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

88–761PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–895 

STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON 

TRANSPORTATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 6, 2011 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 6, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .............. 92 

Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ............................. 99 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ......... 99 

Boozman, John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas .................................. 100 

Carper, Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ...................................... 100 

WITNESSES 

Leggett, Hon. Isiah, county executive, Montgomery County, Maryland ............. 2 

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

Kennedy, Bill, commissioner, District 3, Yellowstone County, Montana ............ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

McKim, Cindy, director, California Department of Transportation .................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Recommendations for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization 

Bill ........................................................................................................... 20–30 

Degges, Paul, chief engineer, Tennessee Department of Transportation ........... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Recommendations from the Tennessee Department of Transportation ....................................................................................................... 40–48 

Wright, Thomas K., executive director, Regional Plan Association .................... 49 

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

Responses to addititional questions from Senator Carper ............................ 59 

Malone, Mike, executive director, Northwest Arkansas Council ......................... 72 

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

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Report, Regional Plan Association, July 2010, The ARC Effect, How better 

transit boosts home values & local economics.................................................... 60–71 

(1) 

STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON 

TRANSPORTATION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m. in room 406, 

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

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Alexander, Cardin, Sanders and Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The committee will come to order, and I want to 

welcome our witnesses. 

I am going to put my opening statement in the record and hope 

that each Senator who arrives will do the same because we really 

want to get to talk to you and get some of your ideas. 

I wanted to give you an update on where we stand on the bill. 

We are working across party lines both here, I am working with 

Senator Inhofe and the Subcommittee Chairs and Ranking Members we call the Big Four to craft a transportation bill that we feel 

will be adequate to the needs of the country. 

We also have seen out in America the coming together of people 

of various political persuasions joining together to say that there 

is a lot of partisanship, but we are hoping that we don’t have to 

face that in this bill. We have had Richard Trumka, the head of 

the AFL–CIO, and we have had Mr. Donohue, Tom, come together 

in a couple of venues. One was right here sitting over there at the 

table, and the other we had a press conference recently. 

So they are all together saying let’s get this done because I think 

everyone knows we still have to create jobs. The construction industry, I don’t have to tell all of you this because I think you know, 

is suffering with a 30 percent unemployment rate in the construction industry. 

So what we want to do today was to get some State and local 

perspectives, and we asked various colleagues here to recommend 

some of you to come speak to us. So we are very glad to see this 

array of people before us, and we will start. Instead of giving you 

5 minutes because no one is here to take up the time, I will give 

you 7 minutes each, so you don’t have to feel like you need to rush 

through. All right? 
2 

So why don’t you start the clock, and we are going to start with 

Hon. Isiah Leggett, County Executive, Montgomery County, Maryland. We are very excited to have you here, sir. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Economic recovery and job creation are top priorities for this Congress, and investing in transportation is essential to that effort. 

Surface transportation improvements create jobs in the construction industry, 

which has been especially hard hit by the economic downturn. The unemployment 

rate in the construction industry is currently 20 percent, which is more than double 

the national average, and there are nearly 1.7 million unemployed construction 

workers nationwide. 

One of the most effective, far-reaching ways to create jobs and get the economy 

back on track is to fix the nation’s outdated infrastructure. 

Our transportation systems used to be the best in the world, but investments 

have not kept up with needs, and now we are falling behind. The rest of the world 

is building infrastructure systems to move people and goods—and so must we. 

That is why the Environment and Public Works Committee is drafting a new surface transportation authorization bill, which we plan to mark up this spring. 

This legislation will help put people to work, improve the condition of our nation’s 

highways, bridges, and transit systems, and reduce congestion and its impacts on 

commerce and communities. 

This legislation will impact all Americans because it sets the policy and provides 

the funding for transportation nationwide. 

State and local governments depend upon Federal dollars to augment those collected at the State and local level for transportation improvements. They also have 

to follow Federal laws and regulations when carrying out projects using Federal 

funds. 

As a result, State and local governments have a strong interest in the next surface transportation authorization. 

Because they are close to the ground and can see the direct effects of Federal investments in transportation on a day to day basis, it is important for us to hear 

directly from individuals and organizations from across this nation about their priorities for surface transportation authorization. 

In February, I was in Los Angeles for a Joint Field Hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to receive testimony from community leaders and government officials on national, State, and local transportation priorities. 

Cindy McKim, director of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

testified at that hearing and I am pleased she is able to join us today. 

Today’s witnesses are from across the country, but they are all from states that 

are represented on this committee and can provide some State and local perspectives to our committee. 

I want to thank them all for coming here today. I look forward to their testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ISIAH LEGGETT, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND 

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and good morning 

to the committee Members. I especially thank Senator Cardin for 

inviting me to testify before you today. 

My name is Isiah Leggett, County Executive, Montgomery County, Maryland. Montgomery County is literally next door to the Nation’s Capital, and the home to over 250 biotech companies and industry leaders such as Human Genome Sciences, MedImmune, and 

United Therapeutics. 

We also have the distinction of having 19 Federal facilities in our 

County, including NIST, NRC, FDA, NIH and the future home of 

the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda. As 

part of the Washington Region, we have the unenviable distinction 

of having the highest levels of traffic congestion and delays in the 
3 

entire United States. We have such a distinction with our congestion even though we are second only to the city of New York in the 

total percentage of commuters using transit or carpools daily. 

Our major Interstate highways, the Washington Metrorail, the 

new Metro bus system, and the county’s 300 local bus systems, 

which is one of the largest in the entire Nation, cannot keep pace 

with the demand. 

Montgomery County identified earlier this year more than a $1 

billion shortfall in design and construction projects on the State 

roads in our County and an additional $4 billion in backlogged 

State transportation projects that have not completed environmental analysis. 

The situation is so dire on our State roads now, which we think 

we can resolve in the foreseeable future, that our County has had 

to take the unusual step on several occasions to provide significant 

local funds for State projects. Now that we are facing severe local 

funding constraints, Montgomery County no longer can afford to 

provide such funds to the State when our own road system has 

been underfunded for local transportation requirements in the hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Our traffic problems will deteriorate even further with the unexpected consequences of a major BRAC move to our County. A recent study by the National Academy of Science verified what we in 

Montgomery County already know, that the BRAC consolidation of 

two hospitals in Bethesda, while meritorious in its intent to establish a world-class military facility and medical facility, failed to account for the impact on the local transportation infrastructure. The 

potential gridlock around the Bethesda facility could be so severe 

that patients and doctors may be denied timely access to the facility. 

I want to repeat that, Madam Chairman. The potential gridlock 

around the Bethesda facility could be so severe that patients and 

doctors may be denied timely access to the facility. 

Montgomery County and the State of Maryland lack the funds to 

fully implement transportation projects to mitigate BRAC-related 

gridlock. In reauthorizing the Federal highway program that includes the Defense Access Roads Program, I would urge the committee to take a look at an increased role for State and local governments so that we can avoid such problems in the future. 

We also must streamline the environmental review and approval 

process. We have a project in Montgomery County that we just 

opened the first leg of a few months ago called the ICC. It literally 

started in the 1950s with many attempts to obtain Federal approval. We failed in the 1980s, 1990s, but through the environmental streamlining process, in less than 3 years we were able to 

resolve it. 

We need to find ways to increase revenues for the Transportation 

Trust Fund and continue funding New Starts. Simply maintaining 

the infrastructure at current levels of funding will continue our 

downward trend of failing infrastructure. Our competitiveness in 

the global marketplace will be reduced and our productivity will 

continue to be hampered by daily intolerable levels of congestion, 

poorly maintained and unreliable roads, and aging transit systems 
4 

without the proper funding support to maintain acceptable levels 

of safety, efficiency and reliability. 

As we look to the future, we are relying heavily on mass transit. 

We have several major projects that are on the way. The ICC is 

one road project. But our real strength is looking at the Purple 

Line, the Corridor Cities Transitway, and a bus rapid transit system in Montgomery County that will help us relieve the daily congestion problems that we face. 

I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss 

with you the transportation challenges in Montgomery County. I 

know that we have some difficulties at the local level, but we really 

need support in streamlining the process. We need support with 

additional funding, and we need cooperation at both the State and 

the Federal levels to avoid the consequences of what we see around 

the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda. 

I will say, as you probably use the Metrorail System here, that 

our Metro system desperately needs additional funding to avoid the 

capital constraints that we currently have. It is a main system that 

literally serves the entire Nation. But in serving the Nation, we 

need help and support from the Federal Government to relieve the 

problems that we face day in and day out. We have identified in 

the last year a number of major capital constraints that have hampered the system from resolving the already-identified safety concerns. That is something that is high on our list for the entire area, 

but literally for the entire Nation. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address you, 

and I will be able to respond to any questions after the other panelists have finished. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leggett follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Leggett. 

Our next witness is Hon. Bill Kennedy, who is the commissioner 

of District 3, Yellowstone County, Montana. We welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL KENNEDY, COMMISSIONER, 

DISTRICT 3, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and Members of the 

committee, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify on State 

and local transportation perspectives. My name is Bill Kennedy, 

Yellowstone county commissioner in Billings, MT. I serve both 

urban and rural interests, representing approximately 148,000 people, including Billings. Billings is Montana’s largest city with just 

over 100,000 people, so I have a county that is about 60/40 urban 

and rural. 

I have also served on both Montana Highway Commission, I 

chaired it for 2 years, and the congressionally authorized Infrastructure Finance Commission, which produced a 2009 report examining funding needs and financing mechanisms. 

I am acutely aware of the funding challenges this committee confronts. Still, the American people need, No. 1, mobility; No. 2, safety; and No. 3, smart investment, and especially right now, in my 

State, it’s jobs and jobs and jobs. 

But at this point, we lack investor confidence because they don’t 

really see what their investments provide, other than earmarks. 

States like Montana are growing apprehensive about letting bids 

for projects due to uncertainty as the projects continue to grow 

more overdue by the day. I fear we will continue to go through one 

extension after another, much like the overdue FAA bill which was 

recently extended for the 18th time. As we have projects come due 

in Montana, what happens is we do not let those bids for projects 

until the money is in hand. 

Montana desperately needs the Federal Aid Highway Program. 

Despite being the 15th highest in State fuel taxes, we could never 

adequately maintain our interstates, arterials and county roads by 

ourselves because we have one of the lowest population levels and 

one of the lowest per capita income levels in the Nation. 

