground Alliance (CGA) is an outgrowth of a study conducted by USDOT— 

as directed by Congress—that has best practices in place nationwide to address 

these concerns. 

AGC believes there are measures that can be taken to improve this situation including: 

49 

• Allow utility relocation to take place after a preferred alternative is identified 

but prior to NEPA completion with appropriate limitations to ensure the integrity of the NEPA process. • Encourage state DOT involvement in efforts such as the CGA to promote shared 

responsibilities for utility protection and adopting their recommended best practices. • Grant authority for state DOTs to participate in their local one-call systems or 

develop in-house capabilities to locate DOT owned facilities within the right-ofway (ROW). • Look for ways to encourage that utilities located in highway ROW participate 

in preconstruction meeting with the DOT and contractor. • Look at ways to maintain a repository of electronic ‘‘as built’’ 3D data of completed highway improvement projects to begin compiling an index of utility locations for future road improvement uses. 

Simplify Buy America Requirements: 

Buy America requirements have been part of the procurement process for construction projects funded through the Federal-aid highway and the Federal Transit 

Administration’s (FTA) grant program since the early eighties. FHWA has applied 

Buy America requirements to steel and iron products. 

Generally, Buy America regulations require a domestic manufacturing process for 

steel and iron materials that are permanently incorporated into a federally assisted 

construction project. The requirement interprets domestic manufacturing process to 

include melting, rolling, cutting, welding, fabrication, and the process of applying a 

coating. 

The FTA is also subject to Buy America and requires that for manufactured products, regardless of the material they are made from, the manufacturing processes 

must take place in the United States and all components of the product must be 

of U.S. origin regardless of the origin of its subcomponents. 

While the industry has been able to meet these requirements and produce high 

quality projects Buy America requirements can significantly delay projects and add 

to overall cost because of their complexities. 

AGC recommendations for Buy America implementation include: 

• Manufactured products that consist of 90 percent or more of steel should be 

U.S. produced. Waivers should be available for commercially available off-theshelf (COTS) products with iron and steel components and manufactured products that contain a variety of different components made of a variety of different 

materials, including steel, and in different amounts. • Small, incidental products such as bolts, screws, connectors, etc., should be considered de minimus and excluded from the requirements. The cost and time required to trace and document these products can far outweigh their de minimis 

financial impact to the project’s total value. • Allow for the minimum use exclusion as currently implemented by FHWA to 

increase from one tenth of 1 percent to 1 percent or a ceiling of $20,000 from 

the current $2,500 limit. • Buy America requirements should be limited to steel and iron products and not 

expanded to other construction products not generally manufactured, such as 

cement. • The waiver application process with FHWA should be timely and should not become a barrier to efficient project delivery or related decisionmaking by the 

owner and contractor. • Utility and railroad facilities relocated as part of a Federal-aid highway project 

should not be covered by the project. 

• On FTA funded projects, the construction industry and grant recipients are 

looking for clearer and more consistent direction from the FTA. Clear cut guidance on how to categorize end products, components and subcomponents is 

needed. FTA needs to provide guidance clarifying how Buy America content in 

the end project, components, subcomponents and sub-sub components is to be 

determined. Directing FTA to develop a standardized audit or certification program for suppliers may help resolve these issues. 

• A standardized template to assist suppliers in providing relevant product information and accurately calculating percentage costs might help, especially related to Rolling Stock materials. 

BUILDING RESILIENCE IN INFRASTRUCTURE

In 2014, AGC was one of 21 building-related national organizations and professional societies to sign the Industry Statement on Resilience, which defines resilience based on National Research Council work as the ability to prepare and plan 

50 

for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events. That group 

continues to look for ways to address the issue. But, simply put, in the design of 

infrastructure, resilience to natural disasters that hit in specific areas should be 

part of the design criteria. Retrofitting structures where possible should be considered. Resilient adaptation decisions for roadways can include elevation, decisions on 

bridge size and elevation, material choices, and drainage. Rebuilding substandard 

infrastructure is an opportunity to address resilience. 

WORKFORCE

Workforce shortages have been a problem facing many industries and the construction industry, in particular. AGC worked with FHWA and AASHTO on a highway construction worker pilot program to identify, train and place workers in highway construction careers. The Department of Labor cooperated in encouraging local 

and state work force development boards to participate as well. For the pilot program the group identified 12 areas, six states and six urban areas where the state 

DOT, FHWA Division office and the AGC chapter can work with the local or state 

Workforce Investment Board to identify individuals with the interest and motivation 

to work in highway construction. FHWA has made grant funds available to support 

these pilots. Using the lessons learned from these pilots and providing additional 

grant funding to support the initiatives could pay big dividends for workers looking 

for well paying career as well as supporting the workforce needed to deliver the 

transportation infrastructure projects. 

CONCLUSION

Madam Chairperson, thank you again for convening today’s hearing and for allowing AGC to participate. The role of our national transportation system in supporting 

U.S. competitiveness and our quality of life cannot be understated. Transportation 

impacts the daily lives of citizens and businesses in every state in the Union. The 

American public recognizes the need to improve our system and bring it back to 

world class status. A golden opportunity is before you. At a time when it seems 

there is little we all agree on infrastructure may prove to be the missing link. I urge 

you to take advantage of this opportunity. 

An important step Congress can take is to fix the Highway Trust Fund. Providing 

a reliable, dedicated and sustainable revenue source derived from the users and 

beneficiaries of the transportation system to not only address the annual shortage 

but allow for robust future investments is key. Please do not put off this debate 

until later. The longer you wait the more difficult the solution becomes. You have 

shown great leadership in not waiting until the new Congress convenes before holding this hearing. Continue that leadership and allow the legislation to move forward. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanley. 

And finally, Michael Terry, president and CEO of IndyGo, Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association. 

You may proceed, sir. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. I first wanted to thank Congressman 

Carson for his very kind introduction earlier. 

Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, members of the 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, I just thank you for this 

opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association. My name is Mike Terry, I am president and 

chief executive officer of IndyGo, which is the Indianapolis Public 

Transportation Corporation. 

IndyGo is the largest public transportation agency in the State 

of Indiana. Our service is 100 percent bus operations. As a county 

agency, we serve more than 820,000 people, operating approximately 160 vehicles over 400 square miles. Last year we invested 

in additional service frequency on our busiest routes, and we were 

able to increase monthly ridership by an average of 4 percent. 

As this subcommittee considers what Federal policies should be 

modified in the next surface transportation authorization, APTA is 

51 

in the process of consulting with its members and finalizing recommendations on how Federal public transportation policy can be 

enhanced to meet the needs of the 21st century. 

APTA’s top legislative issue is ensuring the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. We have long supported increased dedicated Federal revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. It has been more than 

25 years since Congress last raised the Federal fuel taxes that primarily support the Highway Trust Fund, and the purchasing power 

of this revenue has decreased by more than 40 percent over that 

time. 

APTA strongly supports the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s proposed plan of increasing the Federal motor vehicle fuel user fee by 

5 cents per year for 5 years. We also support any other reasonable, 

bipartisan plan to increase dedicated revenues to the Highway 

Trust Fund, and we are ready to work with Congress to advance 

this critical priority. 

APTA continues to advocate for increased investment in public 

transportation from all levels of Government. But the Federal partnership remains absolutely critical. IndyGo can attest to the importance of ensuring a Federal role in public transportation. Our voters locally passed a local income tax referendum to support a transit plan that will provide expanded frequency of hours of service on 

our fixed-route bus network. Without a Federal partnership we 

would not be able to efficiently operate the increased local network 

in three rapid bus transit corridors. Several U.S. Department of 

Transportation grants have been critical in the success of this transit plan. 

The capital investment grants, the CIG, are vital public transportation investments for APTA members, including IndyGo. We received a Small Starts grant last year for our red line bus rapid 

transit, and we have two more projects in the CIG pipeline: our 

purple line and blue line BRTs. IndyGo is building an enhanced 

bus network that will upgrade to rapid service to ensure an even 

more seamless travel experience for our riders. 

The importance of public transportation capital program cannot 

be overemphasized. Unfortunately, the CIG program has shifted 

from an efficient public transportation capital program that can 

build good projects while protecting taxpayer dollars to a grant program that has requirements above and beyond that of comparable 

modes, such as highway grant programs. 

We believe Congress must change the program to make it more 

efficient. APTA anticipates endorsing a zero-base review of the CIG 

program to eliminate unnecessary statutory, regulatory, or policy 

requirements. 

APTA is leading the charge to support public transportation 

agencies’ efforts to implement innovative mobility management 

strategies, including introducing cutting-edge technologies and integrating new service delivery approaches. 

At IndyGo we have embraced the new mobility paradigm. Many 

areas outside the core of Indianapolis are not developed in a way 

that is ideal for public transit. To better reach these sprawling 

neighborhoods, IndyGo is collaborating with the multisector collective to integrate multiple modes of transport to enhance access beyond where transit will be successful. 

52 

We envision a connected, on-demand network of car-sharing, 

ride-hailing, bike-sharing, and other new mobility options to create 

first- and last-mile connections. Last year IndyGo partnered with 

Lyft and BlueIndy, which is an electric car-share program, on a 

program to incentivize Indianapolis residents to utilize several mobility options into their daily lives to a great success. 

As president and CEO of IndyGo for the past decade, I have seen 

tangible, equitable, and very real benefits that public transportation provides to residents, communities, and our Nation. It is imperative that a continued Federal partnership with a dedicated 

source of funding remain a core principle of the next surface transportation authorization. 

Thank you very much, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member 

Davis, and other members of the committee. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[Mr. Terry’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Michael Terry, President and CEO, Indianapolis 

Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo), on behalf of the American 

Public Transportation Association (APTA) 

INTRODUCTION

Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee 

on Highways and Transit, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and its more than 1,500 public- and private-sector member organizations, thank you for the opportunity to testify on Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs. 

My name is Michael Terry, and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer 

(CEO) of the Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, also known as IndyGo. 

I joined IndyGo in 2003 as the Vice President of Business Development and have 

served as President and CEO for more than a decade. 

IndyGo is the largest public transportation agency in the state of Indiana. Our 

service is 100 percent bus operations. As a county agency, we serve more than 

820,000 people, operating approximately 160 vehicles over 400 square miles. Our 

paratransit service provides critical curb-to-curb service for residents with disabilities anywhere in the county. We leverage Federal and local dollars to enhance frequency and grow capacity, reliability, and efficiency. Last year, we invested in additional service frequency on our busiest routes, and were able to increase monthly 

ridership by an average of 4 percent. We are grateful for the Federal and local partnerships that are making IndyGo’s expansion possible. 

Today, I would like to share with the Subcommittee some of the important concepts that APTA is considering as we look to the next surface transportation authorization that will succeed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST 

Act) (P.L. 114–94). While APTA is still in the process of finalizing its recommendations, here are some important considerations for enhancing Federal public transportation policy: 

The Solvency of The Highway Trust Fund 

APTA’s top legislative issue is ensuring the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. 

The backlog of transit state-of-good-repair needs is more than $90 billion and growing. APTA has long supported increased dedicated Federal revenues to the Highway 

Trust Fund for programs that support the national transportation network, cost-effectively address the problem of deferred maintenance, and enable public transportation agencies to meet growing demands for increased mobility. 

It has been more than 25 years since Congress last raised the Federal fuel taxes 

that primarily support the Highway Trust Fund, and the purchasing power of this 

revenue has decreased by more than 40 percent over that time. Current revenues 

deposited into the Highway Trust Fund are insufficient to support the existing Federal highway and public transportation programs without significant general fund 

contributions. This status quo is unsustainable and tough choices need to be made 

by Congress. 

53 

1Government Accountability Office, HIGH-RISK SERIES: Substantial Efforts Needed to 

Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas, March 6, 2019, 86–90. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recognizes the urgency and critical 

importance of long-term, sustainable surface transportation funding. Last week, 

GAO noted, in its 2019 High-Risk Series report, that ‘‘the nation’s surface transportation system—including highways, transit, maritime ports, and rail systems that 

move both people and freight—is under growing strain . . . the cost to repair and 

upgrade the system to meet current and future demand is estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars.’’ 1 Although funding the nation’s surface transportation 

system has been on GAO’s High-Risk list for more than a decade, Congress has not 

provided the necessary resources or dedicated funding to address these critical 

issues. 

In January 2018, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce proposed a plan to increase the 

Federal motor vehicle fuel user fee by five cents per year over 5 years (Total: 25- 

cent increase). APTA strongly supports this plan and our Board of Directors has 

specifically endorsed it. We also support any other reasonable, bipartisan plan to increase dedicated revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. Our most important issue 

continues to be the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, and we stand 

ready to work with Congress to advance this critical priority. 

Dedicated Federal Funding for Public Transportation 

Public transportation represents a $71 billion industry that directly employs 

430,000 people and supports millions of private-sector jobs. Public transportation 

supports economic development, produces a safer, more efficient transportation system, connects people with jobs and employers with potential workers, and supports 

national priorities. APTA continues to advocate for increased investment in public 

transportation from all levels of government, but the Federal partnership remains 

absolutely critical. States and public transportation agencies need predictable Federal funding to support long-term planning and multi-year capital projects. 

Dedicated and sustained Federal funding for public transportation complements 

the unprecedented contributions already made by states and local governments to 

operate and maintain these services. In recent years, several states have raised 

motor fuel taxes and localities have raised other taxes that help pay for surface 

transportation, including public transportation. In 2018, voters approved 82 percent 

of transit ballot initiatives, which increased or secured revenues for public transit 

investment. However, the success of these local initiatives depends on a strong Federal partnership. 

IndyGo can attest to the importance of ensuring a Federal role in public transportation. In 2016, Marion County voters and leaders passed a local income tax referendum of 0.25 percent to support the implementation and operation of the Marion 

County Transit Plan (Transit Plan). The Transit Plan is transforming IndyGo by 

laying the foundation for expanded frequency and hours of service for our fixedroute local network, which will amount to a 70 percent increase in service. Without 

a Federal partner, we would not be able to effectively operate the increased local 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\Terry.eps
54 

network and three rapid transit corridors that will provide this high-quality public 

transportation service. Several core capital improvements are necessary, and U.S. 

Department of Transportation grants have been critical to the success of our Transit 

Plan. 

Capital Investment Grants 

Capital Investment Grants (CIG) are a vital public transportation investment for 

APTA members, including IndyGo. The CIG program provides grants for fixedguideway investments, such as new and expanded subways, light rail, commuter 

rail, streetcars, bus rapid transit (BRT), and ferries. We are extremely grateful for 

Congress’ continued recognition of the importance of the CIG program by providing 

appropriations higher than the $2.3 billion provided in the FAST Act in each of the 

past three fiscal years (Fiscal Years 2017–2019). 

IndyGo has accessed the critical CIG program to build an enhanced bus network—the Red Line. The Red Line received a Small Start grant, one of four categories of projects in the CIG program, in May 2018. IndyGo will operate full battery-electric BRT vehicles on these critical, high-volume corridors. Further, IndyGo 

also has two BRT projects in the CIG pipeline—the Blue Line Rapid Transit and 

the Purple Line Rapid Transit. These projects are along two corridors that currently 

are among IndyGo’s most productive, frequent, high ridership routes. The BRT 

projects will upgrade service on the corridors to rapid service to ensure an even 

more seamless travel experience for our riders. 

The importance of this public transportation capital program cannot be overemphasized. Unfortunately, the CIG program has shifted from an efficient public 

transportation capital program that can build good projects while protecting taxpayer dollars to a grant program that has requirements above and beyond that of 

comparable modes—such as highway grant programs. 

We believe Congress must change the program to make it more efficient. Currently, CIG project sponsors must navigate a bureaucratic maze over multiple years 

to receive a grant agreement. Beginning with enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) in 1998, both Congress and the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) have repeatedly layered additional requirements on 

the CIG program. APTA anticipates endorsing a zero-based review of the CIG program to eliminate unnecessary statutory, regulatory or policy requirements. 

We urge Congress to adopt provisions that will strengthen the CIG program and 

ensure that these critical public transportation projects across the country are delivered in a timely manner. 

Safety 

Safety is the public transportation industry’s top priority. Research shows that 

modest increases in public transportation ridership in a metropolitan area can cut 

traffic fatalities by 40 percent. Today, traveling by public transportation is 10 times 

safer for passengers than traveling by car. Providing more and improved public 

transportation is one of the most powerful traffic safety tools that a community can 

employ to help reduce the more than 37,000 traffic deaths per year on our nation’s 

roadways. 

Our members view safety as an essential and primary component to ensuring customer satisfaction and providing seamless service. The FTA’s State Safety Oversight 

(SSO) Program outlines minimum safety requirements for passengers and agency 

employees. APTA is proud that 30 states have achieved their SSO Program certifications well before the statutory deadline. The FTA is reviewing the final, multistate certification (Metrorail Safety Commission) and we are very hopeful that the 

Commission will receive its certification prior to the April 15, 2019 deadline. 

Moreover, our commuter railroads are committed to making rail travel even safer 

with full implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC). As a result of this commitment, some commuter railroads have completed PTC implementation and others are 

on the path to fully implement PTC by the end of 2020. While implementation of 

PTC is a critical safety overlay, the industry takes a comprehensive approach to 

safety that includes multiple essential safety countermeasures. Those measures include reducing operator fatigue, implementing new safety monitoring equipment 

like inward- and outward-facing cameras, addressing grade-crossing and trespassing 

incidents, and conducting rigorous safety audits. 

The public transportation industry has an incredibly strong safety record. We are 

grateful for the work that this Subcommittee has done to make our nation’s surface 

transportation safer. 

The Evolving Mobility Landscape 

Advances in technology have allowed vehicles to operate with increased autonomy 

and efficiencies. Data capabilities have evolved and enable effortless trip planning 

55 

2 American Public Transportation Association, The Transformation of the American Commuter, December 2018, 1–3. 

and streamline information sharing, and new business platforms have supported the 

explosion of ride-hailing and bike-sharing services. According to a recent APTA 

study, The Transformation of the American Commuter, 77 percent of Americans say 

public transportation is the backbone of a multi-transit lifestyle.2 APTA is leading 

the charge to support public transportation agencies’ efforts to implement innovative 

mobility management strategies, including introducing cutting-edge technologies 

and integrating new service delivery approaches. 

At IndyGo, we have embraced the new mobility paradigm. One of our core strategic principles is to advance mobility as a catalyst for success. Many areas outside 

the core of Indianapolis are not developed in a way that is ideal for public transit. 

Many suburban neighborhoods built in the 1960’s through the 1990’s are extremely 

car-centric in design—single family, detached homes on large lots in cul-de-sac developments. To better reach these sprawling neighborhoods, IndyGo is collaborating 

with a multi-sector collective to integrate multiple modes of transport to enhance 

access beyond where transit will be successful. We envision a connected, on-demand 

network of car sharing, ride hailing, bike sharing and other new mobility options 

to create first- and last-mile connections. For example, in fall 2018, IndyGo 

partnered with Lyft and BlueIndy (an electric car service) on a program to 

incentivize Indianapolis residents to utilize several mobility options into their daily 

lives. It was a great success. In addition, leveraging an FTA technical assistance 

grant, we are building a new account-based fare system, which in the future will 

serve as the financial infrastructure to facilitate seamless connections to other 

modes. 

IndyGo is an early adopter of electric bus technology. IndyGo has leveraged $10 

million in Federal funding to acquire 21 fully electric vehicles, with operating costs 

one-fourth the amount of a traditional diesel bus. IndyGo plans to substantially upgrade its aging fleet (of which 44 percent have surpassed their useful life), replacing 

all of its diesel buses with electric vehicles by 2032. It will also install bus charging 

infrastructure along its routes. Another Federal grant was leveraged to install a 

solar array on the roof of its main garage. This solar infrastructure is generating 

enough power to offset the increased electric demand from charging requirements– 

13 of the existing 21 electric bus fleet are being charged by the power generated 

by the solar array. 

Given the rapid changes in technology and mobility, public transportation has a 

key role in the transportation network. With an upcoming surface transportation 

authorization bill, Congress needs to ensure that public transportation agencies 

have the flexibility to meet changing mobility needs. 

CONCLUSION

As President and CEO of IndyGo for the past decade, I have seen the tangible 

and very real benefits that public transportation provides to residents, communities, 

and our Nation. Public transportation not only spurs economic growth, but reduces 

congestion, improves air quality, saves time and money, and advances an equitable 

and better quality of life for our communities. It is imperative that a continued Federal partnership with a dedicated source of funding remains a core principle of the 

next surface transportation authorization act. 

On behalf of APTA, thank you for including us in this important discussion as 

the Subcommittee begins developing the next surface transportation bill. As APTA 

continues to move forward with finalizing its surface transportation authorization 

proposal, we very much welcome the opportunity to continue the conversation and 

stand ready to assist in advancing our mutual objectives. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. We are now 

going to move on to Members’ questions, and each will have 5 minutes. 

Mr. Terry, I got a hold of your testimony where you indicated 

that you have, by adding service frequency, been able to get a 4- 

percent increase in ridership. Now, we see ridership going down in 

transit in other cities. Just by having more frequent service you got 

an increase in transit ridership? Is that the problem? 

Mr. TERRY. I think that is one of the problems. It is actually focusing on where mass transit has the highest and best use, the 

56 

highest productivity. In our realignment that we are doing, incorporating rapid transit as well as our regular bus network, people 

want reliable, dedicated, and frequent service. And we are finding 

increasing that frequency and expansion of hours of service, where 

people can rely on that, is increasing ridership. 

Ms. NORTON. So it is not just trains should run on time, there 

should be more frequent trains. And then people will get off the 

road and get on the train. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes, ma’am. That is the way we feel. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, this is very important information. 

Ms. McMillan, I am interested in your testimony that speaks 

about expanding the share of funds which go to what you call the 

Nation’s metropolitan areas. So who would control these funds? 

How would that work? Would there be conflicts among the parts 

of the region? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Well, and certainly I can speak in the bay area, 

where the funds do come to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, as the MPO. But we work extremely closely with a bottoms-up approach with our cities and counties to determine how 

those funds would then be distributed—— 

Ms. NORTON. So who does that? 

Ms. MCMILLAN [continuing]. If we are talking about STP—— 

Ms. NORTON. Who controls that? Who do you talk to if you are 

working on an area-ride basis—perfectly understandable, because 

of the way people cross county lines just to get to work or to shop. 

But who is in charge of deciding where the funds go? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 

within our region, as the MPO, would ultimately be the one that 

would make this—but I would stress that on our board is represented the local entities of the counties and cities. And so getting 

their input about what the needs are, and then working with us 

to determine how to distribute those funds to the relative needs in 

the different areas of this county is very important. 

So I think that cooperation among us to determine how investments should be made, and particularly in those areas where a 

problem is not located in one city or another, but does cross, you 

know, boundaries, we need to recognize that the riding public often 

doesn’t recognize those boundaries, and we need to come up with 

a solution, collectively, to address their overall journey, wherever 

that may start or end. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I would really also like to ask Mr. Clark and 

then maybe others of you—Mr. Stanley—who could speak to this. 

Very concerned about the differences in how people now look at the 

workforce for transportation. Mr. Clark spoke about registered apprenticeship. 

Now, you know, young men whose fathers or grandfathers were 

in the industry, you know, sitting at computers, they don’t even 

have to be very skilled to do that. Don’t we need to do more than 

look at registered apprenticeship? Because they don’t even get to 

the apprenticeship in the first place. 

How do we draw people to this very important industry to do the 

work that needs to be done? 

Both of you, I would like to hear what you have to say on that. 

57 

Mr. CLARK. I will start. I think one of the things—several things 

we need to do. One thing that we clearly need to do is talk differently about what the workforce looks like. Quite often, when we 

have discussions about the workforce—and I focused very much on 

the frontline workforce—and in rooms full of people, one of the 

things I often do is ask how many people here have a bachelor’s 

degree or more. And usually in those discussions, almost all hands 

go up. 

Actually, only about one-third of adults have a bachelor’s degree. 

And if we keep communicating to young people that the only way 

you get ahead is by getting a 4-year college education, it is a selfdefeating strategy. The jobs, skilled jobs in transit, are good, family-supporting jobs. That is true of jobs in highway construction 

and a lot of others. They tend to be neglected, because people just 

don’t think about them, they think they are going away. 

The same is true of a lot of high-tech manufacturing. We need 

to be communicating that there are abilities to get those jobs. We 

also need to be equipping people with the skills to function in those 

jobs. The jobs are no longer simply heavy lifting. They are extremely skilled jobs with a lot of diagnostic skills, a lot of mental 

work. People need to come in with strong math abilities. 

People have referred to STEM, career technical education, and I 

mentioned specific peer apprenticeship for people who are a little 

bit older and need to make up some skill deficits to make this 

work. But I think there are strategies that can get people there. 

We need to start rethinking about how we communicate to people 

about what the labor market actually looks like. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, my time has expired, so thank you very 

much. I am going now to the ranking member, Mr. Davis, for his 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Mayor, the mayor of San Antonio, right? You served on the 

city council before that? 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Can you tell me how many times my colleague and 

good friend, Joaquin Castro, tried to sit in for his twin brother at 

city council meetings? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NIRENBERG. No, sir, I can’t. He was busy up here. 

Mr. DAVIS. I will ask him about that. But thank you. Welcome, 

and thanks for being here. 

Mr. Millar, I pinch-hit for Leader Graves today at the ASCE 

event this morning just across town. They told me you were coming 

here on behalf of them, too, and to take it easy on you. But I will 

not do that today. I am going to start you with a question. Actually, it will be a question I think will provide a lot of us on this 

committee some information that expands a little bit on your opening statement. 

You mentioned expanding categorical exclusions across Federal 

agencies. Can you expand on that a little bit? And in particular, 

how do we make them more interchangeable? 

Mr. MILLAR. Yes. Again, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, 

about 94 percent of the work that we do happens through categorical exclusions. The categorical exclusions are a provision in the 

58 

National Environmental Policy Act that allow for projects to move 

forward that have been demonstrated to have no significant impact 

on the environment—the environment being the economy, social 

and the natural environment. 

Different agencies have different rules for that. We found in the 

work that we do that the key to moving forward is making sure 

that the resource agencies are adequately funded to respond to our 

requests for, you know, permits, for approvals, for reviews and the 

like. That is what works for us. 

There are some in AASHTO that would like for transportationrelated projects for other agencies to be able to use a list of categorical exclusions that the Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration has adopted. We don’t have to do that in 

Washington State because, again, we find that by working with the 

resource agencies upfront, we don’t have that problem. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. My 61⁄2 years on this committee, any 

chance we can reduce what I call the paperwork process to get to 

construction faster to make the Federal dollar stretch further, I am 

always interested in that. So thank you for your testimony and 

your responses. 

Mr. Stanley, thank you. Are you aware that your Representative 

on the Hill had his ribs broken in a congressional hockey game by 

our colleague on this committee, Mr. Katko? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STANLEY. I have heard rumors. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Have you? You may want to rethink your representation there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Can you tell me, Mr. Stanley, how do we balance the 

surface transportation investments needs that we are experiencing 

today with what we may need in the future? 

Mr. STANLEY. I think the balancing is a balancing act, as you 

said. The funding has got to be short-term and it has got to be 

long-term. A lot of your State DOTs don’t do long-term projects because of short-term funding. 

So in the past, the continuing resolutions have delayed projects 

caused for cost increases and things like that. So we definitely need 

to look at the short-term needs, but then look further out in the 

future. Because as different types of transportation come online 

with automated cars, potentially, and things like that, we have all 

got to share the road. 

We have got more large trucks that are transporting more goods 

each year by year. So we have to work on multimodal corridors, as 

well. So basically, that money needs to be looking at a lot of different modes of transportation, as well as expanding capacity and 

advancing new technologies, as well. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great, thank you. 

Mr. Anderson, I know you represent the great State of Texas. 

Thank you for being here today. I ask you the same question. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, yes, in our priorities relative to the FAST 

Act we also echo stable, predictable, and sustainable funding 

streams. We ask for updated data relative to lane miles and census 

data as it relates to our core funding programs. 

59 

But we are also very fortunate in Texas because we have passed 

prop 1 and prop 7, and our people then identified additional transportation needs that they wanted to have, and they looked at the 

State to provide funding for those. So we looked, you know, both 

at the Federal Government, but also to our State to identify ways 

to achieve better funding revenue, and then put that towards the 

priorities of our local and regional partners. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. Well, thank you all for your time today. 

Thanks for your testimony and your responses. I look forward to 

hearing more. 

I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. 

Chairman DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mayor Nirenberg, you talked here about ConnectSA. And I would 

be interested in hearing a brief description of how you are going 

to do that. 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Yes. Well, we are working on an integrative 

strategy that takes all of the different planning elements in place, 

from our land use strategies to our bus routes, to our pedestrian 

pathways, even our linear creekway systems, and tries to create an 

effective and intermodal transportation system. 

