U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

86–846 PDF 2014

IMPROVING THE NATION’S HIGHWAY FREIGHT 

NETWORK 

(113–55) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Mark Gottlieb, P.E., secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 

on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials ................................................................................................................. 5 

Hon. Gerald R. Bennett, mayor, Palos Hills, Illinois, on behalf of the Chicago 

Metropolitan Agency for Planning ...................................................................... 5 

Henry J. Maier, president and chief executive officer, FedEx Ground Package 

System, Inc. .......................................................................................................... 5 

Susan Alt, senior vice president for public affairs, Volvo Group North America .......................................................................................................................... 5

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Mark Gottlieb, P.E. ........................................................................................ 48 

Hon. Gerald R. Bennett ........................................................................................... 63 

Henry J. Maier ......................................................................................................... 66 

Susan Alt .................................................................................................................. 72 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, request to submit written testimony from the Coalition for America’s 

Gateways and Trade Corridors ........................................................................... 26 

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

California, request to submit written testimony of Mark Christoffels, chief 

executive officer, Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority .................. 33 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Truck Safety Coalition, and Parents Against Tired Truckers, response 

to assertions in the written testimony of Henry J. Maier, president and 

chief executive officer, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ........................... 79 

Allen Schaeffer, executive director, Diesel Technology Forum, letter to Hon. 

Thomas E. Petri, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, 

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

of Columbia, February 27, 2014 .......................................................................... 83 

Jacqueline Gillan, president, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; Joan 

Claybrook, chair, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways; John Lannen, 

executive director, Truck Safety Coalition; and Andrew McGuire, executive 

director, Trauma Foundation; letter to Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, and Hon. Nick J. Rahall, 

II, a Representative in Congress from the State of West Virginia, February 

26, 2014 ................................................................................................................. 86 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 86846.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 86846.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 86846.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 86846.004
(1) 

IMPROVING THE NATION’S HIGHWAY 

FREIGHT NETWORK 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Before we begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that 

Representative Dan Lipinski be permitted to join the subcommittee 

for today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Today’s hearing will focus on how we can improve the Nation’s 

highway freight network. Current Federal surface transportation 

authorization MAP–21 expires September 30th of this year. As the 

subcommittee begins its work on drafting the successor to MAP– 

21, we must understand how we can improve the safety, efficiency 

and reliability of the Nation’s highway freight network. 

Safe and efficient movement of freight throughout the United 

States directly impacts the day-to-day lives of every one of our Nation’s citizens. Basic necessities, such as food and clothing, rely on 

many modes of the freight transportation system to reach consumers. American businesses rely on an efficient, safe, reliable 

freight system to move their goods to domestic and to international 

markets. 

The Nation’s highway system is an essential part of the broader 

freight transportation system. Not every community is located adjacent to a railroad, airport, waterway or port, but consumer goods 

are almost invariably transported along the Nation’s 4 million 

miles of highways and roads for at least part of the journey. 

Furthermore, first and last mile connections to other modes of 

transportation are almost always made on the highway system. In 

2011, the U.S. transportation system moved nearly 18 billion tons 

of goods valued at almost $17 trillion. However, each day traffic on 

approximately 12,000 miles of the highway system is slowed below 

posted speed limits, and an additional 7,000 miles experience stopand-go conditions. 

In addition, America’s reliance on the highway system is growing 

faster than the system is itself. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in the next 30 years there will be 60 percent 

more freight that must be moved across the United States. 

2 

MAP–21 laid the foundation for a significant Federal focus on 

Federal mobility. Specifically MAP–21 set national freight policy by 

delineating specific goals related to freight mobility. MAP–21 also 

required the Secretary of Transportation to designate a national 

freight network and establish a strategic plan to meet the goals 

stipulated in the national freight policy. 

Finally, MAP–21 encouraged the creation of State Freight Advisory Committees and the development of State freight plans. MAP– 

21 is set to expire on September 30th. Ensuring the safe, efficient 

and reliable movement of goods is a priority for this subcommittee 

in the reauthorization bill. 

We have an impressive group of witnesses before us today, and 

I trust their testimony and experience will provide valuable insight 

into this important issue, and I thank each one of you for joining 

us and for the effort that you and your staff put into your prepared 

statement, the entirety of which will be made a part of the record. 

The panel consists of the Honorable Mark Gottlieb, secretary of 

the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and even more importantly, former mayor of Port Washington, the beautiful city, the 

Port of Ozaukee County, north of Milwaukee, who is testifying on 

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

The Honorable Gerald Bennett, mayor of Palos Hills, Illinois, testifying on behalf of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. 

Henry Maier, president and chief executive officer of FedEx 

Ground. 

And Susan Alt, senior vice president, public affairs for Volvo 

Group North America. 

And before calling on the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

Ms. Norton, to make any remarks, I will be turning to Mr. Lipinski 

to introduce one of the witnesses. But, Ms. Norton, would you like 

to proceed first? 

Ms. NORTON. If he is going to introduce one of the witnesses, 

maybe I should. 

Mr. PETRI. You should go ahead, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Yesterday we had a stimulating and informative roundtable with 

a number of the key stakeholders as we prepare for the reauthorization. Today I think you have followed that roundtable with just 

the right hearing to focus on how we are going to facilitate what 

we, I suppose, euphemistically or perhaps correctly call ‘‘commerce.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, the American people understand all too well what 

we mean when we say we have got to transport people. They think 

about the roads and the highways. They think about their transit. 

They think about their cars, but I am not sure that they understand what makes this country great, and it is the transportation 

of goods so that those people can use the goods. 

Our competitors certainly understand—not only our Western 

competitors, but particularly in the developing countries, that 

transportation networks are a focus for the new 21st-century global 

economy. 

In this very area, Mr. Chairman, we see private industry investing in their own infrastructure. I have come to you about some conVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:15 Aug 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2-27-1~1\86846.TXT JEAN
3 

cerns my constituents have about the CSX Railroad Virginia Avenue tunnel expansion project. During my conversation with my 

constituents, I have tried to focus them on their particular neighborhood concerns while making them understand that CSX is engaged in a national transportation matter. So I have tried to focus 

them on what we can do to make sure this railroad, which is going 

to be right in their backyard as it is expanding, does not interfere 

with them. 

What we have occurring in the State of Virginia as a result of 

the Panama Canal widening is quite extraordinary. The State of 

Virginia and private industry are putting gazillions of dollars into 

deepening the port and building infrastructure so that it connects 

to trucks and to the railroad. They know what they are doing. 

The question is: What are we going to do? Because there are 

some things that only the Federal Government can do, and that is 

what has made this Nation great. Abraham Lincoln understood in 

the middle of the Civil War that he, nevertheless, had to connect 

the country and its goods and services, and so railroads were built 

right in the middle of the Civil War. 

The President, I want to note, Mr. Chairman, in his transportation remarks yesterday and apparently in his budget is calling 

for something that puts us, I think, all on the same page. The only 

real program we have that is truly intermodal are, of course, the 

TIGER grants, and he is calling for increasing the funding available for TIGER grants to $1.25 billion annually as part of the administration’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal. 

MAP–21 did include, frankly, justifiably included, a number of 

provisions that took account of the important Federal role in connecting parts of the country for freight and in understanding that 

we need a vision. I suppose that is where we should be going on, 

a true vision for freight transportation and making the resources 

available. 

I take note, Mr. Chairman, also I was not on the Panel on 21stCentury Freight Transportation, but I am very impressed with the 

recommendations of the bipartisan freight panel and believe that 

they provide a vision. 

It seems pretty clear that we have got to have dedicated investments for large multimodal freight projects. I remember yesterday 

a Member raised the notion that some members of the public, when 

they have to pay the user tax, either local or Federal, do not understand where all the money went, and I piped up then 94 percent 

of it goes right back to the States via formula, and we essentially 

are passthroughs, collection agents for the States. 

But that money goes for individual State projects and has nothing to do with connecting or does not necessarily have to do with 

connecting the United States to one another when it comes to 

freight and goods. You cannot expect the local jurisdiction to accept 

the costs of doing that if the goods are merely going through its 

States. 

These are broadly based freight projects which provide broadly 

based benefits, which impose substantial local costs if the local jurisdiction alone is left to pick them up, and what it means is it just 

will not get picked up. 

4 

Addressing the needs to invest in these Projects of National and 

Regional Significance, I believe, should be a priority in the reauthorization of MAP–21. We need first the vision. Then we need the 

plan, and then, of course, we cannot avoid our obligation to provide 

the means, which is to say the resources to build the infrastructure 

necessary for the movement of goods. 

I thank the Panel on 21st-Century Freight Transportation for 

laying the groundwork for us to develop the policies and to make 

sure that we use this MAP–21 reauthorization to provide freight 

intermodal transportation systems appropriate for the 21st century. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

And I would now like to call on Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am here to introduce one of our witnesses, Gerry Bennett, and 

serving as mayor of the city of Palos Hills for over three decades, 

Gerry has been an outspoken advocate for uniting cities and villages. 

He found and continues to serve as president of the Southwest 

Conference of Mayors and served as past chair of the Metropolitan 

Mayors Caucus and is currently a member of the Mayors Caucus 

Executive Committee. 

He is also a past president of the Illinois Municipal League, and 

as representative from southwest Cook County, Gerry Bennett 

holds the position of chair of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for 

Planning and its Executive Committee. And it is his experience at 

CMAP that makes him an expert on transportation, especially the 

topic of freight movement in the Nation’s freight hub. 

So I am very happy today to have with us Gerry Bennett to talk 

to us about freight movement, especially about the CREATE Program, a public-private partnership that has been very successful 

and is moving along well in the Chicago area. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

And I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full 

statements be included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

And we now look forward to your summarizing those statements 

in approximately 5 minutes and then subjecting yourself to questioning from the panel, beginning with the Honorable Mark Gottlieb, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, on 

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

A warm welcome, Mark. 

5 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARK GOTTLIEB, P.E., SECRETARY, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF 

OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; HON. GERALD R. BENNETT, 

MAYOR, PALOS HILLS, ILLINOIS, ON BEHALF OF THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING; HENRY J. 

MAIER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FEDEX 

GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.; AND SUSAN ALT, SENIOR 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, VOLVO GROUP 

NORTH AMERICA 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Norton, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

I am Mark Gottlieb, the secretary of the Wisconsin Department 

of Transportation, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on behalf of AASHTO and the State DOTs on the importance of efficient and safe freight movement to our State’s economies and to provide input on our freight transportation challenges 

and recommendations for the reauthorization of MAP–21. 

Two issues I would like to address. First, because the economies 

of most of our States are tied to freight intensive industries, the 

States are investing their core formula Federal aid highway and 

bridge funds, along with State funds, to eliminate freight bottlenecks and improve capacity and reliability. 

Second, the State DOTs support and want to collaborate with 

U.S. DOT on establishing a national multimodal freight policy, but 

the freight networks should be identified through a State-driven 

process. The States will continue to engage in performance based 

planning at all levels, local, State and regional, to drive investments that address freight needs. 

The freight intensive sectors of our State economies, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, energy and merchandising, for example, account for about one-third of the U.S. economy. Competitiveness in these sectors is directly related to our ability to improve 

the safety and efficiency of our freight transportation system. 

Freight moved in the United States is forecast to double between 

2005 and 2035, from 16 billion to 31.4 billion tons, and 80 percent 

of that freight by tonnage and 94 percent by value is projected to 

move by truck, on the interstate, the NHS, and the feeder routes 

serving the first and last miles of the movement. 

