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

97–798 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–757 

MAP–21 REAUTHORIZATION: STATE AND LOCAL 

PERSPECTIVES ON TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES 

AND FUNDING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 27, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 2 

Sanders. Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 4 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 5 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts .......... 5 

Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ..................... 6 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 8 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 10 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 12 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 13 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 14 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 30 

WITNESSES 

Lewis, Hon. Michael P., Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer............................................................................................. 24, 28 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 26 

Minter, Sue, Deputy Secretary, Vermont Agency of Transportation .................. 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 38 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 40 

Ballard, Hon. Gregory A., Mayor, City of Indianapolis, Indiana ......................... 42 

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 59 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 61 

Cornett, Hon. Mick, Mayor, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ...................................... 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 70 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 71 

Fontenot, Bill, President, St. Landry Parish, Louisiana ...................................... 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Willox, Jim, Chairman, Converse County Commission, Wyoming ...................... 78 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 84 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 85 

Gula, Dave, Principal Planner, Wilmington Area Planning Council .................. 86 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 91 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 92 
Page

IV 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Testimony of Stephanie A. Miner, Mayor of Syracuse, New York ...................... 111 
(1) 

MAP–21 REAUTHORIZATION: STATE AND 

LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES AND FUNDING 

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Carper, Cardin, Sanders, 

Gillibrand, Booker, Inhofe, Barrasso, Sessions, Crapo, Markey, 

Wicker, and Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning. We will come to order. Today’s 

hearing will provide the EPW committee the opportunity to hear 

from State and local officials and transportation stakeholders about 

the importance of Federal transportation funding and their priorities for the reauthorization of MAP–21. 

Today’s panel truly represents a great cross-section of the country. As transportation leaders at the State and local level, they 

know what is at stake without sustainable funding and a sound 

Highway Trust Fund. I was a former county supervisor in another 

lifetime, and I know how tough that job is and how important 

maintaining safe and efficient transportation systems are to local 

communities. When something goes wrong, people show up at your 

door. And I know that from personal experience. 

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s recently released 2013 conditions and performance report, about 49 percent of 

highway miles traveled are on roads that are in less than good condition and 18 percent are on roads in less than acceptable condition. In addition, over 21 percent of the Nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Of these, over 70,000 

bridges are structurally deficient. 

These stats show that there is a lot of work to be done to maintain our global competitiveness. We must continue to invest in our 

transportation infrastructure, not just for now, but for future generations. 

However, in order to make needed investments in our infrastructure, Congress must ensure the long-term solvency of the Highway 
2 

Trust Fund. Make no mistake, I think we all know we are running 

out of time. 

Last month this committee held a hearing on what the devastating impacts would be of letting the trust fund run out of funding. Here are the sobering facts. CBO and USDOT estimate that 

the Highway Trust Fund could run out of funds as early as September 2014, which would create cash-flow problems for States 

during the critical summer construction season. Already, States are 

cutting back on the construction projects they had planned to go 

forward with this spring, and this trend will only continue to get 

worse as we get closer to insolvency. 

MAP–21 was a bipartisan bill that included transformational reforms to improve flexibility, reduce costs and require accountability 

for our surface transportation programs. These reforms, many of 

which are still in the rulemaking process, will enhance Federal 

transportation programs and help to build public trust in seeing 

how our tax dollars are spent. We will continue to track the implementation of these reforms as the DOT makes them, and we welcome the opportunity to hear from States, counties, parishes, cities 

on how these reforms are working and what tweaks and improvements should be considered for our next bill. 

My goal, and I know that Senator Vitter shares this goal, is to 

move swiftly this spring to pass a long-term reauthorization bill in 

the EPW Committee that provides, we hope, 6 years of funding certainty. I have begun discussions with Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch on funding this bill and addressing the shortfall 

in the Highway Trust Fund. This committee has the responsibility 

to reauthorize MAP–21. The Finance Committee has the responsibility to fund it. We are not going to let them just hang out there 

by themselves, we are going to work with them, and we are going 

to work closely with them and other Senate committees of jurisdiction, such as Commerce and Banking, to pass the legislation with 

the same bipartisan support we experienced with MAP–21. 

So we are going to mark this bill up at the end of April. We must 

move it forward. I know that members on this committee, on both 

sides, including Senator Carper and Senator Barrasso, working 

with Senator Vitter and I, we are all committed to this. I hope 

what you will do today is speak from the heart about what it 

means to you, if in fact is it as important to you as I think it is, 

I hope you will tell us it is important. If you don’t think it is important, if you think that the Federal Government could walk away 

from this, tell us that. We need to know from you. 

So this is a very important day for me, because again, I have so 

much respect for the folks on the ground who implement what we 

do here. With that, I will turn to my ranking member, Senator 

Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding today’s 

hearing. This is really important to get the local and State perspective on our transportation infrastructure. That is critical for us to 

gain understanding and do our work properly. And thanks to all 

of our witnesses today who traveled a long way to be here. You 
3 

have shown how important surface transportation infrastructure is 

to all of your communities. Collectively, you bring a diverse set of 

perspectives, but a common goal of developing a first-class, comprehensive transportation network. I really look forward to hearing 

your views. 

I especially want to thank Bill Fontenot for making the trip from 

Louisiana. Mr. Fontenot brings two unique and very relevant perspectives. Right now, he is president of St. Landry Parish. Parish 

is our work for county in Louisiana. And I was very impressed 

when the Chair used the word parish in listing local jurisdictions. 

I think we are making leaps and bounds of advancement in this 

committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. And I want to assure everyone, we are not sending transportation money to local Catholic churches. I would probably be in favor of that, but that is not what we are talking about. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. We are talking about counties in Louisiana 

called parishes. 

But prior to being elected parish president in 2011, Mr. Fontenot 

worked as an engineer at the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development for 38 years in the Highway Department, 

18 of which he served as one of nine regional district administrators. 

Our surface transportation infrastructure consists of a lot of different categories or types of roads. But together they create a network. In order to have a healthy and efficient network, all of those 

pieces need to remain strong. This means first investing in the critical rural roads and bridges that we rely on to get so many of our 

kids to school and to go to work, particularly in ag and energy markets. This means investing in the interstate system to improve 

lanes of commerce between States. And it means investing in the 

vital corridors that link the two. Such a network is a fundamental 

component of our Nation’s economy and essential to our quality of 

life. 

However, we can’t work toward that cohesive network if we don’t 

have a reliable Highway Trust Fund and prioritize proper investment in streamlined, flexible programs. Recent actions represent a 

departure from the intent of the Highway Trust Fund and of prolonged economic uncertainty, not only in the direct investment of 

our infrastructure but also the type of long-term investment that 

drives economic development at home and makes us more competitive abroad. 

If we are going to be successful at putting such a structure back 

on a sustainable course, of course we need to fix the financing 

piece. But to fix the financing piece, I think it is crucial that we 

also get the policy right and restore trust back in the highway trust 

fund. That means the trust fund needs to be sustainable and transparent. We need to be able to show where taxpayer dollars are 

going, where future investment will go. We must continue to reduce costs and burdens and red tape that is unnecessary. 

Flexible and accessible apportionment programs will also work to 

restore trust in the trust fund. While other investment tools can 

play an important role, only such an apportionment program has 
4 

the ability to improve our infrastructure across the board, provide 

a steady revenue stream to mitigate uncertainty, provide a base for 

innovative financing structures, empower local and State decisionmaking, and keep the Federal Government out of the business of 

picking winners and losers. 

So we must resist the urge to move back toward small, rigid programs that are silos that don’t offer that flexibility toward a comprehensive vision that offers flexibility and real local and State empowerment to meet our needs. 

Again, I want to thank the Chair and the witnesses for all of 

their hard work. I am genuinely looking forward to your ideas and 

perspectives. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

This is an enormously important hearing. Because it is vitally 

important that we hear from folk around the country who are 

struggling with one of the great challenges that we have, and that 

is a crumbling infrastructure. 

I am especially delighted, Madam Chair, that you invited Sue 

Minter, the Deputy Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Transportation, to be here with us. Sue played an especially important role 

when the State of Vermont was hit by tropical storm Irene. Many 

of our towns were devastated. She was the recovery officer as we 

attempted to rebuild those towns, and she did a great job doing 

that. 

I think the bottom line here is, and I don’t know that there is 

much agreement or appeal among our representatives who come 

from all over the country, and we are very appreciative that you 

are here, that as a Nation we are all aware that something is very 

fundamentally wrong. That in Vermont, and I suspect in our States 

as well, your bridges are crumbling, your roads are in need of repair. In many parts of this country, unemployment is much too 

high. And we are sitting here in a situation where the rest of the 

world is spending significantly more money on rebuilding their infrastructure than we are. 

I will tell the story, Madam Chair, somebody who worked for me 

went to China a couple of years ago. And they left China from a 

brand new airport. When they were in China, they were traveling 

on high speed rail. They came back to the United States, they flew 

into an overcrowded, inadequate airport. And he asked himself 

which was the developing country, which was the first world country, which was a third world country. I think we see that more and 

more. 

So the bottom line to me is that we lose efficiency, we lose productivity. God knows how much money is being spent by individuals whose cars go over potholes and axles break and so forth and 

so on. People waiting in traffic jams rather than getting to work. 

So we have a crisis. We have waited too long to address it. I was 

mayor of the largest city in Vermont for 8 years, and I can tell you 

that it takes money to rebuild the infrastructure. Maybe somebody 
5 

can do it without money, and that would be a great idea, we would 

love to hear that suggestion. My understanding, it is a pretty expensive proposition. But we have to invest in that infrastructure. 

We have to figure out a way to fund it in a fair and progressive 

way. I look forward with you, Madam Chair, to do just that. 

So thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the 

ranking member as well. I appreciate you folk coming from your 

various States to help us and provide us with information on the 

many needs that we face all across this country. 

As our committee works to reauthorize the highway bill, I have 

been especially focused on the needs of Nebraska’s Department of 

Roads and that of our cities and counties. These are the folks who 

are actually putting our Federal dollars to work back home. The 

overwhelming message that I have heard from these important 

stakeholders is that the Federal process required for building roads 

is overly burdensome, and it needs to be more flexible. 

We have worked hard in Nebraska to prioritize spending for our 

infrastructure needs. As we have started to put this funding to use, 

we have further seen the need to provide our State and our local 

governments with as much assistance and autonomy as possible. 

States will have greater ability to experiment and address transportation problems with innovative solutions if they are allowed 

greater flexibility in the use of those Federal dollars. 

Transportation infrastructure is an expensive venture on its own 

without the Federal Government adding to the cost. If we cannot 

give our local and State governments an adequate level of funding, 

we should at the very least get out of their way so that projects 

can be completed in an efficient and a cost-effective manner. We 

need to work together to pursue a path forward that continues to 

ensure the use of Federal dollars are devoted to tasks that truly 

add value to the projects and are not wasted on piling up paperwork. 

I hope this highway bill will include the needed policy reforms 

to streamline environmental processes and accelerate project delivery. Today’s hearing is an important step in understanding flexibility needed for local and State governments. And I look forward 

to working with this committee in achieving those needed solutions. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks so much, Senator. 

We now go to Senator Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The United States has long been the world’s leader in ingenuity 

and engineering, building America’s infrastructure into the best in 

the world. But age has caught up with us. Many of our roads, our 

bridges, transit and rail are in great need of repair and replace-
6 

ment. And the impacts of extreme weather and climate change put 

aging infrastructure at further risk. 

More than half of Massachusetts’ 5,000 bridges are structurally 

deficient or functionally obsolete. This is an urgent problem that 

we must address in the next transportation bill. The surface transportation bill we passed in 2012, MAP–21, included $1.2 billion in 

Federal highway funds for Massachusetts to modernize our highways and bridges. Under the law, the Commonwealth will also receive almost $700 million in transit funding. And that is a good 

start, but it is not enough to deal with the magnitude of the problem. A strong, multi-year bill would provide the funding and the 

certainty that our State and local governments need to get our 

roads and our transit systems back in excellent condition. 

Our priorities beyond traditional road repair and improvement 

funds in Massachusetts include one, improve our aging stock of 

bridges and build upon the success of the accelerated bridge program in Massachusetts that recently fixed over 100 bridges on time 

and on budget. Two, invest in transit and promote key projects including the Green Line extension. Three, provide funding for 

Streetscape and other important parts of the transportation alternatives program that helps revitalize downtowns and attract business to city centers. And four, encourage commuter rail by building 

on the recent success of increasing the number of trains serving 

Worcester, and finally, making the South Coast rail project a reality to bring passenger rail transportation to the south shore. 

Making investments in our infrastructure is essential to our 

economy. It puts construction workers on the clock in good-paying 

jobs. It creates the infrastructure necessary to efficiently move 

goods and people around our ever changing and expanding economy. I know that when we rebuild our infrastructure we rebuild 

our economy. So as we quickly approach MAP–21’s expiration this 

fall, we must always keep in mind that the most effective way we 

can create jobs and improve our infrastructure is to pass a robust, 

long-term surface transportation bill. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. 

Senator Booker, followed by Senator Cardin, unless we have a 

Republican in between. Senator Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you so much, Chairman Boxer and 

Ranking Member Vitter. I do know what a parish is, sir, because 

my granddaddy is from Louisiana. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. I am very happy to be here now to talk to all 

the folks here and hear your very important testimony on what is 

a critically urgent issue in the United States of America. Our infrastructure is simply crumbling all around the country. 

As New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the country, New Jersey has also among the most heavily trafficked roads 

and extensive public transportation systems. We are a critical 

transportation superstructure in New Jersey. 
7 

Unfortunately, New Jersey is home to 624 structurally deficient 

bridges as of 2013, meaning that the bridges are in deteriorated 

condition and urgently need to be repaired. It is unacceptable and 

the threat to safety of New Jersey families is unacceptable. 

Across the United States, a staggering 65,000 bridges are classified as structurally deficient, that is 65,000 bridges in our country 

that are structurally deficient, posing safety threats to our communities across the country. Another 1,700 New Jersey bridges do not 

meet current standards with regard to lane size, sufficient shoulder 

lanes, and are described by the Department of Transportation as 

functionally obsolete. An astounding 66 percent of New Jersey’s 

major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. This costs New Jerseyans over $3 billion a year in extra vehicle 

repairs and operating costs, meaning that New Jerseyans pay out 

of pocket because of all these deficiencies about an extra $601 per 

motorist. And New Jersey is not alone. States all across our country are struggling with similar transportation infrastructure issues. 