Meanwhile, we accommodate tens of millions of out-of-State 

users annually for tourism and also for our freight movement. The 

Highway Program is also critical to jobs in Montana, where unemployment in the construction sector exceeds over 20 percent. 

We need a 21st century road network. Nearly half of Montana’s 

primary and secondary arterials are at the end of their design life 

and 1 in 13 bridges is structurally deficient, according to a recent 

study that was published in the Billings Gazette last weekend. 

We need to modernize for safety reasons and that is why I stated 

before, safety is the No. 1 concern. We need a better north-south 

network to accommodate NAFTA movements because Montana 

shares a long border with Canada. We have trouble currently trying to get oversized rigs to Canada to the oil sands. If we are going 

to be energy efficient in this country, we need to make sure that 

we have the Interstates and the roadways to travel with oversized 

loads. 
9 

We need local buy-in on these projects in order to generate support for this program at the ground level. County commissioners 

and local government officials all across Montana need to have a 

say in being able to look at these projects and work hand in hand 

with MDOT and Federal Highways on these projects to get them 

going. 

We need to continue investments in rural roads. It is very important. Where the fatality rate remains stubbornly high, we need to 

look at the safety on these rural roads. We need a truly national 

freight program that recognizes each State’s individual needs. Montana is one of those States that a lot of freight is passed through 

to the West Coast. 

I also think we need rural planning and project streamlining. 

Madam Chairman, you will hear over and over again streamlining 

of these Federal projects, where smaller projects with limited environmental impact have a simpler path to the project approval and 

continued county road eligibility. 

But mostly what we need, we need action. We need a bill, whether it is a standard 6 years or even a 2-year bill to buy time while 

we hopefully have a national discussion about what we need as a 

Nation. What we want and what we need is certainty, and we need 

this soon. We will fail to see the jobs benefits by 2012 if we don’t 

because obligations naturally take months to finalize. We are 

standing out there ready for projects to be bid with uncertainty 

about the money coming in. 

I am also vice chair of the Rural Action Caucus for the National 

Association of Counties. I also have their input on the reauthorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Project, and I would 

submit those as part of my testimony today. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Mr. KENNEDY. So once again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents and the State of Montana and for counties across the country. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Senator BOXER. Commissioner, I want to thank you. Both speakers so far have been very clear. I couldn’t agree with you more on 

the need to move and the need for certainty. I understand this. It 

has been really very difficult to have these extensions and extensions and extensions. I have not been a fan of these extensions. We 

have had to do them, but we must move forward. I think you are 

getting that sense of urgency. 

I will tell Senator Baucus that you gave very, very clear testimony and I know that he recommended you to speak to us today, 

as did Senator Cardin, each of the Senators who may not be here 

because we moved up the time of this hearing. I just want you to 

know how important your message is. 

OOf course, it is with great pride that I introduce our next witness, Cindy McKim, who is director of the California Department 

of Transportation. I know exactly what she faces on a daily basis 

and I am just thrilled that you are here and letting us know firsthand. 

STATEMENT OF CINDY MCKIM, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. MCKIM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am Cindy McKim, 

director of California’s Department of Transportation. 

Today, I wanted to provide you with a broad sense of the transportation issues facing our State, the most populous in the Nation 

and the eighth-largest economy in the world. More than 40 percent 

of containers moving into and out of America use California’s highways, railroads, ports and airports. With 12 percent of the Nation’s 

population, California is responsible for almost 14 percent of the 

Nation’s gross domestic product. 

We in California recognize that transportation means business, 

business means jobs, and jobs propel our economy. We have put 

our money where our mouths are. Over the past 10 years at the 

State level in California, we have invested an additional $40 billion 

over and above the normal transportation dollars available into our 

transportation system. Our local agencies, several of our counties, 

have enacted special sales tax measures that provide an additional 

$4 billion a year for transportation improvements in those counties. 

We think that we certainly need to have action, but we also 

think this is a real opportunity for us to not just repeat the sameold, same-old in the new reauthorization bill, but to look at ways 

to be able to deliver projects more effectively, to make sure that we 

are communicating to all of our constituencies and our general public about the importance of transportation, and that we are using 

those dollars effectively. 

In California, we have analyzed the funding needed over the next 

10 years to preserve our transportation infrastructure. Just to 

maintain and rehabilitate our existing highway infrastructure will 

require an additional $74 billion over and above what we are already providing. For local streets and roads, the shortfall is projected to be about another $78.9 billion. So the needs are certainly 

outstripping our ability to be able to fund them. 

There are some key things that we would like to see in the next 

transportation authorization. First of all, reauthorization needs to 

ensure the financial integrity of the Highway and Transit Trust 
14 

Funds. The current revenue stream will not provide the revenue or 

stability needed, especially as new fuels enter the marketplace. The 

result of starts and stops in funding availability is inefficient 

project delivery and wasted time and money. 

The next authorization will need to stabilize revenues and prepare the way for the transition to new methods of funding the Nation’s transportation infrastructure, such as flexibility to use creative financing tools. Second, we need to rebuild and maintain our 

transportation infrastructure in good state of repair. Conditions on 

California’s surface transportation system are deteriorating, while 

demand is increasing. We maintain and operate a highway system 

that was largely built over 50 years ago. Funding policies at the 

Federal, State and local levels tend to understate the life cycle 

costs of transportation infrastructure and must be revised. 

These combined factors of deteriorating systems, increasing demand and inadequate funding policies adversely affect the operational efficiency of our transportation assets. 

Our economic health demands that we establish goods movement 

as a national economic priority. The efficient movement of goods 

across State and international boundaries increases the Nation’s 

ability to remain globally competitive and generate jobs. You can 

help by creating a new Federal program and funding sources dedicated to relieving growing congestion at America’s global gateways. 

This congestion is acting as a trade barrier and creating environmental hot spots. 

Our urban areas need enhanced mobility through congestion relief within and in between metropolitan areas. California is home 

to six of the 25 most congested metropolitan areas in the Nation. 

These mega-regions represent a large majority of the population affected by travel delay and exposure to air pollutants. We ask that 

you develop incentives for those regions that are raising their own 

transportation dollars, perhaps by expanding the TIFIA Loan Program. 

The next authorization has the opportunity to streamline project 

delivery. Lengthy processing times for environmental clearances, 

Federal permits and reviews add to the cost of projects and delay 

needed mobility improvements for the traveling public. Given constrained resources, it is all the more critical that these clearances 

and reviews be kept to the minimum possible consistent with good 

stewardship of natural resources. 

I would like to point out that California was the only State to 

fully implement the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA delegation pilot program authorized in SAFETEA-LU, which California 

began using in 2007. Through this program, California has assumed most Federal responsibilities for environmental documents 

and now completes routine NEPA documents about 14 months earlier than before. Overall project delivery timeframes have improved 

as well. California recommends that this successful pilot be made 

permanent. 

You can consolidate Federal programs to improve efficiency and 

provide flexibility. The Administration’s surface reauthorization 

proposal suggests consolidating 55 highway programs into five core 

programs, along with other program consolidations in other areas. 

If this includes giving the States flexibility in making funding deci-
15 

sions that are appropriate for them, it is a good start to providing 

the flexibility we need. 

We are looking for a continued, stable and reliable long-term investment strategy from Washington that can support the transportation infrastructure necessary to continue our Nation’s economic 

supremacy. No other action by Congress could serve transportation 

as well, create so many jobs, or build badly needed infrastructure 

as effectively as that action. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McKim follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. You hit on a lot of issues 

that are going to be central to our rewrite and I am going to question you in-depth about some of them. 

So Senator Alexander, you have arrived at the moment that we 

were going to call on your witness from your State. Would you like 

to call on your witness and so begin? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

I welcome Paul Degges. We are real proud of the Tennessee Department of Transportation. He is Chief Engineer. He has been 

there 20 years, been there a little longer. But we have a very professional Department of Transportation and it has been that way 

through Republican and Democratic Governors. We have kind of alternated back and forth over the years. We found, Madam Chairman, that a good road system is absolutely essential to us in terms 

of attracting the auto industry so that the hundreds of suppliers 

who came into our State could make their time of delivery. 

So I am very proud to introduce Paul Degges, who is the Chief 

Engineer of the Tennessee Department of Transportation, and look 

forward to hearing his recommendations. 

Senator BOXER. Proceed, Mr. Degges. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL DEGGES, CHIEF ENGINEER, TENNESSEE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. DEGGES. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Members of the 

committee, particularly Senator Alexander. I appreciate this opportunity to testify. 

I am Paul Degges. I am the chief engineer for the Tennessee Department of Transportation. Tennessee is a medium-size State, a 

little over 6 million people. We are about half urban, half rural. We 

have a lot of transportation needs. 

The department strongly encourages a 6-year authorization of 

the Federal bill. A multi-year authorization will enable Tennessee 

to pursue long-term planning and programming strategies. Without 

a multi-year bill, TDOT, along with our 11 metropolitan planning 

organizations and 12 rural planning organizations, and even long 

with all of our cities and the 95 counties in Tennessee, it makes 

it difficult for us to develop long-term strategies for the State. 

The department strongly encourages the concept of consolidating 

some 55 funding silos on the FHWA side of the fence into about 

five or fewer core programs. But we do believe that the overall 

funding should be made available to the States in a fashion similar 

to previous authorization, which distributes funds proportional to 

the State’s population and transportation networks. 

We understand that there is a need in some cases for some special Federal aid programs to address regionally significant circumstances, but we don’t believe there should just be a lot of setaside programs that essentially create an Administration earmarking program. 

The bill needs to reinforce the concept of a federally assisted and 

State-administered program, as other panel members have spoke 

today. Every State has unique needs and a one-size-fits-all solution 

is certainly not the way to go. 

We do need to be able to maintain our flexibility. The needs, as 

I said, vary from State to State and the consolidation needs to 
32 

maximize our flexibility so these programs can meet the needs of 

individual States. The flexibility in the use of Federal aid funds 

holds true for all sources in the authorization, not only the operations programs of the Federal Highway Administration. 

We desire to see more flexibility in our transit programs. Tennessee is one of just a handful of States that have transit opportunity and transit access in all 95 counties in Tennessee, and we 

would like to see this flexibility extended in our transit programs 

as well. I know our 5309 Program is a model program where we 

work together with all transit providers across the State to get a 

good distribution of those funds. 