We recommend that Congress allow time for the program consolidation and performance reforms in MAP–21 to be put into practice, 

which we believe will lead to greater priority being given to freight 

projects. We urge you not to establish a new separate freight program with funding coming at the expense of the existing core highway programs which are already being invested in projects that 

benefit freight. 

We support the establishment of an overall national freight 

transportation policy. However, we believe that designation of highway and freight networks cannot be accomplished through a topdown Federal process. A one-size-fits-all set of designation criteria 

fails to address unique, State-specific freight considerations. 

The methodology used to designate the 27,000-mile national 

highway freight network resulted in critical gaps and omissions 

6 

and does not reflect many significant freight corridors operating 

within, between and among the States. 

In Wisconsin, we have designated a multimodal freight network 

with significant stakeholder involvement, and we are engaged in 

various regional efforts to support multistate freight planning and 

operations, including the 10-State Mid-America Freight Coalition 

collaborating on a research planning operations and investment 

priorities for freight movement, and the Great Lakes Regional 

Transportation Operations Coalition, which includes 10 States, 

provinces and toll authorities. All of us are working together to improve operations to give our Great Lakes region a competitive edge. 

We believe it is appropriate for the States to continue to be the 

focal point for addressing freight needs. We recommend that Congress replace the MAP–21 mileage caps for a primary highway 

freight network with a designation process undertaken by the State 

DOTs in consultation with MPOs, local governments, stakeholders, 

and U.S. DOT, giving the U.S. DOT the authority to add routes 

and/or corridors to ensure connectivity. 

Moreover, we recommend that you give States additional flexibility to support multimodal freight planning efforts with expanded 

funding eligibility. 

I would like to conclude with a comment on the status of the 

Highway Trust Fund. U.S. DOT estimates that the Trust Fund 

may run out of money as early as this summer. If this happens, 

FHWA will delay payments to States for projects already completed. We rely on prompt payments to pay our contractors and any 

delay will have serious economic consequences. 

Moreover, unless Congress acts to either increase Trust Fund 

revenues or provide additional general fund support, the States will 

be unable to obligate any new Federal funds starting in fiscal year 

2015. In both cases there will be immediate and direct impacts to 

our States’ economies. A significant number of needed highway 

projects, including freight projects that underpin economic development and improved quality of life, will be delayed or canceled. 

We look forward to working with you to address our Nation’s 

freight challenges and to offer our suggestions and views as you 

tackle reauthorization of the Federal Aid Highway Program. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mayor Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, 

the committee, and Congressman Lipinski for this opportunity to 

testify. 

Mr. PETRI. Would you put your microphone on? Yes, is the mic 

on? 

Mr. BENNETT. How is that? 

Mr. PETRI. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Chairman—do I get those seconds 

back, I guess?—for this opportunity to testify. I would like to thank 

you, the committee members, Congressman Lipinski for your efforts in support of transportation and freight, in particular. 

My agency, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 

CMAP, elevated freight as a high priority within our region’s 

7 

award winning Go to 2040 comprehensive plan. Our region is an 

unparalleled hub not only of domestic but also international 

freight. Over a billion tons of freight worth more than $3 trillion move 

through the Chicago region each year. A quarter of all U.S. freight 

and nearly all U.S. intermodal freight originates, terminates or 

passes through Metropolitan Chicago. Nearly half of the freight in 

the region is through traffic, an indication of our central role in the 

national freight system. 

To address freight congestion, the Chicago Region Environmental 

and Transportation Efficiency Program, called CREATE, the first 

in this Nation, was established in 2003. This is a public-private 

partnership of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Illinois 

Department of Transportation, and the Chicago Department of 

Transportation, AMTRAK, the region’s Metra Transit System, and 

private railroads. 

CREATE is dedicated to implementing specific rail improvements 

in and around the Chicago area. Its 70 projects include new flyovers, grade separations, improved signaling, equipment modernization, and as of November 2013, 20 projects have been completed and 9 more are under construction. 

Most of the completed projects are rail improvements, many of 

which are on the belt corridor that circles Chicago to the west and 

south, with connections to multiple railroads. Eight of the eleven 

belt corridor projects have been completed and another is under 

construction. 

In contrast, relatively few projects move forward to mitigate 

freight’s negative impacts on local communities. Only 3 of CREATE’s 25 highway rail grade separation projects have been completed and only 3 are under construction. In fact, due to the lack 

of funding, 13 grade separations have not started at all and not one 

of the program’s 7 passenger corridor projects was completed in the 

past 10 years. 

This is also highly problematic because in a truly intermodal 

economy, grade separations facilitate the movement of truck traffic 

through the region. We need more Federal investments to help 

complete these projects. 

CREATE affects the global economic competitiveness not just of 

our State but the U.S. as a whole. The entire project is estimated 

to cost $3.8 billion, but there is a $2.5 billion funding gap. Through 

the efforts of Congressman Lipinski, CREATE received initial Federal funding of $100 million through the SAFETEA–LU Projects of 

National and Regional Significance—PNRS Program. 

About one-third of CREATE funding to date has come from Federal sources, including PNRS, TIGER, and the ARRA High-Speed 

Rail Program. These Federal investments have also been leveraged 

by more than $400 million through the State of Illinois capital programs, but without a dedicated source such as PNRS, CREATE 

and other vitally important freight partnerships cannot make adequate progress. 

Due to freight’s national importance, continued Federal assistance is critical. In some respects, the 2-year MAP–21 reauthorization does more to recognize the vital role of freight in the U.S. 

economy. However, CMAP’s position is that MAP–21 missed an opVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:15 Aug 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2-27-1~1\86846.TXT JEAN
8 

portunity to address freight needs comprehensively with adequate 

funding that treats all modes strategically. 

Furthermore, MAP–21 should have formalized the role of metropolitan regions in the development of recommended State freight 

plans. 

CMAP is not alone in this position. With some of the largest metropolitan regions in the country, we have developed three principles for freight in the next transportation reauthorization bill: 

one, integrate metropolitan regions into the freight investment decisionmaking process; two, dedicate a range of funding sources and 

authorize a minimum of $2 billion funding per year for freight investment, consistent with proposals from the national freight advocacy organizations; and three, redefine the national freight network 

to comprise a multimodal transportation system. 

Redefine the national freight network to comprise a multimodal 

transportation system. We support a robust Federal freight policy. 

It is time for the Federal Government to provide the leadership 

and resources to support a resilient national freight network. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Maier. 

Mr. MAIER. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Norton, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving 

FedEx the opportunity to testify today. We commend this subcommittee for recognizing the critical importance of our Nation’s 

transportation infrastructure. 

This is a topic of utmost importance to millions of FedEx customers and stakeholders and one that absolutely positively affects 

our country’s ability to compete in the global marketplace. 

I am president and CEO of FedEx Ground, one of the four primary operating companies, along with FedEx Express, FedEx 

Freight, and FedEx Services. Together our companies provide a 

broad portfolio of transportation, e-commerce, and business services 

that generate revenues of $45 billion a year. 

In so doing, we deploy 300,000 team members, 643 aircraft, and 

100,000 surface vehicles to deliver more than 10 million shipments 

a day. 

FedEx is part of a global multimodal transportation and logistics 

industry that provides millions of jobs to Americans, enriches consumer choice, and creates new markets for U.S. businesses. 

We also understand highways are the bedrock of this system as 

the vast majority of freight is and will continue to be transported 

by trucks. If you’ve had the opportunity to review our written testimony submitted prior to today’s meeting, you will note our three 

key recommendations for improving the Nation’s highway freight 

network. 

First, we need a sound highway bill with adequate sources of 

funding and one that provides opportunities for innovative ways to 

enhance productivity, including the use of 33-foot trailers. 

Secondly, we need a Congress that is willing to support the adoption of new technologies that will make our highway freight network safer, more efficient and more sustainable. 

And lastly, we need to redefine the infrastructure debate in the 

U.S. so that everybody understands what’s at stake. It’s not simply 

about longer passenger commutes and inconvenient traffic jams, 

9 

but protecting the economy, enhancing competitiveness to create 

jobs in supporting a high quality of life for all Americans today and 

tomorrow. 

Two issues in particular threaten the safe, reliable and efficient 

movement of freight on our Nation’s highways: traffic congestion 

and infrastructure deterioration. Research indicates that traffic 

congestion in 498 U.S. cities extracted a $121 billion toll on the 

U.S. economy in 2011. More than 20 percent of those costs were absorbed by the trucking industry and passed along to consumers. 

More than two-thirds of all U.S. domestic freight tonnage moves 

by truck, and the volume of freight moving by truck will more than 

double by 2035. If we think traffic congestion is bad today, imagine 

twice as many trucks on our highways, not to mention more passenger vehicles. 

The deterioration of our Nation’s highways and bridges is fast 

reaching crisis proportions. As a business whose customers depend 

on us for fast and reliable service, we can attest that impassable 

roads and bridges lead to increased costs, service delays, and untold equipment damage. 

Alarmingly, investment in any solution may be at risk this year 

if Congress does not pass a well-funded highway bill, and since the 

current bill expires in September, time is of the essence. 

It is also crucial that we stabilize the National Highway Trust 

Fund which, if left unaddressed, is on the brink of becoming insolvent this summer. Clearly there are no easy answers, but the first 

step would be to establish a national strategic plan to address infrastructure needs and to identify sources of funding, both immediate and long term. 

One sure way we can help move freight more efficiently is by exploring innovative solutions to maximizing our existing infrastructure by modernizing U.S. trucking equipment standards. We and 

many of our industry colleagues strongly support the proposal to 

increase the national standard for twin trailers from the existing 

28 feet to 33 feet. It is important that this solution does not, and 

I will repeat, does not require any change to gross vehicle weight, 

and in fact should reduce the burden on our Nation’s highways by 

significantly slashing the number of trips and miles required to 

move freight. 

This innovation promises to deliver tremendous value, but it cannot be implemented without Congress modernizing our transportation policy. 

In closing, the time is at hand to advance a national strategic 

plan for prioritizing investment in the critical projects to most effectively address our highways’ freight network. Our country’s future depends on it. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to address these critical 

items, and I’m happy and looking forward to addressing any questions you may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Alt. 

Ms. ALT. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member Norton, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

10 

My name is Susan Alt. I am the senior vice president for public 

affairs for Volvo Group. I have a background in logistics, having 

run Volvo’s North American supply chain operations for 5 years. 

In the United States Volvo Group manufactures heavy trucks 

under the brand names of Mack Trucks, Volvo Trucks, Volvo construction equipment, Volvo Penta marine engines, Prevost and 

Nova transit coaches and city buses. The Volvo Group has six manufacturing facilities in the United States, in the States of Virginia, 

Tennessee, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York and we are 

headquartered in North Carolina. We employ more than 12,000 

people in the U.S., and we have invested nearly $1.5 billion in our 

manufacturing facilities in the last 10 years. 

We rely on more than 50,000 truckloads of freight, of material 

coming into our factories each year. We rely heavily on the Ports 

of Norfolk and Baltimore to import 25 percent of our production 

material, and those same ports plus the Port of Charleston, South 

Carolina, for the export of our finished goods. 

We rely on the entire Interstate Highway System for the movement of our material, most notably Interstate 81, as four of our factories are located on or very near it. It is America’s infrastructure 

that makes all of this possible. 

The health of America’s freight network matters because it is important that our American manufacturing operations remain competitive in a global economy. 

In recent years the industry has embraced ‘‘just in time’’ or lean 

manufacturing philosophies that reduce manufacturing material in 

the production line. This new efficiency has manifested as a substantial benefit to Volvo, our customers and the economy as a 

whole. 