This enormous challenge demands that we as a Nation invest more 

in our transportation infrastructure. It is a multiplier in terms of 

the opportunity it creates for our country. Not only will a major investment improve safety and help businesses, but it will also create 

jobs and strengthen our entire economy. 

According to a report by Facing our Future, a group of former 

New Jersey government executives, New Jersey needs at minimum 

$21.3 billion to invest in short-term transportation infrastructure 

needs through 2018. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that to fix our bridges the United States alone needs an additional $8 billion annually to keep us at the cutting edge, where 

we need to be to protect safety and security and promote business 

growth. 

While these investments secure roads and bridges, every dollar 

is vital because of also that multiplier effect of job creation. As we 

improve our infrastructure, businesses can move goods quicker and 

cheaper. Businesses can export more and reach more customers 

overseas. This is a critical economic competitiveness issue. And all 

of this also attracts investment further into our country. Investment in infrastructure creates investment in America. 

In a rapidly changing and urbanizing 21st century America, we 

must prioritize innovative, cost effective, sustainable transportation 

options. MAP–21 provided funding, not just for transportation 

projects, but also, it is important to note, for certain projects that 

reduce transportation-related air pollution. This to me is critical. In 

my home city of Newark, where I was mayor, we have seen congestion and heavy air pollution negatively impact vulnerable communities. For instance, the port of Newark, one of our country’s most 

busy ports, provides a major national economic benefit. But the 

communities surrounding the area are disproportionately impacted 

by the air pollution caused by the concentration of heavy truck 

traffic, cargo vessels and cargo handling equipment. High asthma 

rates and other health problems afflict the surrounding communities. 

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program provides 

States with the funding to address this problem but it does not go 

far enough. We need to invest substantially more resources in ret-
8 

rofitting trucks and locomotives, investing in the new use of newer, 

more environmentally friendly vehicles and relying more on the 

movement of freight by rail and making those rail investments. 

From the safety of our motorists to the air that our children 

breathe to the strength of our economy, transportation has a strong 

impact on the lives of all Americans. It is essential for our country 

to continue to be a global leader. 

It is absolutely critical that Congress pass a comprehensive 

transportation bill, and I look forward to working with all my colleagues on this committee and look forward to the testimony here, 

especially because the closest we get to Jersey, sir, is Delaware, 

which is about a third New Jersey residents anyway. So it is good 

to have you, here. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. We will turn to Senator 

Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, thank you very much for having 

this hearing. And to Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter, thank you 

for the manner in which you conduct this committee on the infrastructure advancements. MAP–21 was passed because of your extraordinary leadership, not only getting it through the United 

States Senate, but negotiating with the House that we could maintain the integrity of the legislation. So we are very proud of our 

leadership of this committee. 

I particularly want to thank you for today’s panel, because I look 

forward to the record being established by our local officials as to 

the importance of local input in determining priorities for transportation in our Nation. To me this is extremely important. 

I take great pride in the transportation alternative program 

which is included in MAP–21. Working with Senator Cochran, we 

were able to get that program integrity maintained. Now, Madam 

Chair, I want to tell you, it is a little over 1 percent of the total 

funds. It took a lot more than 1 percent of the total debate on that 

bill. I appreciate your commitment to that issue, and I hope that 

we will not rehash some of the arguments in the past, but look forward to how we can build upon that program to make it even more 

effective as we move forward. 

Of course, it comes from the transportation enhancement, and 

the previous generations of our surface transportation. But I think 

the transportation alternative program is working well. And I 

thank you very much for our help. 

Mayor Ballard, I particularly appreciate your being here from Indianapolis. It is not in Maryland, although we still haven’t quite 

forgiven you on the Baltimore Colts, but we are working on that. 

I very much appreciate your use of the transportation alternative 

program to really get livable space in Indianapolis. The way that 

you have used that to help deal with the historic trail, the greenway space, to me this is exactly what we intended when this legislation was passed, and I thank you for being here to tell your story 

and tell the story of cities all over this country, whether they are 

small cities or large cities. 
9 

And Mayor Cornett in Oklahoma City, you used this money for 

transit and for other alternatives. It is good to see that the local 

input is being done in the way we anticipated it being done. This 

is a partnership between the Federal and State government. 

And these transportation alternative programs, to me, are critically important. In my city of Baltimore, I was able to get Federal 

funds, through the Surface Transportation Reauthorization to complete the Gwynns Falls Trail. Now, for those who are familiar with 

Baltimore, Baltimore was designed by Olmstead. He designed Baltimore to be communities connected by greenspace, by greenways. 

But as we became more and more urban, as time went forward, 

that greenspace was built over. The Gwynns Falls watershed was 

one of those trails that had been built over. We have reclaimed the 

Gwynns Falls and now 30 communities are connected where people 

can bike and walk and get to know each other. 

These are communities that were in many cases trapped because 

of the economics of the circumstances. Now, people are being liberated. And yes, they do use bikes, they do walk, it is healthier, it 

is helping our environment. It is what we intended to do with the 

comprehensive transportation bill. It is working. 

So Madam Chair, I very much appreciate this hearing, because 

I think it will complete a record as to why we need to have a balanced surface transportation program. I strongly support the improvements to our bridges, our roads, our transit systems. They are 

all critically important to America’s economy. But our cities are 

equally important. And giving them the ability to determine their 

local priorities is what this partnership should be all about. I am 

very proud that we were able to accomplish that on MAP–21, and 

I look forward to continuing that commitment as we reauthorize 

the program. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Good morning Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Vitter, members of the committee and our panel of witnesses. Thank you for holding today’s hearing to give 

the committee the opportunity to hear local perspectives on how well our Federal 

surface transportation programs are working for them. 

It’s only been a couple years since MAP–21 was enacted. Much of the policy reforms put in place by MAP–21 have yet to be fully realized and, while still others 

are being implemented. 

One program that I am very proud to hear that is working well for many communities across the country are the reforms we made in the Transportation Alternatives Program—formally known as Transportation Enhancements. 

I am very much looking forward to hearing from Mayor Greg Ballard. His efforts 

to reinvigorate Indianapolis through investments in Greenways, the development of 

the Indianapolis Cultural Trail and other alternative modes of transportation are 

transforming Indianapolis. He has a great understanding of what businesses of tomorrow’s economy, as well as the young high skilled workforce that power these 

new companies, are looking for in the towns they cities they are locating to. 

Transportation design that is multi-modal and is focused on community livability 

is essential to ensuring the global competitiveness of American business. Exciting 

things that are happening around Indianapolis and across this country with locally 

focused transportation alternatives projects in the city are improving the livability 

and the economy. 

I also understand that Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett has made investments 

in transit and transportation alternatives priorities for improving transportation in 

his city as well. 
10 

In 2011 when this committee began in earnest its work on MAP–21, one of the 

greatest debates in the bill was over a program that consisted of roughly 1.5 percent 

of the total funds of our Federal surface transportation program. 

I, along with many of my colleagues on this committee, and with tremendous leadership from my friend Senator Cochran of Mississippi, we stuck up for this little 

program. Our familiarity with the TE program, now called Transportation Alternative Program or TAP, came from hearing success stories about specific TAP 

projects in communities around our States. 

The Program is very personal for me and it goes back to my House days. Through 

the TE program I was able to help build Gwynns Falls Trail in Baltimore. Gwynns 

Falls is a 15-mile trail that runs from the inner suburbs of southwest Baltimore to 

heart of downtown Baltimore right passed Camden Yards and Ravens stadium and 

the inner harbor. 

The trail is a continuous recreational corridor and viable commuter route connecting more than 30 neighborhoods with parklands, unique urban environmental 

features, cultural resources and historic landmarks. 

The trail has fostered a greater sense of community pride among the neighborhoods connecting to the trail. I have received thanks from local businesses big and 

small for the development of this trail because it has had positive impact on economic growth in the city. 

Getting more people walking and biking provides the benefits of reduced traffic 

congestion, improved air quality, and contributes to a healthier lifestyle. 

My experience in helping build the Gwynns Falls Trail is something that I imagine Mayor Ballard can relate to having built the Indianapolis Cultural Trail in his 

city. 

Gwynns Falls and many other projects like it in Maryland are providing measurable economic, environmental, public health and safety benefits at the local level. 

It is the local benefits that TAP projects provide that motivated me to champion this 

program. 

A critical component of the effort that Senator Cochran and I led was to initiate 

a process, run at the State level, to ensure that local transportation authorities and 

MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) have guaranteed access to TAP funds. 

The anecdotal information I’ve been receiving from the NGOs tracking how TAP dollars are being spent is that counties and cities across the country are taking full 

advantage of this program and are able to pursue important local transportation 

projects that improve community livability and local economies, as well as improve 

the climate for small business growth and smart residential development. 

Most importantly, these decisions are been driven by local planners and local 

leaders who often know far better what the transportation needs of their community 

are than their State DOTs. 

I have some improvements that I would like to make to this program to ensure 

that it works even better for local communities: 

• Initiate a reporting requirement on the demand and projects implemented 

through the program. 

• Improve the specific suballocation dedicated to local and MPO decisionmakers. 

• Clarify the review process for TAP projects; and 

• Ensure communities can adequately plan and budget for future TAP projects; 

among others. 

Local communities around the country both big and small receive extraordinary 

public benefit from TAP projects. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Now we are going to hear from the chairman of the subcommittee that deals with this issue, a new member of the Big 

Four. We are very excited that he and Senator Barrasso are such 

a strong team. We are happy to call on Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

When I was elected to the U.S. Senate, 14 years ago, people said 

to me, what do you want to accomplish? I said, I would like to be 

one of the Big Four. And I come from Ohio State, which is one of 

the Big Ten. 
11 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Better than being one of the Final Four. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe so. Maybe so. 

I am happy to see all of you. Madam Chair and Senator Vitter, 

thank you for pulling this group together. This is a good group and 

I look forward to hearing from all of you. I will be fairly brief. 

I was pleased to play at least a modest role in helping draft 

MAP–21, our last transportation bill. I am very excited to have a 

chance to work with Senator Boxer, Senator Vitter and Senator 

Barrasso and all of our colleagues as we try to come up with something, hopefully a 5- or 6-year bill paid for in some way. I serve 

on the Finance Committee, so I have a chance to help a little bit 

on that front as well. 

I am really pleased, Madam Chair, and David, to have a chance 

to hear from our State and local folks. Especially our local folks, 

and Dave Gula is here from northern Delaware. We care about all 

of Delaware. But we care about the cities and the towns that have 

a special seat at the table, and we are glad that you are here with 

us today. 

After reviewing the testimony from our panel, I am heartened by 

the stories I think we are going to hear from all of you, because 

what I see across the country is that State and local governments 

are stepping up, stepping up to the plate on transportation, maybe 

in ways that we have yet to do, but I think we will, we are finding 

ways to raise the revenues that you need to pay for transportation 

investments. Most of the witnesses on this panel have raised revenues at the local level or are from States that have raised revenues 

because you recognize that these investments pay dividends. When 

I was Governor of Delaware for those 8 years, I said more times 

than I could count, things are worth having if they are worth paying for. That remains the case today. And our local areas, our local 

communities, local towns and cities and counties are realizing that 

and demonstrating that. 

Both urban and rural areas, local governments often, we find officials making some of the most innovative investments in transportation infrastructure. Because when a local official asks the voters for more money, he or she is going to be more focused like a 

laser on developing and delivering results and getting positive outcomes for these investments. What that means is they aren’t really 

just investing in a list of projects. What you’re investing in is a 

shorter commute, you’re investing in less congestion and you’re investing in less pollution and investing in greater business growth. 

You’re investing in an improved quality of life for communities, the 

kind of stuff that Senator Cardin was just talking about. 

Given all this, we need to make sure that local priorities in both 

cities and rural areas are taken into consideration when States are 

making decisions about their transportation projects. Counties, cities, NPOs need to be at the table with States when making those 

decisions about projects to help ease congestion, to move freight, to 

improve quality of life. And we need to do our part in Congress, 

right here, by passing a long-term bill that continues to deliver on 

MAP–21’s promise of high performance transportation systems. 

With that, I will stop and just look forward to your testimonies. 

Thank you. 
12 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. And I am so happy Senator 

Barrasso has come here, because he and Senator Carper again are 

part of the Big Four that are writing the first draft of this bill, then 

share with everyone on the committee and shape it into something 

we hope will be a very strong consensus bill. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

agree, I am sorry for the delay. I was at our Energy Committee. 

We had a business meeting, we just finished the voting. 

But I wanted to thank you as well as Senator Vitter for holding 

this hearing. I appreciate your interest in hearing the Wyoming 

local perspective. I would like to welcome Jimmy Willox, a friend, 

who is chairman of the Converse County Commission. He has been 

a commissioner since 2007, but a friend of 30 years. He has a great 

understanding of the importance of transportation at the county 

level. 

As the chairman, Jim is responsible for balancing the budget for 

a large, rural Wyoming county, while also trying to meet the transportation demands of energy production in Converse County. Converse County is currently experiencing increased production in oil, 

gas, uranium and continues to produce coal. These Wyoming industries provide good-paying jobs that produce the energy driving our 

national economy. If we don’t have the local road infrastructure to 

support heavy equipment traffic, these resources will never get to 

market. 

Mr. Willox will testify today about Wyoming counties where 

roads bring oil, gas and cattle to markets in America and around 

the world. These are roads that bring tourists to Wyoming’s spectacular national forests and parks. These are roads that folks travel hours just to get to the next town. And you will hear today these 

key economic and tourist routes are a mix of paved and gravel 

roads. 

The ability to maintain these vital routes is essential in my State 

and to other western States. I believe we need to keep the highway 

program simple and flexible, building roads, bridges and highways. 

It often involves a series of local, State and Federal permits from 

numerous agencies. This adds uncertainty, increased delays and increasing costs to States and the taxpayer. 

Our national interstate highway system is a critical link to every 

rural community throughout the State and throughout the Nation. 

