U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

28–114 PDF 2018

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 

AMERICA: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT STAKEHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVES 

(115–28) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 11, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

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

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

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 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania, Vice Chair 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

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

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

WITNESSES 

Patrick K. McKenna, Director, Missouri Department of Transportation, on 

behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Response to request for information from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington ....................................... 65 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the record submitted by Hon. 

Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio ............ 66 

James Roberts, President and CEO, Granite Construction, Inc., on behalf 

of the Transportation Construction Coalition: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Response to request for information from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington ....................................... 90 

Brent Booker, Secretary-Treasurer, North America’s Building Trades Unions: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Ray McCarty, President and Chief Executive Officer, Associated Industries 

of Missouri, on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the record submitted by Hon. 

Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio ............ 107 

Peter M. Rogoff, Chief Executive Officer, Sound Transit 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, submission of the following: 

Letter of September 14, 2017, from Brad Diede, Executive Director, 

American Council of Engineering Companies California, et al., to Hon. 

Kevin McCarthy, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .............................................................................................................. 38 

Letter of September 15, 2017, from the Transportation Construction Coalition, to Hon. Kevin McCarthy, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California .................................................................................. 40 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Prepared statement from the American Council of Engineering Companies ..... 117 

Prepared statement from the American Public Transportation Association ...... 123 

Prepared statement from Debra Lee Ricker, Chair, Board of Directors, the 

American Traffic Safety Services Association .................................................... 128 

Prepared statement from Brian P. McGuire, President and CEO, Associated 

Equipment Distributors ....................................................................................... 131 

Prepared statement from the National Parks Conservation Association ........... 132 

Prepared statement from the North American Concrete Alliance ...................... 134 

Prepared statement from the Professional Engineers in California Government ...................................................................................................................... 136 

Page

VI 

Prepared statement from the Safety Spectrum Coalition .................................... 139 

Report of the Tri-State Development Summit Transportation Task Force, 

‘‘Support Sufficient User Fees to Meet Federal Transportation Investment’’ . 143 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 28114.001

jlilill,.bustrr 

QCIJ~ltrm,ln 

M"'tlwwM. Sturges 

StaffDtrector 

i/I:ommittee on t!tramiportation anl.l lhdra~tructure 

~.~. ~ou~e of 3Repre~entatibes 

Wa~IJingtou Jai/I: 20515 

October 6, 2017 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: 

FROM: 

Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

~etet m. 11Br.ffa?itJ 

ll\anktnn ;flllttnbrr 

Katherine W. Dedrick 

Democratic SmffDirector 

RE: Subcommittee on "Building a 21" Infrastructure for America: 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 

at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building to receive testimony related to "Building a 

21" Century Infrastructure for America: Highways and Transit Stakeholders' Perspectives". The 

purpose of this hearing is to receive the views of highways and transit stakeholders regarding 

infrastructure in the 21" Century. The Subcommittee will hear testimony from representatives of 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Transportation 

Construction Coalition, North America's Building Trades Unions, National Association of 

Manufacturers, and Sound Transit. 

BACKGROUND 

The Importance of Transportation Infrastructure 

Transportation infrastructure provides a strong physical platform that facilitates economic 

growth, ensures global competitiveness, creates American jobs, and supports national security. It 

affords Americans a good quality of life by enabling them travel to and from work, to conduct 

business, and to visit family and friends. 

Our Nation's transportation infrastructure is the backbone of the U.S. economy. In 2015, 

all modes of transportation moved an estimated 18.1 billion tons of goods worth about $19.2 

trillion (in 2012 dollars) on our Nation's transportation network. On a daily basis, 49 million 

tons of goods valued at more than $53 billion are shipped throughout the country on all 
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 28114.002

transportation modes. 1 In addition, nearly l3 million Americans, approximately nine percent of 

the U.S. workforce, are directly employed by transportation related industries.Z 

The surface transportation components of this broader system play an integral part in the 

movement of people and goods. Specifically, highways carried more than three trillion vehicle 

miles (including cars, trucks, motorcycles, and buses) and public transportation carried over 32.6 

billion passenger miles in 2014.3 Ofthc total freight moved on our Nation's transportation 

network, trucks moved more than 11.5 billion tons, valued at over $13.2 trillion. 4 

Congestion is a growing challenge across the United States, affecting both freight 

shippers and commuters. According to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute's 2015 Urban 

Mobility Report, the national cost of congestion was $160 billion. This amounts to 

approximately $438 million per day. Congestion also wasted 3.1 billion gallons of gasoline and 

congestion also resulted in an extra 6.9 billion hours of travel time. In 2014, the average 

commuter spent an extra 42 hours stuck in traffic. 5 

Recent Surface Transportation Reauthorizations 

On July 6, 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 2 1-'1 Century Act (MAP-21) (P .L. 

112-141) was enacted and reauthorized federal surface transportation programs through 

September 30, 2014. While great progress was made in making significant programmatic and 

policy reforms to federal surface transportation programs, the reauthorization was limited to two 

years in length. · 

After five MAP-21 extensions, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST 

Act) (P.L. 114-94) was enacted on December 4, 2015, and is the first long-term surface 

transportation reauthorization bill in a decade. The FAST Act reauthorizes federal surface 

transportation programs through fiscal year 2020. The FAST Act improves our Nation's 

infrastructure, reforms federal surface transportation programs, refocuses those programs on 

addressing national priorities, and encourages innovation to make the surface transportation 

system safer and more efficient. The FAST Act provides non-federal partners- state 

departments of transportation, public transportation agencies, and local entities, among otherswith the needed certainty to make significant investments in the Nation's surface transportation 

system. 

While the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) continues implementing the 

measurable reforms made in MAP-21 and the FAST Act, there is additional work that needs to 

be done in order to meet challenging transportation needs of the future. 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, DOT releases 30-Year Freight Projections, 

March 3, 2016. 2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics Annual Report 

2016. 

3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2017 Pocket Guide to Transportation; 

Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, Table 2-1. 4 /d 

5 Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard, August 2015. 

2 
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 28114.003

Highway Trust Fund 

The federal surface transportation programs are user-fee funded through federal excise 

taxes levied on motor fuels and on various highway-related products, such as tires and heavy 

trucks. The revenue from all of the excise taxes is deposited into the Highway Trust Fund 

(HTF). In general, the federal excise taxes on motor fuels generate the majority of the revenue 

for the HTF. These taxes have not been adjusted since 1993. According to projections by the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO), revenues in the HTF will not be able to meet its obligations 

beyond fiscal year 2020.6 CBO estimates that the current 10-year shortfall is $138 billion more 

than expected HTF revenues. 7 An additional five billion dollars is necessary to ensure that there 

is a prudent balance in the HTF, which will bring the total shortfall to $143 billion. If this 

shortfall is not addressed, DOT may need to take steps, such as rationing reimbursements to 

states, in order to maintain a prudent balance in the HTF. If states are unable to rely on 

reimbursements, then critical surface transportation projects may be delayed. 

Future Needs for Transportation Infrastructure 

Over the next 30 years, our Nation's transportation infrastructure will need to keep pace 

with anticipated increases in population and demand for freight transportation. Forecasts predict 

that America's population will grow from 319 million in 2014 to approximately 400 million in 

2051.8 The movement of freight is expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 30 years.9 

U.S. trade volume is expected to double by the year 2021, and double again by the year 2030. 10 

In terms of highway usage, vehicle miles traveled are projected to increase by nearly 20 percent 

by 2035. 11 

6 Congressional Budget Office, Spending on Infrastructure and Investment, 2017. 7 Congressional Budget Office, Projections of Highway Trust Fund Accounts- CEO's June 2017 Baseline, 2017. 8 U.S. Census Bureau, Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S Population: 2014 to 2060, 2015. 9 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, DOT Releases 30-Year Freight 

Projections, 20\6. 10 Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Forecasts of Vehicle ,Vfi/es Traveled (VMT): Spring 2016, 2016. 

11 !d. 

3 
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 28114.004

WITNESS LIST 

Mr. Patrick McKenna 

Director 

Missouri Department of Transportation 

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

Mr. James Roberts 

President and CEO 

Granite Construction 

On behalf of the Transportation Construction Coalition 

Mr. Brent Booker 

Secretary-Treasurer 

North America's Building Trades Unions 

Mr. Ray McCarty 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Associated Industries of Missouri 

On behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers 

Mr. Peter Rogoff 

Chief Executive Officer 

Sound Transit 

4 
(1) 

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT STAKEHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVES 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. We will call the subcommittee to 

order. The first thing, I would like to ask unanimous consent that 

Members who are not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with 

the subcommittee at today’s hearing so they can ask questions. 

Without objection, that is so ordered. 

I would like to welcome everybody to the hearing today. It is 

going to focus, obviously, on how we can build a 21st-century infrastructure. And the committee is holding a host of hearings to gather ideas on what Congress can do to achieve this goal. And today 

we are going to hear ideas from our highways and transit stakeholders. 

You know, gathering input from our stakeholders is essential to 

the process that we use to develop surface transportation policy. It 

was valuable in our efforts to pass the FAST Act [Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation Act], which was the first long-term highway bill in a decade, and we are going to continue to need your assistance with future legislation. 

Even with the additional resources we provided in FAST, the Nation’s surface transportation system still needs additional investments. Enacting a long-term solution for the Highway Trust Fund 

is a critical component to ensuring that we can address those needs 

long into the future. 

Since passage of the FAST Act, building consensus on a solution 

to fund surface transportation programs has been a central priority 

of mine and it has always been the main priority of the committee. 

Providing Federal funding certainty for our non-Federal partners is 

vital to planning and building infrastructure for the 21st century. 

This is a bipartisan issue and I look forward to working constructively with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as our 

stakeholders, to ensure that we are going to achieve this goal. 

2 

A modern infrastructure means a strong America, an America 

that competes globally, supports local and regional economic development, and creates jobs. 

And I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

I look forward, obviously, to the testimony. 

And with that I will turn to Ranking Member Norton for her 

opening statement. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I must say at the 

outset I very much appreciate that the subcommittee is holding 

this hearing to get input on rebuilding our highway systems. I 

think that is the right way to begin after this hiatus. And the four 

of us, in a very bipartisan way, led the Congress to pass the first 

surface transportation bill in a decade in 2015. Well, we realized 

then that we had not really begun, as important as that achievement was. 

It is not yet clear on where the Trump administration stands, or 

if it is really serious about real investments in infrastructure. I am 

pleased that they speak about infrastructure so often. 

But I think this committee is right to continue the due diligence 

that you have begun, Mr. Chairman, to highlight our investment 

needs and the critical need to actually fund them, stop talking 

about it, let’s get some money on the table. Perhaps this hearing 

can help bring our committee and subcommittee and the administration together on what all agree s urgently needed infrastructure 

work. 

We already have a bipartisan majority on this committee about 

what needs to be done, because earlier this year 250 Members of 

Congress with robust representation from both sides of the aisle 

joined Chairman Graves and I on a letter to the leadership of the 

Ways and Means Committee, urging a permanent solution—with 

an emphasis on permanent—to our Highway Trust Fund crisis. 

In this letter, we specifically urge, ‘‘Any HTF solution,’’ Highway 

Trust Fund solution, ‘‘should entail a long-term, dedicated, userbased revenue stream that can support transportation infrastructure investments.’’ This strongly bipartisan letter stands in stark 

contrast to the administration’s apparent view that an infrastructure initiative is an opportunity to begin chipping away at the Federal Government’s responsibility to be the steward of our national 

transportation network. 

Remember, ever since Eisenhower, we have recognized that this 

is a network. You can’t dice and slice it; it goes from coast to coast, 

it goes from rural to urban. That is why the responsibility is Federal. Based on what we have seen so far from the administration, 

we may get a White House proposal that contains various incentives designed to boost local, State, and Tribal dollars. Try telling 

that to the States and localities. Rural areas object to this, and 

Members and Senators representing rural areas are predictably 

strong proponents of keeping the funding streams as they are. 

So the administration seems to hint that some funding would go 

to rural areas and, for the great bulk of other areas, there would 

be limited Federal dollars. But there has been an agreement for my 

entire lifetime—Republican and Democratic administrations 

alike—that there should be Federal grants that fund the entire 

network. And I am certainly happy to work with rural areas—they 

3 

feed right into the urban area I represent—to ensure that they are 

treated fairly. When one part of the system is not treated fairly, 

we all have to jump in. 

I cannot support an infrastructure bill, of course, that is biased 

against urban areas. And I suspect that there would be a huge 

number of Members with me on that. I doubt that such a bill could 

gather a majority from either party. 

So, as an example of what a region looks like, I represent the 

District of Columbia, which is, of course, a densely populated city 

in a densely populated region. Well, you see all kinds of construction trades, building more offices, apartments, condos, amenities, 

and collaboration with the rest of the region. Maryland suburbs, 

Virginia suburbs, the Federal Government provides a transportation network for over 6 million people. 

Now, within this microcosm of our country, congestion, transportation problems, deteriorating bridges are challenges that we face 

no matter where we live. No part of the region is immune. So I 

may represent the District, but I believe I represent the entire region and, for that matter, the country when I speak of this region. 

These same challenges, the challenges I have described in this 

region, are replicated in all our major urban areas across the Nation. Maybe we should stop calling them urban areas, because the 

rural part of our region feeds straight into these roads and bridges, 

because that is where they come for the jobs, because that is where 

the jobs are. 

So, parity in a transportation bill is essential. The top 20 urban 

areas contribute 52 percent of the total GDP of our economy. American population is expected to grow by 70 million by 2045. And by 

2050, three-quarters of Americans are expected to live in 11 

megaregions. We can no more leave behind urban areas than we 

can leave behind rural areas. It is pretty hard to disassociate one 

from the other. 

Our urban areas, of course, are the economic engine of the Nation. That is why the rural areas need them. If we leave urban 

areas to fend for themselves largely, then we are ignoring our constitutional mandate to assure the free flow of commerce. Allowing 

bottlenecks to build up and traffic to grind to a halt in major population and commercial centers is backwards and would hurt urban 

and rural areas alike. 

Some of our witnesses today support the repeal of the Federal 

ban on tolling interstates. Originally enacted to protect drivers 

from double taxation, a Rasmussen survey found that just 22 percent of Americans favor polling tolls on interstate highways for infrastructure maintenance. Three times as many, or 65 percent, are 

opposed to turning the Nation’s interstate into tolling roads. 

We should think seriously about the impact on drivers if the Federal Government incentivizes Federal lanes tolled that allow drivers to avoid the congested general purpose lanes. Such schemes, 

sometimes referred to as Lexus lanes, allow those with disposable 

income to avoid congestion, yet leave the great majority of drivers 

stuck in traffic. 

Just a few miles from here in Virginia are the 495 express lanes. 

Perhaps some Members use them. These lanes use congestion pricing with no price cap to ensure traffic flow remains at least 55 

4 

miles per hour in express lanes. No traffic reduction requirement 

exists for the general purpose lanes that most people use, meaning 

any congestion benefits reside with those who can afford to pay 

more. 

In the same vein, the 495 express public-private partnership contract discourages carpooling, of all things, that directly relieves 

congestion. While HOVs [high-occupancy vehicles] are exempt from 

tolls, if HOVs exceed 24 percent of total vehicles, the Virginia Department of Transportation would have to subsidize the lost toll 

proceeds. This means that the Virginia Department of Transportation is incentivized to discourage carpooling, which is a major instrument for relieving congestion. 

Finally, this is a particularly bipartisan committee, as our recent 

transportation and infrastructure legislation shows. However, any 

adverse treatment to transit investment in an infrastructure package would surely break up this partnership. 

Perhaps we all remember when there was a bill that failed to get 

to the floor some years ago because it virtually zeroed out transit. 

Transit is critical to moving workers efficiently and minimizing 

congestion in urban areas. We need more, not less, of it. Yet the 

administration in fiscal year 2018, in its budget, continues the false 

and shortsighted myth that cutting transit funding will somehow 

solve our transportation funding woes. Their opposition to transit 

is a recipe for congestion. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses, 

and I thank you for calling this hearing today. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Ms. Norton. I now turn to 

Representative Shuster, chairman of the full committee, for his 

comments. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Graves. And thanks to all the witnesses for being here. I am looking forward to hearing from all of 

you. None of you, I think, are strangers to the committee. From 

Mr. McKenna, who is actually out there doing it day in and day 

out in Missouri, and Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Booker, your folks are 

building the infrastructure of this country. Mr. McCarty, your folks 

are using it every day. And, of course, Mr. Rogoff, your great and 

distinguished career down at DOT—it is a really fabulous panel to 

have before us. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. 

To me, building a 21st-century infrastructure is about jobs. It is 

about efficiency, moving products, moving people as efficiently, as 

low-cost as we can, ensuring that America is competitive, and making sure we pay for it. Stop kicking the can down the road so that 

my children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren are going to 

be stuck with a bill for a road that has been built in the next couple of years. 

I certainly believe that President Trump is a builder. I think this 

is certainly an area that he understands. He knows how to build 

things, he knows how to finance things. And we have been working 

closely with the administration, trying to figure out the outline, the 

principles, and we hope to see that soon coming out of the White 

House. 

But again, hearing from the stakeholders on your policy and 

funding priorities is absolutely key to all of this. 

5 

One thing, as I said, I think we all can agree on is we need to 

fix the Highway Trust Fund, making sure that there are solutions 

on the table. Fixing the trust fund will help our non-Federal partners—and if you look across the country, 29 States have dealt with 

it over the last 4 or 5 years, and I don’t believe any State legislature has been wiped out, either party, for dealing with the funding 

stream. I know my State of Pennsylvania itself, with a Republican 

Governor, Republican house and senate, dealt with their funding 

issue. 

And one of the things I think in—just following up with a little 

bit of—Ms. Norton was saying about, you know, urban, suburban, 

rural—the gas tax is a regressive tax, and rural American does pay 

more. But in the Pennsylvania experience—and I think this is true 

all over the country, I am certain it is true all over the country— 

although rural folks may pay more in their gas tax, they get back 

a lot more. You can’t build a roadway in rural America, you can’t 

build a road in my district that isn’t subsidized to the tune of 50 

to maybe 80 percent. 

So my folks are going to pay more when they fill up, because 

they use their cars more. But what they get back from the taxpayers, or the folks—the users in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, I 

think it comes back to them, and it is a balanced—balance what 

they get back. So that is something we have to keep in our minds 

as we go forward, because that will be the cry. It is regressive. 

But rural America, those folks that have to travel more to get to 

work, they benefit greatly, I believe. And my district is an example 

of that. And I think if you go to any rural district in America, you 

will see you can’t build an interstate highway through rural Pennsylvania or rural Wyoming unless the folks from the urban areas, 

their dollars are coming out there to make this country connected. 

So again, I look forward to hearing from you folks today, and I 

appreciate you spending your time and your experience with us 

here. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, and we will now turn to 

Peter DeFazio, who is the ranking member of the full committee. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this 

hearing, and thanks to the witnesses who traveled here today. 

I didn’t bring my poster, but, you know, the poster of 1956 Life 

Magazine, where the brandnew interstate in Kansas ends at the 

Oklahoma border in a farmer’s field because Oklahoma defaulted 

on their promise to build their section, until we had a national 

highway program, and they got 80 percent of it paid for by the 

Feds. 

We are talking about linking America together, a vision that 

Dwight David Eisenhower had 70 years ago, with a national transportation policy. Transportation does not end at State lines. So we 

need the Federal investment, as the chairman said—in fact, it is 

24 States, not just 21—24 States have stepped up, and they have 

increased revenues, principally with a gas tax. A couple of areas 

went with wholesale taxes, RAC taxes, but they are stepping up. 

They need a Federal partner. It is not enough that they did that. 

And yes, no one lost their election, no one was recalled. So why 

are we sitting here, jawing again today, 9 months, 10 months into 

6 

the year after the first hearing on our infrastructure needs with no 

proposals, other than a few introduced by people like myself on a 

bipartisan basis? Two of my bills for infrastructure have Freedom 

Caucus sponsors and the other has Lou Barletta on it. We can do 

this in a bipartisan way, but all we are doing is talking. That is 

all we are doing around here, is just talking while the country 

crumbles. 

I mean, seriously, let’s get to work. Actually, the Republicans 

took a very substantive step last week on transportation and infrastructure. They cut it $25 billion in their budget. So why are we 

even here, pretending? I mean if that is their priority, and they are 

going to cut it $25 billion, why are they holding a hearing to talk 

about our needs? You can’t meet our needs without investment. 

We haven’t raised the Federal gas tax since 1993, when a guy 

named Bud Shuster brought a bunch of Republicans to vote with 

the Democrats and we raised the gas tax. Twenty-four States in 

just the last couple of years have recognized the need and done it. 

And there has been no action here. We are promised $1 trillion 

downtown by the White House, and then they come out with an 

outline of $200 billion, maybe, sort of, and you know, that might 

just be PPPs [public-private partnerships]. But then the President 

says he doesn’t like PPPs. 

It is time for someone to take the lead, and this committee 

should take the lead. It is time to put proposals out and push the 

House to act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. I would like to welcome our panel. And 

first we’ve got Mr. Patrick McKenna, who is the director of the 

Missouri Department of Transportation. He is here on behalf of the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

We have also got Mr. James Roberts, who is president and chief 

executive officer at Granite Construction, and he is here on behalf 

of the Transportation and Construction Coalition. 

Mr. Brent Booker, who is secretary-treasurer of North America’s 

Building Trades Unions. 

Mr. Ray McCarty, who is the president and chief executive officer 

of the Associated Industries of Missouri, and he is here on behalf 

of the National Association of Manufacturers. 

And Mr. Peter Rogoff, who is the chief executive officer of Sound 

Transit. 

And with that, I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. 

And without objection, that is so ordered. 

And since your written testimony is going to be included in its 

entirety in the record, the committee would request that you limit 

your summary to 5 minutes. 

And, with that, I will start with Mr. McKenna. 

7 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK K. MCKENNA, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; JAMES ROBERTS, PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE 

TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION COALITION; BRENT 

BOOKER, SECRETARY-TREASURER, NORTH AMERICA’S 

BUILDING TRADES UNIONS; RAY MCCARTY, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF 

MISSOURI, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

MANUFACTURERS; AND PETER M. ROGOFF, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUND TRANSIT 

Mr. MCKENNA. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

provide the perspective of the Nation’s State departments of transportation. My name is Patrick McKenna, and I serve as director of 

the Missouri Department of Transportation. 

Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the great State of 

Missouri and AASHTO, which represents the transportation departments of all 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. 

As Members of Congress and the President consider building a 

transportation infrastructure package, please consider the following. 

The future of the Federal Highway Trust Fund must be secured 

through long-term, sustainable revenue solutions. Direct Federal 

funding is needed, instead of relying solely on incentives that encourage the use of private capital or borrowing. 

Wherever possible, traditional Federal authorities should be assigned to States to expedite and streamline project delivery. 

Priority should be given to transportation investments that secure our Nation’s future for the long term, instead of shovel-ready 

projects. 

And the existing Federal program structure, including highways, 

transit, and rail, should be utilized. This would enable investments 

to flow to every region of the country. 

The FAST Act was the first long-term funding legislation since 

2005. This allowed for funding certainty and planning. It also increased the amount of Federal funds available that can be matched 

with State dollars. Prior to the FAST Act there was Federal funding instability, and Missouri was in the difficult position of considering abandoning maintenance on 26,000 out of 34,000 miles of 

roadways. Since the passage of the FAST Act, Missouri has taken 

on more financial risk as a State, and increased our capital budget 

by $3 billion over 5 years. 

I want to thank Chairman Graves and members of this committee for your work to pass the FAST Act and to appeal for your 

continued action to create funding stability. 

The United States Department of Transportation notes in 2015 

that State and local governments provided 80 percent of funds invested in highway and bridge programs, and 74 percent of funds 

invested in transit programs. I cite these numbers because 

AASHTO and its members disagree with any notion that Federal 

transportation funding displaces or discourages State and local investment. 

8 

As my example of FAST Act funding stability shows, Missouri increased its budget alongside and as a result of Federal investment. 

The Highway Trust Fund has provided stable, reliable, and substantial highway and transit funding for decades, but this is no 

longer the case. According to the Congressional Budget Office, annual Highway Trust Fund spending is estimated to exceed receipts 

by about $16 billion by 2021. Without your action, Missouri will be 

right back in the position we were prior to the FAST Act. Missouri could see a 40-percent reduction in funds, $400 million 

less for the State. Critical maintenance and improvements will 

stop. AASHTO believes that an infrastructure package must focus 

on direct grant funding, rather than Federal financing support. The 

State DOTs continue to support a role for financing and procurement tools such as public-private partnerships. 

We also maintain that financing instruments such as subsidized 

loans, tax-exempt municipal and private activity bonds, and infrastructure banks are insufficient to meet most types of transportation investment needs. 

Any new infrastructure plan should focus on the needs of rural 

America. Rural areas remain critical to the Nation’s economic success through the production and movement of goods such as agriculture and manufacturing products. 

AASHTO believes that we can improve program delivery by assigning some authorities traditionally assumed by the Federal Government to States that wish to participate, including Federal funds 

obligation management, project agreements, and right-of-way acquisition, just to name a few. We ask Congress to consider establishing a project delivery pilot program. This program would develop innovative practices to streamline delivery and achieve a 

positive environmental outcome. 

Missouri has more than 1,000 miles of the Mississippi and Mis- souri Rivers; $12.5 billion in cargo travels up and down those waterways each year. 

We have seen firsthand how investments can pay long-term dividends. In the past 5 years, $13 million in State investment in ports 

has led to $53 million in investment from the private sector. Missouri’s cost-share program enables us to leverage contributions 

from local communities with State and Federal funds to advance 

construction priorities. Since inception, $450 million in State participation has led to the delivery of more than $1 billion of construction projects. 

We urge Congress to build on the partnership that has flourished 

between the Federal Government and State DOTs. The flexibility 

to let State and local governments select projects based on public 

input allows local partners to work together to meet the unique 

needs of both urban and rural areas. 

Please take the necessary steps to ensure that all modes of transportation—rail, airports, transit, and ports—have access to additional Federal resources that will keep our citizens connected and 

provide economic growth. 

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

and I am happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thanks, Mr. McKenna. 

Mr. Roberts. 

9 

Mr. ROBERTS. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, thank 

you for convening today’s hearing. My name is Jim Roberts, and I 

am the president and chief executive officer of Granite Construction, Incorporated. We are a full-service infrastructure solutions 

provider performing as a general contractor, construction management firm, and construction materials producer. Headquartered in 

Watsonville, California, Granite teams are proud to have built 

American infrastructure across our great country since 1922. 

Across America our work improves public safety, and it improves 

the efficiency of the gears of commerce. Whether representing a 

routine maintenance of Alaska or Arizona or California roadways, 

or represented by airport runway expansions, or even in the form 

of infrastructure projects of regional and national significance such 

as the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement in New York, we are part 

of the communities in which we build. 

I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the Transportation 

Construction Coalition, or TCC. The TCC is a partnership of 31 national associations and construction unions. The full TCC roster is 

included in my written testimony. 

Some 60 years after the visionary investment in our Interstate 

Highway System that still supports our economy today, the country 

once again is ready to rally behind a bold Federal infrastructure vision backed by a significant commitment to fund this vision. Taking the cue after decades of chronic Federal inaction, more than 

half of the States in our country have increased funding commitments to their transportation programs in the past few years. Now 

is the perfect time for leadership to reemerge at the Federal level. 

Mr. Chairman, let’s begin with the Highway Trust Fund, which 

has a well-known permanent revenue shortfall that impedes the 

ability of State and local governments to plan, fund, and construct 

transportation projects. While the FAST Act was passed in 2015 

and enacted last year, it is still not fully funded. If States follow 

past practices, as expected, then some will start scaling back 

planned projects as early as 2019, due to Federal funding uncertainty. 

The FAST Act reformed the highway and public transportation 

programs in a manner that emphasized meeting national goals 

while providing States additional flexibility. The policy improvement was significant, but the funding commitment has paled in 

comparison. 

We encourage Congress to allocate and leverage the investment 

of any new resources among existing programs in a way that emphasizes big-ticket outcomes such as improving our Nation’s economic competitiveness. The longer we wait to invest, the further 

we fall behind both the developed and, sadly, also the developing 

world in the safety, quality, and efficiency of our transportation, 

power, and water infrastructure. 

We strongly agree with the 253 Members of the House of Representatives who have urged the Ways and Means Committee to 

include a Highway Trust Fund revenue fix in any tax reform legislation. Stabilizing the Highway Trust Fund in tax reform would 

provide a foundation and a platform for a broad-based, transformative infrastructure package. 

10 

Increasing and indexing the Federal motor fuels tax, which has 

lost nearly 70 percent of its purchasing power since 1993, is the 

simplest and most efficient short-term fix. However, given the pace 

of both mobility and technological change, we believe that all potential funding options should be on the table to create long-term 

solutions that stabilize and reinvigorate Federal investments. Any 

Highway Trust Fund revenue construct must include permanently 

protected and dedicated revenue streams and resources sufficient 

to eliminate the shortfall and to support increased investment. 

While resources and structure are central components, so too is 

ensuring the timely delivery of projects. In my written testimony 

we suggested some practical reforms that begin with merging the 

National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act 404 

permitting processes with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

We also believe a reasonable and measured approach to citizen 

suit reform is appropriate to mitigate today’s all-too-common misuse of environmental laws. These reforms would ensure the promise of incremental infrastructure investment would be realized in 

a timely manner, and not held up in redtape. 

Our society’s decades-long underinvestment in infrastructure 

highlights and puts a human face on our very real need to improve 

America’s infrastructure. Now is the time to act, as the work and 

the investment of previous generations is beginning to crumble 

right in front of our eyes. 

We look to you, our country’s leaders, to guide and to promote 

the vision for critical overdue infrastructure investment in cities 

and in rural areas across America. Delayed maintenance and investment in transportation, water, and power systems continues to 

hamper the wellness of our country, and decrease our global competitiveness. 

It is time to address infrastructure issues that have been ignored 

for decades. As inaction exacerbates our current state of disrepair 

nationally, I urge you all to take action and to be strong leaders, 

just like your predecessors from over 60 years ago, whose visionary 

actions we are still relying on today. Now is the time for our country’s leadership to once again commit to real, long-term solutions. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting the TCC to participate in today’s discussion, and I look forward to your questions. 

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

Mr. Booker. 

Mr. BOOKER. Good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member 

Norton, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. My 

name is Brent Booker, secretary-treasurer of North America’s 

Building Trades Unions. On behalf of the nearly 2 million skilled 

craft construction professionals that I am proud to represent across 

the United States, I would like to thank you for allowing me to testify before this subcommittee. 

Building America’s infrastructure is literally what our members 

do every day. Whether it is roads and bridges, airports, waterways, 

power plants, and other energy infrastructure, municipal water 

systems, public buildings, or skyscrapers, our members apply their 

unique skill sets to building infrastructure in every corner of our 

great Nation. 

11 

For many of our members, the strength of the construction industry and the strength of their job opportunities is directly tied 

to the strength of public policy and advancing the building of public 

infrastructure. As such, I would like to thank the leadership of this 

subcommittee in helping move the most recent highway bill, the 

FAST Act. 

Highway bills are the single largest job-creating piece of legislation affecting our members, and they provide certainty to our members that opportunities will be available for years to come. While 

the FAST Act made important strides in improving our Nation’s 

surface transportation, I believe no one can argue that more can 

and must be done to further repair our Nation’s infrastructure. 

North America’s Building Trades Unions believes a big, broad, 

bold infrastructure plan is a necessary step our country must take 

in order to solidify economic opportunities for workers and businesses across the United States. The question before this subcommittee and the Congress, as a whole, is what should a plan include. 

For our members, a big infrastructure plan would reflect the 

overall investment level consistently reiterated by President Trump 

of $1 trillion. We believe such an investment will not only allow us 

as a Nation to meet many of our pressing infrastructure needs, but 

will lay the foundation for sustained economic growth in communities large and small. 

In spurring this economic growth, a plan of this magnitude 

should—and I say must—increase the standard of living for Americans across the Nation. In order to do so, the immense buying 

power of the Federal Government must not be used as leverage to 

depress wages in local communities, especially construction wages, 

which, adjusted for inflation, have actually been in decline since 

the late 1970s. 

Therefore, North America’s Building Trades Unions’ members remain insistent that such a plan include the prevailing wage standards enshrined in the Davis-Bacon and related acts that our members have fought for over the course of generations. 

For our members, a broad infrastructure plan will encompass not 

only surface transportation infrastructure, but all modes of infrastructure, such as schools, municipal water systems, aviation, rail, 

waterways, broadband, and our energy infrastructure through new, 

modern power generation facilities, grid upgrades, and investments 

in energy transportation and distribution. 

To address the wide variety of infrastructure needs effectively, 

we must address them efficiently. In order to do so, we believe it 

prudent to address our challenges through currently existing programs. Efficiencies should not breed duplicative programs designed 

to achieve the same goal. However, Federal programs should be 

created to meet infrastructure needs that do not have existing public mechanisms to deliver projects. 

For our members, a bold infrastructure plan is one that tackles 

the tough challenges and lays out a vision for a brighter future. I 

would argue, and I am sure most if not all of the members of the 

panel and the subcommittee would agree, that there is no greater 

challenge facing surface transportation than the long-term solvency 

of the Highway Trust Fund. We support a variety of measures to 

12 

fix the trust fund, and are open to a variety of proposals to ensure 

its solvency. We believe Congress should not squander such an important opportunity to address this issue. 

A bold infrastructure plan should also continue to tackle the 

challenge of major projects that have regional and national economic impacts. One such project is the roughly $4 billion Tappan 

Zee Bridge replacement in New York that, to date, is responsible 

for roughly 7 million hours of work, installing nearly 220 million 

pounds of U.S. steel and 300,000 cubic yards of concrete. 

What those numbers do not tell you is that projects such as 

these—and, in fact, all public infrastructure projects—are critical 

to ensuring a consistent pipeline of skills training that North 

America’s Building Trades Unions, in conjunction with our industry partners, provide through our privately funded registered apprenticeship programs. 

Spread out over our 1,600 formal joint labor management training centers across the country, as well as over 120 apprenticeship 

readiness programs, our unions and our contractor partners invest 

roughly $1.2 billion of our own capital into training our current 

and future members. Industry and labor, as well as community 

partners like the National Urban League and YouthBuild, are 

working in partnership to meet the workforce challenges presented 

by a large investment in infrastructure. 

Former President Ronald Reagan once said—and I quote—‘‘The 

bridges and highways we fail to repair today will have to be rebuilt 

tomorrow at many times the cost.’’ He went on to say that rebuilding our infrastructure is simple common sense, and that it represents an investment in tomorrow that we must make today. 

President Reagan was correct in his assessment over 30 years 

ago. Unfortunately, his words are just as prominent today, due to 

continued inaction when it comes to substantive investment in our 

infrastructure. Continued inaction will only exacerbate our challenges and place unneeded negative pressures on the American 

economy. 

It is time once again for the infrastructure of the United States 

to be the envy of the world. The men and women of North America’s Building Trades Unions are ready, willing, and able, and anxious to build it right and build it now, so that the rebuilding of 

America begins as soon and as best as possible. Thank you. 

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

Mr. McCarty. 

Mr. MCCARTY. Good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on such an important topic to Missourians and 

manufacturers across the Nation. 

My name is Ray McCarty. I am president and CEO of Associated 

Industries of Missouri. We are Missouri’s oldest business association, and our mission is to promote a favorable business climate for 

manufacturing and industry in Missouri. 

AIM is also the home of the Missouri Transportation and Development Council, which had its roots as the Good Roads Federation, 

which was formed, interestingly enough, by a guy named Harry B. 

Hawes who went on to be elected to Congress and then to the U.S. 

Senate. And he—we did pass that. That was to get Missouri out 

13 

of the mud and build the first hard roads in Missouri, a very bold 

proposition for the early 1920s. But it is interesting that he also 

sponsored the bill that formed the Missouri Department of Transportation. 

We believe the transportation system in Missouri and across the 

Nation demands continuing care and attention, because it is vital 

to the State’s economic welfare and quality of life. 

AIM is also the official State partner of the NAM, or the National Association of Manufacturers, in Missouri. The NAM is the 

Nation’s largest industrial trade association and the unified voice 

for more than 12 million men and women who make things in 

America. Manufacturers appreciate your focus on building a 21stcentury infrastructure system because modern transportation and 

infrastructure systems are necessary to support modern manufacturing. 