However, to be efficient, we have to have the right material at 

the right place at the right time. In modern manufacturing, we 

cannot have excess inventory in our assembly or our delivery process. We deliver parts to the production line just as it is needed for 

assembly. Our ability to move parts from our supplier to our factory and finished goods from our factory to our end customer relies 

on the infrastructure of America. 

There are disturbances we can plan for, but what we cannot control for is unexpected delays due to congestion. This is where we 

get into real trouble. When, for example, a truck is caught in a 

traffic jam and cannot make its delivery, the ripple effect of that 

one delivery can be costly. 

It means we do not build the product on time, tying up capital. 

It means the product will have to be reworked, tying up manhours, not following manufacturing quality processes. It means 

sending workers home early. It means not delivering to the customer on time and hurting our competitiveness all because of that 

one missed shipment. 

This committee’s own Panel on 21st-Century Freight Transportation recognized that ‘‘the current state of highway infrastructure 

does not adequately serve the needs of those moving goods across 

the Nation.’’ We agree. 

Volvo Group urges lawmakers to address this challenge directly 

and with a clear purpose. Logistics is all about planning. Congress 

needs to provide a long-term plan or the country will suffer. 

11 

We recognize the choices are difficult, but with a 20-percent cost 

disadvantage to doing business in the United States, investment 

and improvements to our Nation’s transportation infrastructure are 

critical to manufacturers’ ability to compete and to create jobs. 

Infrastructure investment must be considered as a long-term 

strategic objective. Volvo believes that a fully funded 6-year reauthorization is needed to address the already well documented persistent challenges that are facing our transportation system. You 

have heard from the gentlemen before me. Every mode of transportation is expected to increase the next several years. 

Let me give you an example. Our largest truck factory sits in 

southwest Virginia along Interstate 81. The plant employs some 

2,300 workers and is a major employer in the region. We have a 

large amount of material that travels south on I–81 along a stretch 

of mountains near Blacksburg, Virginia. Until a third truck lane 

was added, that area was the site of many accidents resulting in 

frequent delivery delays and production disruptions for our factory. 

Since the opening of the third truck lane, we have seen a marked 

improvement on our on-time deliveries from that route. This is a 

real world example of savings that directly benefits our customers. 

Transportation moves America. A strong infrastructure has a direct and vital impact on America’s competitiveness. If America is 

to continue to lead the way in high-value, state-of-the-art manufacturing, our infrastructure can no longer get by on the status quo. 

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all. 

Let me begin questions by asking Secretary Gottlieb. We are experiencing the current MAP–21 legislation that was passed about 

a year ago now or some time ago, and one of its goals was to try 

to simplify just to consolidate and give a little more flexibility to 

the States. I wonder if you could comment on what impact this consolidation of different service transportation programs has had on 

giving additional flexibility for you and your colleagues at other 

State departments of transportation. 

Has it really made any difference or could you bring that to life 

for us a little bit? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Thank you. Sure. 

I think that, yes, there were a couple of things that were 

positives, obviously, that came out of MAP–21. One was program 

consolidation, which gives the States greater flexibility. Also, certainly the move towards greater user performance measures was 

also a very positive, as was project streamlining. 

I think what this has given us the ability to do as States is to 

use those dollars in those core programs to set priorities, to make 

targeted investments where we know that we need to make them 

in our State. You know, those could be targeted investments to 

support the more efficient movement of freight. It could be in other 

areas as well, but I think the program flexibility has been a great 

benefit to us. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

I have had the chance and some others on the committee; I know 

Mr. Lipinski certainly has visited what we call the Chicago bottleneck. This is where the railroad industry came together 150 years 

ago. Trains went to Chicago, and they went west from Chicago, and 

12 

you can go to the center of Chicago and north, south, east, west 

tracks are the same grade level. They have to stop and wait for 

each other. I understand anyone who sees railroad cars up in my 

part of that area they are covered with graffiti because these trains 

stopped for hours or days negotiating their way through Chicago. 

And we understand still they take freight off one railroad, put it 

on trucks, drive it through Chicago to another railroad. In this age 

of ‘‘just in time’’ delivery and mobility, this is a significant burden 

on commerce, and certainly we are in the ‘‘lee’’ of that. Wisconsin 

to get to the east coast has to go through the Chicago region. A lot 

of other States in the whole area are similarly affected. 

So it is a major national priority. Railroads have been working 

on railroad yards outside the Chicago area in Wall County and 

other areas to try to avoid that. The Canadian National Railway 

controversy, they bought a bypass around the region. 

Can you discuss where we are? If you can just have reliable delivery, not quick delivery, it makes a big difference. People can get 

trucks off the road and use the rail system for supplying factory 

and delivering value-added goods. Otherwise they are stuck with 

bulk commodities where the timing does not make much difference. 

Can you discuss the importance of that? It is a major issue certainly for us in our region. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, especially to be familiar with the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. 

Certainly the money that has been parlayed so far, almost $1.1 

billion, has made significant and addressed significant concerns 

that we have with rail, the actual rail, moving it in and around 

Chicago. 

You know, the story was it would take 2 days to go from Los Angeles to Chicago and 2 days through Chicago and then another 2 

days to the east coast. Six of the seven major national Class I railroads come through the Chicago metropolitan area. 

So CREATE, which was innovative and unique back in 2003, the 

first major comprehensive plan for moving freight, and a comprehensive base of intermodal, and I am listening to also the private industry here, and certainly the problems we face in the metro 

area are multimodal. 

We are addressing the train configurations, but more importantly 

the at grade crossings. Only 3 of 25 that we have put into our plan 

have been addressed, and I know that the gentlemen in the trucking and service industry understand the significance of delay 

through freight on surface roads through the metropolitan area. 

We have a plan. The problem is we need help. We need the Federal Government to understand that every dollar that they have invested in past capital programs for infrastructure, highway transportation, it comes back tenfold. The investment that is made by 

the Federal Government, every dollar that comes into the Treasury 

and goes out, as the minority leader has said, it is a well invested 

amount of money. 

People understand that, and as a former mayor, now at the State 

level, and as a mayor for 33 years, I clearly understand what people appreciate in their dollars being spent. In the area of highways, 

they understand it. 

13 

Recently the tollway system throughout our metro area, $12 billion in a tollway system that is being invested, and it is going to 

be a world-class highway system. A little controversy because of 

the tolls, but people understood to make that investment, to bring 

about movement of freight and passenger, it is well invested. 

So I plead with this committee to understand the needs of freight 

in our region, and certainly the public-private partnership that we 

have done with the CREATE Program and certainly with the leadership of Congressman Lipinski in helping us do that. 

Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ranking Member Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, we recognize that freight related activities are eligible for 

Federal highway funds and compete apparently for those funds 

with other needs. MAP–21 further incentivized freight by raising 

the Federal share for such projects, but I think these are questions 

really for Mr. Bennett and Mr. Gottlieb. 

Mr. Gottlieb, the so-called CREATE Project, is that funded entirely by the State of Illinois? 

Mr. BENNETT. No, Congressman. There was initially $100 million 

that Congressman Lipinski was able to secure. We received ARRA 

and TIGER grant money over the years. Of the $1.1 billion, about 

$400 million has been invested by the Federal Government. The 

rest has been parlayed by the State of Illinois and our railroad 

partners. 

Ms. NORTON. And yet this is a crossroads of the United States, 

perhaps dramatically pointing to the need to create a stronger 

focus. 

We note that with the TIGER grants, which are probably the 

only lump sum we have for such intermodal projects, when freight 

competes with what people experience every day, which is getting 

in their own cars, freight sometimes loses out. 

So my question here goes to how do we get the focus on funding 

freight. When you consider, for example, that MAP–21 scratches 

the surface, if you will forgive the pun, of just daily transportation 

across the roads, of course freight uses that, too, but do you think, 

for example, that there should be a separate set-aside for freight? 

Do you think there should be a freight-only fund? 

Should there be a freight user fee? If we wanted to pump some 

real money into this fast, I am looking for how you would regard 

the best way to do that. Any of you, I would appreciate the responses of any of you on how to do that. 

Mr. Gottlieb. 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Thank you. 

Sure, I think our answer would be that, first and foremost, we 

would like to see adequate funding, adequate long-term funding for 

the core programs. 

Ms. NORTON. For the what? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. For the core highway programs because we are 

making—— 

Ms. NORTON. We need more funding, yes. 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Right. 

14 

Ms. NORTON. And you know the problems we are having on getting an increase in the user fee. 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Correct. We are making, as I said, we are making 

investments in freight. All the States are making investments in 

freight out of their dollars in the core program. So if there was 

going to be a special freight program, our recommendation would 

be that it would not be a carve-out of funds from the core programs, that it would be over on top of that, and also that it would 

be—— 

Ms. NORTON. How would that be funded do you think? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. As you said, it could be funded by user fees, by 

freight user fees, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Bennett? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, Congressman, I think you have really answered your own question, and as I have indicated in my testimony, the innovative ways of partnering with the private sector 

and/or through the use of some type of user fee is clearly the way 

to fund it going forward. 

We understand. I do a municipal budget. We do a State budget, 

and we understand the limitations of expenditures of money and 

where new revenue must come from. Honestly, you know, whether 

the MAP–21 or prior to that SAFETEA–LU and a gas tax did not 

tie it to the rate of inflation, which should have been done, over 

the year could have been done, but going forward, that needs to be 

considered. 

And certainly our private partners, we have shown in the CREATE Program, are willing to also additionally make that type of investment, but coming from the Government side of Federal side, if 

that needs to be, I think people are openminded as to that proposal. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, let me ask our two business representatives 

whether their businesses and whether they think the business community would be willing to contribute towards a freight user fee. 

That would be over and above, I suppose, what they already do on 

the highways. It costs them more to use the highways, et cetera. 

Ms. ALT. So I would say, in a word, no. The consumers would not 

want to. The industry itself, the trucking industry itself has not 

been opposed to paying higher user fees by way of increased diesel 

tax. So the actual users themselves are not opposed to it. The consumers, as it does get increased, the consumers will ultimately pay 

it, but I do not think that the consumers would accept the tax or 

an increase. 

Ms. NORTON. You do not think the consumers would what? 

Ms. ALT. I do not think the consumers would accept an increase 

for freight because they do not appreciate the fact that it is the 

freight that brings them everything that they have every day. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, of course, the consumers. That is to say it is 

in the States that we see people raising their own gas taxes when 

the Federal Government refuses to do so. 

Mr. Maier, finally? 

Mr. MAIER. Yes. FedEx supports reasonable and efficient funding 

mechanisms to improve our Nation’s infrastructure, and we urge 

Congress to conduct a thorough review of all the available options. 

15 

But with respect to our business, let me just say this. Aging infrastructure has both direct and indirect costs on our business. The 

first is our business relies on fast, reliable and cost efficient transportation, and our businesses and our customers that we serve rely 

on us to deliver that service as well. 

Delays caused by aging infrastructure directly affect our ability 

to perform that service and, in turn, as Ms. Alt said, have a ripple 

effect through the economy. When we do not deliver on time, I 

mean, you know, there are consequences in the marketplace. 

And notwithstanding that, aging infrastructure has a very deleterious effect on the wear and tear on our equipment and vehicles. 

Ms. NORTON. So would you be willing to support a freight user 

fee to quickly get funds into reducing the very issues you’ve raised? 

Mr. MAIER. We will support reasonable and efficient funding 

mechanisms. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Representative Mullin. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, we talk about a lot of funding needs here. Obviously, 

there is a tremendous amount of funding issues, but we are talking 

about just putting a Band-Aid on a system that is way behind. 

