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

24–912 PDF 2017

FAST ACT IMPLEMENTATION: STATE AND LOCAL 

PERSPECTIVES 

(115–10) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 5, 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 .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

J. Michael Patterson, Executive Director, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ................................................................................................ 7 

Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association ................... 7 

Hon. Kasim Reed, Mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of the United States 

Conference of Mayors ........................................................................................... 7 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

J. Michael Patterson ................................................................................................ 35 

Gary C. Thomas ....................................................................................................... 47 

Hon. Kasim Reed ..................................................................................................... 55 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Letter of April 10, 2017, from Mickey Peercy, Director, Self-Governance, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and 

Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure .................... 62 

Letter of April 10, 2017, from Kathy Hope Erickson, Chairman, Sitka Tribe 

of Alaska, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure .................................................... 65 

Letter of April 12, 2017, from Melanie Bahnke, President, Kawerak, Inc., 

to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure ..................................................................... 67 

Letter of April 12, 2017, from Blaine J. Edmo, Chairman, Fort Hall Business 

Council, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ... 70 

Written testimony of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians ..................................... 72 

Written testimony of the Solano Transportation Authority, submitted by Hon. 

John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..................................................................................................................... 74 

Report of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, ‘‘AASHTO Implementation Plan for FAST Act and MAP–21,’’ 

April 2017 ............................................................................................................. 76 

Chart, ‘‘AASHTO Surface Transportation Rulemaking Tracker’’ ........................ 106 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 24912.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 24912.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 24912.003
(1) 

FAST ACT IMPLEMENTATION: STATE AND 

LOCAL PERSPECTIVES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. We will go ahead and call the subcommittee to order. And I would like to say good morning and welcome all of our witnesses here today to the hearing. By now, we 

have all seen the reports of last week’s fire and the resulting collapse of a section of I–85 northeast of Atlanta. This is a critically 

important piece of our infrastructure system, which carries over 

400,000 cars a day. With that volume of traffic, it is amazing that 

there wasn’t any loss of life in this incident. And I commend the 

State and local officials for responding so quickly to the crisis. I 

also want to commend the U.S. Department of Transportation for 

acting quickly to release emergency funds and provide assistance. 

We are here to examine the implementation of the FAST Act 

[Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act] with our State and 

local partners. The FAST Act is the first long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill in a decade, and it is an important 

foundation for building a 21st-century infrastructure. The 5-year 

bill provides very much needed certainty and funding, so that our 

non-Federal partners can make smart, long-term investments. 

The FAST Act is a forward-looking law that puts an emphasis on 

projects of national significance, the movement of freight, streamlining project delivery, and innovative solutions to transportation 

challenges. State departments of transportation and transit systems and local entities have the important task of delivering transportation projects to the communities. And as they carry out these 

projects, the witnesses have a firsthand view of how Federal transportation policies are being implemented by the U.S. Department 

of Transportation. 

We look forward to building a 21st-century infrastructure with 

our State and local partners, and we are going to very much welcome their input today. I now recognize the ranking member of the 

subcommittee, Ms. Norton, for your opening statement. 

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

Graves, I am very grateful for this subcommittee hearing. I think 

it indicates that our subcommittee wants to get beyond all of the 

2 

interest that we have heard on infrastructure, and see what we can 

really do. We know that a large infrastructure package, the idea 

of a large infrastructure package, which is on the minds of many 

in the administration and on our minds, is not going to magically 

appear. We did a lot of—and I am going to say I think deservedly 

so—a lot of self-congratulation when we passed the first surface 

transportation bill in 10 years, and I must say, I am very grateful, 

Mr. Chairman, that it was a good bipartisan effort. And I know you 

share with me the disappointment that in order to get any increase 

whatsoever after 10 years, we had to make a 6-year bill a 5-year 

bill. 

I don’t know how long we can keep that kind of disinvestment 

from going on. I say disinvestment because if you are not even investing in a state of good repair, much less the new infrastructure 

we need, you are not investing. We are disinvesting. Remember 

how we built this country. Ever since this idea of the Federal 

transportation infrastructure package was created by President Eisenhower, the country has understood that you can’t be a great 

country unless you continuously invest in infrastructure of various 

kinds. 

Now the Congressional Budget Office tells us that we face a $139 

billion shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund just over the next decade, if we are trying to continue to fund the FAST Act funding levels. And we need $17 billion more a year than FAST Act levels at 

the Federal level to improve our infrastructure and to maintain a 

state of good repair. 

I am very pleased that the President has said good things about 

infrastructure, so I hastened to get a hold of his so-called skinny 

budget, and was very disappointed to see really unheard of cuts to 

popular transportation programs. So instead of investing, after my 

hopes had been raised, for example, in transit, urgently needed to 

alleviate congestion, the President wants to stop all new investments in transit by cutting off the New Starts program. 

I am grateful, nevertheless, for the continuing bipartisanship on 

this committee. I was pleased to sign a letter with Chairman 

Graves and the leadership of the full committee to urge the Appropriations Committee to fully fund all FAST Act programs as authorized for the remainder of 2017 and in the upcoming 2018 budget. I am still banking on a President that talks about $1 trillion 

proposal, at least supporting us as we fight to maintain the meager 

funding levels we had. And I am not pulling my hair out that the 

President’s cuts will go through, because no matter who is President, the appropriators always rewrite the budget. 

But I am concerned that the administration seems to be more enamored with pushing private capital and financing—which would 

end up making projects more expensive than traditional funding 

mechanisms—and regulatory reforms than making real investment. An investor-centered approach will do little to improve infrastructure across the Nation. I mean, you simply can’t build your infrastructure and expect that toll roads will somehow pay for it. 

There must be a revenue stream, and for the modern era in American life, it has always begun with this committee and subcommittee. Nor can we streamline our way out of inadequate funding. Secretary Chao said recently the problem is not money. 

3 

Imagine saying that about roads and transit. The problem is always money. She didn’t say that last part. That was editorializing. 

She said it is the delays caused by the Government permitting 

processes that hold up projects for years, even decades, making 

them risky investments. But, in fact, if you check the data, only 4 

percent of all infrastructure projects nationwide undergo any rigorous environmental review. Most of it is what you and I see every 

day, 90 percent of projects received from categorical exclusion 

through the categorical exclusion process, and are exempt from rigorous levels of review. A recent inspector general report also refutes the notion that more streamlining now is the prudent cost of 

action. It concludes that additional streamlining provisions in the 

FAST Act are actually slowing down the U.S. Department of Transportation’s ability to implement the project delivery accelerations 

put into MAP–21. 

In other words, piling streamlining measures on top of each 

other, before they can be implemented, simply does not help, and, 

frankly, does not happen. I have always defended opportunities for 

public participation in NEPA, and continue to believe that it helps 

us to improve the ultimate projects. Community input and buy-in 

are crucial to the successful and expeditious advancement of transportation projects. Gutting public participation in the name of cutting redtape is something that will harm our roads and will harm 

the constituents who use our roads and infrastructure. 

I don’t believe we can reinvent the wheel when it comes to transportation and infrastructure. I just think there is no way around 

our obligation as the Congress of the United States to provide the 

States and local governments with the funding and the flexibility 

that they alone know what to do with to produce smart and efficient projects, allowing the States, who have the wisdom, once we 

give them the money to go ahead. 

I very much look forward to today’s witnesses. I have read the 

headlines, Mayor Reed, about Atlanta and I–85. It will be interesting to hear what we can do and what you can do on that unforeseen circumstance. Thank you very much, and I look forward to the 

testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Ranking Member. I now 

turn to ranking member of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this important hearing. I will just restate a few things because they do merit 

restating. We have an $836 billion backlog on unmet capital investment needs for highways and bridges; nearly 140,000 bridges need 

repair or replacement; and over $90 billion just to bring existing 

transit up to a state of good repair, let alone build out new transit 

options for people. Yet, we haven’t increased the user fee here in 

Washington, DC, in a quarter of a century. 

Over the past few years, 17 States have raised their gas tax, and 

nobody has been recalled. Nobody has lost their reelection, and it 

has not been a controversy. The American people get it. They are 

tired of sitting in traffic. They are tired of blowing out tires in potholes. They are tired of being detoured around weight-limited or 

closed bridges. They are tired of the decrepit state of our mass 

transit, and they want to see action. 

4 

So, today, I am sending Secretary Chao a letter urging her to 

come down and work with Congress to create a consensus around 

real investment, and real solutions for the Nation’s infrastructure 

problems. 

I am hearing a lot of talk about, well, it is going to be P3s; it 

is going to be infrastructure banks; it is going to be private tax 

credits, and we are going to streamline the Federal approval process. Let’s address that briefly. First off, most P3s are projects $1 billion or larger. You have got 

to have a rate of return. You have got to attract the investment. 

They have to be tolled, or some other way, you know, to recoup the 

investment, and they are generally 5-to-1 public money to private 

money. Now, the Speaker has said he wants 40-to-1 private money 

to public money. That means no more P3s. There are no investors 

out there who are going to put up at a 40-to-1 ratio and do a P3. 

They generally put up 10 to 15, at the most, 20 percent, and the 

rest comes from TIFIA or local bonding or State bonding, municipal 

bonds, whatever. That is myth number one. 

Now, infrastructure, banks, private-activity bonds, you know, 

those are new forms of local borrowing. Again, they require a revenue stream, hence tolling or some other way of recouping the investment. And, of course, they do increase the costs. 

Now Secretary Chao unfortunately was given some alternate 

facts by somebody. She stated: ‘‘Investors say there is ample capital 

available waiting to invest in infrastructure projects, so the problem is not money. It is the delays caused by Government permitting processes that hold up projects for years, even decades, making them risky investments.’’ No. No. That is not the problem. In 

fact, we made 42 major policy changes for streamlining in MAP– 

21. Not all of those have been implemented yet. In fact, some of 

them have run into conflicts with the FAST Act. So, we did streamlining. We did more streamlining on top of streamlining. Let’s get 

all that implemented and see if there is still any issues. I don’t 

think you will find many. In fact, more than 90 percent of the 

projects go forward under categorical exclusion, which is basically 

filling out a few sheets of paper, and it might take you 1 month 

or 2 months at the most. 

So that isn’t the issue here. You can’t streamline your way out 

of a lack of funding. So, you know, 4 percent of projects, 4 percent, 

require environmental impact statements. And as Ranking Member 

Norton noted, most of those are held up at the local or State level 

because of controversy surrounding those projects, redesign, and 

other things which came out in hearings, which are required under 

the NEPA process. But that is 4 percent of the projects. So 96 percent don’t even have to go through a rigorous environmental review. 