On top of that we are looking at developing our first-ever advanced rapid transit system. And San Antonio is a 500-square-mile 

city, fast-growing city. We have an underfunded bus system that 

needs to increase frequency. And all the elements in place are the 

only way we believe we can keep our economic vibrancy and be 

able to meet the demands of moving San Antonians around inside 

of our city. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. 

Secretary Millar, you talked about how you couldn’t build your 

way out of it. So what are the tools that we should highlight, 

incentivize, or create in the next transportation bill that would give 

people what they need to look at more innovative ways to mitigate 

congestion? 

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. Yes, we 

can’t build our way out of congestion. When I was first appointed 

secretary I got an email from a constituent, ‘‘Congratulations. By 

the way, your speed limit signs say 60 miles an hour. I can’t drive 

60 miles an hour on your freeways. Your agency is a failure.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLAR. I thanked that constituent and then I asked, ‘‘What 

would it take to be able to drive 60 miles an hour all the time on 

our freeways?’’ A $115 billion investment. Doing that over 20 years 

is a $2.50-a-gallon gas tax. And that did not accommodate any 

growth in our region, it didn’t accommodate any growth in the local 

road system, and the like. 

The fact that we cannot build our way out of congestion is not 

a failure of Government, it is an economic and environmental and 

demographic reality. So we are talking about moving forward in a 

congested world, and that involves first taking care of the system 

we have in place. So preservation is hugely important to us. We have today in Washington State a $700 million-a-year unfunded preservation backlog. 

60 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, basically state of good repair. 

Mr. MILLAR. State of good repair. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. MILLAR. Then safety—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Mr. MILLAR. When you look at the $3.5 billion that is—impacts 

our economy, congestion costs our economy in Washington State 

about $3.5 billion. The deaths and serious injury accidents in 

Washington State cost our economy $8.5 billion. We talk about congestion all the time. We are not talking about the safety issues on 

our roadways. So making our transportation system safe is important. 

Transportation system management and operations, recognizing 

that if you think about the transportation system that is going to 

be in place 20 years from now, most of it is there today. But we 

need to get more throughput out of the system we have through 

things like express toll lanes, managed lanes, automated transportation management systems, investing in incident response to clear 

crashes and get roads back open. Investing in the relationships between land use and transportation, so we don’t continue to make 

stupid decisions that necessitate investments that we can’t afford 

to make any more. 

And then, as a last resort, targeted system expansion. Typically, 

in our world, you see a problem, the answer is ‘‘more.’’ That should 

be the last thing we do, not the first thing we do. And that is the 

progression of decisionmaking that we are making in Washington 

State. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. Any suggestions any of you have 

that are specific to ways Federal funds are restricted that don’t 

allow you to take reasonable steps to get better throughput on our 

existing infrastructure would be very welcome in this committee. 

And then I just want to observe, Mr. Terry—thanks for your testimony about Indianapolis. But when you talked about—and a 

number of other people have recommended the 55555. The fact is 

if we do 55555, it is 61⁄2 years before we increase spending above 

the current levels, which I think is too long to wait. We need to 

be looking at leveraging whatever we do with gas and diesel tax 

with bonds, so that we get that money upfront more quickly. 

I would observe—and you probably—I don’t know how old your 

bus fleet is, but part of the reason in some places people are abandoning transit is because it is not reliable because it is worn out. 

And just bringing transit up to a state of good repair, I believe 

would attract a lot of people back to the system. Do you agree? 

Mr. TERRY. Very much so. The rider experience is very important. Our fleet is—44 percent is past its useful life. So you are exactly correct. State of good repair is extremely important. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Balderson? 

Mr. BALDERSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone, and thank you to the panel for being here this morning. My 

first question is for Mr. Anderson. 

61 

Mr. Anderson, according to the most recent census data, Columbus is the fastest growing major city in the Midwest, which is in 

my district. As a result, Columbus has undertaken major initiatives to reduce such congestion, such as the CMAQ bus line, which 

I have gone and visited, which syncs buses with traffic signals to 

improve efficiency and reduce traffic. 

As the winner of the Department of Transportation’s Smart City 

Challenge, Columbus is also implementing smart mobility hubs 

and state-of-the-art multimodal trip planning apps for residents. 

How has the Texas Department of Transportation collaborated 

with its colleagues in other States to share and build on emerging 

technologies and ideas? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, through a number of measures: the 

AASHTO committees, the transportation research board organization. 

We also—our Texas Innovation Alliance, along with a number of 

other smart cities, including Columbus, are in a larger smart city 

consortium. And those cities and regional partners are sharing the 

best practices and the capabilities that they are developing, real 

time. And it runs the gamut. It looks at data management, it looks 

at what is a better integrated traffic management system, what additional ITS sensors or technologies better enable them to manage 

that system or to provide information out to the public. 

And then in the case of multimodal, you mentioned, you know, 

multimodal integrated applications that make it easier for a person 

to move between modes and know what the optimum movement is 

for them. Those are all being shared across multiple cities, not only 

in Texas, but in a larger nationwide capability. 

Mr. BALDERSON. OK, thank you very much. My next question is 

for Ms. McMillan. 

Good morning, Ms. McMillan, thank you for being here today. 

Like most planning organizations, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning 

Commission is currently working on their 2020 to 2050 transportation plan to identify deficiencies, strategies, and projects the 

group will oversee for decades to come. 

In your experience, how does the uncertainty at the Federal level 

impact regional planning organizations when developing these 

long-term plans? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Well, I think you hit the nail on the head, that 

certainty of funding is critical when you are trying to anticipate 

very difficult resource choices. And with all sources of funding, you 

know, having some sense of what exists today and how it may be 

growing into the future as reliable—it is hard to do a 40-year plan 

when you are only looking at Federal funds in 6- or 5-year increments. And that puts you in a position of having to extrapolate 

some pretty significant assumptions with respect to that partnership. 

But I would add that, you know, another part of the funding picture there is knowing at the Federal level what flexibilities you 

have to use those dollars, knowing it is going to be a piece of a leverage package for almost any major infrastructure that is going 

to go forward. 

So some sense of where the dollars can be used, how they can 

be used, the timing that is available to them, the restrictions that 

62 

may be attached. If we can build more flexibility into that, it also 

helps us in looking to those uncertain areas of where we might put 

them, and how they can be best leveraged with a State or Federal 

dollar. 

Mr. BALDERSON. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, I yield back the remaining time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Lowenthal? 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Millar, I have a question for you. I represent the Long Beach 

side of the L.A.-Long Beach Port complex. And I am really pleased 

that you are here, because in many ways Washington is a great 

model for the country, in terms of the importance of strategic 

freight investment, and I really want to talk about freight. 

You have had in your State a freight investment program and a 

freight mobility strategic investment board to oversee these investments in freight, especially dealing with the linkages, the intermodal linkages. And as I understand, because of the coordination 

between all the freight stakeholders, your DOT, your local government, Washington has been able to leverage State investments in 

freight infrastructures by more than six to one. But that doesn’t 

mean your State doesn’t have major challenges. 

And so this is what I want to ask, also. You have identified 

Washington—a pipeline of highway, rail, grade crossings in congested corridors that are really going to need separation to manage 

the flow of people and goods. And your Northwest Seaport Alliance 

continues to set records for cargo volume being up, I believe, 27 

percent, from January of 2018 to January of 2019. So this is going 

to stress any freight infrastructure, as it is. 

What I am getting to is I am going to be reintroducing my freight 

legislation that provides a dedicated revenue stream for needed 

freight improvements, and a yearly dedicated revenue stream that 

has both formula funding and also competitive funding. It makes 

critical multimodal and intermodal investments. Just in the formula funding, Washington State would get over somewhere between $120 and $150 million a year in just formula funding, and 

with great anticipation of that going up as freight volumes will continue to go up. 

What kind of investments, the question is, would your State be 

able to make if there were additional dedicated revenues for freight 

infrastructure? What would you need now to help accelerate your 

freight investments that are going on already in Washington? 

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you for that question. It is a great one. And 

I do sit on our Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board. I am 

also—just stepped down as the chair of AASHTO’s Special Committee on Freight. So these are issues that are important to States 

other than Washington. 

More money would be great. How would we spend it? First-last 

mile connections are hugely important, enhancing those. Changing 

the make-up of our fleet. One of our principal sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington State is the transportation industry. It is 40 percent plus. Our drayage. Converting it to something that was electric or alternative fuel would be a great enhancement to make. 

63 

Grade crossings, we are a part of the Great Northern Corridor 

Coalition between the ports in Washington and Oregon and Chicago and all the States in between, working with Burlington Northern Railroad and others. Being able to move freight fast and safely 

on our system, those grade crossings are important. 

Preservation is hugely important. Interstate 90, Interstate 5, if 

we have to low-grade bridges so that full trucks can’t operate, we 

have got a problem. If we have to reduce speeds because pavement 

quality doesn’t allow us to run that speed, we have got a problem. 

Those are things we are looking at. 

Truck parking is a huge issue. The safety of our citizens, the 

safety of our truckers, they are required to stop and sleep. They 

need a place to stop. There aren’t in those places. And you mix that 

with our ports and warehousing and distribution facilities kind of 

working bankers hours, we have got all these trucks around the region waiting to come into town in the morning when the gates open 

with the commuters. So we need to work on that. 

We also need to work on the whole issue of freight logistics. Our 

departments typically do interchange-to-interchange planning for 

freight. And what we need to do is door-to-door and think about 

what is in those trucks. 

If I have 1,000 trucks leaving the Port of Seattle or the Port of 

Tacoma and all of them are half full, I have the opportunity to 

move that same freight with half the trucks, or move twice the 

freight. And so working with the private sector on optimizing 

freight logistics is something that Washington State DOT is looking 

at, and something that DOTs around the country are looking at. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And I just—as I end, and just before 

I yield back, I would like to thank Ms. McMillan for really talking 

about the impact of climate change—and you talked about that. 

And any of our investments—those roads may not be there in 30 

years, and we—you were the first panelist to really identify that, 

and talk about that. And so at some point I would like to talk to 

you about—also, about more investments in this. But I don’t think 

I have enough time, so I am going to yield back. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Good question. 

Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, 

and the panel, for being here today. The discussion of a surface 

transportation reauthorization bill can be sorted into two buckets: 

what the needs of the system are, and how the Nation will pay for 

them. 

It is no secret that our Nation’s infrastructure is in critical need 

of repair, expansion, and modernization. However, in Indiana, the 

crossroads of America, we have always recognized the importance 

of modernizing and investing in our aging infrastructure, and we 

have made progress that we are proud of. 

For the most part, we can all agree on the needs of our transportation system. It is how our Nation will pay for them that Hoosiers 

are particularly concerned about. The National Academies committee estimates that renewing and modernizing the interstate will 

require doubling or tripling the amount of current spending on 

interstates. In Indiana we have used State and Federal dollars as 

64 

seed money to encourage additional infrastructure investments by 

localities like IndyGo and private partners. 

I ask whoever wishes to comment on this. If we are to consider 

new sources of revenue, it is my fear that Hoosiers will not receive 

a fair share of funds, as Ms. McMillan stated. How can we ensure 

States like Indiana, who have been good stewards of Federal and 

State tax dollars, get their fair share, their fair slice of the pie? 

Mr. NIRENBERG. I will go ahead and start. I would say that formula funding at the Federal level has, I think, justifiably encouraged infrastructure investment in the most populated centers. The 

most congested highway corridors in our Nation are located in population centers, and that is very much needed. 

I think we should continue to incentivize local communities and 

local decisionmaking, providing local investments, and that is what 

we have done in Texas with investments of local bond programs, 

for instance. We have passed sales tax revenue projects that fund 

transportation. But we need a balanced approach that has a Federal partner that makes long-term investments in our community. 

Mr. MILLAR. Congressman, I would add to that that the key to 

us is the flexibility of the program. It is a Federal program administered by the States. Whether it is a gas tax or a road user charge 

or some other means of funding the system, that funding needs to 

come to the States so that it can be allocated again between State 

needs, local needs, and the like, as we have done successfully in the 

past. 

So I would encourage the Congress, regardless of the mechanism 

of raising the funds, that we maintain the partnerships we have 

between the Federal Government, State government, and local governments moving forward. 

Mr. TERRY. If I could add, too, thank you, Congressman Pence. 

And, as a Hoosier, I appreciate those comments. 

I think it does start with planning, too. But what is the highest 

and best use of the funds, how we can work collaboratively across 

all modes to make sure these are good plans. And also, land use. 

As Ms. McMillan had pointed out, that is very important. 

But I think we want to make an effective transportation network 

across all modes, and I think the formula grants that are going into 

the rule providers is of critical importance, and particularly in 

some of the areas that you represent. And in the urban areas, as 

well, how do we create the most effective transportation in 

multimodal? 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Ms. Davids? 

Ms. DAVIDS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I represent the Kansas 

Third Congressional District, which has a lot of—we are the heartland for a lot of reasons. One of those is that we are a major hub 

for transportation of goods, particularly, across the country. 

And Mayor, I thank you for making sure to acknowledge the National League of Cities is going on. I have had the chance, not just 

because of that, but over the course of the couple of months I have 

been serving I have had the chance to meet with a lot of the local 

county and city officials because I think it is really, really imporVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
65 

tant to have those voices involved, as we are here making decisions 

about funding—and hopefully we will make some decisions about 

funding. 

You know, I can tell you that the folks from Kansas City, Kansas 

and Olathe and Lenexa and Shawnee, I mean, everybody is coming 

in, as soon as they sit down, ‘‘Infrastructure.’’ First thing they say. 

And, you know, it is because we have a lot of needs. 

And I read through everyone’s testimony. I appreciated the fact 

that, you know, we have to acknowledge that we have got to be investing in infrastructure, and we have got to do it now. 

So putting—taking the view of—actually, Ms. McMillan, I appreciated the comments you were making earlier about addressing the 

disconnect between having to make these long-term, 10-, 20-, 30- 

year plans on infrastructure when we, as a body, are providing, you 

know, 5-year authorizations and shorter appropriations than that. 

So you brought up flexibility. And then, Mr. Millar, I would like 

to come to you after this. Can you talk a little bit about what does 

that flexibility look like, and how do we make sure that the local 

and State-level governments are giving us the information we need 

to make it as flexible as possible? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Thank you so much for the question. You know, 

in representing the metropolitan planning organizations around 

the country, there are 408 of them. And I think the one thing we 

can say is that each one of them is different. 

And so a core part of the flexibility is recognizing that you first 

start with—at least, you know, in the metropolitan planning partnership model—you work with your cities and counties, and you 

come up with a plan that deals not only with very localized impacts 

and needs, but also those that, again, cross across those boundaries 

and impact the regional economy that is going to lift everyone, if 

it is well invested in. And so that is really the beginning of that. 

But once you have the plan, if the funding sources aren’t flexible 

enough to invest in the solutions you have identified, then it makes 

it really difficult to actually take a plan into implementation and 

do improvements on the ground. 

So the notion of the flexibility is not only multimodal going 

across, you know, the different investments—you may need transit 

heavily in a particular area, you may want to invest in bike and 

pedestrian in another. Freight, of course, in your, you know, arena 

is incredibly important. But I think it is also necessary to be flexible enough to adapt to changes as they happen. 

So, taking a look, as some of the speakers pointed out, is the regulatory framework that wraps around those needs—you want 

things in place to make things as safe as possible, for example, all 

the time. But then there is under areas where perhaps we need to 

think about the dollars being flexible enough and nimble enough to 

invest in something that wasn’t evidenced 5 years ago. And I think 

we are seeing those kinds of technological and other changes happening that quickly. 

Ms. DAVIDS. OK, thank you. 

And then, Mr. Millar, you mentioned flexibility. And you also, I— 

in the testimony, when I was reading through it, one of the things 

that popped into my mind, partly because Mr. Clark’s testimony included a listing of metrics that we could be thinking about, and I 

66 

think that is a place where we miss out and could figure out ways 

to be more flexible—do you have any kind of ideas or thoughts on 

metrics that we should be thinking about that can help us move 

toward a more flexible system? 

Mr. MILLAR. This is a great question. And I think the metrics 

that have been put in place with MAP–21 and the FAST Act have 

just been put in place. The rulemaking has just been completed. 

And we need a little time to work with those rules before we look 

at changing them. 

Something that I look at in Washington State, the Federal funding that comes to our State makes up approximately 20 percent of 

our State transportation budget. And it goes primarily to preservation, because that is not a particularly flexible source of funding. 

We allocate the Federal funding that comes to the State—to our organization and the cities and counties. 

Something that we are looking at—you know, we talk about 

trucks, and trucks—you know, freight is really important to your 

community. We anticipate we are going to have 30 percent more 

truck traffic in Washington State in the next 20 years. We are not 

going to have 30 percent more places to put those trucks. 

So we are thinking about it kind of like the energy industry 

thinks about it. What is the best source of power to sell to industry? Well, power that residential customers don’t use. So how do we 

come up with a transportation equivalent of CFLs and low-flow 

shower heads to encourage people to try something different? 

And to have funding coming from the Federal Government that 

could be used for stuff other than the good old-fashioned adding capacity to the system, to be used on transportation system management and operations, to be used on demand management, to be 

flexed, as we do today, to other modes when that makes more 

sense—if you think about most of the trips that people take today, 

40 percent of the trips that Washingtonians take are less than 1 

mile in length. Of those trips that are less than 1 mile in length, 

60 percent of them are taken driving a car. And the reason people 

drive a car is it is the only safe way they can make that trip, because we haven’t invested in the pedestrian infrastructure, we 

haven’t invested in the bicycle infrastructure, we haven’t invested 

in the transit infrastructure to make that possible. 

So I can’t tell you how many people jump on the freeway for one 

exit, because we haven’t made the investment in other ways to get 

around that don’t involve getting behind the car seat and turning 

the key. That kind of flexibility would be very helpful to us. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. DAVIDS. Thank you, I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Gallagher? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. I think there is a shared sense on 

the committee that we need to do more to invest in our infrastructure. There is disagreements about how we pay for it, dramatic disagreements at times. 

I tend to think one of the fundamental divides that I am trying 

to wrap my head around is how we incentivize or get the balance 

right between new projects versus maintenance of existing projects. 

And CBO suggests that 73 percent of Federal spending goes toVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
67 

wards new projects, and a lot of maintenance over time is left to 

State and local governments. 

So if our infrastructure is crumbling right now, which we all 

seem to agree upon, and the Highway Trust Fund is insolvent, 

what can we do to get this balance right? How should the Federal 

Government think about incentivizing new projects versus maintenance of existing projects? 

And I just would love the local and State perspective on that 

question. I don’t even know where to begin, though. So any takers? 

No one wants to be the first student to raise their hand? 

Mr. MILLAR. I will start—— 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Sir, I appreciate that. 

Mr. MILLAR [continuing]. Congressman. I think you have to start 

with good data. I mean the performance measures that were put 

in place, again, in MAP–21 and in the FAST Act are just now coming into place. We are going to be reporting for the first time, many 

of us, on those measures. 

So knowing what is actually happening out there, knowing what 

the condition of our National Highway System is, the condition of 

our bridges, we have some of that. We need to keep reporting that. 

Rather than directly connecting performance to funding, though, 

for us in Washington State we are making the decisions that make 

sense for our State, our economy, our community, our geographic 

uniqueness. 

I wouldn’t want to see Federal money tied strictly to performance. I think, though, having those performance measures gives us 

the data we need to make those smart decisions. 

As I indicated, most of our Federal money goes into preservation. 

And where we add to the system, we are adding to the system with 

State dollars. And that preservation investment is hugely important to us. If the Federal Government were to double the gas tax 

today, we would have the purchasing power we had with that gas 

tax in 1993. 

So we would love to see significantly more investment, we would 

love to see it come to the States through the formula program. And 

each of us has unique situations that we would not want to have 

a one-size-fits-all, you know, Federal prescription get in the way of. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Sure. Ms. McMillan and then Mayor Nirenberg 

was—quickly, because I am going to run out of time, but—— 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Yes, just very quickly, the only thing I would 

add there is that we also need to think about not just how the Federal money gets split, but the capacity of States and locals to partner to bring additional money to the table to put together what 

needs to be delivered. 

So, in that case, that capability may also dictate—it could be 

very different in California than it might be, say, in Minnesota. 

And so thinking about how the Federal dollar could also respond 

to helping in combination with other sources—— 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Sure. 

Ms. MCMILLAN [continuing]. To bundle together to deal with that 

could be one way of thinking about a way forward. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. 

Mayor Nirenberg? 

68 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Diversify the revenue streams, allow for local 

options, and also encourage and build in resiliency as we move forward. That is the reason why many urban communities like ours, 

which is 300 years old, are emphasizing transit. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. I appreciate that. And I think the bottom-up 

perspective is critical as we consider big action here at the Federal 

level. 

I confess, I am still trying to wrap my head around this and get 

the balance correct. I understand the outcry at the local and the 

State level in the White House’s plan, which should increase the 

financial burden on States and local governments, but I also think 

the intent behind it is one that we shouldn’t reject out of hand, 

right? 

To the extent I understand it—and I don’t speak for the White 

House—it was to force us at the State and local level to prioritize 

projects and think on a 30-year time horizon about how we maintain projects effectively, or fix the projects that are crumbling right 

now. 

And so I really appreciate your perspective. Thank you for being 

here. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Pappas? 

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you 

to our panel for the expertise that you provided for us all today. 

And I think you all see a broad commitment in this committee to 

getting something done this year. 

One of my concerns—and we heard this at an earlier hearing as 

we talked about the cost of doing nothing—is the incredible 

downshifting that we have seen from the Federal Government to 

States and municipalities when it comes to transportation spending 

over the last many years. We have seen a 19-percent decrease in 

the Federal share of transportation investment since the early 

2000s, and I think that is alarming. So I think we have got to 

make sure we create some predictability, and make sure that the 

Federal Government has some more skin in the game here. 

I am wondering, as I talk to regional planning commissions, my 

own State DOT, I hear concern about how they are going to be able 

to plan for the future in fiscal year 2021 and beyond. I am wondering, at the State level for those States that are represented 

here, how you are handling this. How are you handling the uncertainty of what will happen beyond the FAST Act? 

We are all assuming something is going to get done here, but 

there is the reality that potentially there could be less money available from the Federal Government for States, going forward. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I will answer for Texas. We work with our State 

comptroller, we work with all of our local and regional partners, 

and we talk about what is a reasonable projection. We don’t want 

to be overly conservative, because then we find ourselves at times 

facing a huge need and not being prepared enough to deliver on a 

long-range transportation program. 

By the same token, we don’t want to overplan and overpromise, 

and then find ourselves short. So it is an art, working with the 

comptroller and working with other elements of the State to actually look at what are all the funding sources that we have available 

to us currently, what is in the toolbox, and then which ones do we 

69 

have most confidence in to the least confidence, and then establish 

projections for each one of those. 

Mr. MILLAR. And from Washington State’s perspective, again, 

Federal funding is about 20 percent of our program. It is vitally important to us, but it is—most of the money that we are spending 

is generated right there in the State. And the State of Washington 

has stepped up. Our gas tax has gone from 26 cents a gallon to 

49.4 cents a gallon. And that has made a significant difference. 

For us, as we plan, you know, we look at these 6-year increments. The problem with the 6-year increments is more in the programming and the short-term spending of the money. We can look 

back 50 years at trend. In Washington State, when you look at our 

transit investment, the voters passed and we are building a $54 

billion transit investment in the central Puget Sound area. During 

that same 30-year period where we are going to be spending that 

$54 billion, if historic trends play out, we are going to be spending 

$90 billion at the State level. 

What we are looking for from the Federal Government is, again, 

the strong Federal partnership that we had in the 1960s and the 

1970s to give us the capacity to catch up with our economy and 

take our transportation system from where it is today to the 21stcentury system that we need to really be globally competitive. 

Mr. PAPPAS. And if there is an increase, on the flip side, in State 

highway dollars, are there projects in the short term that are prepared to move more quickly and advance in the plan? 

Mr. MILLAR. Absolutely, absolutely. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Great. I don’t see that is a problem anywhere I travel. 

One further question for Mr. Millar. I know that there will be a $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated highway contract authority on 

July 1, 2020. I have heard about this from my own State DOT, who 

tells me this is going to make their budgeting more difficult, reduce 

their ability to move money between accounts, as projects are ready 

between different pots of money. 

I am wondering if you can walk me through the real-world effects of these rescissions in your State, and how AASHTO feels 

about this. 

Mr. MILLAR. Well, the—not in—it would take the day to get 

through the details of that. And I think the folks on AASHTO’s 

staff would be happy to meet with you and your team to get into 

the details of it. 

But basically, the concern we have is we are moving projects forward in a complicated world, and some projects advance and some 

don’t. And at the end of the fiscal year, we have to balance the 

books. So the projects that advance, we are moving monies around. 

And it takes obligation authority to be able to do that. 

Rescission ties our hands. And what that can mean for us is that, 

even with the actual appropriation being available, we are not able 

to flex it and get work out the door. And what that means is 

projects don’t get built. What that means is contractors don’t get 

employed. What that means is that the people we serve don’t see 

the benefits of the investments we are making. 

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

70 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Woodall? 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for 

being here. I represent the Metropolitan Atlanta area. We have 

been out to Texas more than once, Mr. Anderson, to check out the 

DART system, to see how it is we can build mass transit in the 

middle of an already-thriving metropolitan area. 

I want to pick up where Mr. Pappas left off on financing. New 

Hampshire is a donor State. Texas is the only true donor State in 

the transportation sense of the word, sending more transportation 

taxes than you get back in transportation dollars. But every single 

State represented here today is a donor State once you factor in the 

general fund revenues that are subsidizing the Highway Trust 

Fund. So it is a different conversation we have today than we did 

in the 1990s, because everybody is getting back more than they 

think that they are paying in, with the exception of Texas. 

I can’t find an account that my local DOT or my local mayors or 

my local county commissioners tell me they receive from the Federal Government that they find easier to spend than those dollars 

that they raise locally. But I have got a very diverse panel here, 

so can someone tell me about a pot of money that you get from 

Washington that you find easier to spend than the matching funds 

that you are raising locally? 

And I only ask that because, since the Federal commitment 

hasn’t increased since 1993, you have been doing more and more 

and more and more locally, and our estimation in Georgia is we are 

doing it better and better and better locally. We just passed a new 

transportation tax in Georgia, too, to the tune of about $1 billion 

a year. And we are succeeding in ways that the Federal Government would not have allowed us to succeed. 

And I ask that question—if nobody has got a particular pot, I ask 

that question to question the merit of raising the Federal commitment. If the only place I have to receive those Federal revenue dollars are from your citizens, and you are already raising taxes on 

your citizens—I heard it from Indiana, heard it from Alabama, 

heard it from Washington, heard it from Texas—you are already 

raising additional revenues from your citizens. What is the merit 

of me placing Federal burdens on them, only to give you your own 

money back again? 

I want to keep the Federal commitment that we have got. I don’t 

want to weaken the Federal commitment at all. I want to be a 

partner, and a stable partner. But I want to understand the merit 

of taking money from your citizenry to return it to you. 

You said from Washington State’s perspective, Mr. Millar, you 

are doing the same thing that Florida is doing and Georgia is now 

doing: committing those dollars to maintenance, because these are 

inflexible dollars you are getting back from Washington, and you 

are using them in the most efficient way that you can. But it might 

not be your first priority if you had more flexible dollars. 

Who can help me? Why should I take 20 more cents a gallon 

from your citizens to give it back to you is my question. I am happy 

to do it if you ask me to. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLAR. Well—— 

71 

Mr. WOODALL. I just want to understand why it is meritorious. 

Mr. MILLAR. And, Congressman, I would ask you to do it. 

What we are looking at in our State is addressing our problems. 

But we got to also think about the Federal role in transportation. 

The Federal role in transportation from the 1950s to, basically, 

today has been building out the Eisenhower Interstate System. We 

are done. 

Something that we need to think about as a people is what is the 

Federal role in surface transportation, moving forward. And for me, 

I look at the containers that come in to the Port of Seattle and the 

Port of Tacoma. Most of those are not going to Washington State. 

They are going somewhere else. But they are going somewhere else 

on an interstate highway that we operate and maintain and preserve. 

We need more capacity there. Moving that freight from our ports 

to other States may involve getting some of our citizens out of the 

way by incentivizing them to take transit or do something else. 

There is a key Federal role in this. And we need, one, the policy 

guidance from the Congress, and the revenue stream to keep that 

Federal role in play. 

Mr. WOODALL. Yes, my experience is policy guidance is easier to 

provide than revenue stream. So let me commit to the first, and we 

are going to start working on the second. 

Mr. Nirenberg? 

Mr. NIRENBERG. What I would say is it requires a partnership. 

It requires a partnership from the local level to the State level, 

from the State level to the Federal level. And I don’t think that we 

are suggesting that anyone can do it alone. 

In fact, what we are providing is ways that we can do it better. 

It has been since—— 

Mr. WOODALL. Well, because—— 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. WOODALL [continuing]. You are so close, you are the closest 

to the people here—— 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Sure. 