You know, I have operated a business for 17 years and still do 

and am proud to do so, but if I just operated on today’s needs, I 

would never build or prepare for the future. I would never be able 

to grow and know where I am headed, and we cannot just focus 

on finding enough funds today. We need to be paying attention to 

where we are going 20 years from now. 

You know, we look at the infrastructure we are using. The generation behind us that built this, they had a vision. They had a 

plan. They were building the infrastructure for future growth, and, 

Mr. Maier, I know FedEx spends a tremendous amount of time on 

looking ahead. We have had an opportunity to visit with you all. 

We have had an opportunity to come see your place. As a business 

guy, it makes me feel very inadequate seeing what you guys are 

doing. 

Where are you seeing the future growth? Where do we need to 

be investing not only fix, but what are the areas we should be investing in to be paying attention to 20 years from now, predicting 

where your deliveries are going to go? 

Mr. MAIER. Well, that is a great question, and thanks for it. 

If you look at our business today, the fundamental change that 

is occurring is e-commerce, which means that, you know, 10 or 15 

years ago packages went primarily to businesses. You know, with 

the growth of the World Wide Web and shopping online, more and 

more of our packages are going to people’s homes. And to be frank, 

I mean, that has changed the business. Package weights have come 

down, for instance, as shipments that used to be destined to a manufacturing facility or a distributor or to a retail store, those packages are now becoming smaller because they are going directly to 

somebody’s home. 

And in our business, our volume, and this would be LTL and certainly parcel express or ground, our business goes to where people 

are. So you have to look at population centers. 

16 

Mr. MULLIN. Are you seeing that we need to build additional 

needs to those or do you see an opportunity to say, ‘‘Hey, one area 

is getting too full. Let us expand it to another area’’? 

Mr. MAIER. I think our need to invest in the infrastructure of the 

country is nationwide. 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. 

Mr. MAIER. I will give you a personal example here. FedEx 

Ground is headquartered just outside of Pittsburgh. Last fall the 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation imposed weight limits 

on approximately 1,000 bridges in the State. Now, they did that to 

slow deterioration and extend the operational life of the bridges 

pending the approval of transportation funding legislation that was 

subsequently signed last November. 

This requires transportation companies like ours to take alternate routes to go around those bridges and adds time and cost. We 

burn more fuel. We create more carbon emission. I mean, it requires us to engineer our network differently based on those 

changes, and that creates, you know, costs that we have to figure 

out how to cover somehow. 

Mr. MULLIN. Another quick question to you. Where did the 33 

feet come from, going from 28 to 33? 

Mr. MAIER. As a result of the TEA–21 highway reauthorization 

bill which was passed in 1998, the Transportation Research Board 

was asked to make recommendations regarding truck productivity. 

In the study (Special Report 267), it was recommended that the 

double 33-foot configuration should be immediately authorized 

without the need for additional analysis. It is roughly 18 percent 

more capacity. We have been running these trailers in the State of 

Florida since 2010. I think we have got just short of half a million 

miles on those trips, 100 percent safe. 

Mr. MULLIN. Any increase on accidents? 

Mr. MAIER. None, none. In fact, we have not had any accidents 

on it. 

The drivers who participate in those runs have told us they believe that these trailers are actually safer than the 28s because 

they tend to be more stable going down the road, and they track 

better behind the power unit, and they would prefer to pull these 

instead of the 28s. 

Mr. MULLIN. What kind of push-back are you getting on this? It 

just takes Congress to act? 

Mr. MAIER. It takes Congress to act. There are only 11 States in 

the country that allow the use of 33 footers within the border. We 

need Congress to change the policy so that we can use them nationwide. 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. 

Mr. MAIER. The last time Congress made a change was in 1982. 

Mr. MULLIN. Something I am going to add to this. We just cannot 

just simply be talking about a fuel tax, and we cannot simply be 

talking about just a diesel tax, I mean gasoline and diesel. It does 

not work that way. We have electric vehicles. Ms. Norton and I 

have talked about that multiple times. She drives an electric vehicle. She is a freeloader. I pay her way because I drive an F–250 

diesel. No offense to her, but we have talked about it. We joke 

about this all the time. 

17 

Plus we have got natural gas vehicles on the road. My company 

has installed hundreds, if not thousands, of these in-home filling 

stations, and we have to think outside the box. We cannot just simply be talking about paying for it at the pump. We have got to go 

farther back. 

We have got to eliminate the use of fraud. We have got to eliminate the opportunity to have people that are using the infrastructure not pay for the infrastructure. There is not one single American that lives in this country or comes in business with this country that does not use our infrastructure. I do not care if you do not 

own a vehicle or if you do own a vehicle. There are taxis. There 

are buses. There are deliveries. There is electric. There are pipelines. That is the infrastructure, not just our highways. 

We have got to look outside the box and broaden our horizon and 

pay attention to how far back down the line we need to go to capture, to let everybody invest in our infrastructure because it is an 

investment. We are successful because of the infrastructure we 

have. We will fail if our infrastructure fails. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to go over, and I appreciate the time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting this hearing together and thank you for being here. 

I always like to hear from the business world and certainly from 

former mayors because you have your hands in there day in and 

day out, and your comments are very important. 

I represent a section of New Jersey, the northern part, where the 

ports are key obviously to a lot of jobs. Almost a quarter of a million jobs come from the ports. We have an issue now with the Bayonne Bridge. We have to raise it because of the tankers coming 

in. That is just going to increase freight movement. 

I also represent part of the airport. So I have a district where 

moving freight is important. And talking about tolls, every time 

you blink in New Jersey you have to pay a toll. So it is unfortunate, but we have to do that to move freight around. 

I also served on the Panel on 21st-Century Freight Transportation where we went around having hearings throughout the 

State, and throughout the panel’s proceeding it was made very 

clear to me that freight projects face significant barriers in securing funding under the current Federal aid highway program. 

Given the significant backlog that we have in maintenance and 

reconstruction needs faced in each State, particularly in large 

projects, multijurisdictional projects, in my assessment they do not 

fare well in flat funded, State-based formula program. 

So I was wondering what do you think of that assessment? 

Mr. BENNETT. Congressman, I think in our area, the Chicago 

Metropolitan Agency for Planning, which we put together almost 7 

years ago, for the purpose of a comprehensive plan on sustainability in every aspect of life and certainly in the area of CREATE, 

which we took under our umbrella, it is a plan. 

To answer the congressman’s question, it is a 20-year plan as to 

how we are going to move and invest in freight because it is intermodal. It is not just the passenger trains. It is not the freight 

18 

trains. It is the trucking intermodal aspects of that in our region 

and the impact on that is significant. 

I believe that cooperation and coordination through an agency 

which we have at CMAP in our region, and I think across the Nation more and more metropolitan areas are understanding that and 

the need to be comprehensive in their planning and to bring a partnership together not just to the public sector, but also very much 

the private sector in our metropolitan region. 

So we are very proud of what we are doing in the Chicago area, 

but we need that help. We need that Federal infusion of additional 

dollars to parlay even more money. 

And I agree with the congressman also. We have to think outside 

the box, and we are doing that at CMAP. We are meeting with 

mayors. We are meeting with our State representatives and trying 

to understand creative ways of coming up with funding, again, 

whether it is a partnership with the private sector or a variation 

of type of user fees. 

But, again, I will repeat as a former mayor, and the Department 

of Highways in Wisconsin, certainly as a current mayor, we understand there are two things in life as a mayor: public safety and 

public works. And for this country certainly national defense, and 

I do not want to get political here, but certainly the investment in 

your public works, the infrastructure of this country is absolutely 

an investment well made that is going to parlay more money for 

Congress, more money to generate overall with jobs in the country. 

I do not have to relay that to you, but it certainly should be the 

second most important priority in this country, is investment in our 

infrastructure. 

Mr. SIRES. Mayor, do you agree with the flat funded formula, a 

Federal flat funded formula? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. You know, I would say the unique thing about 

freight in some respects is that it does lend itself to projects of 

more regional and national significance, and so, you know, we are 

pleased that things like TIGER take account for that. 

You know, there was some money authorized in MAP–21 for 

freight Projects of National and Regional Significance. Again 

though I think our core message is we want to make sure that we 

have adequate, sustainable funding ongoing for our core programs, 

but certainly over and above that there will be projects of national 

significance. 

As I said in my testimony, we are working very closely with 

other States in our region to improve operations specifically and to 

do better research into the movement of freight, to harmonize our 

regulatory activities with regard to freight so that, you know, private shippers can move more quickly and seamlessly with less friction from State to State, and clearly those are important issues, 

yes. 

Mr. SIRES. How involved do you think the Federal Government 

should be when there are different States involved when you have 

a large project? 

I know we have that issue between New York and New Jersey. 

It is always very contentious, you know, sometimes. 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Congressman, I do not know if that is half political or part political, but certainly it has to start with a plan and 

19 

who has a plan and if that plan is long range. And I think looking 

at the most—— 

Mr. SIRES. How involved should the Federal Government be? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Who has the most invested out here? And really 

you could probably divide it into seven or eight or nine major regional areas of significance of where that investment should take 

place. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the panel. This has been a really helpful discussion, and I want to especially thank my own secretary of transportation, Mr. Gottlieb, for coming in today. 

My first question is to you, Mr. Secretary. I would like you just 

to take your association hat off and put your secretary of transportation hat back on for a minute. 

In your written testimony, you talked a little bit about Wisconsin’s truck size and weight study, and you and I have had some 

conversations about this in the past. As you know, like many 

States in the country, Wisconsin allows heavier trucks to travel on 

State roads, in many cases to transport dairy products or timber 

products that often get traveled on or transported on highways or 

roads in the northern tier of the United States. 

Can you talk a bit about some of the benefits of providing States 

flexibility in allowing them to maybe have heavier trucks on interstates and to provide that flexibility, not necessarily mandating it 

but providing it, and what reforms to the vehicles themselves, adding axles and things like that would you consider? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes. Thank you for that question. 

As you said, you know, each State has a unique operational infrastructure characteristics and so forth. AASHTO does not really 

take a policy on those kind of issues, but I am happy to answer 

your question from the perspective of Wisconsin DOT. 

We have placed a great emphasis over the last few years. As you 

said, back in 2009, we completed a very comprehensive truck size 

and weight study, really looking at sort of that relationship between increasing economic efficiency that you can get from certain 

heavier and larger trucks and weighing that off against making 

sure that we are protecting the safety of the traveling public and 

that we are meeting our responsibilities to protect our infrastructure. 

So looking at that, we have had, I think, considerable success in 

a very data driven, analytical way at making some statutory 

changes that allows the operation of certain heavier vehicles with 

different configurations to protect infrastructure and to protect 

safety, operate those vehicles off the interstate system, and we 

have seen, I think, significant efficiencies and economic benefit, as 

you said, particularly to two industries: the movement of agricultural commodities, and our agricultural industry in Wisconsin is 

really now a world industry. It is competitive on a world basis, on 

a global economy. So they need to get those efficiencies. 

Also, as you said with regard to the movement of timber and the 

paper industry, it is very important in the State. So working together with our own State legislature, I think we have had some 

20 

success sort of making that balance in doing that, which has given 

us, I think, some economic efficiencies for our State and made our 

businesses more competitive. 

If we had the flexibility to extend that to the interstate system, 

we would certainly want to make those same kind of data driven 

analyses that we make on our own system about safety and about 

infrastructure protection, but if we had the flexibility to do that, I 

think we could take some of the economic benefits that we have realized on our own system and there would be a force multiplier effect to that if we had that flexibility in our State as well. 