And a recent report by the Treasury looked at 40 economically 

significant transportation and water projects whose completion has 

been slowed or is in jeopardy—ah, proof positive about streamlining. No. The report found that a lack of public funding is, by far, 

the major factor hindering the completion of those projects. 

So plain and simple, I got a provision in the FAST Act that says 

if Congress appropriates more money to transportation, it flows 

through the policies in the FAST Act. We don’t need to spend a 

5 

year or two rewriting the policies, arguing over transit highway 

split, arguing over enhancements, arguing over how much goes to 

freight, how much goes here, how much goes there, arguing. We 

don’t have to go through any of the policy debate. All we need to 

do is have the guts to put up a little bit of money, and that is why 

I introduced A Penny for Progress. And as I have said before, if 

anybody around here thinks they are going to lose their election if 

they vote on something that caps the indexation increase at 11⁄2

cents a gallon a year, then you don’t belong here. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thanks, Ranking Member. I will now 

introduce our panel. And first I would like to introduce Mr. Mike 

Patterson, who is the executive director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. He is testifying on behalf of the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. We also 

have Mr. Gary Thomas, who is president and executive director of 

the Dallas Area Rapid Transit. And he is testifying on behalf of the 

American Public Transportation Association. And I would like to 

recognize Ms. Johnson of Texas to make a formal introduction of 

Mr. Thomas. 

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

As a Representative from Dallas, I am proud to introduce not only 

a friend and partner, but a good executive, who is Mr. Gary Thomas, president and executive director of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit, which we call DART. He and I worked cooperatively together 

for many years to cultivate our great city of Dallas into an interconnected transit hub that it is today as the largest growing metropolitan area in the country. 

He joined DART in 1998, and has since grown DART’s light rail 

system into the Nation’s longest and largest at 93 miles long. 

Under his leadership, DART has become a leading example for the 

Nation of how to effectively manage and grow a flourishing public 

transit network. I happen to know that DART also has very strong 

working relationships with our Federal partners at USDOT and 

the Federal Transit Administration, thanks to Mr. Thomas. 

He is also very effective at cultivating strategic partnerships 

with local stakeholders to meet the needs of the robust multimode 

transit network in the Dallas metroplex. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to introduce Mr. Thomas to the committee with 

great anticipation to his testimony and his plea for money. Thank 

you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. And finally, 

we have the Honorable Kasim Reed, who is the mayor of Atlanta, 

Georgia, and he is testifying on behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors. And I now recognize Mr. Johnson of Georgia to 

make a formal introduction. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my 

distinct pleasure to recognize and welcome my friend, Kasim Reed, 

mayor of Atlanta, to this hearing. As we convene this hearing this 

morning, I can think of no better witness to offer than the Honorable Kasim Reed. Mayor Reed, when he first came into office, he 

balanced Atlanta’s budget, and he took care of the challenge of the 

unfunded pension system which had been languishing for many 

years. That has been taken care of successfully 6 years ago, or 7 

6 

years ago, actually. He has invested in hiring more police officers 

in Atlanta. Our crime rate continues to go down. Mayor Reed is the 

59th mayor of the city of Atlanta, serving in that capacity since 

2010. Mayor Reed is known for building relationships and working 

in a bipartisan way with local, State, and Federal stakeholders on 

economic development and transportation issues. 

During his tenure, Atlanta has experienced significant economic 

development and a population boom. For instance, his work with 

Governor Nathan Deal and the Obama administration to obtain 

Federal support for the Port of Savannah Harbor Expansion 

Project, has resulted in much economic development for the Atlanta 

region and for the State of Georgia. The city has responded by undertaking an ambitious agenda to upgrade roads and bridges and 

improve the city’s transportation infrastructure. 

The city of Atlanta, under Mayor Reed’s leadership, is currently 

undergoing a historic $2.6 billion expansion of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, or MARTA, as well as expanding 

and completing unique projects such as Atlanta’s BeltLine, which 

is a 22-mile stretch of trails and transit around the city on abandoned railways. This project has opened up a lot of economic development in terms of new housing, rehabilitated housing, new residents coming in, businesses opening up, communities being created 

that are walkable, bikeable, and interconnected. And also, at the 

same time, he has presided over the opening of the Maynard H. 

Jackson Jr. International Terminal at the Atlanta Airport as Atlanta matures into a world-class city. He is overseeing, currently, 

a $6 billion expansion of the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, an international airport, the world’s busiest airport; at the same time 

building a state-of-the-art stadium for our dear Falcons. It nears 

completion, world-class facility with a retractable roof. 

So much that we can talk about, Mayor Kasim Reed’s leadership. 

He is leveraging the strength of partnerships with the State of 

Georgia, colleges and universities, and the private sector to build 

an innovative transportation infrastructure that ensures mobility 

and creativity for Atlanta’s residents, businesses, and visitors, all 

taking place while Atlanta remains an affordable city where everyday working people can afford to live, work, and play. With that, 

I am proud to introduce to this committee, Mayor Kasim Reed. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. With that I 

would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements 

be included in the record. Without objection, that is so ordered. 

And since your written testimony is going to be made part of the 

record, the committee would ask that you please limit your summary to 5 minutes. 

With that, Mr. Patterson, we will start with you. 

7 

TESTIMONY OF J. MICHAEL PATTERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON 

BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; GARY C. THOMAS, 

PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DALLAS AREA 

RAPID TRANSIT, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; AND HON. KASIM REED, 

MAYOR OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 

STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 

Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Mike Patterson. I am the executive director of 

the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, ODOT, and I am 

here today to testify on behalf of ODOT and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO. 

First, we want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of 

your committee, for your leadership and efforts to increase the efficiency of delivering transportation projects. In collaboration and in 

cooperation with the Federal Government, the State DOTs continue 

to seek opportunities and create solutions to solve the deteriorating 

national transportation system. All of us have come to realize that 

additional funding is important. That serves as a partial solution 

to the problem. The FAST Act’s authorization of $305 billion for 

Federal highway safety, transit passenger rail programs from 2016 

to 2020 could not have been timelier in spurring our economic 

growth and investment in our multimodal transportation infrastructure. But equally important to initiating and completing 

transportation investments in a timely matter involves major programmatic and policy reforms contained in both the FAST Act and 

MAP–21. 

It is our hope that Congress will feel comfortable in seeking additional reforms that will provide further opportunities to improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness of transportation programs and 

project delivery while remaining responsible stewards of taxpayer 

resources in both human and natural environments. 

Moving forward, we must develop a modern revenue model for 

funding our surface transportation investments. The days of almost 

total reliance on consumption tax for a fleet of ever-increasing fuelefficient vehicles is nearing its end. What we consider innovative 

funding today must and will become a new normal for funding 

transportation. Until that time, it is imperative that the annual obligation authority in the FAST Act be fully honored, the structural 

cash flow deficit in the Highway Trust Fund be resolved, and the 

schedule of recisions of contract authority be abolished. 

Even in today’s environment of financing solutions, it remains 

imperative that direct funding of transportation investments remain the primary focus. The reality remains that most transportation projects cannot generate adequate revenue to service debt or 

provide the return on investment required by private sector equity 

holders. 

Everyone recognizes that the FAST Act provides only a nearterm solution to the Federal surface transportation funding. That 

is because the Highway Trust Fund continues to remain at a crossroads. The Highway Trust Fund has provided stable, reliable, and 

sometimes substantial highway and transit funding for decades 

8 

since its inception in 1956, but this is no longer the case. Since 

2008, the Highway Trust Fund has been sustained through a series 

of general fund transfers now amounting to $140 billion. According 

to the January 2017 baseline of the Congressional Budget Office, 

the Highway Trust Fund spending is estimated to exceed receipts 

by about $17 billion in fiscal year 2021, growing to about $24 billion by 2027. 

Furthermore, the Highway Trust Fund is expected to experience 

a significant cash shortfall in 2021, since it can’t incur a negative 

balance. AASHTO estimates that States may see a 40-percent drop 

from fiscal year 2020 to the following year, from $46.2 billion to 

$27.7 billion. 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. 

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 approaches that require more time and oversight. 

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 across 

a variety of suppliers and markets for their products and get employees reliably to work. 

Congress should encourage the USDOT to implement the provisions of both MAP–21 and the FAST Act, fully consistent with legislative intent. An example of the problematic USDOT regulatory 

action is the onerous and the unanticipated requirement regarding 

Metropolitan Planning Organization, MPO, coordination. Although 

State DOTS and MPOs already exemplify the kinds of coordination 

sought, the new regulation added significant legal and administrative requirements that would serve as barriers to constructive and 

flexible approaches to planning and programming being implemented by States and MPOs today. Along with the Senate’s recent 

passage of companion legislation to repeal this rule, we appreciate 

your committee’s prompt action last week to bring this before the 

House floor. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this important hearing 

to bring a greater awareness of transportation infrastructure needs 

of the Nation, and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. We will be happy to answer any questions the committee 

may have. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gary Thomas, and I am the CEO of Dallas Area Rapid Transit. I certainly appreciate the work that this committee does, and thank you, Congresswoman Johnson, for your kind introduction; but more importantly, thank you for what you do in our region. You have been the 

stalwart congresswoman for our region for many, many years, and 

we certainly appreciate the impacts that you have had. 

9 

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the impact that 

the partnership with the Federal Government, and most specifically, the FAST Act, is having on our community. DART was created in 1983, when north Texans voted to tax themselves a 1-percent sales tax to create a transit agency that, quite frankly, they 

didn’t know what it was going to do at that point in time. Today, 

DART is a multimodal transit agency operating North America’s 

longest light rail system in the fourth largest metropolitan area in 

the United States. 

The 2.3 million residents of our 13-city, 700-square-mile service 

area, count on DART’s network of bus, light rail, commuter rail, 

and paratransit services, to give them a choice to get them where 

they need to go every single day. 

I have been part of the public transportation industry now for 30 

years, and CEO since 2001. Public transportation is changing the 

way American communities grow. Equally importantly, we are seeing a significant return on the public investment. Transit-oriented 

development along DART rail lines has generated more than $7 billion in economic impact from new or planned construction. Additionally, in 2014 and 2015, there were 43,000 jobs that were created as a result of this development, resulting in nearly $3 billion 

in wages, salaries, and benefits. 

Now in our region, customers insist on being mobile and being 

connected. Our GoPass mobile ticketing app was one of the first in 

the industry to respond to that demand with a multiagency and 

multimodal fare payment system. Just over 2 years ago, we began 

working with car and ride-sharing companies like Lyft, Uber and 

ZipCar to allow our customers to position—to provide a more complete trip. In other words, first-mile, last-mile opportunities. Now 

we are using a Federal Sandbox or Mobility on Demand Grant to 

make it easier for car and ride-sharing customers to connect with 

transit through that app. 