We applaud your bipartisan work in 2015 to successfully reauthorize surface transportation programs for 5 years in the FAST 

Act. In October of 2016, the NAM released its infrastructure blueprint, ‘‘Building to Win,’’ and urged bipartisan action to revolutionize the infrastructure that makes the American Dream possible. 

For too long our Nation has relied on the transportation, water, 

and energy infrastructure that we inherited from previous generations, as other speakers have alluded to, weakening our economy, 

threatening our communities, and putting the safety of our families 

at risk. 

For example, in Missouri we rely on Interstate 70, the first highway to be built in the interstate system in 1956, along with several 

in other States. Interstate 70, along with Interstates 44 and 55, 

provide a critical conduit for raw materials and manufactured 

goods for manufacturers across the Nation because of Missouri’s location in the heart of America. 

As Ranking Member Norton suggested, congestion is a big problem. Already, traffic is increasing the cost of moving freight on our 

Nation’s highways by $63.4 billion per year. That is the equivalent—picture this—of 362,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle 

for an entire work year. 

As modern manufacturing evolves and becomes even more productive, manufacturers rely on complex supply chains and just-intime principles, where parts are ordered, made, and delivered, 

sometimes within hours. One large manufacturing company in Missouri recently lost an afternoon shift of production due to an accident on I–70 that closed that highway for just a couple of hours. 

The cost to that manufacturer was more than $1 million. Such 

delays can be devastating, especially for smaller manufacturers. 

Manufacturers also rely on transit to help get our employees to 

work. And if you think transit is limited to the urban areas, you 

must think again, because we have organizations like OATS in 

Missouri that provide vital services to rural Americans. 

There is no excuse for delay. Manufacturers believe the Nation 

must undertake an infrastructure effort that seeks to modernize 

our aging systems, and makes a long-term public commitment to 

infrastructure. Manufacturers believe Federal leadership and funding are needed to address bottlenecks in both rural and metropoliVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:28 Jan 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\10-11-~1\28114.TXT JEAN
14 

tan areas that will improve the systemwide movement of freight 

throughout this country. 

Addressing the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund 

should be a pillar of a 21st-century infrastructure proposal. The 

NAM urges Congress to shore up the fund with a reliable, userbased, long-term funding stream. 

In 2015, the average cost of congestion cost per truck vehicle mile traveled was $.23. That was up 25 percent of what it was in 

2014. This is really a hidden tax, but it is not a tax that we can 

invest, it is just being wasted. It is being wasted on idle labor 

hours and unnecessary vehicle wear and tear, instead of being invested in the Highway Trust Fund to help build a 21st-century infrastructure system to improve America’s economic competitiveness. 

Manufacturers need Federal policymakers to preserve and grow 

the funding and financing tools for States and localities. Tax-exempt municipal bonds should be protected as policymakers consider 

ways to expand the funding and financing toolbox with public-private partnerships and leveraging opportunities. 

Also, good governance improvements to better deliver 21st-century infrastructure such as expedited environmental reviews are 

critical to the success of any effort. 

For decades, this committee has modeled bipartisan governance 

that puts solutions and progress before politics. That bipartisan 

leadership is needed now, more than ever, to deliver a pro-manufacturing infrastructure package that will include a vision for modern 21st-century infrastructure. This is the right opportunity to address neglected projects that make a systemwide difference, and 

improve manufacturers’ supply chains, as well as develop long-term 

solutions to chronic funding issues in infrastructure programs such 

as the Highway Trust Fund. 

And I will be happy to answer questions. 

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

Mr. Rogoff. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member 

Norton, Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member DeFazio. While 

I have appeared before this subcommittee in the past in other 

roles, I am particularly pleased to join you today to bring the perspective from one of the Nation’s fastest growing regions. 

In his first address before Congress, President Trump declared— 

and I quote—‘‘Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new 

roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, and railways gleaming across our 

very, very beautiful land.’’ And we at Sound Transit, like rail transit agencies across the Nation, are prepared to deliver on the President’s vision for gleaming railways. 

While we are encouraged by the President’s goals for infrastructure, we have been deeply disappointed by budget proposals from 

his administration that appear to undermine those goals. 

At the same time, administration officials have made other statements regarding the infrastructure initiative that we can applaud 

and endorse, including the value of overmatching Federal funds, 

the value of an expanded TIFIA [Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act] program, and the importance of training 

a skilled workforce. 

15 

It is clear that this committee will be key to driving this effort. 

And, as such, I would offer the following recommendations. 

First, I would echo what the other witnesses have already said 

in arguing that funding in a new infrastructure initiative must not 

substitute for base-level funding authorized through the FAST Act 

and provided in annual appropriations acts. This is critical for rail 

transit agencies who must expand to meet population growth. 

Under the administration’s budget request for 2018, the funding 

levels sought for major new transit expansions is effectively zero, 

ignoring the authorizations you put in the FAST Act. 

At Sound Transit we have been working with the FTA [U.S. Federal Transit Administration] for years to secure grant agreements 

for two extensions of our light rail spine, one running north from 

Seattle to the city of Lynnwood, the other running south to the city 

of Federal Way. We are joined by many similar projects around the 

country that seek to meet expanded demand with a strong, reliable 

Federal partner. 

Regrettably, the administration’s proposal to terminate that partnership attempts to rekindle a decades-old ideological debate over 

the value of transit projects to our national mobility. Smartly, 

States and municipalities across the political spectrum have long 

since moved beyond that old ideological debate. We were all together heartened to see bipartisan and bicameral congressional 

support for rejecting the administration’s proposed funding cuts for 

transit expansions for fiscal year 2017 and are hopeful for a similar 

outcome this year. 

Second, any new infrastructure plan must include transit expansion funding in major metro areas. The most recent census tells us 

that our population and economy will be increasingly urban. I 

won’t repeat the data that Ms. Norton cited in terms of the 70 million more Americans that will be overwhelmingly located in urban 

areas, but in the Puget Sound region congestion has nearly doubled 

in just the last 5 years. And we are expecting 1 million more citizens by 2040. Without new mobility options, this growth threatens 

to choke off our own continued prosperity. 

Our major urban megaregions will increasingly serve as an economic engine. And I would use the example of Amazon’s recent announcement that, while continuing to expand in Seattle, they are 

looking to open a second national headquarters. It is not an accident that Amazon is insisting that all cities bidding on their second 

headquarters provide detailed data on the availability of direct access to rail transit services. It is one of just four identified site requirements in their RFP. These are the infrastructure requirements for a 21st-century economy. 

Third, we do believe the administration may be on the right 

track in highlighting the importance of States and localities providing robust matching funds to access new Federal dollars above 

the base level of funding. The Federal share of Sound Transit’s 

voter-approved capital plan is just 16 percent, and we have already 

taken two major light-rail expansion projects with zero FTA capital 

investment grant dollars. The taxpayers of Washington State have 

demonstrated remarkable levels of self-help to meet their surface 

transportation needs. The ballot measure that we passed just this 

past November called on the median voter to increase their own 

16 

taxes by $169 a year to expand our mass transit network. The 

same legislation that let us go to the voters also increased the 

State’s gas tax by 11.9 cents, bringing us to the second-highest gas 

tax in the Nation. 

The point is we are doing a remarkable level of self-help to meet 

our surface transportation needs. Any Federal infrastructure policy 

should reward this level of local effort, not penalize it, as is proposed in the administration’s proposed budget. 

Lastly, I would just say that we are very supportive of efforts to 

streamline the Federal environmental process. Transit projects are 

inherently environmentally beneficial, but these efforts must be 

done with great respect for the core environmental protections in 

Federal law. 

In the Pacific Northwest, the economic health of the region and 

our quality of life go hand in hand with the protection of our environment. Streamlining the environmental review process should 

not mean short-circuiting the process. Federal agencies will do us 

no favor if hastily produced environmental documents give project 

opponents an opening to delay our projects in the courts. 

And, in that regard, we need to remember that litigants in this 

space often don’t care one whit for the environment. Instead, they 

try to use the environmental process to slow or kill a project because it is their last best chance of thwarting the will of the voters 

or reversing the plans of a State or a local government. This is not 

limited to transit projects or highway projects or water projects. It 

is the way the process works. 

So I would just summarize by encouraging this committee to take 

care as we do environmental streamlining. There is further 

progress that can be made. But please also look at the staffing levels at the agencies, the natural resources agencies and at DOT, to 

make sure there is staff on hand to produce quality environmental 

documents so our projects are not stopped in the courts. Thanks 

very much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you all. We are now going to 

recognize each Member for 5 minutes for questions, and I am going 

to start with Mr. Shuster, followed by Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman Graves. As I said in my 

opening statement, I think one of the key components that we have 

to figure out is a long-term funding stream—I know my colleague, 

Mr. DeFazio, was very passionate about that, as am I. He has come 

up with a funding plan that seems reasonable to me. There is probably, I don’t know, 10 or a dozen of them out there. 

And when you come up with a new plan, to try to educate Members of Congress on it, it is very, very difficult. I am trying to do 

that on a bill right now, an FAA bill, that—some Members that 

don’t seem to understand what I am trying to do. 

But again, when you are moving forth a funding stream, longterm, sustainable, let’s keep it simple. We have one in place now; 

we ought to be looking at that one very closely before we start 

going off on different new ideas, because it is very efficient. The 

math is pretty simple and straightforward. But I am open to everything. And that has to be a priority for me on how do we fund this 

so, as I said earlier, we don’t kick the can down the road. 

17 

But I think we also have to be thinking outside the box of ways 

to bring dollars in. Public-private partnerships are not a silver bullet. Let me say that again: public-private partnerships aren’t a silver bullet. But it is a hell of a good tool to have in the toolbag, and 

there are some new ones out there that we ought to be looking at. 

And I am going to ask the question about asset recycling. And 

some of my colleagues on the other side say you want to sell all 

our assets. If you look at the Australian model, what they did, they 

hardly sold any assets; they leased them. Leasing is far different 

than selling. Leasing is you still retain the ownership of it, you 

allow somebody to come in, turn that asset into cash over time, and 

the idea is to have a bonus payment to do that. 

And again, the Australian model—we met with Ambassador 

Hockey, now the former—or the architect of this program in Australia. And the first question of a group of Republicans was, ‘‘The 

Chinese are going to buy all our assets.’’ 

And the Australian said, ‘‘No, they didn’t. We wouldn’t let them.’’ 

Now, they are investors, but they don’t control them, they are not 

on the boards. So again, it is money. And money is around the 

world that is out there. 

There’s trillions of dollars they would love to invest in America’s 

infrastructure projects. And they are not looking for an 8- and 10- 

percent return if you are doing a 30- or 40-year deal. They are good 

with 3 and 31⁄2 percent, some of these pension funds, even our own. 

Even our own unions in this country are looking at that. I was 

talking to a building trades union the other day and they are investing their money in Canadian infrastructure. That is heresy, 

isn’t it, building trades investing in a foreign country? Now they 

are doing it because it is making money for the folks that they are 

responsible for their pensions. 

So I think asset recycling is something we ought to consider. We 

ought to look at what the Australians have done with it. And to 

all accounts, they have generated over $20 billion in just a very 

short period of time, on top of what they spend. 

So again, I would ask Mr. McKenna and Mr. Roberts and Mr. 

Booker to respond to that first, just your thoughts, if you are familiar with asset recycling, and what you think the prospects are. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. In fact, the way 

we look at this to look at these things on a project-by-project basis. 

You have to look at the benefit to the taxpayers, the cost of capital, 

and do the analysis on a complicated project to determine if advancing the construction on that particular facility is not available 

through other means, what is the benefit to the taxpayers, in terms 

of reduction in congestion, enhanced facilities—asset recycling has 

been done at a number of airports. We are looking at it in Missouri 

at a couple of airports, as well. 

And then make sure that you are playing out those costs and 

benefits. Like you said, it is a tool in the toolbox, and I think that 

is appropriate for us to have all the tools we can. This is a large 

problem we have to solve all over the country, and we need all the 

tools we can to do so. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Roberts? 

18 

Mr. ROBERTS. Just briefly, we have been involved in a few 

projects where we are actually handling the financing mechanisms 

of them. 

I would suggest that they not be considered just a short-term 

issue. We need to look at the long term also. And I think that some 

of the times, when we monetize some assets from a short-term benefit, we also pay a bigger bill in the long term. So the—what I have 

seen, both in the private sector and the public sector, long-term 

DCF models, financial models are imperative, but knowing what 

you are getting rid of before you get rid of it I think is the imperative number here. 

But privatization and the 3P [public-private partnership] program is absolutely another tool in the tool chest for all of our individual DOTs and agencies in the country. 

Mr. BOOKER. And not to be repetitive—however, I would look at 

it, you know, and lump asset recycling along with PPPs. They are 

not all created equal. And, you know, there are some really good 

public-private partnerships out there that are doing really good 

things out there. There are some that aren’t so good. 

And I think, when you look at the asset recycling program based 

on, you know, what the project is, what the long-term gain is—and, 

you are right, talking about our pension dollars, we invest our pension dollars in projects that make sense. Our first goal is to put our 

members to work. And you also have the fiducial responsibility of 

a trustee on a pension fund, to make sure you are getting returns 

that are comparative to the market. So when those things add up, 

and those things match up, we would be in support of them. 

But you would almost have to take a look at it case by case to 

see what the investment strategy is and what the standards are for 

the workers that are going to be doing that construction. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I thank you, I appreciate that answer. And 

I agree, we’ve got to look at it case by case. But there are some 

things out there that could be absolutely home runs, and some we 

walk away from. 

I know I have gone over my time, Mr. Chairman, if you would 

indulge me for one more second. 

The only reason I didn’t include Mr. Rogoff, because I knew I 

was going to run out of time. But if you could, in writing at some 

point, give us your views on it, or in 10 seconds, if you could just 

sort of give us a—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. You know, transit has the challenge of not having 

excess revenues to actually entice an investor. Colorado has done 

it through availability payments. We ourselves, being financially 

strong, are looking about whether it makes sense for us. 

I think the important point is really the one you made at the beginning. It should be a tool in the tool chest. It shouldn’t have a 

leg up on everything else. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right, absolutely. 

And just one final point, Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me. 

The State of Connecticut—I don’t know if there is any State bluer 

in the country than Connecticut. And I don’t know if Ms. Esty 

knows this—she probably is aware of it—several years ago they 

had all the roadside plazas, travel plazas on the interstate were 

owned by the State of Connecticut. 

19 

According to all reports, they were run down, service was terrible. They leased them to the Carlyle Group several years ago. The 

Carlyle Group came in, refurbished them all. They put competition 

so—you know, McDonald’s versus Burger King bidding to get— 

Starbucks versus Dunkin’ Donuts. And now, by all accounts, I am 

told they are gleaming, beautiful travel plazas with great service, 

and they are paying the State of Connecticut money back into the 

coffers, instead of it going the other way. So it can be done, has 

been done. That is probably a fairly small scale, but—and a State 

like Connecticut can do it, my goodness, Texas can do it and Pennsylvania, I hope will do it. 

But again, thank you all very much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You know, we did have a 

special select committee of members here appointed by the chairman 4 years ago. We met for more than a year, heard from many 

people in a real hearing and interchange format about P3s [publicprivate partnerships]. And we put out a bipartisan consensus report. 

And the conclusion was that if you look at America’s broad infrastructure needs, P3s with the best facilitation through law can deal 

with somewhere between 10 and 12 percent of our infrastructure 

needs. So that still leaves a hell of a lot on the table, 88 to 90 percent. 

So, yes, P3s, fine, well-regulated P3s, great. But that is not a solution, and it is not even the major tool in the toolbox, and it can’t 

be. 

There is a really interesting new statistic, which is that the average toll rate per mile for a P3 toll road is $.30, and the average 

rate for a non-P3 toll road is $.14. That does raise some questions 

about what we are going to do to the American driving public and 

the trucking industry if we are going to go principally down the P3 

route. So these things need to be discussed thoroughly. 

Also, what we found in doing that report was that almost every 

large P3 out there is substantially funded by the Federal Government. They all use TIFIA for 80 to 90 percent of their needs. 

So, yes, the private capital puts up 10, 15 percent, and then they 

turn to the Federal Government. So I think it points to the absolute essential need for us to have a robust, long-term spending 

stream, and one that delivers things to the American public at the 

least cost. And direct Federal partnership with the States is the 

way to do that. 

And just to comment on the salesman down at the Australian 

Embassy who I met with, yes, they did it for 2 years. It was such 

a grand success they did it for 2 years. And most of the money 

went to two of their provinces, and one was New South Wales, who 

had been selling things off for years on their own, and then they 

got an extra bonus payment from the Federal Government to do 

yet another sale of assets that they had already been doing. 

So here, if we follow that model, we will take gas tax dollars 

which don’t exist and are already in short supply, and we will go 

to local jurisdictions, who already have the authority, if they so 

wish, to sell off their ports or their airports, or whatever they want 

to do. That is up to the local jurisdiction. The Federal Government 

20 

doesn’t need to bribe them with dollars that we don’t have to do 

that. 

It was a dumb idea in Australia. The new Government came in, 

they said, ‘‘Hey, we are done with that. Put all the remaining 

money back into the national program,’’ and directly distributes it 

back out across the country. So it didn’t work there, it is not going 

to work here, and we just shouldn’t go down that false path. 

So, Mr. McKenna, I agree with everything you said. Has your organization presented these ideas to this administration? 

Mr. MCKENNA. We have been participating with roundtable discussions that have occurred. We certainly support and AASHTO 

supports a robust discussion on the baseline funding. But we also 

understand that we have to have flexibility in the program, as well. 

And State DOTs are recognizing we have to look at procurement 

methods that are not just the simple procurement methods of the 

past, we have to open ourselves up in the case of particular projects 

that are very complicated and very difficult to structure, financially. 

We are looking at those possibilities. Design-build, design-build 

finance, those are good and they actually help us work even closer 

with our construction partners to bring innovative solutions to the 

engineering problems that we face. 

It is not a one-size-fits-all. DOTs have to open up to our own approach, as well, because that is part of the solution. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right, I totally agree with you on that. And the 

Federal Government should facilitate that, and not hobble them by 

prescriptive means attached to dollars. But you would still say that 

a robust additional Federal investment is still critical to most 

States? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. And one other quick question—there are 

24 States that have already raised their gas tax, or raised funds 

in one way or another, and yet, the administration is talking about 

providing incentives to States that raise their revenues in the future. 

I think—and if you have ideas on this, some States have already 

gone up to the bar, taken the risk. I would say that if we are going 

to provide an incentive it should have a look-back provision. Would 

anyone disagree with that, because these States already did what 

was right, and then they could—if they want to do yet even more, 

they could get more incentive. But there should be some sort of a 

look-back, and not reward the 26 States who haven’t done a damn 

thing. 

Anybody disagree with that? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I would just add one other option, Mr. DeFazio. 

There has been legislated in the past level-of-effort requirements. 

So that doesn’t necessarily look back a set period of time, but sees 

what a State or municipality has done historically. But it does take 

a look at the self-sacrifice they have already made before they come 

to the Federal well, and that would certainly make sense. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Could you provide some information on that, or— 

my staff probably can—— 

21 

Mr. ROGOFF. There is a Byrd amendment in ISTEA [Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act]. I will have to go dig it out. 

But yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, great. Anyone else have a comment on that? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I would just make a quick comment on your 

opening statement, as well. I want to thank you for your passion 

on the subject, and I can’t agree with what you said in your opening statement any more so, that this is—and I think that Ms. Norton mentioned the same thing—this is a network system, this is a 

Federal issue. 

And, you know, there are a lot of tools in the tool chest, but the 

Federal issue and the Federal funding is the single most important 

portion of this. The alternative procurement methods can get more 

efficiencies in how we procure the work. We have got construction 

manager, general contractor associations today. We have got atrisk jobs, we have got 3Ps, we have got design-build finance. Those 

alternatives are great. But I think you hit the nail on the head relative to the primary force today is that we need additional funding 

from the Federal Government to get all those programs enacted. 

And I want to thank you for your passion. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I yield my 

time to Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, thank you, Chairman. I won’t take it all up. 

Four points, very important points. 

One, Mr. Roberts and Mr. DeFazio, I agree with you. There—for 

more Federal dollars. We got to figure this out. That is the number-one priority. But we got to look at other ways also, to try to 

beef that up. 

And three points on the Australian example. 

Number one, it was a 2-year program. So it did end in 2 years 

because they wanted to force the issue to say if you want in this 

program, you got to get into it quick. And that is what it is. So it 

did end in 2 years. 

New South Wales opposed this program in parliament to the bitter end. And when it was passed, they were the first ones in line 

to get this first—based on a first-come-first-served basis. So if— 

now they tell me, if you go to New South Wales, they are boring 

four tunnels under the harbor, they got more highway cranes than 

any other country—any State in the world. 

So again, New South Wales opposed it, until it became the policy, 

and then they were there, front and center. 

And then finally, public entities like our airports in this country, 

our water systems, do not pay local State and Federal taxes. When 

a private company comes on board and starts to run it, they pay 

local State and Federal taxes. That is the way the funding mechanism was done in Australia. They based it on the revenue they 

would generate by this entity, taking it over, and what they would 

begin to pay in Federal taxes. 

So, once again, if we just shut the door on something like this 

without taking a good, hard look, I think that we are kidding ourselves. We have got to figure out a funding stream that is sustainable, that is long term, and then—but also look at these other tools 

22 

in the toolbox. And if we can take this 3P tool from 10 to 12 percent and turn it into 15 to 18 percent, I think that is a pretty good 

day’s work. 

Thanks a lot. That is my time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions are going to center on rural America and the needs, and they 

are also going to concentrate on long-term solvency of the trust 

fund. But I will wait to the end of the hearing if they haven’t been 

answered by then. And I will turn to Ms. Norton for her questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Chairman 

Shuster floated what could be called a new idea, relatively new 

idea. If you think about our transportation network, it has suffered 

from having relatively few new ideas. And all of this time that we 

have had this network, we have—until recently, when we didn’t do 

very much until we were able to pass a long-term bill in 2015, we 

have been running on the same grid. 

So I am interested in the answer to Chairman Shuster’s question 

about exploring new ideas, because it is a very different country 

where—some things in a toolbox may work in some places, but not 

other places. 

But, Mr. Rogoff, you really made me think about this notion of 

overmatching, or self-help. You would think, particularly with my 

colleagues on the other side being in charge, we would want to 

incentivize that. Out of desperation, of course, we have seen with 

the gas tax, local governments just step up without the full Federal 

match. 

But you describe what some would call overmatching, because 

you have gone back to your taxpayers not only for the gas tax, but 

for your infrastructure, generally. And you are concerned that the 

administration, which says it wants to reward such States and regions, in fact cut your funding. In the District of Columbia, we 

wanted desperately to have a subway stop, which is now the New 

York Avenue subway stop, because it would help develop an entire 

area of the District of Columbia. It was funded by business taxes, 

by the District of Columbia, and by the Federal Government. It 

may be the only one of its kind in the country. 

But this notion of incentivizing, rather than de-incentivizing, is 

of great interest to me, particularly given the dearth of new ideas. 

I wonder if you have given any thought to how to encourage 

more jurisdictions like Sound Transit to overmatch or to move 

ahead on infrastructure, while being assured that it wouldn’t be 

punished by the Federal Government. 

Now, I am looking for an incentive, because apparently you have 

done it, perhaps because there was no other way to do it. I am 

looking for a positive way to encourage people who want to invest 

in their own local infrastructure or transit for their own local reasons to, in fact, receive some award or—let’s call it encouragement—some incentive from the Federal Government. 

Mr. Rogoff, have you given any thought to that? Because it is you 

who put the thought in my head in the first place. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, thank you, Ms. Norton. I have given it some 

thought. And it has been talked about in the past, when you talk 

about these major transit expansions we should first recognize 

that, unlike the classic 80/20 split of an 80-percent Federal investVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:28 Jan 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\10-11-~1\28114.TXT JEAN
23 

ment to a 20-percent local investment, by law we are capped at 50 

percent. 

For the projects that we are seeking assistance for from the FTA 

right now we are looking for 40 percent Federal funding to get to 

Lynnwood and just 25 percent funding to get to Federal Way. 

These are efforts we are making because we are determined to get 

there, and the region, congestion being what it is, needs it very 

badly—— 

Ms. NORTON. So, I mean, are you saying, for example, if you 

wanted to do something new, perhaps take less of a Federal match? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, we are being backed into that approach, I 

think, in part by Federal budget policy. When I talk about being 

penalized for overmatching, there was a specific writeup that came 

out of OMB when the President’s budget came forward that called 

out by name the Puget Sound area, Los Angeles, and Denver, and 

pointed out, as a rationale to eliminate the Federal partnership, 

the fact that we had gone to our voters and raised our own taxes 

for transit expansions. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, this is what I mean, Mr. Chairman. You 

know, if you want to encourage what Sound Transit did elsewhere, 

then I am very interested in discussion with you—how can we use 

that, rather than punish that at a time when it is so difficult to 

get funding? 

I did want to ask Mr. McKenna a question, because he represents the whole State of Missouri, and he spoke about the immediate crisis in rural areas. I couldn’t agree more. If we are having 

trouble in what is a relatively wealthy area in this region, I can’t 

image what—if we go into southern Virginia, for example—they 

must be going through. 

But you represent an entire State. And while you called attention 

to the immediate crisis in rural areas, I wonder what you would 

say about cities like St. Louis or Kansas City that have pressing 

needs at the same time. 

What I am trying to get to, Mr. McKenna, is what this committee 

has always avoided, and that is pitting one part of the region 

against another part, going back to the Eisenhower administration, 

the recognition that this was one vast network. So I am the first 

to acknowledge the immediate crisis; I don’t see how rural areas 

are able to do anything. 

I wonder how you bring together, you who represent the entire 

State, big cities like St. Louis and Kansas City with places that 

can’t possibly fund any of their transportation, or very few of their 

transportation needs, like your rural roads. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. If the gentlelady would yield just a 

second, too, I would like to add to that. Just the insurance of those 

rural areas across the country, how do we insure that they aren’t 

left out in this process? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you for the question. In Missouri we allocate the limited resources that we have, based on objective criteria. 

It is similar to the allocation that is done by Congress with the surface transportation authorization, and that is why we think that is 

so important. 

24 

When we look at our rural areas—for instance, we are just now 

undertaking a replacement of the Champ Clark Bridge, which connects parts of rural Missouri with Illinois, had we not had that underway, our rural communities would have a 77-mile detour if that 

bridge went down. It was built originally in 1928. 

Likewise, we have structures in St. Louis and Kansas City that 

carry 120,000 cars a day. So it all comes down to dollars and cents 

in how you allocate those. An objective criteria for allocating resources is critical, so neither area feels they have been disadvantaged over the other. We use population, we use employment data, 

we use size of the infrastructure, vehicle miles traveled, and square 

footage of bridge deck to allocate capital resources among the regions, so that urban areas receive a larger share of the pie—but 

they should—and the rural areas receive their relative share. 

It is very difficult to move the needle on large projects like a major river crossing. The Champ Clark Bridge is a $60 million enterprise for us. And we do have to build up resources over years 

to subsidize that rural area to be able to fund that, because your 

point is taken that this entire system is connected. And if we let 

any of those connections go down, we are disconnecting the communities themselves. 

So the allocation of resources, objectively, is an antidote. But recognizing that there is not enough money coming in to the top line 

to satisfy all the needs in any of the regions is critical. 

Ms. NORTON. Chairman Shuster made a very important point. 

And it perhaps wasn’t beneficial to where he represents. And he 

said rural areas pay more in gas tax. But then he pointed out what 

they get back in overfunding. 

And again, if we lose the notion, that you ultimately lose by not 

funding a transportation and infrastructure network, then we have 

lost the great American transportation lesson. I thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Gibbs? 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First question maybe go 

to Mr. McKenna or Mr. McCarty. 

We have made a lot of progress, I think, in the FAST Act, encouraging intermodal transportation through the National Highway 

Freight Program and other initiatives. How can we improve on that 

in an infrastructure package? Do you see that freight program 

working? And what kind of improvements? 

Go ahead, Mr. McCarty. 

Mr. MCCARTY. Thank you for the question. And we appreciate 

that. 

From the manufacturers’ standpoint, we are not safety experts 

and we need someone to be able to tell us reliable safety scores. 

We have, right now, manufacturing members of the National Association of Manufacturers, who were ordered to trial by judge after 

they hired a twice-satisfactory-rated motor carrier because the 

judge was confused whether the data presented by the plaintiff or 

the two satisfactory safety ratings indicated that the motor carrier 

had been deemed safe to operate on the Nation’s highways by 

the—— 

Mr. GIBBS. I think you are answering my second question I was 

going to ask. 

25 

Mr. MCCARTY. OK. 

Mr. GIBBS. My first question was about the freight program. 

Mr. MCKENNA. If I might, thank you for the question, Representative. We feel the freight program is actually focusing our efforts 

as a State, and it is doing so reasonably. We think that the provisions of both MAP–21 and the FAST Act that encouraged every 

State to put together a freight plan and to work with their local 

partners to do so as a baseline for further investment was important. We did so in Missouri in 2014 and we are actually using the 

freight plan as the baseline for our primary cost benefit on our construction projects. 

We know that a secondary benefit will occur when we remove 

these freight bottlenecks to encourage commerce. There will be a 

passenger benefit, as well, and a safety benefit on top of that. 

So I think it is working, and I think that continuing to have that 

focus is important. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. McCarty, before I get to that, my second question 

I was going to ask you, my first one is you mentioned in your testimony about the importance of municipal bonds, tax-exempt bonds, 

and I don’t think that is in our framework right now. But do you 

want to elaborate on how—why is that so important? 

Mr. MCCARTY. Sure. As tax reform is being considered, we think 

it is very important that we preserve the ability to deduct the interest from those municipal bonds, because it preserves another 

funding measure that can be used to generate funds that we need 

to fix the roads. 

These municipal bonds, right now, if you take away the tax-deductibility of them, that can make them less attractive. And so we 

would like to make sure that they are considered as you go forward. It is not something that is just a positive to the balance 

sheet; it is something that could act as an incentive to maintain 

that tax deductibility and generate more investment. 

Mr. GIBBS. And my question—I think you were starting the answer before—dealing with the—you mentioned in your testimony 

about one hiring standard for trucking companies. 

Mr. MCCARTY. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. And you know, in the FAST Act we mandated a review of the CSA, the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program. 

And then also do you have any comments on that, and the recommendations from the NAM? 

Mr. MCCARTY. Yes. As I started to say before, the CSA—you 

know, we think safety scores are important, but they are not something that manufacturers can come up with, and can be expected— 

we are manufacturers, we are not motor carriers. So we are—we 

do rely on the FMCSA to regulate motor carrier safety. Putting 

manufacturers in the middle of that leads to unhappy consequences 

for the manufacturers who can get caught in lawsuits. 

Currently there is no requirement for manufacturers to check 

any of those qualifications when they hire a motor carrier. So if we 

established a national hiring standard, or something that would 

provide some protection to those manufacturers as they hire their 

motor carriers, we think that would be something to consider. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, I just had problems with the way it was set up 

in 2010, the CSA, and it dings our truckers unfairly, and then it— 

26 

you know, for the insurance rates. And then also, when their— 

when carriers like—customers, like the manufacturers, are looking 

at the truckers, or the trucking companies, they are unfairly treated. And that doesn’t give a real snapshot of what is really going 

on. And they get penalized unfairly. And so, hopefully we can get 

that fixed. 

So I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to note 

and thank some of my colleagues here, that we have launched a 

bipartisan Congressional Infrastructure Caucus, and that includes 

Mr. Graves and Mr. Duncan and Sean Patrick Maloney. 

So we will be working to get our colleagues from all different 

committees, not just this committee, because, as we have been discussing here today, the revenue aspects are incredibly important— 

that involves Ways and Means—and Energy and Commerce, as 

well, as we look at how technology is rapidly changing the needs 

and demands. I wanted to let you know that and urge any of my 

colleagues who are not yet members, sign up today. 

We are facing—OK, so Mr. DeFazio is starting the bidding, 

thank you. 

We are being out-competed by China and other countries that 

are robustly investing in their infrastructure, and we don’t have 20 

or 40 years to wait to get on with it. 

Mr. McCarty, you encapsulated the remarks of many of the manufacturers in my district who are looking at us and saying, ‘‘How 

can I possibly compete when I can’t get my goods to market, I can’t 

even get my workers here to the factory.’’ That is the number-one 

complaint in my State of Connecticut, is actually transportation, 

more than taxes, more than anything else. 

And so, this problem has been brewing for decades. Everybody 

here has mentioned it. We need revenue. We need revenue—when 

you can do financing—and I think a lot of us are open to creative 

ways of financing—but we have a serious revenue problem. 

We have relied historically on user fees. The world is changing. 

Cars are more efficient. We didn’t index the gas tax. We are having 

alternative fuels, many—a number of Members of Congress here 

drive vehicles that don’t pay any gas tax, whatsoever. We need to 

look down the road. My kids never take cars. They use a car-sharing service. We are looking at autonomous vehicles. 

So I would like all of you to help with us, think about how are 

we going to look at those aspects. How are we going to be evaluating projects, based on future infrastructure needs, when we have 

such rapidly changing technology, rapidly changing usage patterns, 

increasing urbanization, which Mr. Rogoff talked about? We are 

going to be needing to do a lot more transit, if you look at the demographic patterns. 

So that is happening very fast, and we are going to need your 

help in thinking that through. So, that is one question. 

Another one is on the P3s. One of the concerns I have—and I 

think they need to be part of the mix. But that prioritizes making 

revenue, not necessarily what is in the public’s interest in meeting 

those needs. So it meets certain kinds of projects. It may be very 

smart for something like high-speed rail in the Northeast, where 

27 

you know that actual high-speed rail would have a revenue stream, 

and you need massive investment. Maybe that works. But for a lot 

of things it doesn’t. 

I would love to hear your thoughts on life-cycle costs and fix-itfirst. A lot of my concern, again, with creative financing mechanisms are they tend not to deal with actually fixing current infrastructure. It prioritizes something that can create a new revenue 

stream. And living in an older part of infrastructure in the Northeast, you know, we are concerned. 

And I do want to point out my State is one of those States that 

has continued to raise the gas tax. And yet some of the proposals 

on the table—and Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Davis and I were at the 

White House 2 weeks ago, and they are talking about incentivizing 

States to step up. Well, my State has been stepping up for some 

time now. So I think it is really important that we not punish 

States who have already taken those steps to award ones that have 

not. 

So just a few questions, and anyone who wants to get started. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I might quickly take the question on life-cycle 

costs, because, as you pointed out, especially in the Northeast and 

areas like Connecticut, you have got systems like Metro-North and 

others that have been deteriorated over time with age, and have 

struggled to recapitalize and rebuild what they have got. 

I think it is right for this committee, in crafting a new initiative, 

whether it is highways, transit, or water, to ask project sponsors 

to identify and evaluate the merits of their proposals, based on not 

just their ability to build it, but their having the revenue streams 

to maintain it. It is something we started at the Federal Transit 

Administration when I was there. The question was if we are going 

to invest in expanding your footprint, shouldn’t we at least know 

how you are doing in maintaining your current footprint? 

We have a mechanism in Sound Transit in our ballot measures. 

The voters adopted a capital plan and they voted to increase taxes. 

The taxes are then rolled back to the level necessary to operate and 

maintain it, so we have a revenue stream for maintenance. A great 

many other systems don’t. We are now paying the price for that. 

And this is certainly a question, whether it is highways or transit 

or water, people should be asking. 

Mr. BOOKER. And if I may, just to answer on the fix-it-first, or— 

I mean we certainly are proponents of new construction, and certainly feel that there is an unbelievable need in this country for 

new rail, new water, new bridges, new roads and highways. 

Take a look at the American Society of Civil Engineers’ most recent report of where we currently stand with our current infrastructure of a grade of D-plus. We have over 50,000 structurally deficient bridges that our citizens are driving across every day. 

So, as we try to develop these new revenue streams to build new 

construction, we have to focus on what is currently deficient in our 

country today. Many bridges and tunnels that are decades old, 50, 

60, 70 years old, that we are putting ourselves and our fellow citizens at risk every day by them driving over those bridges, by them 

driving through those tunnels, by getting on that Amtrak train and 

riding on rail that is deficient. 

28 

So we have to come up with a way to fix our existing system as 

we also continue to meet the challenges of today’s society of the 

growing needs of what we have. 

Mr. MCKENNA. And if I might, with regard to looking at the entire capital plan, we have to look at this whole bill like a company 

would look at an investment portfolio. There is not a particular solution that is going to meet the needs of every region of the country 

uniformly. 