Mr. RIBBLE. All right. Thank you for that. 

And, Ms. Alt, if I could maybe just direct a question to you, in 

your testimony you mentioned, ‘‘We employ more than 12,000 people in the United States and have invested nearly $1.5 billion in 

our facilities in the last 10 years.’’ 

Thank you for doing that, by the way, but my question goes specifically to the Federal excise tax as it relates to truck sales. I 

would like to see Volvo have 15,000 or 20,000 people building 

trucks in the United States and moving goods and services about. 

I have got two questions for you. Is the 12 percent an encumbrance? Is it too high or is it the right spot? 

And I want to also ask you specifically if you have noticed any 

change in behavior from consumers who buy your products as it relates to the conversion to greener vehicles, compressed natural gas 

and things like that because that 12-percent tax also applies to the 

upgrades on these vehicles. 

Can you talk a little bit about that? And if you feel that that 

should be changed, lowered or eliminated, whatever, how would 

you replace those revenues into the Highway Trust Fund? 

Ms. ALT. Yes. So the Federal excise tax is 12 percent of the purchase price of the vehicle. Taking natural gas aside for a second, 

since 2010 the cost of the typical truck has gone up from an average of around $100,000 to $125,000. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Which you add 12 percent to. 

Ms. ALT. And you add 12 percent to the purchase price, and the $25,000 increase has come from emission reduction control systems. So we have cleaner trucks. They are the cleanest they ever 

have been, and that is a great thing, but they cost a whole lot more 

to produce. So in the last 4 years, Federal excise tax went from $12,000 on a $100,000 truck to now another $3,000 more just to meet emissions. So the Federal excise tax already has been dramatically increased because the purchase price of the trucks has gone up so 

dramatically because of emissions. 

When we sell a truck with natural gas, primarily because the 

fuel tanks themselves are very expensive, you are now getting to 

sometimes as close to $200,000 for the cost of a truck, and regardless of a cleaner truck or a lower emission truck, you are paying 

12 percent on the purchase price of that truck. 

So it is hard for the buyer to actually have to pay that extra tax. 

So they are being burdened. If you took away the Federal excise 

tax to offset that, again, the trucking industry has not opposed increases to diesel tax. That is probably your easiest and fastest way 

to offset that. 

21 

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, could I have another minute? 

Oh, I am fine. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Hahn, if you want to yield a little time? 

Ms. HAHN. I would not mind giving you an extra minute. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

Along that same lines then, if the tax was reduced and we offset 

it with an increase in diesel fuel tax so that the trust fund stayed 

in the same place, do you think your sales would increase? Would 

more customers buy the product, hence helping you add more jobs? 

Ms. ALT. Yes, and they would be buying new trucks, new trucks 

with new technology like the electronic braking systems and adaptive cruise control, all of those safety technologies on the new 

trucks. It would encourage them to do that rather than keeping 

their older trucks longer that do not have that technology or are 

not as clean emission-wise, absolutely. 

Mr. RIBBLE. So you would be safer, cleaner, more efficient. 

Ms. ALT. Safer, cleaner and more efficient. 

Mr. RIBBLE. And we could maybe fix a problem and you could 

add jobs. 

Thank you for that, and, Ms. Hahn, thank you for yielding. 

Ms. HAHN. That was a well-used minute. Thank you. 

Thank you, and I am glad we are having a discussion, and as 

Markwayne Mullin pointed out that I always talk about, I have 

driven an electric vehicle now for 21⁄2 years. So I have not been to 

a gas station in 21⁄2 years, but I am driving the roads, and as we 

move toward more fuel efficient vehicles, and I am hoping the technology exists to build a long-haul electric truck in our future, so we 

do have to think outside of the box. 

Now, we in Los Angeles County have raised our sales tax regularly over the years to pay for transportation projects because we 

feel like there are a lot of people who come into Los Angeles County for various reasons, you know, using our roads, but may not contribute directly to the maintenance and repair of them. 

One thing I was going to touch on is congestion that many of you 

have sort of touched on and sort of the last mile delays. I represent 

the Port of Los Angeles. So between Los Angeles and Long Beach 

Ports, about 44 percent of the trade comes through our port complex to the rest of the country. I have been told that cargo gets diverted sometimes from Los Angeles and Long Beach not necessarily 

because of any kind of cargo fees or environmental regulations that 

we may place on the transporting of goods, it is the land-side congestion. That is what probably determines how various companies 

and shippers decide to use our ports. 

And it has been alluded to that cargo leaves Los Angeles and 

takes maybe 48 hours to get to Chicago and then another 30 hours 

to get through Chicago. 

What do you think are some proposals out there? What are the 

best proposals we have out there for that last mile before it leaves 

or meets its destination of our cargo? And what can we do to really 

ease congestion, which in my mind will certainly help you on your 

own time deliveries? 

22 

It also reduces pollution. We know that when trucks line up for 

that last hour queue getting in and out of ports, that is sometimes 

the worst pollution in those neighboring communities. 

So maybe, Mr. Maier and Ms. Alt, since you have a background 

in logistics, what is a proposal out there or a recommendation that 

we could make to ease congestion in the last mile? 

Ms. ALT. So one of the unique things, it would be great. We have 

electric trucks, but the big, heavy ones we would not be able to 

haul any load because we would have 50,000 pounds of batteries 

unfortunately. 

But there is kind of a hybrid to that, and that is called a catenary system. 

Ms. HAHN. Right. 

Ms. ALT. Where the truck is moving along and it is picking up 

electricity on the wires above it. 

Ms. HAHN. We actually have a pilot program. 

Ms. ALT. We are working on a program with Siemens on the I– 

710 corridor. 

Ms. HAHN. Right. 

Ms. ALT. That would be a great way because that lets you have 

the power. You know, you need the horsepower to get that heavy 

freight out, but you also do not want to be emitting any emissions, 

and that is a great way to do that. 

Mr. MAIER. Well, first of all, let me talk about FedEx and sustainability for a minute. We are not only committed to sustainability in the U.S. but around the world. We made significant investments in alternate fuel sources. FedEx Express runs a fairly 

sizable fleet of electric vehicles. You know, we have made some investments in natural gas, and at least across a ground fleet if they 

buy fuel at our fueling facilities, they get a 20-percent biofuel 

blend. 

In addition to that, we look at any number of ways to make our 

network more efficient, the way we engineer runs, the way we load 

trucks, and we invest a lot of money in technology to make sure 

that we are the most efficient there we can be. 

In our facilities, we have done a lot of work with alternate energy. Woodbridge, New Jersey, Congressman Sires, I think that is 

his district. Unless the Oakland facility that FedEx Express has 

under construction now beats us, it is the largest solar panel array 

in the United States. 

Ms. HAHN. That is encouraging. What about congestion? How do 

we—— 

Mr. MAIER. Well, I am not sure I am a good one to ask. We have 

a forwarding company called FedEx Trade Networks. They would 

be the company that would be most involved in ports. In our world, 

parcel, and I can speak to parcel, most of the arrangements at the 

ports and drayage to a facility where FedEx would take possession 

of that volume, those packages are actually arranged by our customers, not us. 

Now, FedEx Trade Networks acts in many ways as, you know, 

the entity that might arrange that if it happens to be a customer 

they have, but frankly, FedEx Ground does not have a lot of experience at the ports. So I am not sure I am a good one here to answer 

that for you. 

23 

Ms. HAHN. Right. You know, I was on the Panel on 21st-Century 

Freight Transportation where we spent 6 months and we came up 

with recommendations. One of my recommendations was moving 

towards off-peak movement at our ports, and I think that is an 

issue that we ought to look at nationwide. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I first want to say thank you to Mayor Bennett for being here 

today. As somebody who also hails from Illinois, I am glad you gave 

the recognition to my colleague and my friend, Congressman Lipinski for the efforts that he has made in making CREATE a reality. 

I was at a rail hearing with Chairman Denham and my colleagues, Mr. Lipinski and Mrs. Bustos not too long ago to discuss 

many of the benefits of the CREATE Program and how it just does 

not touch the Chicago land area. It touches America. So thank you 

for your leadership. 

I would like to go to Ms. Alt and ask her a couple of questions. 

First off, in your testimony you discuss how one late delivery can 

have a ripple effect throughout your entire business model. Without a safe, efficient and reliable freight transportation system, 

what will be the effect on Volvo Group’s ability to keep up with 

your international competitors? 

Ms. ALT. It is going to hurt our ability. 

Mr. DAVIS. That was obvious. But most importantly, too, how is 

any interruption going to actually impact the communities where 

Volvo Group operates? 

Ms. ALT. I think if you look at the ports, it is probably a good 

example of that. We export for Mack Trucks, we export a lot of our 

product, and frankly, if we are not competitive and cannot export 

the products, we will not build as many trucks. So I think that is 

really the short answer to your question. 

Mr. DAVIS. And at this committee we like short answers. So 

thank you. 

To get me to my second question for you, you also mention in 

your testimony that adding a third truck lane on Interstate 81 

greatly improved the efficiency of your operations. Can you describe 

briefly some of the benefits to consumers and the communities 

where Volvo has manufacturing and distribution facilities? 

Ms. ALT. Sure. We are mostly located in areas that are low population. So we are usually the largest employer in the region, and 

we have a very good benefit package and pay very well, and we 

have a great relationship with our labor workforce. 

So what we are able to provide is a community within a community, frankly, because our manufacturing plants tend to be very 

large, and we employ thousands of employees at each of them, not 

a few or a hundred, and then, of course, that spawns the indirect 

benefits, the suppliers that locate around us, the restaurants, the 

dry cleaner, everything that goes around it as well. So we create 

a community and then grow that community. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. I would encourage you to create that community and grow that community at Illinois’ 13th Congressional District any time you would like, too. 

24 

I have no further questions, but I would like to offer the minute 

back to my colleague, Ms. Hahn, that she gave to Mr. Ribble if she 

so chooses. 

Ms. HAHN. I love this committee. We are just so bipartisan and 

so friendly. Thank you. I will take it. 

Mr. DAVIS. I knew she would. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HAHN. I never met a minute I would not take. 

Mr. DAVIS. How is that electric car tearing up the roads in California? 

Ms. HAHN. Well, I know especially because they do not go very 

far, but I read in the paper today that Elon Musk and Tesla are 

building a better battery. 

You know, I was going to touch on Mayor Bennett. You talked 

about there are two things, public safety, public works. I agree. 

One of the things we have not talked about today is the safety of 

our freight network. I have worked with Chairman Shuster to insert some language in our reauthorization bill, the Coast Guard reauthorization bill, that will allow ports or require ports to submit 

their cyber security plan when they submit their homeland security 

plan to the Coast Guard. 

We have not talked about that. How important is it that we secure our freight network, particularly cyber security? If something 

were to go down at one of our ports in this country, it would wreak 

havoc, I believe, on our freight network, and I would like to hear 

some of your responses. 

Is that something we ought to be paying attention to? 

Mr. BENNETT. I think in your public safety, what I talked about, 

one of the deficiencies in our own local CREATE Program has been 

the movement of rail through communities, through neighborhoods 

and at grade crossings is a huge consideration of safety and delay, 

and certainly in our private sector, those trucks leaving a rail yard, 

but just sitting on a local road or a State road or even a Federal 

road waiting for a train to move through before he moves on. 

So that safety from a pedestrian and even local community aspect is also important, and as far as safety in general, we have a 

couple of mayors from our region who I do not know if they testified at the committee on the movement of freight from a safety 

standpoint of a hazardous material type, but that is, I think, the 

second primary concern about safety. 