Mr. WOODALL [continuing]. Let me just drill down on that. We 

are going to raise more money for transportation, as a Nation. 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. WOODALL. The Federal commitment to your community is 

rock solid. What is the merit of taking an additional dime from 

your city and bringing it to Washington before sending it back? 

Does that improve the plight? 

And if it does, I want to partner with you on that. 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Well, if the dime that was taken out in 1993 

were worth the same amount that was taken out in 2019 I would 

say you are right. But the fact is that those revenue streams have 

not scaled up as time has gone on. So we have had to fill in the 

gaps. And we know that there is an extraordinary gap with the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

But that is not where it ends, either. We are suggesting also in 

local communities that we can’t continue to do the same thing over 

and over again and get different results. What we are trying to 

focus on is now moving people in high-density, urban communities, 

which includes multiple modes: transit, bicycles, pedestrian pathVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
72 

ways, and, of course, our roadways. And we have more and more 

infrastructure need, but less and less dollar power at the Federal 

level and the local level to deal with that. 

We have funding constraints at the local level, as well. 

Mr. WOODALL. I will be interested to hear what those restraints 

are. 

Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mrs. Craig? 

Mrs. CRAIG. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. I wanted to 

start by just saying I represent a district that is probably one-third 

suburban, one-third exurban, and one-third rural, from a voter perspective, constituent perspective. But over half of my District in 

Minnesota’s Second Congressional is rural. 

So I wanted to start with Mr. Stanley, and just ask you. You 

spoke in your testimony to higher highway fatalities on rural, noninterstate routes because of things like narrow lanes or limited 

shoulders, et cetera. How can Federal funding be structured to better target the needs of rural Americans? 

And how can we better consider small communities that often 

don’t have the necessary resources or grant writers, or things like 

that to be as successful as other communities? 

Mr. STANLEY. Excuse me. I think it is a partnership with the 

Federal level, as well, the planning organizations and things like 

that, to get those resources out to those communities that need 

them. 

The problems are readily identifiable, as we point out in our 

written testimony, that are causing the problems: narrow lanes, 

shoulder drop-offs, things that are easily rectified with proper finance and then proper design, and things like that. But too oftentimes those revenue dollars don’t stream down to those communities for the reason that you provided. 

So I think that we, as a Nation, we just need to figure out how 

to disseminate those dollars down the pipeline, and then give them 

the tools they need, whether it is a Federal help center for smaller 

communities, or something like that, to actually help them see 

where the dollars are and address them to the specific issues. But 

that would be helpful. 

Mrs. CRAIG. Thank you very much. And I wanted to address my 

next question to Mr. Clark. 

So my background is in corporate HR. I spent 4 years as the 

head of HR for a major U.S. company. And I was interested in the 

section of your testimony that spoke to workplace training as a percentage of payroll. According to studies you cited, transit agencies 

spend significantly less than suggested. 

Can you speak to the efficiencies that could be created if transit 

had a better trained workforce and more opportunities? And what 

do you think the Federal Government should do to help? 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much for that question. And I should 

have expanded on that more in my testimony. I think that there 

is substantial evidence that better training leads to better results, 

that more training leads to better on-time performance, fewer accidents. 

73 

A lot of people have talked about state of good repair and the 

maintenance of the system. It is hard to keep all that stuff up if 

you don’t have the skills of the workforce at the level you need to 

have them. And I actually have some data I could provide on that. 

There are some great anecdotes, but also some very solid data, in 

terms of Albany reducing its need for spare buses, for example, or 

SEPTA getting over 700 percent return on its investment over a 4- 

year period by increasing training. I think there are very, very substantial benefits there. 

And as I indicated, I think part of the Federal role here is that 

the Federal Government spends a lot on capital, but doesn’t spend 

nearly as much as it needs to on human capital. Secretary Millar 

talked about metrics and people just starting to pay attention to 

them. In my testimony I said Dr. Beverly Scott, who is a former 

chair of APTA and a leader in the industry—and one of the 

mantras she often comes back to is if you are not measuring it and 

if you are not holding people accountable on it, it doesn’t happen. 

So one of the things that the Federal Government clearly can do 

is say we want some good data on what is happening with your 

workforce. What are your projected retirements? How many people 

do you have in apprenticeship? What is the period of time it takes 

to get people trained? And getting—it is going to take some time 

for that data to accumulate and be a useful tool, but good data is 

a good tool. 

I would also urge that something—National Transit Institute 

does some very good work. By their own admission, they focus almost entirely on the white collar side of the workforce. I think 

some kind of Federal resource for the frontline workforce could 

make a big difference. Thank you. 

Mrs. CRAIG. Thank you so much. I couldn’t agree with you more. 

I think as we are investing in the infrastructure in this country, 

part of that has got to be work skill development. 

And the apprenticeship institute idea and a partnership between 

the Government and the private sector is something that is very, 

very appealing to me, and long overdue. So thank you so much. 

Madam Chairwoman, I yield the remainder of my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Babin? 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, 

witnesses, as well. 

Mr. Terry, let me start off with a little history lesson. Almost 100 

years ago most major cities began implementing motorized coach 

buses to provide their citizens with affordable and reliable public 

transportation. It worked like this. The rider pays a single flat fare 

to board a bus that goes around all day in a big loop, sometimes 

with 5 people aboard, sometimes overflowing with 50 or more. And 

to reach their final destination, riders have to either walk great 

distances or switch to another bus line, costing them time and productivity on a daily basis. 

Fast forward to today, and this model pretty much remains the 

very same. A number of cities and transit agencies are deploying 

new services powered by innovative technologies that hold the 

promise of improving economic mobility at a much lower cost to the 

American taxpayer than a traditional public transit. 

74 

For example, in my home State of Texas, Arlington, Texas has 

become the first city in the country to run a transit service comprised exclusively of on-demand, dynamically routed shuttles, otherwise known as microtransit. According to the mayor in Arlington, 

the city has ‘‘hit on something that is tremendously successful, that 

is getting the ridership that we have all been hoping for at a fraction of the cost of traditional transportation like buses or light 

rail.’’ 

Mr. Terry, how can the Federal Government encourage publicprivate partnerships to bring innovation to the public transit sector? 

Mr. TERRY. I would say in Indianapolis, which is an urban area, 

densely populated, we are focusing on where mass transit is the 

highest and best use, the highest productivity. Sprawl can be a 

problem. We don’t have the topography or geography that limits 

that. 

The microtransits are, I think, proving to be very successful. The 

ones I think would work very effectively integrated into a more robust regional transit plan, especially for our edge communities. 

I think the operating costs that we have now that are funded 

mostly on the local and State level, and the investments we are 

doing from mostly the Federal capital dollars that we are receiving 

are utilizing the technologies from fare modernization to make a 

more account-based system for multimodal use, integrating not just 

our transit system, but a—we have an electric car-share program, 

utilizing Ubers or Lyft, or bike-shares to maximize the mobility options for individuals, and not making mass transit a one-size-fitsall. 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you very much. 

I would also like to welcome—we have two fellow Texans here, 

I see, Mr. Anderson and Mayor Nirenberg. Thank you for being 

here. Welcome to DC. 

But Mr. Anderson, you work for TxDOT. Thank you for being 

here. As you may know, my district, 36, I represent 9 counties, 

from Houston over to Louisiana. We suffered greatly from the devastation of Hurricane Harvey just a couple of years ago. All nine 

of my counties were Federal disaster zones. 

Are there ways that new and innovative transportation technologies can help during disasters like Hurricane Harvey? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Texas Innovation Alliance members, as well as 

TxDOT, have been working on a number of those, not only postHarvey, but prior to that. 

And as an example, during the Hurricane Harvey event—we 

have a DriveTexas.org website that maintains our system that— 

you know, the part that TxDOT is responsible for, and the conditions on that system, be it construction or water on the road. And 

that map became the de facto map, the operational map, for the 

Federal agencies and for all the State agencies to bring logistics 

into the affected areas, as well as to evacuate across the entirety 

of that swath, which was roughly 300 miles wide and 150 miles 

deep. 

Dr. BABIN. Right. 

Mr. ANDERSON. And that same tool, or the information that feeds 

that tool, we are looking to expand over the coming years, based 

75 

upon lessons learned, to incorporate the State and city roads, and 

then bring that data and share it more broadly to other solutions, 

such as—— 

Dr. BABIN. OK. And then, to follow that up, what can Congress 

do to assist the State departments of transportation in preparing 

for extreme weather like we suffered during Hurricane Harvey? 

Mr. ANDERSON. They can work with us to examine what are the 

challenges that we most likely expect, especially at a regional and 

local level. What are the extreme weather events that are the ones 

that we are most concerned about, and then what are our plans to 

deal with those? And then, how can we work with them to develop 

a national strategy and address those within our formula funding? 

Dr. BABIN. I am sure everybody out there on the panel could answer that in some form or fashion, but I am running out of time. 

So I need to yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Congressman—— 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Ms. Titus? 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As we look at surface 

transportation as an opportunity to see what we focused on in the 

past and what we need to focus on in the future, and one of the 

things that seems striking to me is that we have not paid much 

attention to the movement of people. And by people I mean tourists. 

We considered road miles, we have looked at population, we look 

at freight movement, all when we are considering resources or revenue, but not actually the movement of people. Now, this is important to me. I represent the heart of the Las Vegas Valley. We welcome over 42 million tourists every year. Now, some of them drive 

from Utah, Arizona, southern California. Some of them fly into 

McCarran, which is the seventh-busiest airport. Hopefully, some 

will be coming by speed train some time in the future. 

So we have to deal with getting them there, and then moving 

them around, once they get there. Our MPO and the Las Vegas 

Convention Authority RTC all work together to try to plan how to 

accommodate them. So it is part of our planning process, but we 

don’t have the resources to take into account all these visitors. 

So I would ask Mayor Nirenberg and Ms. McMillan to address 

this. I know, Mayor, I have had the pleasure of welcoming the Visit 

San Antonio folks. They have come to my office. I cochair the Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus. So they describe some of 

the same problems—I believe I saw you had 37 million visitors a 

year. And then San Francisco welcomes about 26 million visitors 

a year, and that doesn’t count Napa Valley. So again, you have 

some of the same kind of problems. 

So I would ask you two to talk a little bit about how you meet 

the needs of moving visitors around, and if you would support including visitors as a metric for determining funding. That is the 

first question. 

And then, question, what do you think about the possibility of 

having a national travel mobility program, kind of like we have the 

freight mobility program, that takes into account some alternative 

projects that enhance travel and moving tourists around, and look 

at connectivity among major tourist destinations? 

76 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Well, thank you very much for making that 

note. Visitors are—and the visitor industry, certainly, is a bedrock 

of San Antonio’s economy, and will remain that way, and has impacts on our transportation system. I think that is an extension of 

how we are trying to build a multimodal transportation system for 

the future that actually—our vision for success is how we move 

people around and give consumers choice in how they move around. 

We are integrating last-mile transit, as the gentleman said earlier, from scooters to bike-share to other elements, and being able 

to build walkable communities and plan our land use around that. 

But we also have to give people options on how they can move from 

the main halls, whether it is via public transportation, transit 

lines, a rental car, Uber and Lyft rideshare types of modes. But we 

are trying to integrate everything. Our philosophy on transportation for the future, whether it is a visitor or resident, is all of the 

above. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, you didn’t answer my question, though. Would 

you support including visitors as part of a metric for funding? 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Absolutely would. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TITUS. And you think it is a good idea to have a national 

travel plan, as well as a freight plan? 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Obviously, we would have to learn more about 

that, but it sounds good to me. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

Ms. MCMILLAN. You know, I agree with a lot of what was observed and said here. I think I would note that, actually, under the 

FAST Act, one of the things that changed under the planning rules 

was that we need to look at tourism—— 

Ms. TITUS. Yes. 

Ms. MCMILLAN [continuing]. Part of the—— 

Ms. TITUS. That was part of my bill. I remember it very well. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Right, OK. Well, I am coming back to it, so I 

apologize, and give you—— 

Ms. TITUS. Glad you noticed. 

Ms. MCMILLAN [continuing]. Kudos for adding that in. But I 

think one of the things that is—you know, that whole idea of choice 

is really important, particularly for tourists. Because, unlike the 

type of planning we would do when we can anticipate who has jobs, 

and where the jobs are located, at least to some degree have a predictability about where they want to go, I think with our tourist 

community that is really different. 

So things that we are beginning to tackle now, and have to think 

about how funding dollars can best accommodate it are the very information-driving improvements that we are thinking about. We 

have all these choices, but how do we get the information out to 

people to use it, in terms of the apps and the new technologies related to that? 

What—I am beginning to see, certainly when I was with FTA, is 

these new needs of how we use what we have differently, and particularly, again, the choices and availability and nimbleness to 

move or adjust them to peaks that might, you know, accommodate 

seasonal or tourist travel is something that is a very different funding source than building a lot of infrastructure. And sometimes our 

77 

Federal, as well as State, you know, dollars have been designed on 

eligibilities that are linked to that more traditional infrastructure 

structure. And we have to rethink that, in terms of overlays on infrastructure that are much more nimble and fast-moving. 

So this is something I think, overall, we need to look to in our 

investment programs. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. Mr. Spano? 

Mr. SPANO. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you 

for being here. We appreciate your presence and your expertise. 

You have been very helpful for us. I have a couple questions for 

Mr. Anderson, specifically. 

You all have really served as a model, I think, for the rest of the 

country. And we are grateful for that, number one. There are a 

couple programs you guys—and projects you guys have undertaken, and I would like you to just explain and tell me what benefits you have derived from those programs. 

The first is the Texas connected freight corridors project, and 

then the second would be the truck platooning demonstration. If 

you could, just detail those projects, and then maybe tell us how 

you think the rest of the country could benefit by implementing 

similar programs. 

Mr. ANDERSON. The connected vehicle freight program is actually 

an ATCMTD grant that we received about a year ago. And it is focused on what we call a Texas triangle, running from Houston up 

to Dallas and then back down to Austin, San Antonio, and on to 

Laredo, and then connecting over between San Antonio and Houston. And that is a preponderance of a lot of the freight movement 

in our State coming from both our land and gulf ports. 

And so the focus there is to enhance the movement of freight 

along those corridors, and then to expand those lessons learned to 

a lot of our east-west corridors, such as I–10 and I–20. And in 

doing that, we are going to look at different connected vehicle systems and the information it provides to freight that could help 

freight be more safe and to move more effectively and efficiently 

across the system. And then, as we find which ones are most successful, we are going to scale that across the State. And we begin 

to implement it, we are working with Federal highways on the 

project, and we believe we are going to have a lot of success with 

doing that. 

Related to that, then, we did do research on truck platooning. We 

maintained that for several years, looking at the capability of full 

18-wheelers and their ability to platoon and, in some cases, to be 

automated and share operations between the two. And looking at 

the safety of that, and looking at the impacts as a passenger vehicle interacts with that. And all of those have been successful and 

have begun to feed the department—and not only our department, 

but agencies such as the DMV and the DPS, to inform them about 

how those might operate on the system. 

And recently, last session, the House passed a bill that allowed 

a certain version of truck platooning in the State. So the capability 

exists now, and a number of companies are looking to start doing 

that. 

78 

Mr. SPANO. And then I would also ask you if you could just give 

us your opinions on how other States might be able to replicate 

what the Texas Innovation Alliance is doing. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I mentioned earlier the larger organization. 

It is called the Smart Cities Lab. And we teamed with a number 

of the other cities that applied for the smart cities grant back—almost 4 years ago now. And we share that information amongst 

each other as each city or region develops these smart technologies. 

And as I mentioned earlier, both the Texas Innovation Alliance, 

but with the Smart Cities Lab—and I think any other State could 

do this organically—I mean it was a grassroots effort. This is not 

something that was directed by the State. This followed the smart 

cities competition. 

And a number of the mayors said, you know, they had supported 

Austin’s proposal, even though they weren’t the winner. And following that, they said, ‘‘You know, we had something really working well, in terms of teaming, and we want to continue that.’’ So 

with their lead and with their staffs and combined with TxDOT 

and some of our research institutions, we agreed to just, you know, 

federate, essentially, and work on it together in a combined effort. 

And we have spread that to other States and talked to them. I 

believe Colorado actually announced last week that they have 

something similar to that. I think it is focused more in the Denver 

area. But I think it is replicable and it can be done not with a lot 

of top-driven demands, but more from a group effort. 

Mr. SPANO. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. 

Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Spano. 

Mr. Espaillat? 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, and thanks to the witnesses for being 

here. We have the opportunity today to have our first hearing on 

a major part of our infrastructure, just as the Trump administration released a budget that will divest the Federal Government 

from infrastructure. 

And, in fact, the administration had the gall to say that a major 

project of regional and national significance, and perhaps of even 

national security importance, such as the Gateway Project and the 

replacement of the Hudson River Tunnels, is a State issue. And, 

therefore, that the Federal Government should not be involved. 

Despite a chilling recent report by the Regional Plan Association 

showing that if the tunnels had to be shut down it would cost the 

Federal Government $1.5 billion in tax revenue, and it would rob 

the national economy of $16 billion. 

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter the RPA report 

titled, ‘‘A Preventable Crisis’’ into the record. 

Ms. NORTON. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

f 

A PREVENTABLE CRISIS: THE COSTS OF A HUDSON RIVER RAIL TUNNEL SHUTDOWN

[The report is retained in committee files and is available at: http://library.rpa.org/ 

pdf/RPA-HRTlImpactlStudyl20190225.pdf] 

79 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, this is just one 

area where the administration is failing to meet our infrastructure 

needs, but there are many more. 

For example, the Trump budget, again, calls for eliminating capital improvement grants. This program includes the New Starts 

and Small Starts, provides critical Federal funding to help get 

major local projects underway. 

In New York City, funding through the New Starts program is 

absolutely vital for extending the Second Avenue subway into my 

district in East Harlem. The project would tie a new line of the 

subway system into the Metro-North Commuter Rail, alleviating 

the long, overcrowded Lexington Avenue line, as well. It would also 

better connect the East Side to a direct bus to LaGuardia Airport. 

So the project has regional and multimodal significance, and it 

would eliminate a serious transit desert that has persisted in the 

Nation’s largest city for decades. 

My question to the panel is how critical have the capital improvement grants such as New Starts and Small Starts been in 

making sure projects get off the ground, and in helping local governments cope with growing population? 

[No response.] 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Anybody from the panel? Yes? 

Mr. TERRY. So—Mike Terry—yes, we have been awarded recently 

a CIG grant, and it is under the Small Starts, for our first electrification of a bus rapid transit corridor, it is 13 miles. And it is 

the beginning of the spine for our whole transit system. We don’t 

have subways, but this is as close as we are getting right now. And 

it is vital for the density, to support the density. It is already proven corridors. 

So, from the Federal Government’s side, I think these are competitive grants going through a very rigorous and lengthy process. 

But it is vital to our success of our build-out of our transit system 

in Indianapolis. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Additionally, these efforts are not only good for 

transportation and infrastructure, but they are also an important 

window of opportunity for economic development in our cities and 

across our country. And I have a question for Mr. Clark. 

I know that you have mentioned programs, training programs 

that you have seen work for—apprenticeship programs and also 

minority- and women-owned business opportunities. What model is 

there out there that we can rely on to ensure that folks would be 

ready at the starting line? 

I mean often what happens is these projects take off, and the 

local population is not ready to compete for these jobs. So what 

training programs will you advocate for that will help people be 

ready at the starting line? 

Mr. CLARK. I think you start early, and the—working on career 

technical education and good contextual learning skills as early as 

middle school, and career arenas, and all that kind of stuff helps. 

I think there are some really good models. Los Angeles did some 

really dramatic work in increasing its transit capacity. And they 

did that some time ago. Using tools like the multicraft core curriculum that the building trades have developed, and working with 

organizations like the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, 

80 

there was really dramatic impact in terms of reaching impacted 

communities. There were tough targets to make sure that people 

from historically disadvantaged groups got represented. And it got 

down to zip code levels, in terms of trying to get people into those 

jobs. And there was great success. 

I think Los Angeles had some unique advantages in doing that, 

but I think there were a lot of elements of that that can be implemented nationally. And I think the building trades, nationally, I 

think, deserve a lot of credit for the multicraft core curriculum, 

which has been an extremely successful apprenticeship program. 

And I don’t have the numbers at my fingertips, but a very large 

majority of the people graduating from those MC3 programs are 

women and people of color. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat. 

Mr. Garcı ́a? 

Mr. GARCI ́A. Thank you, Madam Chair Norton and Ranking 

Member Davis, for organizing this hearing to begin the work of addressing our urgent surface transportation needs. And I want to 

thank all of the panelists who have presented this morning. 

As the testimony thus far has made clear, we need to establish 

a more stable, long-term, and sustainable revenue source to both 

meet the needs of our growing economy, adapt to the adoption of 

more energy-efficient vehicles, and close the growing funding gap 

to bring our current assets to a state of good repair. 

Madam Chair, as we endeavor to draft a FAST Act reauthorization, I look forward to working with you, Chairman DeFazio, and 

all the other colleagues to seek more equity for historically underserved communities and populations like the ones that I represent. 

To add to the testimony today I submit just some of those needs 

specific to the Chicago region. 

According to the Regional Transportation Authority, which oversees the Chicago land transit systems, we need an additional $32 

billion just to bring our assets to a state of good repair. The Illinois 

Department of Transportation estimates that we will need another 

$30 billion, fully, to maintain our road and highway network. 

Today I would like to focus on two specific issues: one, the need 

for better transit-oriented development that breaks down the silos 

in which planning for transit and housing projects currently occur; 

and two, the need to address our transit workforce safety and 

training needs, and especially for front-line workers like the bus 

drivers for Pace and the Chicago Transit Authority in Chicago. 

Director McMillan, Director Anderson, and Secretary Millar or 

others, a neighborhood in my district, Logan Square, has lost over 

23,000 long-term Hispanic and African-American residents, due to 

the rising home costs, increasing problems in transit access, and increasing congestion. Some of this is rooted in poor planning that ultimately results in gentrification, or displacement. 

The National Association of Counties—and mind you, I was a 

former county commissioner—produced a 2018 report entitled, 

‘‘Planning Ahead,’’ and I would like to request unanimous consent 

to enter that report into the record. 

Madam Chair? 

Ms. NORTON. So ordered. 

81 

[The information follows:] 

f 

PLANNING AHEAD: COUNTY PLANNING, LAND USE AND ZONING STRATEGIES FOR

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

[The report is retained in committee files and is available at: https:// 

www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/Planning%20Ahead%20-%20County%20 

Planning%2C%20Land%20Use%20and%20Zoning%20Strategies%20for%20 

Affordable%20Housing.pdf.] 

Mr. GARCI ́A. Thank you. The report describes many of the pressures that counties and local authorities face to attract higher tax 

bases to increase revenues. The result is higher home costs, rents, 

and gentrification. This unintended and sometimes intended consequence can be avoided by better land use planning. 

If affordable housing is an after-thought in transit-oriented development, cost per square foot increases and affordable housing 

construction can become cost-prohibitive. In title 23 of U.S. Code 

134, and title 49 of the U.S. Code section 5303 MPOs are instructed to consult with various local agencies for responsible land 

use. Is there something that we can adjust to more explicitly require the consideration of low-income for affordable housing as part 

of the planning process? 

And a brief answer would be very welcome. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Well, I will be—maybe I can start representing 

the MPOs and the planning processes you just cited. And I think 

there—very briefly, a couple of things. 

One, we need to get much better in data, particularly in our underserved communities, understanding what is happening on the 

ground in those communities, in terms of socio-demographics and 

availability of—you know, housing vulnerability and those type of 

things is really important. 

I think we also need to work very closely on these intersecting 

issues. Transportation and housing, at least certainly in the bay 

area—and I would say across California—you can’t solve one without the other at this point in our metro areas. And we are working 

very aggressively to do the type of coordinated planning and then 

coordinated investments—and this is where we could explore more 

of how Federal programs, for example, at HUD and Federal flexible 

transportation programs under USDOT can recognize joint criteria 

or performance metrics to allow those investments to work better 

together. That might be one area to explore. 

Mr. GARCI ́A. Well, thank you. 

I am about to run out of time, so I will submit some additional 

questions for followup. I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcı ́a. 

Mr. Carbajal? 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to all the 

witnesses today. 

Ms. McMillan, thank you for your testimony. As many of us are 

aware, the administration released their so-called infrastructure 

proposal last year. It would have required States and local governments to pay a larger share of the costs of infrastructure—80 percent, to be exact. However, States and local governments are already financing infrastructure projects at higher levels than the 

82 

Federal Government. And, let’s face it, if the locals had 80 percent 

of the funds, they would already be doing a lot more. 

As a matter of fact, when I served in local government in Santa 

Barbara County, county residents voted in support for renewing a 

self-help tax in order to finance larger regional infrastructure 

projects. 

So I have a couple questions: one, how can the Federal Government be a better partner for local governments to bring our infrastructure to a state of good repair; and two, what are the pros and 

cons for local governments to have access to different financing 

tools, such as the infrastructure bank or an infrastructure corporation? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Well, I would like to comment first—observe, 

Congressman, your observation that is really important. While 

State and local governments—I think particularly in our home 

State of California—have stepped up with a greater share of investment, it was never to replace the Federal dollar, it was to augment 

the Federal dollar in a continuing partnership. At no point have we 

ever, in stepping forward, not recognized that our Federal investment needs to remain and needs to remain robust. 

And so I think, you know, your observations there of partnership 

are so critical. And I think that theme needs to carry forward in 

whatever discussions we have associated with reauthorization. 

With respect to financing, I think we generally—given the complexity of the problems we have, maybe one overarching view is 

that the more tools we have, the more we are going to be able to 

apply them to whatever problems may arise—again, avoiding that 

one-fits-all scenario. Financing is incredibly important to deliver 

our projects faster and, you know, allow for improvements to get 

to the public more quickly. 

But financing is not funding. There always needs to be a revenue 

stream that is underlying whatever financing we do. And so I think 

that is a key reminder, as we talk about the value of those tools 

we would like to see in place. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. So a public infrastructure bank would be a good 

tool to have, nonetheless? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. I think any amount of tools available to us is 

something we should explore. More tools are better than fewer. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you so much. 

Mayor Nirenberg, thank you for your service in local government, 

and thank you for being here on behalf of the National League of 

Cities. We all know that congestion is a huge issue for commuters, 

an issue I also experienced in my district. It takes a toll also on 

our economy. 

Our committee’s website, under Chairman DeFazio’s leadership, estimates that congestion has cost our economy over $342 billion 

since 2017. What are some of the ways that we can leverage different modes of transportation, such as regional rail, to minimize 

congestion? 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Well, thank you very much for that question. I 

think you are absolutely right. We need to provide people options. 

Not everyone would choose to get behind a single-occupancy vehicle 

if they had other choices, which is why, in San Antonio, we are 

working on a comprehensive, multimodal strategy that allows peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
83 

ple options from the first mile to the last mile, and everything in 

between. 

Many people will choose to continue to drive their own vehicle, 

but we need to make sure that we have a fully funded public transportation system for people who don’t have the choice have now an 

option to get to and from work, get to and from school. 

And then, from a regional standpoint, providing, you know, ways 

to move around what is now the fastest growing corridor in the 

country, and probably the spark of Texas economy right now, which 

is the I–35 corridor. And largely, the Texas Triangle, which will be 

home to about 40 million people by 2050. 

So the bottom line for us is we need to provide options, we need 

them to be multimodal, and that requires a broad partnership with 

the Federal Government, the State government, and the local government to provide diverse revenue streams and, really, as many 

tools as possible to fund them. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you, Mayor. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Mrs. Miller? 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton, and thank you all 

for being here today. 

Improving our Nation’s roads and bridges is imperative to increasing safety, as well as connecting our Nation. My own district 

faces issues connecting our rural communities with larger, more 

populous areas. Good infrastructure helps us preserve the all-important rural way of life, while also ensuring my constituents in 

small towns can have easy access to goods and services in our larger cities. I believe, if we invest in our Nation’s roads now, we will 

see long-term economic benefits, nationwide. 

The King Coal Highway and the Tolsia Highway in my district 

have been under construction since 1999, and are nowhere close to 

completion. Finishing this highway would increase safety and cut 

travel times in half in the mountainous southern West Virginia, 

and bring much-needed economic development to this region. For 

20 years there has been talk of completing this project, but no action. 

I also have a bridge to nowhere in my district, where construction has been stalled since 2007. It is totally unacceptable that the 

bridge has been completed for over a decade, but is still wholly unusable, since there are no paved roads connecting it to my State’s 

highway system. When completed, this bridge will be a shining example of infrastructure connecting communities. But until then it 

represents the millions of dollars wasted on incomplete projects 

across the country. 

Further, the Coalfields Expressway abruptly changes from a 

paved, four-laned highway to a dirt road. This is another example 

of a highway that has been in the works for far too long. Route 2 

and Route 10 also need enhancement and modernization. These 

projects, when taken on, will breathe commerce, jobs, and economic 

growth into our southern counties, connecting West Virginia to Virginia and beyond. 