From a standpoint of AASHTO and from a standpoint of a State 

DOT, opening up the flexibility of the surface transportation authorization so States can meet their local needs is important. We 

have a planning framework utilizing metropolitan planning organizations and regional planning commissions that prioritize the 

needs of those communities. They know best what their needs are, 

whether it is new construction, expansion for capacity, or fixing the 

existing system. And the flexibility to utilize Federal funds in concert with those local needs is critical. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I would just add one more comment, if I could. The 

maintenance issue has gotten so big in this country that, when you 

look alone in the State of California, $140 billion of backlogged 

maintenance to get the system—both the interstate system and the 

actual local systems—up to grade, that is almost—has to be priority. We cannot be isolating funds just for expansion when we 

haven’t taken care of what we have already. 

And I would suggest that a lot of the States today are focusing 

on that because they understand that that backlog has gotten so 

immense that, if they don’t take care of it—the cost basis goes up 

exponentially if they don’t take care of it to begin with. 

So I would commend the legislature in California for putting together a $50 billion program to mostly focus on getting that entire 

infrastructure transportation system up to speed so that they can 

move forward from this point on. 

So the backlog and the long term versus the short term, we have 

got to take care of the short term. Otherwise, we won’t have a long 

term. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, can I ask for a point of personal privilege real quick before I get started? I would like the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee to welcome back my good friend who 

just snuck in the back room. It looks like he is back at work right 

now. But Matt Mika, stand up, Matt. He is recovering well from 

the tragedy he experienced 2 months ago. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Welcome back, my friend. 

Hey, a quick question for everybody on the panel. Raise your 

hand if you think that we can stabilize and solidify the Highway 

Trust Fund by just raising the gas tax. 

Oh, you guys have listened well to the people behind you, because they usually get asked the same question by us. And that is 

what is great about this hearing, because we are actually finally 

talking about diversification. You know, it is Peter DeFazio’s rage 

over the fact that we haven’t addressed many issues that we listened to a few minutes ago, a long few minutes ago now. And ShuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:28 Jan 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\10-11-~1\28114.TXT JEAN
29 

ster talking about, I think as part of that diversification, asset recycling, P3s. 

The discussion here is very bipartisan. The discussion that Ms. 

Esty, Mr. Lipinski, and a few of us others had at the White House 

the other morning was centered on infrastructure and how do we 

be able to—how do we solidify and how do we stabilize our infrastructure dollars? Everybody has got a lot of ideas. Why can’t we 

use them all? 

Now, diversification is something I have been talking about since 

I got here 41⁄2 years ago. How do we diversify? What do we do to 

make sure that we are ready for the next generation of vehicles? 

I think we all agree—because none of you raised your hand—that 

the gas tax isn’t the only answer. That how, on one hand, can we 

have our Highway Trust Fund funded by one source that the same 

Federal Government, all of us that are participants in—how do we 

tell you to burn less of it? 

I think what should scare everybody sitting at that table and everybody here is that we have got countries like France that, say, 

in the next 20 years, they don’t want a single gasoline-powered vehicle on their roadway. Let’s say President Macron is half right. 

What does that mean for the percentage of electric vehicles that 

are on our roadways? And what are we going to be able to do to 

actually have a—imagine when electric technology gets into the 

fleet level. What will that do, besides decimate our Highway Trust 

Fund? 

So our job is to plan. And we can sit and we can talk about putting these ideas together. We can talk about diversification. But in 

the end we actually got to come up with a plan that is going to get 

votes, and all sides are going to have to sit down, instead of just 

discuss solutions like we are doing today. What is going to get us 

to an actual bill that is going to pass? 

And that is where we need your help, because we all agree something has to be done. But the funny thing about Washington is 

those details are the things that kind of stick us up. 

Now, you all agree that we need diversification. Who wants to be 

the first one to tell me what plan is going to work best? Anybody? 

Mr. McKenna? Thank you for talking about rural Illinois, too. 

Great place. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Absolutely. When we talk about diversification, 

we have to recognize that as fuel efficiency increases, the revenue 

will decrease in the gas tax. 

Mr. DAVIS. Because the Federal Government is telling the manufacturers to create engines that burn less. 

Mr. MCKENNA. I would like to point out something that is going 

on in the State of Georgia right now. In 2015 one of the AASHTO 

members actually put an inflator on to their gas tax. They raised 

their gas tax as a baseline. Then they put an inflator on that, in 

part, using the fuel economy of the entire Georgia vehicle fleet. So 

that just kicked in this past year. It created an adjustment so they 

didn’t lose any fuel tax revenue based on the rising fleet fuel economy. 

So we are going to have to look for things that create some way 

to adjust through to the new future, but not to forget the baseline 

of fuel tax funding. 

30 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Mr. Rogoff, I didn’t see your hand because 

Westerman’s head was in the way. 

Mr. ROGOFF. It is quite all right. I wanted to flag, Mr. Davis, 

that actually Washington State is one of the few States that have 

stepped up and taken the invitation from Federal highways to 

study road uses charges. 

And our Washington State Transportation Commission is currently launching a project involving some 2,000 drivers across the 

State, also partnering with Oregon and Idaho in this, to look at 

road uses charges and how they might work. And some people actually have an app on their phone to measure their miles. 

Mr. DAVIS. VMT? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes. Well, it is not necessarily by mileage. They are 

defining usage in a variety of different ways. They are actually 

looking at three different constructs, so we can report back to this 

committee a variety of alternatives. 

They are also looking specifically at how that might work with 

electric vehicles, given the—as you pointed out—the greatly diminished fuel consumption of those vehicles, and what the right charge 

for those vehicles might be. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, and I know my time is up, and I have got a 

question I am going to send to you that I would like to get answered on on one of the programs, the stick apportionment. 

But anybody on the panel drive a fully-electric vehicle? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DAVIS. All right, no freeloaders. I yield back. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Lowenthal? 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

First, I want to note the relative consensus in the testimony for 

today. Several of our panelists have highlighted—along with Congressman DeFazio—the need to stabilize the Highway Trust Fund, 

but also to seek additional revenue sources to fund needed infrastructure investment. I was glad to hear my colleague from Illinois 

call for diversification. 

I have proposed a dedicated funding stream for freight transportation so that projects can address bottlenecks and deficiencies in 

our goods movement network, and that they can be financed by 

users of the freight infrastructure. So it is a user fee. My plan has 

bipartisan support, and would raise approximately $8 billion a year 

for these investments. 

There may be other solutions. I am glad to hear us talk about 

diversification. But there is a consensus that the status quo is simply inadequate to meet the challenges as we go forward in our infrastructure in the future. 

So, Mr. McKenna, I have a question for you first. Missouri’s 

State freight plan notes that truck volume is projected to increase 

by over 50 percent between 2011 and 2030. Across the country 

cargo volumes are up to record highs, and addressing this strain 

on our freight network is a key challenge in the years forward. 

I represent the port area in Long Beach, and adjacent to L.A. We 

have had the highest amount of growth in L.A. in years. Long 

Beach recently had the highest 1-month total. 

31 

The question I have to you is do you feel like States like yours 

are—key freight corridors will have the resources they need to 

meet the increased volume without a dedicated freight infrastructure funding from the Federal Government? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you for the question. I do not believe we 

have the resources required to meet that need. I don’t believe we 

have the resources required at present to meet the current need. 

So we welcome the focus on freight. It is a critical aspect of our 

economy in the State. And we are focused on that element. We will 

be bringing an INFRA grant application forward as part of the discretionary program in the coming couple weeks, and we are focused 

on freight. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. Next question is for the entire 

panel. The FAST Act in 2015 created a new program to direct Federal investment to critical freight infrastructure needs. However, 

the administration recently announced changes to that that would 

reduce this program’s emphasis on the most worthy projects, and 

instead advantage projects with a low Federal cost-share. 

How does this new emphasis affect our ability to invest in critically needed freight infrastructure improvements, now that we are 

just going to go to those that have the lowest Federal cost? I would 

like to—anybody to say. How are we going to deal with this issue? 

Mr. McCarty? 

Mr. MCCARTY. Yes, thank you. You know, as you start 

prioritizing things, what we have done in Missouri—and I am sure 

it is done in other places—is we have had—as the director mentioned, we had these MPOs [metropolitan planning organizations] 

and these regional organizations that tried to prioritize what their 

needs are. We don’t have the luxury of trying to even analyze how 

much money we are getting back, or what the match is. We are 

looking at where the needs really are. 

And really, the needs are really all over the place. From a manufacturer’s standpoint, we want to make sure the entire system is 

connected. And I think that is important. So you have to look at 

connectivity, as well. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. But the question—and I agree with you completely about connectivity, and I believe a multimodal approach 

that really deals with connectivity is critically needed. So I concur 

with you. But I want to ask you about the administration’s approach to now prioritize freight infrastructure by looking at those 

that—advantage programs that have a low Federal cost share 

versus what was done in the FAST Act to look at the most worthy 

projects. That is a quite a bit of difference. 

Anybody have any thoughts about what the administration has 

recently done? 

[No response.] 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. So it doesn’t make any difference to you that we 

are going to just target those projects that have the smallest 

amount of Federal cost sharing? 

Mr. McKenna? 

Mr. MCKENNA. What we are looking at is that they overlap. 

Those that are most significant to the State and most significant 

to the region will also draw additional support from local share— 

we have a cost-share program in our State. And that is playing out. 

32 

So we are acting on a discretionary basis to look for those 

projects that align both, that we can bring local resources to bear 

where we can, and try to up our share. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Obviously, since the Federal Government is reducing its responsibility and has been, you have to look for—at 

other local sources. 

But do you agree that we should be looking at just—you said 

that you have kind of—trying to do a balance between those that 

are both locally funded, larger cost share, and also those that are 

the most worthy projects. But I don’t think that is where the administration has gone. They have not really talked about the most 

worthy projects. 

OK, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. LaMalfa? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. Being another California Member, we 

have a lot of issues over—we are trying to overcome there. The recent gas tax and vehicle registration tax have really—has been 

really controversial. Some are seeing it as a windfall of dollars for 

these projects. 

But when it is written in such a way to not add a new lane, no 

new capacity, and a lot of that money is being diverted for other 

things, as well as the continued effort to invest in the high-speed 

rail system in California, which tripled in price from its original 

form and is still bound up by delays and all that, I think the people 

of California—when you talk about a gas tax increase of any sort, 

whether it is a statewide one or a Federal one, the taxpayers will 

get fed up because they don’t believe or trust the dollars will actually get to the highways. And that is what I am very concerned 

about with California. The small percentage of what is being foisted upon them will actually end up getting to the roads, with none 

of it being new capacity. 

So, that said, the—part of the area that isn’t talked about 

enough is how do we make dollars that we already have in the 

stream go farther. We—and my—one of my other committees, the 

Natural Resources Committee, we worked a bill through called 

H.R. 1654. It is the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act, 

which created a one-stop shop for permitting process by establishing a lead agency, the Bureau of Reclamation, as the lead for 

reviews, permits, licenses, and other decisions which have to do 

with surface water storage projects. 

So what I am looking for from this panel here—I would imagine 

you would find that helpful for doing other types of infrastructure, 

building, and repair—so maybe let’s start with Mr. Roberts on that. 

You mentioned it, the overlap on that was something that has 

brought frustration. What would you think? What would be some 

highlights, which, if we were able to get a lead agency on road construction, repair, et cetera, how helpful would that be on timing, 

as well as making dollars go farther? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, let me first address some of the concerns 

over SB–1, which would tie into some of the efficiencies that you 

question relative to the brandnew bill that passed in California. Inside that $50 billion bill there are instruments in there for congestion, and there are instruments in there for reduced—or increased efficiencies. Interestingly enough, I agree that an oversight 

33 

group that can bring in different areas of the Government to create 

more efficiency is appropriate. 

In the State of California they just put an oversight group, an 

inspector group, over the top of the DOT to create more efficiencies 

and actually put into that last bill a reduction in the amount of 

money spent at the DOT to create efficiencies, going forward, to be 

able to enact the additional revenue—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, you still have to do a multistop alphabet 

soup of other agencies with permitting, with Fish and Wildlife, 

Fish and Game, EPA, whoever else might—— 

Mr. ROBERTS. I agree. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. Have a piece of that. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I agree. So what you are suggesting is the next 

phase. There were some efficiencies put into that bill, and then the 

next phase—I would agree, having an oversight—and I think the 

same thing would be happening as we look into the environmental 

regulations that we see across the country. Having some significant 

common oversight, whether it be for—as I mentioned in my testimony, whether it is for the Corps of Engineers, with the Clean 

Water Act, or the EIS studies through the—through NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act], that same kind of—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. NEPA definitely, or California’s own CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act], yes, definitely, because there 

are unnecessary things that we are having to research. 

Go ahead, please. 

Mr. ROBERTS. But I agree. I think the fact that if you have some 

common oversight you could create a lack of redundancies and 

some simplicity, which, obviously, is going to be more beneficial 

and—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, what other things could we be doing in—you 

know, federally, to further streamline that would complement what 

we have been talking about? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, the number one, I thought, would be the environmental side. It is, by far, the quickest, most economical way 

to do it, is to tie in NEPA and the Corps of Engineers to get the 

404 permitting process sped up and get the EIS system sped up. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. Mr. Rogoff, your—did I say it correctly? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK, thank you. The one-stop-shop idea that you 

were talking about, staffing up more so some of these agencies, perhaps—you know, I mean, we always have to find funding or have 

faith that staffing up will actually meet—the rubber meet the road 

in getting the work done. Do you think, with maybe a combined 

staffing up as well as the efficiency we are talking about, would we 

need nearly as much staff? Or would one-stop-shopping kind of accomplish both? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I don’t know that it will accomplish both. I would 

certainly agree that having a lead agency, a one-stop shop, would 

have great benefits. 

The concern is that the imperatives of the other agencies not be 

cut off by some artificial deadline or be given short shrift. I am 

talking about some smaller agencies like NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. 

Forest Service and National Park Service, EPA, the Army Corps, 

that have different parts of the law that they must apply. SomeVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:28 Jan 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\10-11-~1\28114.TXT JEAN
34 

times there has been a culture that the only way that they could 

get their concerns attended to is by throwing up a red flag or stopping a project. That culture needs to change. 

But I think if you are going to put people at ease that this could 

be done smartly and more quickly, we do need to make sure that 

they are sufficiently resourced to do the job. So I think your concept of combining streamlining with a staffing plan that gets funded by the appropriations subcommittees would be on point. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, it seemed like a lot more simultaneous coordination with one of the smaller ones, as you mentioned. Telling 

the other ones, ‘‘Here is what we need,’’ instead of a back-to-back 

chain, making it 5 years with each one getting their turn at—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, some positive steps have already been taken. 

For example, we at Sound Transit and other sponsors now, as a 

result of the FAST Act and some earlier authorities, are allowed 

to pay money to the Federal agencies to help them staff up. The 

staff people we pay for cannot work on our documents, but they can 

work on other documents, freeing someone else up to work on our 

documents. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. I am sorry, my time has expired. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am sorry. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. No, you are good. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mrs. Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I am impressed by the panel that has been assembled. I am impressed by this body displaying bipartisanship. It 

seems like all hands are on deck, but still we are in the same place 

of no action. 

Where is the sense of urgency? Where is the sense that—how 

many times do we have to listen to experts? How many times do 

we have to listen to these eloquent speeches about how bipartisan 

we are? How many times do I have to hear ‘‘Make America First,’’ 

and knowing that if we check the box on investment in our infrastructure, we know that we will build—we will make sure that we 

have jobs in America, creating a skilled workforce. 

This is global competition. I know there is an international 

bridge that we are trying to build in Michigan, and they are talking about bringing in workforce from outside the country because 

we don’t have enough trained. How long are we, as this elected 

body who was sent here to do something, will continue to sit here 

ad nausea and talk about it, and then watch our administration 

defund and not give us the proper amount of money? 

Clearly, we have experts, and we are experienced enough here in 

Congress to start moving the ball down the road. 

We know that we need to raise the gas tax. Check that box. We 

know we need to have PPP. We know that that is a part of the success of moving and transportation plans. We know that we need to 

work together. We got that. We have heard that allocation of 

funds—and we keep playing with numbers as if we just pulled 

numbers out of the air to say, OK, today it is $1 trillion, tomorrow 

it’s $600 million. 

Where are we going to have that frustration that will move us 

forward and say now it is time to do it? 

35 

I just have one quick question that—it is not really a question, 

but I need it for the record. 

Mr. Booker, you have, across this country, been one of the faces 

of building this workforce, of creating jobs. Can you please state for 

the record if we, as this country and this elected body and administration, keep our word about investing in our infrastructure, how 

many jobs could we create in this country? 

Mr. BOOKER. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. And 

when you do it with long-term stability of infrastructure funding, 

you are building the middle class, you are building skills for people 

that are going to last them a lifetime. 

Our training system is based on joint labor management participation, where we voluntarily, collectively, with our contractor partners, invest over $1 billion a year into our training system that 

goes on to hands-on training to our members. And how they get 

into the middle class and how they stay in the middle class is that 

they have a full-time job. They do their training at night, they do 

their training on the weekend. It is an earn-while-you-learn system. 

And I am here representing over 2 million American workers in 

the construction industry today, and with long-term commitments, 

long-term shoring up of the highway transit fund, of other mechanisms, is going to allow us to grow that to—you know, to maintain 

our baseline and then allow us to grow it—that we are teaching 

skills for people that is going to last them a lifetime. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. The fact of the matter is the average age of a 

skilled trade worker in America is 53 years old. We are facing a 

crisis in America where we are going to see a whole workforce retiring, and we have not invested—while we are having this frustrating conversation about how we invest in our infrastructure, we 

are sitting here watching a workforce diminish in front of us. If we 

get the funding we also are going to have to stay focused on the 

fact that unemployment in America—minorities, veterans, 

women—it is this huge middle-class opportunity in training and 

the skilled trades and the building trades. 

And so, here it is. If we really are about making American 

great—not again, but continually on our pathway of being a great 

country—we have to build that workforce. And we are going to 

have to get serious about this debate. I am—I do not want another 

panel of experts talking to me. I want another panel of experts engaging, as we start putting those shovels in the ground, as we start 

employing these young people to replace this aging workforce, and 

to really invest. 

When we travel abroad it is embarrassing, the way that other 

countries that we consider not as sophisticated, not as advanced as 

us, are investing in their infrastructures, their rail, their roads. 

And here we are in America, sitting around, still kicking the can. 

It is time to go to work. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the witnesses for being here today. 

We know that all roads lead to somewhere. And there is a lot of 

talk about urban and rural, but really, the roads connect our urban 

36 

societies and our rural societies together. And our urban areas—in 

fact, a lot of them here on the east coast—are highly dependent on 

rural roadways to get goods and services to the population centers, 

and also to move manufactured products out of cities and across 

the country. We all understand the importance of that. 

Mr. McKenna, your State of Missouri is to the north of Arkansas. 

You have got Interstate 49 that runs along the western side of Missouri, up to Kansas City. Interstate 49 is a connector between New 

Orleans and Kansas City. The remaining undone part of Interstate 

49 happens to be in my district. 

Can you talk a little bit about the importance of completing these 

projects, and how the—even though you have got this beautiful 

highway from the—really, from Fort Smith, Arkansas, all the way 

up to Kansas City, and from Ashdown, Arkansas, down to New Orleans, what having that two-lane, curvy road undone means to the 

rest of the transportation on Interstate 49? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you, Representative. Great question. As 

you mentioned, we have about 5 miles of interstate to complete, 

kind of a combined project between Missouri and Arkansas. And it 

shows we are not complete, even with the build-out of the interstate system in its original capacity. 

But the benefits to the region itself, a substantially growing region in that part of the country. And the movement of freight and 

the movement of people and the economic well-being of that region 

is critically tied to that particular project completion. 

You know, we are some $35 million to $40 million away from 

that completion point of the I–49 project. When we allocate limited 

resources, both States have—for 30 years, one State has had the 

funding and been ready, and another State hasn’t. And we have 

traded places in funding a couple times. It is frustrating for us, I 

know it is frustrating for you in your region. But these are the 

types of investments that can go a long way to really connect the 

people of the region, as well as beyond the region—as you said, 

going all the way to New Orleans. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And really connecting to the rest of the world 

through the ports there in New Orleans. 

Do you believe the Federal Government gives an honest look at 

the entire system when they are designating funds for these new 

projects? Or do you think there could be improvements there? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Well, the main issue is the amount of money 

coming in to the top. You know, what we have in the region, we 

look at it and have discussions frequently that we have equitably 

distributed dissatisfaction throughout the whole system, that we 

are fair in our allocation, it is just not enough being allocated. 

We try to make the best decisions we can, but we are focused on 

critical maintenance and taking care of existing system and preservation beyond expansion at this point right now, and we need both. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. OK. And shifting gears a little bit, we are talking about different kinds of funding streams. I know, from serving 

in my State legislature, that in Arkansas, at least, State and local 

taxes are collected on construction materials on projects that are 

funded with Federal dollars. 

Now, Mr. McKenna, I think Missouri has an exemption for that, 

where they exempt construction materials from State and local 

37 

taxes. But since the communities where these infrastructure 

projects are built benefit from the infrastructure projects themselves, do you think it would be fair to ask State and local entities 

not to collect taxes on construction materials for projects that are 

funded with Federal dollars? 

And I would like to ask Mr. Roberts that question, as well. 

Mr. MCKENNA. We have a local cost share so that communities 

can actually leverage local taxes. And what we have seen are communities have actually invested those in the Federal system, in the 

State system, beyond their local municipalities. So we see a counteraction that occurs, so it balances it out. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. But ultimately, those State and local taxes are 

being paid with Federal tax dollars if it is on a federally funded 

project. 

Mr. Roberts? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. I am not familiar with a location where 

the materials that we put into our projects are not taxed at the 

local level. So that would be surprising to me. So—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So one proposal that I may put out there is to 

exempt construction materials from State and Federal taxes when 

Federal tax dollars are funding those projects, so you have more 

money going for concrete and asphalt and bridges, rather than 

going into State and local tax coffers. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding a hearing on the critical need to increase investment in 

transportation infrastructure. And I am proud to join you and 

Ranking Member Norton and 253 of our bipartisan colleagues in 

sending a letter to the Ways and Means Committee, urging them 

to fix the Highway Trust Fund revenue problem in order to provide 

sustained and sufficient funding for our transportation. 

Thank you to all the witnesses. Your testimony highlights the 

need for robust funding, both maintaining our existing infrastructure and new projects to address congestion, safety, and efficiency. 

I particularly want to thank Mr. Roberts, from California. I often 

see the crews along the highways that I go almost on a daily basis 

when I am home, and I appreciate the dangerous work you do, and 

colleagues who are in transportation and the building trades. 

Your testimony highlights the American Civil Society of Engineers report card that our Nation’s roads have a D and our Nation’s transit system a D-minus. American Society of Civil Engineers note that there is an $836 billion—billion—backlog of highway and bridge capital needs, with an additional $123 billion backlog for bridge repair, a $90 billion backlog on transit maintenance. 

I am proud the California Legislature worked to address the 

transportation funding gap by passing SB–1, the $5.2 billion per 

year transportation spending package for 10 years. It passed on a 

bipartisan basis, two-thirds of our legislators voted for it. Signed by 

the Governor in April. But now some of our colleagues are challenging in court. 

Surprisingly, they are pursuing a ballot measure to repeal this 

important transportation funding. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. 

Chair, to insert into the record letters from California—Fix Our 

38 

Roads Coalition and the Transportation Construction Coalition— 

opposing repeal of SB–1. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The two letters follow:] 


Insert offset folio 5 here 28114.005
39 


Insert offset folio 6 here 28114.006

Michael Quigley, Executive Director 

California Alliance for Jobs 

Gary W. Hambly, President & CEO 

California Construction and Industrial 

Materials Association (CaiCIMA) 

Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director 

League of California Cities 

Mary Rotelli, Chief Operating Officer 

Teichert Construction 

Brock Lodge, President, Western 

Division 

Vulcan Materials Company 

Jim Wunderman, President and CEO 

Bay Area Council 

Russell W. Snyder, CAE, Executive 

Director 

California Asphalt Pavement 

Association (CaiAPAl 

.·~·· ,. Sallie Houston, President 

WRAfiP rtili:ila Western Regional Association for 

Pavement Preservation {WRAPP) 

Matt Cate, Executive Director 

California State Association of Counties (CSACI 

Roger Dickinson, Executive Director 

Transportation California 

Jim Roberts, President & CEO 

Granite Construction 

John Hakel, Executive Director 

Southern California Partnership for Jobs 

Stuart Waldman, President 

Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA) 

Eddie Sprecco, Chief Executive Director 

Associated General Contractors, San Diego Chapter 

Emily Cohen, Executive Vice President 

United Contractors 

Tracy Hernandez, Founding CEO 

los Angeles County Business Federation 
40 


Insert offset folio 7 here 28114.007

CORSTIVUIOII 

COALITIOI 

We're Building A 

Better America! 

Septemberl5, 2017 

Dear Leader McCarthy: 

On April28, 2017, Senate Bill (SB) I, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of2017 

was signed into law. This legislative package invests $54 billion over the next decade to 

fix roads, freeways, bridges and public transit in communities across California. SB 1 

would provide a 50-50 split between state and local projects and is consistent with the 

Trump Administrstion 's call for state and local governments to meet their respective 

transportation needs. 

While, passing SB I took political courage, there are some in California who are calling 

for a reposl of SB I to be on the ballot in November 2018. In fact, it has come to our 

attention that members of the California Republican delegation are considering formally 

supporting such an effort. The Transportation Construction Coalition joins with our 

California affiliates in vigorously opposing sueh ballot efforts and encourages you and 

your fellow Republicans to do the same. 

California, like 25 other states, has increased flmding fur their transportation 

infrastructure needs in the absence of a long-term federal commitment to addressing the 

structural imbalance plaguing the Highway Trust Fund. Our nation's trsnsportation 

funding challenges are weU documented and the only way to address them is to increase 

funding at all levels of government while also encouraging greater private investment 

where appropriate. Repeal of SB l is ill advised and ignores the transportation 

infrastructure needs of California. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 

Sincerely, 

The Transportation Construction Coalition 
41 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Roberts, can you discuss the infrastructure challenges facing California? And do you believe SB–1 is needed to address those challenges? How many jobs does SB–1 create 

in California, and what would be the impact in repealing SB–1 on 

our State’s economy? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, ma’am, I would be happy to, because I think 

that SB–1 was probably one of the biggest legislative actions that 

I have seen in many, many years in the State of California. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Finally. 

Mr. ROBERTS. The backlog of work in California, as I mentioned before, is in excess of $100 billion, itself, in the State of California. 

It has been continually underfunded. And actually, in the last several years, it has been reduced, which is a tragedy. And I think 

that what is happening in the State of California is a microcosm 

of what is happening across the country. 

And so, I want to go on record and make clear that the legislature stood up and did what we are hoping our Federal Government 

will do, as well. And they used, as you suggest, a bipartisan approach to it, brought in discussions for several years. The Governor, the leader of the State of California, put together the program at the end. 

They used a host of fees, and I think this is the important part. 

They did not focus just on gas tax. It has gas taxes, it has diesel 

tax, it has registration fees for electrical vehicles, for hybrid vehicles. So it used a host of opportunities, which we have been talking 

about all day here this morning, relative to making sure that we 

diversify the opportunity to create the funding mechanism. 

I think it would have been just absolutely devastating, or will be, 

if any kind of a repeal effort is successful, because today in California we are in gridlock. 

And there was a question asked earlier about the—this does not 

address congestion. Well, it does address congestion. It doesn’t address large expansion. But part of the congestion problem that we 

have across the country is the fact that we haven’t properly maintained the systems that we have today. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. For years. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Which is a significant issue in itself. And this is 

why I said previously that if you don’t maintain what you have to 

begin with, you should not be putting more in place, because you 

are not going to maintain that properly, either. 

I am excited also with Mrs. Lawrence’s comment that the—something of this significance long term—10 years, $52 billion—will create an opportunity for people to move into the business of being in 

that industry and create careers so they can put money and food 

on the table for their families, and not just a short-term stimulus, 

but a long-term, $52 billion program in the State of California that 

will change the construction industry for decades to come. 

So I want to congratulate the legislature and the Governor for 

what I think is one of the biggest and strongest acts they have 

done in years. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. That is very true. And 

we are looking forward to more funding and to expansion of our 

freeways, because some of them are, well, more than 50 years old, 

and they are falling apart and not able to handle the type of transVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:28 Jan 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\10-11-~1\28114.TXT JEAN
42 

portation that is currently needed to get to work, get to deliver, 

and do all the other things. 

I find it sad that it took me—I was working for Ford Motor at 

the time—it took me 17 minutes from my house to my job back 20 

years ago. Now it takes me an hour and a half. 

So it is important that we address the congestion. But also keep 

in mind that we need to address the backlog, the operation and 

maintenance, so that we have enough funding in reserve to be able 

to take care of that also. 

Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Woodall. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about 

what we can do to restore some taxpayer confidence in the system. 

Mr. Booker, I think about all your members that we see out 

there working hard every day of the week. I mean we have all had 

constituents call with those stories, ‘‘Dadgumit, Rob, I see 3 guys 

working, I see 40 guys standing around. I just don’t understand it.’’ 

I have got a little 21⁄2-mile stretch of road in my district. Preliminary engineering started on that road-widening project back in 

2005. Folks have been seeing orange cones out there for a decade. 

They want to know what in the world is going on. Why can’t we 

get something done? 

What Mr. McKenna knows is that Russell McMurry, who leads 

our State DOT, presided over a project when the I–85 bridge 

burned down and collapsed in Georgia, three spans of bridge—not 

a square bridge, but a parabola of a bridge there, and we replaced 

it in 6 weeks. I didn’t have one Tea Party, one conservative, one 

taxpayer advocate, I didn’t have one constituent call and tell me 

they were angry about the $3 million performance bonus that we 

gave to C.W. Matthews for getting that job done 6 weeks—not just 

a 6-week project, but 6 weeks early on a 12-week project, and delivered what taxpayers believe was a value for their dollar. 

So you all represent a different facet of the industry. I tell that 

story all the time because it tells me what we can do together, a 

Democratic mayor, bipartisan regional commission, Republican 

Governor, all coming together to make those things happen. 

What is the story in your space that you would have me retell 

to tell folks, you know what? If you trust us with another $10 billion or $20 billion in trust fund, we are not just going to flush it 

down the toilet, we are going to get you real value for real money? 

Who has got a—who has got something to lift me up today? 

Mr. McKenna. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Yes, I will give you two examples, Representative. 

Number one, in Missouri we have the same circumstance. We 

had major flooding in the spring. We had 384 roads closed. Our 

maintenance crews and our construction partners had 300 of those 

opened in 5 days. We are down to just three, and those will be complete by the end of this month. All 384 roads will be opened within 

6 months of being closed. 

We also have a record of achievement: 4,661 construction projects 

have been completed by Missouri DOT and our construction partners in the last 10 years, 94 percent on time or early, and 7 percent 

43 

under budget. That is $1 billion in savings, and that has gone right 

back into the construction program—— 

Mr. WOODALL. Seven percent under budget? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Seven percent. 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Booker. 

Mr. BOOKER. I would look to a project in Georgia at Plant Vogtle, 

where we are building two new nuclear units, units 3 and 4, in 

Waynesboro, Georgia. Not an easy place to get to. 

We got 4,000 construction workers that go to work there every 

single day. I spent more time than I probably should have down 

on that job site. And when you go around and you meet with them, 

whether it is on that project or any other project, our members, the 

construction workers, they want to work. They don’t want to sit 

around. You know, the worst thing you could do on a 10-hour shift 

is only be busy for 4 hours. 

So our partnership with our contractor partners, how do you— 

your work, how do you manage that day, how do you do that? And 

if you go down to Waynesboro, you are going to see 4,000 people 

come out of the project every day. They can look behind them, see 

that they are building the future power for this country, and they 

are proud of what they are doing every day. 

Mr. WOODALL. We thought they were going to be trendsetters. It 

remains to be seen, whether that comes to fruition. 

Mr. BOOKER. I still think they will. 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Rogoff? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I would point to projects that are really transformative, and I would give you this example. 

We are surrounded by both water and mountains in the Puget 

Sound region. And, as a result, we can take a lot off of a person’s 

commute by having them avoid either the mountains or especially 

the water. 

So we just opened two additional stops about a year ago this past 

March that serve a neighborhood called Capitol Hill and Huskies 

Stadium, where the Washington Huskies play at the southern end 

of the university campus. We are continuing to go north from there. 

The ability to avoid the waterways and the roadways that have 

to hug those waterways meant that just that two-stop segment 

meant that for many people the trip to the heart of downtown Seattle went from more than 20 minutes on a good day, and could 

be 40 minutes on a bad day, to 8 minutes. It has completely 

changed commuting patterns. Our light rail ridership spiked beyond our expectations, from 70, 80 percent with just two stops. It 

was a lot of money, it took a lot of time. But, boy, it has transformed that region. 

Mr. WOODALL. Yes, I think about the elected officials who put 

the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in, over a lot 

of objections, 45 years ago now. It transformed the city of Atlanta 

in ways that no one could have ever imagined. 

And I see the Trucking Association sitting on the back row. Their 

members are willing to pay more, because they see the difference 

it makes in their day to maintain the roadways. 

I hope, as we go on, you all will partner with me with those stories. It makes all the difference in the world when you feel like you 

are on a winning team instead of on a losing team. And I know 

44 

folks who are proud to show up to work every day. I want the taxpayers to be every bit as proud of that work that is going on. Your 

members deserve that, your industry deserves that, and I think we 

can do that together. 

I thank you all for being here today. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, gentlemen, for your appearance today and for your testimony. 

Many people voted for Donald Trump because he promised to 

make American great again by growing the economy and creating 

high-paying, middle-class jobs by rebuilding America’s crumbling 

infrastructure. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Booker? 

Mr. BOOKER. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. And, Mr. McKenna, do you believe 

that we can make America great again by rebuilding our roads, 

bridges, and tunnels, if we replace real Federal gas tax revenues 

with public-private partnerships? 

Mr. MCKENNA. I believe it requires we do both. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Do you believe that public-private 

partnerships alone can do it? 

Mr. MCKENNA. When I look to my left on this panel, public-private partnerships have existed in transportation for over 100 years. 

States, the Federal Government, and our construction industry, it 

is already in place. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Well, recently the Washington Post 

and the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump stated 

that he no longer believes that public-private partnerships will 

solve our infrastructure funding needs. Do you disagree with President Trump? 

Mr. MCKENNA. I believe it is part of a tool in the toolbox. It is 

a procurement method, it is not necessarily a funding method. It 

is one of the tools that might help particular projects in particular 

regions of the country. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Well, my colleague from Illinois, my 

good friend Representative Davis, asked you all to raise your hands 

if you believe that raising the gas tax alone will take care of the 

problems with the Highway Trust Fund. And it was duly noted 

that no one raised their hand. And none of you on the panel raised 

your hand. 

I want you to raise your hand if you believe that the Federal gas 

tax will remain viable for fixing our crumbling infrastructure, given 

the fact that we have 253 million gas-powered vehicles on the roads 

in the country today versus only 540,000 electric vehicles. Raise 

your hand if you believe that the tax, the Federal gas tax, will remain viable to fix our crumbling infrastructure. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am struggling with ‘‘remain viable.’’ 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. I see four out of five, with the transit 

guy not raising his hand, and I would love to ask him about that 

in a second—probably for a reason unrelated to the answer to the 

question. But I want you—so the record reflects, you all believe 

that the gas tax is going to be viable. 

45 

Now raise your hand if you believe that the gas tax should be 

increased. And I see three—I see four—I see three, I see four. I see 

a maybe out of one of the fours. 

Mr. McCarty. 

Mr. MCCARTY. Yes, and the reason I am hesitant is because I 

think it has to be part of an overall solution. It can be part of a 

package—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. And that is not my question. My 

question is whether or not you believe that—since 1993, gas tax 

has been at its current rate. Do you think it should be increased? 

That is my only question. And you did raise your hand, so do you 

wish to retract it at this time? 

Mr. MCCARTY. No. I think it has to be part of the package. As 

I said, we are looking for something that is sustainable, long-term. 

And, you know, fuel tax will be one of those things that we have 

to do. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. All right. And so, Mr. Rogoff, would 

you please solve this mystery for us, why you did not raise your 

hand on the question—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, it is in part policy and it is part parochial. As 

I pointed out earlier, the State of Washington has just increased 

its gas tax, the second increment of it of a $.12 gas tax increase. 

I work for a board of 18—17 elected officials. They do not, as I 

know, have a position on raising the gas tax. 