Cyber, you know, for our great Chicagoland region, I think we 

feel pretty comfortable, and unless obviously it involves national 

significance of tying in with the safety aspect of moving chemicals 

and/or nuclear materials in and through metropolitan areas. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Duncan and I just served on the committee’s Panel on 21st-Century Freight Transportation. The panel 

examined how best to strengthen the freight network across all 

modes of transportation, not just highways, to meet current and future goods movement demands. The panel issued a bipartisan report that made a series of key recommendations to be taken into 

consideration as the committee prepares to reauthorize MAP–21. 

25 

I want to highlight a couple of those recommendations for the 

purpose of this hearing. First, the panel directed DOT to establish 

a comprehensive national freight policy and to designate a 

multimodal national freight network. The primary freight network 

currently designated by DOT includes only highways. That must be 

fixed. 

Second, the freight panel recommended authorizing dedicated, 

sustainable funding for Projects of National and Regional Significance, PNRS. In 2005, the committee with my strong support developed the PNRS Program, the original intent of which was to address major freight bottlenecks and congestion around the country. 

I am pleased the panel recognized the specific need to authorize 

guaranteed funding for these critical freight projects which often 

face significant hurdles securing funding under current Federal aid 

highway programs. 

I am currently drafting legislation that would implement the 

freight panel’s recommendation to reauthorize the PNRS program 

with dedicated guaranteed funding to once and for all complete the 

major freight projects necessary to protect America’s economic competitiveness. 

One thing that became clear during the freight panel’s activities 

is that there is strong support for a PNRS program both among the 

Members and within the goods movement industry. We are still in 

discussions. There are still several details to resolve, but I look forward to continuing this conversation with my colleagues over the 

coming days, and I am confident we can develop a PNRS reauthorization bill that will have broad support. 

I want to ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a letter from the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors 

in support of implementing the freight panel’s PNRS recommendations as part of MAP–21 reauthorization. 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

26 


Insert offset folio 5 here 86846.005
27 


Insert offset folio 6 here 86846.006
28 


Insert offset folio 7 here 86846.007
29 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Just yesterday the President proposed a 4-year transportation 

bill that includes $10 billion for a new multimodal freight grant 

program. This proposal is very encouraging and indicates the growing recognition of the need for dedicated funding for freight 

projects, including rail and port projects. 

I look forward to working with the administration to enact such 

a program. 

Now, Mayor Bennett, you mentioned that CREATE, which is 

clearly a major national priority, has a $2.5 billion funding gap. 

This gap has nearly doubled Illinois’ annual Federal aid highway 

supplement. What options are Illinois and CMAP looking at to address the $2.5 billion funding gap? 

Do you think the State can fill that gap without additional Federal support and resources? 

And would the State have invested $400 million in this project 

without the commitment of Federal and private funds and if the 

gap is not filled, what types of projects will not be completed? 

Mr. BENNETT. I think the answer is yes, yes, no. 

No, certainly CREATE could not have come about without a 

guaranteed commitment by all partners involved: the private sector, the railroad, our railroad partners, the State of Illinois, and 

also the initial securing of $1 million by the Federal Government. 

I do not think, in talking to this congressional committee, no, we 

cannot go on. In fact, we have struggled. The problem is that there 

has not been a continuous stream of guaranteed resources for us 

to match. We have taken approximately $400 million and parlayed 

that into $1.1 billion and it has shown already a 30-percent reduction in freight congestion in our region, along with another 30 percent passenger. 

So the investments we have made have proven to be effective, 

but to go forward, no, sir. We could not do it on our own, and why 

I am here and I am sure the other members of this panel are here 

to ask the Federal Government to give us a program, and your remarks in the record are right on, spot on as to my testimony also. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Let me ask one further question in the 53 seconds I have left. 

A number of the witnesses mentioned MAP–21’s national freight 

transportation policy. Under MAP–21 that policy is limited to just 

highway facilities. Do you support expanding the policy to make it 

multimodal? And if not, why not? Or if yes, why do you think it 

is important? 

I would ask Mayor Bennett and then Secretary Gottlieb. 

Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely, it has to be. It has to be in addition 

to the program going forward. The investment in freight and movement of freight in this country is absolutely critical to commerce. 

It is also critical to the movement of people in and around those 

metropolitan—— 

Mr. NADLER. And multimodal, not just highway. 

Mr. BENNETT. Multimodal. I am sorry. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Secretary Gottlieb, you seemed to imply before that you were opposed to this. Why? 

30 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. No, I would certainly agree with the mayor that 

one of the drawbacks of the primary freight network designation 

was that it did not take adequate account for, you know, the 

multimodal connections that need to take place in order for the efficient movement of freight. 

I think that my comment that you may have perceived to be negative would be that, again, I think the State’s position is that we 

are investing a lot of our core highway program dollars into freight 

critical projects, both individually as States and cooperatively as 

States, and that we would be hesitant to see a dedicated freight 

program that was essentially carving funds out of the core highway 

program for freight. We would prefer, I think, to keep State flexibility, and I think we have demonstrated that the States can—— 

Mr. NADLER. Well, without dealing with the State flexibility 

issue, which is local, your comment just now about funding or not 

funding a freight program out of the Highway Trust Fund, which 

is a national question, why would you not do that given the fact 

that a freight program is absolutely necessary to reduce the congestion on the highways, which obviously benefits the highways, too, 

for the truckers? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. As I said, if the funding were ideally outside of 

the Highway Trust Fund and was supported by shipper fees, we 

would definitely be support of that, but we would not want to see 

something that was basically carving dollars out of the core highway programs. 

Mr. NADLER. You would not want to see one common source of 

funds for transportation? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, I think as Ms. Alt testified, you know, there 

seems to be perhaps a greater openness to strict user funding for 

freight related things as opposed to maybe a broader base of funding for them. 

Mr. NADLER. Hopefully that will change. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I first would like to say to you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

thank you for organizing the codel last week at the great State of 

Texas. I especially want to thank your subcommittee staff and the 

staff of TxDOT for working so well with our local communities to 

put all of this together, and it was a great trip. You and other 

members of this committee were able to see such important 

projects as the LBJ Express, the North Tarrant Express and the 

new DART Connector at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. 

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the work being done by TxDOT and 

the various stakeholders in these projects. It truly highlights the 

benefits of the various provisions included in MAP–21 like TIFIA 

Program and the use of public-private financing. 

I look forward to working together with you and the other members of this subcommittee as we reauthorize the next surface transportation bill and continue these important financing provisions in 

the future. 

With that being said, I want to thank all of you for being here 

today. There has been some great, great testimony, and in full disVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:15 Aug 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2-27-1~1\86846.TXT JEAN
31 

closure, I must tell you I am from Texas, and I am a private sector 

guy. I have been in business for 44 years, and that is the business 

of selling diesel trucks. I sell thousands of diesel trucks every year 

in Texas that pull a lot of trailers. So I appreciate your comments 

today. 

My first question briefly would be to you, Mr. Maier. Aside from 

improvements, and we have talked a lot about this today, but aside 

from improvements on the Nation’s physical infrastructure, what 

else can be done to increase the mobility and cut down on congestion? I mean, that is the biggest problem we have got. 

Mr. MAIER. Well, in our view, the biggest thing we can do is approve 33-foot trailers. You can absorb 18 percent more volume 

without putting another truck on the road. I mean, all of the benefits are positive. You reduce congestion. You get more trucks off the 

road. Less trucks on the road mean less impact on the infrastructure and, you know, the benefit to the environment is that you save 

roughly 300 million gallons of fuel a year. 

And in the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you I was born 

in Texas. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, you are a good man then. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Ms. Alt, also I appreciate your conversation on 

‘‘just in time’’ inventory. Being in the retail side of it, we appreciate 

that greatly, but I would ask you also: what recommendations 

would you have for how we can best address the vast increase in 

freight tonnage that we have got that everybody talks about and 

the projection we have got of this increase over the next 20 years? 

Ms. ALT. Well, I think to agree, we can move more freight with 

less fuel, emitting fewer emissions and with fewer drivers. We can 

do that today with some policy changes by allowing more freight 

to be hauled. 

The double 33-foot is a great example. We build trucks. Maybe 

there is an underestimation of the new technology in trucks that 

has been going on for the last several years. The trucks are safer. 

Throughout the rest of the world, the Volvo Group provides trucks 

that haul longer freight, heavier freight safely. So we can move in 

the existing infrastructure today more freight with less fuel safely. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I appreciate that, and I would just say that 

I am one of those that thinks the Government should do three 

things, and one of which is help us with infrastructure. It is a 

tough job for all of us. We appreciate all that you are doing and 

appreciate what you do and we appreciate the people you employ. 

Ms. ALT. Thank you. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We need to find a way so you can employ more 

people, but anyway, thank you for that. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Chairman Petri and Ranking 

Member Norton, for the meeting. It is informative and helpful. 

My district is home to the Alameda Corridor-East. That is the 

gateway where you get your trains in Chicago. We handle about 40 

to 45 percent of the Nation’s traffic out of Ms. Hahn’s area into and 

through my area. 

32 

In just my area, we have 54 crossings, and there are only probably 22 grade separations. The rest are going to be safety improvements. Alameda Corridor-East is a joint power authority. It is 

funded with State bonds, county Measure R and Federal bonds. So 

it has been moving greatly. 

However, it was designated as a Project of National and Regional 

Significance in the SAFETEA–LU bill. It was not subsequently provided with proper and adequate funds for completing all of the separations. 

So I agree with Mayor Bennett that Federal involvement to help 

move goods is critical. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record 

testimony from Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority regarding steps that can be taken to improve our national freight 

network. 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

33 


Insert offset folio 8 here 86846.008
34 


Insert offset folio 9 here 86846.009
35 


Insert offset folio 10 here 86846.010
36 


Insert offset folio 11 here 86846.011
37 


Insert offset folio 12 here 86846.012
38 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

ACE recommends establishing a national freight infrastructure 

grant program reauthorizing the Projects of National and Regional 

Significance, including nationally significant trade corridors in the 

primary freight network and providing, of course, more authority 

to expedite delivery. 

Of course, we are not even considering that we are looking to increase more international trade by Buy America, by increasing the 

effort to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. That will help in 

bringing more jobs and more economy to our areas. 

Of course, in my area they expect 250 trains to go through the 

Alameda Corridor by 2025 daily. So it would be a negative impact 

in many areas, as has been discussed. 

I guess one of the question should be should the next transportation bill continue to fund a highway-rail grade crossing program. 

How important do you feel this grade crossing safety is to transportation system and what role should the railroad play in this? 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Congressman. 

Certainly with CREATE, as I have indicated in my testimony, 

the large gap that is left in our 20-year plan is at grade separations. Only 3 out of 25 have been completed, and more needs to 

take place. 

The great question about railroads and whether or not their commitment or support of funding, assisting funding, at grade crossings has certainly been a conversation in the Chicago area. You can 

imagine outside the metro area how many grade separations that 

we have to deal with. 

We have worked in the past. The addition of the CN buyout of 

a bypass around the Chicago area involved closing a many grade 

separations, but they also made a commitment to assist in the 

funding of those grade crossings. They are very expensive, around 

$50 million per grade crossing, and again, as the congressman indicated, we need to be more creative. We are doing that at CMAP 

on trying to look at ways of funding those kinds of things without 

possibly waiting for or assisting on Federal funding. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, our railroads benefit greatly because 

they can increase their transportation, being able to load more on 

their rail rather than on truck. 

We, of course, have daily currently in my area 100 actual trains 

going through my area daily, and that is combined with railroad 

and some Metrolink, but generally mostly Union Pacific. 