West Virginia is in dire need of infrastructure investment. I was 

sent here to Congress to improve the lives of my constituents in 

West Virginia who are forced to commute for hours on dangerous 

84 

and damaged rural mountain roads, just to get to work in the nearest town. Building and maintaining our major road system is essential for exporting West Virginia’s abundant resources, and encouraging economic prosperity. I do hope that this subcommittee is 

able to find solutions for the Highway Trust Fund in order to promote West Virginia’s economic development. 

Mr. Millar, the Highway Trust Fund allocates billions of dollars 

every year. What kind of oversight does the Federal Government 

have over how money from the Highway Trust Fund is used to 

make sure it is not wasted? 

Mr. MILLAR. Congresswoman, that is a great question. In the 

State of Washington I work closely with the Division Administrator 

for the Washington division of the Federal Highway Administration, which provides oversight of everything we do with Federal 

highway dollars. I also work with the Region Administrator of the 

FTA region, region 10, on the transit dollars that get spent. 

The oversight is in place. I think the nature of our transportation 

investment, where you have a Federal program that is administered by the States, gives each of the States the individual authority to make decisions about how the Federal money that comes to 

that State gets spent. 

So in Washington State we have a great relationship with our 

Federal partners. The money comes to the State, the money gets 

spent, the projects get built, our people move. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. With increased traffic volume overall, 

as well as increased ownership of high mileage and electric vehicles, what are we doing to properly fund the Highway Trust Fund? 

What more could we be doing? And please be as comprehensive as 

possible. 

Mr. MILLAR. Back at me, great. 

Mrs. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. MILLAR. Yes, Congresswoman. The way we are funding the 

Highway Trust Fund now is with fuel tax and our grandchildren’s 

money. We are borrowing. The fuel tax, because of the more efficient vehicles we have because of alternative fuels coming on to the 

market, it is a flat funding source. And it does not have a sustainable future. 

The alternatives to the motor fuel tax are all unpopular. But how 

many popular taxes do you know of? 

Whether it is a road user charge or congestion pricing or some 

other way of funding the transportation system, I think what all 

of us agree on is that it should be user-based, it should be a fee 

for service. It should be—you know, that is the notion behind the 

fuel tax, it is the notion behind what we should do, going forward. 

We are testing these ideas around the country. I am the vice 

chair of the Western Road Usage Charge Alliance. States all over 

the American West are looking at how they would administer a 

road user charge, the mechanics of it. Taking this on nationally is 

something we are going to have to do at some point. We are looking 

forward to continuing the conversation. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Brown? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is clear to me that 

the—and so many—that the Federal Government must invest in a 

85 

resilient, modern infrastructure that communities around our country desperately need, and Congress needs to act. 

But additional investments, I believe, will be meaningless without a capable workforce prepared for tomorrow’s shovel-ready 

projects. Congress has acknowledged our workforce challenges and 

the need for more apprenticeships, internships, and vocational 

training for our manufacturing and construction sectors. 

The private sector has struggle to provide the job training necessary, and we cannot depend solely on our high schools, community colleges, and universities to train and sustain a modern, competitive workforce. That is why we must bring both industry, labor, 

and education to the table and ensure that we are working hand 

in glove to meet the workforce demands of tomorrow. 

Mr. Clark, a question for you. In your testimony you talk about 

the value of registered apprenticeship. I have a bill called the Hard 

Hat Act that would require 20 percent of workers on a federally 

funded construction project to complete a registered apprenticeship 

program. You spoke about the idea of utilizing this model for maintenance and other skilled labor positions in the industry. 

Can you elaborate on your comments as to why it makes sense 

to have these high-standard, joint labor-management apprenticeship programs for all aspects within the transit industry? And 

what are some pre-apprenticeship options that can be used to help 

address workforce pipeline challenges? 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you. You have answered much of your own 

question, but I welcome the opportunity. 

Mr. BROWN. As long as it looks good on camera. 

Mr. CLARK. It does. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CLARK. The—apprenticeship really does involve—the technical learning needs to be there. You don’t go out and deal with 

high-voltage electricity without learning something in the classroom about principles of electricity. But to work well in those blue 

collar settings—and, indeed, in most settings—people learn most of 

what they do by doing it, not by passively absorbing information. 

An apprenticeship takes that principle of learning and implements it fully. And that works very well. I think your bill is a great 

idea. We also have some experience starting these apprenticeship 

programs in some places in transit, and the results are phenomenal. People pick up the skills. 

And, as I indicated in my testimony, if you get to the highest end 

of this—and I think Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, has reached some of this 

at times—we get engineers and front-line workers taking on a 

problem, seeing something, and saying, hey, we are paying a lot of 

money to get this particular element from a vendor. We can do that 

in-house if we re-jigger the systems a little bit. 

There are, really, a lot of benefits here, including the workforce 

becoming more engaged, people enjoying their jobs more, but also 

just delivering better, more efficient service. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Secretary Millar, in your testimony you talk about the need for 

Congress to support initiatives that create new opportunities for 

high school and college students, including internships in STEAM 

86 

fields to ensure an adequate workforce pipeline. I have a bill that 

looks at dual enrollment programs with a focus on private-sector 

buy-in. 

How can we better prepare the high school junior and senior that 

is about to graduate for a family-supporting career in the transportation industry? And what are ways that State departments of 

transportation are engaged in the next generation of workers? And 

what can we learn from them? 

Mr. MILLAR. That is a great, great question, Congressman. 

We are doing a lot in Washington State. We could do more, if we 

were resourced to do more. We are reaching out in high schools and 

middle schools across the State to engage those children in thinking of the construction trades as a way forward. As we talked about 

earlier today, a lot of folks figure that 4-year degree is the way to 

go. 

I have a friend in the development industry that said, ‘‘What I 

tell kids is go to community college, get some skills, go out, do an 

apprenticeship, learn a trade. By the time your friends graduate 

from college, you will be ready to hire them as employees.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLAR. So we require today 15 percent of our labor hours 

worked on our contracts be done by apprentices. We are at 18.6 

percent, as an agency. And 44 percent of those apprentice hours 

are worked by women and people of color. 

Providing a pipeline to that apprenticeship program through preapprenticeship support and on-the-job training is the place where 

we need help. We have a State-funded program—it started at 

$750,000, it is up to $3 million—that we are spending on things 

like daycare and lunch money and equipment, tools, so that young 

men and women can get into these apprenticeship programs. 

We are not doing that work, we are getting that money out to 

labor, to faith-based groups, to community groups to bring people 

from the community in. 

Another thing I am doing—to wrap this up—is working with the 

secretary of corrections in Washington State in the prison population to bring that same set of pre-apprenticeship skills together, 

so that people can leave the prison population—when they come 

back into their communities, they come back into the community 

with a full-time job with the Washington State DOT. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you to the panel. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Brown. 

Mr. Malinowski. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Anderson, you mentioned in your testimony the experience 

of Texas with autonomous vehicles, the experiment that is just beginning. And I wanted to ask you to leap forward a bit and imagine 

the brave new world. 

Imagine a day, you know, a few years from now, when you and 

I own a vehicle that we can summon at any time, we can jump into 

it not having to drive it. We can read a book, watch a movie, eat 

a meal, take a nap. It can take us wherever we want to go. We 

don’t have to worry about parking it, because we can let it circle 

the block or go somewhere else while we are doing our thing, and 

we can summon it back any time. 

87 

In that world, what incentive do you and I have to take public 

transportation or get on a bike? And if I am right about the answer 

to that question, what is the impact on congestion? What is the impact on pollution, especially if some of these vehicles are not zeroemissions vehicles? What is the impact on some of the bigger challenges that we are already facing in our transportation system? 

Mr. ANDERSON. So we have talked a lot about this with both 

startup-level autonomous vehicle companies, as well as the OEMs 

and the transit community, as well, because they are looking at AV 

buses and other solutions similar to that—microtransit was mentioned earlier. 

I don’t think it is a one-size-fits-all solution. There has been discussion of having services, almost like you have cable subscriptions. 

You subscribe to a particular manufacturer’s vehicle, or its system 

and its service that it provides, and you don’t own that car whatsoever. It shows up when you need it, and delivers you to where you 

want to go. But where you want to go may not be, you know, door 

to door. It may be door to a multimodal hub that might involve 

other transit services, as well. 

So the mix and the solutions that are being driven, you know, 

back to the Texas Innovation Alliance are locally identified. The 

problems that they have—and each region has disparate—you 

know, they have similar problems, but they have regional challenges that are different, and each transportation system is different. So they are looking at what fits best with what they project 

over the next 20, 30 years, what they currently have, and how they 

can get to that point. And a mix of those solutions, typically, is 

what they are seeing as the first best option, rather than trying to 

select what the only option is going to be in the near future. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. OK. So I am wrong to be worried about that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I am not saying you are wrong to be worried. I 

think that there are a lot of people, including the mayor’s team and 

others in the State—and I mentioned the Smart Cities Labs and 

a number across the Nation in ITS America, and AASHTO, and the 

Transportation Research Board have communal discussions on this 

on a regular basis, and are looking at what can be done to address 

that specific challenge, and what is the reliability, the safety, the 

security, the privacy, which are all concerns that we have, and that 

we communicate regularly to the industry that is developing it to 

make sure that all of those things are addressed, and deliver the 

quality of life that would be imagined in that kind of future. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. And what is—what do you see—and I will invite anybody to answer this question—is the Federal role in regulating, overseeing driverless vehicles with respect to the questions 

I raised: safety, privacy, other issues that you mentioned? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, the Federal Highway Administration has 

had a number of meetings, national-level dialogues, and they have 

published autonomous vehicle guidance over the past several years. 

And that has served as a catalyst and an enabler to the States, especially those States that have moved forward on passing autonomous vehicle and connected vehicle-related laws. And I think that 

that has been a positive and natural relationship between the two. 

And to date, the regulation hasn’t been necessary. However, the 

work that was being done on the previous autonomous vehicle bill 

88 

mirrored, in many cases, our State’s laws, and Michigan DOT’s 

State’s laws, and several others. There were very common themes 

in those, and it seemed like that was going in the right direction 

before. That didn’t make it through the last session. 

Mr. MILLAR. And Congressman, if I could add to it, I am on the 

board of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America. And at 

AASHTO I cochair with the secretary from Delaware, the Cooperative Automated Transportation Coalition Executive Committee, 

which is a joint effort of AASHTO, ITS America, the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers, and FHWA and FTA are at both of 

those tables. 

When you look at the automated vehicle, the SAE level 4, level 

5 vehicle that is 99.9 percent of the way there, a colleague of mine 

from Germany points out that—imagine you are climbing Mount 

Everest. If you fly to New Delhi, you are 99 percent of the way 

there. If you fly from there to Kathmandu, 99.9 percent. Go to the 

base camp, you still have to climb the mountain. 

Something that we are looking at, in terms of mobility, is the notion of mobility on demand, and the ability to say I am here, I want 

to go there, what are my options? You have trip planning done for 

you, you pick the trip you want to take, knowing the cost, knowing 

the time, knowing perhaps the environmental consequences or the 

health benefits, what have you. And then that app does the transactions for you and gives you the permissions to go where you are 

going. 

ITS America is standing up a mobility on demand alliance next 

month—in Seattle, because I am cochairing that effort. That kind 

of work is going on, and the Federal Government has been a great 

partner in that and in developing policy. We are working together 

to determine what are the questions that need to be asked and answered. 

We are hearing a lot from our friends in industry that—you 

know, start with a light touch, and that is what we are doing. 

But the conversations are ongoing. The Federal role is much appreciated. The seed money, the mobility on demand sandbox and 

other things that agencies are doing are helping make our jobs 

easier as we enter into this brave new world. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Stanley, in your testimony you discuss the economic benefits 

of transportation infrastructure investment. How can we better ensure that infrastructure projects benefit local economies? 

You know, I would specifically like your opinion on how we can 

ensure the inclusion of minorities, women, veterans, and other 

small businesses, as primes or subcontractors on these infrastructure projects, thereby creating a more diverse workforce. 

Mr. STANLEY. Thank you, sir. Transportation projects are often— 

if you look at the breakdown of our members as associated general 

contractors, we are made up of some large companies, but a lot of 

them are smaller, family-owned or individual-owned businesses. A 

lot of those businesses will go out and are investing in capital and 

infrastructure to actually get those projects done. 

89 

There is structure in place in the Federal projects right now, as 

you are aware, with the DBE program for disadvantaged business 

enterprises, and that has tended to work well in some areas. There 

are some improvements that we think that can be made to make 

it more accessible to others. 

There are some issues with the registration and situation with 

the DBE program. The cost, if you are a startup company to go into 

the registration process and to get certified, some of those things 

tend to be cost-prohibitive to some of those communities, as well. 

The second thing that we think needs to be done is—and we definitely advocate, there is diversity and inclusion through all levels 

of the construction process, not only just in the prime contract or 

the subcontractor, but what we see and what is—my experience 

personally has been—is that a lot of your DBEs haven’t experienced the mid-level and high-level jobs in your major corporations. 

A lot of construction companies are actually started by people who 

have worked for larger businesses for 5, 10 years, learned the planning, the financial expertise, the scheduling expertise that are 

needed to make the process and the job go smoothly. 

So when minorities and people that are disadvantaged aren’t in 

those positions in majority corporations, when they go out to start 

new companies, a lot of those skills aren’t there. So I think the 

DBE supports services—things that the—that are in the Federal 

program now need to be taken advantage of more to help people 

that start the businesses with the tools to be successful. 

But then I think the diversity inclusion, which—AGC has a document that our board of directors has voted on and approved that 

calls for diversity inclusion throughout the process, not just meeting our DBE goals, but let’s diversify our companies. Let’s get more 

disadvantaged people or constituents through all levels of the construction process, from engineers to architects to business owners 

to project managers. And I think that will help the program be 

more successful over the future. 

Mr. PAYNE. And how do we—you feel the Federal Government 

can bolster and support that effort to ensure that the disadvantaged can meet the criteria needed in order to compete? 

Mr. STANLEY. Right. So I think the oversight that is being done 

now through the DBE program is a good starting point. I mean, obviously, you need to have certain financial stability, and things of 

that nature. So that would be one of my main ways, I think, that— 

I would suggest that. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK, thank you. 

And Ms. McMillan, given all the new technological advances in 

transportation, such as with ride-sharing companies, how do we 

balance the new technology with local community needs, specifically with the potential displacement of local workforces? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Yes, I think that is an excellent question, Congressman. And part of certainly what we are doing in the San 

Francisco Bay area is aggressively bringing that consideration of 

impact on our historically underserved communities at the forefront of our planning. 

One of the things that we have recently engaged in, importantly, 

was a very detailed, 10-point plan housing analysis. Referring back 

to what I observed before, that the housing and transportation deVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
90 

mands in our communities are inextricably linked, including the 

challenge of gentrification or displacement around a new piece of 

transportation infrastructure that suddenly makes a neighborhood 

much more viable. 

One of the things included in there were tenant protections and 

policies to—you know, to specifically speak to that need. The idea 

of identifying and preserving naturally affordable housing and not 

seeing it flip, in terms of that—of development that is happening 

around the areas, ensuring that affordable housing is incorporated 

not, you know, as a target, but a requirement as part of the development that happens in the areas around our transit stations. All 

of those elements need to come into play, I think, importantly. 

We are also recognizing a one-size-fits-all doesn’t really work in 

those circumstances, understanding each community. We are seeing higher levels of poverty in our suburban areas, as well as traditionally urbanized pockets of economic distress. 

So I think maybe the answer to your question is bringing this in 

at the front end of the planning process, not at the back end, is the 

best way of identifying the problems and coming up with the solutions, and bringing the tools to bear to solve them. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Rouda? 

Mr. ROUDA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Hi, I am Harley Rouda, I am from Orange County, California’s 

48th District. And I appreciate all of you being here. And I also 

apologize that—we serve on multiple committees, so if I ask questions that have already been asked and answered, I apologize. 

I also want to thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member 

Graves for having this hearing, because I do believe that infrastructure is a key component in our ability to fight climate change, 

and having this hearing is so important. 

As I mentioned, I am from California. California is known for 

many things, including its traffic. In fact, 16.9 percent of California’s roads are in poor condition, 6.2 percent of our bridges are deficient, 53 percent of our dams are at high risk. So we recognize 

how important it is to have the interaction of the Federal Government work with States and local municipalities in addressing these 

issues. 

I want to read a couple facts with you and then get into some 

questions. 

It is shown that personal cars are unused 95 percent of the time. 

So a wasting asset 95 percent of the time. In densely populated cities like Los Angeles, 15 percent of urban land is used for parking, 

yet estimates by 2035 is that parking spaces will decline by 5.7 

million square meters. If we get to a point where we actually have 

90 percent driverless cars, it would result in $447 billion in savings 

and productivity. 

So if we assume for a minute that we had level 5 auto automation, supporting high levels of autonomous vehicles, we had ride 

sharing, we had mobility on demand as you mentioned, Mr. Millar, 

how is that going to impact—this is an open question for all of 

you—infrastructure design? 

91 

Because if population is expected to grow by—your respective cities—by 25 percent in the next 25 years, that doesn’t mean we need 

25 percent increase in the highways, and so on, if we have these. 

So I am just curious how you guys are working this into your longterm planning for infrastructure. 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Well, we are considering—and actually have 

been implementing—flexible plans for some of that infrastructure. 

You know, it is my dream one day that we built our last structured 

parking garage at some point. But as we build those structures, we 

are also considering future use in them, knowing that there is some 

time off. 

But it also really depends. I mean—and there is a great potential 

for urban recapture. And we know we have a great need for housing and things like that in our urban communities. But how we 

build the transition phase between where we are today and a more 

multimodal and perhaps autonomous future is very much in the 

balance. And that is why we are working towards better land use, 

coordinated with housing and transportation, and also including 

public transportation. 

Mr. MILLAR. Just to add to that, one of the things that we are 

hoping to see is more flexibility in the funding that comes to us to 

allow us to adapt to these things. 

A specific example, we are building bus rapid transit on the east 

side of the central Puget Sound area. The suburban mayors along 

that route come to the Sound Transit board that I sit on and beg 

for more park-and-ride. ‘‘Give us more park-and-ride, give us more 

park-and-ride.’’ Fifty-thousand-plus a space to build those. The best 

park-and-ride is your own garage. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLAR. If we could invest money in working with the private sector, working with labor and public transit to get people 

from their home to the transit center—— 

Mr. ROUDA. Right. 

Mr. MILLAR [continuing]. And leave their car at home, we would 

be better off—— 

Mr. ROUDA. You would solve that problem. 

Mr. MILLAR. That land could be used for housing at the transit 

center, instead of parking cars. 

Mr. ROUDA. And I know that is a whole other topic, and you 

started to touch on that, as well, the intersection of affordable 

housing and transportation. 

I also want to ask you, too, there is always a large debate about 

how to fund infrastructure needs, and whether it is a gasoline tax 

or miles traveled. And, you know, when we talked about miles traveled and congestion pricing, and with the growing use of ride-share 

ride apps and so on, don’t we—there is always this question. Can 

we even measure miles traveled? 

And I believe we can, right now, to a large degree, with certain 

aspects of what we are seeing in these developing technologies and 

these ride-share techniques. Is that being discussed at your level 

on how to use those existing applications to help monitor miles 

traveled, and use that as a tax base? 

Mr. MILLAR. How to measure it is being discussed. A more interesting discussion is who measures it, and who shares it. 

92 

We, as an agency—I have 9,000 sensors around Seattle alone 

measuring traffic volumes and traffic speeds. I know that data. We 

know that data—I don’t have the technical experience—we know 

that data, we know how it has been generated, we know the problems with it. We have private-sector entities that are creating data 

from different places. We don’t know as much about the black box 

that they use to turn that data into information. 

As this all evolves, a place where we could use some Federal 

guidance, some Federal support, is what are the relationships, 

what data gets shared, how does it get shared, how are trade secrets protected, how—if the public sector enables this to happen on 

its system, what do we get back from the private sector, in terms 

of the data streams that they collect? 

It is not just us at the DOT or the city or the county, there are 

lots of players in that. So what we measure is important, who 

measures it, and how we get access to that information is critically 

important. 

Mr. ROUDA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to go 

on a different route. 

Mr. Clark, thank you for highlighting the issue on assault on bus 

drivers. My legislation with Mr. Katko, H.R. 1139, the Transit 

Worker and Pedestrian Protection Act, requiring transit agencies to 

work with labor on implementing safety plans to protect bus driver 

assault, and also requires the transit agencies and the USDOT to 

collect better data on this growing problem, which is inadequate at 

times. 

And as you point out, anecdotal data from newspaper stories 

every day show it is a growing problem. It is discouraging new bus 

driver applicants. Can you further discuss how assaults on bus 

drivers—and the deterrent to hiring new drivers, especially when 

the new bus drivers get the dregs? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes. 

I think, obviously, if the data is not collected nationally, obviously, it is known locally. And people—and stories spread. And you 

are right. You are absolutely right. Driving a bus is, under the best 

circumstances, a difficult job. And there used to be—if you are 

starting at $15 an hour 20 years ago, that was an extraordinarily— 

that is about what the wage was 20 years ago, and that was an 

extraordinarily competitive wage in that labor market. It is much 

less so right now. 

And if the likely—if people—it is not likely, statistically it is not 

a likelihood. But if the specter of those attacks looms large, people 

will stay away. 

I applaud your bill because it—there may be barriers to the right 

answer, there may be other things with the right answer, but the 

Federal Government is not trying to mandate what the right answer is. The Federal Government is saying solve it at the level 

where you can solve it, and the represented workforce—or unrepresented workforce, as the case may be—and local management come 

together to plan around it. And I think that is a good model for 

training, that is a good model for labor relations in transit, that is 

93 

a good model for—the safety management system that is being implemented rests on that involvement of that front-line workforce. 

And I think your bill addresses that well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

And Ms. McMillan, I recall meeting you when you were in Federal Transit Administration a while ago, and when you worked at 

the L.A. Metro. We will miss you in L.A., but congratulations, 

ma’am, for your new role. I want to ask you about the ability of 

local transportation agencies to hire local workers. 

The Trump administration budget calls for more State and local 

investment in transportation, but prohibits local governments from 

hiring local preference on infrastructure projects. Most taxpayers 

believe that when you are—they are paying for a public transportation project, they should be given a preference on jobs associated 

with that project. 

As a local transportation leader, do you believe that you and 

other local transportation agencies should be allowed to set a local 

hire preference for your citizens? And how can this Federal law 

hinder those local hiring? 

Ms. MCMILLAN. I want to be careful, Congresswoman, to speak 

to my experience, where there was a very clear, you know, position 

there. But I think the intent behind it and the spirit behind it 

would extend to many other communities. 

As we build our infrastructure, it has impacts on the communities. It brings a lot of benefits, in terms of access to opportunities, 

and it also can have—at least certainly while it is happening—a 

major impact on the local businesses and a number of other things. 

One of the ways of giving back to the community and having 

them be able to own and buy into the entire life package of that 

project would be to have those employment opportunities offered to 

community members. And I think, in this case, we want the option 

to be available. For communities that want to do that, where they 

see a powerful benefit in giving back to their community in a number of different ways with these investments, that should be on the 

table. I think it is the option to have that available for communities 

that want to use it is where, I think, the core of certainly the pilot 

program that was done, you know, with FTA. 

And when I was with Los Angeles, that was something that was 

incredibly important to them, and they grabbed it. And so the option is the importance. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. 

Anybody else? 

Ms. NORTON. There is going to be a vote between 1 o’clock and 

1:30, so I would like to get everybody in. 

Mr. Stanton? 

Mr. STANTON. Madam Chair, thank you for hosting this hearing, 

having these outstanding representatives from a broad range of industry on this important topic. And yes, I will try to keep it tight 

so we can get to our votes, which are very important. 

Before serving in Congress—I am a freshman Member—I was 

mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, one of the fastest growing cities in 

America, kind of like San Antonio. And so the dynamic in a lot of 

communities, where the urban center wants more money for transit, and the suburban communities want more money for roads and 

94 

highways, that kind of gets turned on its head in a city like Phoenix, where, as a mayor, you got to be supportive of all of it, because 

we are over 500 square miles, but a growing center city. 

So we passed a major infrastructure investment plan that did 

have—tripling the amount of money for our light rail system, increasing support for our bus and bus rapid transit system, 

bikeability, walkability, and more money for roads on the more 

suburban parts of our community. 

And, Mayor, I am sure it is very similar to what is going on in 

San Antonio, also one of the fastest growing. So I want to get your 

thoughts, you know, as we make important decisions in this committee, about a transportation infrastructure investment plan for 

America. For a city like yours, thinking beyond roads and bridges, 

what kind of investments are you looking for? 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Yes, well, I certainly appreciate your perspective, Congressman. And absolutely right. I think there is urban/ 

rural issues at play here. 

But what we found—and there is a great study by the National 

League of Cities that shows that when we have a proper balance, 

the results create great synergies for everybody, including, you 

know, supply chains from the economic development side to more 

quality of life for those who seek to live inside or outside of the city. 

We are seeking a balanced approach to multiple modes of transportation, and sustainable sources of funding that recognize the 

local leveraging that is taking place already. We applaud the work 

of our Congress on many things, including fully funding transit 

projects in years past. We would like to see a return to that. 

We are also working on partnerships with regard to new technologies and how we regulate those technologies, and autonomous 

vehicles comes up, and making sure that we have respective local 

authorities when it comes to, you know, regulating the design and 

maintenance of traffic infrastructure and traffic management systems, and so forth. 

You have a partner in local governments, because we represent 

the same constituents who have the same concerns and who rely, 

from an equity standpoint, on an efficient transportation system. 

Mr. STANTON. I appreciate you saying that. You haven’t had as 

good of a partner as cities deserve in the Federal Government over 

the last few decades, where the support for projects like what you 

described have been eroding. Both of our cities have grown so fast, 

but at a period of time when Federal support has been going in the 

opposite direction, which has forced cities like ours more and more 

to kind of go it alone. 

Phoenix first passed our transit election in the early 2000s. We 

came to the table with 50 percent support for the project. When I 

was mayor just a few years ago we went to the voters to do that 

significant infrastructure investment. We calculated that we would 

only get a 30-percent match from the Federal Government, 70 percent for the local government. We are not going to keep up with 

infrastructure in America if the Federal Government doesn’t up its 

game, if you will, and be a much better partner to local government. So I really appreciate your perspective. 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Yes, and I would just add we are working on our 

first-ever rapid transit system. You had great city management 

95 

there in Phoenix to bring that online. We do, too, here, in San Antonio. But we are working on our first-ever rapid transit system in 

San Antonio. 

I can tell you that my community will pass it. We are going to 

bring it to the ballot in 2020 if we can show that we have funding 

available long-term to make it happen. And that is only going to 

be—that can only happen if we have a partner in the Federal Government. 

Mr. STANTON. That is great. And one final question. I don’t know 

if we have had a chance to talk about public-private partnerships. 

For a lot of mayors, sometimes the mirage of public-private partnerships versus the reality—so maybe, Mr. Stanley, you may be the 

best one on the panel to talk a little bit about—in addition to the 

funding that cities deserve from this Federal Government when it 

comes to major infrastructure and transportation projects, looking 

at also opportunities for public-private partnership. Because, as a 

practical matter, that is the only way we are going to get a bipartisan bill. And I think we need to get a bipartisan bill to make this 

happen. 

Mr. STANLEY. Thank you, sir. So I think the issue of public-private partnerships is much like the other issues that have been discussed today. It should just be one of the tools in the toolbox. 

I think the outstanding and the ongoing commitment of the Federal Government to the highway program and transportation program is still the main key. But still, having the public-private partnerships is a tool to allow some private investment where it makes 

sense. 

And so, some of the issues you have with a public-private partnership are in some of the transportation modes in transit and 

things like that, that are not financially sustainable. You are not 

going to get public-private partnerships to take on those projects. 

So you are—still have to have that Federal investment. But there 

are some things—toll roads, toll bridges—where the public-private 

partnerships make sense. And so, allowing that to be a tool in the 

tool kit is important. 

Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair—— 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. STANTON [continuing]. I ask for consent to enter into the 

record a letter from my friend, the mayor of Tempe, Arizona, which 

is now in my district, as well, lamenting the lack of a strong Federal partner in public transportation, and we need more of it. So 

I would like to enter it into the record. 

Ms. NORTON. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

f 

Letter from Mark W. Mitchell, Mayor, City of Tempe, AZ, et al., Submitted 

for the Record by Hon. Stanton 

FEBRUARY 1, 2019. 

Hon. GREG STANTON

U.S. House of Representatives, 128 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515 

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE STANTON: 

As leaders in the City of Tempe, Arizona and the National League of Cities, we 

are writing today to ask for your commitment to address one of our country’s most 

96 

pressing challenges—rebuilding America’s infrastructure. As we emerge from an extended partial government shutdown and return to a working, stable federal government, we are joining leaders from the 19,000 cities, towns and villages across the 

country calling on our federal leaders to not repeat this crisis and to work in a bipartisan manner to pass comprehensive legislation that rebuilds and reimagines 

America’s infrastructure in partnership with local governments. 