Our NHTSA program as well, our safety programs on the behavioral side, we would like to maximize our flexibility there. I know 

on motorcycles, for instance, we are seeing a rise of fatalities on 

motorcycles and we want to try to expand that flexibility and to try 

to help things out in that aspect. 

The buying power of transportation dollars are continuing to decrease and we have to maintain our aging infrastructure. We need 

some more flexibility in using Federal aid funds on maintenance 

activities. In Tennessee, we estimate our highway system alone to 

be worth about $15.5 billion and it only makes sense that we can 

expand our Federal investments to realize the maintenance of 

those systems. 

Streamlining project delivery is something that is key to what we 

do. In Tennessee, the average time from when we start a project 

to when you are driving on it is about 12 years. The national average I believe is about 13 years. We applaud FHWA Administrator 

Victor Mendez’s Every Day Counts Initiative, which envisions a 

shortened project delivery time. But even under the Every Day 

Counts Program, it is unlikely that we are going to reduce time significantly. 

Federal constraint in our STIP is a big issue for us. We feel that 

the interpretation of the current guidelines have devolved into a 

checkbook accounting. A planning document is supposed to be a 

high-level view, and when I am ready to go to construction on a 

project, I don’t feel I should have to delay the construction phase 

to update the planning document. 

So we feel that there are some opportunities for some groupings 

in our STIP-TIP process that will allow us to streamline project delivery. 

States need to be afforded the opportunity to maximize the flexibility in today’s transportation climate and must be allowed discretion to make choices on the project selection because of unknowns 

that can occur in the environmental permitting and right-of-way 

areas that can adversely affect the development schedule of a 

project. That ultimately will affect our ability to draw down Federal funds available to us. 

We don’t believe that the STIP should be used as a checkbook 

accounting of funds available to the department because it is a 

planning document. 

Another impact on project delivery is regulatory impacts. We believe that once a project has made it through the NEPA process 

and has an approved environmental document, that changes in regulatory guidance and other aspects of environmental rules 
33 

shouldn’t have us to stop and start over on the project to do a redesign to comply with changing rules. 

We are also concerned about the condition and the maintenance 

of our facilities. If I have a bridge over a stream, it is very difficult 

for us to come in and have to do a total redesign when I just want 

to maintain the structure. A lot of the Federal rules make it very 

difficult for us just to maintain our projects. 

In closing, the transportation system is the backbone of our economy. It is all about creating jobs and again, I am honored to be 

asked to come here and talk today, and we continue to look forward 

to ways to improve our transportation system. A multi-year authorization bill is important and we need your help in getting this important legislation passed. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Degges follows:] 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much. 

Our next witness is from the Regional Plan Association. Mr. 

Wright, would you explain to us before your time begins who you 

actually represent, which States? We welcome you. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Regional Plan Association is a civic 

non-profit group based in New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS K. WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WRIGHT. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to 

submit testimony to the Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works. Thanks in particular to Senator Lautenberg, who I 

interned for 23 years ago, to return here today. 

My name is Tom Wright. I am executive director of Regional 

Plan Association. We are America’s oldest independent regional 

planning research and advocacy group. Since 1922, Regional Plan 

Association has prepared long-range plans and policies to guide the 

growth and development of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut 

metropolitan region. 

Looking forward from 2000 to 2050, the Census Bureau forecasts 

that America will grow by 158 million people, reaching a total population of 439 million. That is more than the 120 million people 

that America added from 1950 to 2000 during the rapid growth 

years following World War II and during which time America built 

the entire Interstate highway system. 

Most of the growth in this country will take place in mega-regions, the large networks of metropolitan regions such as the 

Northeast, Southern California, the Texas triangle, and the Arizona sun corridor. Mega-regions are the new competitive units in 

the global economy. They are competing with a similarly sized global integration zones of Europe and Southeast Asia, where tens of 

billions of dollars in investments have been made in high-speed rail 

and goods movement systems to support the highly mobile work 

force of the global economy. 

Nationally, we should be developing intercity rail corridors of up 

to 500 miles in length to promote alternatives to air and road travel. While we support the creation of new high-speed rail corridors, 

it is important to note that simply providing frequent, reliable 

higher-speed service of 100 miles per hour in dense corridors would 

result in major increases in ridership. 

For instance, the Northeast Corridor moves approximately threequarters of a million people per day to their jobs. These movements 

are critical to the Northeast’s $2.6 trillion economy, which accounts 

for roughly one-fifth of the U.S. GDP. Imagine if 750,000 additional 

daily passengers were suddenly added to I–95 and the Northeast’s 

major airports. Our transportation network would come to a standstill. 

Within metropolitan regions, we must continue to invest in our 

public transportation systems as economic development tools. Our 

metropolitan regions can accommodate the projected increases in 

population if we focus density in development near transit. There 

are 900 stations in the New York region. All should and could be 

focal points for development and smart growth. 
50 

The New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metro region boasts the 

highest use of public transit anywhere in the country, and yet our 

systems are struggling because of a history of taking on debt to 

cover operating costs and a lack of funding for capital improvements to expand our capacity. As everyone is aware, last fall Governor Christie in New Jersey canceled the access to the region’s 

core project, citing concerns over potential cost overruns. 

ARC would have been New Jersey and New York’s biggest investment in transit ever. It would have doubled the number of 

trains that can travel every morning into the economic engine of 

the region from west of the Hudson River. 

The 1996, 2002 and 2003 New Jersey Transit significantly improved train service with Midtown Direct, the Montclair Connection and the Secaucus Junction. Each of these projects shaved up 

to 20 minutes in travel times to midtown Manhattan and created 

a jump in ridership. Collectively, these projects increased the number of New Jerseyans living within a 70-minute commute of midtown Manhattan, from around 1.6 million to about 2 million people. 

Not surprisingly, the number of riders taking New Jersey Transit 

trains into New York has quadrupled from about 10 million a year 

to over 40 million a year over the past three decades. These 

projects also increased property values of homes within 2 miles of 

train stations. Based on a regression analysis of 45,000 home sales, 

RPA has calculated that every minute saved from a transit trip to 

midtown Manhattan adds almost $3,000 to the value of a home 

within a half-mile of a train station. 

Building a new tunnel under the Hudson River would double the 

number of New Jerseyans living within a 50-minute commute to 

midtown Manhattan, from about 750,000 to 1.5 million. On average, stations would see a travel time improvement of 10 minutes 

and homes within a half-mile of those stations would gain $29,000 

in value. Cumulatively, homes within 2 miles of a train station 

would gain about $18 billion in additional value, representing an 

additional $375 million a year in property tax revenues for the municipalities affected. 

These findings are consistent with other national studies which 

have identified a strong link between transit service and economic 

benefits. Houses immediately adjacent to San Francisco’s BART 

sold for nearly 38 percent more than identical houses in areas not 

served by BART. Residential rents decreased by 2.4 percent for 

every one-tenth of a mile further from Washington, DC. Metro stations. 

As politically difficult as it may be, we must find a way to pay 

for these investments. New capacity is a prerequisite for economic 

growth in metropolitan regions where we face limited roadway, 

transit and airport capacity. 

We urge the committee to consider a range of options to generate 

more funding for transportation investments, such as raising and 

indexing the gasoline tax to inflation, implementing user fees such 

as VMT charges, and supporting public-private partnerships. 

Second, we strongly support proposals for a national infrastructure bank, which would provide loans and grants for priority infrastructure projects evaluated on a competitive basis. New Federal financing tools could help leverage local revenue streams that voters 
51 

have approved through local ballot initiatives to support specific 

packages of transportation improvements. 

In closing, there is no more suitable role for the Federal Government than to support the Nation’s future growth with long-term investments in infrastructure that promote economic prosperity, a 

healthy environment, and the freedom of movement across our 

landscape. These opportunities are most vital in the Nation’s metropolitan areas, where economic activity and people are concentrated. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share this research with you 

this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Lautenberg, you did very well with your intern. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You taught him well. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. As I listened to his presentation, nothing 

made my heart beat faster because of the need and availability of 

what happens when we find that we offer rail service. I think that, 

Tom, if I may, he worked for me and he got me where I am. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anyway, but the increasing value of homes 

and business along the way. We have a line that goes from Trenton 

down to Camden, and it didn’t take long after that line was completed for businesses to start moving into the area. We have things 

called transit villages that immediately seemed to sell and sell 

well. 

So I thank you, Mr. Wright, for your service and the Regional 

Plan Association is one of the most important transportation agencies in the country. 

I thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Boozman, would you like to introduce the witness from 

your home State? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, ma’am, very much. We are really pleased 

to have Mr. Mike Malone with us. Mike is a native of Arkansas 

and is the executive director of the Northwest Arkansas Council. 

The hallmark of the Northwest Arkansas region, which is the fastest-growing area of the State is their ability to work together, build 

consensus. In doing so, have really been able to put together coalitions that have done remarkable work in getting projects that are 

so important for the area and State done. 

Mr. Malone truly understands the challenges of private transportation and all the challenges that that represents in getting the infrastructure put in place. Mike is also in a unique position. He 

worked for the House Appropriations Committee for several years 

and was one of their most respected members on both sides of the 

aisle because of his ability in building consensus and having tremendous grasp of knowledge in different areas. 

So I think he really does have a unique perspective, not only of 

the challenges at the private level, but also the challenges here 

that we face in trying to provide funding and be as helpful as we 

can. 

So it is a real pleasure to have you with us today, Mike. 

Mr. MALONE. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Please proceed, Mr. Malone. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE MALONE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS COUNCIL 

Mr. MALONE. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Boozman, Members of the committee. Thank you very much for the invitation and 

the nice introduction. I appreciate that. 

I also as a former staffer want to offer thanks to your staff for 

being so hospitable to us. They were great to work with as well. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 
73 

Mr. MALONE. Northwest Arkansas has a very exciting story to 

tell and I am very pleased to be able to offer it to you today. Much 

like Mr. Wright described, my organization that I work for is an 

independent advocacy group that works at the regional scale. A 

smaller region than the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region, 

but an important contributor to the Nation’s economy. Infrastructure challenges certainly are of concern in our area and we appreciate the opportunity to contribute here. 

The rapid growth in our area over the last two decades, we are 

one of the fastest-growing regions in percentage terms in the 

United States, and the rapid growth has put severe strains on our 

transportation infrastructure. We are concerned that without critical infrastructure improvements, our economic success will be 

halted or even reversed. 