Senator Fischer and I know this well. She chaired the transportation committee in the Nebraska legislature, I chaired the transportation committee when I was a member of the Wyoming State 

Senate. We need a strong partnership between the Federal Highway Administration and the States and counties. 

So I want to thank Jim and all the witnesses who are here today 

for taking the time to travel here. I know Jim can provide the committee with a unique rural Wyoming perspective and as the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I look forward to bringing the rural western perspective 

as we write the next reauthorization bill. 
13 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, thank you, Senator Vitter, for 

your leadership in holding this hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. I think it is such a wonderful thing to have you and Senator Fischer here, because of your 

unique experience. 

We will now hear from our Senator from New York, Kirsten 

Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Member Vitter. I am so grateful that you have invited these witnesses here today to share the perspectives of State and local communities of our Nation’s surface transportation programs. The 

views of local officials, those who do the real groundwork to implement the policies that we write, are critical to this process. 

Madam Chair, like you, I represent one of the most diverse 

States in the Nation. Our transportation needs are varied and complex. We have dense urban centers where transit funding for multimodal projects, pedestrian and bicycle improvements and congestion relief are important. We have vast expanses of rural highways 

and bridges that must be maintained to sustain our agricultural industry, keep our towns connected to the State’s economy and attract new businesses where we need new jobs. We have everything 

in between. 

Investing in our transportation infrastructure is one of the fastest, most effective ways to grow our economy and create jobs. That 

is why we need strong, sustainable funding for the Highway Trust 

Fund, so we can maintain and improve our transportation infrastructure, put people to work and get it done. 

In addition, we should build upon programs like TIFIA that 

allow for innovative financing for large projects of national and regional significance. New York has more than 17,000 bridges and 

nearly 115,000 public road miles. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, 12.5 percent of our bridges are considered 

structurally deficient. And 27.1 percent are considered functionally 

obsolete. 

When I hear from local officials, they tell me that they have to 

do more with less and in many instances have to make very difficult choices of whether they can afford to reconstruct a bridge or 

repair a stretch of highway. In New York, local governments own 

45 percent of our State’s Federal highway miles and 51 percent of 

our bridges. Like the Federal Government, these communities are 

stretched incredibly thin. This means that Federal assistance is all 

the more critical to ensuring the maintenance of a safe and efficient highway and bridge system in my State and relieve some of 

the pressures on local budgets. 

One of the major priorities for New York is to ensure that the 

Ferry Boat Formula adequately funds New York’s ferry system. As 

you know, the Staten Island Ferry carries over one-fifth of all ferry 

passengers nationwide, making it the largest passenger-only ferry 

system in the United States. It is a critical link for 60,000 passengers every single day who use the ferry to travel from Staten 

Island to Manhattan. Staten Island ferries are aging and will even-
14 

tually need to be replaced. New York cannot shoulder the burden 

alone. Madam Chair, this is an issue that I would like to work with 

you on in the reauthorization bill. 

One of the biggest safety issues facing my State is the need to 

improve safety for pedestrians, particularly to protect our most vulnerable pedestrians, children and seniors. According to the data 

provided by the National Highway Safety Administration, as recently as 2011, New York State had 287 pedestrian fatalities out 

of the 4,432 nationally. 

As we continue to invest in projects that will expand opportunities for pedestrians to walk to and from work and school and 

throughout their communities, we have to ensure that we also provide the necessary resources and focus to ensure our communities 

are doing all they can to improve safety. 

I hope we will have an opportunity to address these and other 

concerns as we draft the reauthorization bill. I am very grateful for 

this hearing and look forward to all your testimony. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, we look forward to working with you 

and every member of this committee. 

Senator Crapo. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator 

Vitter. 

I know we are all waiting anxiously to get to this great panel of 

witnesses, so I will be very brief. 

After the expiration of SAFETEA-LU, it took 3 years and 10 

short-term extensions to get another authorization passed. That 

kind of unpredictability presents serious challenges to transportation projects and to our infrastructure across the country. 

That said, we all know the most difficult issue that we are facing 

is how to finance our transportation needs going forward. I hope 

we can get some progress today on analyzing and getting some creative thinking going toward understanding how to resolve that 

issue. 

MAP–21 was financed with non-traditional methods. And it is 

imperative that we find a swift and meaningful fix to the serious 

current inadequacies of the Highway Trust Fund. With that, I look 

forward to hearing from the witnesses and appreciate again this 

hearing being held. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

So we are going to go straight to our witnesses. I want to put 

two letters in the record. One is calling for a freight policy under 

the new bill. It has very diverse signatures from all over the country. 

The other is, I think, an unprecedented letter, Senator Vitter, to 

you and me and to Rahall and Shuster. And it is signed by 31 

chambers of commerce. I think it is important just to take a minute 

to give you a sense of who signed it. These are all local chambers 

of commerce from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, 
15 

North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Virginia and Washington State. 

[The referenced documents were not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. I have been on this committee since I got to the 

Senate, a long, long time ago. This is unprecedented. We have a 

job to do, and it ain’t about red and blue. It is about getting the 

Highway Trust Fund on solid ground for 5 or 6 years. I know we 

all want to do it. And I am just really grateful to this panel, to my 

colleagues on the committee, for showing your interest today. So 

let’s go first to Hon. Michael Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL P. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, RHODE 

ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member 

Vitter, distinguished members of the committee. I am Michael 

Lewis, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. 

Actually, when I look around the panel, I have some experience 

with all of your States, many of your States. I actually went to high 

school in New Jersey, Senator Booker. My engineering degree is 

from the University of Vermont, Senator Sanders, when you were 

mayor. Most of my career was spent in Massachusetts with Senator 

Markey. Senator Barrasso, John Cox is the current vice president 

of AASHTO, so rural States are very well represented by Secretary 

Cox. Senator Fischer, I recently spoke with my counterpart in Nebraska, Randy Peters. We discussed various issues. We talked 

about streamlining permitting. So these issues affect all the States 

across the country. 

I had the honor of testifying before you on this subject last September on behalf of the 52 State transportation departments as 

then-president of AASHTO. I know the current AASHTO president, 

Michael Hancock, Secretary of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, testified here in February. Today, however, I am here to speak 

on behalf of my State of Rhode Island and to provide you with more 

specific impacts on a small State with high unemployment, deteriorating infrastructure, further impacted by the uncertainty surrounding the enactment of a long-term stable surface transportation bill with adequate funding levels. 

My written testimony provides a detailed picture of the current 

transportation funding crisis in Rhode Island, which I will summarize with four brief points. One, Rhode Island’s transportation improvement program is almost entirely dependent upon Federal 

highway funding. If Congress does not act soon to at least restore 

historic funding levels, Rhode Island, even with increased State investment, simply cannot fill the funding gap. The condition of our 

infrastructure, among the Nation’s oldest and most urbanized and 

already in an advanced state of deterioration, will only get worse. 

Two, due to the uncertainty of Federal highway and transit funding for fiscal year 2015, Rhode Island has been forced to virtually 

halt its advertising program for all new highway projects using fiscal year 2014 apportionments. We have been forced to conserve our 

limited resources for existing commitments and emergencies only. 

Three, if Congress does not act, there will be immediate and direct impacts on an already distressed Rhode Island economy, in-
16 

cluding lost jobs and potentially permanently shuttered businesses. 

And last, the health of our State’s infrastructure is not just a local 

issue. Rhode Island is a key corridor in the movement of people 

and goods in the northeast, as well as nationally. The deteriorated 

condition of our transportation system, therefore, places stress on 

not only Rhode Island’s but the regional economy as well. 

As I stated, Rhode Island’s highway improvement program is 

heavily dependent on the Federal highway funding. The total highway program for Rhode Island averages $240 million annually, 

with $200 million each year coming from the Highway Trust Fund. 

Beyond required matching funds, there is no State funded highway 

improvement program in Rhode Island. 

Over the last decade, in order to address critical infrastructure 

deficiencies, particularly the number of high cost bridge replacement projects that far exceeded our annual apportionments, Rhode 

Island was forced to leverage future apportionments through the 

use of Garvey financing and greater use of advanced construction, 

which only obligates a portion of the project costs in any 1 year. 

As a result, approximately 50 percent of our Highway Trust Fund 

apportionments are committed to existing obligations. 

The uncertainty of whether Federal funding will be provided in 

fiscal year 2015 has required Rhode Island to delay the advertising 

of virtually all new highway projects. Only emergency projects and 

projects with funding from prior years are being implemented until 

Federal funding beyond 2014 is assured. This deferral of new 

projects has been necessary to ensure we are able to meet existing 

obligations, including the payment of Garvey debt service and of 

ongoing construction work. If RIDOT were to implement a regular 

highway program for 2014 without the certainty of level funding 

for fiscal year 2015, it would be in danger of overspending its budget by tens of millions of dollars, and the Rhode Island general revenues are simply insufficient to cover that gap. 

More than 60 percent of our State roadways are rated fair or 

worse, and nearly 20 percent of the bridges are in poor condition. 

Without additional funding, the latter will increase to 40 percent 

in less than 10 years. In short, without sufficient funding, Rhode 

Island will remain in the position of managing its decline of its infrastructure. 

Over the last few years, Rhode Island has enacted invaluable reforms to begin to address the funding needs. An active debate is 

currently underway within the State legislature to provide additional funds to improve the condition of Rhode Island’s transportation system while on a percentage basis becoming less dependent 

on the Federal program. All such efforts start with the assumption 

that Federal funding will continue at its current level. 

The health of Rhode Island’s transportation system is not just a 

local issue, however. The State is a key corridor between New York 

and Boston and part of a national network vital to the movement 

of people and goods throughout the country. The deteriorated condition of Rhode Island’s roads and bridges therefore places stress 

on the network as a whole, a situation our region can ill afford. The 

condition of our system hinders Rhode Island’s efforts to improve 

its economic condition. Rhode Island’s unemployment rate remains 

near the highest in the Nation. The highway construction industry, 
17 

in particular smaller contractors, cannot afford to lose an entire 

construction season due to the uncertainty of Federal funding. 

Rhode Island needs a long-term and fully funded transportation 

reauthorization bill to eliminate this current atmosphere of uncertainty and to allow the State to move forward with an annual construction program that puts citizens to work and keeps our economy going. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today 

and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. My friend, Senator Inhofe, has asked 

to do an unusual intervention. And because of my respect and admiration for him, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Since we are talking about the one subject we 

are in total agreement on, I appreciate that. 

Senator BOXER. WRDA is too, WRDA and this. 

Senator INHOFE. That is right, infrastructure. 

Senator BOXER. Listen, two out of a hundred. 

Senator INHOFE. That is pretty good. 

Anyway, we are delighted to have Mayor Mick Cornett here, 

along with the other witnesses. I just wanted to be sure you got 

my message this morning. I came by earlier, thinking you might 

arrive early and we would have a chance to talk. You see, I had 

a hard time, a hard job once, I tell my friends up here. Being 

mayor of a city, there is no hiding place there. Sort of like the trash 

ends up in your front yard, and it did in mine. 

But I have a statement I will not read. I will put it in and submit 

it for the record. I am sure the Chairman will allow me to do that. 

And in that, I would make a reference to what happened yesterday. 

We are talking about perhaps some NAACS changes and ozone, 

how that could put us out of attainment. As you well know, all 77 

counties in our State of Oklahoma could be out of attainment if 

they went down to something like 60 parts per billion, having a 

tremendous negative effect on our road building capability. 

So I had some of these things, I am going to stay for a few minutes. But I am the ranking member on Armed Services, and I don’t 

have a choice, I have to be up there, too. I thank you for allowing 

me to make that statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I’d like to welcome Mayor Cornett from Oklahoma City. It’s great to have you 

here with us today and I want to congratulate you on your recent reelection. We 

look forward to your testimony. 

Today we’re focusing on local transportation perspectives and I’d like to highlight 

two significant challenges to the future of the Federal Highway Program. One, 

which we are all well aware of, is the Highway Trust Fund shortfall. The other is 

something we haven’t touched on in a while and it is the EPA’s ever-changing national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and their effect on the ability for 

States and locals to build new roads and bridges. 

First, the Department of Transportation is projecting for the trust fund to run out 

of money sometime in August—before MAP–21 expires. In Oklahoma, Federal funding accounts for about half of ODOT’s funding. Every year ODOT updates their 8- 

year plan—where they prioritize what projects get funded. Mike Patterson, ODOT’s 

Director, has told me that the 8-year plan becomes a 16-year plan if Federal funding 

dries up; however that doesn’t take into account the deferred maintenance which 

will drive costs up even more. Oklahoma City is intersected by three major interstates—I–35, I–40, and I–44—which connect the city and Oklahoma to the rest of 

the country. I am amazed that we continue to allow the physical platform of our 

economy, like these interstates, to decay, yet we continue to expect our just-in-time 

economy not to be affected. The additional friction costs associated with freight and 

commuting delays far out paces the cost of investing in these roads in the first 

place. 

Finally, after yesterday’s hearing with Gina McCarthy, I’d be remiss if I didn’t 

bring up the EPA’s ongoing desire to change the NAAQS for ozone, which many in 

the highway world may not realize affects them tremendously. Any project in a 

county that is non-attainment must go through a conformity process under the 

Clean Air Act, which requires emissions offsets to any increased new mobile source 
31 

emissions, for example—a large project like the newly completed I–40 Crosstown expressway in Oklahoma City. 

After the 2008 standards of 75 parts per billion, Oklahoma worked hard and 

spent a lot of money to maintain its ‘‘nonattainment’’ status statewide. It has come 

to my attention that the staff at the EPA might be looking at a standard as low 

as 60 parts per billion. Behind me, you’ll see maps of what would happen to the 

United States and Oklahoma if the EPA and the environmentalists are successful 

in unnecessarily lowering the standard from 75 ppm to 60 ppm. If this were to happen, it would add enormous additional cost to any new road expansion project. 

As Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee I have to attend a hearing 

that we have going on right now, so I’m not going to be here for questions. However, 

I ask that the panelists submit the costs and burdens that will be associated with 

expanding your roads and bridges and attracting new businesses when you fall out 

of attainment because of the EPA. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thanks. We will be working very closely 

together. Next week we are going to have a meeting with the Big 

Four, and then we are going to start meetings with everyone individually to get you all on board. Because this thing, you used the 

word crisis, Mr. Lewis, and I have to share that. This is a looming 

crisis that is upon us. 