Infrastructure investments are the foundation that connects us as a country, improves the quality of life for our residents, supports jobs for thousands of workers, 

strengthens our nation’s economic competitiveness, and keeps our communities safe. 

Unfortunately, the federal partnership for infrastructure investments has eroded 

over the last two decades, putting America at risk of falling behind on an ever-increasing list of potential hazards that undermine our economy and threaten our 

standard of living. Today, our transportation network is a knot of congestion and 

disrepair, our broadband lags behind other countries and families drink from bottled 

water in the absence of safe tap water. Moving a bipartisan infrastructure package 

would demonstrate to the country that Congress is focused on delivering results that 

will improve the daily lives of our constituents. 

Cities like ours will continue doing our share, but it is time for Congress to act 

and rebuild with us. Across the country, much of our infrastructure is at a breaking 

point. We need a strong federal-local partnership to upgrade the 100-year-old leaking pipes, to replace the 50-year-old crumbling bridges and to install modern and 

resilient solutions for the next 100 years. Congress must prioritize a long-term infrastructure plan early in 2019 that will work holistically to improve our nation’s 

water, broadband, and transportation systems and create well-paying jobs for our 

nation’s workforce that will build and maintain these important assets. 

For our economy and for our future, addressing America’s infrastructure challenges is a shared priority in 2019. We look forward to meeting with you soon to 

discuss how we can work together. 

Sincerely, 

MARK W. MITCHELL, Mayor 

ROBIN ARREDONDO-SAVAGE, Councilmember 

JOEL NAVARRO, Councilmember 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Finkenauer? 

Ms. FINKENAUER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all 

for being here today. This is, obviously, an incredibly important 

topic for States all over the country. And one of the things I want 

to touch on came up in my time as a State representative in Iowa. 

See, I sat on the transportation committee for 3 years in Iowa 

in my 4 years in the statehouse. And, you know, I remember looking back on 2016 and the idea that we heard from the administration, our current administration now, and Democrats, and Republicans all across the country talking about caring about the same 

things, like Made in America and making sure our workers are 

paid fair wages and we have opportunities for working-class families. We heard that again across all sides of the aisle. 

However, you can imagine my surprise, then, just a few months 

later, when I went back to the statehouse in early 2017 and I was 

sitting on the transportation committee, and one of the first bills 

that gets brought up was H.F. 203. And it was a bill that would 

authorize the use of primary road funds for secondary road funds, 

and—I mean and municipal systems. 

So, basically, this was a tool to bring in the Federal dollars that 

would typically have gone just directly to our cities and our counties, which would have Davis-Bacon and Made in America attached 

to them, instead go through our State first—and I am from Iowa, 

where we do not have prevailing wage or Made in America provisions—and then those dollars would go out to our cities and our 

counties. You can imagine my concern, and the concern of a lot of 

the folks that I worked with in Iowa. 

97 

Now, you know, I know one of the arguments was that our cities 

and our counties needed the help, especially with the paperwork 

and, you know, what comes with that for getting Federal dollars. 

And I want to make sure that we are addressing that, making that 

easier for our cities and our counties to be able to—regardless if 

you are in a big city or in a rural community—to access those dollars. And I want to know if there is anything that you guys are 

looking at to be able—so that we should be adding to this transportation bill to make sure that we do that. 

Secondly, I want to know if you have any ideas—specifically, Mr. 

Clark or Mr. Millar, I know this may be something that you have 

looked into a little bit—about how do we make sure that if we are 

making a very large investment in Federal dollars going out to our 

States, which I hope we are doing—we desperately need it—how do 

we make sure that those dollars are 100 percent then going with 

those Davis-Bacon provisions and also those Made in America provisions? 

Because, quite frankly, our economy depends on it. Our States 

depend on it. And I just want to make sure that we are doing this 

the right way. 

So if you all have any comments, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. CLARK. I think that is an excellent question, thank you. 

Some of it is just insisting on things like Davis-Bacon. But I 

think there is a larger set of issues here. People have talked about 

ride-handling services a lot. There was a piece in the Washington 

Post op-ed page just a couple of days ago that was amusing, but 

also very instructive, written by—I think, I believe—by a writer 

from the Cato Institute, which is a fairly conservative group of people. And her point was—she told a story about people selling their 

cars because they are going to rely on the ride-handling services, 

saying that just isn’t going to work. 

And her ultimate point was the ride-handling services are losing 

money hand over fist, and they are doing it because they have got 

deep venture capital pockets to support it. But in the meantime, 

they are depressing the wages of what traditionally were not great 

jobs, but decent jobs for taxi drivers and other kinds of people. 

I don’t know what the answer is for the Federal Government’s 

role there, but I think we have got to pay attention, because 

there—you are absolutely right, there are lots and lots of forces 

driving us to race to the bottom, in terms of working-class living 

standards. 

And transportation traditionally has been a sector where people 

make a decent living. And I think the Federal Government needs 

to look carefully at how we make sure transportation continues to 

provide decent livings for people, and it doesn’t become how we 

play a beggar-thy-neighbor policy to drive working-class living 

standards down further and further to provide an inexpensive utility to middle-class people. 

Ms. FINKENAUER. Thank you. 

And Mr. Millar, do you have anything to add, especially in regards to the State part of it? 

Mr. MILLAR. Well, I would, one, what Mr. Clark said. 

And I think what we look at—quite often we are asked by local 

governments, ‘‘Would you take the Federal money that we get—beVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
98 

cause it is so difficult to administer, would you take it and spend 

it at the State level and send State money to us?’’ The problem we 

have is that we need our State dollars to match the Federal dollars 

that comes to us. You know, it is—there—it is a very constrained 

pot of money. 

I think with—what comes to us from the Federal Government 

comes to us with Davis-Bacon, you know, Buy America. Those provisions are in it. The State money that we have—we have many 

of the same provisions. We don’t have that particular issue. 

I think it is important that we are all contributing—again, the 

partnership, the Federal, the State, the local—and I would encourage you to look at it maintenance of effort. We are investing heavily, as the State. You know, our gas tax has gone up. We are making heavy investments. If more Federal money comes, that doesn’t 

give us the ability—it shouldn’t give us the ability to take our foot 

off the throttle. We need to be doing that, and the local government 

needs to be doing that, as well. We are today. Increased Federal 

investment should come with an assurance that State and local 

partnership is going to maintain its—be in place. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. FINKENAUER. Thank you, I appreciate it. 

Ms. NORTON. Finally, Mr. Allred. 

Mr. ALLRED. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess we have 

saved the best for last. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ALLRED. I wanted to just begin by thanking my fellow Texans for being here. I have the honor of representing the only donor 

State to the highway fund, the great State of Texas, and Dallas, 

in particular. 

Mayor Nirenberg, I want to thank you for being here as a representative of the second best city in Texas. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ALLRED. I have questions for all of you, but we don’t have 

enough time to get into it. And I want to thank you for your testimony. I have read through all of your written testimonies, and this 

has been a very informative hearing, and I think that it is an important one for us to talk about, where we are going from here. 

Dallas is, like San Antonio, one of the most rapidly growing cities 

in the country. We have all of the issues that have been talked 

about here today. We are urban, suburban, we have congestion. I 

think we are the seventh most contested city in the country now. 

We have some exciting things that are going on with DART, which 

is doing, I think, a very good job. 

And we also have, of course, TxDOT and the Texas Innovation 

Alliance, which has done some great work, Mr. Anderson, so thank 

you for all of your hard work. 

I wanted to quickly get into your written testimony, where you 

mentioned the Federal Highway Administration’s automated driving systems demonstration grant program. And I just wanted to see 

if you could describe some of the projects that the alliance would 

like to pursue, if you are awarded that grant. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I talked about, as a whole, the alliance has 

been working in addition to several other technologies, and relative 

99 

to solutions or challenges that they had. But autonomous vehicles 

are a part of that. 

And across many of the cities in Texas—and, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, starting with the passage of senate bill 2205, 

which opened the doors for that innovation in the State—all of 

those cities have been looking at first- and last-mile solutions, looking at movement on universities, movement between universities 

and housing areas, medical center movement for—especially for 

disabled or elderly that need to move in and around, for example, 

Houston and some of Dallas’ medical complexes, and who can’t do 

the walking, for example. 

And they are also looking at freight movement, both within the 

urban areas and then moving, you know, outside of the urban 

areas along our corridors. So several of those. 

We know that we are going to have many of those actually happening in the next year, beyond the ones that currently are occurring in Arlington and Frisco, where we have circulators of autonomous vehicles. In the case of Arlington, it is in the entertainment 

district, and in the Frisco area it is between a business district and 

a restaurant area, and it is limiting the amount of vehicles that 

have to be moving nearing lunch time, and things like that. 

But also in Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Bryan-College Station, 

Coastal Bend area, and El Paso, they all have either microtransit 

solutions or circulator routes that they are looking to deploy in the 

next year. And all of those are a part of that proposed autonomous 

driving system grant. 

Mr. ALLRED. Right. 

Mr. ANDERSON. They are offering those to be data sets for what 

is happening—you know, not a pilot, but something that is happening now, and providing that data to the Federal highways. 

Mr. ALLRED. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. 

Mr. Terry, I am interested in how you increased ridership. I 

know you discussed it briefly previously there. As I have spoken 

with our DART officials, obviously, that is the challenge for our 

local regional transit folks. And if you could, just very quickly go 

into how you approach doing that. 

Mr. TERRY. Sure, thank you. It is putting the frequency, the reliability that people can count on, the hours of service. We are focusing on the density, where the employment centers are. 

Mr. ALLRED. Did you have to decrease the area that you were 

serving to get that—— 

Mr. TERRY. We have an increase of local funding through a referendum to support. And we were increasing our system by over 

70 percent. But it is not adding a lot of more routes, it is more focusing on that frequency—— 

Mr. ALLRED. Right. 

Mr. TERRY [continuing]. The hours, and the—starting earlier 

every route, every day. So now you have that dependability that 

people can count on. And when you have the frequency—we are 

creating a 15-minute frequency grid that feeds into, eventually, 

three rapid transit corridors—people start using it. 

So we already invested in several routes this past year with some 

of the new funding, and immediately we started seeing an increase 

in ridership. So it is starting to validate our planning. 

100 

Mr. ALLRED. Well, thank you. I think when we say frequency, we 

should also say just convenience. 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. 

Mr. ALLRED. And Mr. Mayor, just really quickly, you talked 

about the importance of the Federal Government investing in regional transportation solutions in your written testimony. We have 

a promising high-speed rail project between Dallas and Houston. 

Probably get San Antonio in on that, eventually. If you could, just 

very quickly, just touch on how that would be helpful. 

Mr. NIRENBERG. Yes. Well, the regional rail between Austin and 

San Antonio has been a long sought-after dream. We have had a 

couple of committees, organizations set up to support it. But we 

really are reliant on leveraging existing infrastructure in the corridor. 

But certainly that project is not going to be enabled unless we 

have Federal support, so it is vital to our State’s economy, as you 

know. The Texas Triangle is where our State’s economy runs, will 

for the foreseeable future. And Texas is one of the leading economies in the world now, so it is very important for us in our economic sustainability to see that corridor connected with something 

other than just our highway system. 

Mr. ALLRED. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much for that answer. And I want 

to thank each and every one of the witnesses for this informative 

testimony. We have kept you a long time, but we have learned a 

lot, if that is any recompense. 

I 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 any 

additional comments and information submitted by Members or 

witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(101) 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Letter from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton 

MARCH 13, 2019. 

Hon. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

Chair 

Hon. RODNEY DAVIS

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 

DEAR CHAIR NORTON AND RANKING MEMBER DAVIS: 

In anticipation of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit upcoming hearing 

entitled ‘‘Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century 

Needs,’’ the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (‘‘ITS America’’) urges the 

Subcommittee to prioritize the research and deployment of intelligent mobility and 

smart infrastructure in the reauthorization of Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and an infrastructure package. 

This hearing takes place at an important time. Just as transportation infrastructure was critical to the development of our economy in the 20th century, maintenance of existing infrastructure and deployment of intelligent mobility and smart 

infrastructure will be critical for our global competitiveness in this century. Advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, and wireless communications have inspired 

a race to make the next generation of transportation and infrastructure a reality. 

We are entering a technology revolution that will define the way people, goods, services, and information move in the 21st century. Part of that revolution includes new 

technologies that allow freedom of movement for those who have limited mobility 

access, such as people with disabilities, older adults, and people living in transit 

deserts. And most importantly, these technology advancements will finally help us 

begin to reduce the epidemic of fatalities on our roadways. 

Members of ITS America are state and city departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, automotive manufacturers and suppliers, technology 

companies, engineering firms, and research universities. We are united around a 

shared vision of a better future transformed by intelligent mobility that is safer, 

greener, and smarter. ITS America looks forward to working with you on a FAST 

Act reauthorization and an infrastructure package that increases federal commitments to intelligent transportation technologies that save lives, improve mobility, 

promote sustainability, and increase efficiency and productivity. 

ITS America is developing our FAST Act reauthorization policy, which we look 

forward to sharing with the Subcommittee early this summer. In the meantime, the 

following are our high-level transportation infrastructure policies that will frame the 

association’s FAST Act reauthorization platform: 

FAST Act Reauthorization: In the 20th century, transportation was about moving 

cars. In the 21st century, the transportation landscape is rapidly evolving. New 

forms of mobility are being deployed even as others are being developed. A century 

ago with the invention of the car, Departments of Roads were created to deal with 

this new form of transportation. Those agencies are now Departments of Transportation, having grown to include other modes of transportation. Now those same 

agencies need to evolve again to provide seamless mobility. Instead of just moving 

cars, transportation is about moving people, data and freight. To keep pace with 

these advances in technology, which are transforming transportation, ITS America 

supports a FAST Act reauthorization that prioritizes federal policy and programs 

that make intelligent transportation deployment the rule rather than the exception 

and provides federal funding that encourage the rapid deployment of intelligent 

transportation technologies. 

102 

Increase Federal Investment in Transportation by Prioritizing Safety through Research and Deployment of Intelligent Mobility and Smart Infrastructure: Support increased revenue for intelligent mobility and smart infrastructure; ensure the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund; and transition to long-term and sustainable revenue for America’s transportation system. Only with such certainty will the nation 

finally see the research and the large-scale transformational deployments of intelligent transportation technologies—and most importantly, finally help us begin to 

reduce the epidemic of fatalities on our roadways. 

Saving the Spectrum for Transportation Critical Safety Communications: New and 

developing vehicle to everything (V2X) technology that depends on the 5.9 GHz band 

is allowing us to finally address the lives lost and ruined on our nation’s roads. Our 

members are actively developing and deploying such technologies, which send hazard alerts to vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and traffic lights. These technologies 

can also enhance automated driving systems, which hold the promise to provide numerous economic, environmental, and societal benefits, such as decreased congestion 

and fuel consumption, and increased access for the elderly and disabled. These safety innovations require dedicated spectrum to ensure they work every time without 

signal interference. Millions of dollars have already been invested in this effort, including incorporating connected vehicle technologies into infrastructure by states 

and cities. ITS America strongly supports preserving the entire 5.9 GHz band for 

transportation safety applications. Speed matters when safety information is involved; sharing the band could compromise the speed and put lives as risk. With 

all the advancements and technology deployments, we are finally on the cusp of 

turning the corner to reduce deaths, but we need the spectrum to do that. 

Increase Buildout of Alternative Fuel Vehicle Infrastructure: Transportation is now 

the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States, and carbon emissions 

from cars and light trucks account for almost one-sixth of the nation’s total emissions. ITS America supports policies in the transportation infrastructure sector that 

will help reduce transportation emissions. Given that automakers are committing to 

alternative fuel vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ITS America 

supports standalone legislation and language in the reauthorization of the FAST Act 

and an infrastructure package that would provide increased federal funding to rapidly buildout alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure and new technologies such as inductive charging to speed the deployment of electric vehicles. 

New Technology Grants to Support Congestion Relief: ITS America urges Congress 

to create a new emerging technology grant program to support congestion relief in 

metropolitan and urban cores as well as heavily traveled regions and freight corridors. Eligible projects would include capital and operational investments that improve system safety and performance such as priced-managed lanes; transportation 

demand management programs; strategic transit investments; advanced parking, 

freight delivery, and incident management systems; and programs to support the 

deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles, including vehicle-to-vehicle and 

vehicle-to-infrastructure communications technologies. 

Mobility on Demand: Mobility on Demand (‘‘MOD’’) facilitates a transportation 

ecosystem in which consumers can research, book, and pay for all parts of their 

daily journeys—no matter the form of transportation (e.g., transit, rideshare/ 

bikeshare, personal vehicles, micromobility, etc.)—on one integrated platform accessible on request. Developing the policy conditions for MOD to flourish will better 

enable consumers to identify and use the transportation options that best meet their 

mobility needs at any time. MOD promotes societal benefits such as a less congested, less costly, and more sustainable transportation system. Leveraging the insights gained from MOD data, new business models can be developed to enhance 

mobility and address unmet transportation needs. ITS America advocates for policies that promote MOD and remove roadblocks that limit or restrict federal funding 

for MOD and supports an increased national commitment to public transit as it will 

be a key component in any successful implementation of MOD. To that end, ITS 

America supports policies that promote arrangements between public transit agencies and other shared modes of transportation to help promote first mile/last mile 

solutions as well as policies that foster alternative transportation modes. Additionally, we support increased funding levels for the MOD Sandbox program administered by the FTA Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation. 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit on 

a reauthorization of the FAST Act and an infrastructure package that prioritize investments in intelligent mobility and smart infrastructure. 

Sincerely, 

SHAILEN P. BHATT, 

President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America 

103 

The ITS America Board is represented by the following companies: AAA, AECOM, 

Arizona Department of Transportation, California Department of Transportation, 

California PATH UC Berkeley, Conduent, Central Ohio Transit Authority, Crown 

Castle, Cubic, Delaware Department of Transportation, District of Columbia Department of Transportation, Econolite, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Gridsmart, 

HELP, Inc., HNTB, Iteris, Kapsch TraffiCom North America, MCity, Michael Baker 

International, San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 

National Renewable Energy Lab, New York City Department of Transportation, 

Panasonic North America, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Qualcomm, 

Southwest Research Institute, State Farm Insurance, Toyota, Texas Transportation 

Institute, Utah Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of 

Transportation. 

f 

Letter from James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western Governors’ 

Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton 

MARCH 11, 2019. 

Hon. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

Chair 

Hon. RODNEY DAVIS

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 

DEAR CHAIR NORTON AND RANKING MEMBER DAVIS: Terrain and landownership patterns in the West underscore the purpose and vital 

need for a federal role in surface transportation. Western states are responsible for 

vast expanses of national highways and interstates that serve as critical freight and 

transportation routes for the nation. The infrastructure in the region, especially in 

rural areas, is under strain from increased movement of goods and people and from 

underinvestment in infrastructure needed to keep pace with this growth and 

change. 

Thank you for examining this important topic at the Subcommittee’s March 13 

hearing on Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century 

Needs. To inform your consideration of this subject, I request that the Subcommittee 

include the following attachments in the permanent record of the hearing: • WGA Policy Resolution 2018–06, Transportation Infrastructure in the Western 

United States, which emphasizes the importance of a state-federal partnership 

in improving our nation’s surface transportation and of a long-term federal 

funding mechanism for the maintenance and expansion of surface transportation networks. • WGA Policy Resolution 2018–15, Modernizing Western Infrastructure, which 

sets forth the Western Governors’ support for more efficient infrastructure permitting and environmental review processes without shortening timelines for 

state input and consultation or compromising natural resource, environmental, 

or cultural values. Early, meaningful and ongoing state consultation on infrastructure will help prevent delays, reduce duplication, and streamline the process. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES D. OGSBURY, 

Executive Director, Western Governors’ Association 

Attachments 

POLICY RESOLUTION 2018–06—TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE WESTERN

UNITED STATES

A. Background 

1. The American West encompasses a huge land mass representing 2.4 million 

square miles or over two-thirds of the entire country. Over 116 million people 

live in these states and they reside in large, densely populated cities, smaller 

cities and towns and in rural areas. 

2. Perhaps more than any other region, terrain and landownership patterns in 

the West underscore the purpose and vital need for a federal role in surface 

transportation. Western states are responsible for vast expanses of national 

highways and interstates that often do not correlate with population centers 

but serve as critical national freight and transportation routes for the nation. 

104 

3. Western states ports are national assets, moving needed parts and retail goods 

into the country, while also providing the gateway for our nation’s exports. Although they benefit the entire country, the financial burden of developing, expanding and maintaining them to meet the demands of growing trade is almost 

entirely borne at the state and local level. 

4. Jobs, the economy and quality of life in the West depend on high quality transportation infrastructure that efficiently, effectively and safely moves goods and 

people. Western transportation infrastructure is part of a national network 

that serves national interests. Among other things, transportation infrastructure in the West: moves agricultural and natural resource products from source 

to national and world markets; carries goods from western ports on western 

highways and railroad track to eastern and southern cities; and enables travelers to visit the great National Parks and other destinations in the West. 

5. The transportation and transit needs in the West differ significantly from our 

eastern counterparts. Western states are building new capacity to keep up with 

growth, including new interstates, new multimodal systems including highspeed passenger rail and transit systems and increased capacity on existing infrastructure. 

6. The infrastructure in the region is under strain from both increased movement 

of goods and people and from underinvestment in repair and new infrastructure needed to keep pace with this growth and change. 

7. The vast stretches of highways and railroad track that connect the West to the 

nation do not have the population densities seen in the eastern United States. 

8. Raising private funds to carry forward infrastructure projects in the rural West 

will be extremely challenging. The low traffic volumes in rural states will not 

support tolls, even if one wanted to impose them. Projects in rural areas are 

unlikely to generate revenues that will attract investors to finance those 

projects, even if the revenues are supplemented by tax credits. 

B. Governors’ Policy Statement 

1. Western Governors believe there is a strong federal role, in partnership with 

the states, for the continued investment in our surface transportation network—particularly on federal routes and in multimodal transportation networks throughout the West that are critical to interstate commerce and a 

growing economy. These routes and networks traverse hundreds of miles without traffic densities sufficient to either make public-private partnerships feasible or allow state and local governments to raise capital beyond the historic 

cost share. 

2. Western Governors believe the current project decision-making role of state 

and local governments in investment decisions should continue. Western Governors desire additional flexibility to determine how and where to deploy investment in order to maximize the use of scarce resources. 

3. Western Governors believe regulation accompanying Federal Transportation 

programs should be reduced by expediting project delivery and streamlining 

the environmental review process without diminishing environmental standards or safeguards. 

4. Western Governors believe that a viable, long-term funding mechanism is critical to the maintenance and expansion of our surface transportation network 

and encourage Congress to work together to identify a workable solution that 

adequately funds the unique needs of the West. 

5. Western Governors believe in enhancing the ability to leverage scarce resources by supplementing traditional base funding by creating and enhancing 

financing mechanisms and tools that are appropriate for all areas of the United 

States, including those with low traffic densities where tolling and public private partnerships are not feasible. 

6. Western Governors believe using the historic formula-based approach for the 

distribution of funds would ensure that both rural and urban states participate 

in any infrastructure initiative and it would deliver the benefits of an infrastructure initiative to the public promptly. 

7. Western Governors believe the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and the programs 

it supports are critically important to success in efforts to maintain and improve America’s surface transportation infrastructure. Currently, the HTF will 

not be able to support even current Federal surface transportation program 

levels and will not meet the needs of the country that will grow as the economy 

grows. Congress must provide a long-term solution to ensure HTF solvency and 

provide for increased, sustainable federal transportation investment through 

the HTF. 

105 

1 40 CFR § 1501.6(b). 

8. Western Governors strongly encourage western states port operators and their 

labor unions to work together to avoid future work slowdowns by resolving 

labor issues well before contracts are set to expire. In recent years protracted 

disagreement in bargaining between parties has had an adverse impact on the 

American economy that should not be repeated. 

9. Western Governors believe modern ports infrastructure is essential to strong 

national and western economy and urge Congress to fully fund the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund and to reform the Harbor Maintenance Tax to ensure 

western ports remain competitive. Furthermore, Western Governors believe the 

Federal government must work collaboratively with states, along with ports, 

local governments and key private sector transportation providers like the railroads, to ensure the necessary public and private investments to move imports 

and exports efficiently through the intermodal system. 

C. Governors’ Management Directive 

1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other entities, where appropriate, to 

achieve the objectives of this resolution. 

2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the objectives of this resolution and 

to keep the Governors apprised of its progress in this regard. 

POLICY RESOLUTION 2018–15—MODERNIZING WESTERN INFRASTRUCTURE

A. Background 

1.Western states depend on a safe, reliable and resilient network of infrastructure 

to move goods, people, energy, and agricultural products to meet growing demands across our nation and world. Investments to modernize our state’s infrastructure, including ports, water systems, bridges, pipelines, highways, airports, 

electric generation and transmission, communications facilities, recreational assets and railways not only support the economic well-being of our communities, 

they also serve to position our economies to attract and retain investment 

through maintaining our competitive advantage in a growing global marketplace. Because a significant portion of the West is federally-owned, federal processes impact the region’s infrastructure. 

2. Modernizing and maintaining the West’s network of infrastructure relies upon 

permitting and review processes that require close coordination and consultation among state, federal and tribal governments. State and federal coordination is necessary to ensure that infrastructure projects are designed, financed, 

built, operated and maintained in a manner that meets the needs of our economies, environment, public health, safety and security. Early, ongoing, substantial, and meaningful state-federal consultation can provide efficiency, transparency, and predictability for states, as well as prevent delays, in the federal 

permitting and environmental review process. 

3. Western Governors applaud the principles and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which, since its enactment in 1970, has required 

that federal agencies consider how proposed federal actions may impact natural, cultural, economic and social resources for present and future generations 

of Americans. The process by which NEPA is implemented has been defined 

over time through regulations and guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 

4. Congress recognized the need for improved state-federal coordination in the 

NEPA process in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, 

passed in December 2015, which implements reforms regarding cooperating 

agency status and coordination with state and local governments. This statute 

should be consistently implemented. 

5. NEPA mandates federal agency cooperation with state and local governments 

through the designation of qualified ‘‘cooperating agencies.’’ Under existing 

law, an entity shall: (i) participate in the NEPA process at the earliest possible 

time; (ii) participate in the NEPA scoping process; (iii) assume, at the lead 

agency’s request, responsibility for developing information and preparing environmental analyses; (iv) provide staff support upon request of the lead agency; 

and (v) use its own funds in its participation as a cooperating agency.1

6. The manner in which cooperating agencies are selected by a lead agency to 

participate in the NEPA process is unclear and inconsistently implemented. 

Additionally, a lead agency’s determination of whether or not to grant cooperVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
106 

ating agency status to a federal or non-federal governmental entity is not subject to judicial review. 

7. State and local governments often have the best available science, data and expertise related to natural resources within their borders. In cases where the 

states have primary management authority, such as wildlife and water governance, states also possess the most experience in managing those resources and 

knowledge of state- and locality-specific considerations that should inform infrastructure siting decisions. 

B. Governors’ Policy Statement 

1. Western Governors support improved infrastructure permitting and environmental review processes that result in more efficient reviews without shortening timelines for state input and consultation, or compromising natural resource, wildlife, environmental quality or cultural values. 

2. Western states have a diverse mix of infrastructure needs spanning rural and 

urban areas and across multiple sectors of our economies. Infrastructure financing reforms should recognize this diversity and should avoid shifting costs 

to states or creating undue or disproportionate impacts to the infrastructure 

that connects the West’s cities and rural communities with the nation and 

world. Federal infrastructure financing appropriations should acknowledge and 

support the diverse infrastructure needs facing western states. 

3. The federal infrastructure permitting and environmental review process must 

be transparent, predictable and consistent for states and project developers. 

Federal processes must ensure that agencies set, and adhere to, timelines and 

schedules for completion of reviews and develop improved metrics for tracking 

and accountability. 

4. Federal programs that increase bottom-up coordination among agencies, state 

and local governments and that foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders and project proponents can create efficiency and predictability in the 

NEPA process, including reducing the risks of delays due to litigation. 

5. State, local and tribal governments, as well as their political subdivisions, have 

unique and critical duties to serve their citizens and should not be considered 

ordinary ‘‘stakeholders’’ for purposes of the NEPA process. 

6. Federal agencies should be required to engage with states and state agencies 

in early, meaningful, substantive and ongoing consultation. Federal agencies 

should be required to invite all qualified state governmental entities to participate in the NEPA process as ‘‘cooperating agencies’’ and promulgate regulations to clarify consultation procedures and states’ roles as cooperating agencies. The denial of any bona fide request for cooperating status should be accompanied by a clear and thorough explanation from the lead agency denying 

such request, citing specific factors the agency used in its determination. Such 

information should be recorded and maintained by the lead federal agency and 

collected by the Office of Management and Budget. 