We have been blessed with some very entrepreneurial business 

leaders and elected officials: Senator Boozman, Senator Pryor; in 

years past, Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt. Our region is 

home to business leaders with the names Walton, Tyson and Hunt, 

J.B. Hunt Transport. Those companies have grown into national 

and international leaders in their field and contributed greatly to 

the United States economy, and much of that growth has occurred 

despite having some of the infrastructure advantages of other regions. 

Through the leadership of our officials, we do have one four-lane 

interstate that connects our region to the Nation’s interstate system, but we are one of only a handful of the 350 metropolitan regions around the country that is connected to just a single other 

MSA by an interstate. There are very few regions in the country 

that are just connected to one other MSA, so we are at a disadvantage there. 

The State of Arkansas is a small, somewhat rural State and also 

is facing some of the revenue challenges much like Tennessee and 

other mid-size and smaller States are facing as well. Projects costs 

have increased in Arkansas and we are facing project delays and 

revenue concerns, and not able to deliver the projects at the rate 

that we would like to see. 

We are losing ground on key regional projects and we are afraid 

that we are going to lose our competitive edge as a region and certainly as a State. 

Like Director McKim said, Arkansas is also putting its money 

where our message is. Our region has invested in infrastructure at 

a rate far beyond that of other regions in the State of Arkansas. 

Our local communities have taxed themselves to the tune of almost 

$300 million for the last decade or so to invest in projects, many 

of which had historically been State and Federal-funded projects. 

So we are doing all we can as a region. We have done a lot and 

think we are doing as much as we can as a region. 

Our State also is looking at raising some additional revenues 

above and beyond the traditional revenues that have flowed for 

transportation. Our State legislature just referred out two tax 

questions to voters that will be on the ballot probably sometime in 

2012 to ask voters if they want to raise the diesel tax by a nickel 

in the State of Arkansas, and if they want to raise the State sales 
74 

tax. Both would generate funds to invest in transportation infrastructure in Arkansas. 

Even with these efforts at the local level, even with opportunities 

at the statewide level, those revenues are not sufficient to meet the 

statewide transportation needs in Arkansas. 

So we come to you today, and I think you have heard it from all 

the panelists. We urge you to quickly move forward on passing a 

robust, multi-year authorization bill. It would give regions, State 

Highway Departments, metropolitan areas, communities the certainty that they need to move forward. We are trying to do what 

we can both at the State and local levels, but it is very difficult to 

do it without that certainty or that vision of what the future looks 

like at the Federal level. 

We also as a region would like to ask for programs that can help 

us substantially complete high-priority projects, high-priority corridors, some of which were named in ISTEA, and have been highpriority corridors for almost 20 years, coming on 20 years in fact 

this year. 

We have a key high priority corridor that cuts through the heart 

of Northwest Arkansas. It is a future I–49. Just in our general 

area, there are 3 million Americans that would directly benefit 

from the completion of portions of I–49 through the middle part of 

America. Eventually when it is entirely complete, it will connect 

New Orleans to Winnipeg, Canada. It will be an international corridor for trade and commercial activities and greatly increase access and the economic competitiveness of the middle part of the 

United States. 

We also, and I think my colleague, Mr. Wright, and I would 

share the view that regions are key economic building blocks for 

our Nation’s future. So as you develop programs in the next reauthorization legislation, we urge you to think at the regional scale. 

Business and industry certainly don’t see the political boundaries 

and the geographic boundaries that a lot of us live in and are concerned about. They need the assets and the strengths of an entire 

region regardless of what those boundaries are, to be able to support them and their growth and their activities. 

Finally, as you set program thresholds, we would like to ask that 

you remember that small and mid-size regions are very nimble and 

very competitive. As I mentioned a couple of times before, Northwest Arkansas had the greatest growth as a region in population 

terms of any region in the middle part of the United States. We 

have had more new residents move in over the last decade than 

moved into Kansas City or Minneapolis in actual population terms. 

So we are growing. We are growing at a faster rate, but if 

thresholds are set on Federal programs and they are set too high 

to only touch major metropolitan areas, that leaves dynamic regions like Northwest Arkansas and Little Rock and other areas 

that have had a very successful economic run, out of some of the 

investments and opportunities that you will be providing. 

With that, Madam Chair, I conclude my remarks and thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Malone follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 

Senator BOXER. Thank you all, and thanks to Senators here who 

reached out and brought you forward. 

As we work together on a bill, we have Senators Inhofe, myself 

as the Chair and Ranking Member, and then we have Senator Baucus and Senator Vitter as the Chair of the Subcommittee. Our goal 

is to get a draft that we can share with Members on both sides so 

that we can move forward. 

Now, every one of you wants a robust bill, and I agree. You want 

certainty, and everything you said, I couldn’t agree with more. 

Only one of you suggested a way to fund the Highway Trust Fund. 

Kudos to Mr. Wright. This is the worst question anyone can ask, 

because we know that these are tough times and new revenues are 

hard to come by. 

I would like you to comment on three things, and just very quickly because I just need to know where you stand. On the idea of indexing the gas tax to inflation, tell us whether you support that, 

whether you think that is doable. 

Second, it is alarming to me that the House Members, not all of 

them, certainly not all of them, have proposed and they already 

passed legislation that says the Highway Trust Fund can be used 

for other things. Do you feel we should protect the Highway Trust 

Fund? 

Third is, and Cindy McKim knows this very well, but this notion 

of leveraging the local dollars. You all come from very dynamic regions and a lot of your local people are saying, OK, we will step 

out. We will pay a little more sales tax. Maybe we will do a toll 

road. We will get you revenues, but it has got to be used for these 

specific projects. 

What I am very interested in doing, and Senator Inhofe seems 

to really like this idea, and Congressman Mica over on the House 

side does, is the notion of using TIFIA because it is a current program to fast-forward these projects. Let’s just say in the Little Rock 

area they pass a measure to build 10 different roads. If the Feds 

come in at the beginning of this and fast-forward the money, there 

is no risk at all because those dollars will come back. So we are 

looking at ways of reforming TIFIA to make it pay for more than 

just 30 percent of the total, maybe 50 percent of the total. 

By the way, I say to my friends here, it is unbelievable. Through 

the TIGER II grants, we gave Los Angeles, and I know there are 

other grants, but I am only familiar with this one, a half-billion 

dollar check to fast-forward one of the projects that the voters 

agree to. The cost to the Federal Government, the score was $20 

million for that. So it is amazing what we can do here if we are 

smart. 

So to sum up my question, how do you feel about this notion of 

leveraging? How do you feel about indexing? I would like to just 

go down through the panel, start with Mr. Leggett. 

Mr. LEGGETT. I strongly believe that we should. I think that we 

are kidding ourselves if we believe that additional revenues are not 

needed. 

Senator BOXER. How about raiding the trust fund? 

Mr. LEGGETT. I think we should keep that separate and apart 

from general renenues. Violating the trust fund itself I think would 

be counterproductive. 
84 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. LEGGETT. We have a real strong need here. 

Senator BOXER. OK, I am moving quickly. 

Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. As we discussed in the National Infrastructure Financing Commission, we had a whole section on indexing. We do 

support that and I know the National Association of Counties supports that also. 

As for TIFIA, for the most part, smaller, more rural States, we 

just don’t qualify for a TIFIA loan. They are large, one-project. In 

the State of Montana, we have such a vast amount of acreage in 

Montana that you do not have a large enough project to qualify. So 

for rural States, rural counties, it would be very difficult. 

Senator BOXER. That is why we are reforming it. We will have 

a whole section just dedicated to rural because we know that we 

need to take care of rural, and it would be a grant program, not 

a loan program for the rural. 

Mr. KENNEDY. OK, but it would need some work. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we will work with you. Would you stand 

by and work with us, because we are changing TIFIA so that our 

rural people can get grants because you are exactly right, they 

don’t have the same muscle as a larger region. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I would do that. I am very intrigued by the infrastructure bank. We had a lot of discussion over 

it over the last couple of years on the infrastructure bank. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Baucus is pursuing that, along with 

Senator Kerry and Senator Hutchison. So it has bipartisan support. 

Mr. KENNEDY. If we have some flexibility, especially for the rural 

areas, of being able to tie into it. 

Senator BOXER. I have to move down. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Ms. McKim, because I am running out of time. 

Ms. MCKIM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. With regard to indexing, I think we would be in support of that. I would point out 

that the last increment of a State gasoline excise tax did include 

an indexing provision, so I think that there is room for that. 

With regard to protecting the Trust Fund, absolutely. What we 

have learned in California is that the voters expect that funds that 

they provide specifically for transportation should be spent on 

transportation. 

Finally, we absolutely support all kinds of creative financing 

techniques and the opportunity to leverage both local and State 

dollars against the TIFIA program or the infrastructure bank or 

anything else you can come up with would be really appreciated. 

Senator BOXER. Good. We are working it. 

Yes, Mr. Degges. 

Mr. DEGGES. Tennessee supports indexing. It certainly would be 

a good tool to continue the investment we make in transportation. 

Certainly protecting the Highway Trust Fund and Transportation 

Trust Fund is a very important aspect. 

As far as leveraging dollars, we certainly support that. The 

TIFIA program as it currently exists probably doesn’t help Tennessee a whole lot. When Senator Alexander was Governor, he kind 

of started the State of Tennessee down a pay-as-you-go path. We 
85 

have no debt in our transportation system in Tennessee. We don’t 

want to borrow money. We do work with local governments and 

sometimes they will borrow money, and we leverage local, State, 

Federal and private dollars in delivering transportation projects. 

But I don’t think we really want to borrow any more money, frankly, or borrow any money. 

Senator BOXER. So you don’t go to banks to help you? You don’t 

go to the voters and pass bonds for anything? 

Mr. DEGGES. The Tennessee Department of Transportation has 

zero debt. We use bond authority and work with our cash-flow, but 

we are a pay-as-you-go State. 

Senator BOXER. I don’t understand that. You use bond authority. 

What do you mean by that? Don’t you borrow with the bond authority that you have? 

Mr. DEGGES. I do not pay any interest. 

Senator BOXER. I didn’t ask that. With TIFIA, you don’t pay interest either. 

Mr. DEGGES. OK. Again, don’t get me wrong. Innovative financing is something we would support, but we do not borrow money. 