So thanks. And now we will go back to our esteemed panel, and 

we will call on Ms. Sue Minter, Deputy Secretary, Vermont Agency 

of Transportation. 

STATEMENT OF SUE MINTER, DEPUTY SECRETARY, VERMONT 

AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. MINTER. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Boxer, 

Ranking Member Vitter, members of the committee. This is an 

honor for me to be able to speak before you today about the special 

issues facing small States and your opportunity with the next 

transportation reauthorization bill. It is also great to hear from you 

about the issues that we feel so passionately about. 

Our transportation network really is the backbone of our economy. And our economic strength and growth and success depends 

upon a 21st century transportation system. And now as our country is finally slowly climbing out of the great recession, it is critical 

that we fund a safe and reliable transportation system. 

Vermont, like many States, is confronting challenges of an aging 

and deteriorating infrastructure, as we have heard. While we have 

made substantial progress in the last 5 years, we, like others, still 

have 30 percent of our bridges that are either structurally deficient, functionally obsolete or both. And a quarter of our roads are 

considered in very poor condition. 

The highway network is an integrated system that literally ties 

our Nation together. And all States continue to need the Federal 

Government to play a leadership role in funding our system. Although Vermont is small and rural, we also play a significant role 

in the national network. We host two interstate corridors and a rail 

corridor to our Nation’s largest trading partner, Canada. 

And this is why all State DOTs and our private sector contractors are extremely concerned about the pending insolvency of the 

Highway Trust Fund. Just the prospect of the fund running low on 

cash by this July has already motivated many States like Rhode 

Island to delay new capital projects. We must mitigate our risks, 

and we are all watching you to see what is coming next. 
32 

I want to make it clear that if the fund is not replenished soon, 

project delays will become cancellations. And a reduction in our 

transportation projects directly translates into job losses in the construction industry and will have an immediate and negative economic impact. In a small State like ours, it can literally tip the balance on our fragile economic recovery. 

So on behalf of all of my DOT colleagues and our partners in the 

construction industry, we need you to refill the trust fund as expeditiously as possible. 

We also support MAP–21’s focus on funding flexibility, performance measurement and innovation. Our State has benefited greatly 

from these reforms, particularly with our accelerated project delivery program. We understand that government must innovate, must 

strive for efficiency and demonstrate to our taxpayers that we are 

getting results for their investment. 

Finally, I would like to comment on the increasing challenges 

that severe weather is imposing on our infrastructure and our 

budgets. With the weather you have been seeing here in D.C., I am 

sure we don’t need to remind you that winter is long this year. In 

Vermont, we are out today cleaning the 93rd winter weather event, 

an all-time high. Unfortunately, this is also a budget breaker and 

increases the degradation and the cost for our road maintenance. 

Across the Nation, weather patterns are changing. Natural disasters and weather events are increasing in frequency, severity and 

cost. In the past 3 years, the U.S. has tallied 32 different billion 

dollar storms, ice and snow, floods, tornadoes, wildfires, drought 

and now landslides. In 2011, Vermont suffered historic flooding 

from Tropical Storm Irene, which ravaged our State in one night, 

damaging over 500 miles of road, taking out 34 State bridges. Because of infrastructure damage, 13 communities were totally cutoff 

by this flood, 20,000 acres of farm land were flooded, 1,200 homes 

and businesses damaged, and most tragically, seven lives lost. 

Thanks to your help, and the Federal funding and in particular the 

Federal Highway Administration ER program, Vermont is now, two 

and a half years later, in a strong recovery. We thank you. 

I know well the toll of disaster. I helped lead our transportation 

agency’s emergency response to Irene. And 4 months later, I was 

deployed by Governor Shumlin to become the recovery officer for 

the State. Transportation departments are finding themselves in 

unexpected leadership roles as disasters strike, something I witnessed in Colorado. Irene taught us many lessons. I have seen the 

dramatic impact of infrastructure loss and the risks to human lives 

and economic security. I believe that resilient infrastructure is 

needed, and I request that we consider research and investment in 

resilience to be included in the next transportation bill. 

Thank you so much for the time and for the important work you 

do in sustaining our transportation system. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Minter follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for your excellent testimony. 

And we turn to Hon. Greg Ballard, Mayor, city of Indianapolis, 

Indiana. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GREGORY A. BALLARD, MAYOR, CITY OF 

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 

Mayor BALLARD. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter and distinguished members of the committee. I very much 

appreciate your allowing me to testify today. 

America’s cities are preparing for a great revival. Many planners 

note that when our country built the interstate highway system 

starting back in the 1950s, it enabled an exodus from the urban 

areas to the suburbs. As we meet today, the tides of that population outflow are reversing, and we are witnessing a remigration 

to the cities. 

For many decades, transportation planning centered on the 

movement of people and goods between commercial and residential 

centers. Today, our cities face a much different transportation 

need, one of connecting people to each other and to unique experiences. New urban dwellers want to be connected to their neighborhood and their city through means other than a car. It is no longer 

a foregone conclusion that people will move back to the suburbs 

and commute to the city. A growing number of people are choosing 

to live local, shop local and eat local. They want access to an authentic urban lifestyle, and they want it right outside their front 

door. 

Last month, Richard Florida wrote an article in the Atlantic Cities magazine about what entrepreneurs want when looking for a 

place to start a business. Talent ranked No. 1. And words such as 

live, parks, schools and restaurants all ranked near the top of that 

list. The battle for the future of American cities will be won by the 

place that attracts and retains talent. It is clear those people want 

a high quality of life. 

I want to thank you for the funding you have previously sent to 

local governments for these types of projects. In Indy, we used it 

with local funds to build a variety of trails and greenways, such as 

the Monon, the Fall Creek, Light River and the Pennsy Trails. We 

also dedicated a portion of our innovative RebuildIndy fund, a half 

a billion dollars, to constructing bike lanes and trails connecting all 

corners of our city and making it an even more attractive place to 

live, work and raise a family. 

Indy is attracting national and worldwide attention for making 

the infrastructure investments that attract people to our city, 

which includes roads, bridges, alleys and so much other. The Indianapolis Cultural Trail connects six historic walkable downtown 

neighborhoods that contain unique arts, cultural heritage, sports 

and entertainment landmarks. It is also a great example of the 

greater good that comes from investing Federal, local and philanthropic dollars in new transportation options. 

The 8-mile Indianapolis Cultural Trail used to be traffic lanes 

and parking spaces. It now carries cyclists and pedestrians and 

serves as a worldwide model. It has been profiled in the New York 

Times. It won a prestigious Pinnacle Award from the American 

Downtown Association, and it has been a centerpiece of numerous 
43 

articles listing Indy as a must-see city among all places in the 

world. 

In the few short years since it has opened, the trail has attracted at least $100 million in new investment to the city, that one trail 

alone. This trail and many other examples in cities across America 

demonstrate a bold new thinking toward urban transportation 

planning. A highway is still critical to moving goods to market. But 

if you want to attract workers to live in your city, you need sidewalks and bike lanes, greenways and so much more. 

In this country, local governments have always been the cradle 

of innovation and partnership. That is certainly true in the area of 

urban infrastructure development. America’s greatness is rooted in 

its never ending quest to discover new technologies and pushing 

the boundaries of the unknown. In the new American city that exploration will not require travel of a great distance. It will be a 

journey to discover the culture, the food, the music and the people 

that are just a walk, a bicycle ride or a short bus ride away. 

Our future success in this endeavor requires strong partners and 

funding. I encourage you to continue our Nation’s commitment to 

the Transportation Alternatives Program. Safe and viable options 

for people on bikes, transit and on foot are increasingly important 

in today’s cities. And please keep those decisions in the hands of 

local leaders. The Cardin-Cochran Amendment has been very helpful in this regard. 

Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Ballard follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much for that testimony. 

Mick Cornett, Mayor Cornett, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICK CORNETT, MAYOR, OKLAHOMA 

CITY, OKLAHOMA 

Mayor CORNETT. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the 

members of the committee, and especially Senator Inhofe, who has 

done so much to help transportation needs in central Oklahoma. 

I am the mayor of Oklahoma City. I have come here today to testify on behalf of my community. 

Today I would like to emphasize three points. The national 

transportation system and the transportation opportunities that 

support our population centers and communities are vital to our 

ability to grow and sustain the economy to ensure that the United 

States remains competitive in the 21st century. Second, investing 

in the care, maintenance and expansion of our country’s critical 

and comprehensive transportation network cannot be left to the cities and States alone. The Federal Government must be a reliable 

partner and all investment options should be open for consideration 

to help ensure long-term and consistent transportation revenues. 

MAP–21 was an excellent start. It delivered enhanced transportation opportunities through continued consideration of measures 

focused on expediting project delivery, transit and community initiatives and allowing resources to flow freely to the Nation’s core 

infrastructures. Oklahoma City’s economy is quite robust. We certainly have opportunities that exist now in Oklahoma City that we 

have not had in other times. We have recently completed a very 

large infrastructure project in Oklahoma City. We had an aging 

Interstate 40 bridge that went through the heart of our downtown 

area. It was crumbling and there were a lot of safety issues. That 

bridge has now been removed, the interstate highway has been relocated. And we are now working with our Department of Transportation to build an at-grade boulevard that can replace that old 

existing corridor. 

So we are still working on a project that has now about 16, 17 

years in the making and still not completed. But as it is completed, 

it certainly is helping central Oklahoma grow. 

I think that Interstate 40 project is a shining example of the 

partnership that we in Oklahoma City have with our other agencies. I think in Oklahoma City we have a very good relationship 

with our Department of Transportation and certainly our Federal 

delegation. The private sector is flourishing, and I think partly is 

it because of that relationship. 

We are also aggressively investing in the quality of life of central 

Oklahoma. We have a number of ongoing community initiatives 

with State and Federal partnerships. We are rebuilding our sidewalk systems, adding bike paths and lanes and improving a lot of 

our local streets. 

Just recently we were able to purchase the former Santa Fe 

Depot. Back in 2005, we completed a fixed guideway study that 

provided a 21st century blueprint for public transit in the Oklahoma City community. And this new Santa Fe Depot purchase will 

allow us to create a multi-modal hub in central Oklahoma City. 
64 

We think the communities and States must understand and be 

able to project the availability of transportation resources if we are 

going to be able to plan initiatives and design and construct 

projects to meet the needs of our citizens. 

While a reliable investment of Federal funding is critical, an 

equally important factor is the minimization of Federal bureaucracy and regulatory actions. This is especially true when resources 

are scarce, as we know they all are. We simply must do everything 

possible to squeeze every benefit out of every dollar that is available for our infrastructure needs. 

The National Transportation Strategy and the associated Federal 

agencies’ laws, regulations and policies should provide a simple 

framework that then allows and empowers the State and local governments to officially select and deliver transportation solutions to 

address their unique needs. 

In addition, the opportunities for Federal agencies to interject 

narrowly focused interpretations of the Federal law should be restricted to the extent possible. What we are seeing is that Federal 

agencies sometimes are superseding the congressional intent of the 

law by promulgating regulations or rules or by issuing guidelines 

or directives that serve their purpose or their perceived needs. 

Many times, these agency-based actions and interpretations represent pure bureaucracy. They blur the critical lines between regulatory oversight and agency idealism and are at most times consuming and difficult for the States to manage. 

A specific example is the opportunity Oklahoma City has had recently by encouraging General Electric to invest in a new research 

development center. Part of the work from the State and local governments is to help with an off ramp project that really just needs 

to be redesigned. There is nothing complicated about this, but we 

have run into bureaucracy that has redirected the focus of our 

team. It has impeded our progress. We don’t see any recognizable 

benefit. 

The city, State and private sector engineers working on this are 

experts in the field. They understand what is in the best interest 

of the city and the State. It is difficult to understand how these additional involvements of Federal Government are adding value to 

the delivery of this critical infrastructure. 

In concluding, as we consider the full magnitude of the current 

inadequacies of our national transportation system, we must work 

together to style the project delivery process to be more efficient 

and free from the unnecessary bureaucracy, laws, rules, directives 

or redundant regulations. The Federal Government must continue 

to invest in the transportation system and maintain an equally robust and equitable commitment to the transit and quality of life 

needed for our communities. 

Oklahoma City is at the intersection of three interstate highways 

that flow through our city: I–35, which stretches from Mexico to 

Canada; I–40, which stretches completely across the United States 

from California to North Carolina; and I–44 which runs diagonally 

through the State. Commerce is traveling through Oklahoma City. 

Investment in these types of interstates and the expansion of our 

transportation infrastructure is helping move American-made products to market. Well managed dollars committed to infrastructure 
65 

improvements and community-based initiatives directly materialize 

in our economy and enhance the ability of our businesses and industry to cost-effectively move goods and provide services. 

Today’s investments in transportation truly represent an investment in ourselves and more importantly in the future viability of 

this Nation and the safety of our families. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Cornett follows:] 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mayor, for that excellent 

testimony. 

Mr. Bill Fontenot, President of St. Landry Parish, Louisiana. 

STATEMENT OF BILL FONTENOT, PRESIDENT, ST. LANDRY 

PARISH, LOUISIANA 

Mr. FONTENOT. Madam Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter and members of the committee, it is an honor and a privilege 

to testify before you today. My name is Bill Fontenot, and I am a 

professional civil engineer that had the privilege of working 38 

years for the Louisiana DOTD of which the last 18 years of that 

career was serving as a regional district engineer administrator for 

the eight-parish Acadiana region. 

The Acadiana region is where Mardi Gras is less about parades, 

kings and queens throwing beads, but more about the common, ordinary man dressing up in colorful costumes and masks and riding 

horses throughout the countryside, chasing down chickens and 

guineas to be included as ingredients to a delicious gumbo dinner 

during the evening before Ash Wednesday. 

I retired from Louisiana DOTD in 2011 and now currently serve 

as the president of St. Landry Parish Government in south Louisiana. I am pleased and proud to introduce to you St. Landry Parish Councilmen Jerry Red, Jimmie Edwards and Timmy Lejeune 

along with our Director of Operations, Jessie Bellard, who have accompanied me to Washington, DC, to visit with you. They are here 

in the room today. 