Now, to the question one of my colleagues or one of the statements about the truck sales, I did visit one of my companies, 

Freightliner, and they were hitting the same point about the excise 

tax, that they feel that there should be either a reduction or at 

least consideration of something to help people purchase so the 

owners of the rigs are able to pick up, not only from the standpoint 

of economy, but also because it is environmentally better. People 

cannot afford $125,000 with the new equipment for environmental 

purposes. So they buy used ones and so we continue to pollute. 

There are all kinds of other issues that we need to be able to address, and I would hope that we continue to take into consideration 

areas where we have major traffic problems, train derailments and 

safety issues. 

39 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I will have something for the record. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am enjoying the conversation. Being a mayor for 11 years and 

also having worked in a family construction company that built 

roads and bridges, it is pretty interesting for me. So I am going to 

put both my mayor’s hat back on for a minute and my hard hat 

back on. 

Mr. Gottlieb, you called the first and last mile the capillaries of 

the system. When I was mayor of Hazleton, my city sat at the 

intersections of Interstate 80 and 81. So I understand completely 

the impact that freight has on our local roads. And my question to 

you would be: how can we better assist the States as they support 

these critical roads and bridges, especially in light of Mr. Maier’s 

observation that the volume of freight moving by truck is expected 

to more than double by 2035? 

And then putting hard hat and mayor’s hat back on, being in a 

construction industry, I also know the difference between an interstate highway and a local road. I know there is up to 12 inches of 

concrete on an interstate, and I also know there is only a few 

inches of asphalt on the local road. 

My question to Mayor Bennett is: can you discuss the impact of 

freight on the first and last mile? And how do localities bear this 

burden? 

Mr. BENNETT. It is obviously a lot of money, and as far as the 

situation in our community, and I think it was mentioned in California also, is that the last mile literally is most of these grade separations need to be fixed around the intermodal system of trains 

and freight or transport of freight from those trains to the highways, and it is in and around those rail yards. So it is all tied together. 

The cost of doing that for a local community is unbearable. It is 

a $50 million cost. It is not so much the roadway itself. It is the 

overpass or underpass that costs the huge amounts of money for 

the local government. 

However, in CREATE we, again, parlayed money from the city 

of Chicago, from the State of Illinois, from our private partners to 

help offset some single person having the whole burden of that 

cost. 

So, yes, it is not sustainable from a local community, and that 

why partnerships need to be built to offset those costs. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Gottlieb, how can we help the States? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Thank you. 

The first and last mile connections are critical and vital to have 

an effective network, and one of the things we have had happen in 

our State is we have become a leader in the production of frack 

sand for hydraulic fracturing, and we are sort of a hub for it in the 

western part of the State. 

And one of the things we have found as we have looked at the 

increasing demand for the transportation of frack sand both by rail 

and on the highway system is that we do not really have a big 

40 

problem on our system, but when you get off of the State system 

and you get close to these facilities, then there can be problems. 

We have had to work with our local units of government to try 

to address those. I would say you asked, you know, what can the 

Federal Government do. I would say the first thing I would say is 

to, as I said, play a role in allowing the States to participate to a 

greater degree in the development of a national primary freight 

network because I think the States have the best understanding 

about the type of materials that are moving on their system, where 

those freight generators are. 

We have spent a lot of resources in our State putting together 

a primary freight network and looking at actually where goods are 

originating and where they are terminating, if they are coming into 

or out of the State or through the State, and I think we can apply 

a lot of that data to assist in making sure that the investments are 

made in a prioritized way. 

So I would say, you know, again, it is about having a cooperative 

process between U.S. DOT, the State DOTs, and the local governments and metropolitan planning organizations to identify that 

network. 

And if I could just, Mr. Chairman, real quickly just back up a 

second to Representative Napolitano’s question about the grade 

crossing program, that has been a great transportation safety success story, and we certainly would be supportive of its continuation. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

Ms. Alt, I have toured the Volvo Mack facility in Shippensburg, 

which is just outside of my district in Pennsylvania, and I see what 

goes on in making some of your heavy duty trucks. I work in the 

construction industry. I can tell you we ran nothing but Mack 

trucks, which I know you will be happy to hear. 

I know how hard it is to invest a half a million dollars in a piece 

of equipment if you do not know how long the company is going to 

have work. Could you explain a little bit how important it is that 

we invest in a long-term highway bill and how Volvo is impacted 

by short-term extensions? 

Ms. ALT. It is simple business. Building a new road or building 

a new bridge does not take 2 years. It takes longer than that, and 

you cannot ask local business people, which are your primary contractors. There may be a large company that is the major prime, 

but he is subcontracting that to the guy that owns a dump truck, 

to the mom-and-pop that owns five dump trucks and a wheel loader. 

They cannot do business on 1 and 2 years. They need 4 and 5 

years. They need stability. It is just simple business. This is not 

small. We are not buying a car. We are buying a $500,000 piece 

of capital equipment. You have got to have at least some ability to 

know that you are going to be able to recover that investment. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And when there is a lot of construction work, I 

can tell you there is a lot more people, men and women, working 

in the manufacturing plants. So this is much more than just road 

construction signs and people on the highways, and that money, 

when there is a lot of construction work, that money goes back into 

the local economy because when construction workers make a lot 

41 

of money, they take their families out to eat. They buy local products, and it goes right back in the local economy. 

So I just wanted that on the record. Thank you, all. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. 

I would like to go back to the national freight network that was 

established by the Secretary of Transportation under MAP–21. 

This focus and new emphasis on freight mobility is very important 

for communities in the West, including Las Vegas that represent, 

because we import everything from people to lobsters. We have got 

to bring it in efficiently, effectively, and in expensively, hopefully. 

Also in MAP–21 there is a designation of I–11, which an interstate highway between Las Vegas and Phoenix, and we are the 2 

only metropolitan areas left in the country that do not have an 

interstate connecting us, and so that is going to be very important 

for the 8 million people who live between the 2 cities and the 40 

million tourists who visit the area. 

I am concerned though about the parameters of the Department 

of Transportation’s primary freight network because if you look at 

that, as I understand it, it caps the number of miles at 27,000, and 

it just looks at current infrastructure, not future infrastructure. 

Now, in the West there is only one north-south corridor, which 

is I–5, and I realize that I–11 cannot be considered now because 

it is a future project, not one that exists, but I would like you all 

to talk about the possibility or the need for us to look long term, 

look at future highways, additional things that can be added to 

that network as we look at renewing the transportation bill. 

And I might start with you, Mr. Gottlieb, and then anybody else 

that would want to comment. 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Thank you. 

I think the 27,000-mile basic criteria or basic limit really placed 

a lot of constraint on U.S. DOT in terms of how they were able to 

put the network together, and as you properly pointed out, you 

know, lack of ability to really provide connectivity, to really provide 

the access to multimodal connector points, the ability to allow for 

the fact that as things change that network could grow I think, 

were all shortcomings of that designation. 

I think it has it has just been a challenge for everybody, for the 

States as well as U.S. DOT as the States have commented on the 

designation. It has just been a big challenge to try and figure out 

how do you put a meaningful multimodal network together to fit 

within that 27,000-mile limit. 

So we think that is something that definitely needs to be taken 

a look at in the future. 

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just a couple of quick comments. I would think if 

I go back to as a young person back in the mid-1950s, what President Eisenhower did for this Nation in creating a highway system 

is just absolutely for us now, the beneficiaries of that, has been incredible. And I wish I could believe that Congress could be that 

bold with a highway program that can reincorporate that vision of 

42 

a Nation growing and a Nation moving goods and services. So in 

general, be bold. 

As far as the alternative, as we have seen in the State of Illinois, 

it may get down to toll roads. It may get actually down to ‘‘pay as 

you go’’ type of roadways to have that type of interstate or large 

highways built to connect major and sub-major cities within a 

State, if not through State to State. 

So, again, I ask that we all be bold here. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, I would ask are there any specific recommendations that you have about that cap or how to lift that cap or any 

other suggestions that we need to put into our deliberations as we 

look at the new transportation bill? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Thank you. 

I think as you look at reauthorization, we really need to seriously 

consider, number one, lifting the gap and rather than having artificial limits on the size of the network, allowing the States to engage 

in a process of identifying what their critical freight corridors are, 

knowing all that they know about the movement of goods in their 

State, and then, you know, overlaying that with obviously U.S. 

DOT’s involvement in terms of putting together a comprehensive 

and cohesive national network. But that will require, I think, lifting the cap to do that. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, thank you. 

I think so, too, because that stretch from Las Vegas to Phoenix 

is just part of what is planned hopefully all the way from Canada 

to Mexico. It will be a while in coming, but if we do not plan for 

the future then we will be caught short. 

Thank you. I am going to yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel. 

I had a couple comments. First of all, Ms. Alt, I am from West 

Virginia, and we have many folks who work in your Hagerstown, 

Maryland plant, great West Virginians, and they are very, very 

happy to be there. We are happy that you are there, too, employing 

so many folks. 

I wanted to ask Secretary Gottlieb what approximately percentage of truck traffic on your State highways you consider to be a 

large amount. Twenty-five percent, forty percent? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. What do I consider to be a large amount? I will 

give you an example. We have a corridor, major corridor, between 

Madison and Rockford, Illinois, I–39/90 corridor that we are in the 

process of doing a capacity expansion on. That corridor extends all 

the way up into the central and northern part of the State. It 

brings a lot of tourists and a lot of goods into and through the 

State. 

That corridor carries about 30 to 35 percent heavy trucks. I think 

that would be one of the highest that we would have in the State, 

and it is one of the reasons why we have really prioritized it for 

improvement and for congestion relief, but I would say that for us 

that is kind of getting up there. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Well, the reason I asked the question is I mentioned I am from West Virginia, and there is a corridor that comes 

down through Ohio, through West Virginia on and connects up to 

43 

64, and, Mr. Maier, I am sure your trucks are on there all the time. 

It is Route 35. It still has 14 miles of two-lane highway, has over 

30 percent truck traffic on it, and it is very dangerous. 

And so when I hear about, you know, the freight corridors in the 

larger cities and problems with congestion, I guess I want to re-emphasize that rural America still has a great deal of challenges in 

order to satisfy the demands of safe freight travel through our communities. 

I do not know if you have a comment on that that would help 

us realize that that should be part of the priority as well as the 

high urban areas and the interstates and the corridors and everything else. There is still a lot of Route 35s which we are hoping 

to get completed remaining in this country which would really help, 

I think, your business and help our safety and the movement of 

goods. 

Do you have a comment on rural America? You have certainly 

got this same situation in your State. Yes, Mr. Gottlieb. 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, thank you. 

Absolutely, and we constantly are facing that, you know, sort of 

struggle as, again, I think the bottom line here I think that you 

are hearing from everyone is that we just do not have the resources 

to meet all of the needs that we have. 

So we do have this friction that exists between, you know, the 

urban areas and the more rural areas of our State, and the rural 

areas generate a lot of economic activity, and they generate a lot 

of freight movement. 

I mentioned frack sand. I could also mention timber. I could 

mention agricultural commodities, and trying to make sure that we 

have a system that can accommodate that movement safely and efficiently, again, it creates an environment where we just have to 

be right now really prioritizing our investments and trying to make 

sure that we are paying attention to needs in both of those areas. 

But, again, it comes down to, you know, we have got a commission that met in our State over a period of about 15 months and 

identified about $6.8 billion in multimodal needs. So you are correct. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Mayor, did you have a comment on that? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, 

I would say, again, in our view the biggest way to reduce the congestion, particularly even on rural highways, is to allow longer 

trailers, 33-foot trailers. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So just to clarify, you do not think a 33-foot trailer 

would pose any more safety risk in a two-lane 55-mile-per-hour 

highway than a 70-mile-per-hour interstate? 