Our congressional delegation knows the Federal funds invested 

in DART will generate significant economic impact, and a higher 

quality of life in our region. We are pleased to enjoy consistent, bipartisan support. We also believe that we need to bring money to 

the table. Voters in our 13 cities decided to dedicate a portion of 

their sales taxes to help fund transit in their communities. We 

used that to leverage Federal dollars. The FAST Act and its predecessors are difference makers in north Texas, so you can imagine 

the disappointment we had when we heard the details of the administration’s 2018 budget. 

DART’s success is prompting calls for more service, as you might 

imagine. We are advancing plans for a second light rail line in 

downtown Dallas that we hope will be partially funded by a Core 

Capacity Grant. Unfortunately, the budget proposal would foreclose 

this possibility, so despite significant local investment, the project 

would be delayed at least 10 years without Federal funding support. Yet we need the capacity today. 

We are also bringing an old railroad corridor, the Cotton Belt, to 

life with a new commuter rail line, adding a new rail connection 

to DFW International Airport. In response to local demand, we are 

able to accelerate that project by more than a decade with the help 

10 

from a RRIF loan, a Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loan through the Federal Railroad Administration. 

Federal support has helped us complete the conversion of our bus 

fleet to compress natural gas. In addition, we are using Federal 

funds from the low- and no-emission bus program to purchase 

seven electric busses that will be in operation next year. We have 

been aggressive and intentional in seeking creative ways to fund 

and deliver our projects. It certainly doesn’t hurt that we have been 

able to develop a reputation for consistently being under budget 

and ahead of schedule on our projects. 

Our mobility challenges are difficult, but certainly can be solved. 

People in communities everywhere are working on solutions that 

meet their unique needs. They have the vision and the desire. They 

need help with the funding. We believe there is a role for local communities to partner with the Federal Government to work together 

to support these visions with sustainable, substantial, and predictable funding that the FAST Act provides. I cannot impress upon 

the committee strongly enough how important it is to keep the 

FAST Act intact and that commitment intact as we move forward. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I look forward to answering any questions. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Mayor Reed. 

Mr. REED. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

I also want to thank my congressman from Georgia—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mayor, could you pull that mic a little closer to 

you? I want to make sure I hear every single word you say. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Representative Shuster. I also want to 

thank my friend, Congressman Hank Johnson, for that kind introduction. I am very hopeful that my wife was watching. That made 

me feel good about myself. Thank you, Congressman Johnson. I 

also want to thank the administration and this committee for your 

help with regard to the crisis that we have faced with the collapse 

of the I–85 interstate in Atlanta, Georgia. The level of cooperation 

from our Federal partners could not have been stronger, and I 

wanted to take this opportunity to express my personal gratitude. 

I come here today as the mayor of Atlanta and the chairman of 

the Transportation Committee for the U.S. Conference of Mayors. 

The challenge that we are having in Atlanta with I–85 and its collapse really points out that an overall transportation system is 

needed now more than ever. In fact, since we have been facing this 

challenge with I–85, the use of MARTA, the ninth largest public 

transit system in the United States, has increased by more than 

29 percent as we work through the challenge we are facing. So alternatives, including resilient models, we think will be increasingly 

important in the 21st century. 

But we are also investing in roads, which is an issue that I know 

is very important to members of this committee as well. In 2015, 

the State of Georgia passed H.B. 170 under the leadership of Governor Nathan Deal, which raised the gas tax in order to fund nearly $1 billion annually for bridge and road repair, so we are working 

hard to keep our own house in order, in addition to having a strong 

relationship with our Federal partners. The city of Atlanta is also 

moving full speed ahead and leading in our own way. 

11 

Last November, the city moved forward with a half a penny sales 

tax referendum, which would generate $2.6 billion for MARTA, and 

this item passed with 71 percent voter support. We also had a second ballot measure, a TSPLOST, for four-tenths of a penny, which 

will raise an estimated $300 million for infrastructure projects, and 

it received 68 percent support. 

So I think it is important to realize that in Georgia and in the 

metro area, we are focusing on roads and partnership with the 

State, but we are also not leaving our transit responsibilities and 

capabilities behind. City residents are, indeed, voting with their 

pocketbooks, and businesses are voting with their feet. 

In the last 42 months, after we have made these investments in 

improving our road infrastructure and our transit infrastructure, 

we have won 17 either regional or U.S. headquarters in the city of 

Atlanta. They include businesses like NCR, Honeywell, GE Digital, 

UPS. We have had the largest net increase of jobs into the city in 

more than 40 years after making these infrastructure investments. 

This would not have been possible without the stability that was 

provided by the FAST Act and your leadership in making that legislation possible. So I wanted to thank you for that. 

In the last 2 years, Atlanta taxpayers have focused increasingly 

on making sure that we fund our share of infrastructure, and I 

think it is important to note that we ask this committee, as you 

develop future legislation, to always keep in mind what the local 

community has invested as we try to attract grants and Federal 

support. We are fixing roads and bridges, engineering more than 

30 miles of complete street projects, including bicycle lanes and 

traffic light synchronization initiatives. As a result of all of these 

items, the city of Atlanta’s credit rating has improved 7 positions, 

7 positions, to AA plus as rated by Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, 

and Fitch. The point we are making is, is that when you invest in 

these critical infrastructure items, the market responds, and the 

business community responds. 

Modest expansion means the potential is very real for new light 

rail transit and flexible bus service that will connect with existing 

heavy rail and the Atlanta Streetcar systems. None of this would 

have been possible without your committee’s support. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you very much, Mayor. We will 

now turn to Chairman Shuster of the full committee. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sorry I am late. I did make it to hear all your testimony. I want to thank you all. Mr. Patterson, Mr. Thomas, thank 

you for bringing your expertise, and thank you, Mayor Reed, for 

being here again. Outside of the Ninth Congressional District, I 

think you are probably my favorite mayor in America, because you 

really understand infrastructure. I am so sorry for what happened 

down there on the bridge in I–85, but from what they are telling 

me, they are going to rebuild that bridge in about 80 days. This 

is certainly a tragedy. Thank goodness, thank God nobody was 

killed, but we ought to pay very, very close attention to how fast 

this moves because we need to learn from this as we did by the 

Interstate 35 bridge several years ago. They built that bridge in 

about just shy of 400 days. These are the kinds of things that we 

12 

should learn from as you move forward because it is going to be 

critical to do that. 

I was late because I spent an hour, just an hour with Secretary 

Chao. She came and briefed about 45 Members of Congress. She 

talked about the infrastructure bill and how important it is to the 

President; and, of course, 40, 45 Members were there asking a lot 

of great questions, and there is a Federal component to it obviously, and we have got to figure the revenues out, how we get more 

revenues. Public-private partnerships are a tool in the toolbox, but 

it is not the toolbox. It is a good tool; we need to make it better. 

And then figuring out how to unleash the private dollars. As I talk 

to people around the country, there is a $2 billion road project in 

California right now—$2 billion dollars, $50 million of it is Federal 

money. The rest is California money, and State, local, private-sector dollars, they want to get about $500 million or $600 million in 

a TIFIA loan, and they are dragging their feet. These are the kinds 

of things we have to get out of the way of the States and the locals 

to move these projects forward. 

So I really appreciate the three of you being here today. Thank 

you so much. But I would be remiss if I didn’t introduce and welcome to the committee the dean of the Secretaries of Transportation—the dean of the Secretaries of Transportation, from Oklahoma, Gary Ridley. Dean Ridley, it is good to see you. Just you 

being in the room, we are all learning through osmosis by you 

being here. So I really always appreciate you being here. I will say 

it again. I thank the three of you for being here, and thank you, 

Chairman Graves, for having this hearing. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. With that we will open it up for questions. We will start with Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. As most of my colleagues know, I 

grew up working in the road construction business, and that experience showed me how difficult it can be for State and local governments to move forward with projects when they are uncertain 

about Federal transportation spending. Not only that experience, I 

was a former mayor as well, so I saw it on both ends. And that 

uncertainty trickles down to private industry. My family would not 

hire more workers or purchase more equipment without knowing 

what the future might hold, without knowing what kind of work 

would be out there and for how long. 

Now, under the FAST Act, Federal transportation funding runs 

out in 2020. Can any of you speak how this deadline affects your 

ability to move transportation projects forward? 

Mr. THOMAS. Congressman, thank you for the opportunity to address that question. From the transit agency’s perspective, we did 

a very detailed long-range financial plan, a 20-year financial plan, 

that identifies, assumes, in some regards, and identifies all of our 

revenue and also identifies all of our expenses, so our projects are 

very specific. We make sure that we know what we can build, when 

we can build them, and that we can operate and maintain them 

once we can build them. Not having the certainty beyond 2020 certainly prohibits us from that certainty, from that reliability of 

knowing what we can do in that 20-year plan. So it limits us as 

we look at one of the fastest, as our congresswoman said, the fastest growing regions in the country. We can’t always predict and 

13 

solve some of the transportation challenges that we need to be 

doing now to make sure that those projects are in place at that 

point in time. So the long-range funding is certainly critical for 

transit as we move forward. Thank you. 

Mr. REED. As a follow-on to my colleague’s comments, one of the 

things that we could absolutely do right now would be to smooth 

out the process around continuing resolutions, even under the 

FAST Act that we have right now. Whenever we have that tension 

period when we are waiting for the continuing resolution process, 

it affects our ability to budget. And our State DOT, for example, 

is in a position where it can’t adequately prepare to get projects out 

waiting for that process. So that is something that is within the 

FAST Act structure right now that could help us push a great deal 

more dollars out to businesses to get folks working. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. One of the biggest complaints I hear 

from people back home is that redtape and bureaucracy consistently hamper investment and innovation. Now, the FAST Act 

called for greater environmental streamlining to get needed 

projects to completion faster. Can any of you speak to the success 

of this attempt? Is it actually happening, or are permits still slow 

to be developed by stakeholder agencies? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Congressman, as I mentioned in my comments, 

I really appreciate what has happened with streamlining and the 

effects that came out in the FAST Act and MAP–21. We still have 

some challenges. There are rulemaking processes that are still underway that we still don’t have the rules in place, even after 5 

years. But it is important that the rules come out right. We don’t 

want them just to be expeditiously drawn up and be wrong. So we 

haven’t felt all of the effects of your efforts and the rest of Congress’ efforts to provide that streamlining, but we are hopeful that 

it does come to pass. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. And just finally, there is no question, 

we need to find a sustainable funding source for infrastructure. We 

can’t keep pulling these rabbits out of our hat and these one-trick 

ponies, one-hit wonders, whatever we want to call them here in 

Washington, but we need a sustainable funding source. I support 

a user fee. I think it is one way that we can do that. What solutions do any of you have, maybe, for a sustainable revenue stream 

that we could put in the Highway Trust Fund, to help the Highway 

Trust Fund? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Congressman, Oklahoma is a member of what 

we call the Western Road Users Consortium. There is a group on 

the east coast—— 

Mr. NADLER. Can you speak closer to the mic? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Oklahoma is a member of the Western Road 

Users Consortium, and there is a group on the east coast that is 

looking at what you call user fees, some sort of way to fund transportation beyond the consumption tax that I mentioned in my oral 

testimony. We see that something has to be done, and I appreciate 

the Federal Government and Congress providing some grant opportunities for our Western RUC to look at different funding mechanisms. I know that Oregon has a test underway, and California 

just entered into that similar kind of test model. So States are 

looking at that, and we hope that the Federal Government and 

14 

Congress looks at our success and our failures to develop something for the future. 