Senator BOXER. Raise your hands, please? Welcome. 

Senator CARPER. Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole 

truth and nothing but the truth? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FONTENOT. If they want a ride home they have to, yes. 

These councilmen, with a majority of others, and I worked very 

hard over the first 2 years of my administration to convince parish 

voters that local roads were never going to meet the level of service 

that they so wanted and needed. There existed no dedicated local 

funds for road improvements ever in the history of the parish. This 

effort of hard work resulted, I am happy to report, in the passage 

this past October of a two cent sales tax, 15 year referendum for 

the rural areas only that will be dedicated solely for improving 

roads. History was made. Our voters were finally convinced that 

we as citizens of the parish needed to learn how to buckle our own 

bootstraps relative to addressing our local highway issues. 

I am here to tell you that this sales tax will go a long way to 

mending our roads for a long time. But we will continue to need 

Federal assistance to make the best of meeting the very expensive 

requirements to replace the many bridges that are deficient. Therefore, I would like to respectfully offer the following priorities for 

your consideration during the development of the next surface 

transportation bill. 

First, we ask that you continue the Federal funding set-aside for 

off-system bridges and consider increasing overall funding for 

bridge replacement and rehabilitation. The Nation’s counties, 

which we are considered one of, own a significant amount of the 

Nation’s off-system bridges. In fact, off-system bridges represent 
74 

76.5 percent of counties’ bridge inventory. Overall, off-system 

bridges represent 47 percent of the national bridge inventory. And 

this is a particular issue to us because Louisiana parishes own 33 

percent of our State’s public bridges. 

Second, we respectfully request that you work hard to achieve 

the timely passage of a Federal surface transportation bill that provides increased, stable and long-term funding so that Federal, 

State and local highway planners can create logical strategies to 

addressing highway needs. The political leadership at all levels 

needs to support this as our citizens do not understand or appreciate the lack of it. Our quality of life depends on it, our economy 

depends on it. 

Third, a specific Federal change needed, that may fall beyond the 

scope of today’s discussion, and I hear a lot about it, is the Federal 

wetlands banking requirements whereby the right of way mitigation ratio at times ranges from 3 to 1 to 5 to 1. This exorbitant cost 

will cause some valid projects not to be constructed under this 

mandate. We ask that you look at reducing this requirement, if 

possible, and also allowing purchasing current wetlands areas in 

advance for credit in consideration of future projects. This is currently not allowed. 

Fourth, relative to what was once called transportation enhancement funding, now known as transportation alternatives funding, 

which is something as a district administrator under the enhancement program I very much promoted in my area. But I am hearing 

now that under this program, that the ability to obligate this funding is becoming complex, to the extent that many local governments will be hesitant to spend money, energy and time to apply 

for such funding that could really benefit our communities. 

Fifth, we ask for increased funding for improvements to minor 

road connectors that are so important to local commerce relative to 

moving goods, mobility for jobs and recreation, all boosting economy and quality of life. A special rule in MAP–21 allows States to 

use up to 15 percent of the Surface Transportation Program funds 

suballocated for areas with a population of 5,000 or less on rural 

minor collectors. We would like to see this expanded to a greater 

percentage and to areas exceeding a population of 5,000. 

Sixth, and finally, as you might expect, we support and encourage necessary Federal funding to complete I–49 south in Louisiana. 

I wish to acknowledge and thank the National Association of Counties for their untiring efforts working with local governments and 

Congress to create a quality highway bill. I think you get it. 

Thank you so much for allowing me to speak today and for your 

dedicated service to our good old USA. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fontenot follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 

Senator BOXER. Thanks so much, sir. 

Mr. Jim Willox, Chairman, Converse County Commission, Wyoming. 

STATEMENT OF JIM WILLOX, CHAIRMAN, CONVERSE COUNTY 

COMMISSION, WYOMING 

Mr. WILLOX. Good morning Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Vitter, Senator Barrasso, and members of the committee. I thank 

you for this opportunity today. 

My name is Jim Willox, and I am Chairman of the Converse 

County Board of Commissioners in Converse County, Wyoming, 

and also serve as Chairman of the Transportation Committee of 

the Wyoming County Commissioners Association. 

Converse County, Wyoming, is fairly representative of many 

western counties in our part of the United States. Low population 

factors, when combined with our climate and the high percentage 

of Federal land ownership within our borders, create unique transportation challenges for Wyoming and our counties, including Converse. 

From a rural county’s perspective, the continued viability of a 

Federal partner in road and bridge projects is of the utmost importance. The National Association of County Officials has pointed out 

that a full 45 percent of the Nation’s public roads are owned and 

operated by counties. In my county alone we maintain over 620 

miles of roads. 512 miles of that is gravel road. We also maintain 

36 bridges of various sizes. 

When I think about that transportation system, I think of a fellow commissioner of mine who is a cattle rancher in southern Converse County. In order for him to deliver his cattle to the national 

and global marketplace, he first loads them up on a semi-truck and 

travels 6 miles on a gravel county road. He travels 5 miles on a 

paved county road, 3 miles on a Wyoming State highway, 68 miles 

on Interstate 25, 49 miles on a U.S. highway, and finally to a local 

city street where he delivers those cattle to market. 

In northern Converse County I can describe to you a similar 

route that millions of dollars of oil and gas production takes to 

reach the market or refineries, or a similar route that a tourist 

takes to reach the Medicine Bow National Forest to go camping. If 

a weak link exists in any part of that system, the rancher’s ability 

to put a steak on our plate, the oil and gas industry’s ability to fuel 

our cars and heat our homes, or that outdoor adventure for the 

tourist is stymied. 

At the county level we invest a great deal to make sure our portion of roads are in good shape, and we have an excellent partner 

in the State of Wyoming and WYDOT. However, the ability of Wyoming and its counties to fund road and bridge projects is heavily 

dependent upon the continuation of a long-term Federal highway 

program, and in turn, the continued viability of the Highway Trust 

Fund. 

As you look at Federal programs, the success or failure of any 

Federal highway program in Wyoming can be reasonably predicted 

on one question: does the program provide enough flexibility at the 

local level? If the answer is yes, then that program can be successful. 
79 

MAP–21 did provide some more flexibility, and that is helpful. 

But I respectfully ask that you give further consideration to providing more flexibility and fewer rules so that local governments 

are not unduly burdened, and so that road and bridge safety 

projects can proceed promptly and efficiently. This is particularly 

true in rural areas, where we often find ourselves attempting to 

force the round peg of small, rural projects into the largeness of 

square Federal rules. 

As an example of this delay it took the BLM 10 months to determine that Converse County indeed did have a right-of-way on a 

road that had been in existence since 1892. After that delay, we 

still faced the usual ones imposed by NEPA and related environmental reviews. At best, those NEPA reviews require several weeks 

of analysis, much longer if there are complicating factors. In those 

cases, environmental reviews rarely provide flexibility for maintaining existing roadways, even when the activity itself has minimal impact. 

Seasonal wildlife stipulations placed on surface disturbance for 

new construction over virgin territory may make sense. But if a 

county is planning to work on a road that has existed since statehood, I don’t think we need to jump through those hoops designed 

for new construction. Our harsh climate and short construction season means we must plan for even the smallest projects in advance. 

Unnecessary delays imposed by NEPA, Corps of Engineers and 

other environmental reviews or other Federal requirements can 

push important public safety projects off for an entire year or more. 

I urge a careful look at how the environmental review and permitting processes can be further streamlined so that road and 

bridge projects can be completed in a timely manner and we spend 

more dollars on concrete and pavement and less on paper. 

I leave you with this final thought. We talk a lot about the information highway and how we can sit at home on our coach and 

order wool socks, or a big screen TV. However, if we fail to invest 

wisely in our deteriorating real highways with gravel, concrete, and 

pavement and bridges, the sheep’s wool and the rare earth minerals needed to create that TV will never reach the manufacturer 

and never be able to be delivered to the consumer. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify today and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willox follows:] 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

And last but not least, Dave Gula, Principal Planner, Wilmington 

Area Planning Council, Delaware. 

STATEMENT OF DAVE GULA, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, 

WILMINGTON AREA PLANNING COUNCIL, DELAWARE 

Mr. GULA. Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman Boxer, 

Ranking Member Vitter, Senator Carper from Delaware and members of the committee for inviting us here today to represent 

WILMAPCO and to speak about the MAP–21 reauthorization. 

The WILMAPCO region is different in that we span two States, 

two counties. We have New Castle County, Delaware and Cecil 

County, Maryland. So our area of influence is different in every 

State or city. We were very happy to see both the transportation 

enhancements and the Safe Routes to School programs were carried forward into the Transportation Alternatives Program in 

MAP–21. They are very important tools that we use when doing 

community planning. 

We have used these funds to implement projects that have been 

recommended by community planning studies that we carried out, 

Southbridge Circulation Study being one of those. Southbridge is a 

low income, minority neighborhood in South Wilmington that has 

been a focus of our environmental justice reports. The circulation 

study recommended that sidewalk, bus stop and intersection improvements be implemented, but there was no funding at the capital program for DelDOT. So we used those funds to implement 

those projects in a much more timely fashion. Very helpful for us 

in delivering these projects to the community. 

Also at the local level, there is a struggle to make the needed investments in transit for a middle size city like Wilmington, Delaware, and a rural county like Cecil County, Maryland. As Mayor 

Ballard noted, demographics are beginning to change in the U.S., 

and we are seeing both baby boomers and millennials finding common ground in transit use. We see yearly ridership growth in both 

DART in Newcastle County and in Cecil County’s transportation 

system. 

Millennials are no longer married to their cars. In fact, they 

would give those up before their cherished cell phones. I have two 

millennials, a 19-year-old and a 26-year-old, and you could never 

get the phone out of their hands, but neither one of them has ever 

owned a car. That has been a challenge. I live in a rather suburban 

area in Newcastle County, but we made it work. 

So that new workforce, they are gravitating to different locations. 

They are going to activity centers, cities and towns. The empty nest 

boomers are looking for similar lifestyle changes. These groups are 

more likely to ride a bike or walk a few blocks than necessarily get 

into their car or call a taxi. We have to make the best investments 

with our transportation funding to those two groups because they 

will leave our region and they will go somewhere where they can 

get those multi-modal choices. 

Our region is along the northeast corridor. We support Amtrak’s 

mission, and we coordinate with them for local planning projects 

like a new train station and the Newark regional transportation 

center that is being built in Newark. But when we consider city to 
87 

city passenger services within our region, we often work with the 

Delaware Transit Corporation, SEPTA or MTA’s MARC train service. 

Unfortunately, use of States’ capital and operating funds are separated by State lines. So the 20-mile gap in commuter passenger 

service between the MARC train station in Perryville, Maryland, 

and the SEPTA trains in Newark, Delaware, is a constant reminder to WILMAPCO that passenger rail is a regional concern. 

In other areas of need, we have freight movement, especially by 

rail, that is coming into greater focus at a regional level. In our region we see the need to plan for more track capacity as trains 

transport crude oil from the western U.S. to refineries on the east 

coast. In Delaware it is the PVF Refinery in Delaware City. 

In the process of completing the Chesapeake Connector FreightPassenger Rail Benefits Study for our partner agencies MDOT and 

DelDOT, we found that there are some changes that need to be 

made. One concern with a regional study of this nature is that 

while the project is important to both Maryland and Delaware for 

freight movement, Delaware’s capital funding cannot be used for 

physical improvements in Cecil County, Maryland, which shows 

that the ability to plan regionally is great, but if you can’t fund regionally then it is much more difficult to finish the project. 

Another concern is linking land use and transportation priorities. 

That is more important at a time when transportation trust funds 

in both States and the Federal Government are running empty and 

the physical landscape is dominated by suburban development. 

WILMAPCO has participated in studies like the Churchman’s 

Crossing Infrastructure Investment Study and the U.S. 40 Corridor 

Improvement Study, which are local studies in which transportation agencies, local and county planners and elected officials 

work together in a public forum to create a multi-modal plan for 

prioritized improvements in transportation with a coordinated land 

use plan. The projects are ranked by not just importance but how 

they can be implemented. These projects are located in our region’s 

core investment areas, and the MPO process is an ideal vehicle to 

facilitate this kind of project collaboration. 

In closing, WILMAPCO asks that the new transportation bill 

build on the successes of SAFTEA-LU and MAP–21 to continue and 

strengthen the focus on collaboration and coordination. That is a 

hallmark of the MPO process. This type of planning requires time 

to build relationships and trust, both with agencies and the public. 

We ask for consideration to extend that bill beyond the 2-year period to stabilize the funding sources and to provide the program 

guidance documents with the release of the bill, so we can get right 

to work. 

Please continue to fund the TIGER program. It rewards creative 

projects and strong local coordination and it is a very competitive 

format. We would also like to see more flexibility in the use of the 

STP funds to support passenger rail expansion. It is difficult to do 

that with the funding program, with the funding permit as it is 

laid out now. 

We would love to have a TAP for community projects but are concerned that when the project was combined, Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes came under TAP, both funding pools 
88 

lost funding. It was condensed to smaller funding portions. Another 

program that we would like to see benefit from greater coordination and stronger guidance is CMAQ. In a time of changing social 

notions regarding transit and multi-modal transportation, the next 

transportation bill can provide programs and leadership that will 

be necessary to adapt the U.S. transportation system to meet the 

changing wants and needs of our residents. 

Thank you very much for letting me be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gula follows:] 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 

Senator BOXER. Thank you all. I found this to be very, very helpful. It was interesting for me to hear from the mayors, to hear from 

the parish, to hear from the States and all these perspectives. 

And I honestly think that each of you has put on the table issues 

that we can work on together. Some of you, it was just interesting 

because as I look at each of you, so many of you said bridges, we 

need attention to our bridges. This is a danger. Some of you 

stressed the fact that the alternative transportation is working and 

you want to see that continue. Others said resiliency, given the 

weather. Others said, give us the funds but essentially, butt out. 

I heard that. 

And that is easy for you to say, because if you guys mess up, 

then we are the ones who get the blame. So there has to be some 

way that we can make sure that these funds are used right, just 

as you would want to make sure, if you gave a grant, that they 

were. 