I would say this. Importantly, transit is funded from a mix of 

trust fund dollars and general fund dollars. And in my written testimony I talk about how the need for transit expansion in America 

requires that we revisit the mix between programs. But I don’t believe that all of the problems will be handled by a gas tax increase, 

and I think we probably should address the problems on a comprehensive basis, perhaps some combination of fuel taxes. 

I have also talked about the fact that Washington State is one 

of the few States that is actually piloting vehicle user charges. I 

think the committee needs to take a hard look at what will be sustainable, because the one thing you will hear unanimously from 

this panel is everyone wants sustainability and predictability in the 

program. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. And thank you for that response. But 

I will ask whether or not these vehicle user fees are sufficient in 

rural areas. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I think the debate, actually, often goes in the other 

direction, which is to say rural users use the roadways more, by 

definition. And how long it will take a rural resident to get to 

church or a shopping center versus an urban resident. The concern 

I have heard is that vehicle user charges can work a hardship on 

rural America. So I do not know that it would necessarily work in 

that case. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being not on the subcommittee, but being allowed to participate, I much appreciate 

that. And under the committee rules, if you are not on the subcommittee, you are last. So I also appreciate what it was like to 

be a freshman once. 

46 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LARSEN. So I will remember that one day, the value of a 5- 

minute rule. 

Mr. Rogoff, as you know, I am one of those voters who voted for 

the variety of taxes that we raised for the Sound Transit 3, or ST3, 

as we call it. And one of the issues that came up during that debate was about the Federal obligation that we weren’t going to do 

all of it, that taxpayers weren’t going to carry all of this, but were 

certainly going to carry most of it. There was an expectation there 

would be a Federal obligation, but it was not going to be the full 

burden, or half the burden. 

So now we are in this debate with the 2018 budget, moving forward, for ST2, completion of ST2. Can you just—how are you handling the uncertainty of the 2018 budget, then, that says the Federal obligation may not be there to move forward? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, in a variety of measures we are first evaluating for the benefit of the Sound Transit board what our financing 

options would be. We have said definitively that we will get to 

Lynnwood, just as we will get to Federal Way and beyond, on to 

Everett and on to Tacoma, on to Redmond. 

I think the concern is that the Federal partnership leave, thus 

requiring local taxpayers to pay far more and, in so doing, delay 

the project. We have already had to delay the delivery date for getting to Lynnwood from 2023 to 2024, and that was, in part, because of the uncertainty surrounding whether we will get a full 

funding grant agreement, and the timeframe in which we might 

get it. 

This recent appropriation cycle is a very good example. We were 

not successful in the House appropriations bill in securing dollars 

for Lynnwood. There is some funding in the Senate bill that we believe Lynnwood would be eligible for. And so we have to really 

watch the needle carefully, watch each step in the process, work 

with the FTA, work with our delegation, work with other transit 

agencies like ours. 

This is not just about Sound Transit; there are a number of other 

transit agencies around the country that similarly expect continued 

Federal partnership. It was reasonable for them to do so. No one 

expected the administration to completely turn off the funding spigot, as no administration has done in the last five that I have 

worked with. 

But we are looking at our financing options, while working very 

hard with Members like yourself and the rest of the delegation in 

trying to move forward with a reasonable Federal cost. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. So, just to put some perspective on that, again, 

the Federal Government turning off the Federal funding spigot, but 

the local taxpayers spigot is still running. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. 

Mr. LARSEN. Their obligation is still going with an expectation 

that there will be some help. 

Mr. ROGOFF. It is precisely what we told the voters. And, you 

know, you heard me earlier complain about being called out in the 

President’s budget as reasons to terminate the Federal participation. They also called out Los Angeles, they also called out Denver, 

the fact that all three of our regions passed local tax measures to 

47 

fund transit. But the reality is all three of those had an expected 

Federal component when we brought that to the voters. 

Mr. LARSEN. An expected Federal component that you had actually already talked to the Federal authorities about. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, in the case of Lynnwood, we have already 

been admitted into the engineering phase, with a commitment of 

$1.174 billion. I mean this was laid out. And that is why the President’s budget proposal came as, you know, more than a shock. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. You use TIFIA quite a bit, and that is—in the 

FAST Act I think we expanded the use of TIFIA as a nondirect 

Federal funding mechanism. Can you just talk briefly about how 

you use TIFIA as a tool? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure—— 

Mr. LARSEN. A valuable tool? 

Mr. ROGOFF. TIFIA is a very valuable tool, especially for agencies 

that have strong credit. And we pride ourselves—we believe we 

may have the strongest credit rating of any transit agency in the 

country. 

We use TIFIA to lower the cost of borrowing to the taxpayers. 

So we have, we believe, what may still be the only master credit 

agreement with the DOT for four separate TIFIA loans wrapped 

into one agreement. That, by itself, over the course of those four 

loans, will save the taxpayers at Puget Sound between $200 million 

to $300 million in borrowing costs. 

It is a great tool—— 

Mr. LARSEN. What portion of that is mine and my wife’s? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LARSEN. Just kidding, just kidding. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I would have to divide it across all regional taxpayers, but it benefits everyone. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, great. 

And then finally, I will just note when the I–35 bridge collapsed—and this is for everyone, I think, for the record, if you can 

get back to us—when we had the I–35 collapse in Minneapolis, that 

sort of triggered Congress, when we did the next transportation 

bill, to write into the emergency bridge funding provisions in that 

next bill some emergency permitting procedures, which were first 

then used when the Skagit River Bridge collapsed in my district. 

And they were used in Georgia, as well, I think, as part of that collapse. 

Is there, from your perspective—and again, for the record, are 

there provisions in that emergency set of provisions for emergency 

bridge repair that can be maybe used as a lesson for some permitting streamlining as we are—you know, as we try to craft a bill 

and look at permit streamlining? 

If you can come back to us for the record on that from the five 

of you, I would appreciate it. Thanks a lot. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ response to Hon. Larsen’s request for information is on page 65. The response from 

the Transportation Construction Coalition is on pages 90–91.] 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. I have got a question for—it is a little 

parochial—for Mr. McKenna, but for the committee overall. 

48 

Missouri has received grants for the surface transportation alternative funding program for 2016 and 2017, and I would be curious—or if you could tell the committee, too, what the progress is, 

and how that is moving along, and what your thoughts are. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we did note that, 

as part of the FAST Act, there was $95 million available for looking at alternatives to the fuel tax. We felt that our neighbors to the 

left and the right were doing a pretty good job of investigating vehicle miles traveled, and we wanted to look at something else. So 

we are looking at, in Missouri, the notion of a fuel economy-based 

adjustment to a registration fee as another tool in the toolbox, as 

another means of strengthening our own revenue base in Missouri. 

So the first round of the grant—we received a small grant, 

$250,000, to study the demographics of the registration database, 

and that has gone very well. We should be done with that in December. 

We did just get the very good news that we have received another grant the next round, which is about $2.7 million, and we are 

going to be taking information we have gained from the first round, 

and we are looking at the registration database in the State, and 

looking to implement that type of registration fee. It would be a big 

upgrade for the State. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. We had a lot of talk about, obviously, 

solvency of the trust fund, moving forward. And I know Mr. Shuster and I both believe that we are going to have to do something 

different, because the gas tax is extraordinarily regressive and it 

is going to get more so and more so and more so. So we are very 

interested in alternatives that we can look at, moving forward. 

Second round? I know Mr. LaMalfa has a question. 

Go ahead, and then Ms. Norton wants to finish. Go ahead, Mr. 

LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that. 

I just wanted to clear out what a couple things meant for California on SB–1. It was called a bipartisan bill. There are 120 California legislators during the assembly in the senate. One Republican voted for SB–1 in the senate. So if you want to call that a 

bipartisan bill, I don’t have a lot to say about that. But—and that 

individual is termed out and got a railway project for that individual’s district. 

So under what is known as ‘‘hashtag fix our roads,’’ 30 percent 

of the funding of SB–1 is going to go for other things besides roads 

like rail, transit, bikeways, pedestrian paths, parks and recreation, 

university research, workforce development programs. 

So when we go to the well and ask—you don’t even ask the taxpayers, because they do have a couple ballot measures they are 

looking at in California, maybe they will get asked—tell the taxpayers to pay more for their roads, and you have 30 percent going 

for other things, and it isn’t bipartisan, you are really going to run 

into more problems coming back into DC and telling California legislators to try and vote for a new deal to foist more upon them. 

You know, again, $.20 in diesel tax on top of what truckers are 

already paying, and yet truckers are not going to see any improveVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:28 Jan 08, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\10-11-~1\28114.TXT JEAN
49 

ment from the new tax for their ability to move goods up and down 

the system. Families probably see about a $500 increase, total cost per year, 

if they are a multivehicle family and have any work or school to 

get their kids to. So, you know, there are real costs involved as we 

sit here and talk about increasing vehicle tax and fuel tax and— 

on everybody, whether it is a Federal or State project. 

And finally, they had to even change the ballot summary, because of the way it was rigged by the attorney general in California. He went to court and they had to change the misleading 

ballot summary of what—getting ready to qualify, or I think has 

qualified to go in front of the voters. 

So there is a lot of funny business with what is being placed in 

front of them, and they can’t be honest about what it does. 

So, that said, when we are talking about the—who is going to 

bear the cost of the burden of paying for additional roads into the 

Highway Trust Fund or what have you, the issue of electric cars 

has come up a couple times on the panel here. In California’s bill 

there is an increase for $100, because you can’t track fuel costs for 

electric cars. It doesn’t even kick in until 2020 for the electric vehicles in California—$100. Meanwhile, everybody else is going to be 

paying $175, or approximately that, plus the gas tax. So we can’t 

even seem to even out the burden on electric vehicles. 

But let me throw this to Mr. McKenna here. You know, as talking about getting more into the trust fund, with the increasing 

numbers of electric vehicles and hybrids and such, and subsidized 

by State and Federal money, sometimes several thousands of dollars of these due to the incentives to buy those vehicles, they contribute a small fraction of what the cost is for using the same 

roads. 

So what do you see, Mr. McKenna, across the board, besides California, delayed until 2020, $100? What are you seeing in other 

States to try and have these vehicles that are wearing out the 

highways and roads the same as others, but not paying any part 

of that burden? 

Mr. MCKENNA. Thank you for the question. That is actually what 

we are trying to address with the grant program that Chairman 

Graves mentioned. We are looking at a fuel economy adjustment to 

the registration fee. 

So if I am receiving 40 miles per gallon on my vehicle, and you 

are receiving 20, and we both drive 10,000 miles, you are paying 

double what I am. Our attempt, through this grant program, is to 

look at the ability to create a registration fee that would balance 

those two. So, in fact, all users would be paying the same. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. On one hand, that is funny, because we have 

been cajoled and pushed and prodded into driving smaller, more 

fuel-efficient vehicles and all that, and then, now that the money 

is running out of the trust fund, it is going back the other way. So 

how people that watch what we do, either at the State level or the 

Federal level, wonder what the heck they are supposed to do, it has 

got to be pretty confusing. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. I appreciate the 

extra time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you. 

50 

Mr. Graves from Louisiana. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. The other Mr. Graves. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and I want to thank you very much 

for having this hearing. 

I want to thank you all for being here today. I apologize I had 

to step out for a good bit of the hearing, but I did hear your testimony earlier. 

As we move forward in building an infrastructure package, I 

think something that is really important is for us to look at where 

we are spending infrastructure dollars today, as a Federal Government. And I can go through and name various programs through, 

obviously, agencies like Department of Transportation, the Corps of 

Engineers, but many other agencies that are spending billions of 

dollars that I think are perhaps a bit off the radar, agencies like 

Department of Agriculture, FEMA, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, HUD, and many others. 

Do any of you have experience in using multiple funding streams 

in advancing an infrastructure solution that you are working on? 

Does that question make sense? Meaning integrating various Federal funding streams to build a transportation project in your 

State. 

Mr. MCKENNA. Yes, Representative. We actually use multiple 

funding streams for almost every construction project we do, large 

or small. So a combination of Federal, State, and local funds. We 

have a cost-share program that can leverage local transportation 

development district sales taxes. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Let me see if I can clarify my question. Certainly you are going to be integrating State and local funding streams with Federal, because there is a cost share on many 

of these programs. Have you brought other Federal streams to the 

table? 

Mr. MCKENNA. We do try to work with resource agencies. I can’t 

think of any specific ones right now, but I know we have done that, 

and I could provide some for the record. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I would appreciate it. Could anyone 

else—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure. We certainly have combined dollars from the 

Federal Transit Administration with things like CMAQ dollars, 

congestion mitigation air quality—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Sure. 

Mr. ROGOFF [continuing]. Dollars from the Federal Highway Administration. 

I think what you will often see is dollars from other agencies pay 

for some of the augmentation that surrounds our projects like 

CDBG [Community Development Block Grant] through HUD, and 

the kind of redevelopment a community might do around a rail station. It is part of an overall build-out of a structure, but they might 

be considered segmented projects. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Yes, thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, 

as we move forward and continue having discussions about infrastructure, I just think it is critical that we have a clear inventory 

of various Federal efforts that are underway now, under all these 

different agencies, that are advancing different infrastructure objectives and, in many cases, I think perhaps objectives that aren’t 

51 

as high priority as others. If we are spending money and making 

up something, if we are building recreational opportunities in some 

States using an infrastructure pot, is that really advancing a Federal objective? 

A lot of people, when you talk infrastructure package, I think are 

expecting to see this rain of Federal dollars that are going to come 

in to States. I think one of the first things we need to do is get an 

inventory of where we are spending dollars now, and a better understanding of how those dollars are being spent, if they are truly 

advancing a Federal priority or not, and doing a better job at truly 

funding projects, or funding initiatives within the Federal Government, as opposed to taking more of a shotgun approach, where we 

sprinkle dollars out in insufficient amounts all over the United 

States. 

Let me ask another question. Mr. Rogoff, you obviously have a 

strong transit background. I have ridden on a number of your rail 

vehicles in the Seattle area. How do you do your planning? You 

talked about how you are able to project the number of cars coming 

off roads, and things like that, as a result of different investments 

you are making. How do you integrate your planning with your 

State DOT to make sure that you are making complementary investments with your transit dollars as compared to other highway 

dollars? 

Mr. ROGOFF. It is a great question, and we are, frankly, rather 

proud of our record and how we come at this. 

So, first, as I said, we have to go to the legislature to get authority to go to the voters to ask for a revenue increase and a system 

plan. That was effectively the State highway bill, so we knew what 

the State’s plans were before we then went out to the voters. 

We have the added benefit that the State transportation secretary is a member of my board. We work hand-in-glove with them, 

in part, because a lot of the projects we are running—new rail extensions are actually happening over interstate right-of-way adjacent to either I–5—we are also, literally, building light rail over a 

floating bridge that is Interstate 90. 

So we are working together. In fact, a number of the State DOT 

staff will now be collocated in our office spaces so we can work even 

better together. So there are always improvements to make on the 

integration, but we only want the taxpayers to pay for the benefit 

once, and we are working very hard to make sure that takes place. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple other questions I am going to submit in writing. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Absolutely. 

Seeing no other questions, I want to thank all of our witnesses 

for being here today and for your testimony. 

I would also ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to the questions that have been submitted to them. 

And I would also ask unanimous consent that the record remain 

open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by Members and witnesses to be included in today’s record. 

And, without objection, that is so ordered. 

52 

And if no other Members have anything to add, the committee 

stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

53 


Insert offset folio 8 here 28114.008

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

OF STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS 

AASHID 

TESTEv!ONY OF 

Patrick K. McKenna 

Director, Missouri Department of Transportation; 

Member, AASHTO Board of Directors; 

President, Mid America Association of State Transportation 

Officials (MAASTO) 

REGARDING 

Building a 21st Century Infrastructure 

for America: Highways and Transit 

Stakeholders' Perspectives 

BEFORE THE 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

United States House of Representatives 

ON 

Wednesday, October 11,2017 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 249 

Washington, D.C., 20001 

202-624-5800 

'\V\:V>.v.transportation.org 

info@aashto.org 
54 


Insert offset folio 9 here 28114.009

HOUSE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT SUBCOMMITTEE Page I 2 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to provide the perspective of the nation's state departments of transportation 

(state DOTs) on building a 21st-century transportation infrastructure for America through the 

proposed infrastructure package from President Donald Trump and Congress. 

My name is Patrick McKenna, and I serve as Director of the Missouri Department of 

Transportation (MoDOT). and on the Board of Directors of the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and President of the Mid-America 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (MAASTO). Today it is my honor to 

testify on behalf of the great State of Missouri and AASHTO, which represents the transportation 

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

Appointed by the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, I began serving as 

MoDOT Director in December 2015. My responsibility is to oversee all operations for the 

Department. Prior to my current role, l served as Deputy Commissioner of the New Hampshire 

Department of Transportation, a role that is chief financial, operating, and legislative officer for 

the organization. 

AASHTO and its member DOTs, like many in the transportation industry, recognize a special 

opportunity this year to enact a major infrastructure investment initiative given the high degree 

of interest from the Trump Administration and strong bipartisan support in Congress. As you and 

the President consider the design of this package for transportation infrastructure, we offer the 

following recommendations: 

• Federal government should look to build upon substantial state and local investment in 

transportation; 

• Future of the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) must be secured through a long-term and 

sustainable revenue solution; 

• Infrastructure package must focus its budgetary support on transportation infrastructure given 

the essential nature of federal funding and oversight compared to other asset classes; 

• Direct federal funding is needed instead of only incentives that encourage use of private 

capital or borrowing; 

• Wherever possible, traditional federal authorities should be assigned to states to expedite and 

streamline project delivery without sacrificing fundamental principles associated with current 

federal requirements; 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Director, Ivlissouri Department of Transportation 

;\Iember, Board of Directors of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

President, !vlid America .Association of State Transportation Officials 
55 


Insert offset folio 10 here 28114.010

investments that secure our nation's economic 

multi-decade productivity and of 

environment, and: 

w·ould like to first express appreciation 

with your Senate and House colleagues 

Act December 2015. The Act repres,entlec! 

transportation '"1;·""mc•ll 

Act: A Legacy 

The FAST Act continues 

States are answering to this call for action 

enactment of transportation 

Missouri, have been and continue to 

Furthermore, US DOT notes their 2015 

percent of $2 J 7 billion invested in 

invested in transit programs, cn•:nn.~n·rl 

the federal government 

suited for a reccssionary 

and rail-should be 

mention this because AASHTO and its notion that 

federal funding displaces or discourages 

transportation mtra>>lrttctllre 

reaffirmation federally-assisted, state-implemented of the national program is 

even more critical now than in the The tor the federal government to lead is to 

augment substantial state and transportation by ensuring long-term, sustainable 

federal from the Highway Trust direct funding to address 

highway and transit backlog as part of the currently under 

consideration. 
56 


Insert offset folio 11 here 28114.011

FUTURE OF THE FEDERM;. mGHWAY TRUST FU~D MU:ST BE SECURED 

THROUGH A LONG· TERM AND SUSTAINABLE REV~NUE SOLUTION 

Page I 4 

The FAST Act's authorization of$305 billion for federal highway, highway safety, transit, and 

passenger rail programs from 2016 to 2020 could not have been timelier in supporting our 

economic growth and maintaining our multimodal transportation infrastructure. However, it 

should be recognized that the FAST Act provides only a near-term, though absolutely necessary, 

reprieve when it comes to federal surface transportation funding. That is because the HTF 

continues to remain at a crossroads. The HTF has provided stable, reliable, and substantial 

highway and transit funding for decades since its inception in 1956, but this is no longer the case. 

Since 2008, the HTF has been sustained through a series of General Fund transfers now 

amounting to $140 billion. According to the June 2017 projection of the Congressional Budget 

Office, annual HTF spending is estimated to exceed receipts by about $16 billion in FY 2021, 

growing to about $23 billion by FY 2027. Furthermore, the HTF is expected to experience a 

significant cash shortfall in FY 2021, since it cannot incur a negative balance. 

Framing this HTF "cliff' in terms offederal highway obligations, AASHTO estimates that states 

may see a 40 percent drop from FY 2020 to the following year-from $46.2 billion to $27.7 

billion in FY 2021. In the past, such similar shortfall situations have led to the possibility of 

reduction in federal reimbursements to states on existing obligations, leading to serious cash flow 

problems for states and resulting in project delays. More alarmingly, due to a steeper projected 

shortfall in the Mass Transit Account, new federal transit obligations are expected to be zeroed 

out between FY 2021 and FY 2023 excluding any "flex" of highway dollars to transit. Simply 

put, this is a devastating scenario that we must do all we can to avoid. 

ESTIMATED FEDERAL HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT OBLIGATIONS BEYOND FY 2020WITH 

NO ADDITIONAL REVENUES TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND 

AM£RICANAS6ot;,....TION 

""STAT£ H<~14WAV""~ 

'A"A'sHI'o ESTIMATED FEDERAL HIGHWAYTRUST FUND OBLIGATIONS 

11 Highway " Hlshway Safety Transit 

45 

40 

35 

! 30 

.. 

s 25 

j 

;g 20 

15 

10 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 l019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 

Testimony of Patrick K. .'&Kenna 

Director, l\.{issouri Department of'!l-rarJ<nc>rratlcm 

l\.1ember, Board of Directors of the of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

President, Mid America Association of State Transportation ( )fficials 
57 


Insert offset folio 12 here 28114.012

HOUSE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT SUBCOMMITTEE Page I 5 

If federal obligations are sharply reduced starting in fiscal year 2021, MoDOT could see a 40 

percent reduction in funds which equates to approximately $400 million less for the state. This 

means Missouri's estimated federal funding in 2020 of$1 billion would be reduced to $600 

million in 202 I. 

To put in context, $600 million was Missouri's average annual federal funding for the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 2 I st Century (TEA-21 ), the surface transportation law from 

1998 to 2003. In other words, Missouri's federal funding would be reduced to what it was 15-20 

years ago. 

While AASIITO is grateful for past efforts to provide General Fund transfers into the HTF, we 

do not believe that is a viable long-term solution upon expiration of the FAST Act. Given the 

national policy momentum and support for infrastructure investment and tax reform, now may be 

that rare and opportune time to finally resolve the structural fiscal imbalance in the HTF. 

In order to provide additional HTF receipts to maintain or increase current highway and transit 

investment levels, there is no shortage of technically feasible tax and user fee options that 

Congress could consider. We see three general revenue categories for the HTF: 

• Raising the rate of taxation or fee rates of existing federal revenue streams into the HTF. 

Examples include motor fuel taxes on gasoline and diesel (including indexing), user fee on 

heavy vehicles, and sales tax on trucks, trailers, and truck tires. 

• Identifying and creating new federal revenue sources into the HTF. Examples include 

mileage-based user fee, container tax, driver's license surcharge, vehicle registration fee, 

imported oil fee, sales tax on fuel, carbon tax, vehicle sales tax, sales tax on auto-related 

components, and a tire tax on light-duty vehicles. 

• Diverting current revenues (and possibly increasing the rates) from other federal sources into 

the HTF. Examples include customs duties, the Harbor Maintenance Tax, income taxes, and 

other revenues from the General Fund. 

Following is a matrix that demonstrates the breadth of potential HTF revenue mechanisms, 

including a column that shows an illustrative rate or percentage increase and the associated 

revenue yield estimated. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Director, fvlissouri Dep:artmcnt ofT ransportation 

7v1embcr, Board of Directors of the American ~\ssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

President, Mid America .\ssociation of State Transportation Officials 
58 


Insert offset folio 13 here 28114.013

HOUSE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT SUBCOMMITTEE 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Director, i\fissouri Department of Transportation 

~'fember, Board of Directors of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

President, i\rfid America Association of State Transportation Officials 

Page I 6 
59 


Insert offset folio 14 here 28114.014

17 

Our nation's economic and can be achieved when every piece of 

physical infrastructure long term. ln other words, AASHTO fully 

recognizes the inherent value and vital nature of assets across a multitude of categories ranging 

from aviation, dams and levees, and water transportation, water treatment, 

housing, telecommunications, energy generation and transmission, and social infrastructure. 

ln framing the future vision for our nation's infrastructure, we 

assessment currently being undertaken by the Trump nuammouauv:rt. 

such as infrastructure, there is no question that successful on 

coordination among many departments and agencies in the executive branch. As 

such, 15 cabinet-level under a National Economic Council interagency 

committee provide both necessary breadth and depth the Administration's 

infrastructure policy. 

Beyond the policy framework, the Administration has also to commit $200 billion in 

direct federal funding over ten years to provide the fiscal of the infrastructure 

covering all asset classes. Ho\vever, the Administration has not yet defined each asset 

share of the promised federal funding support. In this question, we believe the 

ownership structure and existing !inancing dynamic asset types must be 

taken into account. 

,.,.v~utuwt;; to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 20 sector owned $40.7 trillion 

non-clet,~m:e infrastructure in the form of fixed assets, state and local assets totaled 

$!0.1 trillion and federal assets amounted to trillion. Of privately-owned assets, $22 trillion 

in nonresidential assets were composed stations, railways, factories, 

satellites, and telecommunications local infrastructure included assets such 

as roads, bridges, schools, and federal nondefense infrastructure included 

assets as dams, postal buildings, air traffic control system. Beyond ownership, 

note that certain assets such as telecommunication networks tend to be whereas 

the vast share of our nation's roadway in rural areas serving as lifelinesthroughout the transportation system. 

Though the infrastructure 

burdens for all asset classes, urges both the and Congress to 

federal on transportation infrastructure given the essential nature of public 

compared to other asset classes. 

Member, Board :\ssociation of State Highway itnd T'r;:1nsportation Officials 

President, :viid _America Association of :State Transportation ()fficials 
60 


Insert offset folio 15 here 28114.015

In further defining federal nwJrre:tarv 

must focus on direct grant This is because 

nn~n.cmu tools that leverage existing revenue streams-such as user fees taxes-are 

typically not viable for most individual transportation prc~ects in the United States. AASHTO's 

member DOTs appreciate the ability to access capital markets to help speed up the delivery of 

much-needed transportation improvements, and many states rely on various forms of 

and from bonding, T!FlA credit state infrastructure 

mirr-lnrrv~r, parrner·smps, among other tools. 

That the inherent limitations of financing for the vast 

projects. The reality that most transportation 

a revenue stream through tolls, fares, or other user fees 

to service or return on investment to private-sector equity holders. In 2014, such 

non-direct funding sources amounted to less than 18 percent of total capital outlays. 

a role for financing and procurement tools such as 

to not only scarce dollars, but to also better 

and private sector suited to handle them. But 

also maintain that financing form loans like TIFIA, taxactivity bonds, infrastructure banks, and tax code incentives are 

"'""""'''"o to meet most types infrastructure investment 

needs we face. 

I also would like to draw attention to the immediate crisis 

infrastructure, including local roads. railroads, locks and 

and port facilities. The lack of attention and of the nation's rural infrastructureover many decades-has created a void in the heartland, where access and connectivity for 60 

million Americans is in critical need of investment and renewal. 

rP•nv'>an.rot•nn of investment in rural infrastructure is essential to both mobility and 

for residents. Rural infrastructure provides individuals access they need to 

and jobs. In addition to moving people, this 

infrastructure is also critical to goods and connecting rural communities to national and 

global markets. Rural areas remain critical to the nation's economic success the 

prcldutctlon and movement of goods such as in agriculture, forestry. energy, manufacturin 

and mining. rural infrastructure connections will ensure these goods can 

efficiently to and intemational markets. 

The health of our rural communities is inextricably linked the overall prosperity and continued 

success of our nation's and its ability to compete globally. Therefore. any new 

infrastructure initiative should on the needs of rural America to not meet the needs of 

these communities, but to realize its full potential as the economic engine nation. 

Director, 

:\I ember) Board of State and Transportation 

President, 1Iid ~\mcrica i\ssociation of State Transportation Officials 
61 


Insert offset folio 16 here 28114.016

J't 

After decades layers upon layers of legislative and oversight to 

transportation project both the FAST Act and the for Progress in the 21st 

reforms. However, there 

PHiri<enr·v and effectiveness 

Act (MAP-21) have instituted 

further '"''nnrtnn, itv 

stewards of taxpayer resources and 

AASHTO believes that tremendous benefit can be unleashed by assigning oet~lSIOnt-n,laKmg 

authorities traditionally assumed by the federal government those states that both desire 

and are to be held California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah are 

the National Environmental Act (NEPA) assignment made 

to all states in MAP-2!. Based on our collective experience, that will 

make this program both more efficient and attractive to interested states 

• Simplifying the assignment application and audit process; 

• states to assume all of the of the USDOTwith respect to 

~ .. ,, .... ,,, ... , and other activities to environmental review, consultation, or 

action required under any federal environmental law for review or 

and; 

" Allowing stales in this program to be 

guidance and procedures so long as 

are met. 

responsible for the de'vel•Dp!nelrlt 

laws and the USDOT rPnnir.>mr•nt< 

Beyond NEP A, AASHTO has identified a number of touchpoints where states can make 

detenninations in lieu of seeking Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) including 

federal funds obligation project ~"''""'mPnt< 

maintenance, repayment costs. and 

non-federal share, among many other possible areas of current federal oversight. 

A recent and highly illustrative example from Missouri is the U.S. Route 54 Mississippi River 

Bridge To enable the bridge this project to fill tbe "notch" in 

a authorized levee. A Section 408 permi:;sJc>n 

WTitten statement H·om the sponsor, in this case a 

alteration. To offset the the "notch", MoDOT with the 

an opening under the bridge that 

would convey a 500-year event without the t1ood levels. MoD()T eventually 

negotiated with the levee district to reach agreement on the design Hood as proposed. 

and Transportation Officials 

Presidem, tviid America _-\ssociation of State Transportation ()fficials 
62 


Insert offset folio 17 here 28114.017

HOUSE HiGHWAYS AND TRANSIT SUllCOMMITTEE Page I 10 

Without the letter of permission from the levee district, the United States Army Corp of 

Engineers will not grant the Section 408 permission (the approval process to ensure any 

alteration proposed will not be injurious to the public interest and will not affect the Corp 

project's ability to meet its authorized purpose), and subsequently won't issue the Section 404 

permit associated with the Clean Water Act. 

MoDOT met with representatives from the levee district numerous times in an attempt to resolve 

the issues, because the cost of additional conveyance would result in a longer bridge and would 

make it financially difficult to replace. While MoDOT managed to avoid project delays in this 

case, letting was very close to being delayed. MoDOT's suggested solution to address this 

problem would be for the Corp not to allow the letter of permission from the entity that has an 

interest in the federal levee to wholly dictate whether the applicant can complete the Section 408 

permission process. The letter of permission should be a consideration in the Corp's decision 

making process, but it should not be the item that ultimately determines the permission can be 

issue. 

Finally, 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 pilot program. This pilot program would 

allow USDOT's modal administrations and federal environmental agencies to waive or 

otherwise modify their own requirements to develop innovative practices to streamline project 

delivery and achieve positive environmental outcomes. 

The flexibility provided under this framework would include appropriate safeguards to ensure 

adherence to federal environmental policy goals. For example, all federal agencies required to 

consult on a project would need to agree to the inclusion of the project in the pilot program, 

consulting resource agencies would need to determine that equal or improved environmental 

outcomes would be achieved, and no agency would be allowed to override or modify 

requirements that fall within another agency's authority. This program would require a new 

legislative authority for federal transportation and regulatory agencies to allow them to modify 

their own requirements to develop innovative practices that streamline project delivery and 

achieve positive environmental outcomes. 

PRIORITIZE PROJECTS THAT WILL BRING A MULTI-DECADE RETURN ON 

INVESTMENT INSTEAD OF "SHOVEL-READY" PROJECTS 

Though certainly significant, benefits from investment in transportation infrastructure go well 

beyond short-term construction jobs created. A well-performing transportation network allows 

businesses to manage inventories and move goods more cheaply, access a variety of suppliers 

and markets for their products, and get employees reliably to work. American families benefit 

both as consumers from lower priced goods and as workers by gaining better access to jobs. 

Testimony of Patrick K. i\kKenna 

Director, iv1issouri Department of Transportation 

i'.fember, Board of Directors of the American .L\ssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

President, ?vfid America Association of State Transportation Officials 
63 


Insert offset folio 18 here 28114.018

HOUSE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT SUBCOMMITTEE Page I II 

The FHWA estimates that each dollar spent on road, highway and bridge improvements results 

in an average benefit of$5.20 in the fonn of reduced vehicle maintenance costs, reduced delays, 

reduced fuel consumption, improved safety, reduced road and bridge maintenance costs, and 

reduced emissions as a result of improved traffic flow. Similarly, the American Public 

Transportation Association estimates that in the long tenn, a program of enhanced investment 

sustained over 20 years can have a total effect on the economy in the range of 3.7 times the 

amount being spent annually. 

In Missouri, examples of rate-of-return investments made in the state include: 

• Every dollar invested in transportation in Missouri results in $4 of new economic activity. 

• Missouri has more than 1,000 miles of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers bordering and 

bisecting our state. Some $12.5 billion in cargo travels up and down those waterways each 

year. A little investment in ports can spur a great deal of private investment. For example, in 

the past 5 years, $13 million in state investment in ports has led to $53 million in investment 

from the private sector. 

• Missouri has 123 public-use airports that generate $11 billion in annual economic activity. 

• Missouri's cost-share program enables us to leverage contributions from local communities 

with state funds to advance projects of regional importance. Since the program's inception, 

more than $450 million in state participation has led to the delivery of more than $1 billion in 

projects. 

When we as a nation make significant investments in our transportation infrastructure, it 

generates a multi-decade return on that investment to all sectors of the economy in the form of 

improved productivity and quality of life. The current fiscal environment does not require a rapid 

deployment of public dollars to resuscitate the national and global economy like what we saw in 

2008. Rather, right now is the opportune time to secure our economic future for the long-term 

based on a thorough modernization of the public capital stock in transportation. As such, the 

infrastructure package must focus on programs and projects that generate most benefits through 

the entire lifecycle, rather than mandating short spending deadlines which will lead to less 

efficient use of taxpayer dollars due to project sponsors' inability to address longer-term needs. 

BUILD ON THE FAST ACT'S FOUNDATION BY USING THE EXISTING FEDERAL 

PROGRAM STRUCTURE TO FUND INVESTMENTS 

For over one hundred years-and as exemplified by the FAST Act-we as a nation have enjoyed 

the fruits of the federal government's highly successful partnership with state DOTs to build and 

maintain our nation's surface transportation system. From 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 enabled states and their local partners to fund a wide range of projects 

that serve the interest of the nation as a whole. 

'Testimony of Patrick K. fvkKenna 

Director, ?viissouri Department of Transportation 

Member, Board of Directors of the American ~-\.ssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

President, ?\Tid America Association of State Transportation ( )fficials 
64 


Insert offset folio 19 here 28114.019

HOUSE II!GHWAYS AND TRANSIT SUBCOMMITTEE Page J 12 

Thanks to the federal surface transportation program's flexibility that defers project selection and 

investment decision-making to state and local governments based on extensive public input, 

diverse communities in rural, suburban, and urban areas of the country have all been able to help 

people get to and from work, and help goods get access to a larger market than ever before in a 

way that best meet their unique needs. 

Based on the federal surface transportation program's long track record of efficiency and 

flexibility, we recommend that any increase in federal funds should flow through the existing 

FAST Act formula-based program structure rather than through untested new approaches that 

will require more time and oversight. Any effort that does not rely on the existing federal surface 

transportation program, such as an approach that chooses only certain projects based on a 

priority list, would leave most of the country behind no matter the size of such a list. In addition, 

we believe this type of a top-down approach from Washington will not only undermine the state 

and local prerogatives honored in the FAST Act, but also impede timely and successful delivery 

of the new infrastructure package. 

Putting the program framework that built the Interstate Highway System and the National 

Highway System-the backbone of our national network of roads and bridges that drive our 

national economy-into work again to deploy additional federal resources across multiple modes 

of transportation represents the optimal approach to improve mobility and quality of life in all 

corners of our great nation whether they are urban, suburban, or rural. 

CONCLUSION 

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to engage with my peer state DOT CEOs at the AASHTO 

Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona. In addition to a very robust conversation on the 

infrastructure package, the state DOT leaders reaffirmed our collective commitment to assist you 

and the Administration in any way we can to ensure successfully enactment of a robust 

multi modal transportation investment package. 