Mr. REED. Last month, we also visited with Representative Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio to talk about their Penny for 

Progress proposal as a guide. Additionally, we really strongly believe that local governments and State governments that really put 

skin in the game ought to have a process where they have an advanced position in attracting Federal capital. So how you all would 

structure that on a long-term basis we would leave to the wisdom 

of this body. But when a local jurisdiction, or a State’s citizens 

raise their hands and say we are going to be first in on dealing 

with our own problems, we believe that that municipality or State 

should be in an advanced position, and that significant points 

should be awarded to whatever pool of money you all ultimately 

make available for us to deal with some of these tough challenges. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ranking Member Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be interested in 

knowing if any of your States have raised the State gas tax and 

what the effect on public opinion was, and what do you think 

would be the effect of raising the Federal gas tax now that perhaps 

some State gas taxes have been raised? I would be interested in 

what all of you have to say about that. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, ma’am, Ranking Member. Texas has not raised 

their gas tax since 1992, so it is much the same case. But when 

you watch gas prices every day swing 10, 15 cents a gallon, I am 

not sure how much a penny, penny and a half, 2 pennies would be 

noticed. Certainly there have been conversations in Austin about 

gas tax, about vehicle miles traveled. There have been a lot of suggestions. We recognize, as a State, that something needs to be 

done, but much like what is happening across the country, a lot of 

conversation. We just haven’t made that decision yet. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Patterson or Mayor Reed? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Oklahoma has not raised our gas tax since 1987. 

Governor Fallin has proposed to increase our fuel tax. It is estimated that by June, we will have the lowest fuel tax in the country 

at 14 cents for diesel—— 

Ms. NORTON. So how is that working out for you? 

Mr. PATTERSON. It is not working out too well. So Governor 

Fallin has made that proposal to increase it to 24 cents for each 

diesel and gasoline, and it is going through the legislative process 

at this point. 

Ms. NORTON. Mayor Reed. 

Mr. REED. Yes, ma’am. Our Governor, Nathan Deal, in 2015, a 

Republican Governor with almost near constitutional majorities in 

our House and in our Senate in Georgia with Republican majorities 

in both, raised the gas tax and raised $1 billion as a result of that. 

In the city of Atlanta, in November, we passed $2.6 billion for the 

largest expansion of our transit system in history. It passed with 

71 percent local support. We also had a TSPLOST funding measure 

that passed with 68 percent local support to fund more than $300 

million in infrastructure. A year prior to that, we had a local referendum for a $250 million infrastructure bond. It passed with 

more than 80 percent support. 

15 

So my State—I am from the State of Georgia—we have a very 

conservative State, and all of these measures have been passed 

with broad majorities. The legislative majority was in the general 

assembly for the $1 billion in road money, and then the other items 

that I referenced regarding MARTA, our transit system, and our 

infrastructure funds, have been done within the city of Atlanta. So 

I think it is a nice mix of urban and rural showing that whether 

you are focused on rural folks or urban folks, people get that we 

need significant infrastructure investment. 

Ms. NORTON. Very instructive. Conservative or Republican, nobody has found a way to build roads and bridges and transit systems without money. I am interested in what the States have done 

because almost half the States have taken the initiative, seeing 

that the Federal Government is stuck and has been stuck for a 

generation. 

One more question. I got into the FAST Act—actually it was the 

idea of a number of us—funds for alternatives. We don’t just criticize the fact that Congress won’t, or your States or those two 

States for that matter, continue to ignore the need for funds. We 

look for alternative funds, and note that some States have found 

alternative ways, or suggested alternative ways, or are actually experimenting. There is $10 million in the FAST Act for such experimentation. Looking at the notions to come forward recently about 

private investment as a way to fund roads and the investors getting back their investment through, I suppose, fares or tolls or the 

rest, I would be interested in knowing whether you think relying 

more heavily on private investment would help us, in fact, hasten 

the work that needs to be done on our roads, bridges, and infrastructure? 

Mr. PATTERSON. In Oklahoma, and in many States, we have seen 

a reliance more on private investors. In Oklahoma, we have our 

turnpike authority, which was created back in the late 1940s, to 

develop a high-speed, safe transportation facility between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. From that point, it has expanded on, and it 

is clearly a tolling authority, but the private investors are the 

moms and pops around the country that buy bonds. So we can’t forget that that is a private investing opportunity. 

Ms. NORTON. But could you build most of the roads using tolls? 

Would the public tolerate that? 

Mr. PATTERSON. No, ma’am, we can’t, and we realize that. We 

understand that at this point, many States are relying on some 

sort of tolling to make up the difference between adequate funding 

between both the State and Federal level. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I just get answers from the other two witnesses, please? 

Mr. REED. Congresswoman, I think that it depends, as long as 

you keep your focus on project models versus tax credit models. So, 

I think that the conversation has to be around real projects. Probably the most successful public-private partnership we have in our 

city is a project called the Atlanta BeltLine, where we reclaimed 22 

miles of old abandoned railroads, and now, the $400 million in public support has triggered $3.8 billion in private capital attracted to 

renovating that entire corridor, and creating 1,200 acres of green 

space. That is a project model where everybody knows where the 

16 

focus is going to be, and everybody is tracking the jobs that are 

being created. The concern that we are experiencing is moving to 

a tax credit model for the financial services community or financiers. And so that is the distinction that I think is going to be 

really important as we have this conversation. The most striking 

and most successful public-private partnerships that I have seen 

have been project-specific with very broad community buy-in. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, ma’am. From a transit industry perspective, it 

is a little bit different. Transit P3s are a great opportunity perhaps, 

as long as you understand going into it that that money is going 

to cost you more than what you could typically borrow other places, 

so there are levels of public-private partnerships. Certainly in one 

case, where we worked very closely with Uber and Lyft, that is a 

public-private partnership of sorts. On the other hand, when we do 

a design-build project, that is a public-private partnership, perhaps 

at the lowest level, but no funding or financing involved. When you 

get to the funding and financing level, and, of course, the associated risk-sharing opportunities, those cost more money. The private 

sector is going to expect higher interest rate on the money that 

they put into a project than what we can typically get through the 

Federal funds, or even a RRIF or TIFIA loan. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Davis, 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the witnesses. Mayor Reed, sorry about the Braves 

on opening day. Not an easy thing, especially after the Falcons. 

Mr. REED. I hadn’t gotten over the Falcons, but I appreciate it. 

I appreciate all the good will I can get. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, we don’t want to remind you of bad things happening to Atlanta sports, but as a Braves fan myself, it is always 

good to have the mayor of Atlanta here. I want to ask you about 

funding set aside under the Surface Transportation Block Grant 

Program that is suballocated to localities. STBG, formerly STP, is 

the most flexible formula transportation funding available to States 

and municipalities to improve Federal highways, Federal aid highways and bridges. And I was pleased that the FAST Act took important steps to gradually increase STBG allocation closer to traditional levels, reaching 55 percent by 2021. 

Mayor, can you explain for the committee the importance on increasing the suballocation of these funds for local communities like 

yours to be able to address your transportation and infrastructure 

problems? 

Mr. REED. Congressman Davis, I think that they are absolutely 

vital, and they will encourage local municipalities to deal with our 

infrastructure challenges. 

The one point that I would make here is one I have already 

made, which is that I do believe that local governments that really 

step up and start solving these problems on their own should have 

a dynamic competitive advantage. And that is not, in my opinion, 

enough of the consideration as a part of this process. I believe that 

the steps that were already taken have been vital, but I do believe 

that our Federal partners could encourage us to do more on our 

own in order to be rewarded for that good behavior. 

17 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I appreciate hearing that, Mayor. And also, I 

am pleased, you know, that the FAST Act does gradually increase 

that local control by increasing the suballocation for STBG, but I 

would have preferred for actually a larger increase. And that is 

why I, along with my friend, Ms. Titus from Nevada, advocated for 

language that would have gradually increased that suballocation to 

60 percent by 2021. And while we were ultimately unsuccessful, I 

still believe we should look at ways to increase the local control 

and flexibility of these transportation dollars. 

Do you have any suggestions additionally to what you responded 

to my previous question with, that Congress could take to further 

promote local control and help communities better address your 

priorities? 

Mr. REED. I think holding up national models that Congress has 

confidence in for other governments to see would be very helpful. 

In other words, having some forum playing a clearinghouse function where the answer isn’t always additional money or capital, but 

the answer may be that these are governments that are taking on 

these challenges and handling them well from a financing standpoint and execution standpoint, and a value of the dollars generated, because everybody’s going to come here and ask for more 

money. But, if you are a local leader or a mayor, you have an end 

date. And to the extent that a body like yours held projects out as 

models after you verified them and are prepared to put your stamp 

of approval on it, I think that it would make it much easier to scale 

these projects around the country in communities large and small. 

Mr. DAVIS. That is great advice. And do you have any projects 

that you might want to mention here to the committee that are 

working well as maybe public-private partnerships regarding infrastructure improvements in Atlanta? 

Mr. REED. Absolutely. I believe that the Atlanta BeltLine is as 

successful a private-public partnership as anywhere in the country. 

If you have been to New York and enjoyed their High Line, the Atlanta BeltLine would be the equivalent of extending that to Westchester County. It is $400 million in public money; it is $3.8 billion 

in private money; it connects 45 neighborhoods that used to be separated by freeways. It has caused the city to connect just socially 

in a way that it had never connected before. That would be one example. 

Another example would be the Atlanta Streetcar, where we had 

$98 million in public investment and we have had $2.5 billion in 

new construction activity within a 5-minute walk of that line. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. I am not as familiar with that first project you 

mentioned. How are you paying back the private portion as a return on investment, what method? 

Mr. REED. It is through the use of tax credits for investments. 