But I do hear you, and I do think there are ways to move. But 

I want to sort of press on some of these things. And let me just 

assume this. Regardless of all of your priorities, can I assume that 

all of you agree that we must make sure that this trust fund is 

solid and that it is reauthorized in a multi-year basis so you have 

certainty? Does anyone disagree with that? 

So then I think that is important. Because before we get into 

how much more flexibility or lack of same or what we will do. We 

have got to figure this thing out. That is why I was so fortunate 

to have Senator Carper, now, taking over as the chair with Ranking Member Barrasso. Because he does have the link to the Finance Committee. And that is going to be essential. 

So I was hoping maybe, I think it was Mayor Ballard, I think 

you said how you felt the Cardin-Cochran Amendment was working 

well. Could you expand on why it is working well? 

Mayor BALLARD. Yes, Madam Chair. Because that mandated that 

a lot of this money goes to the MPOs and the local folks. And that, 

because of how money flows down from the Federal Government, 

I think that is very important. Sometimes depending on what State 

you are in, it can flow in different directions. We are 90 percent 

of the new jobs coming in, the cities are. So we want to do a good 

job, and we think we need to continue to invest in the city to attract the talent that I was talking about. And that is why I think 

the Cardin-Cochran Amendment is very important to Indianapolis, 

and I think it probably was for other cities. 

Senator BOXER. And that dealt with the alternative transportation, did it not, that section? 

Mayor BALLARD. Yes, Madam Chair, it did. 

Senator BOXER. I think that is so important. Because I have 

heard from New York and other Senators from other States who 

say they don’t like the fact that some of their States get the money 

instead of it going to the more local people. In my case in California, we have these planning agencies. It works quite well. So 

you don’t give it to the State, the State takes 10 percent off the top. 

So I think you are right. As we look forward, I hope we can do 

more of that. 

Could you expand, Mayor Cornett, about the problems with General Electric? I was confused about that. You have a private sector 
94 

wanting to build something and the bureaucracy is not letting it 

happen. I couldn’t follow it. Tell me what the problem is. 

Mayor CORNETT. In siting their new location, we were going to 

reconstruct an off ramp off of I–235 in central Oklahoma City. We 

were advised by the FHWA that an access justification report 

would be required even though our people at the Department of 

Transportation did not think it was necessary, we thought it was 

a straightforward improvement, just simply enhancing traffic flows 

on one single ramp. And cut to the end of the story, we have now 

been delayed 120 days for a process that we don’t feel like is even 

necessary to begin with. 

Senator BOXER. And this is off of a Federal highway? 

Mayor CORNETT. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, and you are using Federal funds? 

Mayor CORNETT. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I would assume you would have an interest, since it is a Federal highway using Federal funds. But I don’t 

like the fact that it sounds like it has been held up, and you say 

there were no, what were the problems that anyone suggested? 

Mayor CORNETT. I believe that the tightness of the curb was just 

a little bit tighter for safety precautions. They wanted to ease the 

angle. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, sir, I would suggest, I agree with you, 

this thing should not be held up. But if it is a safety question, and 

it is a Federal highway, Federal money and somebody careens off 

there, it becomes a Federal problem. I just think what we need to 

do is help make sure that you get these answers in a quicker way. 

I don’t think we should step away. But this could be a difference. 

I feel responsible, if it is a Federal highway, that it be safe. Because we have situations in California where the State did not do 

due diligence on a new bridge, and we are very scared about what 

could happen. Some of the parts came from other places. 

But I would love to help you with that. If there is legitimate 

problems, believe me, I would love to help you with that. What I 

have found in most of these cases, including Mr. Willox, your point 

about NEPA, it took 3 weeks, well, yes. But it may at the end of 

the day mean that you have a better plan. My view has always 

been, let’s have timetables that make sense. I took a lot of heat 

from my environmental friends because I want timetables, let’s 

move. But I don’t think you should just walk away if it is a safety 

question or an environmental issue. 

So this is something we will work on in our reauthorization. It 

is always a tense situation between Republicans and Democrats. 

But we found that sweet spot the last time, how do you keep the 

Federal interest but not make it difficult and unnecessary delays. 

That is what we will continue to work on as we reauthorize. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all of 

you again for being here. 

President Fontenot, you mentioned bridges. There are a lot of 

bridges in need of repair and replacement in St. Landry Parish and 

in Louisiana. Would it be helpful to St. Landry Parish to be able 

to bundle some of these smaller bridges together as one project to 

create more efficiency by reducing red tape, to use common designs 
95 

and to be able to tap a larger match, that larger projects could 

enjoy? 

Mr. FONTENOT. Absolutely, I agree, and I have read what they 

have done in Pennsylvania. Actually, we do look at our position 

with other parish presidents that this is a regional issue. It is not 

a parochial issue. So yes, we would bundle with other parishes and 

the State and yes, partnering and bundling, absolutely. We get a 

better bang for our buck, we get to clear these bridges, more 

bridges than just one or two. I think it would advance the process 

and the project delivery with a great deal more efficiency and a 

great deal more appreciation from the public. Because they are 

very smart and aware that it is taking a very long time to go from 

the idea that a bridge is necessary to be replaced, it is on a list, 

and then it takes years to get there. So absolutely, that would be 

a great idea, yes. 

Senator VITTER. Great. We will pursue that. 

You mentioned your two cent sales tax and the Smooth Ride 

Home program, as you all have deemed it. Can you talk about that 

process and the level of trust you developed to pass that and what 

lessons you think that offers to us? 

Mr. FONTENOT. First of all, for such a long time, on the local 

level, at least for probably our State, and particularly our parish, 

we were always looking to the Federal Government and State government to solve our issues. Basically I worked in the State government for 38 years, worked with many parishes and looked at things 

statewide, and in particular talking to the leaderships in the parishes. I saw other parishes start doing for themselves rather than 

waiting on the State and Federal Government. And working inside 

the government, I felt I was a bureaucrat, yes, but I had an outsider’s point of view. 

But I think I had finally reached a practical point of view that 

I think most of us should have, is that we cannot in this day wait 

on the Federal and State government to be the solve all, end all. 

We need to do something for ourselves. 

So when I retired from DOTD, I didn’t have being the parish 

president on my radar. But people out there said, well, you are the 

highway guy, you can help us here in St. Landry Parish. We had 

700 of our 800 miles in terrible shape. So I took on the challenge. 

But went out with these councilmen behind me and others, other 

councilmen, and actually brought a sheet of paper and hundreds of 

copies, folded them, we had about 35 to 40 public outreach meetings over a 3- to 4-month period where we sat with 3 people or 300 

people, citizens. We advertised that we need to talk to you about 

this, this is a very important issue to you, it is for us, it is for the 

future of our parish. 

So in reality, I bring you the paper of truth. Here is the budget. 

There is no money in it on the local budget for roads. So whether 

you are first or last on a list to be improved, it doesn’t matter, it 

won’t happen unless we pass our own tax, fund it ourselves. And 

for the most part, our citizens were for sales tax rather than property tax. So basically we brought them the paper of truth. 

Senator VITTER. And I take it in that discussion a key, maybe 

the key, was complete dedication? 

Mr. FONTENOT. Absolutely. 
96 

Senator VITTER. This money is not just for this area of activity, 

but these projects? 

Mr. FONTENOT. Right. In fact only for roads and bridges and related drainage, to make sure the road drains. And we also brought 

in the paper of truth the actual legislation that they would vote on 

to create a law and not depend on a promise. Many times we heard 

in the past that issues had failed because they, when we had, let’s 

say, racinos brought into our parish through legislation, they said, 

well, the racinos were supposed to be the solve all, end all, and basically they had never seen the legislation. 

So we brought it to them. It has nothing in there about being 

dedicated to highways. So we brought them the paper of truth and 

said, this is what you vote on. If you vote on this by the summer 

of 2014, we will be paving roads, and we plan on doing that. So 

60 percent of the voters passed it, first time in the history of the 

parish. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. FONTENOT. Could I say one thing about the alternative financing, which was enhancements? When I was a district administrator, I felt that when local folks came, they came, we knew we 

needed hundreds of millions of dollars of highway improvements, 

interstates, national highway system, local roads. But we all know, 

and even the most unreasonable person knows that takes a long 

time. But when you have a piece of funding offered to repair sidewalks and do the bicycle paths, that shouldn’t take a long time. 

So I am not saying that you should have this legislation in place 

and then get out of the way, but I think what we are saying, and 

I believe I am correct on this, we shouldn’t have to jump through 

all the hoops for a million dollars’ worth of funding compared to the 

hoops that have to be jumped through for a hundred million. So 

maybe we could have a tier there, or a level, or a limit, that when 

you reach a hundred million or less, you could have less bureaucracy for it. Like hiring our own consultant engineer. We can do 

that under the same rules and laws, and you guys could audit it, 

and if we don’t do it right, well, then, take that from us. But maybe 

have a limit on the funding, where we could set a tier where under 

that certain level of application of funding, we could do some of the 

work ourselves in coordination with you guys. 

Senator BOXER. We will look at that. A hundred million is a lot 

of millions. But I got your point, and I think it is well taken. 

Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Madam Chair, my understanding is, we have 

heard from all of you that, I think we are in agreement that our 

infrastructure is crumbling. We need more Federal assistance. We 

need it long-term, we need reliability. We have heard that small 

towns, rural towns in Vermont and Wyoming are different than big 

cities, we need flexibility. 

Now, this committee, as the Chair has indicated, does not really 

deal with the financing. But, so as to make your life a little bit miserable, let me ask you a question. At a time when many of our people are struggling economically, at a time I know in Vermont people travel long distances to work, I am sure that is true in many 

rural States, we are struggling with how do you fund the Highway 

Trust Fund. 
97 

Very briefly, just very, very briefly, why don’t you give us some 

ideas? This committee doesn’t deal with it, as Senators we are 

going to have to deal with it. What do you think? Just very briefly 

go right down the line. What are your ideas? 

Mr. LEWIS. Senator, I think one of the answers to that question 

is timing, what could we implement and in what period of time. I 

think there has been a lot of discussion about shifting to perhaps 

a mile traveled fee, or a user based fee based on distance of travel. 

There are pros and cons to that, but I think we are starting to 

work through some of the issues. Oregon has done some pilot work 

on that, other States are becoming more interested in that. 

Senator SANDERS. OK, you see that as an option? 

Mr. LEWIS. But it is not going to happen overnight. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Ms. Minter. 

Ms. MINTER. I would agree with my colleague, and as you know, 

we did 2 years ago, last year, increase our gas tax and diesel taxes 

to make up for the difference in the decline in the vehicle miles 

traveled, and the increasing emissions. Improving the vehicle emissions standards has meant that relying on that transportation, for 

transportation, is simply not sustainable. 

So if we want to have a user fee approach, that is why we are 

looking to the vehicle miles traveled. Electric vehicles, while they 

save, are not going to be able to pay into that system. 

Senator SANDERS. Mayor Ballard. 

Mayor BALLARD. I would be remiss if I told you that I understand all of your funding mechanisms and all the things that are 

available. 

Senator SANDERS. We don’t either. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Well, it’s pretty much gas tax. 

Mayor BALLARD. But we were pretty creative in the city of Indianapolis, when we did our RebuildIndy. I do think eventually the 

VMT is going to have to be something we look at, in Indianapolis, 

or we are deep into technology and moving in that direction. So 

that was probably something to be looked at. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Mayor. 

Mayor CORNETT. Two thoughts. I think whatever taxation system 

is used, it needs to be tied to miles driven. So I think the gas tax 

is an appropriate solution. 

I would also, though, recommend that we start spending more on 

R&D so we can start reducing the cost of the projects themselves. 

I am still waiting for some big technology advancement in infrastructure, in raw materials or in construction costs or design, that 

can somehow reduce the costs of these so we don’t need to raise so 

much money. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Fontenot. 

Mr. FONTENOT. Certainly everybody wants it, and nobody wants 

to pay for it. But I will tell you, I think we ought to offer up the 

papers of truth and tell them what it will cost if we use VMT and 

what it will cost if it is a gas tax. But there is no doubt it needs 

to be increased, funding needs to be increased. Thank you. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Willox. 

Mr. WILLOX. Senator, it is no doubt above my pay grade to figure 

out the financial mechanisms. But I think the key is, whatever 
98 

mechanism you look at has to have the realization that New York 

City and Converse County, Wyoming, have different needs and different purposes. I think whatever funding we get, the more we 

spend on concrete and pavement and the less we spend on paper, 

that is where the taxpayer really benefits. So I go back to my flexibility question, whatever the formula is. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Gula. 

Mr. GULA. There is not much left, once you get to this end of the 

table, that everybody hasn’t already said. We certainly agree that 

the vehicle miles traveled is another way to look at it. It would follow that hybrids and better fuel efficiency, individual States need 

to be willing to raise their gas taxes and index them to increases. 

Because we have already seen that in Maryland and Pennsylvania 

and Delaware, you have to do so. So they are in the process of trying to do something. 

Senator SANDERS. My very last question is, talk about investment in infrastructure and jobs and the economy. If we provided 

you with substantial sources of funding, we had a creative relationship, does anyone doubt that that would not be a significant job 

creator, both in rebuilding the infrastructure and the long-term impacts of the strong infrastructure on job growth? 

Mr. LEWIS. Senator, it is absolutely a direct tie. There is no question about that. And we saw that with the American Reinvestment 

and Recovery Act. Those dollars went right into the infrastructure, 

right into the local communities, right into paychecks. I think a 

$100 million investment in Rhode Island equates to 1,300 job years 

of employees. You can see it all across the country, big projects, 

small projects, what investment in infrastructure has done for the 

local economy. You just have to look to the Boston area, to a very 

controversial project that I was previously involved with and what 

it has done for the economy of Boston, Massachusetts. 

Senator SANDERS. But not only the jobs created by the projects 

themselves, but long term, the ability to bring in investment in improved infrastructure. No one has any doubts about that? 

Mr. LEWIS. That’s exactly right. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Mr. FONTENOT. I would say, though, that we need to get going. 

Because it takes a long time to jump through these hoops. That is 

why I say, with the smaller projects, let us get some of that done 

and you check on us. If we screw it up, take it away from us. 

Senator BOXER. Anyone who has convinced the public they have 

a paper of truth is someone who I will listen to. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I will listen to you also, thank you all for being here today. 