I use basically the advance construction technique that in Federal 

programs I have a corollary in State programs, where we don’t borrow money. If I have $2 billion worth of stuff under contract today, 

I have $2 billion to pay for it. I use that cash on hand and get bond 

authority on it, and let other projects. So I spend the same dollar 

twice, but I have to watch it every day to make sure the check 

doesn’t come due. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, we will talk later because I want to 

know how I can spend every dollar twice. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. It is a little over my pay grade, but I am going 

to tell my husband to talk to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Wright? 

Mr. WRIGHT. You know where I stand on indexing the gas tax. 

We strongly support that, and of course protecting the Highway 

Trust Fund. 

I would say on the leveraging, TIFIA, TIGER, those tools have 

been extraordinarily important in our region. In particular, fast-forwarding projects can bring down the cost of the construction of 

those projects, especially in the economic environment we have 

right now. We can build some of these projects for less money if 

we had the funding up front to do them more rapidly, and we 

would see the benefits accrue faster, too. 

We look at the L.A. 3010 proposal as just inspirational in the 

kind of thinking that we need. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. Malone? 

Mr. MALONE. We also certainly would support indexing. Without 

indexing, the purchasing power of the gas tax diminishes every 

day. With inflationary pressures increasing, that will be more so in 

the future. Also we would absolutely like to see firewalls around 

the Trust Fund. 
86 

Then along with some of the more rural or semi-rural States, 

there are concerns around financing mechanisms unless there are 

some grant components to them. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, yes. 

Mr. MALONE. Then I would also add our region, I think, would 

be very receptive to the idea of tolling for some new capacity as 

well. There are no toll roads in the State of Arkansas. We have we 

think some traffic count so it would make some of the projects tollfeasible. But none of the projects certainly would be 100 percent 

toll-feasible. 

We would still need other sources of revenue as well, but I think 

that is something our region would be comfortable with. It has 

been floated as options to advance some of these projects, and the 

public and the community seems very receptive. They just want the 

projects. 

Senator BOXER. I agree. I see a big change there. 

So just so everyone knows, my situation is that I have to go down 

toward the White House. There is a meeting about military families and Senator Burr and I are the Chairs of the bipartisan Military Family Caucus. So in short order, I will be leaving and Senator Sanders said he could stay for the whole time and would take 

over the Chair. 

So when I leave, it is nothing you said because, frankly, I like 

everything you said. 

Actually, Senator Boozman is acting as Chair, so I will call on 

you and you can decide whether you want to go first, or Senator 

Alexander. It is up to you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Why don’t I yield to Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Senator Boozman. That is very 

courteous of you. 

I would like to go back to something, to the exchange the Chairman and Mr. Degges were having before I get to a question about 

maintenance, because it goes directly to the question of funding. 

Our State has no road debt, none. The reason is that when we 

want to build a road, we raise the money and pay for it. 

We are one of the poorer States. We have been getting richer, but 

the result of that is the following. Most States pay most of their 

gas tax money on interest on bonds. We spend all of our gas tax 

money on roads. 

So three times during the 8 years I was Governor, we saw an 

economic need to have a better road system. The auto industry was 

moving to the Southeast and the suppliers were saying we need to 

make just-in-time deliveries and we are going to base our location 

decision upon whether you have a good four-lane highway system. 

So we had three big road programs. I haven’t mentioned the 

word tax yet. I have said road programs. So we agree three times 

on the road program we wanted, and then we asked how shall we 

pay for it. We considered: Shall we borrow the money? Or shall we 

simply raise the gas tax and pay for it? What we did was double 

the gas tax in order to pay for it. 

The result has been we now have one-third of our manufacturing 

jobs are auto jobs. The decision to do it was broadly supported. We 

had 80 or 90 legislators out of 99 support it. Nobody got in political 

trouble over it. The only ones who got in political trouble were the 
87 

ones who voted against it because of the help it would be to our 

State. 

So what I am going to be looking for, Madam Chairman, is a 

Federal road program that fits the Federal dollars we have, which 

means it is going to have to have a clear Federal priority as we do 

it. 

I can understand very well the need or the argument for a tunnel 

under the Hudson River, but I am thinking: Well, if you want a 

tunnel under the Hudson River, why, build it, just like we did. I 

mean, we built 100 miles of Interstate-quality highways in Tennessee, 90 percent State and 10 percent Federal. Usually, it is 90 

percent Federal and 10 percent State. We just built them. 

So we had a road to Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We had a 

road around where the auto industry would eventually locate. So 

if you live in an area where you have so much of the economic 

wealth, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, where building a 

tunnel will add to the value of the homes and the businesses, then 

you have a perfect argument to go out to the people and say let’s 

build a tunnel if that is what you want to do. 

But I don’t think it is a good idea to come down to Tennessee 

and say we want people in a State where you are not as wealthy 

to send money to New York to build a tunnel, just as we didn’t 

come to you to say send us money to build a road to Oak Ridge. 

So I think a lot of that argument is going to be, we won’t need 

to have it because we are not going to have the money at the Federal level. We are going to have to focus on clear Federal priorities, 

and that is going to eliminate a lot of Federal dollars for what are, 

in my opinion, regional or local priorities because it is just as easy 

to raise the gas tax in Tennessee a penny as it is to raise the gas 

tax in the United States a penny. The money in Tennessee or Arkansas or New Jersey, wherever it goes, stays home. You can 

spend it. It doesn’t have the Federal rules to the great extent that 

many of you have talked about here today. 

So that is a little bit of an editorial about how I am going to be 

looking at financing of a transportation program. 

Now, Mr. Degges, I want to give you a chance a little bit. If you 

were to list two or three things that we could do, and I appreciate 

the fact that there is a bipartisan spirit on this committee to do 

these kinds of things. Two or three things we could do to make it 

easier for you to spend Federal dollars more efficiently, what would 

those two or three things be? 

Mr. DEGGES. First of all, Senator, I do appreciate your leadership 

in transportation. Certainly, the 1986 road program that was kind 

of your baby is something that is a legacy for Tennesseans. 

As far as a couple or two or three things, historically in transportation it was pave it black and don’t look back. You built it and 

moved on. Operations and maintenance was not something that 

was looked at. Maintenance and operations are a huge issue right 

now, so certainly we are able to use Federal funds for a lot of our 

operational costs, but when it goes down to maintenance, preventive maintenance certainly is eligible for Federal aid, but a lot of 

our routine maintenance costs are not eligible for Federal aid. 

We believe if we have made this huge investment with Federal 

aid dollars in our transportation system that is only makes sense 
88 

to have an expanded role of Federal aid dollars in the maintenance 

of facilities. 

Another thing to look at is also in the STIP-TIP process. You 

heard me mention a little bit earlier that certainly we need a longrange or a multi-year bill to be able to plan our activities, but it 

is very difficult for us when we are trying to get down to delivering 

a project, a lot of things change during the development process of 

a project. Particularly toward the end of a fiscal year, it is very difficult to go through a 90-day process to update your TIP or STIP 

so you can implement something that was planned. So that is certainly a big issue. 

Then the real issue on the multi-year bill is it is kind of a jigsaw 

puzzle. If I have just 1 year’s worth of funding, I am going to do 

small projects. It is like one piece of the jigsaw puzzle. It is very 

critical to have that piece in the puzzle, but if I have a multi-year 

bill, I can put groupings of pieces together and if I am a business 

owner and want to expand my business, if I am just seeing an 

intersection project and TDOT can’t say, well, you know, I am 

going to be able to widen that job next year. Here is the date I am 

letting it and here is the day I am going to have it open to traffic. 

By not being able to give that type of information to not just contractors in the highway industry, but to business owners, people 

that are creating jobs out there. They are reluctant to make those 

investments in Tennessee because they don’t know when things are 

going to be happening on the ground. 

Senator SANDERS [presiding]. Senator Lautenberg? 

Senator LAUTENBERG Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The theme that runs through here is consistent with what the 

results are that we see across the country, where investments in 

transportation pay off handsomely. 

A couple of questions that through the discourse that we have 

had here. I am going to submit my opening statement for the 

record, Mr. Chairman, and get on with a couple of questions that 

were raised in our discussion here. 

Senator Alexander, the distinguished Senator from the State of 

Tennessee, and a thoughtful person, asked a fairly simple question: 

Why don’t we just build our transportation needs? Well, our Governor decided, even though we had $6 billion of help from outside 

sources; $6 billion from the Port Authority, which is the bi-State 

agency, and the Department of Transportation, to help us build a 

tunnel across the river, and the Governor decided that we couldn’t 

afford it. We even worked out the possibilities of covering overages 

away from New Jersey. With all of that, we had a cancellation of 

the project. The Governor decided we couldn’t afford it. 

My view is very frankly, we are not going to take up a political 

difference here, is that we can’t not afford it. We have to do these 

things in the best interests of our State and our region. 

So we are now embarked on a new project called the Gateway 

Tunnel, and it has popular support. The problem is that things 

that are long term like building a tunnel, 5, 6, 7, 8 years, sometimes make it hard for the constituents to understand why we are 

spending all that money, but that is what leadership is about. 

I would ask you this, on the indexing, whoever would like to answer this, who decides on when the index kicks in and how the 
89 

price of gasoline gets to where it is? If Exxon wants to increase the 

gas price, what they are doing is taking charge for our constituents’ 

expenses and there has got to be something in it. Any of you who 

can explain it to me now, I would appreciate it. What controls do 

we have on the fundamental price? 

The indexing sounds so logical, but what do you do about the 

basic price? 

Mr. Wright? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Sure, thank you, Senator. A very simple way to 

deal with it would simply be instead of charging a certain number 

of cents on a gallon, to add on a sales tax which would over time 

be able to increase as the price of gas went up. That is a kind of 

call it a hold harmless or the kind of easiest way to try and do it. 

Beyond that, I think it would really depend on trying to identify 

again what are the national priorities in terms of the scale of investment in transportation that the Nation needs, and trying to figure out some match between those. We have gotten so far off, order 

of magnitude off the kind of scale of investment that we require, 

and the resources that are necessary, that we have got to try and 

revisit that issue. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What we are seeing very frankly is a 

short-sighted approach. New Jersey is proudly one of the highest 

income States in the country, but also it is the most crowded. We 

are the most densely populated State in the country, with something around 9 million people. If one wants an exercise to use time, 

just go out and try to get someplace on the turnpike. Then you can 

spend a lot of thoughtful time reviewing, contemplating what life 

would be like if it wasn’t there. 

We are traffic jam, bumper to bumper. We cannot quite get the 

support that we need. There is no free lunch and I am not for raising taxes. I am not for raising tolls. But I am for getting the ability 

to make life better. The one thing we can do is build the facility 

that will automatically attract investment and funding. 

So Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent hearing. We have terrific 

witnesses here, and I ask unanimous consent that questions be 

able to be submitted for the record, including my whole statement. 

Mr. SANDERS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows on page 

100.] 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also would ask unanimous consent that my statement go into 

the record. 

Senator SANDERS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boozman follows on page 

101.] 

Senator BOOZMAN. One of the things that I think has frustrated 

all of us, in fact in the last big highway reauthorization, we had 

a study done about how we could be more efficient, what we needed 

to get done. One of the things that they highlighted was the fact 

that I think they said 10 years was the average length of time that 

it took to get a project done. 

Certainly, we talk about indexing and things. The inflation that 

takes place in trying to get these projects up and going, and most 
90 

of that time is spent with the permitting processes and things like 

that as opposed to the actual construction. 

Do you all have any recommendations about how we can get 

projects completed more quickly? Any duplicative process that you 

see that we might, again, not doing away with in the sense of making it more of an environmental problem or whatever, but duplicative processes so that we could actually get these things done and 

significantly save money? 

Just jump in there. 

Mr. LEGGETT. As I indicated a little bit earlier, we used the environmental streamlining process for a project in Montgomery County, Maryland which is called the Inter County Connector. It was actually started, at least in concept, in 1950. Just a couple of weeks 

ago we had a ribbon-cutting ceremony on one leg of it. It is almost 

60 years old at this point. 

Part of the challenge in the 1980s, 1990s and all the way up 

until this time had been the inability to have all of the Federal 

agencies coordinated, especially those dealing with some of the environmental aspects of this project. 

We were able in the last 3 years, through a streamlined process 

to have all of those agencies work together, meeting regularly almost on a monthly basis, to work through much of the problems 

and difficulties that we have had for many years. 

So streamlining that process, while at the same time maintaining environmental integrity, I think would be a key to what we see 

here. That means lots of money, time, and frustration could be 

avoided. As Mr. Paul Degges just indicated a moment ago, increasing the level of predictability. If you don’t have predictability on 

projects, you are not likely to have the other assets to come into 

play in a timely fashion. So having the flexibility to resolve some 

of these challenges earlier I think will save a great deal of what 

we see happening today. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, we had a project started in 2004. The 

planning started in 2006. Last week, last Friday we met with EPA, 

Corps of Engineers, Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the whole group. This 

is now 2011. We are now on the second set of the EIS. 

What the frustration is is we need the parties to come together. 

They need to look at the project at the very beginning. They need 

to look at see what the problems may be, outline them, and then 

start working on those problems as quickly as possible. Then come 

back and streamline their process, instead of coming in at the end 

of the project and delaying it a year or two. 

No one is trying to circumvent NEPA or, in the State of Montana, MEPA. But our biggest problem is the delays that take place, 

and one agency can delay it a year or 2 years. 

The other problem that I do have, Senator, is on the EIS, it 

seems to go on forever and ever and ever. What happens in that 

process is we spend a good share of the project studying and doing 

the environmental assessment. By the time it comes back to the 

project, we have to look for the dollars to actually do the project. 

Ms. MCKIM. Senator, thank you for that question. CalTrans submitted a list of very specific kinds of improvements, things that 

could be incorporated in the Reauthorization Act that we think 

would streamline the process. 
91 

For example, making permanent the NEPA delegation. California was the only State that took up the opportunity to engage 

in that pilot project. We have seen a reduction, a speeding-up of 

the process of on average about 14 months through that delegation 

process. So that was I think a great idea and something that I 

think deserves further review. 

In my written testimony, there are many other examples of kinds 

of improvements that could be made. It is not a comprehensive list, 

but it can kind of give you an indication of the real opportunity 

that is out there. I think that this is an opportunity for all of us 

to look at some of the processes, encourage that cooperation. 

One of the things that we have done in California is require the 

permitting agencies at the State level to respond within a set period of time so that you don’t keep getting pushed on and pushed 

on and pushed on. So I think that that may be an opportunity if 

we could get that same kind of time-certain review incorporated for 

Federal agencies as well. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Senator SANDERS. Do you want another minute? Is that all right? 

All right, just maybe another minute. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, it’s an interesting question. 

Senator SANDERS. If people could briefly respond and then we 

will go to Senator Cardin. 

Mr. DEGGES. Well, certainly streamlining is, some of the things 

that we have discussed, particularly in the STIP-TIP process, is important, would allow us a lot of help on the front end. 

One of the issues that we face in Tennessee has to do with I will 

have an approved environmental document, and then when I get 

down to my permitting phase, things will change. I have a project 

today that I was going to let the contract in May, have an approved 

environmental document. I am getting everything ready to go to 

contract, and now I am being told by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

I have to look for lactating Indiana gray bats. It is a Federal endangered species. 

Well, I can’t do that study until June, so it will be August or September before I have anything. I have lost the construction season. 

I think the NEPA document should have addressed that information and that we should not be in the position we are in right now 

in the process. 

Mr. WRIGHT. I will just quickly also stress there is great frustration with the process and the length of time it takes to get things 

going. In some ways, I think that the disconnect between the planning and the financing is part of the problem here. We start to do 

these reviews not really knowing if the project is going to have 

funding available for it or not at the end of the day. So there is 

no sense of prioritization. 

Also on a regional level, it takes an enormous amount of coordination. Right now, there are studies to think of a new tunnel under 

the Hudson River. There is the NextGen high-speed rail study. 

There is the Gateway study. There is a study to look at the No. 

7 subway extending under the Hudson River. 

There are a series of different things, and they are not being coordinated. The MPO process is supposed to be providing a kind of 
92 

regional coordination, and whether it is strengthening, consolidating others, that process is not delivering the kinds of certainty 

and priority on a regional basis that we really need. I think that 

leads to more layers of complication and additional years, if not 

decades, of delay. 

Mr. MALONE. I would also associate myself with the comments 

around environmental streamlining. But we have projects that 

have been identified as high priority corridors in 1991. The environmental clearances have been granted. It is simply funding constraints, lack of funding that are holding our key infrastructure 

projects back throughout the State of Arkansas, but certainly in 

Northwest Arkansas. 

So funding certainty, multi-year commitments. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Cardin for your indulgence. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought the series 

of questions and responses were extremely helpful, and I want to 

thank all of our witnesses. I think we are all in agreement that we 

need a multi-year, predictable funding source. This is critically important for the infrastructure needs, for job growth, for our economy. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask consent to put my opening statement 

also in the record, and my introduction of my county executive, Ike 

Leggett of Montgomery County. I had a glowing introduction for 

you, Mr. County Exec, but let me just tell my colleagues that County Exec Leggett, of course, is the county executive of Montgomery 

County, which is larger than several of our States and has a school 

district that is one of the largest in the country. 

But for particular importance to this committee is that Montgomery County is host to numerous Federal agencies, including 

NIH and NIST and FDA and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 

Naval Bethesda and the list goes on and on and on. 

Transportation is critically important to get people to those facilities. I can tell you, having been caught up in some of the traffic 

problems, County Exec Leggett has a huge challenge. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Good morning Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, members of the committee and our panel of witnesses. I want to especially welcome Montgomery County 

Executive Ike Leggett to this morning’s hearing, whom I will introduce to the committee before he delivers his testimony. 

States, counties and municipalities are at the frontlines of building and maintaining the Nation’s vast network of roads, transit systems, rail lines and highways that 

we rely on every day. These are no simple tasks that are complicated for every 

month that a new surface transportation authorization is not enacted. 

While it is important that Congress address the Federal budget, it is also important that we keep sight of how these decisions may affect our counterparts at the 

State and local level. Be it cuts in education funding in the long-term FY11 CR, or 

the scope and size of the next surface transportation authorization bill, these budget 

decisions have tremendous consequences for State and local governments and may 

create substantial challenges on their ability to effectively serve our citizens. 

In the context of the transportation bill, this is about state, county and municipal 

transportation departments hiring and contracting engineering and construction 

workers and reestablishing these important jobs in our State and local economies. 
93 

1Department of Labor: March 2011 nonfarm payroll employment increased by 216,000, and 

the unemployment rate decreased to 8.8 percent (April 1, 2011). 2 According to the end of month labor statistics report for March, unemployment in the Construction sector is at 20.3 percent down slightly from 20.7 percent in February. For the last 12 

months unemployment in the construction trades has remained right around 20 percent. 3The Ehrlich administration’s preference for the $2.6 Billion ICC over the Purple Line is an 

example.

The latest statistics from the labor department are promising as national unemployment levels continue to decline, 1 a sign that our economy is on the path toward 

a full scale recovery. However, unemployment in the construction trades remains 

comparatively high. 2 Passing a full reauthorization of the transportation bill will 

add even more jobs to our economy, increase payrolls and create more wage earners 

which increases tax revenues and will affectively cut the deficit. 

Our states and counties are ready and waiting for Congress to act. I am excited 

about Maryland’s transportation priorities and the models for transportation planning and development that are being executed at the county and city levels that 

compliment the State’s initiatives. 

Maryland’s top three transportation priorities are three public transit projects: 

The Purple Line: is an East-West transit link connecting several Greater Washington communities in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties that will help alleviate traffic congestion on the Beltway and other suburban arterial highways like 

Route 193, East-West Highway and New Hampshire Avenue. The Purple line will 

also provide a suburban connection between four of the six Maryland branches of 

the MetroRail system. 

The Baltimore Red Line: an East-West transit line running through the heart of 

downtown Baltimore from the city’s Eastern and Western borders with Baltimore 

County. The Baltimore Red Line will serve more than a dozen communities in need 

of better transportation options. 

Corridor Cities Transitway: Is a perfect example of a transit system designed to 

extend efficient transit service linking the rural and bedroom communities Western 

Montgomery and Frederick Counties to economic centers at the core of Montgomery 

as well as Metro’s Red line. 

These are projects that improve the livability of communities that comprise Maryland’s largest and growing population centers. 

Under the leadership of County Executive Isiah Leggett, Montgomery County has 

been a leader in the development of Smart Growth and transit oriented development 

in the State. The success of the revitalized Downtown Silver Spring, the vibrant retail and entertainment venues in Bethesda, the multi-billion dollar commercial center of Rockville, the I–270 technology corridor can all be attributed to the skillful 

design of the county’s multi-modal transportation system that emphasizes the development of livable communities. 