7. Western Governors encourage consistency in the implementation of NEPA 

within and among agencies and across regions. The federal government should 

identify and eliminate inconsistencies in environmental review and analysis 

across agencies to make the process more efficient. 

8. Federal NEPA regulations should allow for existing state environmental review 

processes to supplement and inform federal environmental review under 

NEPA. Federal agencies, in their NEPA implementation guidelines, should encourage joint reviews with the states where possible. 

9. The federal government should consider and apply peer-reviewed environmental science in a consistent manner across agencies as each undertake their 

NEPA reviews of different projects’ impacts on and contributions to environmental quality. Federal agencies should work directly with states to obtain and 

use up-to-date state data and analyses as critical sources of information in the 

NEPA process. 

C. Governors’ Management Directive 

1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other entities, where appropriate, to 

achieve the objectives of this resolution. 

2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the objectives of this resolution and 

to keep the Governors apprised of its progress in this regard. 

Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on 

a bi-annual basis. Please consult www.westgov.org/policies for the most current copy 

of a resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions. 

f 

107 

Letter and Congestion Maps from Tori Emerson Barnes, Executive Vice 

President, Public Affairs and Policy, U.S. Travel Association, Submitted 

for the Record by Hon. Norton 

MAY 7, 2019. 

Hon. PETER A. DEFAZIO

Chairman 

Hon. SAM GRAVES

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Hearing: ‘‘Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st-Century 

Needs’’ 

DEAR CHAIRMAN DEFAZIO AND RANKING MEMBER GRAVES: 

On behalf of America’s travel and tourism industry, I am pleased to submit the 

findings of a new U.S. Travel Association study for this important hearing on 

‘‘Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs.’’ 

Travel to and within the United States is one of the largest and most important 

aspects of interstate commerce. Travel generates $1.1 trillion in direct spending, 

produces $2.5 trillion in total economic output and supports 15.7 million—or one out 

of every 10—American jobs. Each of the 2.3 billion business and leisure trips that 

take place to and within the United States each year, and every dollar of economic 

output generated by the travel industry depends on our nation’s transportation network. 

Unfortunately, inadequate federal investment in America’s travel infrastructure 

has increased congestion across all modes of transportation, reduced national and 

regional connectivity, and restricted travel demand. Every day, whether commuting 

to work, traveling for business, visiting family or taking a vacation, Americans feel 

the consequences of Congressional inaction. 

The U.S. Travel Association recently conducted a study on the ‘‘time toll’’ that 

Americans pay due overcrowded, underfunded, crumbling bridges, tunnels and highways. Using data from INRIX Research, the study examines travel times along 

major Interstate corridors under three conditions: 

• Ideal: driving with no congestion; 

• Summer: driving under summer traffic conditions; and 

• Peak: driving during peak holiday conditions. 

The results show that in the time it takes to drive between major U.S. cities during summer and peak hours, Americans could travel hundreds of miles farther if 

they had the efficient, safe and modern transportation network that our nation deserves. 

For example, along the I-95 corridor from Washington, DC to New York, NY, the 

study found that: 

• During the summer months, travelers could drive an additional 68 miles—or 

the equivalent distance to New Haven, CT—under ideal conditions; and 

• During peak holidays, travelers could drive an additional 109 miles—or the 

equivalent distance to Hartford, CT—under ideal conditions. 

To better illustrate these findings, U.S. Travel developed maps of the United 

States where the distances between cities are based on average drive times, rather 

than mileage. As drive times increase, the distances between cities grows. 

These maps tell a troubling story of how Congressional inaction to boost investment in our nation’s infrastructure is pushing America’s cities, businesses, and citizens farther apart. When our commutes get longer, our jobs get farther away from 

our homes. As the time to deliver goods grows, businesses get farther away from 

their customers, and prices become higher than what families can afford. As the 

hours traveling between cities pile up, our families, friends, and communities grow 

farther apart. 

Congestion takes a toll on more than just our time—it also takes a toll on our 

economy. According to a U.S. Travel survey, highway congestion caused 38 percent 

of Americans to avoid at least one business or leisure trip by car during the previous 

year. This resulted in $23 billion in lost travel spending, which is enough to support 

208,000 American jobs. 

Without significant policy changes to provide increased, sustainable investment in 

our nation’s infrastructure, travel’s vital role in interstate commerce and the future 

growth and competitiveness of America’s travel industry are at risk. 

108 

Please find enclosed examples of the ‘‘congestion maps’’ described above, along 

with an outline of the U.S. Travel Association’s recommendations for aligning federal surface transportation policy with America’s 21st Century needs. 

Thank you for your leadership in identifying policy solutions that increase investment in the nation’s transportation infrastructure. We look forward to working with 

you to solve our infrastructure investment crisis and support American jobs in every 

corner of the country. 

Sincerely, 

TORI EMERSON BARNES

Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and Policy, U.S. Travel Association 

U.S. TRAVEL ASSOCIATION—TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Increase federal user fees: Adjust federal user fees dedicated to the HTF, to finance surface transportation improvements needed to maintain and modernize 

our nation’s travel infrastructure network. Congress should consider all user fee 

options, including (but not limited to): 

• Federal gas tax; • Federal taxes on heavy vehicles; • A vehicle sales tax based on fuel economy or emissions; • Registration Fees; • Federal bonds, loans, and tax credits back by user fees; or • A value-added gas tax, with a progressive rebate for certain consumers • Establish a Projects and Corridors of National Significance Program. Authorize a 

Projects and Corridors of National Significance (PCNS) program within U.S. DOT 

that provides funding for major multimodal projects that cannot be supported by 

current formula programs. The PCNS program should include the following elements: 

• Multi-state planning and operations. Award funding to multi-state organizations 

that promote cross-jurisdictional cooperation in project planning and construction, and conduct activities that improve operations along critical travel corridors. Eligible activities should include: • Projects of National Significance (PNS): Provide funding for major multimodal 

surface transportation projects that generate economic benefits that accrue beyond local areas and states, but cannot otherwise be supported through existing 

formula programs. Selection criteria should prioritize funding for: 

• Projects along critical corridors that support significant volumes of long-haul 

passenger travel, ensure the resiliency of travel infrastructure, improve access 

to major travel destinations and attractions, and enhance the economic contributions of business, leisure and international travel; and • Projects that were planned and developed through multistate corridor coalitions or achieve the goals of the National Travel and Tourism Infrastructure 

Strategic Plan (Sec. 1431(e) of P.L. 114-94). • Authorize a National Travel Mobility Program. Establish a National Travel Mobility Program funded at $1.2 billion per year for the development of long-term plans 

and capital improvements that ensure the efficient movement of people on the national transportation network. Funds would be distributed to States by formula 

for eligible projects that: 

• Alleviate congestion, provide mobility options and accommodate future growth 

along major corridors for long-haul travel; • Improve safety, efficiency and reliability of the surface transportation system; 

and • Enhance connectivity between modes and to major destinations; or • Improve mobility within destinations; and 

• Achieve the goals of the National Travel Infrastructure Strategic Plan. 

Program Elements: 

• Authorization Period: 5 years 

• Obligation Limitation: Obligations would be reimbursed from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Funds would come with contract authority 

and be subject to the annual obligation limitation imposed on the Federal-aid 

Highway Program. 

• Federal Share: 80 percent 

• Establishment of National Multimodal Travel Infrastructure Network: Direct 

the Secretary of Transportation designate a NMTIN made up of the NHS, rail, 

National Parks, Federal lands access, Scenic Byways, transit systems, and other 

surface transportation assets that are critical to facilitating a majority of longhaul travel (50 miles or more) to and within the United States. 

109 

• Long-Term Planning: Consistent with current STIP and TIP planning requirements, States and MPOs would identify projects and strategies for enhancing 

national and regional travel mobility. Funds provided under the program could 

be used to conduct long-term planning activities related to enhancing national 

and regional travel mobility. 

• Project Eligibility: Project eligible to be carried out under Title 23 U.S.C. 

• Formula: Direct the Secretary of Transportation to develop a methodology for 

determining the annual number of non-local visitors to each State (definition: 

anyone taking a trip of more than 50 miles from that includes at least one overnight stay). For each state, apportion $1.50 for each out-of-state visitor and $.50 

for each in-state visitor. 

110 

CONGESTION MAPS—WASHINGTON, DC-NEW YORK, NY / PORTLAND, OR-SEATTLE, WA / 

LOS ANGELES, CA-SAN FRANCISCO, CA


P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\map1.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\map2.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\map3.eps
111 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\map4.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\map5.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\map6.eps

Efficient Travel Time• I 

I 

Summer Average Travel Time* 

Peak Average Travel Time• 

'Most~ltn: 41l'l't'Jt lm'd imt• t:OO iJ on'A~f'A. 

lbJIW~~FtlcSI)~d..-l~tttw~ctiOlS 

SEATTLE, WA 

174 MileS(at67 MPHJ 

U.S. T RAVEL • J' (I ( I ~ f I (I~ · 

• Hl$ti.SU'If!'~I~_.,. $'GI»fl'l01 Wf'C~)o'l, 

fltUI~ )'),4rdf~f'fS~U'iUJ lilt IUllNIO'lUI!6 

• SEATTLE, WA (feels like Mt. Verno WA) 

65 Miles farther away 

US TRAVEL 1> I JOC: I 1ol 1 011' 

SEATTLE, WA (feels like Bellingham, WA) 

78 Miles farther away 

U.S. TRAVEL .. >I II ( I" 'J I(>~· 
112 


P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\map7.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\map8.eps P:\Hearings\116\HT\3-13-2019_35675\map9.eps

Efficient Travel Time* 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

LOS ANGELES, CA 

383 Miles (at 67 MPHJ 

LOS ANGELES, CA 

(feels like Ensenada, Mexico) 

220 miles farther away 

(feels like Vi ncente Guerrero, Mexico) 

297 miles farther away 

U.S. RAVf; ~ .. ... c . .. .. .. .. . 

U.S. TRAVEL " ' oooc o.o o oo"· 

U.S. TRAVEL "o ooc ' "' oow· 
(113) 

APPENDIX

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR HON. RON NIRENBERG

Highway Fatalities 

Question 1. Mayor Nirenberg, in your testimony you raise the appalling fact that 

roadway accidents are the leading cause of death for youth ages 5–24, but you go 

on to note that cities like San Antonio are leading efforts to reduce deaths on our 

Nation’s roadways through Vision Zero and related efforts. 

What methods have been most effective in your city for lowering traffic fatalities? 

ANSWER. In 2015, San Antonio began a Vision Zero program led by the City’s 

Transportation & Capital Improvements (TCI) to take a citywide systems-level and 

multi-faceted approach to protect people on our roads. Cities across the country have 

also recognized this unmet need and more than 40 have formed their own programs 

[https://visionzeronetwork.org/resources/vision-zero-cities/]. Vision Zero is different 

than past safety efforts because the focus lies on using a multi-faceted approach to 

make the roadway safe for all users. Our approach uses the five essential elements 

for a safe transportation system: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation. By focusing on the 5 ‘‘E’’ approach, San Antonio brings community awareness to the epidemic of traffic fatalities while evaluating crashes and 

identifying the areas in most need of enhanced infrastructure. We want San Antonio 

roadways to be safe for everyone: whether they choose to walk, bike or drive. 

Question 2. What are the biggest hurdles to implementing safety measures? 

ANSWER. Vision Zero efforts are generally being funded locally or through competitive grants, but more could be done with federal support for both planning and 

implementation according to organizations such as the National Transportation 

Safety Board, Governors Highway Safety Association, and the Vision Zero Network. 

Additionally, many changes with proven results, such as lowering speed limits or 

using automated enforcement to modify driver behavior, require onerous special permission from state DOTs or state legislatures; we must put all safety tools to work 

to prevent deaths on the roads. Incentives for cooperation should be pursued in all 

safety programs. Lastly, state DOTs have traditionally had a singular focus on congestion reduction and need to expand the focus to safety improvements and other 

modes of transportation. 

Question 3. What can Congress do to direct Federal investments to move the needle on safety? 

ANSWER. Congress should ensure that federal programs are data-driven and promote and support changes to best practices to reduce roadway fatalities, particularly 

those identified in the Toward Zero Deaths National Strategy. While FARS continues to be the data of record on fatalities, state and local government data is more 

readily available and actionable much more quickly; federal platforms and systems 

to collect and analyze data that will generate the information needed to target safety interventions must catch up. We hope that Congress will also explore opportunities to align safety research and development funding with fatalities and trends to 

improve return on investment. 

Additionally, the National League of Cities concurs with GHSA’s latest 2019 report, ‘‘Speeding Away from Zero: Rethinking a Forgotten Traffic Safety Challenge,’’ 

[https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Speeding19] which calls for increased attention to 

speeding as one of the most forgotten safety challenges. With approximately 1 out 

of every 3 crashes involving speed, Congress could consider calling out speeding in 

a similar way that drunk driving, an issue with unfortunate and similar crash risk, 

is focused on in legislated programs. GHSA’s recommendation is to focus on speeding with ‘‘comprehensive public awareness campaigns, traditional and automated 

enforcement efforts, and traffic calming infrastructure’’ and take ‘‘successful approaches to speeding, including the implementation of Vision Zero concepts in urban 

114 

areas.’’ Proven countermeasures to manage speed would also move the needle to 

zero traffic deaths. 

Finally, for the High-Risk Rural Roads program, Congress should allow for 

quicker safety interventions if the number of fatalities on a rural road reaches a 

certain threshold prior to the end of the reporting period [Reference: 23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(1)]. Waiting to act where data supports action is not prudent. We would also 

recommend that states work in coordination with local governments in regard to 

setting their high-risk rural roads within their road safety program [Reference: 23 

U.S.C. 148(a)(1)]. 

Question 4. Would it be helpful to require Federal safety dollars—that are currently allocated to State DOTs—to be spent in specific areas of a State where the 

most fatalities occur? 

ANSWER. Yes, in order to reach our vision of zero fatalities, we should be allocating federal dollars directly to the corridors and transportation systems where fatalities are occurring based on the data, but also where risk is greatest for the most 

vulnerable road users who are biking and walking. For example, with 76 areas of 

high crash concern in San Antonio, it will take us nearly 20 years to address the 

simple pedestrian infrastructure need we have. The city currently has committed 

$1M for infrastructure, education, and outreach, but this does not even address the 

education, outreach and innovative programs that are needed to make a difference 

in traffic safety for all our modes of transportation. We would welcome more support 

from our state and federal partners to continue to take action to save lives. 

Mobility and Connectivity 

Question 5. Mayor Nirenberg, your testimony states that the mobility of our citizens 

should be our measure of success in the next surface transportation reauthorization 

bill. 

Do you feel it is necessary for the Federal government to support both the Interstate Highway System as well as local transit in order to increase mobility? 

ANSWER. Transportation should be about the safe mobility of all of our residents, 

whether walking, bicycling, taking transit or driving, and every region will have different needs to improve their transportation network. We should be investing in the 

transportation options that best support moving people through our regions safely 

whether that is a highway or transit investment. The innovation that’s happening 

in transportation today is changing out views on what is possible, but just proceeding with the status quo of programs and funding ratios is not leaning into that 

innovation happening in mobility, transportation data, or rapid transit networks. 

Now more than ever do flexible and accountable transportation programs, like the 

Surface Transportation Block Grant and the Mobility on Demand Sandbox, need to 

be embraced as the right tools for the federal government to unlock the potential 

of mobility innovation and strive for greater equity among our modes. 

Question 6. Are local transit options and broader regional connectivity closely related? 

ANSWER. Yes, mobility is central to individual prosperity, as well as to commerce 

and to the growth of communities, and both local transit and regional connectivity 

options have a role to play in our future planning. In San Antonio, 79% of our residents commute by single occupancy vehicles. We know that this is not sustainable, 

especially as we are experiencing such rapid growth and expected to have nearly 

double our population by 2040. In order to have an effective, sustainable transportation system, we need to have realistic choices for our residents. 

Question 7. How does this connectivity affect the overall strength of our national 

transportation system? 

ANSWER. Transportation is about flow and also, for growing areas like San Antonio, about what is keeping that from happening. As a country, our national transportation system should not be slowed to a crawl in our most productive urban economic centers. To create flow, we must make system-level decisions like investing 

in transit options and investing in regional connectivity with fast and reliable 

trains, as well as walkable communities that support local businesses and healthy 

activity. America must invest in the performance of our system for our residents. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR ROGER MILLAR, PE, FASCE, FAICP 

Multimodal Investment 

Question 1: Secretary Millar, as the head of Washington State’s Department of 

Transportation, you have a unique perspective on the importance of multimodal 

transportation. As you mention, your agency oversees everything from ferries to airports, and rail systems to public transit. 

115 

Can you give an example or two of how your agency makes multimodal investments in the transportation system? 

ANSWER. Like many states, Washington has an amendment to our state constitution that limits the use of gas tax revenue to highway uses. However, we have other 

sources of revenue that can be used for multimodal investments, including some federal funding, and we make full use of those revenues. 

Through our practical solutions approach to solving transportation challenges, we 

work to first understand what the problem is and don’t presuppose what the solution to a transportation challenge should be. It might be that widening a highway 

or updating an interchange is the appropriate solution. But it might also be investments in our local partner’s system, increased transit service, adding managed lanes 

or improving bike and pedestrian connectivity that will best address the transportation challenge that’s been identified. We strive to work with our local partners, 

our state legislature, USDOT modal administrations, and within our funding constraints to identify and fund the best solutions to complex transportation challenges 

and needs. 

We also support the transportation system through a series of multimodal grants 

and loans to cities, counties, transit agencies, ports and nonprofits. These transportation projects create access for those who have no other transportation options, reduce delay for people, improve goods movement, lessen demand, reduce carbon emissions, create safe routes to schools, and improve sidewalks and bike lanes for all 

Washingtonians. For example, we award over $250 million in public transportation 

grants per biennium, and we award nearly $15 million in rail loans and grants per 

biennium to help support freight rail capital needs. 

Washington has also led the nation in design and implementation of our rural 

intercity bus network. It is designed as a system so that people can make timed connections with multiple providers on multiple routes. Our public-private partnership 

with the industry opened up new ways of ensuring that people can get to wherever 

it is they need to go throughout the country. We should note our thanks to both 

the Federal Transit Administration for allowing us to pilot this partnership and 

Congress for codifying it in subsequent surface transportation authorizations. 

Our I–405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project [https:// 

www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I405/RentontoBellevue/home] is a good example of an investment in a highway expansion and congestion management project that also supports a bus rapid transit (BRT) investment by our regional transit partner, Sound 

Transit. The new express toll lanes between Renton and Bellevue will connect to 

the existing express toll lane system between Bellevue and Lynnwood to the north, 

as well as the SR 167 HOT lanes to the south, to create a 40-mile system of express 

toll lanes. This project is designed to improve speeds and trip reliability for all travelers and support the new I–405 BRT line between Lynnwood and Tukwila included 

in the voter-approved Sound Transit 3 package. It’s the state’s investment in widening I–405 to finish the express toll lanes that will enable Sound Transit to make 

its BRT investment in the corridor. Without the state’s investment, BRT would not 

work as the buses would be stuck in congestion and wouldn’t have a reliable trip. 

As a part of the I–405 Corridor Master Plan, we are also working with King 

County to add 16.7 miles of new regional trail in the corridor that will connect the 

‘‘Eastside’’ of Lake Washington like never before and provide the cities of Renton, 

Bellevue, Kirkland, Woodinville, and Redmond with new opportunities for non-motorized recreation and transportation. This trail investment is being linked to our 

earlier multi-use trail investments in the Interstate 90 and State Route 520 corridors, connecting the Eastside with Seattle over our floating bridges and to Eastern 

Washington via the Mountains to Sound Greenway corridor. 

Even before we finish the Renton to Bellevue express toll lanes, on the existing 

Bellevue to Lynnwood segment, we’re moving more than 25 percent more people and 

giving transit riders a faster and more reliable ride. King County Metro ridership 

is up 9 percent in the 405 corridor and Community Transit ridership is up 2 percent. 

As a final example, the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program in Seattle replaced a seismically vulnerable highway with a safer roadway and tunnel under 

downtown. After the nearly 60-foot-tall viaduct is removed, the central business district will be reconnected to the historic waterfront with new streets that provide 

connections for people who drive, bike, walk and roll. The City of Seattle is also 

building out 20 acres of public space and a new promenade for people to enjoy. Additionally, WSDOT built a new shared use path that links neighborhoods with downtown Seattle and the state’s largest ferry terminal. A second shared use path will 

be connected in 2020. Later this year, two surface streets that were severed by the 

old highway will be rebuilt—one is a green street—reconnecting several vibrant 

neighborhoods for many modes of travel. 

116 

Question 2: In your opinion, how important is it that the Federal government invest in multimodal transportation options? 

ANSWER. Federal investment in multimodal transportation options is critical. People need choices when it comes to transportation. Not everyone is able to drive or 

can afford a car, yet they need a reliable way to get to work, to doctor appointments 

and other important destinations. In Washington state, I–5 is the backbone of our 

transportation system and goods movement on the west coast is dependent upon it. 

Transit and active transportation give viable and well-used choices to driving alone, 

freeing up space on I–5 for trucks to get goods to market. It also frees up space for 

those that prefer or have no choice but to drive. Similarly, our Amtrak Cascades 

intercity passenger rail service that we sponsor along with the Oregon DOT reduces 

vehicle demand on I–5 and gives both business and leisure travelers another option. 

More than 800,000 passengers rode Amtrak Cascades in 2018. Without that service 

most of those passengers would have had to drive on I–5. 

Question 3: Can you speak to the impact having a strong multimodal system has 

on both passengers as well as the movement of goods? 

ANSWER. Per the answer to question number two above, when people have safe, 

direct, and convenient alternatives to driving alone, it frees up critical space on the 

Interstate for trucks to get goods to market. Not everyone in Washington state can 

or wants to drive, and there are many that can’t afford a car, yet they still have 

a right to access to opportunity and to have a viable way to get where they need 

to go. Having transportation options is integral to having a strong economy. 

Rural Versus Urban Needs 

Question 4: Secretary Millar, your State is unique in that it has major urban areas 

which are home to some of the largest companies in the Nation, while also having 

extremely rural populations as well. 

How can we ensure that as we modernize our Federal highway and transit programs we address the needs of both urban and rural populations equally? 

ANSWER. Transit and active transportation programs are just as important to 

urban and rural communities as are the federal-aid highway programs. In urban 

areas, transit and active transportation provide a critical option to avoiding congestion. In rural areas, transit often provides a critical lifeline for those who cannot 

drive or who cannot afford to drive. Agriculture is a major part of our state’s economy and those commodities must get to market, using our roads, railways, waterways and airports. As you work on reauthorization of the FAST Act, we encourage 

you to increase investment in all of the formula programs, highways, transit and 

ferries, as well as the rail programs and allow state DOTs the flexibility to continue 

to work with our local partners to invest those funds in both our urban and rural 

areas depending on our most critical needs. When it comes to urban and rural, it’s 

not an either/or, it’s both. Everyone deserves transportation choices and all parts 

of Washington state need safe and efficient transportation options. 

Technological Advancements 

Question 5: Secretary Millar, in your testimony, you mention AASHTO’s recently established Cooperative Automated Transportation (CAT) coalition which will help leverage emerging technologies. You also mention that State DOTs are planning now 

for a future which integrates new technological advancements with existing systems, such as connected vehicles and multimodal trip planning. 

In your opinion, how soon will we begin to see technological shifts in local transportation systems to this degree? 

ANSWER. Advances in vehicle automation, connectivity, electrification, and shared 

mobility are already impacting the state’s transportation system and have begun to 

radically change the movement of people, data and goods. The private sector has 

made significant advances in the development and deployment of automated vehicles (AV) and connected transportation technology. Opinions differ about the deployment level, rate and timing of AVs. However, it is expected that some level of vehicle automation will be widespread by 2025, and fully automated cars are anticipated 

to be more broadly adopted by 2030. Currently, most new vehicles are equipped 

with a range of driver assistive options. This may include adaptive cruise control, 

blind spot detection, forward collision warning, lane departure warning, rearview 

video systems, vehicle and pedestrian automatic emergency braking, pedestrian protection, rear cross traffic alert, and lane centered assist. At this time, ten technology 

companies and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are registered to conduct 

on-road testing on Washington’s public roadways. This number is expected to increase as is the number of initial automated vehicle pilot and deployment projects 

conducted in Washington state. Transportation network companies such as UBER 

and Lyft and cloud computing and data integration companies such as Amazon, 

117 

Google, Atos, and INRIX have already begun deployment of Mobility on Demand 

(MOD) services. These services provide multimodal traveler information, scheduling 

and payment platforms which are already impacting the way transportation agencies develop and deliver services and the way people and goods are moved. 

Question 6: What are the risks and benefits associated with utilizing these new 

technologies? 

ANSWER. Automated and connected transportation has the potential for significant 

mobility and societal benefits. This includes safety, system efficiency, reduced congestion, environmental sustainability and improved equity and access. At the same 

time, without careful policy guidance and management, these technologies could 

also have less desirable effects such as increased trips, congestion and emissions. 

Safety 

In 2017, there were 560 fatalities and more than 2,200 serious injuries due to 

crashes on Washington state roadways, resulting in an $8.4 billion impact to Washington’s economy. Ninety-four percent of these crashes are assumed to be related to 

human error. Vehicle automation that provides driver assistive systems now or driverless options later have the potential to drastically reduce crashes and fatalities. 

By minimizing or eliminating human error from the operation of cars and trucks, 

automation can support Washington’s Target Zero goal (reduce traffic fatalities and 

serious injuries on Washington’s roadways to zero by the year 2030). While technology is not infallible and government agencies need to ensure deployments of 

automated vehicles are safe, it is important to note that, on average in the United 

States, 100 people lose their lives on our roadways every day. In addition, according 

to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), connected, Vehicle 

to Infrastructure (V2I) technology helps drivers safely negotiate intersections and 

could help prevent 41 to 55 percent of intersection crashes. Another connected vehicle safety application that helps drivers with left turns at intersections could help 

prevent 36 to 62 percent of leftturn crashes, according to NHTSA. In addition to the 

lives saved, just these two applications alone could prevent up to 592,000 crashes 

and 270,000 injuries each year. 

Congestion and System Efficiency 

According to the 2017 Global Traffic Scorecard from INRIX, U.S. drivers spent an 

average of 41 hours a year in traffic during peak hours, which cost drivers nearly 

$305 billion, an average of $1,445 per driver. According to the Texas Transportation 

Institute (TTI), congestion produced 56 billion pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution and contributed to 3.1 billion gallons of wasted fuel in 2015. Without stewardship and active engagement, there are also risks that automation can further increase the number of trips, traffic congestion and urban sprawl. Automated technology can potentially reduce the cost of transportation and therefore increase access and demand. This would add pressure to state and local transportation systems, many of which are already operating beyond capacity. However, if emphasis 

is placed on shared automated vehicles and Mobility on Demand solutions that leverage investment in public transportation and active transportation networks, the 

transportation system could be used more efficiently, resulting in less demand for 

roadway expansion projects. 

Environmental Sustainability 

Automated electric vehicles have the potential to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution and our nation’s dependence on oil. However, to maximize the environmental 

benefits of automated transportation, it should be both electric and shared. Fossilfueled automated vehicles could increase emissions if the convenience of automated 

vehicles results in selecting a single-occupancy AV travel over transit or other 

modes, traveling longer distances to home and work, and letting empty AVs circulate until a ride is needed. Research conducted by UC Davis projected that if vehicles are automated but not electrified or shared, greenhouse gas emissions from the 

transportation sector could rise 50 percent by 2050 compared to current levels. However, if autonomous vehicles are electrified and shared, transportation sector emissions could decline by 80 percent. 

Access and Equity 

Connected and automated vehicle technologies coupled with Mobility on Demand 

applications and supportive policies have the potential to expand access to transportation for everyone and especially the disadvantaged populations, including older 

Americans and people with disabilities. According to the U.S. census, residents age 

65 and over grew from 35.0 million in 2000, to 49.2 million in 2016, accounting for 

12.4 percent and 15.2 percent of the total population, respectively; and nearly one 

118 

in five people have a disability. Similarly, it is hoped that automation will provide 

more options and access for people in underserved communities to support better 

work opportunities, better education, and access to better healthcare. These communities need to be actively engaged as stakeholders in the development and deployment of these new technologies. 