When I visit with the Nebraska Department of Roads, there is 

a lot of frustration that these very limited Federal dollars that we 

have are being used on the requirements, on a lot of paperwork 

and that really don’t affect the social or the environmental or historical aspects of these projects. Many of you have mentioned that, 

and your frustration with it as well. Chairman Willox, in your testimony, you say that counties must submit to several pages of envi-
99 

ronmental review forms to multiple Federal and State agencies, 

further lengthening the time it takes to receive approval. 

Do you have any estimate on the cost that that is going to add 

to projects in your county? 

Mr. WILLOX. Senator, I can’t give you specifics on it, because it 

varies so much by which project and what the hoop is you are 

jumping through. But I can give you two paper examples. We are 

improving a road that is in my written testimony, we are putting 

a culvert into this road that has existed since 1892. Our application 

to the Corps of Engineers was 82 pages plus maps to disturb 960 

square feet of dirt. It is a road that has existed long before any of 

us here, long before the regulations were created. But we are jumping through that hoop. 

Another county in Wyoming participates in the High Risk Rural 

Roads project. To just add guardrails or to be put center yellow 

lines striping on the road, they had to submit paperwork. Now, it 

wasn’t huge and burdensome, but if you are going to paint yellow 

stripes on the road, you shouldn’t have to apply to do that. It 

should be instantaneous, it should be quick. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you think maybe this committee and this 

Senate needs to look at how we address the categorical exclusions 

on projects? I think that is what you are talking about on these, 

and the amount of paperwork that goes into them and the back 

and forth with the different agencies and the bureaucracy involved 

in that. I see a lot of nodding on the panel, that many of you think 

so. Do you think so, Chairman? 

Mr. WILLOX. Senator, categorical exclusions is a step in the right 

direction. But it is still a process we have to go through to get to 

categorical exclusions. So it definitely is a movement in the right 

direction and that has been official. But that time, money and effort isn’t concrete, pavement and bridges. That is what I get 

stopped in the grocery store about, make sure Road X is paved, pothole fixed, bridge redone. They don’t say, fill out more paperwork 

so we can get it done. They want action on the ground. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. Thank you. 

Mayor Cornett, in your testimony you talk about encountering 

those Federal stumbling blocks. Can you give me some examples of 

those as well, and the burdens that they place on your project delivery? And what do you think are some of the biggest obstacles 

that you are faced with, the different Federal rules and regulations? 

Mayor CORNETT. Well, one example is that I–235 project, which 

in Oklahoma City is near 10th Street and Harrison. We were trying to address some traffic flow situation for the General Electric 

facility that is getting ready to be built. We assumed that we would 

not need what is called an access justification report. But we were 

informed by the Federal Highway Administration that we would 

need it. 

And we are now 120 days beyond where we think the project 

should be. It is a very, very simple project, and we are just trying 

to enhance the safety and enhance the traffic flow. It just seems 

like there is unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy in between 

it. 
100 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you so much. Director Lewis, with the 

State Department of Transportation in Rhode Island, how would 

you characterize, I don’t mean to put you on the spot but I am 

going to, how would you characterize your department’s relationship with your Federal partners? And are there any areas that you 

can maybe point to for improvement? 

Mr. LEWIS. That is an excellent question. We have a very good 

relationship with our Federal partners in Rhode Island. I think 

many of us have spoken about that, and the real key to success is 

when we are all working together with a common goal. And I think 

the successes you will see across the country are rooted in that. 

The city, the State, the county and the Feds are all working together. When one or more are separate from that group, that is 

when you run into problems. Because if we are all pulling in the 

same direction, we are going to get a successful and a quick turnaround. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you see quick turnarounds, or do you see 

maybe some delays, too, with paperwork, as we have heard? 

Mr. LEWIS. We have our own share of issues that we would like 

to accelerate. I think characterizing it on the whole, we have a very 

good relationship and a very responsive division office for the Federal Highway Administration. We have no question there are 

issues. 

Senator FISCHER. We work so hard for funding for these projects. 

And it is very frustrating to sit back and watch the delays as construction costs increase. And they are increasing by double digits, 

percentage-wise in many, many cases. So thank you for everything 

you have done. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. MINTER. Madam Chair, if I might add, at the same point, we 

learned a lot of lessons during the disaster. And one of them is 

really about everyone working together. I would say that our relationship is very strong. But we are looking at innovations in how 

we permit projects. So I think the sweet spot is not to reduce the 

standards, but to improve the process to get there. It is amazing 

what can happen in a crisis. When we had our regulatory agencies 

with us onsite, we were able to move very expeditiously and meet 

the standards. So I think that might be the goal. 

Senator FISCHER. I think, if I may respond, Madam Chair, I 

think that is a great suggestion. Because when we do see disasters 

happen, this is a time when we come together, when we are able 

to get these projects done. And sometimes the regulations aren’t as 

strict as they are in a normal process. I think we need to look at 

what truly is required during the construction period in order to 

make sure wise decisions are made. But if they can be waived in 

case of an emergency, why can’t they be waived in the normal everyday process of trying to build our infrastructure and create jobs 

in this country? 

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. I would say this, having gone through some of 

these rebuilds after earthquakes and so on, we never waive quality. 

You can’t waive quality. I was thinking, Mr. Willox, when you 

spoke about the yellow lines and talking to my staff, there are categorical exclusions. And Senator Fischer, you and I can work on 

making them work better. 
101 

But sometimes there are certain rules that you want to make 

sure that the paint, for example, is the right quality. You want to 

make sure that the people who work on it are treated fairly. There 

is an argument about this. What I am saying, and I don’t speak 

for everybody, but my view is, has always been, that when we are 

responsible for the money, you have to have some standards. I despise wasted time. Because it absolutely is wasted money. 

In the last MAP–21, we definitely moved forward on speeding 

things up. We actually went to a point where we said that the Federal workers and bureaucracy who were responsible for holding 

things up would really feel a pinch in their budgets. We really did 

a lot. 

But again, it is a question we all have to decide for ourselves. 

I know that if I were saying, move forward, go ahead but don’t 

meet the safety requirements, I would not feel good about it. And 

when we did do what Senator Fischer described, we moved together. I remember. Because Pete Wilson was the Governor at the 

time. And I was in Federal office. We all worked together. She is 

right, we were all together in saying, we have to rebuild. But we 

never, ever said, waive the safety standards, waive the way you 

treat your employees. 

But the fact is, if we can do this in an emergency, she is absolutely right, we should be able to do it every single day. Unless 

there is some unexpected issue. That goes for all of your projects. 

We should be able to get you timely responses and move forward 

with the plans that work. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Once again, Madam Chair, thank you very 

much. I appreciate the exchange you had with Mayor Ballard and 

the kind comments that were expressed. Thank you for that. 

Mayor Ballard, I thought you made a very good point in your testimony about the fact that the interstate program recognized the 

reality that Americans wanted to travel out to suburbia and that 

our transportation infrastructure should accommodate the needs of 

our Nation. Today the reverse is true, as you point out in your testimony. People are coming back into our urban centers. And that 

is wonderful. Smart growth was a major initiative in Maryland 

under Governor Glendening. People recognize that we have to do 

a better job of accommodating what people want today, and that 

is to live in our urban centers. 

Therefore, our transportation programs need to be sensitive to 

that. That is what Senator Cochran and I have tried to do with 

Senator Boxer’s help. We marvel at the way in which you have 

given us concrete examples as to how that has worked in practice. 

We have talked about livable communities but it is also a matter 

of using these funds for safety issues, where you can use these 

funds to deal with realities of a dangerous situation in your community that can help you alleviate that, saving lives and helping 

people. 

So I just really wanted to underscore that point about how we 

need to make sure the highway system, the transportation system, 

surface transportation, accommodates local input. 

I served 20 years in the State legislature. And I know the relationship, in my State, between my State and the counties, and it 
102 

is a good relationship. But at times it is tested when it comes to 

the use of transportation funds, that the main decisionmaker is the 

State. That is how the system is set up. The State has the largest 

single say in how the transportation funds are allocated, including 

the Federal transportation partnerships. 

So I would just like to get views, if you care to share them with 

us, as to how the MAP–21 is working and the relationship that you 

have between the State and the locals and whether the transportation programs need further adjustment or whether you are satisfied by the way in which that partnership, coming from the Federal 

Government, is working between the State and the localities. 

Mayor BALLARD. Senator, thanks for those comments. I am one 

of three mayors on the National Freight Advisory Committee that 

is devising the national freight plan. I am very honored to do that 

for the Secretary of Transportation. But I am also a mayor, and I 

have to advocate for cities, obviously, not only my city but across 

the Nation. 

I do think it is important that as much money—Indiana is a little bit of a different State maybe than most. It is very rural, with 

one large region, about 1.8, 1.9 million, several medium size cities. 

So a lot of money that goes to the State necessarily goes to the 

highways. On a percentage basis, we probably don’t get our fair 

share of the core highway funding that comes in, not even close. 

But would I like to see that adjusted a little bit? I probably 

would, but not to the detriment of the entire State. I do think the 

cities do a good job of investing. And the RebuildIndy fund that we 

put about a half a billion dollars out there, has been instrumental 

in putting people to work. The money that you are talking about, 

transportation alternative money, the Cultural Trail has spurred 

investment that is unbelievable in the city of Indianapolis. Just 

yesterday, Cummins Engines announced that they are moving offices downtown Indianapolis to be next to the Cultural Trail, 400 

jobs, a Fortune 500 company. We are building all around this trail 

and other trails because of this money that has come to us directly, 

either to the MPO or to the cities. 

Senator CARDIN. It is interesting, the Transportation Alternative 

Program, there are those who say you don’t need it because the 

States could do this anyway, they could allocate the funds. We 

don’t find happens. It is such a challenge to be able to fund all the 

priorities they have at the State level that there is really virtually 

nothing left over for these types of projects, if we didn’t have this 

specific program. 

Mayor BALLARD. We take pride in being the capital city and 

throwing off money to the rest of the State. To be frank, we don’t 

get everything back from the State tax revenue that we contribute 

to. We have to donate some of that to the rest of the State. We are 

proud to do that, that is fine. 

But if you don’t invest in the city directly and have money directly coming into the city, then we cannot continue that growth 

in our tax base. That is really what we are worried about. We are 

always worried about increasing the property tax base and the income tax base in the city so that we can be that vibrant capital city 

for the entire State. So the money that you are talking about, Senator, and that you have been so helpful on, has been absolutely 
103 

critical to the growth of our city and as a consequence, to the 

growth of our State. 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, let me must make one other note 

about Mayor Cornett. I know he gave a TED talk, how an obese 

town lost a million pounds. So perhaps our transportation program 

can help our health care costs in this country also, as another additional benefit of some of these local initiatives. 

Mayor CORNETT. We always want people to be more pedestrian 

friendly and more health conscious, that is right, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is very good, because we always have 

a battle with that alternative transportation section. I am going to 

quote both of you Republican mayors who were so eloquent on the 

point. It means a lot to us, really, because we do want to have a 

good bill that answers everybody’s needs. Not everybody feels the 

same way, so we just need to make sure it is a fair bill. 

Senator Barrasso, we are very happy you came back. The floor 

is yours. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Willox, I was just going over your testimony again. I heard 

you, as you said about pulling out the specific line beyond the critical need for Federal financial resources, the success or failure of 

Federal highway programs in Wyoming can be reasonably predicted based on one question: does the program provide enough 

flexibility. You highlighted the word flexibility at the local level, to 

meet the unique needs of Wyoming’s climate, terrain and rural nature. I think you heard the same thing from Senator Fischer from 

Nebraska, very similar concerns. 

Just like any Federal Government program, there are always 

strings attached in terms of Federal money when the State and 

local governments decide to accept that Federal funding. More 

often than not, the Federal programs offer a one size fits all approach of how the money is going to be spent. You gave an example 

of a bridge, I think it was in Platt County, that needs repair, and 

it would cost about $130,000, but it will end up costing a million 

because the county has to accept the level of engineering, bidding, 

environmental and construction requirements, as you said, that 

pushes the price tag 10 times higher. 

From your experience, can you share with the committee some 

other examples, perhaps, of local projects, where local and State 

flexibility outweighed the benefits of the Federal funding? Are 

there others? 

Mr. WILLOX. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. The challenge always 

is just what hoops do you have to jump through and do you have 

the time, money, and what is the end result. As a steward of taxpayer money at the local level, we want to spend those dollars 

wisely. That was Platt County’s point. We can participate in the 

program and build the bridge, but why waste hundreds of thousands of dollars for a bridge that isn’t necessary? We had one recently where we had to replace a river bridge, a major bridge in 

our area. We were going to participate in the BROS program, the 

Bridge Replacement Off-System. But because of the standards that 

were required, we may have had to look at a two-lane bridge for 

a location that had average daily traffic of under 25. We didn’t 
104 

need a two-lane bridge. But the BROS standards and some of those 

things would have required a much more robust bridge than is necessary. 

There has been a little bit more flexibility created, and we are 

going in the right direction. But we decided to fund entirely with 

local funds this bridge for $1.2 million that probably would have 

been a $2 million bridge if we had participated in the program. 

Now, the county would have spent less money because the BROS 

program is a 90–10 program, and we would have spent less. But 

it wasn’t a wise investment of tax dollars. 

Senator BARRASSO. And you take a look at Converse County and 

the increased energy production that is going on, Converse County 

essentially is experiencing a boom in terms of oil and gas, uranium 

production as well. The increase in manpower and equipment is 

putting a stress on the highway system, especially at the local 

level, the county level. From the local perspective, I would like you 

to share with the committee how Converse County is dealing with 

the increased energy production on the roads and bridges. 

Mr. WILLOX. That is significant, Senator. These are heavy vehicles. We have traditionally rural roads that are now having energy 

production on them. So we are getting heavy vehicles out there. 

We have done several public-private partnerships that we have 

worked with the energy companies and others. Not the traditional 

ones you guys think of here, but we will let you work on our road, 

go ahead, and they have done that. We have also had to deal with 

planning because revenues always trail the impact. The same thing 

with the Federal Government, without a long-term plan we can’t 

get ahead of the curve. So we have worked hard to win partnership, we have tried to do patching where necessary and then have 

a long-term plan behind that. But sometimes you are spending double dollars. 