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

Testimony of Patrick K. McKenna 

Director, tvlissouri Department of Transportation 

Member, Board of Directors of the ~-\merican _\ssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

President, Mid America ~-\ssociation of State Transportation Officials 
65 


Insert offset folio 20 here 28114.020

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Response to Representative Larsen 

Highways & Transit Subcommittee Hearing Question 

October 11, 2017 

For national scale emergency events (like bridge collapses), federal resource agencies are engaged and 

work cooperatively with the Federal Highway Administration to proactively find and implement 

solutions. This level of cooperation and involvement from resource agencies on day-to-day projects 

would greatly expedite project delivery. Currently, it is difficult to get federal resource agencies engaged 

early in project development. As a result of input received late in project development, major project 

changes may be needed, requiring additional time and resources. Early agency engagement would 

streamline project delivery and reduce the costs of environmental reviews. 

Although the NEPA categorical exclusion works well for emergency events, we need a more holistic 

approach for environmental reviews for emergencies. Substantive environmental laws like the Clean 

Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act do not have similar 

exemptions for emergencies. Although there are expedited processes for emergency events, states stilt 

need to go through lengthy processes and obtain permits. 
66 


Insert offset folio 21 here 28114.021

"Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: 

Highways aud Transit Stakeholders' Perspectives" 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Hearing 

Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 10:00 a.m. 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted on behalf of Congressman Bob Gibbs (OH-07) 

I. We will need to enhance and maintain our existing roads and infrastructure to allow for 

connected and self-driving vehicles. Vehicles will be connected to each other (V2V) and can be 

connected to infrastructure (V21) to achieve safety, capacity and emissions improvement. Adapting 

infrastructure to be smart infrastructure for the future requires the integration of multiple 

technologies and communications and networking systems. 

At Ohio's Transportation Research Center (TRC), they will be testing multiple connectivity 

methods including Direct Short Range Communication (DSRC units), 4G, L TE and soon, 5G. In 

addition, TRC will utilize autonomous vehicle (A V) sensors that use technology such as radar and 

cameras. The Ohio Turnpike will be placing DSRC unites on the Turnpike so Ohio can help lead 

the transition to these technologies. 

How can Congress help promote these technologies to ensure cost effective investments in 

Connected and A V infrastructure? 

AASHTO Response 

AASHTO appreciates your leadership in ensuring successful deployment of connected and 

automated vehicle (CA V) infrastructure as foundations for a smarter, automated highway 

infrastructure that has potential to bring significant improvements in safety and mobility. 

Under the US Department of Transportation's (USDOT) guidance, the transportation industry has 

been proactively engaging in discussions about the need for a unified approach to research, test, 

and deploy Vehicle to Infrastructure (V21) applications and technologies. In 2014, USDOT 

requested AASHTO to partner with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and ITS 

America to develop a forum that would enable the stakeholder collaboration needed to address 

V2I deployment issues. As such, these three associations organized and managed the Vehicle to 

Infrastructure Deployment Coalition (V21 DC), which aimed to prepare the stakeholders to deploy 

and operate a functioning V2l infrastructure. 

Through outreach and engagement, the V21 DC has grown to more than 200 members, 

representing state and local transportation agencies, automobile manufacturers, equipment 

vendors, academia and other research institutions, and a variety of additional public and private 

sector members. These members volunteered their time to participate in monthly webinars and in-
67 


Insert offset folio 22 here 28114.022

person meetings for thousands of hours of volunteer time, collectively. Initial activities of the V21 

DC identified 16 high priority issues facing V21 deployment, which include, but are not limited to, 

accessibility of, security of, ownership of, and business models for data; industry standards to 

ensure interoperability, vendor independence, and scalability ofV21 systems and applications; and 

V21 deployment guidance. 

In September 2015, the V21 DC Executive Committee identified four initial focus areas of the V2l 

DC to include intersections, work zones, queue warnings, and curve warnings. While this direction 

in no way limited deployment in other areas, this focus allowed the individual working groups of 

the V21 DC to focus their activities around a more specific group ofV21 applications. To achieve 

progress in these areas, we believe the appropriate near-term communications technology is 

DSRC, which you had noted in your question. Since this is technology that uses a radio frequency 

that was set aside for transportation safety purposes and is operational today, safety and mobility 

benefits ofV21 can be realized sooner in the four initial focus areas. 

In response to the focus on intersections, the V21 DC members initiated the SPaT Challenge, a 

challenge to each state to deploy V2l systems to broadcast Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) data 

at approximately 20 signalized intersections in each state by 2020 using DSRC. Applications for 

SPaT include providing signal priority to transit vehicles and alerting drivers of red lights. This 

challenge, which was adopted by AASHTO and is supported by ITE, has already led to the 

planning or installation of SPaT broadcasts in more than 20 states, and momentum continues to 

increase. The V21 DC has developed a series of resources to support agencies accepting the 

challenge and will conduct a series of workshop webinars to support deployment. The V21 DC is 

also engaging the automobile manufacturers to facilitate discussion regarding a verification 

process to ensure compatibility between the roadside equipment broadcasts and intersectionrelated vehicle applications. 

Phase 2 of the V21 DC is a 5-year agreement, expected to run late 2017-2022. Activities are 

expected to continue to advance V2I solutions through continued support of the SPaT Challenge 

and the introduction of the Connected Fleet Challenge. This initiative will encourage public and 

private sector fleets to deploy V21 capabilities on at least one vehicle to interact with the SPaT 

data being broadcast from an increasing number of intersections throughout the country. The 

Connected Fleet Challenge is only a concept today, but an early focus of Phase 2 of the V21 DC 

will be to advance this into a full activity. 

The future of CAY offers promising and exciting opportunities to overcome many of today's 

transportation safety and mobility challenges, and the V21 DC has proven to be an effective forum 

for transportation agencies to work with automobile manufacturers, equipment vendors, academia 

and other public and private sector groups to understand paths toward CA V deployment. There 

has been some debate about making the DSRC spectrum available for non-transportation safety 

purposes, which presents a significant threat to the dedicated DSRC spectrum being encroached 

upon to the detriment of transportation safety. 

In order to ensure uninterrupted deployment of investments already made in the proven DSRC 

technology, we request Congressional support to preserve the DSRC spectrum for transportation 

safety purposes, and to provide continued funding for efforts such as the V21 DC which assists 

2 
68 


Insert offset folio 23 here 28114.023

transportation agencies with understanding and making cost-effective investments in CA V 

infrastructure to realize safety and mobility benefits in the near term. 

3 
69 


Insert offset folio 24 here 28114.024

TIUIIISPCIII'i'ATIOII 

UIUTIIIIUIOII 

CIIAUTIIIII 

Jim Roberts 

President & CEO 

Granite Construction, Inc. 

Infrastructure for America: 

Stakeholders' Persc1ectiv•es" 

Wf'•fln,~><:lil::~v_ October 11, 2017 

!O:OOa.m. 

2167 t«l•lfrnJrn House Office 

1Rf1,W<IVS and Transit 

Established in 1996 and co~chaired by the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) and the Associated 

General Contractors of America {AGC}, the 31 associations and labor unions that make up the TCC have a direct market interest 

ln the federal transportation program. TCC members include: 

American Road & Transportation Builders Association (co~chalr}; Associated General Contractors of America (co-chair); 

American Coal Ash Association; American Concrete Pavement Association; American Concrete Pipe Association; American 

Council Subcontractors Association; American !ron and Steel Institute; American Society of 

Civil Engineers; Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association; Asphalt Recycling & 

Reclaiming Association; Associated Equipment Distributors; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Concrete Reinforcing 

Steel Institute; International Slurry Surfacing Association; International Association of Bridge, Structurat Ornamental and 

Reinforcing Iron Workers; International Union of Operating Engineers; Laborers~Employers Cooperation and Education Trust; 

Laborers' International Union of North America; National Asphalt Pavement Association; National Association of Surety Bond 

Producers; National Electrical Contractors Association; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; National Steel Bridge 

Alliance; Natlona! Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; National Utility Contractors Association; Portland Cement Association; 

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute; The Road Information Program; and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 

America. 

1 
70 


Insert offset folio 25 here 28114.025

"Building a 21" Century for America: Highways and Transit Stakeholders' Perspectives" 

Testimony of James Roberts, President and Chief Executive Officer, Granite Construction Incorporated 

on Behalf of the Transportation Construction Coalition 

October 11, 2017 

Chairman Graves, Ranking member Holmes-Norton, and all members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for holding today's hearing to review the important role highways and public transportation 

improvements will play in Building a 21" Century Infrastructure for America. 

My name is Jim Roberts and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Granite Construction 

Incorporated. We are a full-service infrastructure solutions provider performing as a general contractor, 

construction management firm and construction materials producer headquartered in Watsonville, 

California. Granite specializes in complex infrastructure projects, while also building many of the 

standard day to day roads across America. We are one of the largest transportation contractors in the 

nation. 

I am pleased to appear before you today representing the Transportation Construction Coalition (TCC). 

The TCC is a partnership of 31 national associations and construction unions representing hundreds of 

thousands of individuals with a direct market interest in federal transportation programs. The TCC was 

initiated in July 1996 to focus on the federal budget and surface transportation program reauthorization 

debates. TCC activists can be found in virtually every congressional district and provide a vital service to 

their communities by helping to improve the efficiency and safety of our nation's transportation 

infrastructure. The TCC's unique membership enables the coalition to articulate the impact of federal 

policies and investment levels on all aspects ofthe transportation construction industry. TCC member 

organizations represent contractors, planning and design firms, materials and manufacturing firms and 

the construction trade unions that represent many of their employees. In addition to being able to 

speak with one voice for our industry, the TCC's wide-ranging expertise and shared resources allow the 

coalition to be involved in a variety of issues of importance to our member organizations. 

We thank President Trump and the bipartisan leaders in Congress for continuing to include an 

infrastructure package as a key priority for the 11S'h Congress. The dialogue to date clearly 

demonstrates that the president's interest in improving the U.S. infrastructure is more than just 

campaign rhetoric. Infrastructure investment and reforms are among the few areas in the federal policy 

arena that have the potential to quickly deliver tangible and meaningful improvements across the 

nation. TCC members are eager to begin and advance this important debate. 

The federal government's role in delivering infrastructure solutions has been an essential component of 

our nation's history. From President Lincoln and the Transcontinental Railroad to President Roosevelt's 

New Deal Programs that produced projects like the Hoover Dam to President Eisenhower and the 

Interstate Highway System, leaders of both parties have routinely embarked on bold, infrastructure 

initiatives and delivered. 

2 
71 


Insert offset folio 26 here 28114.026

Some 60 years after the visionary investment in our Interstate Highway System that still supports our 

economy today, the country once again is ready to rally behind a bold federal infrastructure vision 

backed by a significant commitment to fund this vision. Taking the cue after decades of chronic federal 

inaction, more than half of the states in our country have increased funding commitments to their 

transportation programs in the past few years. Now is the perfect time for leadership to re-emerge at 

the federal level. 

In my testimony today, I will articulate the infrastructure investment and environmental streamlining 

needs and options Congress must consider when crafting an infrastructure package. 

I. Federal infrastructure Investment 

a. Continued Federal leadership Is Essential 

The partnership between local, state and federal governments Is one of great importance, on many 

levels, to the 241-year success ofthe nation. The partnership has lasted nearly as long when it comes to 

investment in our nation's infrastructure. Investments in canals, ports, railroads, highways and aviation 

systems have all been partnerships among all levels of government for generations. That cooperation is 

still as important as ever. 

By law, virtually all federal highway program funds provided to the states must be used to improve the 

state's major highways and bridges, and most of it must be devoted to capital investments-including 

construction activity, right-of-way acquisition and planning and design. In fact, the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office documented that in FY 2013, 98 percent of federal highway funds were spent for 

road and bridge activities. 

Roads resurfacing-----------, 

47% 

Roads 

and rehabiti!ation 

($7,830 million) 

S% ($2.580 million) 

{ 

Safety improvements 

Safety, 1% __ __,.,.. 

entuu~;~":,= Sidewalksan1$~2'6~,:r,. ·~ 

Improvements 1% 

Other enhancements!> 

($330 mllhon) 

Due to the focus of the federal highway program, federal funds, on average, provide 51 percent of 

annual state department oftransportation capital outlays for highway and bridge projects. This reliance 

3 
72 


Insert offset folio 27 here 28114.027

ranges from 29 percent in New Jersey to over 75 percent in Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, South Carolina, 

Montana, Vermont and Rhode Island. 

Federal investment is crucial to ensuring that state departments of transportation (DOTs) are making 

needed investments in the major freight corridors that drive national and regional economic growth. 

The one 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. 

With traditional federal highway user fee rates static for nearly 25 years, federal highway and transit 

program investment growth has failed to keep up with inflation as well as labor and materials cost 

increases. State and local governments have begun to augment their own programs. However, recent 

research by TCC members shows the growth in state and local investments is not nearly enough to keep 

our transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair, let alone improve the system for 21" century 

needs and growth. 

Roads earned a "D" in the American Society of Civil Engineers' 2017 Infrastructure Report Card. The U.S. 

has an $836 billion backlog of highway and bridge capital needs, $420 billion of which is in repairing 

existing highways. An additional $123 billion is needed for bridge repair, $167 billion for system 

expansion, and $126 billion for system enhancement, which includes safety enhancements, operational 

improvements, and environmental projects. Due to congestion and worsening conditions, the average 

American wastes 43 hours a year stuck in traffic. As a country, traffic delays cost us $160 billion and 

more than two out of every five miles of America's urban interstates are congested. 

ASCE's Report Card assigned transit a "D-", the lowest of the 16 grades assigned in 2017. While transit 

ridership is high- 10.5 billion trips in 2015- the sector is grappling with overdue maintenance, chronic 

underinvestment, and aging infrastructure. It's estimated that the country faces a $90 billion 

rehabilitation backlog; this number is projected to grow to $122 billion by 2032. When examining the 

physical transit infrastructure, 17 percent of power, signal, communications and fare collection systems 

are not in a state of good repair. Thirty-five percent of guideway elements (such as tracks) and 37 

percent of stations are also not in a state of good repair. 

We can no longer afford to underinvest in the infrastructure that Americans rely on in our daily lives. 

Any responsible proposal must provide improvements to all types of infrastructure throughout the 

country and address large important projects that make our businesses more competitive by reducing 

shipping, commuting, water and energy costs. 

b. Economic Importance of the U.S. Highway, Bridge & Transit System 

1 U.S. Federal Highway Administration, 1 Iigh,vay Statistics 

4 
73 


Insert offset folio 28 here 28114.028

An improved highway, bridge and transit network results in lower operating costs, allowing business to 

increase investment in other capital outlays and expand their operations. Commuters spend less time in 

traffic and congestion as mobility increases, and safety enhancements help save lives and reduce 

injuries. 

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. 2 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. 

Several recent reports underscore the significant return on transportation investment: 

A study commissioned by the U.S. Treasury Department found that for every $1 in capital spent 

on select projects, the net economic benefit ranged between $3.50 and $7.00. 3 Released in 

December 2016, "40 Proposed U.S. Transportation and Water Infrastructure Projects of Major 

Economic Significance" also explores some of the challenges of completing the work. The report 

found that a lack of public funding was "by far the most common factor hindering the 

completion" of the projects. A complete recapitalization of the Interstate Highway System 

would yield net economic benefits of $1.6 trillion. 

• A 2005 report by Dr. Robert Shapiro and Dr. Kevin Hassett found that the U.S. transportation 

network provides more than $4 in direct benefits for every $1 in direct costs that taxpayers pay 

to build, operate and maintain this system4 These economic benefits include lower costs and 

higher productivity for businesses, and time savings and additional income for workers. The 

authors noted that the estimate substantially understates the full net benefits of the U.S. 

transportation network and does not take into account the increased benefit from better access 

to schools and hospitals, or other ways these investments support economic growth and allow 

American workers and companies to compete successfully on the global stage. 

• Academic studies on the long-run benefits of transit investment estimate that every $1 spent 

provides economic returns from $1.60 to over $4.00.5 Some of the benefits include the cost of 

foregone medical and work trips, emissions, crashes, travel time and vehicle ownership and 

operation expenses. 

Consider the benefits to a business when the state makes transportation improvements. The increase in 

construction activity will mean more demand for products and services in the area. A local business 

would sell more of its products and may even hire additional employees to increase output. With an 

2 i\ n.'Yie\V ofma1or studtcs !S anulablc in. Wc1sbrod, (~kn, Donald \'ary and George Trey:-:, Ecnnomic Imp!icattons of Congestion, NCJIRP Report 

#46.1. 

5 
74 


Insert offset folio 29 here 28114.029

improved transportation network, local business on the many main streets across the country would 

thrive. 

The business will also have lower distribution costs because of the improved highways, bridges and 

transit in the area. More customers will be able to reach the business, and the owner may be able to 

hire more talented, educated and skilled workers that live further away. 

The increase in demand may also lead the business to expand, opening another store, plant or business 

location. Finally, the business will demand more inputs and raw materials from their own suppliers, 

creating economic ripple effects throughout the economy. It could also be the case that the business 

owner is able to purchase cheaper inputs because they have greater access to more markets. 

Transportation capital investments trigger immediate economic activity that creates and sustains jobs 

and tax revenue, yet yields long-lived capital assets that facilitate economic activity for many decades to 

come by providing access to jobs, services, materials and markets. 

c. 253 House Members Are Correct: Highway Trust Fund Revenue Fix ASAP 

Any federal infrastructure effort, however, will be diluted unless the fiscal chaos surrounding the 

Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is addressed once and for all. The trust fund currently supports $50 billion per 

year in transportation infrastructure spending. To put the importance of the HTF in context, maintaining 

that level of investment for 10 years would produce a level of investment that is 250 percent more in 

direct federal spending than the Trump Administration has called for as part of its $1 trillion 

infrastructure package. 

While recent laws authorizing federal highway and surface transportation programs have greatly 

improved the effectiveness and efficiency of these programs, they made no progress towards ensuring 

the long-run solvency of the trust fund. Instead, Congress and the past two administrations made a 

series of last-minute transfers from the U.S. Treasury General Fund to the HTF to the tune of $140 billion 

since 2008. Additionally, these laws failed to create any new sustainable revenue sources for the HTF or 

increase the federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, currently the main revenue source for 

federal highway and transit investment. 

The resulting uncertainty has had dramatic negative effects on the ability of state and local governments 

to plan, fund, and construct transportation projects. 6 Absent long-term stability for the Highway Trust 

Fund, many projects critical to the efficient movement of people and goods have the real potential to be 

backlogged or never built. Further, mounting deferred maintenance could cause current infrastructure 

to fall into an even greater state of disrepair. 

6 Several state departments of transportation (DOT) delayed transportation construction projects amid federal 

funding uncertainty over the last several years. These include, but are not limited to the Tennessee DOT delaying 

$400 million; the Georgia DOT delaying $123 million; the Arkansas DOT cancelling $112 million; the Utah DOT 

delaying $65 million; the Kansas DOT delaying $32 million; and New Hampshire DOT delaying $25 million worth of 

federal construction projects. 

6 
75 


Insert offset folio 30 here 28114.030

Failure to resolve the issues facing the trust fund prior to the expiration of the current law in 2020 will 

require either additional short-term stopgap measures or find a $110 billion offset to pass a long-term 

bill that will at best maintain current funding levels that do not meet our transportation infrastructure 

needs. It would be nonsensical to advance an infrastructure package and then face either of these 

alternatives shortly thereafter. 

The TCC strongly agrees with the 253 members of the House of Representatives that June 12 called on 

the House Ways and Means Committee to include a Highway Trust Fund revenue solution in any tax 

reform package. I want to commend the leadership of Chairman Graves and Ranking Member HolmesNorton for championing this letter and thank all the members of this subcommittee that joined this 

important effort. 

As your letter notes, virtually all HTF revenue enhancements have occurred as part of broader tax and 

budget measures. I would also like to point out that addressing the trust fund's revenue shortfall as part 

of tax reform does not necessarily mean an infrastructure package has to be included in tax reform 

legislation. In fact, increasing HTF revenues as part of tax reform could certainly be a meaningful down 

payment for an infrastructure package and could ease its development and passage subsequent to tax 

reform. 

While there are a wide variety of revenue solutions available, contrasting the last 10 years of trust fund 

instability with the previous pay-as-you go model is instructive in evaluating potential options. 

Increasing the federal motor fuels tax is the simplest and most effective way to achieve this goal, but 

several other viable revenue alternatives exist. 

The following are key attributes for any HTF revenue construct: 

Permanent, recurring revenue stream(s); 

• Revenue generation sufficient to eliminate the shortfall AND support increased investment; 

Based on surface transportation system use; 

Dedicated solely to surface transportation improvements. 

Adhering to these principles would assure a meaningful outcome that would continue the federal 

government's constitutionally directed role in developing and maintaining a safe and efficient national 

surface transportation network well into the 21" Century. 

d. Infrastructure Package Structure 

An infrastructure initiative is a generational opportunity to end the cycle of uncertainty that has plagued 

America's infrastructure network and usher in a new era of stability and improvements we so 

desperately need. It is easy to say the nation needs a bold infrastructure package, but past experience 

demonstrates such a measure must combine substantial resources with a structure targeted to achieve 

specific goals. The TCC believes economic competitiveness and upgrading infrastructure conditions 

should be the overriding objectives of any infrastructure initiative. 

7 
76 


Insert offset folio 31 here 28114.031

The 2015 "Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act" surface transportation program 

reauthorization law reformed the structure of the federal highway and public transportation programs 

in a manner that emphasized national goals and provided states additional flexibility. Specifically, the 

measure created two new dedicated programs to focus federal resources on easing the movement of 

freight throughout the nation. In doing so, the measure reinforced the constitutionally-dictated role of 

the federal government to regulate and promote interstate commerce. At the same time, the FAST Act 

expanded the ability of states to use federal funds in a manner that best meets their unique needs. 

Given this admirable combination of policy objectives and the broad-based, bipartisan support the FAST 

Act earned in 2015, I do not think we need to reinvent the wheel. I do, however, think it is appropriate 

for Congress to use its discretion to allocate any new highway and public transportation resources 

among existing FAST Act programs in a manner that emphasizes certain outcome objectives, such as 

economic competitiveness. There are a number of programs that would be appropriate recipients if 

that is a goal and other programs that clearly have other outcomes intended. 

The TCC, however, believes the FAST Act's overall ratio of highway to public transportation spending 

should be maintained in any infrastructure package. The FAST Act was a carefully negotiated piece of 

legislation and attempting to advantage one mode disproportionately threatens to upend that balance. 

For example, the transportation component of the infrastructure spending blueprint released by Senate 

Democrats earlier this year is heavily tilted toward transit and rail. As I noted at the outset, I think we 

can save a lot of time by not attempting to reinvent the wheel. 

We certainly agree with Trump Administration officials that private sector capital and public-private 

partnerships can and should play an important role in any infrastructure plan. That role, however, must 

be complementary to direct federal investment. While the private sector certainly has the ability to help 

advance projects-particularly those capable of generating a revenue stream-there is a difference 

between project financing and public funding. We must also acknowledge the private capital is not a 

viable option in many states, particularly those with large land areas and sparse populations. 

Granite has first-hand experience in many public-private partnerships and I can tell you they are an 

invaluable tool. In the transportation arena, however, direct public sector investment is always going to 

be the majority of the marketplace. 

The TCC strongly supports the Administration's proposals to liberalize tolling, increase TIFIA program 

funding and eligibility and lift the cap on Private Activity Bonds. Each of these policy actions are tangible 

proposals that would help certain projects move forward. The combination of these actions with a 

robust Highway Trust Fund revenue plan that would grow core highway and public transportation 

investment in the future should be a foundation of any infrastructure package. 

II. The Continued Need for and Recommendations to Improve Environmental Review and 

Permitting for Infrastructure Projects 

TCC members know first-hand how to build infrastructure in a safe, effective and efficient manner. 

Similarly, they know the many challenges to doing just that. The federal environmental review and 

8 
77 


Insert offset folio 32 here 28114.032

permitting process is such a challenge, repeatedly echoed by TCC members across the country; it's a 

process that is circuitous, costly and time-intensive for many infrastructure projects. 

The TCC and its members appreciate the legislative efforts of this Committee in the enactment of both 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and Title 41 of the Fixing America's 

Surface Transportation (FAST-41). However, there remain opportunities to build upon MAP-21 and 

FAST-41 as well as reduce duplication in and improve the efficiency of the federal environmental review 

and permitting process. Improving environmental approval processes alone while maintaining the 

integrity of those processes to mitigate environmental impacts could generate project cost savings. In 

addition, such improvements could allow the public to receive and benefit from infrastructure projects 

in a timelier fashion. 

a. Why Further Improving the Environmental Review and Permitting Process is 

Necessary 

Again, the TCC must note its appreciation for the work this Committee has undertaken in helping enact 

environmental reforms in MAP-21 and FAST-41. But, more work can to be done and improvements upon 

those enacted reforms can be made. 

TCC 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. 

Based on TCC members' first-hand experiences, technical and procedural risks typically stem from: 

• Poor interagency communication (leads to missed deadlines and conflicting agency requests and 

responses); 

Inability of the lead agency to make timely decisions, particularly where projects are "political" 

or controversial; 

Lack of qualified government staff to conduct reviews (leads to delays in document 

review/publication and resource-agency comments that are conflicting, redundant, repetitive, 

or inconsistent); 

Confusion during National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews with joint lead agencies 

(federal and state) because not all agencies have the same directives/thresholds; 

Disagreement over the project's "Purpose and Need;" 

Insufficient "Alternative Analysis;" 

Ineffective stakeholder outreach and engagement; 

• Uncertainty over the level of analytical scrutiny to apply in reviewing projects (agencies are risk 

averse and often choose not to pursue streamlined options out of concern that such "shortcuts" will increase litigation); and 

Complex overlay of laws and regulations that apply to infrastructure projects- in addition to 

NEPA- complicates the permitting process (e.g., number of species listed and the breadth of 

critical habitat identified under the Endangered Species Act grows every year). 

9 
78 


Insert offset folio 33 here 28114.033

Current law provides steps for the lead agency of a project to coordinate and establish schedules with 

participating agencies and other interested stakeholders. But, importantly, as the "deficiencies" column 

on TCC's Current Environmental Streamlining Programs & Deficiencies Chart (see Appendix A) shows, 

the lead agency must consult with, and obtain the concurrence of, each participating agency before 

establishing or shortening a "schedule for completion of the environmental review process" AND there 

is no deadline for the government to complete the NEPA review process, from start to finish. In addition, 

where current law does set deadlines for agency actions under NEPA, or for issuing permits and 

permissions, those deadlines are missed because the list of exceptions is as long as the list of approvals 

you need to be in compliance with the 30-plus federal environmental statutes that may apply to any 

given project (see Federal Environmental Review and Permitting Flowchart at Appendix B). 

Current law (per MAP-21) does go so far as to impose penalties on federal agencies that fail to meet 

deadlines. Even so, these deadlines are not being met and the fines have never been levied. It is not 

happening because the lead agency can certify, for example, the permit application was not completeor that the participating agency is waiting on another entity to make "some" decision before it can move 

forward with its permit, license or approval; and there is apparently a reluctance to elevate disputes. 

This also is clearly shown on the "deficiencies" column on TCC's Current Environmental Streamlining 

Programs & Deficiencies Chart (see Appendix A). 

In addition, the "deficiencies" column on TCC's Environmental Streamlining brings to light the following 

missed opportunities: 

The government also is not conducting federal and state permitting reviews concurrently, and 

together with NEPA. It is not happening because the law states that agencies do not need to 

carry out their obligations concurrently if it would impact their ability to conduct any analysis or 

meet any obligation; 

• Current law requires the lead agency to provide the participating agencies and public the 

opportunity for "involvement" in determining the project's Purpose and Need and Range of 

Alternatives; however, the participating agencies are not required to engage in any meaningful 

way or to ensure these procedural steps produce information to satisfy other federal approvals 

and/or permits required for the project; 

The "Planning and Environmental linkages" provisions in current law intend to use the 

information, analysis, and products developed during transportation planning to inform the 

environmental review process. But there are 10 conditions spelled out in statute-- and 

participating agencies, the lead agency, and project sponsors must all concur that these 

conditions have been met; and 

• The lead agency must develop an "environmental document" sufficient to satisfy federal 

permits, approvals or other federal action required for the project, but only "to the maximum 

extent practicable," per the current law. 

In the face of this statutory and regulatory reality, the delays add up and it's clear that Congress can do 

more. For example, a National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) review of the 194 

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) published in 2015 found that the average time to complete an 

EIS was five years and only 16 percent were prepared in two years or less. Meanwhile, 2015 report by 

10 
79 


Insert offset folio 34 here 28114.034

Common Good, a non-profit government watchdog, finds that a six-year delay in starting construction 

on public projects costs the nation more than $3.7 trillion in lost employment and economic gain, 

inefficiency, and unnecessary pollution. That is a staggering amount of statutory and regulatory 

inefficiency that needs to be addressed. 

b. Opportunities for Improving Efficiency, While Maintaining Process Integrity 

The ripe, high-level opportunities for improving the efficiency of the environmental review and 

permitting processes rest in the ability of Congress to: {A) merge sequential and duplicative federal 

environmental reviews; {B) mandate the use of previously completed environmental review and study 

information to avoid duplicative reviews; and (C) consider a reasonable and measured approach to 

citizen suit reform designed to prevent misuse of environmentallaws. 7 

i. Sequential and Duplicative Reviews Add Hurdles to Infrastructure Approvals 

The current process of performing sequential and often duplicative environmental reviews and permits 

on the same project- performed by all levels of government following the NEPA approval process- is 

presenting massive legal hurdles to infrastructure approvals (see Federal Environmental Review and 

Permitting Flowchart in Appendix B). A builder of infrastructure-whether a contractor or government 

agency-must seek approval not from "the government," but from a dozen or more different arms of 

the government. According to bonding companies that finance large public works projects, two 

environmental approvals are critical in rating a project's risk for bond financing. Those are the NEPA 

review {1,679 days, on average, to complete an EIS) and Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit 

authorization (788 days, on average, to obtain an individual permit). Obtaining these approvals prior to 

bonding greatly reduces risk and achieves a higher bond rating to the benefit of the project sponsor. 

Due to the inability of project owners (e.g., state departments of transportation or private developers) 

to obtain Section 404 permits quickly following NEPA approval, 404 permitting risk is often transferred 

to the construction contractor. 

REFORM: Several states have merged their NEPA and CWA Section 404 permitting processes; this 

should be the national standard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) current regulations 

already point in this direction but do not go far enough. Across the nation there is considerable variation 

in the usage and emphasis of merger processes. In an integrated process, the project sponsor would 

submit the 404-permit application to USACE simultaneously with the publication of the draft EIS. USACE 

would be required to issue the 404 permit at the end of the NEPA process based on the information 

generated by NEPA. 

7 For a complete list of environmental review and permitting reform recommendations, see: 

http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/agcleg/downloads/AGC%20HSGAC%20Statement%20on%20Permitting% 

209.7.17.compressed.pdf 

11 
80 


Insert offset folio 35 here 28114.035

Both the NEPA and Section 404 processes involve the evaluation of alternatives, the assessment of 

impacts to resources, and the balancing of resource impacts and project need. Conducting two 

processes simultaneously (or allowing the former to satisfy the latter) would greatly expedite project 

decision-making and avoid duplication and process inefficiencies. The federal funding agency should 

assume a lead role in shaping the project "purpose and need" and "range of alternatives" during the 

NEPA review. To simplify the review process, and reduce the potential for impasses over minor 

changes, Congress should modify any existing requirements for lead agencies to obtain participating 

agencies' "concurrence" in project schedules or the adoption/use of "planning products." 

More generally, it should be a requirement for all government agencies involved in the issuance of a 

federal permit for any given project to complete concurrent reviews (in conjunction with the NEPA 

review process) within established time periods. From the perspective of the permit applicant, a 

coordinated concurrent review under all major federal and state authorities avoids duplication and 

delays and helps to avoid potentially conflicting permit conditions or limitations (e.g. differing mitigation 

requirements). There must be timelines and deadlines for completing the environmental permitting 

process as well as NEPA review deadlines. 

ii. Redoing Permit Documentation and Analyses Wastes Time and Money 

Time and money is wasted on redoing project analyses and reviews and on collecting duplicative 

information from permit applicants. Challenges with environmental documentation and permitting 

processes are root causes for delays on infrastructure projects. The environmental permit approval 

process generally entails sequential reviews by multiple agencies and various requests for projectspecific information. Even though each agency has slightly different forms and different information 

requirements, some of the information (like project descriptions) is duplicated across applications. This 

means that there can be multiple forms requesting the same information in different ways. 

To reduce paperwork, MAP-21 allows the use of errata sheets, rather than rewriting the draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), when minor modifications are needed in a final EIS. Also, under 

current law the lead agency should use one document for the final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD), as 

much as possible, unless there are substantial changes or there are significant new circumstances or 

information changes. By preventing the needless production of multiple additional documents, MAP-21 

significantly reduces the amount oftime involved in EISs. MAP-21 also encourages the use of 

"programmatic" mitigation plans and makes it somewhat easier to use previous planning work to meet 

NEPA requirements. Notably, the FAST Act also calls for the lead agency to develop a NEPA ROD that is 

sufficient to satisfy any other federal approvals/permits that the project may require; however, the duty 

to use a "single document" is void if its use would be impracticable, e.g., impair the ability of any federal 

agency to conduct needed analyses or meet any obligations. 

12 
81 


Insert offset folio 36 here 28114.036

REFORMS: The monitoring, mitigation and other environmental planning work performed during the 

NEPA process, and included in the final EIS/ROO, must satisfy federal environmental permitting 

requirements, unless there is a material change in the project. 

• Implement an integrated "one-stop" permitting system by creating a single form that collects all 

information needed for major permits. That way, applicants only need to provide information 

once (and to fill out one long form and file it once); 

Also, build an online database oftechnical information (e.g., on distributions of endangered 

species, critical habitat, or previous permit requirements) so that new information does not 

have to be gathered anew for every project operating in a similar watershed or geographic area; 

Allow environmental reviews to adopt material from previously completed environmental 

reviews from the same geographic area; and 

Require federal agencies to use regional- or national-level programmatic approaches for 

authorizations and environmental reviews, for frequently occurring activities as well as those 

activities with minor impacts to communities and the environment. 

To cite a program worthy of replication: Once a natural gas infrastructure project under the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction is authorized, project sponsors can request changes as 

"variances." FERC will consider approval of variances upon the project sponsor's written request, if it 

agrees that a variance: 

• provides equal or better environmental protection; 

is necessary because a portion of this Plan is infeasible or unworkable based on project specific 

conditions; or 

is specifically required in writing by another federal, state, or Native American land 

management agency for the portion of the project on its land or under its jurisdiction.8 

TCC recommends that all federal and state agencies regulating approved publicly-needed infrastructure 

have a clearly defined variance process to follow to efficiently make project changes while maintaining 

environmental protection. 

8 Variances are not specifically mentioned in FERC's regulations but rather in its standard best management 

practices for operators found in the "UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, AND MAINTENANCE PLAN" and 

"WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES." Note that these plans are 

referenced in the regulations at 18 C.F.R. 380.12(1)(5) and 380.12(d)(2)- but not the details of the plans. Both 

plans were updated in 2013, but the variance process has been in place since at least 2003. See Sections I.A., 

Applicability in these online documents: https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/plan.pdf; 

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/procedures.pdf. 

13 
82 


Insert offset folio 37 here 28114.037

iii. Judicial Review Reforms in Current Law Are Limited and Not Likely To Provide 

Significant Relief 

The citizen suit provisions in 20 environmental statutes are being used to challenge all types of projects, 

land restrictions and permit requirements relating to the projects. These lawsuits can take years to 

resolve and the delay not only impacts the ability to secure the necessary environmental approvals and 

the financing of the project, but- in far too many cases- impedes projects that are vital to the 

renovation and improvement of our nation's municipal water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities, 

highway and transit systems, bridges and dams. 

As currently written, the FAST Act's judicial review changes are limited and not likely to provide 

significant relief. FAST-41 reduced the statute of limitations (SOL) for NEPA challenges from six to two 

years; however, most NEPA lawsuits already are filed well within two years. FAST-41 also provides that 

in any action seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction of a covered project, the 

court shall "consider the potential effects on public health, safety, and the environment, and the 

potential for significant negative effects on jobs resulting from an order or injunction" and shall not 

presume that such harms are reparable. However, most courts already consider an injunction's 

negative impact when balancing the harms and equities. Another FAST-41 provision dictates that NEPA 

challenges can only be brought by those who commented on an EIS and did so with sufficient detail to 

put the lead agency on notice of the claims. With regard to standing, many courts have limited NEPA 

challenges to comments raised within the public review period on the EIS (others allow plaintiffs to file 

suit as long as they can show "injury in fact"). 