Infrastructure 

At this time, infrastructure investments that may be needed to support automation are still being defined. For competitive reasons, the various Original Equipment 

Manufacturers (OEMs) are hesitant to define specific infrastructure modification 

needs. However, it is understood that a minimum level of infrastructure systems, 

conditions and maintenance levels will be needed for automated vehicles to operate 

properly. Most automated vehicles analyze real-time inputs from a combination of 

active sensors. Ideally, supervised and/or unsupervised ‘‘machine learning’’ occurs to 

improve performance of these processes over time, extending and expanding safety 

capabilities across vehicle models. Consistency in the implementation and maintenance of traffic control devices is important. Signage and markings provides direction, guidance and warnings to drivers. Some states elect to follow the federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), while other states may generate 

different iterations of the MUTCD. Even if a road sign design is not the easiest to 

perceive or assimilate for a human driver, for an automated vehicle vision detection 

and classification system, it is likely easier to learn how to interpret a single but 

ambiguous traffic sign as opposed to having to learn to interpret a large number 

of different but more easily identifiable signs. Not only is consistency important, 

maintenance is also vital. In some circumstances, poorly maintained markings and 

signage can be worse than having no markings and signage at all, as they can result 

in unintended responses by the automated driving system Road surface conditions 

are also important. Poorly maintained roadway surfaces (buckled asphalt, potholes, 

etc.) could increase the risk of damaging vehicle sensors. Damage to sensors can 

compromise vehicle performance and may force a vehicle into a degraded state 

where automation must be deactivated. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. MARK MEADOWS FOR ROGER MILLAR, PE, FASCE, FAICP 

Question 7: Part of meeting 21st Century needs is making sure we are addressing 

the current maintenance backlog plaguing our roads and bridges. For instance, the 

National Park Service has almost $6 billion in overdue needs, including almost $275 

million for the Blue Ridge Parkway that runs right through my district. 

How do we make sure that we are adequately addressing the needs of our federal 

lands roads as we consider policy proposals? 

ANSWER. Lack of funding to keep transportation infrastructure in a state of good 

repair is a problem nationwide and at all levels of government. Like other western 

states, Washington has a large amount of federal lands, including three national 

parks, which are important to tourism and our economy. The Federal Lands Access 

Program is an important source of revenue to ensure these important national 

treasures are open and safe for the public to access. As the Committee works on 

reauthorization of the FAST Act, we encourage you to make investing in preserving 

and maintaining our existing infrastructure in a state of good repair—at all levels 

of government—a top priority. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR DARRAN ANDERSON

Technology Applications for Rural Communities 

Question 1: Mr. Anderson, your testimony gave great insight into how States can 

harness emerging technologies to solve mobility and other transportation issues 

through applications such as connected vehicles and data sharing across modes. 

However, most of these examples seem to be geared toward large, metropolitan 

areas. 

Can you provide some examples of technology applications that Texas has used 

to benefit rural or underserved communities? 

ANSWER. Transportation has been identified as a barrier to jobs, medical care, 

schools and other critical services. In Texas, as in a number of other states, car ownership is often essential to access economic opportunity. The challenge is widespread: it exists for vulnerable and underserved communities in regions where affordability, displacement, and rapid growth are applying pressure. But it is also impacting smaller or more rural communities that are particularly limited in their 

budgets to meet their residents’ needs. To combat this, the Texas Innovation Alliance has identified a number of strategies and action items. These are (1) to improve access to jobs, medical care, schools, and critical services, (2) to explore innoVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
119 

vative paratransit partnerships, and (3) to assess affordability and livability. As new 

developments in technology emerge, it will be critical for public agencies to develop 

a mobility system that continues serving all communities. 

For example, in Bryan-College Station, the Brazos Valley Center for Independent 

Living has purchased SimpliTransport, an on-line software package that allows 

trips to be coordinated by multiple agencies. In the past year, they have introduced 

the software to the human service agencies in their area and have met with local 

hospitals to determine how best to serve those who need transportation for medical 

services but do not have access to a vehicle. 

Another example is in Arlington, Texas. Although Arlington is located between 

two very large metropolitan areas, there are people who live in nearby suburban 

communities that depend on these bigger cities for access to medical care, jobs, education, and even groceries. The Via Rideshare Service in Arlington provides a flexible and personalized on-demand transportation solution to those services. Via 

Transportation shares extensive data with the City of Arlington to allow informed 

decision making regarding transportation in the future. The city is also exploring 

possibilities to coordinate existing paratransit services within the Via platform and 

service to improve access and efficiencies. 

Question 2: Do you believe there is a disparity in how technological advancements 

can benefit varying populations, and if so, how can we level the playing field so everyone shares the benefits? 

ANSWER. Research has indicated clear economic benefits of access to opportunity 

provided by transportation mobility—including affordable public transportation. As 

emerging technologies advance transportation mobility, we should consider that 

many low-income people and households either do not have access to a vehicle nor 

do they live near public transportation. This can significantly limit their access to 

opportunity, healthcare, food, and steady employment. Moreover, many elderly or 

low-income individuals do not have access to a smart phone or even a computer 

from which they could access rideshare opportunities such as Uber or Lyft. As technology innovations to mobility systems advance, we should continue to work with 

private stakeholders to develop options that offer all communities affordable, accessible, and convenient transportation options. 

Promoting Innovation 

Question 3: Your testimony lays out examples of successful innovations based on 

your experience in Texas. 

Can you provide some examples of successful innovations in local infrastructure? 

ANSWER. There are a number of projects which are active and funded or active 

pilots in Texas that provide examples of successful innovations in local infrastructure. Many of them are in the early stages and data is still being collected and analyzed to assess the performance of the projects. Here are some examples: • Arlington, Texas—Applied Information Test Deployment: The City of Arlington 

has initiated a pilot program with Applied Information for a test deployment 

of a Connected Vehicle (CV) application. The application can provide travelers 

with alerts and information for pedestrian/bicycle proximity, signal phase and 

timing, fire truck approaching, school zone, etc., through a wireless network. 

The test site is located from UTA Boulevard to Randol Mill Road along the Cooper Street corridor that includes high pedestrian/bike activity, a railroad crossing, and a school zone. 

• Arlington, Texas—Developing a Standard for Construction/Lane Closure/Incident Information: The City has enrolled in the Waze Connected Citizen Program and become a partner in the Waze Global Event Partner Program. The 

traffic engineering division of the Public Works and Transportation (PWT) Department programs closures for events, construction, incidents, etc., into the 

Waze Road Closure tool. PWT staff use Waze traffic alerts to identify traffic 

congestion areas and adjust signal timing as needed. The North Central Texas 

Council of Governments (NCTCOG) became a partner with Waze and created 

the data exchange path between Waze and 511DFW. The residents of the City 

are informed with the current road closure information at their fingertips 

through Waze or the 511DFW app. Developing this standard will allow for efficient management of traffic diverted due to incidents on highways or arterials. 

• Frisco, Texas—Real Time Data Sharing: Frisco partners with Traffic Technology Services to provide Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) technology to Audi vehicles at all of the city’s signals. They are starting to collect and process the 

reciprocal data from these vehicles to help optimize their signal system. 

• Houston, Texas—ConnectSmart: The Houston District of the Texas Department 

of Transportation received an $8.9 million grant under FHWA’s Advanced 

Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment 

120 

(ATCMTD) program to deploy advanced technologies as part of Houston’s 

ConnectSmart. The project integrates transportation management systems 

across the various modes of transportation to benefit drivers and carpoolers, 

transit riders and bicyclists. The system will provide additional real-time information on carpooling, ridesharing and the availability of shared electric bicycles. ConnectSmart’s mobility-as-a-service platform will help to manage congestion in the Houston metro area. It will provide transportation stakeholders with 

data to improve their operational efficiency with the goal of encouraging multimodal transportation based on data-driven rider recommendations. 

• Dallas, Texas—Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)+Uber: DART recently awarded an RFP to Uber for providing first/last mile solutions. The initiative enables 

riders to request an Uber ride using DART’s GoPass mobile ticketing application. The DART and Uber partnership emerged after a successful trial during 

the Dallas St. Patrick’s Day parade that encouraged people to ride transit and 

overcome first/last mile obstacles. 

Question 4: What obstacles do you feel are the most significant to promoting innovation in our Federal transportation programs? 

ANSWER. Funding is always an obstacle, but indecision, not keeping pace with 

technological innovations, and outdated and inconsistent procurement regulations 

are as well. Some examples are: 

• The continued delay on a decision on technology deployment. It is challenging 

for states and localities to invest in certain technology when we don’t know 

when or if the federal government is going to choose to employ Dedicated ShortRange Communications or opt to use 5G for Connected Vehicles (CVs). Many 

technology experts say the two solutions will never be able to fully integrate 

and be interoperable, so it would require multiple redundant devices to have a 

dual-mode solution. We appreciate that the USDOT wants an interoperable system, but we don’t want to invest in a Betamax if a VCR will be the standard. 

• The lack of passing and implementing an Automated Vehicle law or declaring 

a national Connected and Automated Vehicle strategy for several years has created uncertainty and encourages inconsistency and incongruity as state and 

local officials design their own solutions. 

• The slow speed at which the MUTCD keeps pace with new technology, industry 

innovation, and transportation readiness to implement new capabilities. 

MUTCD advancement could be tied directly into national connected and automated vehicle (CAV) and other research programs, so that as states and national entities complete research projects, the new standards are immediately 

allowed. 

• Some federal agencies seem tied to the ‘‘way things have always been done’’ and 

deny proven concepts such as allowing an alternative font on highway signs, or 

considering the use of sponsorship logos on Dynamic Message Signs to rapidly 

deploy and improve our Traffic Management System. We see dynamic billboards 

along highways, but we are refused the opportunity to conduct a limited test 

on public roads of a public-private sponsorship concept that places a logo on 

part of a DMS during non-emergency situations. 

• Inconsistency in the application of procurement laws for grant programs. For 

example, the Federal Highway Administration’s Advanced Transportation and 

Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) grant program 

encourages public sector applicants to include private sector interests in their 

grant application. If awarded an ATCMTD grant, the public sector awardee is 

then charged with holding an open procurement for the functions meant to be 

handled by their private sector partners. Yet, the Federal Transit Administration’s MOD Sandbox grant treats private sector partners that are part of a public sector application as a sole source contract. There is no incentive for the private sector to partner with a public institution on a grant proposal if they are 

going to have to recompete for the partnership after the grant is awarded. 

• The federal government should also allow state and local DOTs to allow broader 

flexibility in public-private partnership arrangements. Using public-private 

partnerships can assist with deploying, operating, and maintaining innovative 

technology solutions, like CV, and make these technologies available to the public faster than if they are exclusively funded by traditional public programs that 

require a local match (CMAQ, STBG, etc.). Often, however, these arrangements 

can bring additional and unnecessarily federal regulatory oversight into the mix 

that can stymie innovation and efficiency. 

Question 5: Do you think Congress should make substantial changes to how we 

approach Federal surface transportation policy, or should we focus on improvements 

121 

to how things work currently? If you do favor innovating our policies, what is the 

most important change Congress can make? 

ANSWER. The most substantial action Congress can take in the next surface transportation bill is to use current data to inform the formulas used to allocate funds, 

and ensure this remains the case going forward. As population changes continue 

across the country, it is critical that the allocation of federal fuel taxes keep pace 

with changing system demands and performance. Since the current formula for the 

distribution of federal motor fuel taxes uses 2000 Census data and a formula last 

updated in 2005, it is important that the federal government provide each state 

with an amount equal to what it contributed in federal fuel taxes. TxDOT’s current 

federal priorities document, enclosed with this letter, provides additional thoughts 

on this and other changes we believe would benefit the nation’s surface transportation system. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. MARK MEADOWS FOR DARRAN ANDERSON

Question 6: The current Administration states its goal is to ‘‘seek long-term reforms 

on how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, delivered, and maintained.’’ It 

directed agencies ‘‘whenever feasible, to specify performance objectives, rather than 

behavior, in crafting new regulations.’’ A recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) states that although ‘‘agencies may design their regulations in different ways to achieve intended policy outcomes,’’ agency ‘‘officials reported a preference for ‘performance’ designs that establish an outcome. . .’’. 

In your experience with Texas Department of Transportation, do you believe the 

use of outcome-based performance standards both in Texas and nation-wide will be 

less prescriptive, as required by Executive Order 12866, while facilitating less costly, safer regulatory outcomes that do not stifle innovation? 

ANSWER. One of many challenges for Texas continues to be the increasing disparity between demand and available capacity. Since 1990, the state’s population 

has increased by 55 percent. During the same period, daily vehicle miles traveled 

have increased 70 percent and daily truck miles traveled have increased 110 percent 

on TxDOT-maintained roadways, while roadway centerline miles have increased at 

a disproportionate rate of 7 percent. This demand is only expected to increase for 

Texas. To address needs amid increasingly constrained resources it is critical to understand investment trade-offs and maximize the impact of every dollar spent. Outcome-based performance standards provide a path for TxDOT to align transportation investment decisions to address passenger and freight needs and demands 

amid unprecedented growth and declining revenues. TxDOT uses performance-based 

planning to determine strategic direction and performance outcomes to evaluate and 

improve strategies going-forward. 

TxDOT wants the federal government to use a consistent set of performance 

measures, considering the most currently available data and performance factors. 

With that, we do need the flexibility in implementation of federal programs and 

projects to achieve the desired outcome as established by Texas, not federal regulations. Because each state’s circumstances are unique and their ability to achieve a 

desired outcome is just as varied, it is not appropriate to prescribe specific regulations for a single outcome for all states. Additionally, technological advancements 

in transportation can quickly outdate regulations, even upon passage. 

Every state and political subdivision faces different constraints and opportunities 

affecting their transportation system. Stable, reliable, and predictable funding is a 

particularly important variable for states in planning and target setting, but there 

are other factors (as described above for Texas), including economic conditions, environmental conditions, population growth trends, legislative and gubernatorial mandates and priorities, and issues identified in the public involvement process. Consequently, it is essential that states and MPOs have the flexibility to determine the 

best approach for achieving outcome-based performance targets, including targets 

that have performance holding steady or, in some situations, declining. Regulations 

pertaining to performance reporting should focus on providing the public and interested parties clear, concise, and easily available information on transportation system performance in the state as determined by the state. 

Texas understands and appreciates the federal desire to hold states accountable 

for progress toward achieving desired federal outcomes; however, we believe that 

states are in the best position to understand the needs of our state and, therefore, 

states—in partnership with MPOs and regional leaders—should be the ones to decide program and project funding within the state. It is essential that any federal 

regulations do not compromise flexibility, delay project delivery, or create 

redundancies in requirements. It is also important to clarify language and definitions to avoid future variances in interpretation and guidance. 

122 

Question 7: What is Texas’ experience with applying outcome-based performance 

standards and how can the federal government best apply outcome-based performance standards? 

ANSWER. As noted in response to Question 6, TxDOT wants the federal government to use a consistent set of performance measures, considering the most currently available data and performance factors. TxDOT has applied outcome-based 

performance standards in select programs for many years and, in doing so, has developed measures (in some cases very detailed measures) that evaluate objectives 

and results. Texas’ experience has led to a greater use of performance measures— 

from the performance-based annual planning cycle to the state’s first performancebased long-range transportation plan (Texas Transportation Plan 2040 adopted on 

February 26, 2015) to MAP–21/FAST Act and Texas’ Legislative Budget Board performance measures and set targets. 

Visit the Texas Transportation Commission’s Performance Dashboard [http:// 

www.dot.state.tx.us/dashboard/index.htm] for examples of some of the high-level, 

strategic performance measures, targets, and results that TxDOT uses to help monitor and shape transportation policy efforts. 

Texas believes that it is extremely important that states set their own performance targets, although we understand that the federal government should retain 

oversight to ensure that state metrics are reasonable, realistic and data-driven. 

Texas would prefer a program that does not include the federal agencies both establishing and evaluating state performance measure targets. Furthermore, any performance management structure should support meaningful transportation investment decisionmaking by establishing target and reporting timeframes that are realistic and appropriate for the measures being used. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR JOHN KEVIN ‘‘JACK’’ CLARK

Workforce Training 

Question 1: Mr. Clark, your testimony highlights the importance of apprenticeship 

programs as well as other frontline training programs. You make the case that Federal investment in infrastructure should be accompanied by investments in training 

programs. 

How can Congress specifically target Federal dollars to help transit agencies overcome the ‘‘skills crisis’’ in transit you mention, as well as a rapidly aging workforce? 

Should Congress set aside dedicated workforce training funds from the urban and 

rural transit formula funds, so every transit agency has a small amount of workforce training dollars? 

Question 2: What is the most efficient way for Federal investments in human capital to result in on-the-ground worker training? 

Workforce Training Resource Center 

Question 3: Mr. Clark, one of your policy proposals for reauthorization of the FAST 

Act is to create a ‘‘national resource center’’ devoted to frontline transit worker 

training. 

Can you elaborate on what role you see this resource center playing? What would 

be the center’s objectives? What authority would it have and how would it advance 

solutions? 

Answers to Questions 1–3. At this time, I would not propose a federal mandate 

on a portion of federal grants that needs to be spent on training. As the question 

makes explicit, the resulting formula would lead to a ‘‘small amount of workforce 

training dollars’’ for each agency. Transit managers are likely to resist another mandate for already scarce capital funds, and it does make sense to push through that 

resistance for a small set-aside that isn’t up to the scale of the problem. 

I would reiterate the absolute need for a national resource center for the frontline 

workforce. There is a long history of authorizing and appropriating funds to support 

the National Transit Institute. NTI does invaluable work. By its own admission, 

NTI focuses on training for the 15–20 percent of the transit workforce in management and front-office roles. 

The national resource center that is urgently needed now, on the other hand, 

would focus on identifying and quantifying the shortcomings of current training for 

the frontline workforce, developing training materials for agencies to implement, assisting agencies in improving their training, and developing registered apprenticeship programs. As the new frontline workforce center grows, it can and will work 

to develop recruitment and training strategies for the next generation of technical 

workers. Registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship will be part of that strategy. Reaching out to Career and Technical Education schools at the secondary and 

post-secondary levels will also be part of that recruitment effort. Conscious strategies to diversity the transit workforce need to be central to addressing the workforce 

123 

skills crisis. Representative Brown from Maryland asked during the hearing if there 

is any successful history of training programs that have helped previously disadvantaged and excluded populations enter skilled transit jobs. I cited the experience in 

Los Angeles. I would like to enter into the record a 2013 study that the Transportation Learning Center submitted to the Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights Education Fund, entitled ‘‘Pathways to Equity: Effective Transportation Career Partnerships.’’ That study also highlights some innovative work by 

both union and management leaders in Philadelphia to reach out to inner-city high 

school youth. An effective frontline workforce center could identify and help to replicate successes like these. 

Transit labor needs to have a full and equal voice in oversight of this frontline 

workforce center, and the entity housing this new frontline workforce center needs 

to have demonstrated experience in working with labor-management partnerships 

to improve training. I will return to the potential functions of a frontline workforce 

center in some closing comments and in some specific challenges confronting transit 

now. It is useful to recall the scale of the challenge on workforce training. Take one 

very dramatic current example: the transition to battery electric buses (BEBs). FTA 

continues to place large sums of money in the no-low emissions grant program. California and a handful of other states have set timelines for zero emission buses. More 

states are following suit, and federal legislation has been filed to create a mandate 

for zero emission transit fleets. Substantial private funding is accelerating the transition. Even Cummins, the sole manufacturer of bus diesel engines, is entering a 

partnership with Gillig to produce an electric bus. FTA will continue to fund nolow procurement. Investors, responding to those procurements and to their own projections on the likelihood of BEBs, will continue to increase the capacity of the BEB 

vendors. Agencies will use the federal money to purchase this new technology. Reducing airborne pollution by deploying BEB’s achieves many good outcomes. 

Who is paying attention to the need for training frontline workers to be ready to 

understand and maintain BEBs? 

We know from a 2002 Transit Cooperative Research study (Training for On-Board 

Bus Electronics) that electric and electronic skills presented and still present a 

major challenge for current technicians. My own organization, the Transportation 

Learning Center, has conducted skills gap surveys at dozens of agencies large and 

small. Consistently, the skills gap shows up most prominently in electrical and electronic skills. The industry needs a major mobilization to make sure that current 

workers have the proper skills. We know enough to know that mobilization is not 

occurring. 

A funded resource center dedicated to the frontline workforce, with leadership 

from both labor and management, could provide needed focus on training for this 

and many other new technologies. 

Question 2 asks how we can ensure that federal funds result in on the ground 

training. 

The federal government can have a powerful influence in ensuring that training 

reaches the frontline workforce. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) monitors 

transit agencies on safety, on state of good repair, on grants management and fiscal 

capacity. Currently, the federal government does not ask agencies to report on what 

training is taking place or who is receiving training. Congress can and should mandate that FTA include training in its oversight of agencies. FTA’s review of system 

safety requires a level of workforce engagement. How much safety training occurs? 

FTA has been dogged in reviewing state of good repair in vehicle fleets. Is there 

adequate training for maintenance staff to achieve and hold that state of good repair? At many industry meetings and conferences, discussions center on the need 

for succession planning in the executive suite. Is anyone paying attention to succession for the next generation of mechanics and operators? Speaking of operators, 

some of the dramatic numbers in hiring needs come from very high attrition rates 

among new operators. Are agencies taking steps to reduce that rate of attrition? 

Metrics need to be developed on workforce so that FTA has a proper framework 

for its oversight role. One piece of data that should be on that list is spare staffing 

ratio for maintenance. Maintaining a spare bus ratio is long-standing good practice 

for agencies. Accidents occur; breakdowns happen. Having spare buses ensures that 

you can maintain service. As we know, you need maintenance staff to keep the 

buses running, too. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP} released a 

study in 2016 on ‘‘Maintenance Technician Levels for Modern Transportation 

Fleets,’’ complete with a tool for calculating a proper ratio of technicians to buses. 

FTA needs to adapt and revise that ratio to allow for some spare capacity so that 

agencies can make daily bus turnout and be able to devote time for training. That 

ratio will vary over time. When an agency needs to recruit and train a large number 

124 

of mechanics, those apprentices need classroom time. In addition, experienced mechanics will spend time coaching and mentoring apprentices through on the job 

learning. That needs to happen, and it needs to be included in the calculation for 

appropriate maintenance training. A mature workforce with few apprentices will 

still require time for training and new learning, but it will be a smaller ratio. 

In addition to improved monitoring and oversight by FTA, Congress can look at 

how capital funds currently support—or fail to support—good frontline workforce 

training. 

Federal funds support capital spending in two ways. 

1. Current law allows states to give agencies leeway to divert up to 0.5 percent 

of federal capital funds to workforce development activities. Congress can and 

should increase that flexibility so that agencies can use up to 5 percent of capital funds for workforce development. Congress can and should ask for reports 

from FTA on the use of that provision to fund workforce development and on 

what workforce development activities it supports. In general, in transit and 

in the economy more generally, training funds are spent disproportionately to 

support training for employees with higher levels of education and more managerial responsibilities. Congress has an interest in ensuring that any federal 

funds support training for the frontline workforce. 

2. Because the federal government is paying 85 percent of the cost, most agencies 

include training in the bid process for new equipment. For the agencies and 

especially for the vendors selling the equipment, that training comes as an 

afterthought, not as a key deliverable in the bid process. The Transportation 

Learning Center worked with a wide range of transit rail subject matter experts to develop a 2014 study on ‘‘Establishing a National Transit Industry 

Rail Vehicle Technician Qualification Program Building for Success. To quote 

directly from the study: 

OEM-provided training that comes packaged with new capital equipment is 

an important source of training, but it can fall short of the training needs 

of agencies for this new equipment. In a 2012 survey conducted by the 

Transportation Learning Center, SMEs on the National Rail Vehicle Training Standards Committee identified 50 distinct training areas on which 

OEMs provide training materials. The named OEMs include leading vendors in the industry. In 35 (70 percent) of these areas, the SMEs rated 

OEM training materials as poor or fair. Among the topics covered by the 

OEM training materials, rail vehicle troubleshooting and communications 

were found to be the most problematic. Not one subject area had an average 

score that put it in the ‘‘Very Good’’ Category across all vendors. 

Anecdotally, some ‘‘training’’ consists of OEM sales personnel coming to tout how 

great their equipment is. That is an extreme example, but it happens. Training from 

the vendor more often is developed late without much thought on how to deliver it 

to people charged with doing the actual work. Frontline technicians then sit through 

a course written by an engineer that might—or might not—work for other engineers. Another common problem is that even if the vendor training is excellent, it’s 

not timely. Technicians get good background on equipment that’s covered by an extended warranty. They won’t touch that equipment for five years. Can Congress cut 

through this thick underbrush of problems with OEM-training? Once again, there 

could be a substantial role for a frontline workforce center to conduct more research 

like the example from the TCRP Rail Car study. On capital purchases, a number 

of agencies have established best practice procurement where representatives of the 

maintenance and operator workforce have a direct voice in design. Frontline workforce representatives could help develop guidelines in the original bid for what OEM 

training needs to include. The American Public Transportation Association has developed detailed industry-standard recommended practices for what constitutes good 

training in most technical areas. OEM’s might be required to identify how the training on the new equipment they are providing relates to the recommended practices 

for training in rail or bus maintenance. 

So far have this note has addressed some core mandates and potential benefits 

of a resource center focused on the frontline workforce. Let me elaborate a bit more 

on some key functions for such a center: 

• Promoting apprenticeship in public transportation. In recent years, apprenticeship has won bipartisan support in Congress and the strong backing of successive Administrations of different parties. Quite simply, apprenticeship combines 

technical learning in a classroom setting with a lot of structured on the job 

learning. Transit needs to adopt and adapt apprenticeship to meet its need to 

upgrade current workers and to recruit a new generation. 

• Supporting agencies and local unions, particularly with ‘‘Train the Trainer’’ and 

‘‘Train the Mentor’’ programs. Mentoring provides the basis for structured on 

125 

the job learning. Workers who have mastered the skills teach those willing to 

learn. A frontline workforce center can develop effective training to help those 

mentors communicate more effectively. Similarly, very experienced technical experts may be ready and willing to become technical trainers. An intensive train 

the trainer program can give those works the skills to come into the classroom 

ready to help working adults learn. 

• Broadening the reach of transit recruitment. By maintaining strong ties to Career Technical Education programs, programs like Job Corps, Tradeswomen 

networks and community-based training providers, a national frontline workforce training center can help the transit industry reach well-qualified candidates for jobs who might not otherwise be considered. 

• Creating and sustaining cross site interaction of frontline subject matter experts, especially for developing strong training materials. Working with multiple agencies and unions, a frontline workforce center can create and update 

excellent, classroom-ready training materials in a range of technical areas. 

• Documenting the return on investment for good training. Like most employers, 

transit managers tend to see training as a cost. It’s really an investment that 

can pay for itself many times over. A well-resourced frontline workforce center 

can do the needed legwork and analysis to make this case. 

• Sharing current best practices in training. Surprisingly, there is too little of this 

in transit now. Part of the problem grows from the fact that most cross-site 

sharing in the industry occurs among senior managers and doesn’t involve 

frontline workers. By creating and funding a center that functions like NTI but 

with a focus on frontline workers, that dynamic starts to change. TCRP in a 

two-volume study released in 2018 (Guide To Developing Best Practices and 

Sharing Resources for Transit Technical Training) documented the lack of sustainable work in developing and sharing best practices. On a level of small but 

crucial detail, this two-volume study noted the lack of an institution capable of 

maintaining and curating good training material on a shared internet platform. 

That finding alone provides an adequate case for the creation of a frontline 

workforce center. 

In summary, I oppose the idea of a mandated training set-aside, and I favor increasing from 0.5 to 5 percent the funds that can be used flexibly from capital funds 

to support workforce development. I propose that Congress insist that FTA include 

both data collection and direct accountability from agencies on workforce needs as 

part of its ongoing oversight and monitoring of transit agencies. That oversight will 

ensure that needed training occurs regularly. Finally, I urge an authorization and 

appropriation for a resource center for the frontline workforce funded at a level 

equal to the National Transit Institute. 

In my original testimony and in response to these questions, I have made specific 

reference to studies published by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) 

and to one specific study the Transportation Learning Center did on behalf of the 

Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights Education Fund. I am including 

here the Transportation Learning Center paper and a few TCRP studies relevant 

to the topics covered with a brief explanation of the study. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2005. A Guidebook for 

Developing and Sharing Transit Bus Maintenance Practices. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13562. 

Transportation Learning Center 2013. Pathways to Equity: Effective Transportation 

Career Partnerships. http://www.transportcenter.org/images/uploads/publications/ 

LCCHRlFINAL112013.pdf 

This report focuses on two local case profiles for transit Career Pathways: a 

Project Labor Agreement in Los Angeles providing expanded access to jobs and 

training for public transportation capital construction, and a youth Career Pathways 

partnership in Philadelphia linking career and technical education with future transit careers. Both of these models, if taken to scale in the transit industry, can have 

positive impacts, locally and nationally, for improving access to family-sustaining careers and training and for improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged 

groups—urban low-income and minority groups as well as women—who have previously been under-represented in these occupations. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2013. Building a Sustainable Workforce in the Public Transportation lndustry—A Systems Approach. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22489. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2014. Establishing a 

National Transit Industry Rail Vehicle Technician Qualification Program—Building 

126 

1There are 25 transit operators in the Bay Area, 23 of which are FTA grantees. MTC works 

with those 23 FTA grantees to identify our region’s federal transit program spending priorities. 

for Success. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/ 

10.17226/22346. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The Transportation Workforce Challenge: Recruiting, Training, and Retaining Qualified Workers 

for Transportation and Transit Agencies—Special Report 275. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10764. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. Transit Technical 

Training, Volume 1: Guide to Applying Best Practices and Sharing Resources. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25157. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Transit Technical 

Training, Volume 2: Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Implementing Best and Innovative Training. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/ 

10.17226/25158. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2002. Training for OnBoard Bus Electronics, A Synthesis ofTransit Practice. TCRP Synthesis 44. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/ 

tcrplsynl44.pdf 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR THERESE W. MCMILLAN

Federal-State-Local Partnership 

Question 1: Ms. McMillan, as Executive Director of a transportation commission 

overseeing seven million residents in nine counties, you have a unique perspective 

on the need for Federal investment in transportation and the Federal-State-local 

partnership. 