But what we have really tried to do is look as far forward as we 

can but without the assurance of the long-term Federal bill, we 

don’t know how we fit in that picture. 

Senator BARRASSO. And we do have a short construction season 

in Wyoming. It generally starts in May, ends in October, if the 

weather cooperates. Unlike many warm construction season States, 

we don’t have the opportunity for year-round construction. Due to 

cold weather climate, what can this committee do to improve the 

highway bill to reflected short construction seasons and then optimize Federal highway spending? 

Mr. WILLOX. And it goes back to my original statement about 

flexibility, and let the government at the lowest level make those 

decisions. If you can’t get to this place until April 1st to do your 

engineering study, and you have 6 weeks of review through any 

part of the environmental process, by the time you have gone to 

bid, awarded the bid and started construction, you could be at September 1st because you couldn’t start the process. 

I think it is also key to note, Senator, that all of these Federal 

programs, we have skin in the game. They are generally match 

programs. So when we talk about stewardship of the dollars that 

Senator Boxer referred to, I think it is important that we have skin 

in the game and we want accountability and we are held accountable at that level just as you are at this level. So I want to make 
105 

sure that all tax dollars are spent wisely whether they are locally 

generated or funneled through the Federal and State system. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. I really am fascinated with the one-lane bridge. 

Seriously. Because I guess I don’t think I have been on a one-lane 

bridge. We have a lot of rural areas. So I guess I just need to ask 

you a question. What if more population comes to that area? Don’t 

you think it would make some sense to build a two-lane bridge, and 

maybe the Federal Government feels that way before they invest 

money in it? Because it could be obsolete. It is such a gorgeous 

State, you never know, in 10, 20, 30, 40 years, and these bridges 

last forever. So do you think it is that unreasonable? Talk to me. 

Tell me the truth. 

Mr. WILLOX. And let me extend an invitation to come and visit 

these wonderful one-lane bridges. It would be an experience. 

Senator BOXER. If I came over with you, I could hurt you politically. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. And Lord knows what it would do to me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. But I will consider it, notwithstanding. 

Mr. WILLOX. We could do a low-key tour, if you would like, under 

the radar, if you would prefer. Tour some coal mines, it would be 

terrific. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WILLOX. It is a good question. 

Senator BOXER. It would kick up my asthma. 

Mr. WILLOX. Absolutely, it would not. 

Senator BOXER. I am teasing. I don’t have asthma. 

Mr. WILLOX. We asked that same question, because it is a legitimate question, what is the potential for this area. We know locally 

what that potential is. There are 25 vehicles a day, that was the 

highest traffic this bridge has ever seen, and it is local traffic. 

Senator BOXER. They all go in one direction at the same time? 

Mr. WILLOX. In rural Wyoming, you stop and pull over to the 

side of the road all the time for vehicles coming toward you. That 

is a way of life, it is a culture. So to spend the kind of money for 

a two-lane bridge would have been viewed, at our level, as a waste 

of money. It was a one-land bridge that burned down, it was actually an old wooden bridge. It burned down, we replaced it with a 

steel one that has the weight capacity for emergency vehicles, a 

fully loaded fire truck can cross that bridge and provide emergency 

services. 

But it is 300 feet. I can tell if there is a truck on the other side. 

So I would say in this case, we knew best that there was no—in 

the next 20 to 30 years, with the alternate routes and this bridge, 

there was no need to spend the extra dollars. 

Senator BOXER. Good point. Well taken. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Again, my thanks. This is a fascinating hearing, 

wonderful witnesses. We thank you all for the perspectives that 

you are bringing to us from places large and small. 
106 

I want to ask a question or two of Dave Gula. Dave, thanks so 

much for the work you do and for joining us today. When we 

passed MAP–21, we included in it a number of reforms to transportation programs to focus on things like safety, like congestion mitigation, like state of good repair, air quality. Unfortunately, we 

didn’t make much progress on the issue of freight and goods movements. As you know, we have a lot of freight that moves in and 

out of the northeast corridor, a bit of that moves through our State 

on rail and even by ship. 

If we were to take another look at the Federal freight policy, 

what advice would you give us for how to plan our investments and 

develop projects? 

Mr. GULA. Since we approach planning from a regional perspective, in our area we have to, we look at rail, we have the northeast 

corridor passing through our region. But we have a number of spur 

lines, and most of them come from one location. So we have freight 

coming in primarily from Cecil County, Maryland, to the northeast 

corridor, passing through Maryland, coming down into Delaware, 

hitting the whole DelMarVa peninsula, where it spreads back and 

forth through States. So our rail networks are intertwined with our 

sister States. 

I think a regional approach is one way to look at this. Again, 

when we talk about the northeast corridor, the flexibility of funding 

that is not tied to State lines is going to be important. Because 

there are projects that are good for a number of States that it is 

hard for everyone to contribute to if it is in one State. One of the 

things we have seen is, if we could potentially spread the local 

funding, the STP funds around, some of the projects that are waiting on funding along the northeast corridor that technically are 

Amtrak projects, but the local States could then contribute a little 

bit more and get those projects moving and they wouldn’t sit waiting for a large Federal grant that may never come. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I would just say, Madam Chair, to our 

witnesses, if you took a compass, and you put the point of it the 

Wilmington Train Station, on my office in Wilmington, our Congressman’s office, he is right there at the point, we are a 50-mile 

circle around that point. And you cover parts of Maryland, parts of 

Pennsylvania, parts of New Jersey. And you have a hugely busy 

northeast corridor by the I–95. Passenger rail, freight rail, with 

Norfolk Southern, CSX. There is a lot going on for a little State. 

I was pleased to hear what you said about providing some flexibility through the Surface Transportation Program not to require 

that State and local governments use moneys in that program for 

interstate passenger rail but to give them the flexibility if they 

chose to do that. 

Question if I could for Mayor Ballard. We used to have a great 

former mayor of Indianapolis, as you know, who served here in the 

U.S. Senate with great distinction for a number of years. And I 

think we had another mayor there who has gone on to become your 

Governor. Was Mitch ever your mayor? 

Mayor BALLARD. Senator, no, he was not. 

Senator CARPER. I think he wanted to be. 

[Laughter.] 

Mayor BALLARD. He did well as Governor. 
107 

Senator CARPER. I think mayor is a great job. Especially when 

the economy is getting better, as it is. But you have done some 

really good things, and frankly, both you and our friend from Oklahoma, we welcome you especially. You have done a lot of work to 

turn Indianapolis into a truly multi-modal city with good roads, 

good mass transit, bike paths, sidewalks and good passenger rail. 

I have always thought of a regional transportation network that offered people lots of different travel options, some of which involve 

physical activity and the chance to get out and walk or run or ride 

a bike. 

Can you tell us a little bit today why you supported such a range 

of transportation options? You mentioned this already but I wanted 

you to come back and do it again, and how the Federal program 

that we are talking about here could better support those efforts? 

Mayor BALLARD. Thank you, Senator, I would be glad to answer 

that. I appreciate the kudos to Senator Lugar, whom I respect 

quite a bit obviously. We are trying to create the kind of city that 

people want to live in. The young people, young professionals, the 

young families are looking for a certain type of city. The multimodal, the multi-transportation options are so critical. When I became the mayor of Indianapolis—— 

Senator CARPER. How long have you been there? 

Mayor BALLARD. I am in my seventh year. We had one mile of 

bike lanes and one of my running jokes was, what does one mile 

of bike lanes connect to? I have no idea. But now we have 82 miles 

of bike lanes and we have additional trails because of transportation alternative money, which really helped on the Pennsy Trail, 

which now connects to the Cultural Trail. That was the latest example. Now people can start riding and walking around the city in 

the way that they want to. They want to go outside their door, and 

as I say, they want to live local, shop local, eat local and do things 

around them. The sports facilities, the entertainment options, they 

want them close by and they want to be able to get to them in multiple ways. 

We believe that attracts talent to the city. We believe that attracts the kind of people, and the kind of attention that we are 

starting to get nationally and internationally, I think that is pretty 

obvious. Just yesterday, Cummins, every multi-national company is 

in the search for talent, and they want to be in a city that can do 

that internationally. The Cultural Trail has gotten a lot of attention. They are putting their new office space right on it. We just 

got a 28-story multi-use building, primarily residential, but it is 

going to be multi-use, right on it. 

That is very important to us, because the transportation alternative money gives us the opportunity to go multi-modal, give 

these young people options on ways to move. And frankly, the senior citizens use them quite a bit also. We have a lot more bicycles 

in the city now, we have a lot more people walking on the trails, 

we have a lot healthier climate now. It is not where we all want 

it to be but it is a lot healthier than it used to be. 

So it has been very important to us to have the money flow down 

in a particular way to us, so we can build the kind of city that attracts that sort of talent. That is why we are doing that. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Minter. 
108 

Ms. MINTER. Just to add, I wanted to build on the urban situation. 

Senator CARPER. You are from a big State, Vermont, right? 

Ms. MINTER. Yes, big State, big rural State. But these programs 

are essential for our communities as well. We have a real focus on 

vital communities. Without the transportation alternative programs, small communities of a thousand or less seriously cannot afford this. So we have a very competitive program. We have a statewide policy of focusing on developing of our small villages and 

downtowns, and people are clamoring for bike paths, for more sidewalks. All of the economic benefit that comes from when you have 

a vital community, it is not just our large urban centers, it is our 

rural States as well, that are dependent on these important funds. 

So thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chairman, I would just add that we are 

in a country where over half of the people in our country now are 

obese or on their way to being obese, the idea of having these different options, there is another benefit as well. We can think about 

how much more we spend for health care costs than other countries. Obesity is a big driver in that, diabetes is a big driver in 

that. There are a lot of benefits that inure from these initiatives. 

I commend you all, thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Let me just say this. 

Mr. FONTENOT. May I add to that? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, please. 

Mr. FONTENOT. Besides the obesity, with those projects, and if we 

set those thresholds to allow for quicker project delivery, it builds 

credibility in the government process. It also brings to us voters 

who will vote to help us raise revenues. Those people, as you can 

see, the cities are filled with those people who like cycling and sidewalks. They are soft projects, so let’s bring them quickly so that we 

can bring that confidence and vote on our behalf for the bigger 

scene. 

Senator BOXER. I hear you. One of the reasons that I think 

Mayor Ballard cited the Cardin-Cochran language is because 

money goes directly to where you want to get it. That is one way. 

The other way is to use your idea of saying, if it is not a huge, significant project, give more flexibility, which we will look at. 

I want to ask, I know it is delicate to ask this question, I want 

you to know that this Transportation Alternative Program was one 

of the hardest things I have ever done in my life, to get it, to keep 

it. There was a huge problem here in getting it done. I am wondering, because we have made these reforms, because we now deliver the money where it should go, is there anyone on this panel 

that feels strongly that we should get rid of that program? Is there 

anyone on the panel? That is important for me to know. 

I want to say that, Mayor Ballard, if it is possible, because you 

are such an eloquent voice for this Alternative Transportation Program, if there is a way for you to get a few mayors on a letter, as 

many as possible, to me and to Senator Vitter, and I know you 

have just a few here who I think would sign it, it would mean a 

lot. Frankly, I don’t want to see this thing go into another meltdown, is this going to ruin the whole bill and the rest of it. So if 

you could help us with that, it would be hugely important. 
109 

I will tell you this, and I know there are some people in the audience who are going to be advising, AASHTO, and others, on it. Just 

know, this is a must-have for a lot of us here. We want to make 

sure it happens. 

I also wanted to make sure, Mr. Willox, that you know, I think 

you do, that we did take many steps to streamline MAP–21 in the 

last bill. I have them all listed, I won’t go into all of them. But one 

of them is sort of interesting. We expanded to all States the previously enacted pilot program allowing States to assume the responsibilities of the Secretary of Transportation under the environmental review process. So in my State, there is no Federal environmental review process, it is done by our State. Our State does it 

and then shows it to the Feds. It is an equivalent process. 

I just think it is something you might want to look at. Because 

you could do it and as long as it is done well, it should be OK. 

So let me say to all of you, this has been so important. We have 

already heard from the very large States. One more thing I wanted 

to say, the large States are very happy with the TIFIA program. 

You didn’t talk about the TIFIA program I assume because it is 

more important to the larger cities and the larger States. 

But would you be supportive if we looked at a TIFIA program 

that was expanded to make it easier for rural and small communities to get the grants for TIFIA? If you don’t know what TIFIA 

is, it is the Transportation Infrastructure Finance program, that if 

you, for example, Mr. Fontenot, if you pass a local measure, and 

it is money that is coming in over 20 years, we can come up front, 

give you that check right now and then you just pay us back over 

that 20 years. 

So let me just say this, is there interest? Raise your hand if you 

would be interested in working with us toward making that program, adding a component to that program that helps the smaller 

cities and towns? I see everybody said yes. So we will work with 

you on that. 

But I also wanted to say, Mr. Gula was the one who pointed out 

in his original testimony how important exactly what you said, that 

people want to be able to walk, they want to be able to ride, they 

want to be able to keep these cities, they want to keep the young 

families, because that is what they are looking for. In the old, old 

days in California, people said, I want to go live on a mountaintop 

and seriously, and raise my kids up there in the hills. And we have 

beautiful areas. The trouble with that, they found out years later, 

is the kids really wanted to be a little lower down so they could 

walk to the store and walk to school, didn’t have to count on Mom 

and Dad for everything. 

So I think Mr. Gula and both of our mayors have made the point, 

and our Louisiana and Vermont people, everybody made the point, 

that this is a lifestyle that is now developing out into the future, 

where we need to bring all this together. I just want to say how 

thrilled I am with this panel. I don’t have a Californian on here, 

but I got to tell you, you spoke for a lot of my smaller cities and 

towns. 

Did you want to add something before we dismiss? 

Senator CARPER. I am Tom Carper, and I approve this message. 

[Laughter.] 
110 

Senator BOXER. Very cute. It is good to have a wingman that 

trusts you so much. 

Well, this has been terrific. We stand adjourned. In April, we are 

marking up the bill and I hope you will be happy with it. Thank 

you. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
111 
112 
113 
114 

Æ