MAP-21 reduced the time limit to 150 days after publication of a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing that a permit, license or approval is final, for parties to file lawsuits that challenge agency 

environmental decisions regarding surface transportation projects. However, the preparation and 

announcement of a "supplemental" EIS, when required, restarts the 150-day clock. 

REFORMS: Citizen suit reforms are necessary to prevent their abuse. 

Further shorten and standardize the SOL for challenges to final NEPA RODs or claims seeking 

judicial review of an environmental permit, license or approval issued by a Federal agency for an 

infrastructure project; 

Require interested parties to get involved early in a project's review process to maintain 

standing to sue later; 

• Require bonds be posted by plaintiffs seeking to block activities to reduce abuse and delay 

tactics that harm private parties and taxpayers; and 

Require that the enforcement of federal environmental rules on a construction site be enforced 

only by trained staff of government agencies -oro limit citizen suit penalties to violations of objective, numeric limitations rather than 

subjective, narrative standards; 

o Extend "notice period" beyond the current 60 days (giving regulatory agencies more 

time to review notice of intent letters and initiate formal actions); 

14 
83 


Insert offset folio 38 here 28114.038

o Clarify definition of "diligent prosecution" of alleged violations, thereby allowing 

federal/state authorities to exercise their primacy in enforcement and preventing 

unnecessary citizen suit intervention. 

Ill. Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for convening today's hearing and for allowing the TCC to participate. 

The linkage between a reliable, efficient and safe national infrastructure network to the competitiveness 

of the U.S. economy cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, given the years of underinvestment at all 

levels of government, there is no such thing as a quick fix. The sooner we get started, however, the 

faster we will be able to deliver results for the American people and the first right step would be to fix 

the Highway Trust Fund now and identify additional tools for the tool box. 

A powerful first right step would be to fix the Highway Trust Fund now. l want reiterate that a true trust 

fund fix is not simply dedicating more one-time resources to simply preserve existing levels of highway 

and public transportation investment. We need a permanent and robust, user-based, revenue solution 

that once and for all stabilizes the Highway Trust Fund and ensures surface transportation funding will 

grow to the levels necessary to deliver a 21" century infrastructure network. 

I want to be clear that despite what some may think, we do not have the luxury of ample time to 

address this dilemma. If states follow past practices, we will begin to see project delays well over a year 

in advance of the shortfall projected to begin October 2020. Similarly, experience teaches us that if 

Congress again waits until the next trust fund crisis is upon us to act, we will be looking at more onetime emergency bailouts and a new round of short-term program extensions. 

I should also point out that the timing of the next HTF shortfall will coincide with the 2020 presidential 

election. I think we can all agree that getting out ahead of that dynamic would be in all of our best 

interests. 

For all these reasons, a permanent HTF revenue solution as part tax reform is an opportunity we cannot 

afford to pass up. In addition to the synergy of generating new trust fund revenue while other taxes are 

reduced and simplified, increased surface transportation investment contributes to economic growth 

and competitiveness. This outcome also happens to be the stated goal of reforming the nation's tax 

code and we should pursue both. 

The infrastructure conversations taking place on Capitol Hill and at the White House as well as those in 

states across the nation are very encouraging. While the task ahead may seem daunting, the members 

of the transportation construction industry stand ready to work with you to achieve the goals you and 

President Trump have identified. 

Thank you again for allowing me to appear before you today and !look forward to your questions. 

15 
84 


Insert offset folio 39 here 28114.039

APPENDIX A 

Current Environmental Streamlining Programs & Deficiencies Chart 

MAP-21 + Title I FAST ACT FAST-41 

23 U.S. Code Chapter l, §139, 168-69' 42 U.S. C. Chapter 55, 5ubCh. IV 

§§4370m- 4370m-l2 10 

CATEGORY WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES 

Early FAST Act §1304 No increased authority Project sponsor applies Def of "covered prof" 

Coordination/ AFTER NO!, LEAD MUST: of lead agency over to be "covered project"' excJ MAP-21 + WRRDA 

Collaboration . Identify other agencies other partie. agencies projects 

w/in45d Federal Permitting 

. Coordination plan w/in Partie, agencies must Improvement Council Limited application -

90d; incl NEPA ''concur" on proj. MORE THAN $200M 

completion schedule schedule in Early consultation {w/in 

. Dev chklist w/ partie . coordination plan and GOd proj sponsor Proj sponsor must "opt 

in" agencies to help proj modifications to request}, coordinated 

sponsor identify all shorten it; can project plans (w/in 60d President must appoint resources lengthen schedule for entry on Dashbd), project 

. Respond comments #good cause" timetables, public EO; each of 13 agencies 

must appoint member from partlc. agencies Dashbd tracking ... ta council (Deputy Sec. . Dev enviro doc or higher) ... positions sufficient to satisfy all Obtaining concurrence remain vacant proj permits/approvals is a chalfenge, esp for 

controversial projects 

PARTIC AGENCIES MUST: 

. Provide updates in Lead agency can 

"searchable internet extend deadline for 

website" ,.. connect to agencies/public to 

fed Permitting Dashbd comment NEPA docs 

for "good cause" 

MAP-21 §1305 

Requires concurrence of 

partie. agencies for enviro 

review schedules 

9 Provisions apply to all federally aid surface transportation projects for which an environmental impact 

statement is prepared under NEPA and may apply to other projects reviewed under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as determined by the Secretary. 10 Projects may be eligible for coverage under FAST-41 if they: involve construction of infrastructure; require 

authorization or environmental review by a Federal agency; are subject to NEPA; are likely to require a total 

investment of more than $200 million; and do not quality for an abbreviated environmental review and 

authorization process. 

16 
85 


Insert offset folio 40 here 28114.040

MAP-21 + Title I FAST ACT FAST-41 

23 U.S. Code Chapter 1, §139, 168-69" 42 U.S. C. Chapter 55, SubCh. IV 

§§4370m- 4370m-12 10 

CATEGORY WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES 

Deadlines MAP-21 §1306 NEPA: No deadlines 180-day window for fed Does not set spedfic 

. 30d after DEIS -lead agency decision on NEPA review or 

Conflict ID.9Y convene schedule PERMITTING: enviro review or permitting schedule 

Resolution check No increased authority authorization-starts 

. POST·NEPA 180-day of lead over partie. from date agency has all Completion date in 

deadline- for permits, agencies- agencies info needed recommended performance 

licenses, & other decide when applic. schedule for each category 

cannot exceed the avg time approval decisions Ncomplete" Disputes re: 11menne to complete on 

(clock starts aft applic Go to ExDir Fed Perm environmental review or 

complete) Partie. agencies can lmpr Council- if 30d pass authorization for projects 

. Disputes- Go to head say application not then OMB +CEQ within that category. 

disputing agency, CEQ complete or canJt facilitate a resolution by Calculation based on 

analysis of time req'd to then President move ahead until day 60. Action taken by complete item (for projects another entity makes a Dir. OMB is final and within the relevant category 

Penalt~ if Miss Deadline: decision ... conclusive and not of covered projects) during 

180 days after (1) lead EgJ Federal permit, subject to judicial review the preceding two calendar 

agency has issued final license1 or approval years. 

decision + (2) complete dependent on: 

permit app filed ... Funds " 401 CWA Water 

rescinded from office of Qua/Cert; 

head of agency, or head " NHPA ·no effect; 

of office to which permit " CZMA 

decision was delegated. determination; 

Amount: per week after " NPDES sw permit; 

180-day deadline passes- " Floodplain permit 

$20k if project requires a by the local 

financial plan (Major floodploin mgmt. 

Project) I $10k for all administrator; 

other projects .( FWS/NMFS 

Exceptions: No funds Section 7 consult; 

rescinded if lead agency and 

concurs that delay is not " Tribal concurrence 

the fault of the permitting 

agency. Reluctance to elevate 

dispute or exercise 

MAP·21 §1309 penalties- Partie. 

If EIS underway 2+ yrs, agency self-polices 

USDOT provide addt•l 

assistance, establish 

permitting/approval Concurrence 

schedule .... need 

concurrence- FINISH 

w/in 4 years of start date 

17 
86 


Insert offset folio 41 here 28114.041

MAP-21 + Title I FAST ACT FAST-41 

23 U.S. Code Chapter 1, §139, 168-69" 42 U.S. C. Chapter 55, SubCh. IV 

§§4370m- 4370m-lZ 10 

CATEGORY WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES 

Concurrent MAP-21 §1305 Waived if it "would Requires that So long as doing so 

Reviews Agencies coordinate and impair the ability" of state/federal permitting does not impair a 

carry out activities any agency to meet reviews run concurrently federal agency's ability 

concurrently, instead of obligations for a "covered project" to review the project 

sequentially, and in 

conjunction with the 

NEPAreview 

FAST Act §1313 

Coordinated/concurrent 

reviews+ permitting for 

Title 49 projects, ALSO 

. Purpose and Need 

(P&N) and Range of 

Alternatives must be 

suff to provide 

resource agencies w/ 

needed info 

. P&N issues must be 

resolved during 

seeping- all other 

"issues" resolved 

expeditiously 

Alternatives FAST Act §1304 As early as practicable N/A N/A 

Analysis lead agency must provide in the review process 

partie. agencies and Partie agencies not public opportunity for 

"involvement<~ in defining required 

P&N and determining To the max extent 

Range of Alternatives- practicable .. unless 

used for fed enviro alternatives must be 

reviews/permits req'd for modified to address 

project sign new info/ 

circumstances or to do 

NEPA in timely manner 

Use of MAP-21 §1310; FAST Act "Planning & Adoption, incorporation Must meet complex 

Planning §1305 environmental by reference, and use of process/procedural 

Products in USDOT integrate linkages"-far from state documents standards 

Enviro "planning products" in simple: 10 conditions 

NEPA (e.g., mitigation and need concurrence 

Reviews needs) ... narrows 

concurrence reqm't 

Programmatic MAP·21 §1305 

Use programmatic 

Approaches approaches for enviro 

reviews, eliminate 

repetition 

MAP-21 §1318; FAST Act 

18 
87 


Insert offset folio 42 here 28114.042

MAP-21 + Title I FAST ACT FAST-41 

23 U.S. Code Chapter l, §139, 168·69" 42 U.S. C. Chapter 55, SubCh. IV 

§§4370m- 4370m·ll 10 

CATEGORY WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES 

§1315 

Programmatic Agreement 

(PA) Template 

. PAw/ States- state 

can make NEPA 

categorical exclusion 

(CE) determinations 

FAST Act §1303; 1311 

. Waive case~by~case 

Section 106 + 4(1) 

review certain 

bridges/culverts 

. Adopt/lncorp. by ref 

another Federal or 

state agency's docs 

MAP-21 §1311 

Allows "programmatic 

mitigation plans" to be 

developed in transp 

planning process {by state 

orMPO). 

Accelerate MAP-21 §§1319; FAST Unless FE!S makes N/A N/A 

Review Act §1304 substantial changes to 

Codifies use of errata proposed action or 

Reduce sheets and FEIS/ROD as significant new 

single document circumstances 

Paperwork 

FAST Act §1311 

Expanded provision to 

Title 49 projects 

Single Enviro FAST Act §1304 Only to the maximum N/A N/A 

Document LEAD AGENCY MUST: extent practicable 

Develop "enviro 

document" sufficient to 

satisfy fed permits, 

approvals, etc. 

Modernize FAST Act §1317 Report to Congress in N/A N/A 

NEPA Explore electronic and one year 

other innovative 

technology options 

Limits on MAP-21 §1308 Most NEPA challenges . Two (2)-year SOL NEPA challenges 

Lawsuits 150 days after notice in brought well before . NEPA- '"get in or get brought well before 

Fed. Reg. announcing deadline out" deadline 

permit, license or Prelim lnj- consider 

approval is final, for Prep+ announcement harmful economy Prep+ announcement 

19 
88 


Insert offset folio 43 here 28114.043

MAP-21 + Title I FAST ACT FAST-41 

23 U.S. Code Chapter 1, §139, 168-69' 42 U.S.C. Chapter 55, 5ubCh. IV 

§§4370m- 4370m-12 10 

CATEGORY WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES WHAT'S IN THE LAW DEFICIENCIES 

parties to file lawsuits of a "supplementafH impacts (already was of a "supplemental" 

that challenge agency £15, when required, done when "balance £15, when required, 

enviro decisions re: restarts the 150-day equities"} restarts clock 

surface transportation clock 

projects 

20 
89 


Insert offset folio 44 here 28114.044

APPENDIX B 

Federal Environmental Review and Permitting Flowchart 

21 
90 


Insert offset folio 45 here 28114.045

Transportation Construction Coalition 

Response to Representative larsen 

Highways & Transit Subcommittee Hearing Question 

October 11, 2017 

The "Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century" created multiple new classes of categorical 

exclusions {CEs). One of these was a CE for transportation facilities damaged in an emergency situation. 

Months after the CE was promulgated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), it was put 

to use in May 2013 when a truck hit the 1-5 Skagit River Bridge in Mount Vernon, Washington. 

Application of the CE allowed repairs to the bridge to begin swiftly, and correctly recognized that in 

times of emergency, the focus should be on responding as promptly and effectively as possible. 

Specifically, in this instance repairs began within 24 hours after the accident and the bridge was reopened to traffic in just 27 days and fully repaired within 115 days. It is also important to note that the 

repairs were made without sacrificing existing environmental protections. 

The success of the CE used on the Skagit River Bridge demonstrates the importance of focusing on 

reforming the CE process as a whole. While reforms are also needed to the environmental impact 

statement (EIS) review for large-scale projects, expanding and streamlining the use of CEs (which are 

used for the majority of transportation construction work) is also necessary to improve the permitting 

process. 

Currently, the transportation planning process allows projects which neither individually nor 

cumulatively have a significant environmental impact, to be treated as a CE. State agencies must 

provide sufficient information on a case-by-case basis to demonstrate the environmental impacts 

associated with a project will not rise above the CE threshold. The CE process is typically used for 

projects where no real alternatives analysis is necessary, such as rehabilitation or replacement projects. 

In its current state, NEPA is ambiguous on whether aCE or environmental assessment (EA) would be 

required for a specific project This can, and often does, cause project sponsors to opt for the more time 

consuming EA in order to avoid potential litigation at a later time. For this reason, reforms to the 

permitting process should focus on the creation of unambiguous environmental review criteria that 

would clarify the CE process {over a far more time consuming EA or EIS) where environmental impacts 

are clearly minimal unless there is "compelling" evidence warranting a different course of action. 

Creation of specific criteria would allow planners to know what type of review is most appropriate for 

their project. Such criteria would also reduce the threat of litigation by groups pressing for a more 

comprehensive review regardless of whether or not it is needed. 

Providing set time limits for the completion of CEs would also go a long way towards reducing the delay 

inherent in the current NEPA review process. Once a project qualifies forCE status, its impacts are, by 

definition, minimal. Therefore, timelines forCEs should be thought of in days or weeks (as opposed to 

months, or even, years). If a project cannot meet the established time line for aCE, the sponsor should 

have the opportunity to explain the circumstances why the deadline cannot be met and provide an 

alternate schedule. 

1 
91 


Insert offset folio 46 here 28114.046

Once an event is determined to qualify forCE status, this decision should be treated as permanent and 

not subject to subsequent reconsideration. The overall purpose of expanding the use of CEs is to allow 

those projects which have demonstrated minimal impacts to proceed quickly. Allowing additional afterthe-fact reviews forCE projects only serves to undermine the goal of advancing necessary repairs as 

soon as possible. For example, multi-phase infrastructure projects can be brought to a standstill when 

it's time to perform the bridgework (even if the work has been previously cleared with a Categorical 

Exclusion for upgrade and improvements) if "listed" species are discovered- or new species are 

"listed." Under this scenario, the construction site operator also would need to re-evaluate the project's 

Clean Water Act 404 permit conditions, which may impose new construction windows (i.e., timing 

restrictions) due to species spawning/migration seasons. The construction window may be open only 

during extreme cold or when the river is flowing at highest rate/capacity. This puts the project at a 

standstill and the contractor is presented with schedule restrictions that make work impossible. NEPA 

was never meant to be a statute enabling delay, but rather a vehicle to promote balance. While the 

centerpiece of such a balancing is the environmental impacts of a project, other factors must be 

considered as well, such as the economic, safety, and mobility needs of the affected area and how a 

transportation project or any identified alternative will affect those needs. Encouraging further 

modifications the CE process will help NEPA to achieve this balance. 

Finally, in specific reference to the CE used on the Skagit River Bridge, the objective should be not simply 

to help an area replace transportation facilities damaged in emergency situations, but to build new 

transportation facilities that will not be damaged in the future. If such a CE is applied in an overly 

restrictive manner where states and localities are only allowed to rebuild transportation facilities exactly 

as they were, there will be no opportunity for improvement. For example, if a bridge is damaged in a 

"Category One" hurricane, it makes little sense to require more intensive reviews for an improved 

facility that could withstand future extreme weather events. Using such foresight ensures areas 

rebuilding after emergency situations will not have the opportunity only regain lost transportation 

capabilities, but also improve upon them. 

2 
92 


Insert offset folio 47 here 28114.047

North America's Building Trades Unions 

Statement of Brent Booker 

Secretary-Treasurer, North America's Building Trades Unions 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

lkaring on 

Building a 21 '

1 Century Infrastructure for America: High\vays and Transit 

Stakeholders' Perspectives 

October II, 201 7 
93 


Insert offset folio 48 here 28114.048

Good moming. Chairman Grav~s. Ranking lVkmbcr l"urton, and distinguished members of this 

subcommittee: 

1vly name is Brent Booker. Secretary-Treasurer of North America's Building Trades Unions 

(NABTU). On behalf of the nearly t\v·o million skilled craft construction professionals that I am 

proud to represent across the United States. l vv·c)Uld like to thank you for allowing me to testify 

before this subcommittee. 

Building America's infrastructure is literally what our members do every day. Whether it is roads 

and bridges. airports, waterways. power plants and other energy infi·astmcture, municipal water 

systems, public buildings, or skyscrapers, our members apply their unique skill sets to building 

infrastructure in every corner of our great nation. 

The construction industry accounts for more than l\".·(, of America's total gross domestic product. 

and no industry was hit harder by the Great Recession. For those of us in the construction industry. 

it was not a recession, it was a clcprcssion, and unemployment in our industry is just now t·eturning 

to pre-recession levels. As the vast majority of construction firms arc relatively small, local 

businesses, the strength or weakness of the construction industry has a significant impact on the 

economic health of communities acros:> this tzrcat nation. 

For many of our members. the strcn12th of the construction industry, and the strength of their job 

opportunities, is directly tied to the strength of public policy in advancing the building of public 

infrastructure. 
94 


Insert offset folio 49 here 28114.049

As such. I would like to thank the leadership of this suhcommittee in helping move the ntost recent 

highway bilL the FAST Act. Highway bills. !'rom a public investment standpoint. arc the single 

largest job creating piece of legislation al'kcting uur tncmbers. Furthermore. they provide 

certainty to our members that opportunities will be available for years to come. 

While the FAST Act made important stridc•s in impro\ ing our nation's surHrce transportation, I 

believe no one can argue that more can, and must be done to further repair our nation's 

infrastructure. As long as workers cannot commute rapidly from the srtburbs into dense city 

centers. the nation"s most dynamic labor markets will stagnate. As long as finished goods cannot 

be transported quickly to customers. shipping bottlenecks will impose drags on manufircturers. As 

long as more people arc driving to work. the carrying capacity of the nation's roads will 

increasingly come under duress. i\nd as long as projects arc stalled. through either a lack of 

funding or other reasons. our members lose an opportunity to not only build, but to feed their 

J:nnilics. 

~orth America's Building Trades Unions bclie\cs a big. broad, bold inti·astructure plan is the 

necessary step our country must take in order tu solidify economic opportunities fix workers and 

businesses across the United States. The qucstiun be lore this subcommittee, and the Congrcs.s as 

a whole, is what should such a plan include'' 

For our members, a big inti·astructure plan will rel1ect the: overall investment levd consistently 

reiterated by President Tmmp of S 1 trillion. We believe such an investment will not only allow 
95 


Insert offset folio 50 here 28114.050

us as a nation to meet many of our pressing infrastructure needs, but will lay the foundation for 

sustained economic growth in communities large and small. In spLming this growth, a plan of this 

magnitude should. and I say must, increase the standard of living for Americans across the nation. 

In order to do so, the immense buying powd of the federal government must not be used as 

leverage to depress wages in local communities especially construction wages which. adjusted 

for inllation, have actually been in ckcline since the late 1970s. Therefore, North America's 

Building Trades Unions members remain insistent that such a plan include the prevailing wage 

standards enshrined in the Davis-Bacon and Rdatccl Acts that our members ha\·e fought for over 

the course of generations. 

For our members, a broad infrastructure plan will encompass not only sml~1ce transportation 

infrastructun:. but all modes of infrastructure. While we must use this opportunity to make 

additional investments in our roads, bridges. and public transit systems. our nation must also invest 

in schools and other public buildings. municipal water systems. aviation. rail. waterways, 

broadband, and our energy inli'astructurc through new, modern power generation l~tcilities, grid 

upgrades. and investments in energy transportation and distrilmtion. 

To address the wide variety of infrastructure needs ciTcctivdy, we must address them et1ki0ntly. 

In order to do so. we believe it pnt(knt to address our challenges through currently existing 

programs. Efliciency should not breed duplicative programs designed to achieve the same goal. 

Howcn:r, federal programs should be created to meet intrastructure needs that do not have existing 

public mechanisms to deliver projects. 
96 


Insert offset folio 51 here 28114.051

For our members, a bold inii·astructurc plan is one that tackles the \Ough challenges and lays out a 

vision for a brighter future. I would argue, and I am sure most if not all members of the paneL and 

the subcommittee would agree, that there is no greater challenge facing surface transportation than 

the long term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. 

We support a variety of measures to fix the Trust Fund. ln our infrastructure policy, which was 

crafted in collaboration with our 14 affiliated unions. we advocate for increasing the highway user 

fee and indexing the fcc to inflation. We also advocate for the transition to a vehicle miles traveled 

based system. We also ad\·ocatc f(Jr using repatriated tax dollars ffom overseas corporate profits 

to fund infrastructure investment. We arc open to a variety of proposals to ensure the solwncy of 

the Trust Fund, and we believe Congress should not squander such an important opportunity to 

address this issue. 

A bold infhrstructurc plan should al:;o continue to tackle the challenge of major projects that ha\c 

regional and national economic impacts. One such project that 700 of our members are currently 

at work on is the roughly S4 billion Tappan Zcc Bridge replacement in New York. With 220 

million pounds of U.S. steel and 300 thousand cubic yards of concrete, the sheer size and scope of 

this construction project is awe inspiring. At its peak, this project employed I ,200 building trades 

members, and to date, this project is responsible for roughly seven million hours of work. 

What those numbers do not tell you is that projects such as these, and in fact all public 

inti·astructurc projects, are critical to ensuring a consistent pipeline of skills training that Notih 

America's Building Trades Unions, in conjunction with our industry partners, pro\'ide through our 
97 


Insert offset folio 52 here 28114.052

prinrtdy funded registered apprenticeship program:;_ Spread out O\"Cr om I J>OO fonnal, joint 

labor-management training centers across the country, as wdl as o\·cr !20 '·apprcnticc:shipreadincss" programs. our unions and our contractor partners invest roughly S I .2 billion of our own 

capital into training our current and future members. ensuring they have the skills to meet the 

technological and safety demands of the modern construction industry. Industry and labor, as well 

as community partners like the National Urban Lcag,uc and YouthBuild, arc working in partnership 

in order to meet the workforce challeng,es presented by a large im·cstmcnt in in!i·astructurc, and 

the time to act on such an investment is now. 

It is time to start setting goals and solving this problem, because if we do not. American families 

will ultimately pay the price for inaction. Right now, there arc skilled trades men and women as 

well as people who arc unemployed or underemployed who need the work, as well as 

opportunities for carccr skills training,. The pipeline of projects resulting, from a massive public 

inli"astructurc im cstmcnt will lead to a multnude of opportunities for skilled career training and 

education. 

Former President Ronald Reagan once said. and I quote: "the bridges and highways we l~1il to 

repair today will have to bc rebuilt tomorrow at many times the cost." He went on to say that 

rebuilding our infrastructure is simple Cclmmon sense. and that it represents an im·cstment in 

tomorrow that we must make today. 

Presilknt Reag,an was correct in his assessment over 30 years ago. Unfortunately, his words are 

just as prominent today, due to continued inaction \\"hen it comes to substantive im·estmcnts in our 
98 


Insert offset folio 53 here 28114.053

infrastructure. Continued inaction will only exacerbate our challenges, and placed unneeded 

negative pressures on the American economy. It is time once again for the infrastructure of the 

United States to be the envy of the \vorld, and the men and women of North America's Building 

Trades Unions are ready, willing. able_ and anxious to begin building as soon as possible. 
99 


Insert offset folio 54 here 28114.054

Manufacturers 

Statement for the Record 

of Ray McCarty 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Associated Industries of Missouri 

and 

Executive Director 

Missouri Transportation and Development Council 

On Behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers 

733 10th Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001 

For the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Hearing 

on "Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: 

Highways and Transit Stakeholders' Perspectives" 

October 11, 2017 
100 


Insert offset folio 55 here 28114.055

TESTIMONY OF RAY MCCARTY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF MISSOURI, AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MISSOURI TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS 

BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

Building a 21st-Century Infrastructure for America: Highways and Transit Stakeholders' 

Perspectives 

OCTOBER 11,2017 

Good morning Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton and distinguished members 

of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Association 

of Manufacturers (NAM) on such an important topic to Missourians and manufacturers. 

My name is Ray McCarty, and I am president and CEO of the Associated Industries of 

Missouri (AIM). Established in 1919, we are Missouri's oldest business association, and our 

mission is to promote a favorable business climate for manufacturing and industry in Missouri. 

The AIM supports the Missouri Transportation and Development Council (MTD), a non-profit 

organization of private citizens, public officials, companies and associations. We believe the 
101 


Insert offset folio 56 here 28114.056

transportation system in Missouri demands continuing care and attention because it is vital to 

the state's economic welfare and quality of life. The AIM is also the official state partner of the 

NAM in Missouri. As the lead representative of manufacturers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, 

members of the NAM's State Associations Group (SAG) serve as the manufacturing industry's 

grassroots arm. As the NAM's official state partners, SAG members work collaboratively to 

advance policies that help manufacturers succeed at the local level. From cutting regulations to 

promoting job growth, members of SAG are champions for manufacturing from the state level. 

The NAM is the nation's largest industrial trade association and the unified voice for 

more than 12 million men and women who make things in America. The NAM is committed to 

achieving a policy agenda that helps manufacturers grow and create jobs. Manufacturers 

appreciate your focus on building a 21st-century infrastructure system because modern 

transportation and infrastructure systems are necessary to support modern manufacturing. We 

applaud your bipartisan work in 2015 to successfully reauthorize surface transportation 

programs for five years in the Fixing American Surface Transportation Act. 

In October 2016, the NAM released its infrastructure blueprint, Building to Win, and 

urged bipartisan action to revolutionize the infrastructure that makes the American dream 

possible. For too long, our nation has relied on the transportation, water and energy 

infrastructure we inherited from previous generations -weakening our economy, threatening 

our communities and putting the safety of our families at risk. For example, in Missouri, we rely 

on Interstate 70, the first highway to be built in the interstate system in 1956. Interstate 70, 

along with Interstates 44 and 55, provide a critical conduit for raw materials and manufactured 

goods for manufacturers across the nation because of Missouri's location in the heart of 

America. Safe and reliable highway transportation is critical for American manufacturers and 

families. 
102 


Insert offset folio 57 here 28114.057

There is no excuse for delay. Manufacturers believe the nation must undertake an 

infrastructure effort that seeks to modernize our aging systems and makes a long-term public 

commitment to infrastructure not witnessed since the era of President Eisenhower and the 

development of the interstate system. The infrastructure investments of the 1950s and 1960s 

brought tremendous economic benefits, improved productivity and competitiveness, and 

allowed manufacturing to grow and put people to work in solid middle-class jobs. 

A targeted, substantial investment in modernizing our nation's infrastructure would 

create jobs, boost economic growth, save lives and help secure America's mantle of economic 

leadership in the world. As modern manufacturing evolves and becomes even more productive, 

manufacturers rely on complex supply chains and just-in-time principles where parts are 

ordered, made and delivered, sometimes within hours. A large manufacturing company in 

Missouri recently lost an afternoon shift of production due to an accident on 1-70 that closed that 

highway for just a couple of hours. The cost to that manufacturer was more than $1 million. 

Such delays can be devastating, especially for smaller manufacturers. 

Manufacturers' ability to compete and grow depends on superior infrastructure. We 

believe highways, bridges, waterways, ports, passenger rail, freight rail, drinking and 

wastewater systems, broadband, pipelines, electric grid, transit and airports are all types of 

infrastructure that should be included in an infrastructure package. 

As we focus on our highways and transit needs, this Committee should be concerned 

about the effect of increasing freight and population levels on our outdated infrastructure 

systems. It's no secret that freight movements are expected to almost double in the next 20 

years. Trucks are carrying 11.5 billion tons of freight on our highways every year and this 

number is expected to increase by 44 percent to 16.5 billion tons in 2045. 

4 
103 


Insert offset folio 58 here 28114.058

To manufacturers, this freight is component parts and raw materials being transported to 

a shopfloor and finished goods being shipped to a retailer or customer. Already, traffic is 

increasing the cost of moving freight on our nation's highways by $63.4 billion a year. This 

makes manufacturers less competitive. It is completely unacceptable that 65 percent of major 

roads in the United States are rated "less than good condition" and 55,000 bridges are 

structurally deficient. That takes a toll on manufacturers' production operations through 

unreliable delivery times and increased fleet maintenance costs. 

At the same time, many of the most congested highways are in urban areas facing 

exploding population growth such as Atlanta, Houston and Los Angeles. We need highway and 

transit policy to mitigate congestion that includes helping transit agencies repair and replace 

aging fleets and help ensure that transit systems remain a safe and reliable transportation 

option for all passengers, including manufacturers and their employees. In Los Angeles, transit 

riders were forced to find alternate forms of transportation during an October 2003 strike. The 

National Bureau of Economic Research released a 2013 report demonstrating that highway 

congestion increased by 47 percent during that strike. Their estimates suggest that the total 

congestion relief resulting from the Los Angeles transit system is $1.2 billion to $4.1 billion per 

year. And if you think transit systems only exist in urban areas, remember transit systems (like 

OATS in Missouri) provide vital services to rural Americans: taking toddlers to pre-school, 

patients to medical appointments, allowing seniors to get out and shop and allowing workers to 

get to their jobs. 

Manufacturers rely on more than just transit to get our employees to work every day. In 

Indiana, an Interstate 65 bridge closure led to drastic delays and detours for employees and 

hundreds of millions of tons of freight moving across Indiana highways. For one Indiana 

manufacturer, the first emergency bridge closure prevented employees from getting to work 

causing an entire production shift to be delayed. Manufacturers rely on quality infrastructure. 
104 


Insert offset folio 59 here 28114.059

Manufacturers believe federal and executive branch leadership are needed to address 

bottlenecks in both rural and metropolitan areas that will improve the systemwide movement of 

freight throughout this country. Many of the bridges that are priorities for manufacturers are 

located at either a federal or state border, where states must collaborate and agree on funding 

parity and design approach. Absent federal leadership, decades of delay continue to plague 

proposals like the Brent Spence Bridge replacement, where each day of inaction increases the 

project cost by more than $220,000. The communities that surround these key transportation 

links- and the manufacturing jobs that rely on critical interstate commerce- are diminished 

by insufficient bridge and tunnel infrastructure. The Constitution enumerates federal authority for 

Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The federal government has a responsibility to lead 

the rebuilding of these gaps in interstate commerce. 

Manufacturers need federal policymakers to preserve and grow the funding and 

financing tools for states and localities. States and local government offtcials have repeatedly 

called tax-exempt municipal bonds one of the most vital tools for maintaining their infrastructure. 

This tool should be protected as policymakers consider ways to expand the funding and 

financing toolbox with public--private partnership and leveraging opportunities. 

Addressing the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund is vital to ensuring the 

preservation of the most important federal highway and transit investment tool. The NAM urges 

Congress to shore up the Fund with a reliable, user-based, long-term funding stream. In 2015, 

the average congestion cost per truck vehicle miles traveled was 23 cents- up 25 percent 

from 2014. This is a hidden tax paid everyday by truckers, manufacturers and everyday 

consumers. The only problem is we aren't investing in this hidden congestion tax. It's being 

wasted on idle labor hours and unnecessary vehicle wear and tear, instead of being invested in 

the Highway Trust Fund to help build a 21st-century infrastructure system to improve America's 

economic competitiveness. 

6 
105 


Insert offset folio 60 here 28114.060

Twenty-first-century manufacturers are creating the technology of tomorrow and we 

need 21st-century infrastructure to support it. Autonomous cars and trucks will create significant 

opportunities for manufacturers and their workforce in the future, but as highly autonomous 

vehicles are deployed on today's roads they will need basic pavement markings and clear 

signage on our highways to operate. Innovative manufacturers need technology-neutral 

regulatory policy that emphasizes safety, allows for the development of both commercial and 

passenger autonomous vehicle technology and preempts conflicting, duplicative and patchwork 

rules from federal agencies or state legislatures. 

Similarly, federal policies should be clarified and modernized to prevent excessive 

litigation costs from increasing the cost to move goods in the United States. Manufacturers 

support the clarification of federal preemption of a trucking statute in the Federal Aviation 

Administration Authorization Act of 1994 to ensure motor carriers can operate under one 

standard, not a patchwork of different state laws. Manufacturers must be able to quickly and 

cost effectively move goods across state borders within a uniform set of rules. Additionally, 

shippers and their intermediaries are vulnerable to negligent selection lawsuits for not properly 

vetting trucking companies based on outdated, unclear safety metrics. The NAM supports 

legislative efforts led by Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-TN-2) to develop a national hiring stand~rd. 

Because of the vast amount of data collected by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

and made public, manufacturers are increasingly being drawn into lawsuits asking them to 

second guess Department of Transportation decisions regarding which carriers should be on 

the road. One clear hiring standard would resolve this inconsistency and reduce the 

unnecessary lawsuits that drive up shipping costs. 

Of equal concern, a pro-manufacturing infrastructure package should improve the 

project delivery process. Good governance improvements to better deliver 21st-century 

infrastructure, such as expedited environmental reviews, are critical to the success of any 

7 
106 


Insert offset folio 61 here 28114.061

infrastructure effort. The NAM supports good governance measures to stretch the value of 

federal dollars. 

For decades, this Committee has modeled bipartisan governing that puts solutions and 

progress before politics. That bipartisan leadership is needed now more than ever to deliver a 

pro-manufacturing infrastructure package that will include a vision for modern 21st-century 

infrastructure. This is the right opportunity to address neglected projects that make a systemwide difference and improve manufacturers' supply chains as well as develop long-term 

solutions to chronic funding issues in infrastructure programs such as the Highway Trust Fund. 
107 


Insert offset folio 62 here 28114.062

"Building A 21"1 Century Infrastructure for America: Highway and Transit Stakeholders' 

Perspectives" 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Hearing 

Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 10:00 a.m. 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 

Question for the Record 

Submitted on behalf of Congressman Bob Gibbs (OH-07) 

1. Do you believe U.S. manufacturing would benefit from ensuring there is a competitive 

procurement process for transportation materials? If so, how? In addition, do you believe 

this would result in a more efficient use of our federal transportation dollars? 

Ray McCarty, President and CEO of the Associated Industries of Missouri, on behalf of the 

National Association of Manufacturers: 

"Manufacturers recognize that competition in a free marketplace is the best regulator of 

prices and services. Federal dollars allocated to Missouri require strict competitive 

bidding requirements to enhance competition and state funded transportation projects 

also require a competitive bidding process that also covers the purchasing of materials." 
108 


Insert offset folio 63 here 28114.063

T SOUNDTRANSIT 

Testimony of Peter M. Rogoff 

Chief Executive Officer 

Sound Transit 

Building a 21" Century Infrastructure for America 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

October 11, 2017 

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Peter 

Rogoff and I have the privilege of serving as Chief Executive Officer of Sound Transit. While I 

have appeared before the subcommittee in the past in other roles, I'm particularly pleased to 

appear before you today to bring the perspective from one of the nation's fastest growing 

economic engines to discuss how we build a national infrastructure for the 21st Century. 

Sound Transit provides commuter rail, light rail and express bus services throughout the Puget 

Sound region. We already rank as the number one commuter bus operator in the United States 

and we are now, through the vision, votes, and self-sacrifice of the region's taxpayers, poised to 

expand over the next 25 years into a regional network spanning 116 miles of light rail as well as 

expanded commuter rail and bus rapid transit lines. 