Can you describe for this Committee briefly how MTC accesses Federal dollars? 

What portions of the Federal-aid highway and transit program, do you have access 

to, and do you get the funds directly or does it flow through the State? 

ANSWER. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the San Francisco 

Bay Area’s federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO), invests 

around $180 million in surface transportation block grant program (or STP, as we 

continue to call it in our region) and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program (CMAQ) funding each year. In California, direct suballocation to 

MPOs of the population-based STP funds (23 USC 133 (d)) and CMAQ funds are 

provided for in state law. While these funds technically remain with the state department of transportation, rather than being formally transferred to the MPOs, the 

MPOs have full control over the expenditure of the funds, including establishing the 

criteria for how we distribute the funding. Because the funds are distributed at the 

metro area level, we are able to invest these funds to provide innovative regional 

solutions that span jurisdictional boundaries. Projects such as the Clipper card (our 

multioperator transit-fare payment card) or our Bay Bridge Forward initiative (an 

effort to relieve congestion and transit crowding in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay 

Bridge corridor) are harder to pay for with funds that are awarded to specific transit 

operators or to local jurisdictions for specific projects (if voter approved) or for modesiloed investments. This regional perspective also helps us prioritize funding for 

local projects that are consistent with regionwide goals, including our federal performance goals. 

MTC also works with the Bay Area’s 23 transit operators to identify our region’s 

federal transit program spending priorities.1 MTC is the designated recipient of the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 Urbanized Area, Section 3357 

State of Good Repair and Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities formula funds for our 

region’s large urbanized areas. The California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) has further authorized MTC to select projects and recommend funding allocations for our region’s small urbanized areas’ Section 5307 and 5339 funds and 

for the Section 5311 Rural Area Formula programs. MTC works cooperatively with 

our region’s transit operators, cities, counties and Caltrans to establish transit capital project priorities and to fund those priority projects. As an example, the region 

is currently experiencing a time of major reinvestment with the replacement of the 

BART car fleet. MTC, working with our regional and federal partners, developed a 

funding plan using our federal transit dollars to deliver this $2.6 billion project. 

Additionally, federal metropolitan transportation planning funds are allocated by 

the state to MTC to fund our federally mandated metropolitan transportation planning activities. 

127 

2We consider the following to be the core highway and transit programs: the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the National Highway Performance Program 

the National Highway Freight formula and discretionary programs, the Capital Investment 

Grant Program, the 5307 and 5311 Urban and Rural transit formula programs, the 5337 State 

of Good Repair Program, the 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program and the 5310 Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. While not part of the core program, 

the FAST Act structure specifically supports disaster recovery through the highway and transit 

emergency relief programs. We are encouraged that these programs may be used, to a limited 

extent, to harden infrastructure. However, resiliency improvements are only eligible post-disaster—dedicated resources are not broadly available to proactively adapt our nation’s infrastructure to a changing climate. 

Resiliency 

Question 2: Ms. McMillan, your testimony encourages us to prioritize resiliency of 

our infrastructure as we begin consideration of a new surface transportation bill. 

Do you feel that the current Federal approach under the FAST Act allows for 

prioritization of resiliency? What has the Federal government done well in encouraging resiliency, and what can we improve upon? 

ANSWER. No, the FAST Act does not provide states and regions with sufficient resources to both invest in the longstanding federal priorities of state of good repair 

and improved mobility while also adapting our transportation assets and services 

to be more resilient to extreme weather and a changing climate. The core FAST Act 

highway and transit programs are structured to support important national performance goals such as improved safety and infrastructure condition, congestion reduction, and economic vitality. While many resiliency improvements are eligible 

under the core programs, the current performance-based approach—which MTC has 

long-supported—encourages states, locals and transit agencies to prioritize investments in order to make progress toward those national goals.2 Even with a strong 

local partnership—in the Bay Area we match our FAST Act funds 9-to-1 with state 

and local dollars—adapting our infrastructure to a changing climate in addition to 

investing in the above-mentioned priorities will require significant resources that 

simply are not available at the scale of the investment authorized in the FAST Act. 

For example, MTC estimates that at the current scale of investment, the Bay Area 

would receive nearly $30 billion in federal transportation funds between 2016 and 

2040. Preliminary cost estimates for one regional adaptation priority—the 20-mile 

State Route 37 corridor that, as I referenced in my testimony, is highly vulnerable 

to complete inundation due to sea level rise—are upwards of $5 billion. 

We encourage the committee to create a new flexible program that will make our 

transportation networks resilient in the face of a changing climate. Fifty percent of 

the funding should flow via formula to metropolitan areas—our nation’s population 

and job centers—which house much of the nation’s critical at-risk infrastructure. 

Discretionary grant funding (the remaining 50 percent of the funds) should additionally support states, local governments, transit agencies and ports in efforts to upgrade freight corridors and other critical infrastructure. The discretionary component should have a 25 percent rural set-aside to ensure such communities have access to program funds. To be most effective, the program should be mode-neutral 

and have broad project eligibility so that states and regions can prioritize the road, 

bridge, bus, rail or other resiliency upgrades that are most critical to keep their 

economies moving. 

In lieu of a new program, the committee could also prioritize resiliency through 

substantially growing the existing FAST Act programs—including the Surface 

Transportation Block Grant program; the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program, 

the federal transit urban, rural and state of good repair formula programs; and the 

freight formula and discretionary programs—and revising programs like CIG so that 

transit capital investments intended primary to improve resiliency are eligible for 

grant funding. 

From a planning perspective, the FAST Act took a step in the right direction by 

expanding the scope of state and metropolitan long range plans to include resiliency. 

We would also like to see an increase in planning funds to help regions and states 

better address complexities around climate change. Increased planning funding also 

will support states and MPOs in fulfilling current performance-based planning mandates, which were added in the 2012 transportation authorization without a commensurate increase in planning resources. Importantly, we do not recommend new 

mandates with respect to resiliency planning. The current federal planning framework enables planners to innovate and determine precisely how to incorporate resiliency considerations and other uncertainties, such as those posed by transformative 

transportation technologies, into transportation planning and near-term investment 

decisions. 

128 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR AL STANLEY

Workforce Pilot Program 

Question 1: Mr. Stanley, you mention in your testimony that AGC has partnered 

with the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO on a highway construction 

worker pilot program. 

Can you provide additional details about the program and elaborate on what you 

hope will come from the pilot program? 

ANSWER. For the past two years, AGC has worked with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), AASHTO, state DOTs and the Department of Labor’s Education and Training Administration on a highway construction worker pilot program 

to identify ways to interest workers in careers in highway construction. The idea 

grew out of discussions in the AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA Joint Committee on construction industry work force needs. AGC members routinely identify worker recruitment, training and placement as a significant challenge. The Joint Committee noted 

that the cost and inefficiencies of these continuing workforce challenges compromise 

highway project delivery and efforts to provide for a safe and effective highway system. The pilot was established to address this serious and on-going workforce development issue in the highway construction industry. 

Six cities and six states were selected to examine these issues from urban—rural, 

union-non-union perspectives. In these locations the different stakeholders looked at 

available resources including training, outreach and placement programs to determine where there were gaps and how industry and the public sector could work together to fill these gaps. The coordination proved very successful. What was key was 

the realization that there was not one solution but many different approaches. The 

two-year pilot program effort ended on December 31, 2018. A ‘‘Playbook’’ was developed to identify best practices and successful strategies that AGC chapters and 

other industry groups can take to implement a program. Follow-on webinars are 

also being planned to continue the progress and highlight accomplishments. In some 

most cases coordination was the key to success. A well-attended educational session 

was held during AGCs 2019 convention to present the results and lessons learned. 

FHWA was able to make some grant funds available to support these pilots. This 

financial support was used to take good ideas and make them more widely available. For example, through this initiative AGC’s Pittsburgh area chapter (Contractors Association of Western Pennsylvania) received grant funding to make its Future Road Builders app more generally available to others in the industry with 

modifications to make it applicable to other areas. 

The pilot is now transitioning to a Highway Construction Workforce Partnership 

(HCWP) that will encourage other city and state highway industry and workforce 

system partners to work together to identify, train and place individuals into highway construction jobs. The ‘‘Playbook’’ will be used as the centerpiece for further 

outreach. FHWA has also developed a ‘‘Roads to Your Future’’ website to house all 

of the resources. 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. MARK MEADOWS FOR AL STANLEY

Question 2: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is currently considering 

reforms which would provide greater flexibility to States to use propriety or patented materials in Federal-aid highway projects. 

What is your experience with FHWA’s patented and proprietary products rule and 

what, if any, reforms would you recommend? 

ANSWER. In comments to the Federal Highway Administration (attached), AGC 

expressed contractors’ strong opposition to its proposal to eliminate or significantly 

modify the long-standing restriction prohibiting states from specifying the use of 

proprietary or patented products in federal-aid highway contracts. AGC believes 

that the existing policy has worked well over time by providing a balanced approach 

ensuring competition while creating a process for patented and proprietary products 

to be used. AGC maintains that the arguments put forth to make this drastic 

change are insufficient to justify this action. 

To date, there has been no lack of new materials, products or processes used in 

highway and transportation construction. The history of the highway program is replete with examples of new and innovative products being adopted. For example, 

significant advancements have been made in pavement technology—both in the materials and placement processes that have made pavements smoother, longer lasting 

and more skid resistant. Bridge construction techniques and the technology incorporated into these structures has made significant paradigm shifts over the years 

in how bridges are built. Many of these changes started out as proprietary products 

or processes. Materials such as composites, disc bearings for bridges, movable traffic 

barriers, high visibility signage and breakaway sign posts are all examples of good 

129 

ideas that have been adopted and brought into the mainstream. All this occurred 

with the current rule in place. 

AGC is very concerned that altering the rule will have a detrimental impact on 

competition by allowing suppliers of patented products to determine the costs that 

State DOTs pay for products rather than through the open competitive bid system. 

AGC is also concerned that altering the rule could allow suppliers of proprietary 

products to determine which company is ultimately the low bidder by deciding 

which contractors to provide quotes and at what price. AGC also believes the proposed rule change gives an advantage to product suppliers with the most aggressive 

sales force or political influence without necessarily having the best product. 

Numerous state departments of transportation weighed in on the rule both for 

and against it. AGC notes that state Departments of transportation are mixed in 

their response to this proposed change. Because of the disparity in their members 

opinions on the change, AASHTO responded to the proposed rule change by pointing 

out some of the problems with the rule change without taking a position. 

AGC’s full set of comments are attached for your information and review. 

ATTACHMENT—COMMENTS TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

JANUARY 14, 2019. 

Mr. JOHN HUYER

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590 

RE: FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2018–0036 ‘‘Construction and Maintenance—Promoting Innovation in Use of Patented and Proprietary Products’’ 

DEAR MR. HUYER: The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is a national organization 

representing more than 27,000 businesses involved in every aspect of construction 

activity in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. AGC members perform 

contracts for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state departments of 

transportation (DOTs), local agencies and other entities that receive funding 

through the Federal-aid highway program and are therefore directly impacted by 

FHWA’s policy on the Use of Patented and Proprietary Products. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the contractor’s point of view on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) ‘‘Construction and Maintenance—Promoting 

Innovation in Use of Patented and Proprietary Products.’’ AGC strongly opposes 

FHWA’s proposal to rescind or significantly modify its long standing and effective 

policy on the use of patented and proprietary products on Federal-aid highway 

projects as detailed in 23 CFR 635.41. AGC recommends that the current regulation 

not be changed and that it be retained ‘‘as is.’’ 

The arguments put forth in this NPRM to make this drastic change are insufficient to justify this action. The petitioners assert, without providing any data, that 

the rule has somehow stifled the introduction of new and innovative products. AGC 

believes that the existing policy is a balanced approach to ensuring competition 

while creating a process for patented and proprietary products to be used. 

AGC is very concerned that altering the rule will have a detrimental impact on 

competition by allowing suppliers of patented products to determine the costs that 

State DOTs pay for products rather than through the open competitive bid system. 

AGC is also concerned that altering the rule could allow suppliers of proprietary 

products to determine which company is ultimately the low bidder by deciding 

which contractors to provide quotes and at what price. AGC also believes the proposed rule change gives an advantage to product suppliers with the most aggressive 

sales force or political influence without necessarily having the best product. 

RULE HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE

For almost 70 years, the Federal-aid highway program has successfully delivered 

transportation improvement projects that are of the highest quality and at the best 

cost primarily through the competitive bidding/competitive proposal process. The 

Federal-aid Highway Act directs that the Transportation Secretary shall require 

such plans and specifications and such methods of bidding as shall be effective in 

securing competition. This system has served the nation and taxpayers well. 

The current proprietary product rule is part of the competitive bidding requirements. It is based on the concept that allowing bidders the maximum flexibility to 

select materials and/or products to meet the contract specifications will result in the 

lowest bid prices for the project. Limiting the range of possible materials/products 

130 

will result in higher bid prices. Through the competitive bid process contractors are 

incentivized to look for improvements in means, methods, equipment, materials and 

other factors that make their business operations more cost effective than their competitors. Limiting competition forproducts and processes in the bidding process will 

undermine the competitive bid system and limit the use of alternative and equally 

effective products from being used on specific projects. 

To date, there has not been a lack of new materials, products or processes used 

in highway and transportation construction. The history of the highway program is 

replete with examples of new and innovative products being adopted. For example, 

significant advancements have been made in pavement technology—both in the materials and placement processes that have made pavements smoother, longer lasting 

and more skid resistant. Bridge construction techniques and the technology incorporated into these structures has made significant paradigm shifts over the years 

in how bridges are built. Many of these changes started out as proprietary products 

or processes. Materials such as composites, disc bearings for bridges, movable traffic 

barriers, high visibility signage and breakaway sign posts are all examples of good 

ideas that have been adopted and brought into the mainstream. All this occurred 

with the current rule in place. 

While the current rule prohibits the use of proprietary products it does permit an 

exception which allows for the use of such products. In fact, proprietary products 

are used widely on Federal-aid Highway projects using exceptions permitted by the 

rule. States can use proprietary products: (1) if they are purchased through competitive bidding with equally suitable unpatented items; (2) if a State certifies either 

that such proprietary item is essential for synchronization with existing highway facilities, or that no equally suitable alternate exists; or (3) if a proprietary item is 

used for research or for a distinctive type of construction on relatively short sections 

of road for experimental purposes. 

In addition, States may specify a proprietary product by demonstrating that there 

is a public interest served by using that product. Many States have been delegated 

the authority to approve public interest findings without the direct involvement of 

FHWA. States have a common understanding of the certification required for a public interest finding and have developed streamlined implementation processes to 

allow the determinations to move forward expeditiously. 

States may also choose to use a proprietary product and not be reimbursed by 

FHWA for the cost of that product, instead paying with state dollars. 

This exception process that FHWA has adopted over the years has worked well 

and not limited the development of new materials, equipment or methods, or discouraged innovative utilization of them. New materials, equipment or methods that 

show sufficient promise may be (and have been) approved for inclusion and evaluated as appropriate pursuant to 23 CFR 635.411. Also, in accordance with 23 CFR 

635.411, State DOTs may specify a higher standard of performance (i.e., above what 

would normally be set) on certain construction projects even though it would result 

in a single product being available. The established Approved Product Lists and 

Qualified Products Lists allows DOTs to use products that are demonstrated to be 

better or have specific properties that DOTs desire. 

CASE FOR CHANGE HAS NOT BEEN MADE: 

Petitioners make the argument that the rule is a relic of the past that was adopted in 1916 and needs to be modernized. However, the longevity of the rule’s life does 

not necessarily undermine its reasonableness and effectiveness. As FHWA points 

out in the NPRM, ‘‘Over the years, the regulation was clarified through various policy and guidance memoranda, and subsequent Federal Register Notices, including 

25 FR 4162 published on May 11, 1960.’’ Most recently, FHWA looked at its rule 

and issued new guidance for the use of patented and proprietary products in 2006 

and again in 2011 to further clarify the steps that DOTs can take to use these products. 

AGC maintains that these requirements have not stifled innovation in products, 

equipment, processes or methods. The rule provides a good balance that allows new 

products and processes to be adopted while at the same time protecting the competitive bidding process, eliminating undue influence over state specification writers 

and providing the most cost-effective delivery of the final transportation construction project. 

Petitioners also argue that the existing rule prevents safer and innovative products from being used. It then goes on to cite a list of products that are currently 

being widely used in highway construction applications. As their own list shows, 

safer and innovative products have been approved and are being used under the 

current rule. While the time line for adoption may not provide manufacturers with 

131 

the return on investment as quickly as desired it nevertheless ensures that new 

products and processes receive the scrutiny and testing necessary to determine how 

effective they will be long term. AGC recognizes that there needs to be an opportunity for new products/processes to come into the marketplace. While petitioners 

claim that the current rule stifles this from happening, AGC maintains that the existing process for adopting new materials and processes has been effective. 

PROBLEMS WITH SUCH A RADICAL CHANGE: 

AGC believes the negatives far outweigh the positives associated with eliminating 

the current rule, which has proven efficient, effective and flexible over the years. 

We outline below a host of problems that can come from such a radical change. 

PROBLEM: Suppliers of patented products will determine the costs that State DOTs 

will pay for products rather than through the open competitive bid system 

Requiring use of proprietary and/or patented products will increase costs to State 

DOTs. Just as prescription drug producers have exponentially increased the costs 

of name-brand medicines over generics, so too would suppliers of their name-brand 

products specified in Federal-aid highway contracts. While generic drugs have the 

same chemical makeups, side-effects, and results as the namebrand drugs, they do 

not have the advertising and sales force budgets the name-brands may have. As a 

result, patients bear the cost for the marketing of the name-brand when prescribed 

but would otherwise receive the same medical benefit from generic drugs at a fraction of the cost. The Federal-aid highway program would very likely experience a 

similar to the name-brand drug impact if this radical change is adopted. 

In addition, once a proprietary product is included in state construction specifications they often remain there for years. Since contractors are not able to use an alternative product that has similar characteristics there is no competition for those 

products or processes and they stifle efforts by other manufacturers to develop a 

similar and potentially mproved product. In this way there is no competition on 

price and manufacturers can charge what they please. When comparable products 

can be used, prices remain competitive and innovation is increased due to competition with the proprietary product. 

Suppliers are naturally advocates for their products. Suppliers believe them to be 

the best available and have a strong monetary incentive to get their product specified. The sales force for product suppliers can be very persuasive in convincing state 

officials responsible for project design to include their product in the specifications. 

This can create the circumstances for undue pressure on state officials to adopt the 

proprietary product. 

PROBLEM: Eliminating the general prohibition on the use of proprietary products 

can lead to manipulation in the bidding process. 

As noted above, if this radical change is adopted, a significant shift in the marketplace could occur where suppliers would be able to dictate not only price, but competition within the bidding process. How this would occur is explained below: 

PROBLEM: Federal-aid highway contractors may not have equal access to specified 

proprietary products 

Suppliers can require that contractors sign exclusivity contracts, be licensed by 

the supplier or pay royalty fees to the supplier to be able to purchase or use their 

proprietary products. Such arrangements would enable one or a limited pool of contractors access to the supplier’s proprietary product. As a result, a small and limited 

number of contractors—where such a product is specified in a Federal-aid highway 

contract—would be able to bid on the contract. This would restrict competition and 

increase costs to State DOTs. 

PROBLEM: Supplier quotes on proprietary products may not be competitive for all 

bidders 

Suppliers do not necessarily provide the same price quote for their products equally to all potential purchasers. For a variety of reasons suppliers may choose to favor 

one contractor over another by providing better pricing. In doing so, some contractors may be priced out of the market, particularly if the proprietary product is a 

significant part of the overall contract value and the price quoted is significantly 

higher than the price quoted to another contractor. When the product is proprietary 

the contractor has no other source to get a more competitive quote. In this way the 

product supplier can become the determining factor in which contractor is the low 

bidder rather than the competitive bid system. 

132 

PROBLEM: The proprietary product may not be available in the quantities needed 

When new products come to the marketplace the necessary manufacturing infrastructure is not always in place to provide the product in the quantities needed to 

meet market demand. This can be a significant problem when demand for the product increases substantially because a product manufacturer convinces a major client, 

like a state DOT, to use their product exclusively. This can have a negative impact 

on completion time for transportation projects and increase the cost. 

PROBLEM: The proprietary product may not stand up to the test of time 

There needs to be some assurance for states and contractors that new and proprietary products have been field tested and are judged to be of an acceptable quality 

and longevity and that they have some value added to the transportation system. 

This happens best through the existing process rather than subjecting public officials to the influence of product sales people behind closed doors. 

The state certification process should be open and transparent and based on the 

documented analysis and professional judgment of qualified state transportation officials that the patented or proprietary item will contribute to the accomplishment 

of one or more of the goals set forth in the state’s strategic highway improvement 

plan. 

PROBLEM: Liability for the use of proprietary products in specifications is uncertain 

If or when a specified proprietary product fails, what entity is liable for that failure may be unclear. Assuming the contractor incorporates the proprietary product 

into the project properly, subject to industry standards and the manufacturer’s specifications, it is unlikely that the contractor would be liable. The issue would be if 

the State DOT fails to properly test and examine the product—as is done under the 

current process and rule. The State DOT could be subject to gross negligence if it 

does not undertake the same rigorous process for vetting such products use as a 

matter of public safety. In addition, determining who is at fault can lead to disputes 

and possibly litigation. 

OPTION ONE NOT ACCEPTABLE

FHWA also proposes an alternative option in the NPRM that would be short of 

total repeal. Option one suggests allowing states to specify proprietary products but 

require each state DOT to: (1) Implement procedures and specifications that provide 

for fair, open, and transparent competition awarded only by contract to the lowest 

responsive bid. It is unclear how this option would improve the existing process for 

allowing states to specify proprietary products. AGC believes this option muddles 

the existing successful process. Under this option, instead of having one well tested 

and proven process used by all states to justify the use of a proprietary product, 

each state would instead set up its own process and FHWA would have to make 

a state-by-state determination as to whether these new, undefined standards are 

being met. This creates confusion and uncertainty nationwide for manufacturers 

and contractors. AGC believes that this option should also be rejected. 

CONCLUSION: 

Competition requirements in the Federal-aid highway program have served 

states, material suppliers, product manufacturers, contractors and, most importantly, taxpayers well over the years and should remain an important factor in the 

program moving forward. AGC believes that the current regulation on patented and 

proprietary products as implemented provides a good balance allowing new products 

to be utilized while maintaining strong support for competition in the delivery of 

construction projects. 

AGC strongly encourages FHWA to leave the current rule in place. 

Sincerely, 

BRIAN DEERY

Senior Director, Highway and Transportation Division, The Associated General 

Contractors of America 

QUESTIONS FROM HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO FOR MIKE TERRY

Account Based Fare System 

Question 1: Mr. Terry, your testimony talks about IndyGo’s efforts to build an account based fare system allowing for seamless connections to other modes. 

How much is that costing IndyGo to set up an account based fare system? 

ANSWER. Flowbird’s contract to modernize our fare system is $4.3 million. The 

new system will allow our users to utilize mobile devices and allows IndyGo to implement daily and weekly fare capping, which will improve our customer experience. 

133 

This amount includes capital investments that are necessary to modernize our system, such as ticket vending machines. Based on the improved customer experience, 

including fare capping, IndyGo considers the modernized fare system a wise investment. 

Question 2: Can you elaborate on the impact this will have on riders, congestion, 

and reduced emissions? 

ANSWER. Ease of ticketing, purchase, transfers, and cost of frequent riding are all 

variables that impact ridership. Introducing fare capping allows current and future 

riders to pay the best value for their trip-nature, and IndyGo anticipates this will 

increase ridership (both new riders and more frequent). Additionally, the accountbased system allows more seamless partnerships with other agencies, organizations, 

universities, social services, large employers, and schools: All improving rider experience, building a generation of future riders, reducing single occupancy vehicle 

(SOV) miles driven, and allowing an integration with other mobility means. 

Broadly incorporating enhancements to the fare collection system throughout the 

IndyGo service area will allow IndyGo to reduce cash collection on-board, offering 

air quality benefits that are twofold: direct and indirect. Direct air quality benefits 

are achieved through shorter dwell times which reduces fuel consumption on diesel 

buses, and thus reduced emissions from IndyGo vehicles. Indirect air quality benefits will be achieved through attracting new ridership to IndyGo’s local routes, thus 

reducing (SOV) trips and associated emissions. 

Electric Buses 

Question 3: Mr. Terry, your testimony mentions IndyGo’s goal of replacing all your 

diesel buses with electric buses in the next 14 years. 

What are the obstacles to accomplishing that goal? 

ANSWER. New technology comes with stops and start. Electric vehicles provide an 

overall reduction in operating costs over the lifetime of the vehicle, but the upfront 

costs can be an obstacle. When we began planning to replace our diesel vehicles 

with electric vehicles, the two initial concerns were the upfront capital costs of the 

vehicles and the cost of the charging infrastructure. The commitment of Indianapolis residents to the Marion County Transit Plan allows us to implement the vision 

for an all-electric fleet. However, reductions in funding commitments from our local, 

state, or federal sources would be a potential obstacle. 

Beyond capital needs, the other obstacles we face include training our fleet maintenance staff to work on all-electric vehicles, including special training to be safe 

around high-voltage equipment. Additionally, we are working closely with vendors 

to address concerns or issues that may arise (range, heating/cooling). Balancing and 

transitioning vehicle maintenance personnel with diesel training and experience to 

a workforce of trained and experienced high voltage technicians to maintain vehicles 

in a state of good repair and performance will be challenging. In the full employment market that we are currently experiencing in our region, recruiting, training 

and retaining experienced and qualified employees will continue to be a barrier to 

our operation. 

A final challenge is the length of time between ordering a vehicle and placing that 

vehicle in revenue service—an 18-month delay. While IndyGo and other transit 

agencies plan for this reality, an increase in orders for electric vehicle manufacturers may create backlogs, further delaying the vehicles. 

IndyGo is committed to reducing the negative impact on the environment from 

diesel engines and the use of fossil fuels by transitioning to a fully electric fleet. 

Question 4: How much capital will these bus purchases require and do you anticipate the current Federal No/Low bus program will be able to fund your request and 

every other agency trying to achieve a similar goal? 

ANSWER. Each 40-foot electric vehicle costs approximately $850,000. IndyGo’s fleet 

replacement schedule is one-twelfth of the fleet per year. With 160 vehicles, IndyGo 

anticipates purchasing approximately 12 vehicles a year, at a total expense of $10.2 

million. IndyGo funds vehicle purchases from a combination of sources: FTA Section 

5307 formula grants; FTA Section 5339 competitive grant funding, Surface Transportation Block Grant funding through the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and local sources, including bonds. 

Low/No funding is a vital program for transit agencies to shift their fleets to hybrid orelectric vehicles. However, even fully funded, the program is not adequate to 

meet the needs of the nation’s transit providers. As evidence, the FY2018 Low/No 

program received 149 proposals from 42 states requesting $557 million in Federal 

funds; but only $85 million was available to award. As additional manufacturers 

recognize the ethical and business sense of electric vehicles and transit agencies beVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:15 May 20, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\116\HT\3-13-2~1\35675.TXT JEAN
134 

come more comfortable with electric vehicles in their fleet, we can only assume that 

this demand will increase. 

Question 5: As your electric vehicle fleet increases, will your charging needs require higher capacity electrical infrastructure and who pays for that infrastructure? 

ANSWER. With the purchase of battery electric buses for the rapid transit line, we 

increased our electrical infrastructure on site. This was partially funded through a 

competitive FTA State of Good Repair grant award. Moving forward, we will continue to seek federal assistance to support necessary infrastructure additions to 

meet our goal of electrification. We will also engage local public, private, and philanthropic partners in meeting electric needs. 

Question 6: As your electric vehicle fleet increases, could IndyGo benefit from 

technical assistance to help determine how to restructure routes to optimize them 

for electric buses and their charging needs? 

ANSWER. As electric vehicle technology for transit buses accelerates, we believe 

that the range and reliability will improve, limiting the need to assign or design 

around electric vehicles. Having resources available to support transit system planning would be helpful and especially beneficial learning from subject matter experts 

in electric vehicle technology and network design. With the variety of range capabilities for electric vehicles, battery and charging options, and transit network topography, climate and operational plans, utilizing technical expertise and experience 

would be very helpful. 

Æ