DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts, Chairman 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

KATE HALLAHAN, DAVID NAPOLIELLO, 

LAURA HOGSHEAD, LISA PEN ̃ A, and ALEXANDER GILLEN, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 4 

Page 

U.S. Department of Transportation .................................... 1 

Federal Aviation Administration ........................................ 329 

Highway and Transit Programs: The DOT Perspective 

on the Urgent Funding Needs for Today and 

Tomorrow ............................................................................... 701 

Thoughts and Recommendations From the National 

Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 

Commission ........................................................................... 857 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
PART 4—TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR 2009 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts, Chairman 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

KATE HALLAHAN, DAVID NAPOLIELLO, 

LAURA HOGSHEAD, LISA PEN ̃ A, and ALEXANDER GILLEN, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 4 

Page 

U.S. Department of Transportation .................................... 1 

Federal Aviation Administration ........................................ 329 

Highway and Transit Programs: The DOT Perspective 

on the Urgent Funding Needs for Today and 

Tomorrow ............................................................................... 701 

Thoughts and Recommendations From the National 

Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 

Commission ........................................................................... 857 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

43–749 WASHINGTON: 2008 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RALPH REGULA, Ohio 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois 

DAVE WELDON, Florida 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

ROB NABORS, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(1) 

DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2009 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WITNESS: 

HON. MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. OLVER. The Committee will come to order. I would like to 

welcome you, Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, back to the 

Subcommittee, as well as Ms. Scheinberg, the Assistant Secretary 

for Budget and Programs. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. We appreciate your 

taking the time to present and answer questions about the President’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget for Transportation. I know we 

sometimes have different perspectives on transportation policy, but 

I always appreciate your candor, accessibility and your willingness 

to work with us. 

Madam Secretary, much has happened since the last time you 

appeared before our Subcommittee. The tragic collapse of the I–35 

bridge in Minnesota has placed a spotlight on the deterioration of 

our nation’s infrastructure. The Highway Trust Fund will become 

insolvent in Fiscal Year 2009, and the future viability of federal 

transportation financing is up for grabs. 

With these issues as a backdrop, last month, a super majority of 

the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 

Commission released recommendations to shore up the nation’s finances for transportation and infrastructure through tolling, congestion pricing, private-public partnerships and raising the federal 

fuel tax. 

Concerning aviation, the percent of on-time flight arrivals in 

2007 dropped to 73.4 percent, the worst year for delays since 2000. 

Controller departures and retirements continue to exceed FAA projections. The FAA estimated that 700 controllers would retire in 

Fiscal Year 2007, but the actual figure was 828. Even more worrisome, The Washington Post recently reported the ratio of certified 

controllers to trainees has plummeted from five-to-one in 2000 to 

three-to-one today. 

With transit, we find a growing need to improve our nation’s 

public transportation systems. A case in point: the SAFETEA–LU 

created a new, Small Start program for small or less expensive 

fixed guideway projects, such as bus rapid transit, commuter rail 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
2 

and streetcar projects. While this program is only a few years old, 

I note from your budget request that there are sufficient projects 

in the pipeline to utilize the fully authorized level of $200 million. 

Clearly, this speaks to the demand for a slightly less heavy form 

of transit. 

Finally, Amtrak continues to experience record ridership. The 

ridership increased to almost 26 million passengers in Fiscal Year 

2007, up nearly 10 percent from Fiscal Year 2006. Not surprisingly, 

with higher ridership has come increased revenue, but the capital 

needs of the system remain large. 

The Passenger Rail Working Group, part of the larger Commission, recently issued a report that estimated $7.4 billion would be 

needed each year between 2007 and 2015 to maintain the existing 

Amtrak system, to continue the development of planned new corridors and to create new routes to link major urban areas. 

The issues I have just mentioned combined with increased population growth and demographic shifts in the coming decades will 

continue to strain an already overburdened transportation system. 

The needs of the system are clearly great. 

As you know, the National Surface Transportation and Revenue 

Study Commission performed a detailed analysis of the resources 

needed to both maintain and improve our highway transit and rail 

infrastructure. On the high end, the Commission pegged the funding needed to maintain, upgrade and expand our transportation 

networks across the surface areas at $225 billion annually over the 

next 50 years, yet, at a time when we should be working together 

to increase federal investment in transportation infrastructure, the 

President’s budget would erode federal involvement and resources 

in transportation in my opinion. 

This budget in many respects is a carbon copy of the budget submitted by the President last year and does little to meet our future 

challenges. The highway and transit guarantees are not met. The 

Airport Improvement program is again cut by $765 million or about 

22 percent from the Fiscal Year 2008 level. The budget for innercity passenger rail would force Amtrak to shut down or severely cut 

rail service. In addition, the budget for Amtrak does not appear to 

acknowledge the unanimous recommendations of the Presidential 

Emergency Board that was made up totally of appointees by President Bush. 

Finally, the essential air service, which has broad bipartisan support, would be cut by $75 million or 60 percent from the Fiscal 

Year 2008 level. 

I am particularly concerned about the administration’s proposal 

to borrow funds from the Mass Transit Account to fund the shortfall in the highway program. This is a very temporary and I believe 

a shortsighted fix. 