In just the last five years, our overall ridership has increased 68 percent while our light rail 

ridership has increased 150 percent, taking more than a hundred thousand cars off of our ever 

worsening congested highways each day. By the end of our 25-year capital program just 

approved by voters, our ridership is expected to grow to an estimated 500,000 riders per 

weekday, triple what our system ridership is today. 

Building a 21st Century Infrastructure 

Any discussion of building a 21st Century Infrastructure must begin by conceding that nationally 

we are on a trajectory where conditions in both the highway and transit modes will only worsen 

as the century progresses. Due to inadequate funding from all levels- federal, state and localconditions can be expected to deteriorate even while the nation struggles to absorb rapid 

increases in population and congestion, as well as changing settlement patterns. 

For this and many other reasons, we are heartened by the discussion of a major new 

infrastructure initiative coming through Congress that holds the hope of reversing these trends 

and addressing the infrastructure needs of a changing nation. 

In his first address before a Joint Session of Congress back in February of this year, President 

Trump put forward a vision where, 

"Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports 

and railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land." 
109 


Insert offset folio 64 here 28114.064

We at Sound Transit, and rail transit agencies across the nation very much want to deliver on 

his vision for new gleaming railways. In fact, at Sound Transit, today we are constructing light 

rail extensions as well as commuter rail improvements- some with modest levels of Federal 

assistance and some without. 

While we are encouraged by the President's stated goals, we have been disappointed by 

budget proposals from the Administration that appear to undermine them. Most notably, the 

Administration's amended Budget for 2017 as well as its Budget for 2018 seek to completely 

terminate the Federal program which, for half a century, has allowed us to seek Federal 

partnership in expanding transit capacity in metropolitan areas across the nation. This is 

precisely the kind of investment that provides the rapidly growing number of residents flocking 

to our economic centers a path out of ever-worsening highway traffic. The budget proposals 

appear to ignore the benefits that transit projects bring to the national highway network. By 

removing millions of cars from the roads each day, public transit makes our highways work 

better. Eliminating transit expansion means more congested highways and less efficient 

movement of people and freight. Absent a mix of solutions that include transit expansions, 

worsening road congestion threatens to choke off our nation's needed economic growth. 

At the same time, the Administration has made other statements regarding its infrastructure 

initiative that we can applaud and endorse- statements about the value of overmatching 

Federal funds; statements about the opportunities presented by an expanded TIFIA program; 

and statements about the importance of apprenticeship programs to ensure that we have a 

skilled workforce to rebuild the nation. 

The Administration has made it clear it will not be submitting a detailed legislative proposal on 

infrastructure and will instead submit a set of principles. If that's the case, then this Committee 

and others in Congress will very much have the pen in charting the course of this important 

effort. For that reason, I commend you for having these hearings to hear from practitioners on 

the ground as to what is truly needed. And in that spirit, I would offer the following 

recommendations for any comprehensive multi-modal infrastructure. 

New Initiative Should Supplement, Not Supplant, Base Funding 

If we are to truly make progress on the deferred maintenance and expansion needs of our 

surface transportation infrastructure, then funds provided through the initiative must not just 

substitute for the base level of funding authorized through the FAST Act and provided through 

Appropriations Acts. 

While this may seem self-evident, it is particularly important for rail transit agencies who must 

expand to meet current and expected population surges. Under the Administration's budget 

request for 2018, the funding level sought for major transit expansions not already covered by a 

Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is 

effectively zero. 

2 
110 


Insert offset folio 65 here 28114.065

At Sound Transit, we have been working with the FTA for years to secure Full Funding Grant 

Agreements for two extensions of our light rail spine- one running north from Seattle to the 

City of lynnwood and one running south to the City of Federal Way. We are on track to receive 

an FFGA for our lynnwood link Extension project in 2018 and for our Federal Way link 

Extension in 2019. Federal funding to our region for those two projects alone- not to mention 

others we are prepared to bring forward in the next ten years would amount to about $1.4 

billion. 

It is hard to imagine that any broad federal infrastructure program will be large enough to 

deliver an equivalent amount of money to our region for transit expansion in that period. So 

even if Congress passes an infrastructure package, we will be worse off in terms of our federal 

partnership if current capital grant programs are not retained. 

We are joined by several similar projects in states and regions around the country that seek to 

meet expanded demand, and we are relying on a strong federal partner in those efforts. 

Together with those regions, we in the Puget Sound were heartened to see bipartisan and 

bicameral support for rejecting the Administration's proposed reductions in the Capital 

Investment Grant program for fiscal 2017. We are hopeful for a similar outcome in the fiscal 

2018 process. 

In addition to rejecting the Administration's budget proposals, Congress can also take a positive 

step that will help improve the flow of funds for transit expansion. 

I would ask the Committee to consider reversing a decision that was made in SAFETEA-LU to 

fund the entire Capital Investment Grants program out of the General Fund while funding 

transit formula grants entirely out of the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. At 

present, major transit expansion projects must compete against all other domestic 

discretionary functions under a very tight funding cap while highway expansions financed under 

the Federal-aid Highway program do not. Returning to the pre-SAFETEA-LU structure where all 

transit capital accounts were jointly funded between the trust fund and general fund would 

help alleviate this stress currently burdening the base program, while doing no harm to the 

highway program. 

That said, any funding made available for either highways or transit through a new 

infrastructure initiative should surely be focused on allowing agencies to expand beyond their 

current capital plans and either tackle long deferred maintenance, take on new expansion 

projects or deliver their planned expansions more quickly to the taxpayer. New funding must 

not just serve as a substitute for current authorized and appropriated base levels. 

3 
111 


Insert offset folio 66 here 28114.066

New Initiative Should Augment Base Funding for Transit Expansions in Rapidly Growing 

Mega regions- The Economy Demands It 

While it is important that public transit continue to grow nationwide, given the recent and 

expected changes in population growth and settlement patterns, any new infrastructure plan 

should focus transit expansion funding on the major metro areas that are so essential to our 

national economic health. The most recent census tells us the nation will see 70 million 

additional Americans by 2045. But unlike past population surges where new Americans were 

spread across rural and urban America, the overwhelming majority of the 70 million new 

Americans will be located in just 11 major urban mega regions of which the Puget Sound region 

is one. 

It must also be recognized that these major urban mega regions will increasingly serve as the 

economic engine of our national prosperity. Today, in 47 out of 50 states, Metro areas 

produce the majority of the state's entire economic output. In 15 of those states, the majority 

of the state's economic output comes from a single metropolitan area {such as Seattle}. In 16 

of those states {e.g. California, Texas} just two metro areas account for more than half of the 

state's GDP. That trend is likely to only accelerate in the future. 

In our region alone, we are expecting a million more citizens by 2040, 80 percent of whom will 

be located within the Sound Transit taxing district. A million more citizens in our region means 

taking the entire population of Seattle and the entire population of Tacoma and dropping it on 

top of the density and congestion that we already have. 

And the congestion we already have is bad and getting worse. Congestion in the Puget Sound 

region has almost doubled in just the last five years. And congestion on 1-5, our principal 

highway connector between our major urban centers of Everett, Lynnwood, Seattle, Federal 

Way and Tacoma, has worsened by 128 percent over that same time period. 

In the state of Washington, there is widespread recognition that deteriorating mobility in our 

major metropolitan areas has a deleterious impact on the entire state's economy, including 

manufacturing centers and agriculturai communities in other parts of the state. Trucks seeking 

to move crops and manufactured goods to or from the Asian gateway ports of Seattle and 

Tacoma must inevitably travel through the dense highways of our taxing district where we are 

working aggressively to get cars off the road and out of the way. 

Any new infrastructure initiative, given the population surges we are expecting in our most 

productive regions, must recognize the importance of expanded transit networks within them. 

New Initiative Should Reward Self-Help and "Overmatch" by States and localities 

One area where we do believe the Administration may be on the right track is in highlighting 

the importance of states and localities providing robust matching funds to access new Federal 

dollars above the base level of funding. In our capital plan for the projects approved by our 

voters, the federal share of our major expansion projects is about 16 percent. We have already 

undertaken two light rail expansion projects with zero FTA Capital Investment Grant dollars. 

4 
112 


Insert offset folio 67 here 28114.067

Most recently, as part of the 2016 election, the voters of our region dug deep into their pockets 

again and voted to increase their own taxes to greatly expand the regional transit network to 

get out of the worsening congestion on the Puget Sounds' streets and roads. The personal 

sacrifice by our region's voters was not small. The Sound Transit 3 ballot measure called on the 

median voter to increase their own taxes by $169 per year. A two parent household voted to 

increase their taxes well more than $300 per year on average. And that expansion of our 

capital plan assumed a Federal contribution of only 13 percent- because we didn't believe it 

was reasonable to expect the Federal contributions to grow as quickly as our own. 

The same piece of legislation that authorized Sound Transit to go to the voters for approval of 

these transit taxes also raised the state's gas tax by just under 12 cents a gallon to address the 

state's many highway needs. That brought our state's gas tax to the second highest in the 

nation, second only to Pennsylvania. The picture here is clear. The taxpayers of Washington 

State have demonstrated remarkable levels of self-help to meet their surface transportation 

needs. Any Federal infrastructure policy should reward this level of local effort, not penalize it. 

While the Administration has suggested it wants to reward states and regions that overmatch 

federal dollars, its budget punishes regions that have already done just that. We at Sound 

Transit were deeply dismayed when the President's budget was released to see the selfsacrifice by our voters called out by the Office of Management and Budget as a reason to 

terminate Federal assistance for transit expansions. That budget document specifically called 

out our successful ballot measure in the Puget Sound region as well as successful ballot 

measures in los Angeles and Denver as a reason why Federal funding for transit expansions 

wasn't necessary. In fact, all three of those ballot measures put forth capital plans to the voters 

that assumed the continuation of the existing Federal program to match local contributions. 

In the case of Sound Transit, we are seeking roughly a 40 percent Federal share to expand our 

light rail network to lynnwood and only a 25 percent Federal share to expand to Federal Way. 

Please know that, by comparison, Federal-aid Highway funds can and most often do pay for 80 

percent of highway projects. By 2030, once we complete the voter approved projects that 

expand our light rail network to Lynnwood and Federal Way, as well as Bellevue and Northgate 

(the two expansions currently under construction without Capital Investment Grant funds), our 

total light rail ridership is expected to be 280,000 riders every weekday. With the expansions 

approved last year, our weekday ridership will triple from what it is today. The overwhelming 

majority of those riders will represent passengers we are taking off of either 1-5 or 1-90- two of 

the busiest interstate trucking highways and international trade corridors in the United States. 

As such, we vociferously reject representations from the Office of Management and Budget 

that these investments are somehow only local in nature and don't benefit interstate mobility, 

international trade or our national economy. 

It is our hope that the Administration's stated support for states and municipalities that engage 

in extensive self-help will translate into a new infrastructure initiative that rewards large local 

contributions, no matter what mode of travel the communities have chosen to finance 

themselves. 

5 
113 


Insert offset folio 68 here 28114.068

Environmental Streamlining Efforts Should Progress and Expand- With Care 

Transit investments that give commuters options to get out of their cars are inherently 

environmentally beneficial. The sooner transit agencies like us can get shovels in the ground 

and deploy a new rail segment or bus rapid transit line, the sooner our community will enjoy 

the environmental benefits. For this reason, we are supportive of efforts to streamline the 

Federal Environmental process. 

That said, these efforts must be done thoughtfully and with great respect for the core 

environmental protections guaranteed in Federal law. In the Pacific Northwest, the economic 

health of the region and our quality of life go hand-in-hand with the protection of our 

environment. And we have no interest in advancing transportation improvements at the 

expense of the environment. 

Moreover, the environmental process is an important one through which we consult with 

impacted communities to arrive at consensus around projects we will build. We have work to 

do to arrive at that consensus more quickly but those conversations and negotiations must be 

held locally. They can't and shouldn't be shunted aside through national legislation. 

Both MAP-21 and the FAST Act included thoughtful environmental streamlining measures and 

this Committee should insist that they be implemented promptly. One provision in the FAST 

Act provides the opportunity for project sponsors to finance the augmentation of Federal 

agency staff to handle the workload necessary to process their environmental approvals. We at 

Sound Transit are already seeking to utilize this authority. We have used similar authorities in 

years past that were specific to the FTA. 

Streamlining the environmental review process by improving federal reviews should not mean 

short circuiting the process. Putting an artificial timeline on these reviews could actually end up 

delaying projects. Both President Trump and Secretary Chao have spoken of the goal of 

reducing the time needed for major multi-year environmental reviews to one or two years. If 

the effort to meet these timelines results in cursory or cavalier reviews, the result may be 

lengthy litigation delays. We only have to look as far as Suburban Maryland, where the Purple 

Line was delayed for over a year by an environmental lawsuit, to see how litigation can slow 

down a project. 

Should we do everything we can to speed up this process- absolutely! Especially for projects 

that are inherently environmentally beneficial. But please know that the Federal agencies will 

do us no favor if hastily produced documents give project opponents an opening to delay the 

project in the courts. As this Subcommittee knows, these opponents sometimes care little for 

the environment. They are frequently using the environmental process as a cover for NIMBYism or to extract concessions from project sponsors. 

In fact, a great many of these lawsuits are brought by parties who don't care one whit for the 

environment. They often come from parties who want to extract something from the project 

sponsor. They either want you to avoid their property or purchase their property or purchase 

their property for more than its worth. They may, in fact, want changes to the project that will 

be less, not more, beneficial for the environment. In some cases, plaintiffs will use the 

6 
114 


Insert offset folio 69 here 28114.069

environmental process to slow or kill a project because it is their best and last legal shot at 

thwarting the will of the voters or reversing the plans of local municipal governments. And that 

is why it is imperative that the environmental documents produced and overseen by the 

Federal agencies are thorough and complete. 

In addition to procedural changes to streamline the environmental process, the federal 

government needs to pay attention to its own capabilities to conduct reviews. Toward that end 

I would encourage the Subcommittee to pay close attention to the adequacy of staffing levels 

both at the modal Administrations at the DOT and at the natural resource agencies integral to 

the necessary approval and permitting process to move these projects forward. These include: 

• The Environmental Protection Agency 

• The Army Corps of Engineers 

• NOAA Fisheries 

• The Fish and Wildlife Service 

• The National Forest Service 

• The National Park Service 

A cornerstone of a successful environmental streamlining effort is bringing all Federal agencies 

involved in the process to the table at the earliest possible opportunity to chart a path to 

completing the necessary approvals. It is just not reasonable to expect that these agencies can 

endure continuing staffing cuts and simultaneously expedite environmental approval and 

permitting in a thorough manner. 

Similarly, our efforts to advance major transit expansions with Federal partnership involve a 

lengthy, meritocratic, and risk-based review and approval process with the Federal Transit 

Administration. Here again, we have processes that could be streamlined. But it is equally 

imperative that the FTA have adequate staff both in Headquarters and the Regions to 

participate fully in the process and review all documentation in a timely way to enable transit 

agencies to get environmentally beneficial projects under construction. 

We are pleased that the Administration plans to continue to advance the Federal permitting 

dashboard that was launched by the Obama Administration to expedite the process. Sound 

Transit's lynnwood link Extension and our Federal Way Extension both have been included on 

the dashboard, and we appreciate the cooperation of all the participating agencies in moving 

the projects forward. 

Sound Transit is following up on this model by launching our own regional dashboard to 

monitor and hopefully expedite the actions by our local municipalities from which we must 

obtain permits. That is another important factor for the subcommittee to be aware. Not all the 

action allowing us to get shovels in the ground rests with the Federal government. Please know 

that for a great many Federally-funded projects, State environmental compliance and local 

permitting processes are important factors in our progress. 

7 
115 


Insert offset folio 70 here 28114.070

Public Private Partnerships Should Have a Role- But Not a Preferential One 

At Sound Transit, we agree with a great many of our transit and highway partners across the 

nation that Public-Private Partnerships, or "P3s", can provide value to those agencies that are 

positioned to benefit from them. Our agency already contracts out almost all of our bus and 

rail operation and maintenance activities to third parties. We also of course competitively bid 

out our design, engineering and construction to the private sector. And we are currently in an 

evaluation process as to whether P3s can be helpful to us as we tackle the many projects that 

are part of our capital expansion program. But it must be recognized that P3s are not a 

panacea that can bypass the usual hurdles that burden most capital projects. 

There are many reasons why a public highway or transit agency might consider delivering a 

project through a P3. They may gain access to more affordable credit through a private 

partner. They may gain access to necessary expertise to help them deliver a particularly 

complex project. They may benefit from being relieved of the burden of deploying a project 

while they are busy with other priorities. They may succeed in passing schedule risk and 

revenue risk onto a private partner. But the decision to use a private partner must be left to 

the project sponsor. There should be no legislated leg-up that prioritizes the use of P3s over 

any other delivery method. If the private partners are adding real value to the project or 

absorbing real risk, there should be no problem demonstrating that to the project sponsor. A 

new initiative to address our infrastructure needs should not be a gold mine for private 

investors who wish to skim public money off the top while adding little to no value to the 

taxpayer, the highway user, or the transit commuter. Quality P3s will be able to demonstrate 

their value by convincing project sponsors that they are the right choice. 

Boosting TIFIA- A Valuable Tool 

We are encouraged by the Administration's strong support for the TIFIA program, which serves 

as a very valuable tool for agencies like ours with strong credit. The flexibilities that come with 

TIFIA enhanced borrowing provide real savings to our taxpayers at very little cost to the Federal 

government. Until recently, our $1.3 billion TlFlA loan for our East Link extension ranked as one 

of the largest loans in the TIFIA portfolio. 

At this time, Sound Transit is the only agency of any kind that has secured a TIFIA Master Credit 

Agreement as authorized under MAP-21. This agreement has already allowed us to close on 

the first two loans under the agreement with two more to come in the next two years. In the 

aggregate, this agreement is expected to save our regional taxpayers between $200 and $300 

million in borrowing costs. 

I can tell you from my experience serving on the DOT Credit Council that the TIFIA program has 

served as an important tool to facilitate successful public private partnerships and its popularity 

is now demonstrating itself in the growing number of agencies that are submitting letters of 

interest to participate in the program. While enhanced grant assistance should be the 

cornerstone of any new infrastructure initiative, an enhanced TIFIA program should be part of 

the mix. 

8 
116 


Insert offset folio 71 here 28114.071

Securing the Workforce to Modernize our Infrastructure 

We also agree with the Administration on the importance of putting the mechanisms and 

funding in place to boost the number of skilled craftspeople who are fully trained and ready to 

rebuild our infrastructure. An initiative to double the number of apprenticeships began under 

the Obama Administration and we are pleased to see the Trump Administration also embrace 

that goal. In our region, the red-hot construction market is causing a shortage of skilled labor in 

positions that are absolutely critical to the successful completion of our projects. These include 

electricians, welders, iron workers, and other skilled crafts. The cost growth that we are seeing 

due to labor shortages is not limited to the Puget Sound Region. I'm hearing anecdotal reports 

of the same challenges in other fast growing cities including los Angeles, Denver, Dallas and 

Salt lake City. 

At Sound Transit, we have worked closely with our labor partners and state and local agencies 

to expand the number of available apprenticeships to increase the supply of these needed 

craftspeople. To organize and sustain our efforts, we have formed the Regional Public Owners 

Collaborative. Through this and other efforts, we have worked hard to boost job training 

opportunities with the expansion of our capital plan, including opportunities for women and 

people of color. Any national infrastructure initiative should seek to do the same thing. A new 

infrastructure initiative in many of our cities will already be buying into a very hot construction 

market. To ensure the availability of skilled craftspeople, this Committee should work with 

other Committees of jurisdiction to make sure we have the Workforce of the 21st Century 

needed to build the Infrastructure of the 21st Century. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

9 
117 


Insert offset folio 72 here 28114.072

ACEC 

Testimony of the American Council of Engineering Companies 

Before the House Subcommittee on Highways & Transit 

hearing on 

Building a 21" Century Infrastructure for America: 

Highways and Transit Stakeholder Perspectives 

October II, 2017 

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

holding this important hearing and for the opportunity to submit testimony. 

ACEC- the voice of America's engineering industry- is a national federation of 52 state and 

regional councils representing the great breadth of America's engineering industry. Member 

firms employ more than 600,000 engineers, architects, land surveyors, scientists, and other 

specialists, responsible for more than $200 billion of private and public works annually. Our 

mission is to strengthen the business environment for our member firms through government 

advocacy, political action, and business education. 

Now is the time to enact a robust infrastructure package 

Investing in the nation's critical infrastructure has attracted strong, bipartisan support in 

Congress over the years. The President's support for infrastructure as a key piece of his agenda 

has created a unique opportunity in 2017 to pass legislation that will enhance the nation's 

transportation, water, energy, and communications infrastructure, while creating jobs and 

boosting competitiveness in the global marketplace. 

ACEC urges Congress to enact a bold infrastructure package that includes: 

(1) robust funding for core federal programs, including highways, bridges, transit, airport, 

water and wastewater programs; 

(2) innovative financing mechanisms to promote additional private investment and 

Public-Private Partnerships (P3s), particularly through an expansion ofTIFIA and Private 

Activity Bond financing; 

(3) a long-term, sustainable solution for the Highway Trust Fund; and 

(4) responsible regulatory reforms to facilitate efficient project delivery. 

Massive infrastructure needs still go unmet despite recent initiatives 

Congress has enacted a series of bipartisan infrastructure bills in recent years- including the 

FAST Act, WRRDA, and the WIIN Act- to reauthorize and expand federal programs and 
118 


Insert offset folio 73 here 28114.073

funding for the nation's transportation and water systems. Despite these successes, our nation's 

infrastructure remains severely deficient and underfunded across all sectors. According to the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, improving the condition and performance of highways and 

bridges requires $142 billion annually from all levels of government. We currently invest 

approximately $105 billion. For public transit, current investment totals $17 billion per year, 

while the cost of preservation and expansion needs is 50% higher. Airports have identified $100 

billion in capital needs over the next 5 years, while current funding sources only provide for half 

of that total. For water and wastewater, the EPA and the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) have documented over $500 billion in funding shortfalls over the next 20 years. 

Challenges in the movement of freight and the impact on our national economy typify these 

funding concerns. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2015 our national 

transportation system moved 18.1 billion tons of goods worth $19.2 trillion. The amount of 

freight traveling on the network is projected to grow by 40 percent over the next 40 years. These 

goods move over every mode, including by truck, rail, water, and air. However, those trucks are 

moving across a system that includes over 55,000 structurally deficient bridges, including 13,000 

bridges on Interstates that need replacement or major reconstruction to accommodate traffic 

demands. Those intermodal containers sit stuck in ports that cannot handle growing demand. 

The average driver spends 43 hours stuck in traffic each year. Last year, delays exacted a $160 

billion cost to the economy due to wasted fuel and lost productivity. 

Problems with inadequate funding are compounded by regulatory uncertainties which drive up 

costs, deter private investment, and delay the safety, environmental, and economic benefits of 

investment. Congress has made progress in passing bipartisan reforms in recent years to 

streamline regulatory reviews for projects- due in large part to the leadership of this committee 

-but more can be done to advance responsible reforms to promote more efficient project 

delivery. ACEC submitted an extensive list of potential regulatory and legislative actions to the 

Administration and to this committee earlier this year. 

Congress can leverage existing programs for efficiency and success 

ACEC believes that the most effective infrastructure investment will be funneled primarily 

through existing programs. New mechanisms may be necessary to address certain areas of need; 

however, any effort to renegotiate funding formulas and allocations, or to establish a complex 

new bureaucracy for administering funds, is unnecessary and could delay the delivery of vital 

funds. MAP-21 and the FAST Act were carefully crafted laws that advanced critical reforms to 

highway and transit programs, targeting funds to national priorities while giving state and local 

governments significant flexibility to identify their needs. These existing programs are well 

established and well suited to get funds out the door and into projects on the ground. 

Moreover, lawmakers should not view an infrastructure package as a "stimulus" bill. The 

legislation should focus on programs and projects that generate long-term economic growth, not 

"shovel ready" quick hits that have little impact on economic development. 

Existing programs are also available to spur private investment and facilitate public-private 

2 
119 


Insert offset folio 74 here 28114.074

partnerships, a clear priority for the Administration. The TlFIA, WIFIA, and RRIF programs for 

transportation, water, and rail, respectively, can be grown and expanded to accommodate 

additional projects at very little risk or expense to the federal budget. The federal cost of the 

loans provides an approximately 30:1 leverage ratio. In addition, Private Activity Bonds are an 

essential tool for fostering additional investment. PABs allow private sponsors to issue taxexempt bonds when financing projects with a public benefit. The existing $15 billion cap on 

such issuances should be raised to allow additional private investment. 

Any infrastructure package must address the Highway Trust Fund 

One of the most effective means for fostering state, local, and private investment in 

transportation infrastructure is to ensure a strong and stable federal partner. No single action 

would do more to unlock long-term investment than to permanently address the structural 

revenue deficit of the Highway Trust Fund and support robust, long-term funding increases for 

surface transportation programs. Conversely, failure to fix the Trust Fund would only undermine 

the anticipated benefits from an infrastructure investment package. 

We were encouraged that 253 House members- including a majority of both Republican (119) 

and Democrat (134) members- signed the letter you circulated, Chairman Graves and Ranking 

Member Norton, earlier this year urging the Ways & Means Committee to include a long-term 

fix for the Highway Trust Fund in the context of tax reform. ACEC applauds the members of 

this committee that signed that letter and who have shown consistently strong leadership on this 

issue. 

As every Member of this committee and of this Congress knows, the gas and diesel tax have 

been flat since 1993. The purchasing power of this user fee has been diminished by 40 percent 

over that time. Congress has lurched through a series of short-term patches totaling $140 billion, 

and scraped for every budget gimmick in existence to offset General Fund transfers to keep the 

Trust Fund solvent. While it is encouraging that lawmakers understand the importance of 

maintaining the solvency of the Fund so much that they are willing to raid other parts of the 

federal budget to do so, the time has come for a more responsible and long-term solution. The 

simplest and most efficient fix is to restore the lost buying power of the gas and diesel taxes and 

index them to inflation going forward. 

ACEC has endorsed a wide array of other existing revenue options, and supports a transition to a 

direct mileage-based user fee over the long term. Pilot programs created by this committee in 

the FAST Act to study and accelerate those options are vital. Nevertheless, we cannot wait for 

those programs to come to fruition. For the foreseeable future, the existing excise taxes are the 

foundation for federal investment and must be increased. 

Private sector engineering firms deliver value 

Lastly, in order to promote the effective and efficient use of additional funding, the infrastructure 

package should promote the utilization of private sector engineering and design firms to deliver 

projects. Engineering firms play an important role in partnering with state and local agencies to 

deliver transportation projects. Agencies rely on the specialized skills and technical expertise 

3 
120 


Insert offset folio 75 here 28114.075

that finns provide to solve complex design challenges in creative ways. They also use local 

finns to meet tight project deadlines and identify better and more efficient ways to get projects 

done. 

The FAST Act recognized the value of these partnerships. Section 1443 of the law states that the 

engineering industry "continues to provide critical technical expertise, innovation, and local 

knowledge to Federal and State agencies," and urges the Secretary of Transportation "to 

reinforce those partnerships by encouraging State and local agencies to take full advantage of 

engineering industry capabilities to strengthen project performance, improve domestic 

competitiveness, and create jobs." 

While many state and local agencies partner very effectively with engineering firms, there are 

some that do not take advantage of the services available. Local firms, many of them small 

businesses, are essentially shut out from competing for federally funded projects. 

A recent funding initiative in California is illustrative. The state legislature approved a I 0-year, 

$52 billion road repair bill and constitutional protection bill earlier this year, with a bi-partisan, 

two-thirds majority vote. ACEC and its member firms were strongly supportive of this effort, 

which will fix unsafe bridges and overpasses, improve road safety and reduce traffic congestion. 

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will start receiving revenue from SB J in 

January 2018 and in anticipation, has already jump-started state road projects. With SB I money 

being split equally between state and local projects, ACEC is cautiously optimistic at the 

additional opportunities for the private sector. Caltrans already perfonns more than 90 percent 

of engineering work in-house, but with such a historic funding package being implemented, they 

cannot go alone. Caltrans cannot simply add to their staff in anticipation of the additional funds 

but must rely on available, private sector firms to perfonn the necessary engineering, design and 

inspection services. Otherwise the value and efficiency available through partnerships with the 

private sector diminishes. 

A federal infrastructure package should encourage this type of approach. Funding increases 

should go to fund projects, not grow state bureaucracies. 

Legislation enacted in the State of Washington provides another example. For many years, the 

Washington DOT insourced the vast majority of its engineering and design work, even during 

peak funding periods. In 2015, the Washington state legislature passed a bipartisan II. 7 

cent/gallon gas tax increase to fund a $15 billion transportation package. That package included 

a provision that specifically limits the Washington State Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT) from ramping up its internal engineering and technical staffing levels for the 

additional work funded under the bill, and recognizes that outside consultants will be utilized to 

handle the increased demands. A separate, related bill mandated that WSDOT work with 

industry to create a business plan for the Department that includes how it will be a strong owner 

in the future, how it will maintain sustainable staffing levels going forward, and how best to 

utilize outside consultants. 

Washington still performs a large amount of engineering work in-house, but the Department is 

slowly being right-sized and more finns are being contracted for work. 

4 
121 


Insert offset folio 76 here 28114.076

A recent academic study from New York University (NYU) underscores the value of this 

partnership approach. NYU researchers examined cost data from a total of 28 State DOTs, as 

well as corresponding data from a sample of firms in each state, to present an accurate picture of 

the total cost of doing engineering work with in-house staff versus contracting with a local firm. 

Aggregating the data from those 28 states, NYU found that the average cost of a DOT engineer 

was $272,684, which includes salary, benefits and overhead costs, while the average for 

engineers in the firms was $217,020, which included the same costs as well as a 10.5% average 

profit margin. 

The study was conducted because State DOTs are at times criticized for contracting out services 

on the presumed basis that it's "cheaper" to perform the work in-house. Lawmakers at the state 

and federal level have also debated the relative merits of in-sourcing versus contracting out 

engineering services, where once again the most common metric cited is cost. The intent of the 

study is to inform policy makers and the public of how the true costs compare, with the goal of 

bringing the discussion back to the real value measures for strong partnership between public 

agencies and the nation's engineering industry, such as promoting innovation, efficient and 

timely project delivery, and project success (including cost). 

The NYU study also documented a number of additional benefits for public agencies to consider 

in making the decision to contract out work to the private sector: 

• Staffing capacity- The public cannot afford to staff an agency to handle peak workloads. If 

the DOT staffed up to handle peak workloads, it is liable to pay those employees in lean 

times even if they have nothing to work on. If a project is contracted out, firm employees are 

only paid for the time they work on a project; they leave a project once it is over. 

• Schedule constraints - Firms typically have more capacity, flexibility, and incentive to meet 

fast-track deadlines than government agencies. 

• Lack of special expertise - Often the DOT has no choice but to contract out the design if it 

lacks the required expertise in-house. 

• Need for innovation- The private sector has more means to encourage innovation than 

government agencies, including bonus programs and the sharing of intellectual properties. 

Most government agencies cannot by regulation provide these types of incentives. 

• Better management of risks - Contracting out is an effective risk management tool that 

enables agencies to shift risk to the firm and away from the taxpayer. 

• Improved quality- Since firms compete against one another for work, they cannot submit a 

poor-quality design and expect to be selected again by the same agency. This is the core 

principle of the Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) procurement process, which is used by 

federal and state agencies to acquire engineering services for public projects. Past 

performance and project success is a major gatekeeper in the selection of consultants. 

5 
122 


Insert offset folio 77 here 28114.077

• Cost-effectiveness- The cost savings demonstrated by this study when State DOTs contract 

out design services, coupled with the other factors referenced above that drive the decisionmaking to engage the private sector, builds a convincing narrative supporting a robust 

partnership between the DOTs and the nation's engineering industry. 

These many benefits should be ret1ected in a federal infrastructure package to make sure that any 

additional federal dollars are put to the most effective usc through innovation and efficiency. 

ACEC thanks you for your consideration of our views, and for your leadership and support for a 

robust federal role in infrastructure investment. We stand ready to help you deliver on the 

promise of a substantial legislative package that finally begins to address this most pressing 

economic need. 

6 
123 


Insert offset folio 78 here 28114.078

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (APT A) 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

Regarding 

Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: 

Highways and Transit Stakeholders' Perspective 

October 11, 2017 
124 


Insert offset folio 79 here 28114.079

INTRODUCTION 

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is pleased to provide comments as part 

of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit hearing 

entitled "Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Highway and Transit Stakeholders' 

Perspectives." APT A again thanks this Subcommittee and Congress for passage of the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) in 2015. 

APT A is an international association of more than I ,500 public and private sector organizations, 

engaged in the areas of bus, paratransit, light rail, commuter rail, subways, waterborne services 

and intercity and high-speed passenger rail. This includes transit systems; planning, design, 

construction, and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; transit 

associations and state departments of transportation. APT A is the only association in North 

America that represents all modes of public transportation. APTA members serve the public 

interest by providing safe, efficient and economical transit services and products. 

INDUSTRY PRINCIPLES 

In an effort to support the efforts of Congress and the Administration as they work to develop new 

proposals to reinvest and rebuild our nation's infrastructure, APTA convened its members last fall 

to develop consensus industry recommendations. 

APT A continues to advocate for increased investment in public transportation from all levels of 

government, but the federal partnership remains absolutely critical. We believe that public 

transportation should be a significant part of any federal initiative investing in the nation's 

infrastructure. Any new infrastructure initiative should build on the existing FAST Act programs 

to ensure that the best and most useful projects get funded. Funding should go to communities 

throughout the nation, including urban, rural, and suburban areas. Investments must address unmet 

needs associated with buses and bus facilities; aging rail systems under the state of good repair 

program; new capacity projects; urban, rural, and other formula programs; intercity passenger rail, 

including eligibility for costs associated with the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC) 

technology required by Congress; and workforce development and research programs. 

Most importantly, it is paramount that Congress take advantage of the opportunities before them, 

with significant momentum building for both an infrastructure bill and comprehensive tax reform, 

to address the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). APT A is very grateful for 

the work that Congress did to pay for the FAST Act in 2015. However, with no increase in 

dedicated revenue, the federal surface transportation program faces another funding crisis in FY 

2020. It has been more than two decades since Congress last raised the federal fuel taxes that 

primarily support the HTF, and the purchasing power of this revenue has decreased by nearly 40 

percent over that time. Current revenues deposited into the HTF are insufficient to support the 

existing federal highway and transit programs without significant general fund contributions. This 

status quo is unsustainable. States and public transportation agencies need predictable federal 

funding to support long-term planning and multi-year capital projects. It would be a tremendous 

missed opportunity to enact a new initiative to rebuild our infrastructure without addressing the 

fundamental and structural challenges that will render the HTF insolvent by 2020. 

2 
125 


Insert offset folio 80 here 28114.080

INFRASTRUCTURE INITIATIVE 

APTA urges Congress to dramatically increase current federal investment levels in support of 

public transportation and intercity passenger rail systems. Americans recognize that increased 

investment in public transportation infrastructure across the nation would help produce economic 

growth and make the United States more competitive in international markets. 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. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation has identified a backlog of $90 billion in capital 

investments needed to bring bus and rail systems into a state of good repair. Increased investment 

should support the replacement of aging and over-age equipment with more modem buses, trains, 

and facilities, and address growing demand in communities of all sizes throughout the country, for 

new and expanded rail, ferryboat, and bus capacity. 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. 

APT A's funding recommendations for public transportation and intercity passenger rail systems 

support an essential strategy to sustain and enhance our national transportation network and the 

United States' global economic competitiveness. We must rehabilitate, revitalize and expand the 

nation's public transportation infrastructure and improve transportation options for all Americans. 

APTA believes that any federal infrastructure initiative should complement and utilize programs 

authorized under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) and must ensure 

the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Investment should also include funds for 

innovative mobility, workforce development, and research that will encourage utilizing advanced 

technologies to position the nation's transportation infrastructure for the future. Investments 

should create new jobs, inclusion, shared prosperity, and private sector growth. 