So, for example, when you invest in the Atlanta BeltLine, the public went in and did all of the spending that it took to clean and prepare it; and then the private sector came in after the public sector 

went in and identified the line. So, for example, there was a 1-million-square-foot building that had been boarded up and was dilapidated. It has now attracted one-quarter of a billion dollars’ worth 

of investment. That used to be owned by my government. I sold it 

to the private sector for $27 million. The private sector came in and 

18 

invested one-quarter of a billion dollars. It is built on the Atlanta 

BeltLine, and now 1.4 million people are using the Atlanta BeltLine. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much for your responses and thanks 

for being here. 

Mr. REED. Thank you for the question. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Patterson, your written testimony implies that the FAST Act 

authorization levels rise faster for transit than for highways. In 

fact, highway and transit funding each increase an average of 3 

percent per year over the 5 years of the FAST Act. This committee 

has stood by the 80/20 Highway Trust Fund split for decades. Does 

AASHTO support maintaining this historic 80/20 split between 

highway and transit funding in future transportation bills as we 

did in the FAST Act? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir, we do. We believe that—— 

Mr. NADLER. Talk to the mic, please. 

Mr. PATTERSON. I’m sorry. 

We do believe that the 80/20 split is appropriate and should be 

maintained. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. And, also, your testimony makes a compelling argument that direct funding is essential for highway and 

bridge projects. You have made the case that public-private partnerships, State infrastructure banks, TIFIA credit assistance and 

local bonding initiatives are helpful, but will not replace real direct 

dollars. 

Can you please explain why most transportation projects cannot 

generate sufficient revenue through tolls, fares, or other payment 

models to provide a return on investment for private sector investors? 

Mr. PATTERSON. When you typically look at a transportation 

project across this country, when you are talking about rural or 

urban situations, there is no opportunity, in most cases, to toll that 

facility. Additionally, there is no economic way to capture the dollars that are generated along the route. An example, in Oklahoma 

we have seen where, in a small town in southern Oklahoma, they 

grew out and annexed out to what we call Interstate 35. They did 

that because of the economic development the interstate provided 

to them, but we, as a DOT, can’t capture that. But there was benefit to the city, through additional sales tax. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I have one more question for you, sir, 

and then I will move to the other witnesses. 

Earlier this year, Speaker Paul Ryan suggested that an infrastructure package should consist of 98 percent private funding. 

Specifically, the Speaker said that there should be a 40-to-1 ratio 

between private sector and public sector funding in a Federal infrastructure package. 

Mr. Patterson, your testimony discusses the importance of direct 

Federal funding for transportation, which accounts for 43 percent 

of highway capital expenditures nationwide. Do you believe that an 

infrastructure package that relies on 98 percent private funding 

can adequately address the needs of Oklahoma and other States? 

19 

Mr. PATTERSON. I don’t understand how you get to that perspective. It is something that I would have to learn more about. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, the perspective is basically that you have 

some sort of tax credits with Federal funding that amounts to 2 

percent, and the other 98 percent comes in from private P3s or 

something. You don’t think that works? 

Mr. PATTERSON. I don’t think it works in Oklahoma. 

Mr. NADLER. But you do think it works elsewhere, just not in 

Oklahoma? 

Mr. PATTERSON. I can’t speak for the other States, but I would 

imagine not. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Thomas, do you agree that public-private partnerships, State 

infrastructure banks, TIFIA credit assistance, and local bonding 

initiatives are helpful, but cannot replace real direct dollars? 

Mr. THOMAS. They give us tools in the toolbox, but it needs to 

be a complete toolbox. Otherwise, you can’t get the project done, 

sir. 

Mr. NADLER. And it is an incomplete toolbox without direct Federal funding? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mayor Reed, do you believe that private investors will be able to 

fund the vast majority of highway and transit projects, or that 

most projects will require Federal, State, and local funds to complete? 

Mr. REED. I don’t believe that the private market will do that, 

because they will cherry-pick projects, which will leave essential 

projects that we need that are just not as financially attractive. 

And so, the answer is, I believe that the public-private partnership 

model is important, but it will not replace the need for our Federal 

partners to bear the lion’s share of the load, because the incentive 

to do a private deal is to make a profit for the private sector. 

Mr. NADLER. So, in summary, for all three witnesses, the proposal that we have heard—the administration has not made a formal proposal, but the proposal that we have heard may be coming 

from the administration that they will do, I think, an 82-percent 

tax credit, again, for private partnerships, and that will fund $1 

trillion in infrastructure. Do any of the three of you believe that 

that would work to fund $1 trillion in infrastructure, if the only 

Federal money basically is an 82-percent tax credit? 

Mr. REED. I do not. I believe that you have to have a project 

model, not a tax credit model. 

Mr. NADLER. What do you mean by a project model? 

Mr. REED. I mean, specific projects that you are identifying that 

the Federal Government is investing into in order to create jobs, 

as opposed to a tax credit model. 

Mr. NADLER. So there has got to be a Federal investment in addition to tax credits? 

Mr. REED. Yes, in addition to a State and a local investment. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Patterson. 

Mr. THOMAS. I agree with the mayor from Atlanta, that there 

has got to be the direct investment and that the tax credits 

wouldn’t do it all by itself. 

20 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Patterson. 

Mr. PATTERSON. I agree with the other two. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. So, in summary, all our witnesses think 

that the proposal that I outlined which we have heard will be the 

administration proposal, would not, in fact, generate $1 trillion for 

infrastructure investment or anything near it. Is that correct? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. My time is well expired. 

I thank the chairman for indulging us in the time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Ferguson, 5 minutes. 

Mr. FERGUSON. Mayor Reed, glad to have a fellow Georgian in 

today, and thank you for taking time. I know the new mantra in 

Atlanta, the new hashtag is #IfICanGetThere. It has been tough. 

But I want to thank you all on behalf of the rest of the State for 

your diligence and working, of course, with Governor Deal to help 

mitigate what is a very, very difficult situation for not only Atlanta, but the Southeast. And I think it goes to show just how important transportation is, that one breakdown of the system can 

have ripple effects throughout an entire region. 

Can you speak briefly to the coordination needed between local, 

State, and Federal officials, and, most importantly, on the planning 

process as it relates to transportation projects, and also, a little 

feedback on how the response was from the Federal Department of 

Transportation with the emergency on I–85? 

Mr. REED. Well, thank you, Congressman. And your accent was 

music to my ears. I felt right at home when you said hello. 

Here is what I think: I think that the most important fact has 

been that Governor Deal and I always had a strong working relationship. And so, whether it was when the State of Georgia was 

competing for TIFIA funding, or we were competing for a number 

of TIGER grants, or working to deepen the Port of Savannah, we 

have always partnered. And so when you have an emergency like 

we had regarding the bridge collapse on I–85, if you work together 

all of the time in a cooperative fashion, you just get through this 

challenge the way that you will get through others. 

The bulk of the credit, Congressman, belongs to our first responders. In a tragic event, we had no loss of life, and I think the 

credit to that goes to our firefighters and our police officers and our 

State patrol officers. They coordinated. They shut down the highway expeditiously. And then we coordinated in deploying resources, 

which included foam fire trucks from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport, which were essential in putting the fire out 

so that less damage was done. 

Our Federal partners have been exemplary. They have worked in 

the best tradition of the Federal, State, and local relationship. And 

I had been in multiple meetings, because it was sine die for the legislature. We were at the State capitol when this crisis occurred, 

and we instantly began working together. And I think that is why 

we are going to get the highway up and operational as soon as we 

possibly can. And I also think that that is why you haven’t seen 

us playing typical political games of blames-personship. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Johnson. 

21 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for this hearing. It has been one that has brought a great deal of 

frustration for me as I sit here and look at that quotation up there 

on the wall. The section of the Constitution, article 1, section 8, 

speaks to the Federal Government’s responsibility toward post offices and roads. We have privatized the post office, and I don’t 

know what we are getting from it. But I just don’t see how we can 

privatize transportation. Nevertheless, I am one of these people 

that will try to find a way to work with any philosophy that I can 

to try to get a job done. 

But this is a tough approach to attempting to address the essential transportation problems in our country. So I am going to ask 

Mr. Thomas, how detrimental will these cuts be, or if they will be 

detrimental to the city of Dallas, to DART, and the cities across the 

country if the CIG [Capital Investment Grants] programs are cut? 

We have a lot of plans to accommodate the needs in the area, as 

I am sure every other major city does. But when you read the 

President’s budget, what is your reaction? Where do we go from 

here? 

Mr. THOMAS. Congresswoman, right now we have three projects 

that are well into the process in the Dallas area alone. Two are 

core capacity projects, and one is a Small Starts project. The one 

is a second alignment through downtown. Again, when people 

think of transit in the United States, they don’t always think about 

Dallas, Texas. But as I said earlier, we have got the longest light 

rail system in the United States, in North America, for that matter. All of those corridors, all of those lines come through a single 

corridor in downtown right now. If there is anything that happens 

on that corridor, an accident, a fire—we had a fire a few years ago. 

When the firemen lay their hoses across the tracks, they don’t particularly want trains to run across those hoses, and we appreciate 

that and we understand that. 

So we desperately need that second alignment through downtown 

Dallas. We are proposing a 50/50 split, in other words, bringing 50 

percent of the funding for that project from local funds, with a 50- 

percent match from the Federal Government on a core capacity. 

The other project that we are working on is an extension of our 

older platforms, which would allow us on 28 platforms to extend 

those 100 feet, which gives us, just by that alone, 30 percent capacity increase on those two lines, the Red Line and Blue Line. Again, 

looking for a 50/50 split. TxDOT has actually come to the table 

with half of that, and so we are looking at the core capacity program for the other half. 

The third project is an extension of our Streetcar project. The 

Streetcar program that we just opened not too long ago is unique, 

because it uses American-made streetcars, streetcars that actually 

are dual mode. They will operate with an overhead wire and without an overhead wire. We intend to extend that through downtown 

Dallas with the Small Starts program. We are well into the process, the environmental process, working with the community, making sure we know where these projects should go, what the alignments are, building that support locally. All of those go away. They 

go away. 

22 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Now, we still are having tremendous 

growth to the area. So if they go away, where do we go from there? 

Mr. THOMAS. That is a good question, Congresswoman. You 

know, I think as we look at certainly in our region, but across the 

United States, the impact of the Capital Investment Grants has 

been important, has been critical, as transit agencies have continued to provide choices for people in their communities to be able 

to get where they need to go, whether it is to the doctor, to the grocery store, and, most importantly, to jobs. Well over 80 percent of 

the people that are riding public transportation are going to their 

jobs. 

So it is imperative that we continue to look for and continue to 

support the FAST Act. It has been incredibly successful to this 

point. I think it is imperative that we continue to support that 

through 2020, at least. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, panelists, for joining us today. 