Maryland’s other transportation priority is to invest in the State’s existing infrastructure. In a lot of ways the capacity of Maryland’s highway system is maxed out. 

Maryland has come to the realization that the best way to improve the efficiency 

and reduce traffic congestion is not by adding more travel lanes, but to use what 

limited resources it has to maintain a state-of-good repair on the existing system 

and provide transportation alternatives that will get more cars off of the road. 

This has not always been the approach the State has taken to prioritizing its 

transportation funds. There were times when capacity expansion was believed to be 

the answer to improving travel times and reducing congestion. 3

However, using capacity expansion as a means of addressing congestion has often 

proven to be: 

Short-sighted in its utility: Because motorists’ demand for space on the road consistently outpaces DOTs’ ability to keep up with growth; 

Expensive in the long-term: The initial capital expense of new construction is very 

costly, but also because every new lane mile constructed makes for more lane miles 

that need to be maintained over time; and is 

Unsustainable: Both in terms of financial resources and space for expansion. 

The funding used in the Highway Trust Fund for Transit and Transportation Enhancement Projects like bike/ped trails are often the most effective means of saving 

highway users time and money, particularly in urban and suburban regions of the 

country. 

Sacrificing these programs as a means of stretching our highway dollars would 

only: 

Increase traffic congestion: Eliminating funding for all viable transportation options means everyone must rely on their individual cars and be stuck in traffic to-
94 

gether on the same roads that our freight haulers use to deliver products to market. 

This harms business logistics and worker productivity; 

Increase wear and tear on the roads: Less transit and transportation options 

means more cars putting a great level of stress and wear on our roads and bridges. 

This creates a no win situation for State and local DOTs. If they increase capacity 

to deal with increased traffic the backlog of maintenance needs just gets longer. If 

they focus on maintenance of good repair congestion needs are not adequately met. 

This is where transit and other forms of transportation would normally fit in. 

Increase air pollution: Transit is a proven effective means of helping achieve attainment with the Clean Air Act. However, a national transportation plan that is 

overly car-centric generates more harmful tailpipe emissions. 

Increased energy consumption of foreign oil: No amount of domestic oil drilling 

could keep up with an exceedingly car dependent society. 

Stranding non-drivers: Eliminating Federal funding for transit disproportionately 

harms people, who either by choice or inability, do not drive. Adequate transportation is vital to our daily lives, and is something many motorists take for granted. 

Eliminating Federal funding for transit and alternative transportation will have a 

ripple effect through our economy, public health, and basic quality of life. 

Sound management of our nation’s transportation portfolio follows the same 

guidelines that apply to sound financial planning: 

Diversify your investment portfolio: In rail, highways, bridges and transit: 

Maintain your investments and don’t spend beyond means: We must take care of 

existing infrastructure assets so that they are useful and valuable for years beyond 

the initial capital expenditure. We should seek the most cost effective approaches 

to transportation design and not over build our transportation systems. 

Maryland’s consolidated transportation plan takes a comprehensive approach to 

developing the state’s transportation system and not developing the modes separate 

from each other. This interconnected approach helps improve efficiencies across the 

board. 

While investments in transportation infrastructure are required for the U.S. to remain competitive in our global economy, the Federal Government’s role extends beyond these investments to Federal transportation and energy policy. 

Our nation receives extraordinary public benefit from mass transportation systems. These systems take thousands of cars off our congested highways. Transit 

takes tons of pollutants out of the air we breathe and moves people efficiently into 

and out of our most important commercial centers. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to ask a question as it relates to a concern I have that as we go to the surface reauthorization bill, this 

surface transportation reauthorization, there are some on this committee that would like to narrow the discretion to our local officials 

as to how those funds can be used. 

It is interesting in Maryland, our three top transportation 

projects are all transit projects, including for the people of Montgomery County, Maryland, the purple line, which is critically important to get people across county, as well as the Corridor Cities 

Transitway which will be critically important to expand our hightech opportunities in the State of Maryland. 

All of these projects will help not only get people to where they 

need to be. It will not only help us as far as our energy policy by 

using less energy for transportation. It will save us money in unnecessary roads or maintenance that we need in order to keep our 

road systems capable for the increased traffic that would otherwise 

be needed. 

So my question to you, and I will start with County Exec 

Leggett, as we look at ways to reauthorize the surface transportation, how important is it to give you the necessary discretion to 

determine what modes of transportation are right for your community? Or should the Federal Government be prescriptive in order to 

be able to get more roads done in this country by narrowing your 

discretion? 
95 

Mr. LEGGETT. We need greater discretion and more flexibility. 

There is some uniqueness that you have heard and seen here. For 

example, what may be more unique about Montana may be different from Montgomery County. While a planning process, for example, will take advantage of smart growth to build around the 

Metro or the Metrobus systems, having a system or process that 

narrows the flexibility I think would be unfair to the various jurisdictions that we see, with particular needs in each and every jurisdiction around the country. 

So having more flexibility would allow us to do better planning, 

build more predictability, and take advantage of some of the assets 

in which we have already invested. So I am clearly in favor of a 

greater level of flexibility at the local and State levels to give us 

the advantages of taking in stock those kinds of assets that we already have in place. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to let the others answer, but I want one 

more question for County Exec Leggett. So let me raise some controversial issues, not with me, but with some Members of the committee. 

There has been transportation money used for bike paths and 

green space between communities, so actually people can walk, 

rather than taking an automobile. It is such a small amount of the 

total dollars that are available. Is that discretion also important for 

the type of smart growth that you are talking about in Montgomery 

County? 

Mr. LEGGETT. It certainly is. Clearly when you talk about bike 

paths, for example, when we look at the Walter Reed National 

Military Medical Center in Bethesda. One of the key goals for us 

is to get people out of their cars, to take advantage of the bike and 

walking paths that we can build there for people to use. 

It depends to some degree on how far you go when you start 

looking at some of the aspects of green space and other things. 

There may be some levels at which you have some limitations. But 

when you look at clear transportation, the ability to bike or walk 

will enhance traffic mobility because actually you are taking trips 

off the road. The more that we do that, the greater the transportation convenience for everybody else on the roads. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, the flexibility is very important. As I had 

stated before about investor confidence, investor confidence, they 

want to see what you are actually investing in. If we put the money 

in the surface transportation bill and the projects don’t get funded 

or we see them on the books forever and ever, and the average is 

10 to 12 years to get a project off the ground, what happens is that 

investor confidence goes down. 

I think we need the flexibility at the local level. We need to look 

at the MPOs. We need to look at the RPOs. In the State of Montana, we have two MPOs and the rural areas have no planning organizations that are stated. We need some flexibility for local governments, counties to be able to work with the State of Montana. 

In the State of Montana, what we did with our secondary road 

project was we set up in regions, and we were able to work with 

the MDOT and make some recommendations. We set priorities in 
96 

those regions. We didn’t have enough money to do one project in 

a county, so what we were able to do is pool our moneys together 

and be able to do a priority for every county. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

This has been really a very excellent hearing. Let me close it out 

by asking a couple of questions to our panelists. Let me start off 

with the folks from the rural areas. Maybe just start with Mr. Kennedy. 

In the State of Vermont, we don’t have a major subway system. 

We are not building a multi-billion dollar bridge. We have different 

problems than our urban neighbors do. 

What are some of the specific challenges that rural communities 

face in terms of transportation and Federal Government transportation policies? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, one of the biggest problems that do have 

is when your average daily travel per roadway is very small, but 

you have rural safety issues on those same roads, and the road 

doesn’t qualify or the flexibility or not having the local match. That 

is what happens in a lot of our rural counties across the State of 

Montana. 

What we need is to be able to work with our State Highway Department, the flexibility at the Federal level. We can build a road 

at the county level in a third of the time it takes to build a Federal 

road. So as we look at our roadways and safety dollars coming 

down to help us, that flexibility to be able to give confidence in the 

local government to put into those roads. Rural safety on rural 

roads is a No. 1 issue. 

Senator SANDERS. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Degges. 

Mr. DEGGES. In Tennessee, our population is about half urban, 

and urban is a relative thing. It is not New York City-urban, but 

metropolitan planning organizations and half-rural. In the cities in 

Tennessee, people say solve that congestion, but get your barrels 

out of the road. In the rural areas, it is about access and jobs. They 

want those construction barrels. 

So what I can tell you about the rural areas of Tennessee is they 

are starving for access, and certainly access for transportation facilities is important. I do a lot of industrial recruiting in the State 

of Tennessee. 

Senator SANDERS. Starving for access means what? More roads? 

Mr. DEGGES. Not necessarily. Roads, certainly. We provide public 

transportation in all 95 counties in Tennessee, so the entire State 

is accessible with public transit. 

Senator SANDERS. Is the public transportation reasonable? 

Mr. DEGGES. Well, it is not a train. It is rubber tire. It is vans. 

Senator SANDERS. Can people get to work on a daily basis? 

Mr. DEGGES. Yes, but the predominant form of transportation in 

rural areas is vehicle, a single-person vehicle. 

But certainly that access is what I hear over and over. When I 

am trying to help recruit industry to Tennessee, they want to be 

within 5 miles of a freeway. They want to be able to have access. 

So that is a critical piece of how we can create jobs. 
97 

I want people in rural areas to have jobs in their communities. 

I don’t want them to drive to Nashville, Memphis and Knoxville 

every day. That compounds my problem as a transportation official. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Malone. 

Mr. MALONE. Yes, sir. Arkansas I would say is very similar in 

that about half our population is in more urban areas, and Northwest Arkansas is certainly in that category. We have some highway 

needs around moving people within the region. But then Arkansas 

has also got a great number of communities, some that are cities 

of over 10,000 that have very, very limited highway access. 

Our State Highway Department has a program that they hope 

to be able to address if statewide funding measures are adopted, 

to guarantee a four-lane connection to all cities over a certain size, 

primarily for economic development and economic growth opportunities. 

Arkansas is seeing some shift from the more rural areas to our 

cities, our more urban areas, and I expect that trend to continue 

over the next decade as well. But we need to invest in the rural 

and remote areas to make sure that they are able to remain stable 

and contributing to the economy. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Leggett. 

Mr. LEGGETT. We are somewhat unique in Montgomery County. 