APT A Infrastructure Initiative Recommendations 

• Provide increased funding for existing rail state of good repair program; 

• Provide increased funding for existing bus and bus facilities program (with distribution 

under current formula and discretionary programs); 

• Provide increased funding for all existing transit formula programs based on current 

proportions to meet needs in every community; 

• Provide increased funding for new capacity projects; 

• Provide increased funding for Intercity Passenger Rail (including Positive Train Control 

eligibility); 

• Provide increased funding for Workforce Development & Research; and 

• Create a new competitive grant program for capital Bus and Rail State of Good Repair, and 

other capacity expansion projects. 

• Increase dedicated revenues into the Highway Trust Fund to ensure its long-term solvency 

and provide a sustainable funding source for federal public transportation programs. 

3 
126 


Insert offset folio 81 here 28114.081

Additionally, Congress and the Administration should pursue commonsense reforms to allow for 

accelerated review and approval processes to speed project delivery and better leverage federal 

resources. APTA has submitted recommendations across a number of areas to reform federal 

statutes and regulations to enhance our industry's ability to deliver high-quality, safe, and efficient 

public transportation services. Our members are continuing to work to develop further 

recommendations. APT A's members pride themselves on serving communities of all sizes across 

the country, and we believe it is important that any regulatory reform not come at the expense of 

transparent and open communication including sound community engagement and continuation of 

the protections afforded under environmental justice and other civil rights requirements. 

APTA supports public and private finance tools and welcomes the opportunity to work with 

Congress and the Administration to foster private participation in project financing and delivery 

in the public interest. We have developed recommendations to improve existing financing tools 

to be more effective for the public transportation industry. To be clear, however, increased federal 

funding must be the foundation of an infrastructure initiative, with financing options serving as 

additional tools. The public transportation industry has taken advantage of Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) bonds, Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing (RRIF) loans, Private Activity Bonds, tax credits, and municipal debt. 

Finally, it must be emphasized that these financing tools are not effective without a dedicated and 

stable funding stream to back them up. 

MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER 

As we look to the future of public transportation, and Congress and the administration work to 

develop proposals for an infrastructure initiative, we urge the Committee to keep in mind the 

important economic benefits of public transportation, the strong public support for public 

transportation investments, and the significant unmet needs that remain. 

Public transportation is an essential part of the nation's surface transportation system. It provides 

access to jobs and personal mobility. Public transportation helps reduce congestion, makes the 

entire transportation system work more efficiently, and spurs economic growth in communities. 

Every $1 invested in transit generates approximately $4 in economic returns 1

• A recent study 

released by APT A found that nearly 90 percent of public transportation trips directly impact the 

economy either through work commute or consumer spending2

• In addition, 70 percent of 

government public transportation funding flows directly into the private sector, supporting 

millions of jobs3. 

In recent years, several states have raised motor fuels taxes and localities have raised other taxes 

that help pay for surface transportation, including public transit. During the most recent elections, 

1 Economic Impact qf Public Transportation Investment 

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents!Economic-Impact-Public-TransportationInvestment-APTA.pdf 

2 Who Rides Public Transportation http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2017/Pages/Who-Rides-Pub!icTransportation.aspx 

3 20!6 Public Transportation Fact Book http:/lwww.apta.comlresources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2016-

APTA-Fact-Book.pdf 

4 
127 


Insert offset folio 82 here 28114.082

voters approved nearly 70 percent of transit-related ballot initiatives, raising almost $170 billion 

in future revenues for public transportation. However, it is important to keep in mind that the 

success of these local initiatives depends on a strong federal partnership. The most important issue 

continues to be the long-term solvency of the HTF, and we stand ready to work with Congress to 

advance this essential priority. 

Our transportation mobility challenges are difficult, but can be solved. We have before us a unique 

opportunity to tackle these challenges in a meaningful way. People in communities everywhere 

are working on solutions that meet their unique needs. They have the vision and the desire, but 

require federal leadership and support. We believe there is a role for local communities and the 

federal government to work together to support those visions with substantial, sustainable, and 

predictable funding. 

CONCLUSION 

We are grateful for the efforts of this Subcommittee in working with us to improve federal public 

transportation programs and advance our mutual objectives. Thank you again for the opportunity 

to provide comments and recommendations related to an infrastructure initiative and the important 

role of public transportation. 

5 
128 


Insert offset folio 83 here 28114.083

SAFER ROADS SAVE liVES 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member 

Testimony of: 

Ms. Debra Lee Ricker, Chair, Board of Directors 

American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) 

October 11, 2017 
129 


Insert offset folio 84 here 28114.084

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Holmes Norton and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the American Traffic Safety Services 

Association (ATSSA). My name is Debra Ricker, and I serve as Chair of ATSSA's Board of Directors. ATSSA 

is an international trade association which represents 1,400 members who manufacture, distribute and 

install roadway safety infrastructure devices such as guardrail/cable barrier, pavement markings, rumble 

strips, signs and work zone safety devices. 

In addition, I am the President of a traffic control company, Worksafe Traffic Control Industries Inc, 

based in Barre, Vermont. My company manufactures construction, highway and commercial signs and 

distributes traffic control devices throughout northern New England. I am especially excited that the 

Subcommittee is holding a hearing on building a 21'' century infrastructure for America, because my 

company specializes in using smart, innovative technologies to enhance the safety and mobility of 

roadway users in work zones. 

Nearly two years ago, Congress passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act which was 

signed into law by President Barack Obama. This five-year commitment to investing in America's 

transportation infrastructure was a significant step forward in combatting a multitude of challenges on 

our Nation's roadways. However, as many users of the system know, more and smarter investments are 

critically needed. The most recent Report Card for America's Infrastructure (2017) from the American 

Society of Civil Engineers indicated that the overall grade for infrastructure was a D+, with roads and 

bridges receiving a grade of D and C+ respectively. 1 

It is critical that we not only increase our investments to the system, but just as importantly, we must 

use our investments wisely to ensure the best return on investment. In 2015, 35,092 individuals were 

killed on U.S. roads. 

In order to tackle the challenge of roadway fatalities, states and local governments must not only 

continue to invest in roadway safety infrastructure projects, but they also must think about how best to 

utilize their limited resources. In addition, Congress must address the looming challenge of 

transportation funding for both a one-time infrastructure package and to address the solvency of the 

Highway Trust Fund for future surface transportation authorizations. ATSSA strongly supports increasing 

and indexing the federal motor fuel user fees. As a nation, we cannot be serious about investing in our 

future infrastructure without taking action to fund this investment 

As an industry, ATSSA is committed to moving Toward Zero Deaths on all U.S. roads. Although this is an 

ambitious goal, a goal of anything less is unacceptable. Quite simply, when it comes to our own personal 

family's lives, zero deaths is the only acceptable goal. In order to achieve this, stakeholders, road users 

and elected officials must work together to deploy countermeasures that save lives, reduce serious 

injuries and make the best possible use of resources. 

The FAST Act continued a tradition laid forth by SAFETEA-LU in establishing a dedicated program for 

roadway safety infrastructure. Named the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), this core 

Federal-aid highway program is committed to reducing fatalities and serious injuries through roadway 

safety infrastructure countermeasures. 

1 ASCE's 2017 Report Card for America's Infrastructure- https:Uwww.infrastructurereportcard.org/americasgrades/ 
130 


Insert offset folio 85 here 28114.085

ATSSA firmly believes in the Highway Safety Improvement Program specifically and the federal 

transportation program generally. While financing tools can be very helpful in parts of the country- they 

most likely would not work in my state of Vermont or other rural states or rural areas. We know that 

more than 50 percent of roadway fatalities happen on rural roadways- while less than 20 percent of 

the American people Jive in rural areas. ATSSA would ask this Subcommittee and Congress to help 

ensure that rural areas can participate in any new infrastructure initiative. 

As Congress and the new Administration work on an infrastructure initiative, it is important to 

remember that direct federal funding is the best and quickest way to ensure increased investments 

across the country. This is especially true when it comes to roadway safety infrastructure projects. 

To this end, ATSSA believes that at least 10 percent of any new federal funds for highway projects 

should be dedicated to roadway safety infrastructure projects through HSIP and that funds within HSIP 

should remain focused on roadway safety infrastructure projects and not be flexed to other programs. 

As American workers rebuild our nation's transportation infrastructure with investments from this 

package, safety must be a core principle of that investment. We have a unique opportunity to 

supplement our safety work from the FAST Act with a laser focus on saving lives and reducing injuries on 

America's roadways. 

Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Holmes Norton, thank you for the opportunity to submit 

testimony as the Subcommittee begins discussions on how best to invest and modernize America's 

infrastructure. 
131 


Insert offset folio 86 here 28114.086

AED Government Affairs Office 

1201 151

h St., NW 

Suite 220 

Associated Equipment Distributors 

October 11, 2017 

Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone: 202-897-8799 

The Honorable Sam Graves 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Highway & Transit 

2251 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Highway & Transit 

592 Ford House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Statement for the Record for Hearing on "Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: 

Highways & Transit Stakeholders' Perspectives" 

Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Norton: 

I am writing on behalf of Associated Equipment Distributors (AED) to express our organization's gratitude 

for holding this important hearing on building a 21st century infrastructure and offer our strong support for 

robust, long-term investment in our nation's crumbling roads and bridges. 

AED is the international trade association representing companies involved in the sale, rental, and 

servicing of construction, mining, farm, energy, forestry and industrial equipment. Our more than 500 

member companies, which are predominantly small-medium-sized, family-owned businesses, have over 

3,000 locations throughout North America, employing 40,000 people and accounting for $15 billion in 

annual sales of construction equipment and related supplies. 

The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is at a breaking point. Gas taxes and other highway user fee revenues 

are insufficient to support even the current inadequate levels of transportation investment, let alone the 

additional construction needed to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure. Put simply-the federal 

highway program is in jeopardy. 

The HTF's dire situation puts highway and transit investment at risk, creates enormous uncertainty for 

transportation planners, and threatens economic growth. Our infrastructure is the lifeblood of our 

economy. It impacts our quality of life, the competitiveness of our businesses, and the safety and security 

of our country. All while spurring growth and creating well-paying jobs. While many states have raised 

their fuel taxes in the past five years to make up for a substantial funding shortfall (with several more 

considering it), the federal government continues to shirk its constitutional responsibility in rebuilding the 

country's infrastructure. 

Congress must take the hint from outside the Beltway and raise revenues to fund long-term infrastructure 

projects. The positive impact on the economy will be felt for decades to come and there is no better time 

to make bold decisions to position our country for long-term economic growth, job creation, 

competitiveness and security. It's time for action. 

The construction equipment industry is ready to rebuild the country. We commend you for your efforts 

and look forward to working with you to solve the nation's infrastructure crisis. 

Sincerely, 

Brian P. McGuire 

President and CEO 
132 


Insert offset folio 87 here 28114.087

• • . 

• 

National Parks Conservation Association Statement for Record 

for House Highways and Transit Subcommittee Hearing on 

"Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Highways 

and Transit Stakeholders' Perspectives" 

Wednesday, October 11, 2017 

Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading 

voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park System. 

On behalf of our more than 1.3 million members and supporters nationwide, I write to 

urge that any legislative proposal to restore this nation's infrastructure include the 

national parks and other public lands. 

The National Park System, second only to the Department of Defense in the amount of 

infrastructure it manages, is at the pinnacle of this country's tourist attractions >vith 

their popularity soaring. In 2016 there were more than 330 million park visits, a 7. 7% 

increase over the previous year, that translated into nearly $35 billion in economic 

activity and 318,000 private-sector jobs. For every dollar Congress invests in the 

National Park Service, $10 is returned to the American economy, with much of that 

money directly benefiting parks' gateway communities. 

Unfortunately, the national park infrastructure is deteriorating and is a microcosm of 

the larger challenges this country faces in trying to revitalize its infrastructure. 

Currently there is an $11.3 billion backlog of overdue repairs facing the national parks. 

More than half of the backlog is in park transportation systems-such as roads, 

bridges, tunnels, trails and shuttles. One-third of the projects must be completed in the 

near-term to avoid irreparable damage. 

Below are examples of national park sites burdened with serious transportation 

backlog repairs, many of which are critical to visitor safely: 

Arlington Memorial Bridge (Virginia and Washington DC): Built in 1932 

as a symbolic link between the North and the South, the Arlington Memorial 

Bridge crosses the Potomac River between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington 

National Cemetery and serves as a vital commuter route. It is in a severely 

degraded state; it will cost $250 million to completely upgrade the bridge. 

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (New Jersey and 

Pennsylvania): Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area contains three 

777 6th Street, NW, Suite 700 t Washington, DC 20001~3723 P 202.223.6722 I F 202.872.0960 I npca.org 
133 


Insert offset folio 88 here 28114.088

main roads (Old Mine Road, River Road, and US Route 209) that connect all 

major recreational and cultural sites. The roads are overdue for reconstruction 

after decades of traffic have worn the pavement surface and weakened the 

substructure. The cost to reconstruct the roads is $92 million. 

Everglades National Park (Florida)- The largest component of Everglades 

National Park's $79 million repairs backlog is $47 million in overdue road 

repairs. Infrastructure repair needs include improvements to the park's main 

road, which requires a resurface pavement treatment currently estimated at 

$12.5 million. Other examples include more than $250,000 for repairs to the 

Flamingo Visitor Center access road, a beloved site for generations of visitors 

located 36 miles into the park, and $562,000 is needed for the Pa-hay-okee 

road that takes visitors to a popular trail and overlook of the surrounding river 

of grass. 

Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming and Montana)- For the past three 

decades the National Park Service has been working to upgrade the park's 254-

mile Grand Loop and entrance roads from 1940's standards that are woefully 

inadequate for modern day tour busses and recreational vehicles. Due to lack 

of sufficient funding, only half of the loop and entrance roads have been 

reconstructed. To complete upgrading of the remainder of the roads in the 

park will cost anywhere from $8oo million to $1.2 billion because the most 

challenging stretches of road remain to be rebuilt. At the current pace of 

funding it will take more than 75 years to complete the work. 

Yosemite National Park (California)- The loop road through the popular 

Yosemite Valley, which carries 95 percent of the visitors to the park, needs $19 

million in deferred maintenance. Added to that the repair needs of the Tioga, 

Wawona, Glacier Point, and Hetch Hetchy roads, among others, and the total 

cost of fixing Yosemite's roads comes to $225 million. 

It is critical that the options developed to finance infrastructure revitalization are 

applicable to national parks and other public lands. Below are the challenges that face 

national parks with two of the more popular financing options being put forward: 

£yblic-Private Pl)_rtnerships- The National Park Service already uses publicprivate partnerships in its concession management agreements. Some types of 

PPP agreements, such as lease backs, are simply not appropriate for national 

parks because they would allow private entities to own parts of national parks. 

:Lolling -Tolling is currently prohibited in national parks through the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 1996. With the exception of the five 

national parkways in the greater Washington, DC area (BaltimoreWashington, George Washington Memorial, Clara Barton, Rock Creek, 

Suitland) that largely serve as commuter routes, the seasonal and limited 

volume on most park roads would not make tolling cost-effective. 

National park transportation infrastructure is wholly the responsibility of the federal 

government and should be first in line for any new fundiug that is generated by the 

federal government for infrastructure revitalization. 

777 6th Street. NW, Swte 700 I Washington. DC 20001-3723 I P 202.223.6722 F 202.872.0960 I npca.org 
134 


Insert offset folio 89 here 28114.089

North American Concrete Alliance 

September 27, 2017 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio, 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Members of the North American Concrete Alliance (NACA) are encouraged that the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is continuing its commitment to examining and 

addressing the challenges facing America's infrastructure. 

NACA is a coalition of concrete-related associations dedicated to addressing industry-wide priorities 

in the areas of research, education and government affairs. NACA places an emphasis on advocating 

for increased and efficient federal investment in surface transportation and infrastructure funding. As 

the Committee moves forward on implementing policies to improve the nation's infrastructure and 

surface transportation networks we encourage you think boldly and look towards the future. 

In particular, NACA is concerned that the investment in our surface transportation infrastructure is 

painfully inadequate to meet our current needs, let alone the needs of future generations. We believe 

that previous efforts fell short and as a result, the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is still not adequately 

funded and Congress is no closer to enacting a permanent, or even long-lasting, solution to address its 

solvency. 

We cannot squander the investments previous generations made by allowing our infrastructure to 

crumble and collapse. We understand that in our current era of fiscal constraint investment dollars are 

being squeezed from many directions. But in our view, it is fiscally irresponsible not to increase 

investments that anticipate future needs, expand capacity, and establish a surface transportation 

network that will truly increase our global competitiveness. 

When your Congressional predecessors undertook the building of the interstate highway system they 

embodied the spirit of taking risks and truly investing in the program. They knew that the approach 

could be painful and would cost money, but in the end they had built a transportation network that has 

stood for generations and in turn allowed our nation and economy to become stronger. 

By making tough decisions now, you can pave the way for America to move forward into the next 

generation of commerce and travel. Now is the time to make the investments that help ease the 

congestion and capacity issues that plague our surface transportation network, while simultaneously 
135 


Insert offset folio 90 here 28114.090

building highways for the future that can accommodate current and future trends, including 

autonomous vehicles, business and distribution corridors, and enhanced access for e-commerce. 

NACA looks forward to working with you to address our nation's infrastructure needs now and in the 

future. 

Sincerely, 

American Concrete Pavement Association 

American Concrete Pipe Association 

American Concrete Pumping Association 

American Concrete Pressure Pipe 

Association 

Concrete Foundations Association 

Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute 

National Concrete Masonry Association 

National Precast Concrete Association 

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute 

Portland Cement Association 

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association 

Tilt Up Concrete Association 
136 


Insert offset folio 91 here 28114.091

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 

IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT 

Testimony for the Record of 

The Professional Engineers in 

California Government 

Subcommittee on Highway and Transit Hearing on 

"Building a 21st Century Infrastructure 

for America: Highways and Transit 

Stakeholders' Perspectives" held on 

Wednesday, October 11, 2017 

Chainnan Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the Subcommittee, the Professional 

Engineers in California Government (PECG) appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony for 

the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Subcommittee's October 11, 2017 hearing entitled 

"Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Highways and Transit Stakeholders' 

Perspectives." 

The 10,000 members ofPECG are engineers and related professionals who design, build, and inspect 

the construction of infrastructure, especially transportation and water, necessary for our nation to 

continue to move forward in the 21st century. PECG members also inspect the design and 

construction of schools and hospitals, ensure clean air and water, and perfonn a variety of other 

functions to protect and improve the lives of all Californians. We are dedicated to ensuring that 

taxpayers receive safe, high quality transportation services and infrastructure at the best possible 

price. 

As the Subcommittee begins looking at the future of surface transportation, we urge the inclusion of 

policies that both increase infrastructure investment and ensure that federal infrastructure dollars are 

invested in projects procured in the most cost-effective, transparent manner available. Specifically, 

there are several important policies that we believe are critical to building a 21" Century surface 

transportation network. 

• Increase Infrastructure Investment Addressing our nation's infrastructure deficit 

must be a top priority for Congress. The funding to support our nation's highways and 

bridges has failed to keep up with the needs of our aging surface transportation 

infrastructure. 

We thank the Subcommittee members for their work in developing the "Fixing America's 

Surface Transportation Act" (FAST Act), which provides multiyear funding for 

investments in surface transportation network. Unfortunately, the investment levels 

HEADQUARTERS: 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 501, Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 446-0400 

LOS ANGELES: 215 N. Marengo Avenue, Suite 185, Pasadena, CA 91101 • (818) 500-9941 

SAN FRANCISCO: 100 Pine Street. Suite 750. San Francisco, CA 94111 • (415) 861-5720 
137 


Insert offset folio 92 here 28114.092

PECG Highway and Transit Subcommittee Testimony 

October II, 2017 

contained in the FAST Act are not enough for states to eliminate their large backlog of 

needed infrastructure repairs and improvements to maintain their networks and reduce 

congestion. According to American Society of Civil Engineer's latest Report Card on 

America's Infrastructure, 42% of the nation's urban highways are congested, costing the 

economy $101 billion annually in wasted time and fuel. The Report Card also identifies a 

$1.1 trillion funding gap for surface transportation between 2016 and 2025. 

Adequate transportation funding is critical to job creation and the country's economic 

competitiveness. Some have suggested generating the revenue necessary to make 

infrastructure investments by providing a small amount of Federal seed money to leverage 

non-Federal and private funding. Private investment and debt financing are no substitutes 

for direct public investment. Ultimately, infrastructure investtnents made with revenues 

generated through these tools must be repaid by the public (whether through tolls or some 

other revenue source) at much greater cost to the public than if the project was constructed 

with direct revenue. Therefore, we urge the Subcommittee to dramatically increase direct 

Federal investtnent in all aspects of the nation's infrastructure investment programs as part 

of an infrastructure package to meet the investtnent needs identified in the Report Card. 

• Address the Highway Trust Fund's (HTF) Structural Deficit- With a long-term surface 

transportation authorization in place, Congress must address the structural HTF shortfall. 

Under the FAST Act, average transportation funding provided to states is about $57.5 billion 

per year. This is approximately $16 billion more than the HTF brings in per year through 

gas tax revenues. Congress, to fund levels called for in the FAST Act, transferred $70 billion 

in non-transportation user revenues into the HTF. To date, Congress has transferred a total 

of$140 billion in General Fund revenue to cover shortfalls in the HTF. 

This is not sustainable, and a long-term revenue source must be developed to close the 

shortfall and provide ongoing investments to help repair, rebuild, and improve the nation's 

surface transportation infrastructure. 

• Cost Comparison for Contracting Out Architectural, Engineering, and Related 

Services on Surface Transportation Projects Constructed with Federal Funds -

Increasingly, state and local departments of transportation are spending hundreds of millions 

of federal dollars on private contracts for engineering and related transportation services 

without competitive bidding and without determining whether these contracts are costeffective and protect the public interest. 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded that outsourcing is "more 

expensive than performing the work in-house, particularly for engineering services." In 

California, for example, according to the 2017-18 State Budget, an outsourced engineer costs 

the state $246,000 per year compared to $122,000 for a state-employed engineer. Numerous 

other states have found similar cost increases for outsourcing these activities. 

2 
138 


Insert offset folio 93 here 28114.093

PECG Highway and Transit Subcommittee Testimony 

October II, 2017 

To ensure that taxpayers receive safe, high-quality transportation services at the best price, 

PECG believes that a government agency considering contracting out architectural, 

engineering, or related services on surface transportation projects using federal funds, should 

be required to prepare an estimate of the cost of procuring the services under a private 

contract and an estimate of having the services performed by employees of a government 

agency. This common-sense cost estimate will show which alternative is the most costeffective and will also provide taxpayers with greater transparency and accountability in the 

procurement process. 

• Public Sector Inspection on Federally-funded Surface Transportation Projects To 

ensure that public safety is protected, transportation funds are not wasted, and projects are 

delivered in a timely manner, PECG strongly urges you to include policies to require public 

employees to perform the inspection on all transportation projects as part of future 

infrastructure legislation. 

On surface transportation projects, construction inspectors are the eyes, ears, and voice of 

the public. Public inspectors ensure that construction standards are met, that projects meet 

safety requirements, and that the materials used stand the test of time. Publicly-employed 

inspectors work for and are loyal to the public. They are there to ensure that the motoring 

public and taxpayers get what they pay for and public safety and the public interest are 

protected. This crucial function should not be performed by a private inspector whose 

primary obligation is the success and profitability of his company or business partners. 

We are particularly concerned about the lack of public inspection and oversight of surface 

transportation projects procured through Design-Build, which often allows private 

contractors or other private firms to inspect and sign off on their own work. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony to the Subcommittee. We appreciate your 

consideration of policies that would recognize the important role that public employees play in the 

planning, design, and construction of the nation's surface transportation network. If implemented, 

these policies would prioritize the public interest in the development and construction of surface 

transportation projects. 

3 
139 


Insert offset folio 94 here 28114.094

SAFETY SPECTRUM COALITION 

October 10,2017 

The Honorable Sam Graves 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

B376 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

B376 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Holmes Norton: 

We write to you regarding the upcoming Highways and Transit Subcommittee hearing entitled 

"Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Highways and Transit Stakeholders' 

Perspectives." The Safety Spectrum Coalition represents a broad group of industries, highway 

users, and transportation technology, consumer, and safety advocates that support and promote 

the need to deploy vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) and vehicle-toeverything (V2X) technologies through Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC). 

DSRC is a revolutionary transportation technology that provides a wireless connection among all 

vehicles and other road users to communicate in real-time with each other and the surrounding 

infrastructure to coordinate traffic and avoid collisions in order to save lives and reduce 

congestion. DSRC technology is readily available, widely deployable, and capable of providing 

immediate benefits. While several DSRC deployments are already demonstrating the benefits of 

this technology in both rural and urban environments, we urge the Subcommittee to consider 

further polices to incentivize greater utilization ofDSRC as the Subcommittee examines future 

infrastructure authorizations. 

DSRC is a proven technology that is ready now for mass deployment, and the need for advanced 

vehicle safety technology has perhaps never been higher. 2016 data from the National Safety 

Council estimates that as many as 40,000 people died as a result of motor vehicle crashes last 

year. That marks a 14% increase over 2014, the most dramatic two-year escalation since 1964. 

An estimated 4.6 million roadway users were injured seriously enough to require medical 

attention in 2016, and the estimated cost to society was $432.5 billion. According to calculations 

by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, just four V2V applications could avoid 
140 


Insert offset folio 95 here 28114.095

or mitigate 89% of light duty vehicle crashes and 85% of their associated costs, saving thousands 

of lives, avoiding millions of injuries, and yielding billions of dollars in cost savings. 

DSRC technology represents the culmination of over a decade of work and millions of dollars of 

public-private investment to establish a robust, interoperable, and secure communications 

protocol that allows vehicles to securely and anonymously transmit data, and thereby enabling 

vehicles and infrastructure to exchange messages and coordinate traffic. DSRC-supported V2V 

and V21 allows vehicles to effectively see dangerous situations before they encounter them, 

whether it be a patch of dense fog, an icy bridge, a vehicle stopped suddenly, or moving slowly 

through a blind intersection, or a work zone. DSRC also allows vehicles to coordinate their 

movements with the infrastructure, such as traffic lights, to improve safety and efficiency, while 

reducing congestion. In truck platooning, DSRC communicates acceleration and braking 

information faster than human reaction so that two or more trucks can travel closely together at 

highway speeds, taking advantage of the aerodynamic efficiency to lower fuel consumption and 

emissions. In a conventional vehicle, DSRC provides warnings to the driver, while in an 

automated vehicle, DSRC can communicate directly with the automated driving system to take 

action. 

As the Subcommittee works to modernize our infrastructure, it is critical to understand the 

unique role connectivity can play, on both urban and rural roadways, for both commercial and 

noncommercial vehicles. V2V and V21 communications can augment and support automated 

driving systems across all levels of automation allowing for smarter decision making within a 

mixed fleet- where both conventional and automated vehicles will be operating on the same 

roads. While automated driving systems continue to advance, it is the combination of connected 

and automated driving that promises the greatest opportunity to dramatically reduce traffic 

fatalities and injuries, and to improve throughput on the roads we already have. DSRC is the 

code that can connect a future transportation system where vehicles and infrastructure 

communicate through one interoperable, nationwide system. 

There are three ways that the Subcommittee can support DSRC technology to achieve 

better efficiency and safety ou our highways: 

1. Reauthorize FAST Act Eligibility 

In 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) made huge strides 

in promoting the deployment of DSRC equipment to support V2I through explicit 

funding eligibility for installation of communication equipment within all major highway 

formula programs including the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), 

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP), Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSlP), and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement 

program. The addition of V2I to these programs underscores the technologies' ability to 

2 
141 


Insert offset folio 96 here 28114.096

make our highways safer, more efficient, and cleaner. We thank the Subcommittee for 

this step forward, and urge the Subcommittee to continue to provide eligibility for DSRC 

equipment in any future infrastructure package. 

2. Further Incentivize DSRC Deployments 

DSRC technology provides a robust platform for innovation and our nation's 

infrastructure policy should support that innovation. Already, V21 applications such as 

Red Light Violation Warning; Curve Speed Warning; Reduced Speed/Work Zone 

Warning, Pedestrian in Crosswalk Warning, and location-specific Weather Impact 

Warnings are being deployed and evaluated across the country. Programs like the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) Connected Vehicle Pilots use a wide range of 

DSRC applications to improve safety and efficiency, such as along the freight corridor in 

the Wyoming Connected Vehicle Pilot Program. Additionally, the SPaT Challenge is 

pushing states to develop at least one connected corridor or intersection network in each 

state by 2020. We urge the Subcommittee to support these efforts and further promote 

DSRC use through apportioned programs, award programs, and federal designations of 

connected cities and corridors to incentivize V2X deployment. 

3. Provide Regulatory Certainty & Protect the 5.9 GHz Spectrum 

To achieve maximum benefits and ensure widespread deployment of V2X, it is important 

that all vehicles use one interoperable standard, and we ask that the Subcommittee 

support DOT's work to establish a standard for DSRC in light-duty vehicles. 

Furthermore, in order to support current and future applications and deployments, DSRC 

operations across all channels in the 5.9 GHz band must be free from harmful 

interference. While the 5.9 GHz band is dedicated for the operation of intelligent 

transportation systems, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently 

testing spectrum-sharing proposals to determine if unlicensed devices can safely share the 

5.9 GHz band with DSRC. The Safety Spectrum Coalition encourages the Subcommittee 

to actively oversee FCC and DOT during this testing to ensure that DSRC operations 

receive the protection they require to function properly to support V2V, V21 and 

additional DSRC-supported applications. 

Thank you for your continued work to advance America's infrastructure as we collectively strive 

to develop and implement a smarter, more connected approach to transportation in the 21st 

century. We ask that this letter be entered into the hearing record, and we look forward to 

working with the Subcommittee to ensure that future infrastructure policies further promote 

connectivity in our transportation systems. 

3 
142 


Insert offset folio 97 here 28114.097

Sincerely, 

AAA 

American Highway Users Alliance 

American Traffic Safety Services Association 

American Trucking Associations 

Association of Global Automakers 

Commercial Vehicle Training Association 

Intelligent Transportation Society of America 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving 

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association 

NAF A Fleet Management Association 

National Safety Council 

cc: Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Highways and Transit 

Subcommittee 

4 
143 


Insert offset folio 98 here 28114.098

Support Sufficient User fees to Meet 

federal Transportation Investment 

Investing in highways and other transportation infrastructure remains a catalyst for economic 

development and job creation, while also providing safer travel for American motorists. A 

robust infrastructure keeps American businesses globally competitive. 

While two-thirds of all states have stepped up highway funding over the past five years, the 

federal government has repeatedly failed to fund federal programs with user fees such as the gas 

tax. 

Many financial analysts project that the recently passed FAST act will merely hold funding flat at 

best, when accounting for inflation, and that it will fail to address a growing list of critical 

transportation needs across the country. The U.S. has an $836 billion backlog of needed repairs 

and improvements to roads and bridges, and an additional $90 billion backlog for public transit 

systems, according to the Federal Highway Administration. 

Notably, Congress has been unwilling to increase the federal user fuel tax of 18.4 cents per 

gallon since 1993. The money generated by that tax has traditionally been the main source of 

funding for the federal portion of America's highway transportation expenditures. 

Simply put, the purchasing power of the gas tax today is approximately 7 cents compared to 

1993. Because the gas tax has not been increased, alternate funding methods beyond user fees 

have been implemented on a short-term or one-time basis. 

States, which rely heavily on these federal transportation funds, have been unable to properly 

maintain their existing systems, and have not been able to adequately fund the replacement of 

highways and bridges that have been deemed deficient or have exceeded their life 

expectancies. 

President Donald Trump has proposed a plan to address the nation's pressing infrastructure 

needs by investing $1 trillion through a number of financing methods, including public-private 

partnerships. Alternate financing and project procurement methods to increase private capital 

in transportation are ideas worth discussing and add significant value if coupled with baseline 

funding support and adjustment in existing user fees. 
144 


Insert offset folio 99 here 28114.099

The president has recently suggested that he might support increasing federal fuel taxes to 

provide additional necessary funding. The fuel tax historically has been the most successful and 

least expensive way to fund transportation projects and spur economic growth. 

The Tri-State Development Summit, a 36-county regional economic development organization 

covering West-Centrallllinois, Northeast Missouri and Southeast Iowa, believes the simplest, 

least expensive and most effective funding method to address our nation's critical highway 

transportation network is to significantly increase the federal gas tax. 

President Trump's stated intention with his proposal is to target infrastructure 

construction-ready projects that would produce significant workforce gains. So, the question 

now is how to best implement and fund the ambitious infrastructure plan Trump has proposed, 

as well as to provide the necessary ongoing funding of the nation's vital transportation network 

We believe the best and easiest way to pay for highways is to increase the current federal user 

fee (fuel tax) and tie it to an inflation index. We realize there has been resistance in Congress to 

consider this option, but we and many others consider it the best option. Additionally, 

Congress should continue evaluating alternative funding methods and consider other userrelated taxes and fees to meet current funding demands. 

Clearly, if President Trump, and Congress want to have a major impact on growing the economy 

with minimal federal investment, there is no better way than through user fees. 

Doubling the federal user fee would result in an average increase in out-of-pocket costs of only 

$8 per month for the typical driver. To make this easier to pass, it could be implemented over a 

period of a several years. It also is important that any increase in fuel taxes be targeted entirely 

to transportation, which drivers and taxpayers are more willing to support. 

Transportation funding proposals have enjoyed widespread success at the polls. Voters 

approved 269 of the 361, or 75 percent, of transportation funding measures placed on the 2016 

ballot by states, counties, cities, townships and other districts, according to the American Road 

and Transportation Builders Association. 

An additional bonus of raising the federal fuel tax is that states must match the federal funding 

they receive for road construction by an amount which averages about 40 percent of their 

federal grant. 
145 


Insert offset folio 100 here 28114.100

This means states must increase their share of funding as the federal investment rises. In other 

words, for every $1 that the federal fuel tax generates, $1.40 would be invested in our 

transportation system. That would then multiply the positive impact of the federal funding 

increase as the states invest more in new infrastructure. 

Any additional transportation investment will have a major effect on the economy as $1 billion 

spent on road construction creates more than 13,000 construction jobs, including those down 

the supply chain, and another 14,000 "induced jobs." That would result in 27 million new jobs 

for the $1 trillion infrastructure program being proposed by the president 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which usually opposes tax increases, has publicly supported 

raising the federal user fee for years. A significant number of major trade unions working in the 

highway construction sector also support gas tax increases. Moreover, the price of a gallon of 

gasoline can and does fluctuate by as much as 15 or 20 cents per day at the pump, with virtually 

no consumer reaction. 

An additional benefit of raising the fuel tax at the federal level is that it does not increase the 

disparity in fuel prices that occurs when it is done on a state-by-state basis, which is a particular 

problem for border communities. 

The simple fact is user fees have been proven to work, are well accepted and have been 

successfully funding highways for decades. It is the best and fairest way. 

Furthermore, 24 states have adopted higher fuel or sales taxes to pay for transportation 

improvements since 2012. In the 10 states that took direct votes to raise new revenues, 98 

percent of the legislators who voted for these bills and ran for re-election won their next 

primary, and 90 percent ultimately retained their seats. 

For example, former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad understood additional funding was needed to 

improve roads throughout his state and was willing to work to make it happen. In 2015, the 

Iowa legislature passed a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the state gas tax with bipartisan 

support and little public opposition. 

The president and Congress can have the same positive impact on the rest of the nation with 

bold leadership. 
146 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 101 here 28114.101

This plan requires no extra effort on the part of the traveling public, encourages conservation 

while raising substantial sums of money, and distributes funds evenly across the nation. 

Some may counter that gas tax is not paid by drivers of electric and more fuel-efficient vehicles 

and will not pay their "fair share." There are methods being considered to collect fees from this 

relatively minor but growing part of vehicles on the highways, which will address this issue 

going forward. 

This can be remedied in the short term by implementing smart policies that index inversely 

with the total national average fuel economy of the vehicle fleet. Georgia did so recently and 

has had its first fuel economy-based rate adjustment. To claim we should not adjust the fuel 

tax today to right the national infrastructure condition because someday in the future changes 

are coming doesn't enable action in the present. 

We should harvest a simple, efficient means to generate revenue from users of the 

transportation system for their benefit today, which will enable a smooth transition to 

different revenue sources. Transportation is entering the information age -an exciting time 

that will enable transformational safety and efficiency gains. let's act today to rebuild the 

nation's transportation infrastructure to facilitate this transition and get our economy moving! 

In conclusion, we encourage the nation's leadership to support and pass an increase in the 

federal fuel tax. The vital investment will serve as a critical catalyst for economic development 

and job creation nationwide. 

This report was prepared by-The Tri-State Development Summit Transportation Task Force, 

representing over 700,000 citizens.