Mayor Reed, I will start with you first of all. Thank you for being 

here. And I wish the best to the Braves so long as they don’t have 

any cross-interest with the Giants. Former National League West 

mates; now it has all changed. Anyway. 

You know, we have some commonality with emergency situations 

here with you with that bridge and I–85 here. And I still harken 

back to when things went really well after the Northridge earthquake in California. This is way back in 1994, where it was projected it might be a year, year and a half having one of the biggest 

freeways in the country or the world knocked out, that due to a 

can-do attitude from contractors and the State pulling together and 

putting aside some unnecessary redtape, they were able to get that 

back up within just a few months and save much, much loss in economic activity and inconvenience to the people in southern California there. 

And so, I hope that that is going well and you are getting all the 

cooperation in the world from the Federal Government and others 

to see your bridge through. My understanding is that on the original timetable, from what I saw in the press yesterday, moved up 

from maybe the fall or the winter to maybe June. So I hope it is 

moving fast for you. 

We have an immediate need in our own backyard with—I am 

from northern California, where you may have seen the story about 

Oroville Dam and the spillway problem we had here February, and 

it resulted, partly as a precaution, in an evacuation of nearly 

200,000 people that were downstream of that. Nothing really bad 

ended up happening with the emergency spillway there, but the potential for the erosion that was there due to a design that is, indeed, questionable, made that necessary for public safety requirements. So infrastructure and the public safety are very intertwined, as we have seen. 

Do you feel that the Federal transportation infrastructure, the 

programs that support the locals in increasing public safety and 

23 

being prepared as much as they need to be for emergency situations like I am talking about in my backyard or SoCal years ago 

or what you face with the loss of that bridge in your area, the Federal Government, are we doing a good enough job supporting the 

local levels in that safety aspect? Again, specifying emergency situations where you need quick action? 

Mr. REED. My sense is yes. I chair a group called UASI, which 

is our local disaster planning entity in Metropolitan Atlanta. And 

I think that when it comes to emergency response, everything that 

I have seen shows a high level of professionalism and a high level 

of coordination. And so, that is an aspect of the Government that 

I feel very good about. 

I do believe that we are all going to have to change at the local 

level really to a posture of being resilient, because without moving 

into a debate about climate, weather patterns and emergency situations are coming with increasing frequency. And, so, I think that 

this is a conversation we are going to have to start having more 

aggressively with our Federal partners. 

The things that you are experiencing in northern California really have a great deal to do with being on a permanent resilient footing. And as I sit here testifying right now, we are experiencing unusually bad weather in the city of Atlanta, and have been. And so 

what is happening is, local governments are having to be on an almost permanent footing of responding to crises of one kind or another, frequently, weather-related crises. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Do you think greater weight should be given to 

not only improved movement, but the flexibility in emergency situations that could come through the FASTLANE program? 

Mr. REED. There is no question about it. Flexibility is going to 

be either the order of the day, or it is going to be thrust upon us 

by circumstances. So I think that it is a more thoughtful approach 

to have flexibility built into the relationship as opposed to having 

good people have to make it up at the last minute. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I appreciate it. And in my experience, your airport 

also has been very good as I take the red eye from the coast and 

end up there about 6 a.m. sometimes, but it is always a nice facility to be with. Just the line at Popeyes is always too long at 6 a.m. 

there. 

Mr. REED. That is the busiest Popeyes Chicken in the world, by 

the way. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, sir. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Thomas, I have a question in regard to Capital Investment 

Grants. The Trump administration’s skinny budget calls for elimination of Capital Investment Grants or the New Starts. DART has 

two separate projects in this pipeline. Do you think it makes fiscal 

sense to eliminate an infrastructure program that has 55 projects 

from across the country in the planning engineer stage, potentially 

sending back billions of dollars of infrastructure investment? 

24 

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly across the United States, Congresswoman, there has been a lot of work done in preparation of these 

projects. A lot of these projects, as they are in Dallas, have gone 

through extensive community meetings, lots of planning efforts, 

lots of coordination. And certainly in our case, we are bringing a 

significant amount of money to the table, as we always have, as we 

will continue to do in our financial plan. 

And people have looked at the FAST Act as—that although it 

only goes to 2020, and we understand there are challenges beyond 

that, we are certainly appreciative of the long-term bill. We would 

like for it to stay intact and for it to continue to move forward 

through 2020. So these agencies, including ours, that have anticipated that funding can go ahead and get these projects completed 

and provide those choices to people—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, but does it make fiscal sense to eliminate 

them? 

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly in DART’s case, no, ma’am, it does not, 

because we are bringing money to the table. They are getting 50 

cents on the dollar for a project. So it seems like it makes a whole 

lot of sense to continue to do that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Another question I have has to do 

with Positive Train Control. The FAST Act provided $199 million 

guaranteed for the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust 

Fund for fiscal year 2017, to help commuter railroads implement 

PTC. The Appropriations Committee, our very own, did not make 

the funding available, however, under the continuing resolution. 

This critical safety funding will lapse if the CR is extended for the 

remainder of this fiscal year. 

Mr. Patterson and Mr. Thomas, can you elaborate why this funding is important to your agencies? 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, certainly the transit industry is hopeful that 

Congress will quickly complete the fiscal year 2017 budget so that 

that $199 million of grant funding can be allocated to the properties throughout the country. We have got a 2018 deadline for our 

commuter rail system to put that in place. That requirement comes 

on top of operating and maintaining our system every day. So it is 

imperative that—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It has already been extended once. 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, ma’am. And so it is imperative to meet the 

2018 deadline to get that funding in place so we can get that critical safety project completed. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

A question primarily for Mr. Patterson and Mr. Reed—Mayor 

Reed. I have been working on an amendment to FAA reauthorization to prohibit FAA from impacting State and local general sales 

tax. The issue: For 30 years, FAA has required excise tax on aviation fuels to be spent on airports for airport infrastructure, but for 

30 years, the FAA has not interpreted this requirement to affect 

general sales tax, which tax aviation fuel as well as other products 

sold in the country or the State. Now they are changing their interpretation, requiring State and local governments to count how 

much money is collected by the general sales tax on aviation fuel 

and siphoning the money back to the airport. 

25 

A major Federal business problem when State and local governments are being told how to spend their own tax dollars by the 

FAA. It will impact local transportation projects, since most sales 

tax around the country provide for local transportation funding. 

The Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in the 

State of Georgia is one of the most impacted regions in the country 

with the new rule. It will take millions of dollars out of local control, a major problem in my State of California. Are you aware of 

the issue and do you have concerns with this new FAA rule? 

Should Congress fix and return 30 years of precedence that allows 

State and local governments to spend their general tax revenue as 

they see fit? 

Mr. PATTERSON. I don’t have any knowledge. I have knowledge, 

but I can’t really comment on that. I think the mayor would be better suited for this answer. 

Mr. REED. Congresswoman, I am on your side. And I don’t think 

I could have said it better than you just said it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, it is an infringement upon the local control, as far as I am concerned. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Smucker. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a business owner of a construction company for 25 years prior 

to serving in the State legislature and then here, I understand the 

importance of a good highway/bridge system with infrastructure to 

move goods and employees to job sites, and the importance of infrastructure to our economy, essentially. 

And then when serving in the State legislature, we were one of 

those States that were able to pass a bill that provided for additional sustainable funding for our highway and bridge system. In 

our case, it was a wholesale gas tax that had a cap on it tied to 

the price of gas. We essentially lifted the cap. But generated billions of dollars of additional funding, mostly for maintenance and 

repair of our current system, in some cases, adding additional capacity. But we had the highest number of structurally deficient 

bridges of any State, I believe, at the time, and there was a real 

need. 

But the reason I bring that up—and, Mayor Reed, maybe this 

question will be directed to you—it was really important for us— 

let me back up. So it was a Republican legislature, both Houses, 

and a Republican Governor at the time. And I just mention that 

because you mentioned that in Georgia, but also mention it because 

at the same time that we were able to gather support for that, we 

were looking at all aspects of our budget. And, in fact, were cutting 

back in other areas, because we really believed that we needed to 

focus on the core functions of Government, and were able to make 

the case to the people of Pennsylvania that infrastructure is not 

only a core function of Government. It is something you have to do 

at that level, but also was critically important to people who were 

caught in traffic, in congestion, and critically important to the economy. 

And it took a concerted effort, it took a lot of hearings, it took 

a lot of discussion with the public to gain that support that was 

required to pass that. And I think that is something that we will 

26 

need to do here. And I support finding a way for sustainable funding. I think the point was brought up earlier, it is so important to 

not only the States and local municipalities to have that dependable, sustainable source of funding, but to all of the businesses that 

rely on this. It is critical for efficient delivery to know we can plan 

ahead. 

So, Mayor, I guess a question to you: Can you give us some insight? I think, if I understood your testimony correctly, while you 

were there, you essentially passed a 1-percent sales tax that went 

to infrastructure. And you said also Georgia was doing that at the 

same time. What can we learn from that in terms of building the 

public support for investment in our infrastructure? 

Mr. REED. Congressman, I think what we can learn is that the 

public is ahead of us. And I think that when we talk plainly and 

explain what the challenges are, the public will come on board as 

long as they believe that we are going to make good use of their 

funds. I imagine you experienced that in Pennsylvania. 

In Georgia, our State is one of eight States in America with a 

AAA credit rating from all three rating agencies. One of the reasons is tight fiscal management, but also the decision that we made 

around transportation. We have grown to be the 10th largest State 

in the Union. The Atlanta metropolitan region is now the ninth 

largest metro in the country, with a GDP of $335 billion. And we 

have gone from a really low credit rating to AA plus, from Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch. So I think the arguments that 

you make is—and we have had an absolute jobs boom. 

And what we are all concerned about is who is going to win the 

war for talent. And I think that folks like you and I have to just 

get out and make the case. And I thought it was really important 

that a Republican Governor, Republican House, and Republican 

Senate passed $1 billion for transportation, because our folks were 

stuck in traffic like you all. And then on the transit side, we are 

doing the biggest transit expansion in the history of our system. 

And it will be one of the seventh largest transit expansions in 

America, but we did it with 71 percent voter support at the ballot. 

I think that was a nice bipartisan collaboration. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. I was hoping to get input from the 

other panelists as well, but I see that I am out of time. 

Mr. REED. I apologize. Thank you for the question. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mayor Reed, you served in the Georgia Legislature for 10 years, 

both in the House and Senate. And so you know how conservative 

and fiscally restrained the environment is among our legislative 

friends in Georgia. But yet, back in 2015, Georgia increased its gas 

tax from 7.5 cents to 26 cents, and increased the diesel tax to 29 

cents, and then indexed it so that every year it is adjusted in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. 