Mr. BENNETT. Our experience is that, like I said before, we have 

been running them in the State of Florida since 2010. We have run 

roughly half a million miles without an accident. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Good to know. 

Mr. BENNETT. The drivers that pull these trailers think they 

track better behind the power unit and they are more stable than 

28s. 

Mrs. CAPITO. OK. That is great information. Thank you. 

My final comment would be the safety of your containers or not 

containers, but of the vessel. We just had the chemical spill into 

44 

our water resource in West Virginia from a tank that was right 

next to the water, holding a supposedly nontoxic substance which 

caused all of us to cease to be able to use our water for any purpose 

for weeks. 

What kind of inspection regimes do you have? Is it individualized 

by the State? I am sure you inspect. As they go out of the factory, 

do you re-inspect on certain times? 

It is probably less for you, Mr. Maier, because you are probably 

mostly carrying packages, but what about you, Mr. Secretary, in 

your State? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. With regard to? 

Mrs. CAPITO. Safety of the truck itself in terms of leakage, preventative leaks if you’re carrying hazardous materials. 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. We are fortunate to have a consolidated agency 

where the enforcement of truck safety is part of our agency. So we 

are able to take a more comprehensive approach to that. I think 

we work closely with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

But again, I will tell you I find it to be a resource challenge to 

be able to have enough inspectors out on the highway to make sure 

that equipment is being operated safely and it is being operated 

within existing—— 

Mrs. CAPITO. Do you have a regular inspection routine that like 

you have to have your truck inspected once a year, like we have 

to have our cars inspected once a year? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. I know for certain types of commercial vehicles we 

have. I cannot answer the question about all of them. 

Mrs. CAPITO. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Madam 

Ranking Member, for having this very important hearing, as well 

as for our panelists for your testimony this morning. It has been 

really enlightening. 

And actually I want to follow up actually, Mr. Secretary, with an 

answer you gave to Mr. Ribble about the State of Wisconsin. 

As you know, Maine is currently in the midst of a 20-year pilot 

program that allows heavier six-axle trucks on the interstate. 

Those more productive vehicles allow us to move more freight with 

fewer trucks. The extra axle maintains the stopping distance to ensure safety, and actually in the pilot program we have seen a decrease in fatal accidents that actually go down because of that pilot 

program, and with the improved distribution of the weight on each 

axle, it actually reduces the weight per axle, per tire, which is a 

lot different than the five-axle trucks. 

The result, what we have seen so far is lower shipping costs, improved safety without damaging our actually road system, and actually it has saved the Department of Transportation money by allowing them to go on the interstate. The pilot program actually has 

the support of the Maine Department of Transportation, the Maine 

State troopers, Maine truckers and Maine shippers. 

In fact, yesterday I met with the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation from Maine who was down there, and he 

45 

confirms that the continuation of this pilot program is an unequivocal success for the State. 

And as you know, Mr. Ribble and I have legislation to allow 

other States that flexibility, that management tool if they so choose 

to go that route, which I think is very important, having served 

both in the House of Representatives and the State senate, to give 

the State those flexibility and those tools to do what is best for 

their individual State. 

So I want to thank you very much for your testimony, and I 

guess my question is: have you seen that same type of success in 

Wisconsin, number one? 

And number two is as we deal with the reauthorization what are 

other States doing creatively as far as trying to fund the States’, 

you know, infrastructure needs within the respective States other 

than bonding and the usual fee for service? 

Mr. GOTTLIEB. Thank you for those questions. 

With regard to the truck size weight issue again, speaking for 

Wisconsin DOT and not necessarily for AASHTO, the changes that 

we have made really stemmed from this study that I mentioned 

that we had done in 2009, the comprehensive truck size and weight 

study, and to your point. 

And I would reinforce the things that you said, that we looked 

at six different configurations in addition to the standard 80,000- 

pound, five-axle truck-trailer combination, and in each of those six 

alternative configurations that we looked at, we had net safety benefits for the reasons that you mentioned. We had net productivity 

benefits, and we had net benefits to pavement conditions. 

So it is a tradeoff there, but certainly I believe that there are 

configurations that can enhance productivity, protect traffic safety, 

and also protect our infrastructure, which is our primary mission 

as an agency. 

To your funding question, I think as many States have, I think 

we have started to make a pretty comprehensive study of what 

other States are doing to try and address other revenue issues. The 

Governor has asked our department to take a look at this as we 

go into the next State budget next January. So we are taking a 

keen interest in what some other States have been successfully 

able to do and some of the things that have not been successful. 

I would say I think it splits along a couple different lines. One 

is, you know, do we continue along this path that we have historically had of primarily a user fee funded transportation system or 

do we recognize that the transportation system as a whole benefits 

our economy. It contributes to competitiveness for our country, and 

that therefore, the funding of it ought to be more broadly based. 

Some States are looking at, you know, sales taxes and things of 

this nature. So I think that is one of the splits that exists between 

continuing that user fee funded system versus going to something 

that is a little bit more broadly. 

The other comment I would make is that there is a lot of discussion about, you know, alternative methods of financing, and it is 

something that, frankly, I am not an expert on because we have 

not done a lot of it in Wisconsin with regard to P3s or alternative 

financing, but I would just caution and draw the distinction that 

46 

there is a difference between financing and funding, and at the end 

of the day, you know, everything has to be paid for. 

So I believe our fundamental national problem is a funding problem rather than a financing problem. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. Maier, I want to say it is good to see you here, and everywhere I go I tell people about the flight simulator down there at 

FedEx and how impressed I was by that. Lewis University actually 

where Mr. Bennett went to school has a great aviation program 

there, and they said, oh, yeah, they are very familiar with that. 

I wanted to thank Mr. Bennett for coming here and talking about 

the importance of CREATE. Certainly everyone on this committee 

knows that I have been beating that drum since I have gotten here, 

and the chairman certainly knows that, as he mentioned in his 

question in the beginning talking about CREATE and the importance of it. 

One thing that, Mr. Bennett, you had mentioned and it is a concern of mine also with the CREATE Program is the fact that only 

3 of the 25 highway-rail grade separation projects have been completed. The other three are under construction. There are 13 that 

do not have any funding at all, and this is certainly something I 

hear a lot about from my constituents. 

It affects not only individuals, but also the freight network having the blocked crossings. Is there anything else that you wanted 

to add about that, about the impact that you see from these block 

crossings or ideas about how to move forward to get these done? 

One big part of the issue is it is more difficult to do the bigger 

project, and that has been one of the issues with CREATE, is it is 

easier to do the smaller projects rather than sink a lot of money 

into the bigger projects, but is there anything else you want to add 

about the grade separation issue? 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Congressman. 

And by the way, the congressman and I both grew up on the 

Southwest Side of Chicago in the same neighborhood and faced, as 

the congressman has indicated, the problem of at grade separations 

certainly in his district and that region of Chicagoland area. 

I think a couple of panelists or a couple of congressmen had indicated local economies, and certainly grade separation in and 

around these major freight intermodal areas is very critical as is 

the survival of the local economy of not only the Southwest Side 

of Chicago, but throughout the metropolitan region in dealing with 

grade separations. 

It is a critical component that has really lacked not necessarily 

attention, but lacked the priority of funding for that aspect of it, 

and we hope, again, with this new bill that we will be able to reprioritize at grade separations and complete or begin to complete 

the long list of at grade separations. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And you had mentioned the Projects of National 

and Regional Significance. I missed some of it, and I am not sure 

if Mr. Nadler raised that or not, but that is certainly critically important, I think, as we move with forward MAP–21 to not only inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:15 Aug 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\2-27-1~1\86846.TXT JEAN
47 

clude that, but also to fund them, which was an issue with the last 

bill. 

One other question I wanted to ask is you had talked about the 

national freight policy, and one of the suggestions that you had was 

to integrate metropolitan regions into the freight investment decisionmaking process. Could you expand on that and why you think 

that’s important? 

Mr. BENNETT. I think before any money is spent you want to 

have a plan and I think not only a plan in your own metropolitan 

area, but throughout the entire country. It is a national freight 

plan. We have had congressmen speak from their metropolitan 

areas about connecting the dots, so to speak, from California to 

Chicago and then onward to the eastern seaboard, that by a coordinated effort of these metropolitan regions in a national freight 

plan, which MAP–21 called for in its authorization to be established, we did it with CREATE and there are now since then other 

metropolitan regions who have come up with a plan, again, to connect all the dots together. 

So we think it’s significant in the priority of spending of freight 

monies going forward, and we strongly believe in cooperating with 

our partners. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And I know the last thing I just want to mention 

on another point that you had made in the recommendation is to 

redefine the national freight network to comprise the multimodal 

transportation system, and it was brought up a number of times 

here. We had the Panel on 21st-Century Freight Transportation 

last year, and I think we had a majority of the Members who were 

on the freight panel who are here today, and I am very hopeful 

that we can move forward because that was certainly something 

that we had talked about. 

It has been a difficulty because to some extent our committee is 

separated into subcommittees that look at single modes, that we 

have not done enough to really look at it comprehensively, and I 

think the freight panel did that, and hopefully we can include some 

of those recommendations in the reauthorization of MAP–21. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

And I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 

writing and unanimous consent that the record main open for 15 

days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

And if there is no other comment, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

48 


Insert offset folio 13 here 86846.013
49 


Insert offset folio 14 here 86846.014
50 


Insert offset folio 15 here 86846.015
51 


Insert offset folio 16 here 86846.016
52 


Insert offset folio 17 here 86846.017
53 


Insert offset folio 18 here 86846.018
54 


Insert offset folio 19 here 86846.019
55 


Insert offset folio 20 here 86846.020
56 


Insert offset folio 21 here 86846.021
57 


Insert offset folio 22 here 86846.022
58 


Insert offset folio 23 here 86846.023
59 


Insert offset folio 24 here 86846.024
60 


Insert offset folio 25 here 86846.025
61 


Insert offset folio 26 here 86846.026
62 


Insert offset folio 27 here 86846.027
63 


Insert offset folio 28 here 86846.028
64 


Insert offset folio 29 here 86846.029
65 


Insert offset folio 30 here 86846.030
66 


Insert offset folio 31 here 86846.031
67 


Insert offset folio 32 here 86846.032
68 


Insert offset folio 33 here 86846.033
69 


Insert offset folio 34 here 86846.034
70 


Insert offset folio 35 here 86846.035
71 


Insert offset folio 36 here 86846.036
72 


Insert offset folio 37 here 86846.037
73 


Insert offset folio 38 here 86846.038
74 


Insert offset folio 39 here 86846.039
75 


Insert offset folio 40 here 86846.040
76 


Insert offset folio 41 here 86846.041
77 


Insert offset folio 42 here 86846.042
78 


Insert offset folio 43 here 86846.043
79 


Insert offset folio 44 here 86846.044
80 


Insert offset folio 45 here 86846.045
81 


Insert offset folio 46 here 86846.046
82 


Insert offset folio 47 here 86846.047
83 


Insert offset folio 48 here 86846.048
84 


Insert offset folio 49 here 86846.049
85 


Insert offset folio 50 here 86846.050
86 


Insert offset folio 51 here 86846.051
87 


Insert offset folio 52 here 86846.052
88 


Insert offset folio 53 here 86846.053
89 


Insert offset folio 54 here 86846.054
90 


Insert offset folio 55 here 86846.055
91 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 56 here 86846.056