Despite the fact that we have a very large urban area that we have 

talked about a little bit earlier, with a large Metro connection, 

Montgomery County has over 100,000 acres of farmland. From this 

distance right here, 35 to 40 minutes away, I could take you into 

some of the more rural areas that are comparable to those seen in 

this entire country. They face the same difficulty that you heard 

before, access, safety, maintenance. Because in many ways the 

safety is involved with not only maintaining roads to the standards 

that we want, but for farm vehicles and other items that are within 

the same right-of-way. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask this, and I know California has 

rural areas so it is not all L.A. and San Francisco. Are we up to 

snuff in terms of rural bus service? I think in Vermont we have a 

number of bus companies. It is not a strong presence. If you had 

to get to work every day, you probably wouldn’t rely on that. Can 

we do better? Is that an opportunity? Are we investing enough? Is 

there potential there? 

Who wants to comment? Yes, Mr. Malone. 

Mr. MALONE. Sir, I would submit that in Arkansas, we don’t do 

enough in our suburban and urban areas either, but certainly in 

the rural areas it is very, very limited. Access is not there for many 

people. 

Senator SANDERS. So if I am a senior citizen living in a rural 

area and I have to get to the local hospital or doctor for a visit, is 

it often difficult for me to do that? 

Mr. MALONE. Yes, sir. There are some systems and support for 

aging and folks that have very limited opportunities. Some of the 

job access reverse commute funds support that in different ways, 

but it is not what it should be to serve the rural community certainly. 

Senator SANDERS. Any other comments? Mr. Leggett then Mr. 

Kennedy. 
98 

Mr. LEGGETT. It is a real problem, Senator, because as you note, 

in the rural areas, there are fewer people. There are greater distances. When you look at the lane miles and the amount that it 

takes to run an effective, timely and convenient bus system in 

those areas, it is real, real difficult. 

We have tried to augment that with MetroAccess, whereby we 

have scheduled pickups of people in areas that we know are populated with elderly residents having mobility problems, but certainly 

we have not had enough in terms of the reliability and the frequency of buses in rural areas. 

Senator SANDERS. If we had the resources, do you think that is 

something that is useful to explore? 

Mr. LEGGETT. Certainly, yes, sir. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. In the rural areas, especially, we work with the 

Council on Aging in our county, and we work with the Transit Department to get bus and van services. But really, most of those programs, we may get the vehicle, but we run it on bake sales and 

fundraisers and things like that to get the system going. 

Most doctors’ appointments don’t work with the schedule that the 

van or the bus service has and that becomes a real problem. Even 

in towns where we do have a fairly good, in Billings, transit system, it is the amount of funding that comes into it, and actually 

the number of people that use the system, to offset what the cost 

is. We have to subsidize quite a bit for the transit program. 

So the flexibility in a rural area is a tough one. One of the other 

pieces is in the rural area, we try to get the city to be able to offer 

us busing service outside the city of Billings, but because of the 

rules and the regulations, it had to be classified as a rural area and 

we had to go a longer distance to make sure it qualified for rural 

area. Because of those rules and regs, it made it impossible and too 

costly for us. 

So some flexibility in there to be able to offer some busing service 

outside of the metropolitan area would really help us. 

Senator SANDERS. In Vermont, a lot of transportation in the more 

rural areas is done by folks who volunteer, but who are given gas 

money. I suspect this is not unique. One of the problems is the 

price of gas has gone up. Many people can’t afford to take people 

to the doctor. Is that an issue in other States as well? 

Cindy? 

Ms. MCKIM. Certainly, the issue of rural transportation is a real 

concern for us. We kind of have a two-edged sword in California. 

As some of the counties that have been fortunate to pass sales tax 

measures to improve transportation, you end up with a system of 

haves and have nots. I think in some respects, California is kind 

of a microcosm of the Federal Government there in the State. Our 

rural areas tend to be very remote. It is very costly to provide any 

kind of a scheduled service. I think that we do need more flexibility 

to be able to try to serve those special needs communities. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Boozman, did you have any last 

thought or question? 

Senator BOOZMAN. I would agree with you that as so much of 

this stuff, Meals on Wheels and you name it, as gas increases, it 

makes it that much more difficult. There is a lot of volunteering. 
99 

Then, too, you also have a lot of people that would normally not 

consider public transportation that are starting to consider it. 

But I appreciate the panel. It was very informative. You are the 

people that need to be setting our policy in a sense. You are out 

there in the trenches trying to get things done. 

The comment you made, Mr. Kennedy, about a little bit more 

flexibility as we try and do these things. The other comments about 

trying to shorten these things, getting our agencies not sacrificing 

any environmental quality issues or whatever, but just working together to try and reduce times. I think all of that stuff is very, very 

valuable. 

So thank you for taking the time to be here with us today. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you all. It has been an excellent panel. 

We appreciate your being here and the work you are doing. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

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

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

I appreciate the opportunity to hear from State and local leaders about their 

transportation priorities. This next highway bill will be my 4th authorization, and 

I know first-hand that experiences of those outside of Washington have a role in 

guiding the policymaking process. 

Today, the challenges in continuing to provide a safe and free-flowing transportation network have never been greater. I am sure our witnesses will agree that our 

nation’s transportation needs outpace our current spending levels. 

The link between a robust economy and strong transportation infrastructure is 

undeniable; yet when it comes to other spending priorities at all levels of government, transportation is often neglected. Complicating matters is that the Highway 

Trust Fund cannot afford current spending levels. As I have often said, since the 

Highway Trust Fund has historically maintained high balances, it has become a favorite funding source for all surface transportation activities, including recreational 

trails, bike paths, ferry boats, and fixing city streets. 

These new responsibilities were added while maintaining essentially the same 

revenue sources—a user fee on motor fuel. Simply put, there are not sufficient resources to properly address the core responsibilities of the program, let alone the 

extra programs we have added over the decades. If we are serious about a long term 

re-authorization, we are going to have to re-prioritize the activities the Federal 

highway program currently supports. 

According to the Administration, our nation’s backlog of deferred road and bridge 

maintenance is $600 billion and growing. Typically, spending on roads and bridges 

at all levels of government is around $80 billion a year, of which the Federal Government makes up 40 percent. Clearly, with limited Highway Trust Fund resources, 

the Federal highway program is only part of the solution. 

If we are going to adequately address the maintenance backlog, growing congestion and the expansive increase in truck freight, public jurisdictions at all levels 

must take responsibility. This means that not only do we need to get the most for 

our Federal highway dollar, but we need to encourage State and local governments 

and the private sector to invest as much as possible in roads and bridges. I look 

forward to hearing from our witness on how they believe the highway program can 

accomplish this. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Madame Chairman, 

There is no doubt that America’s economic success depends on our ability to move 

people and goods. 

If we don’t continue investing in our country’s transportation infrastructure—especially our roads and rails—we risk reversing the progress we’ve started to make 

in getting Americans back to work. 
100 

This means more than just filling potholes and fixing broken traffic lights—it 

means unclogging our congested highways, expanding our transit systems and 

building a world-class high-speed rail system. 

Transportation is especially important to the economic health of my State of New 

Jersey, which is situated at the crossroads of some of the most traveled paths for 

moving people and goods in our country. 

That is why I’m working with Amtrak to build the Gateway Tunnel under the 

Hudson River. 

This innovative project will expand high-speed rail in the vital Northeast Corridor 

and shorten travel times for New Jersey commuters. 

It will also ease congestion throughout the New Jersey-New York area, spark job 

creation and boost property values. 

I want to welcome Tom Wright of the Regional Plan Association—one of our 

state’s key transportation advocates. 

Mr. Wright’s group has done extensive research on the critical value of transit 

and rail projects, and I am eager to hear his views on the Gateway Tunnel proposal. 

These are the types of transportation investments we need to drive the economy. 

Incredibly, House Republicans are willing to slam the brakes on America’s 

progress by slashing investment in transportation. 

This short-sighted approach ignores some of the greatest public-works achievements in our country’s history—like the George Washington Bridge, which was built 

during the Great Depression. 

Make no mistake: If we don’t prioritize transportation investments in the United 

States, our cities and communities will fall behind. 

Transportation is too important to our future to allow reckless cuts to stall our 

economic recovery. 

So I want to thank the witnesses for coming today—I look forward to hearing your 

views on how we can work together to create a transportation system that will carry 

us into the future. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing here today. 

I look forward to listening to your thoughts on the next highway bill. As everyone 

here knows, our nation’s transportation system is in extreme need of investment. 

We cannot afford to let current projects go unfinished, yet we face a major obstacle of how to fund these initiatives. In my home State of Arkansas, Interstate 49, 

which runs from Canada down to the Port of New Orleans, remains unfinished. This 

alone leaves numerous companies without a direct North-South surface transportation route in the very center of our country. In addition, Arkansas is home to several large trucking companies who, along with their clients, are directly, and negatively, impacted by the lack of forward progress on a transportation bill. My State 

is in a unique position, both geographically and in terms of the businesses which 

reside there. Thousands of jobs are on the line, the ability of our people to travel 

hangs in the balance, and our national security is at risk if our infrastructure begins to fail. We must find a way to move forward with a sorely need Highway Reauthorization, and it is my hope that you all will provide us with new and innovative 

ideas to strike a balance between the need for funding and the work that must be 

completed. I hope each of you will share with us what works . . . and, what doesn’t. 

We need to know what we can do here, to make things more efficient for you when 

you all do your jobs. 

After serving 9 years on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 

I am now very pleased to have been offered the opportunity to sit on this committee. 

Again, I appreciate the witnesses appearing here today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

I would like to welcome our witnesses to this important hearing on ‘‘State and 

Local Perspectives on Transportation.’’ It is vital that your perspectives be part of 

the debate on reauthorization of the transportation bill. 

The Federal transportation program cannot be successful without our State and 

local partners. These partners are responsible for the construction and maintenance 

of our Nation’s transportation infrastructure. It is significant that these partners— 

from diverse geographic locations—are united in their call for a robust transportation bill. 
101 

A few weeks ago the head of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, and the head of the 

Chamber of Commerce, testified before this committee in support of a robust bill 

with a gas tax increase. It is notable that so many Federal, State, and local partners 

believe that increased investment in transportation is essential for our future prosperity. As we work to reauthorize the transportation bill, there are certainly ways 

that we can improve existing transportation spending. We can consolidate duplicative programs and accelerate project delivery in order to get more bang for the buck. 

However, we cannot cut our way to a 21st Century transportation systems. Additional investment is absolutely necessary. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve a transportation bill that 

is wiser about spending existing resources and delivers the funding we need. 

Æ