Can you comment about the conditions that existed in Georgia 

that led to the passage of that gas tax increase? And also, what political fallout, if any, occurred as a result of passage, and then the 

benefits from passing that increase? 

27 

Mr. REED. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think the 

bottom line is that if you want to lose an election in Georgia, you 

would be the person to lose the State’s AAA credit rating. And I 

think that everybody acknowledged—everybody was experiencing 

the same thing. We were all sitting in traffic. We had tried to pass 

a regional bill. You remember that. The Governor and I worked to 

pass a regional transportation bill that was soundly rejected by the 

voters at the ballot. 

So the problem of traffic in Atlanta—we have among the worst 

traffic in the United States—it was really starting to impact our 

ability to attract jobs and business when we were trying to fight 

our way out of the recession. And every meeting that the Governor 

and I went to when we were recruiting businesses and working to 

keep businesses in Georgia, they said, you have to do something 

about the traffic. 

And so I think that it was a matter of having the right leader 

at the right time. He made the decision to move a bill through the 

Georgia General Assembly. And I am comfortable saying that 95 

percent of the people who voted in favor of the $1 billion tax increase were all reelected. I would probably be comfortable saying 

98 percent were reelected at the ballot. So the risks were minimal, 

but we did do a very good job of explaining the need. And then the 

city took the leadership on expanding transit within the city of Atlanta. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Well, I want to ask you about that, 

because Atlanta has seen a number of Fortune 500 and Fortune 

100 companies moving into Atlanta as a result of our investment 

in transit. Can you elaborate on what we have done, how it has affected our economy? 

Mr. REED. Sure, Congressman. We have the third largest concentration of Fortune 500 businesses in the United States of America. And I think what the business community is doing is 

depoliticizing transit, as opposed to it being a Democrat/Republican 

issue. When State Farm sited 8,000 jobs outside of Atlanta in 

Dunwoody, they wanted it by a MARTA stop. When PulteGroup 

Homes moved their headquarters to Atlanta—it is the second biggest home builder in America—they wanted it by a MARTA stop. 

So what we are seeing is the business community and 

millennials want to be near transit. And so it is lifting the transit 

conversation out of urban/rural politics, because everybody wants 

terrific jobs. And we have a generation of folks, unlike my generation and your generation, who are not interested in driving automobiles. And so, if you want to be first to the future, you will have 

to be in the transit business. And so Republicans and Democrats 

have gotten in line. 

And I would suspect that Mr. Thomas sees the same thing. When 

you put down transit and infrastructure, business comes to it, because it is a permanent investment. And when you put it to voters, 

these items pass overwhelmingly. So I think it is really about being 

first to the future, Congressman. And you just have to decide 

whether you want to have well-paying jobs for your people or not. 

And, now, because of the business community’s insistence on transit, and how well transit investments perform in terms of the econVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\4-5-20~1\24912.TXT JEAN
28 

omy that is built around it, it is helping us get out of this old argument of rural/urban, Democrat/Republican. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Mr. Thomas, have you experienced 

the same thing in Dallas? 

Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely. And as in Atlanta, we have a State 

Farm development also. And they did the same thing; they looked 

for a rail station to be close to. And the development around that 

particular station is phenomenal: 28 new restaurants, thousands of 

new residences, millions of square feet of office space that occur 

around that particular station. So the developers certainly understand the advantage of that transportation infrastructure they are 

looking at. Our communities understand it. 

The debate in north Texas is where our resources, where those 

Federal resources end up going, because they know that when we 

go in and build that infrastructure, there is going to be development; there is going to be job opportunities; there are going to be 

the benefit to the people, not only from a transportation perspective, but also, all the ancillary benefits that happen around those 

stations. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you. I am out of time. I yield 

back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, I want to thank you and welcome all of you to the 

committee. I appreciate your testimony. 

I am going to yield my time to Mr. LaMalfa, Doug, as we call 

him here, my time, because he has some more questions he would 

like to ask. 

So, with that, I yield. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Much appreciated, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I appreciate the discussion with the panel. And, Mr. 

Mayor, you know, you talk about the collaborative process you had 

in Georgia there with the Governor of your city and others where, 

you know, the AAA credit rating. You are doing things the right 

way. You are talking to people and they are expressing what it is 

they wish to see happening. 

Right now in California, where we don’t have a good credit rating, the legislature, I think really in more—well, total control 

terms, I will leave it at that—are forcing through at this moment, 

this week, a combined gas tax and car tax, which the people are 

against, especially in terms of—and I am going to direct a question 

to Mr. Patterson here in a moment. But we have a high-speed rail 

issue in California that is shown to be $55 billion short of funding, 

and we don’t know where it is going to come from, yet we have 

crumbling bridges and roads down there that the people are going 

to be forced to pay a higher tax on their automobile registration 

and their gasoline. That is probably going to mean to a two-car 

middle income family around $500 per year additionally that they 

don’t get to spend on their kids’ education or whatever, for crumbling roads and bridges that, instead, they are seeing billions and 

billions being spent on high-speed rail at a point where nobody in 

the State other than people that make money off it seem to want 

it. 

29 

And then, the audacity that in this new funding that would come 

from this new tax, there are not even any upgrades for new additional lanes or additional capacity for roads and bridges. 

So I think what is going on out there is not a collaborative process and it is really tone-deaf to what the needs of middle income 

families are. So I would like to see, where we can do it here, a 

much more streamlined process to get dollars to projects that do relieve traffic and do repairs. 

So for Mr. Patterson, you know, again, in my own county up 

there in Butte County, we have State Highway 70 that could have 

been done. There are projects that could be done in the future or 

that have already been partially done faster and less costly if the 

environmental review process didn’t have to take nearly as long for 

issues environmentally that are already well-known. This isn’t a 

brand new concept here that we add a lane on the next segment 

that you are going to, you know, have issues that are already wellknown on previous studies in the same type of terrain. 

So what can we be doing to assist local agencies without having 

to be held hostage for some of these habitat tradeoffs, to have more 

efficient construction of transportation projects, whether it is rebuilding of, you know, older infrastructure or the additional capacity we all want and we all need as taxpayers? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you, Congressman. One of the things that 

this Congress did was provide for a better process when we are 

talking about, in your example, adding lanes to or adding additional capacity to already identified transportation corridors. And 

the intent of Congress at the time was to go from fence to fence, 

and that would be because it is already cleared as a transportation 

corridor. 

Some of the guidelines that we have received from the Federal 

Highway Administration don’t allow fence to fence, and so that is 

just pavement edge to pavement edge. And so we are having to 

work through some of those issues with the U.S. DOT and their 

rulemaking process. And I know the director in California, Malcolm 

Dougherty, is working very hard on that issue, as well as many 

other of my colleagues from around the country. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you for that. I would like to look more into 

that fence-to-fence provision you are talking about there, but I will 

I yield back the rest of my time. And please follow up with my office if you get the opportunity on that. Thank you. 

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We heard earlier Chairman Shuster mentioned something about 

45 Members had a meeting with Secretary Chao. I would suggest 

that we invite her to meet with all members of this committee, so 

we can have a collaborative effort and continue to be bipartisan in 

our effort to put forward transportation policy. Maybe then they 

wouldn’t have the problems that they had with the healthcare bill 

if we were all engaged from the beginning. So I would just make 

that suggestion. 

Also, I would like to acknowledge—and he is gone already—but 

Mr. Davis from Illinois. He brought out our bill that we worked together on and became an amendment to the FAST Act, where we 

30 

send more money to the local government as opposed to the State 

for it to be distributed. I think we need to continue down that path, 

because too often, the politics in the State capital around the DOT 

entities play a bigger part than good policy decisions. So the more 

we can send money to the local government, I think the better. 

I would like to turn my attention a little bit, though, to another 

provision in the FAST Act that I worked on, and that was to have 

Complete Streets planning put into the bill. This is the first time 

this has ever been done in a Federal transportation program. I was 

very glad to see that in my district in Las Vegas. We have just had 

an increase in pedestrian deaths. And, so, having a policy that begins with the planning through the construction through the operation of transportation that includes all users, I think is very beneficial. 

I know a number of States and local governments are incorporating that kind of Safe Streets planning. And I would like to 

ask you, Mayor Reed, under your leadership, I know Atlanta is 

kind of one of the stars in this area. Could you comment on the 

benefits of it, how it is working, some suggestions for other places 

to follow? 

Mr. REED. I think that it has worked well, and I think that it 

is connecting communities and contributing to a sense of community that the people that created and developed the concept had in 

mind. It is what we thought it would be when well-executed. And 

so it is an approach that we are taking. It is a part of the reason 

that we had such success at the ballot when we went to voters for 

the four basis points for four-tenths of a penny during our recent 

referendum. Folks are asking for it. And it also gives a significant 

boost to businesses that are on Complete Streets corridors. 

And, so, I think that the Complete Street approach is really bearing good fruit, and it is what we thought it was. And it needs to 

be pushed at every opportunity if you want your city or your community to be a leading one, because it is something people want 

when they are looking for a place to make a permanent home. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. I believe it is not just for safety, but quality of life. You see more people on bicycles now, more people walking, all kinds of uses besides just cars and buses. 

Mr. Patterson, would you talk about what some of the States are 

doing as they include this in their planning? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Well, I know several States are working on 

Complete Streets. In Oklahoma, we are partnering with the city of 

Oklahoma City for a new downtown boulevard that includes bike 

lanes, pedestrian paths, as well as a new driving lane. It is where 

I–40 used to go through downtown Oklahoma City, and we relocated I–40 to the south of downtown, and we are putting in a boulevard that has the Complete Streets concept to it. 

Ms. TITUS. And if you want to talk about businesses, we are seeing in downtown Las Vegas where they now have rent-a-bikes, and 

that is kind of part of that quality of living I was talking about. 

Would you like to comment on how it relates to businesses and improves that aspect of things, anybody? 

Mr. PATTERSON. I can tell you in Oklahoma City, we have the 

rent-a-bike program going on there, and it is growing exponenVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\4-5-20~1\24912.TXT JEAN
31 

tially. We believe that once the new boulevard is in place, it will 

explode, much like you see here in Washington, DC. 

Ms. TITUS. Mayor? 

Mr. REED. Our Bikeshare program has been highly popular, and 

we are getting ready to expand it by 400 percent. 

Mr. THOMAS. Congresswoman, I think the benefit—and you certainly are aware—is how all of the different modes of transportation work together in a single corridor, whether it be buses, 

bikes, pedestrians, automobiles. And that planning effort is what 

makes all that happen. And so often, the planning effort is skipped 

and bypassed. So thank you very much for making sure that it has 

been included in the FAST Act. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I join others in 

thanking our witnesses for joining us and educating us today. 

I would like to raise an issue that is near and dear to my heart 

and extremely important to my district, which is the 47th Congressional District, which starts off with the Port of Long Beach, which 

is the second largest port in the United States. And that is freight 

funding, the funding for the movement of freight. As you know and 

have mentioned, the FAST Act included dedicated freight funding 

programs for the first time. This included a competitive grant program dubbed FASTLANE by DOT. 

Mayor Reed, you have talked about the importance to your State 

and the city of economic development at the Port of Savannah, 

which received a $44 million grant for multimodal connectors, such 

as you have talked about. 

Mr. Patterson, your department was granted $62 million last 

year for U.S. 69, U.S. 75, for rail grade separations. So your organization, AASHTO, also put out a report with the American Association of Port Authorities that showed the growing demand for 

multimodal projects. The report stated that an absolute minimum 

need of at least $20 billion for multimodal projects. Yet, the FAST 

Act only has a total funding for multimodal projects of slightly 

more than $1 billion, $1.13 billion, and that is over 5 years. 

The question I have for you is, do you agree that there is a greater need for funding of multimodal projects? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Congressman, absolutely. One of the things that 

we know, AASHTO knows, is that as we have looked at the Federal 

program over the years, since the completion of the Interstate 

Highway System, we really don’t have a goal, something to hang 

our hat on, if you will. We were hoping, and we believe, that this 

freight program is the next goal. It is imperative that we be able 

to move freight across this country, by rail, water. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I think you are doing it great. I just want to 

ask, because I have one more followup question and that is exactly 

what I wanted. Do you have anything more to add, for example, 

Mayor Reed? Do you believe it is imperative? 

Mr. REED. The answer is absolutely. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. OK. Now, I have a proposal that I first introduced in the 114th Congress, will be doing again, that puts a user 

fee, which is paid for by the owners of the goods, on the cost of 

shipping goods by road or rail in the United States to directly fund 

32 

freight infrastructure. So a user fee paid by the owners of the goods 

to directly fund freight infrastructure. 

Maybe not this one, but would you support a similar proposal 

such as a user fee by the owners of goods to pay for freight infrastructure? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Several years ago, a group of us at AASHTO got 

together and we were looking at ways to fund transportation in the 

future. Congressman, that is exactly one of the things that we had 

come up with was an additional surcharge and user fee, however 

you would want to label it, for freight movements and dedicated to 

a freight system. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. So it has to be dedicated. It would be sustainable paid by the users. It would be a dedicated funding stream to 

be used just for freight infrastructure. 

Would you support that, Mayor Reed? 

Mr. REED. I don’t know. I would have to have the full proposal 

to consider it. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. OK. We are just talking about not so much a 

specific proposal, but just the concept that those who use the system would pay for the improvements in the system, dedicated, and 

some way to get both back to—you know, an appropriate way of 

distributing that fund. 

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank all of our witnesses for being here today. As we talk 

about the FAST Act, which I want to thank all the members of this 

committee on both sides, the chairman of the subcommittee, the 

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Shuster, our Ranking Member 

Norton, and Ranking Member DeFazio. We all worked well together in getting the FAST Act together and moved. I am hopeful 

that we can do the same thing on a new big $1 trillion or more 

than $1 trillion infrastructure plan. Things that have been talked 

about by the last few people, Members who have spoken, about 

Complete Streets, about transit, I think it is important that those 

are included in a new infrastructure package. The importance of 

freight movement that Mr. Lowenthal was just talking about, I 

think that is also very critical to do. 

I want to ask a question about something that I don’t think anyone has yet asked about at this hearing about vehicle to infrastructure, or V2I technology and getting that into our infrastructure. 

So not only V2V, vehicle to vehicle, but V2I technology is vital 

for maximizing the benefits of autonomous and connected vehicles, 

you know, benefits such as brake safety improvements, less congestion on our roads, and also increasing the efficiency of our vehicles. 

So we really need to find creative ways to incentivize investment 

in vehicle infrastructure technology. We need to make targeted investments that best leverage capital, especially if we are going to 

be doing this big infrastructure package. Now, the FAST Act ensured that V2I infrastructure would remain eligible for funding, 

but we also need to consider Dig Once policies that promote installation of advanced systems that enable V2I during routine conVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:17 Jul 05, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\4-5-20~1\24912.TXT JEAN
33 

struction and maintenance projects, so we are not going back and 

doing it all over again. 

I have asked witnesses at previous hearings about the state of 

local—about State and local investments in this technology. And 

some have said that they have been hesitant to make investments, 

because of the lack of both industry standards and Federal guidance. In January, FHWA released a new V2I guidance document 

that can help transportation agencies understand the regional impacts of V2I deployment, prepare for emerging V2I and V2V technologies, and leverage Federal aid funds to deploy them. 

So after a long lead-up, I would just like to ask Mr. Patterson 

and Mr. Reed if you could discuss your experience with V2I technology, and whether or not there is sufficient Federal guidance to 

promote investments and what more can be done, so we make sure 

that we do prepare the infrastructure for this? Mr. Patterson, do 

you want to start? 

Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you, Congressman. I think, from an overall perspective and given the advances in technology, it has been 

good that the States have taken a slow methodical approach to integrating V2I into the system. When you look at—technology doubles every year, and you look back 5 years ago when we really got 

into the discussion about V2I, it has changed. The guidance that 

came out is very helpful. We have several of our members who are 

very involved in leading the technology. I can tell you in Oklahoma, 

we are still learning. We are not as far advanced as some other 

States are in the discussion, but it is something we are beginning 

to understand and embrace. And it was that guidance and it is the 

support of AASHTO members that gets us to that point. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And, Mayor Reed, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. REED. Congressman, we are developing a Smart Corridor 

along North Avenue near Georgia Tech and by the Coca-Cola Company that will be really testing all of these technologies at once. So, 

much like my colleague, we are in the very early stages of it. Candidly, we have been putting a great deal more energy into self-driven vehicle technology and we have been slower on V2I. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Is there anything the Federal Government can do 

to help to speed things along, make it easier for States and localities to do this? 

Mr. REED. I think that rules of the road from Federal experts 

could shorten the learning curve for municipalities, because that is 

really the challenge for us. When these new kinds of technologies 

and relationships occur, we have to come up to speed on that and 

we have to put in a good amount of person power for that. So 

knowing where the Federal Government is going in the future in 

that regard would send an important signal to where we should be 

going. 

Mr. PATTERSON. I think that collaboration and cooperation is 

going to be very important, as the mayor said, as we begin to develop our system in Oklahoma and as other States expand their 

V2I capabilities. If you think about it, this is really a turning point 

for all of transportation. It is almost as extensive as going from the 

horse and buggy to the Model T. So it is something that we are 

very interested in and our customers, the public, is going to demand that kind of reaction from us. 

34 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Any other further questions? 

Seeing none, I would like to obviously thank our witnesses for 

your testimony today, because your contribution to today’s discussion, it has obviously been very informative and very helpful. 

With that, I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have 

provided any answers to any questions that may be submitted to 

them in writing; and unanimous consent that the record remain 

open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses, to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, that is so ordered. 

And if no other Members have anything to add, then the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

35 


Insert offset folio 4 here 24912.004
36 


Insert offset folio 5 here 24912.005
37 


Insert offset folio 6 here 24912.006
38 


Insert offset folio 7 here 24912.007
39 


Insert offset folio 8 here 24912.008
40 


Insert offset folio 9 here 24912.009
41 


Insert offset folio 10 here 24912.010
42 


Insert offset folio 11 here 24912.011
43 


Insert offset folio 12 here 24912.012
44 


Insert offset folio 13 here 24912.013
45 


Insert offset folio 14 here 24912.014
46 


Insert offset folio 15 here 24912.015
47 


Insert offset folio 16 here 24912.016
48 


Insert offset folio 17 here 24912.017
49 


Insert offset folio 18 here 24912.018
50 


Insert offset folio 19 here 24912.019
51 


Insert offset folio 20 here 24912.020
52 


Insert offset folio 21 here 24912.021
53 


Insert offset folio 22 here 24912.022
54 


Insert offset folio 23 here 24912.023
55 


Insert offset folio 24 here 24912.024
56 


Insert offset folio 25 here 24912.025
57 


Insert offset folio 26 here 24912.026
58 


Insert offset folio 27 here 24912.027
59 


Insert offset folio 28 here 24912.028
60 


Insert offset folio 29 here 24912.029
61 


Insert offset folio 30 here 24912.030
62 


Insert offset folio 31 here 24912.031
63 


Insert offset folio 32 here 24912.032
64 


Insert offset folio 33 here 24912.033
65 


Insert offset folio 34 here 24912.034
66 


Insert offset folio 35 here 24912.035
67 


Insert offset folio 36 here 24912.036
68 


Insert offset folio 37 here 24912.037
69 


Insert offset folio 38 here 24912.038
70 


Insert offset folio 39 here 24912.039
71 


Insert offset folio 40 here 24912.040
72 


Insert offset folio 41 here 24912.041
73 


Insert offset folio 42 here 24912.042
74 


Insert offset folio 43 here 24912.043
75 


Insert offset folio 44 here 24912.044
76 


Insert offset folio 45 here 24912.045
77 


Insert offset folio 46 here 24912.046
78 


Insert offset folio 47 here 24912.047
79 


Insert offset folio 48 here 24912.048
80 


Insert offset folio 49 here 24912.049
81 


Insert offset folio 50 here 24912.050
82 


Insert offset folio 51 here 24912.051
83 


Insert offset folio 52 here 24912.052
84 


Insert offset folio 53 here 24912.053
85 


Insert offset folio 54 here 24912.054
86 


Insert offset folio 55 here 24912.055
87 


Insert offset folio 56 here 24912.056
88 


Insert offset folio 57 here 24912.057
89 


Insert offset folio 58 here 24912.058
90 


Insert offset folio 59 here 24912.059
91 


Insert offset folio 60 here 24912.060
92 


Insert offset folio 61 here 24912.061
93 


Insert offset folio 62 here 24912.062
94 


Insert offset folio 63 here 24912.063
95 


Insert offset folio 64 here 24912.064
96 


Insert offset folio 65 here 24912.065
97 


Insert offset folio 66 here 24912.066
98 


Insert offset folio 67 here 24912.067
99 


Insert offset folio 68 here 24912.068
100 


Insert offset folio 69 here 24912.069
101 


Insert offset folio 70 here 24912.070
102 


Insert offset folio 71 here 24912.071
103 


Insert offset folio 72 here 24912.072
104 


Insert offset folio 73 here 24912.073
105 


Insert offset folio 74 here 24912.074
106 


Insert offset folio 75 here 24912.075
107 


Insert offset folio 76 here 24912.076
108 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 77 here 24912.077