We will get to questions and we will hear your thoughts on some 

of these issues, but, Madam Secretary, I strongly believe that the 

federal government must stay an active partner with the states 

and local governments in funding our transportation infrastructure, and I fear that there has been a deliberate effort by the administration to slowly chip away at the federal role in transportation, and I hope we can explore that issue more today with you. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
3 

Now I would like to recognize my Ranking Member, Mr. Knollenberg, Joe Knollenberg, from Michigan for any opening remarks that 

he would like to make. Joe? 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and 

Madam Secretary, good to see you. Ms. Scheinberg, thank you. 

Let me add my welcome obviously to your being here today. We 

are going to begin this process of evaluating the President’s proposal to allocate something like in excess of $68 billion to transportation programs and to solve some of the transportation-related 

issues. 

I believe we do stand at a crossroads in this Nation’s surface infrastructure in a number of ways and for a number of reasons. We 

are at the end of the SAFETEA–LU authorization, and even 

though I note that the contract authority for 2009 is reduced by 

about $1.8 billion compared to 2008, I assume that that is the correct amount to meet the agreed-upon figure of $286 billion, which 

was authorized by the Act. Is that not true? 

We are now at the point of reauthorizing the programs and perhaps redirecting funds to meet new or different priorities, including 

congestion and maintenance of roads and bridges. We are also at 

a crossroads in terms of how we finance future highway programs. 

Big gas tax increases, whatever their variety, may or may not keep 

the Highway Trust Fund solvent, but at what cost is that to lowincome families and small businesses across the country? 

One thing is for sure however: The current level of receipts is not 

going to be sufficient to fund the current program with a projected 

shortfall in 2009 of an estimated $3.2 billion, and your proposal to 

borrow from other funds and programs only postpones the day of 

reckoning. 

I could not agree more with your submitted statement, that longterm we need major reforms to not only what we finance, but how 

we finance it. We are at the crossroads in air traffic as congestion 

mounts in every major airport around the country, and public complaints and criticism over delays are mounting every day. 

We have the opportunity to move to the next generation of satellite technology, but at what cost and what actual impact on air 

safety and on delays on the ground? When can we realistically expect those? Reforms have been proposed, and your budget assumes 

their enactment in large part, so we will get into that a little later 

in the questioning. But that has not occurred yet, and if it does not 

very soon, the system faces collapse instead of a new generation. 

We are also at the point of no return with Amtrak, and let me 

explain that. Year after year, there is a call for reform, a call for 

reduced costs and a call for better service, yet, year after year, we 

fund the same system pretty much. Something I believe needs to 

happen here, and I am not sure I know what it is, but the status 

quo does not seem to be the option or the solution. 

Finally, but importantly, the demand of the administration and 

the Congress is to produce and use more alternative fuels. This fuel 

is no less hazardous than any other fuel that is out there, and the 

safe transmission from the many, many refiners that are cropping 

up throughout the Midwest to the consumer will be a major responsibility of DOT in the near future. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
4 

Madam Secretary and Chairman Olver, these are some of the 

highlighted topics that I have and I hope to explore with the Secretary this afternoon and to look forward into some of these areas 

that require complete oversight of how we are going to move forward. So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time and I look 

forward to your commentary. Thank you. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Knollenberg. Madam Secretary, the 

floor is yours. Your complete written statement will be included in 

the record, and let us say if you can keep your oral testimony to 

somewhere between what I was using and what my Ranking Member was using, that would be fine, and we would be able to move 

on to questions. So, Madam Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY PETERS

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Members 

of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here to talk about 

the highlights of President Bush’s $68 billion budget for the Department of Transportation for Fiscal Year 2009. 

We are working with the President to hold the line on spending, 

but we still want to give travelers and taxpayers the best possible 

value for their transportation dollars by transforming the way our 

transportation system works and is funded. 

Nearly 31 percent of our budget supports safety programs, building on our successes in making travel safer. We are focusing on 

problems like runway incursions, motorcycle crashes, and most importantly, emphasizing a data-driven safety focus that allows us to 

target resources more effectively. This budget also builds on our 

comprehensive efforts to identify new partners, new financing, and 

new approaches to reduce congestion. 

The Bush Administration has moved very aggressively on shortterm measures to provide passengers relief from chronic flight 

delays, especially in the New York area, and we have proposed real 

reform of our aviation system to use market forces more effectively 

to address congestion and delays, modernize how we pay for airports and overhaul the Nation’s air traffic control system. 

Our Fiscal Year 2009 budget more than doubles—in fact, it triples—the funding for the transformation from radar-based to satellite-based navigation systems, providing $688 million for this 

Next Generation Air Transportation system, or we call it 

‘‘NextGen.’’ 

We are also aggressively pursuing effective new strategies to reverse the growing traffic-congestion crisis with forward-looking 

States and with cities through our Urban Partnership Program and 

our Corridors of the Future Initiatives. Over 30 major cities responded to our call for innovative plans that actually reduce congestion and do not simply slow its growth. 

The Fiscal Year 2009 budget encourages more of this type of bold 

thinking by dedicating 75 percent of discretionary highway and 

transit funds to fight congestion. It gives priority to projects that 

combine various road pricing, transit and technology solutions, and 

we are currently conducting another nationwide competition and 

will be announcing the cities that could benefit from this competition very soon. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
5 

To further promote innovation, the President’s budget makes $175 million in ISTEA and TEA–21 inactive earmarks available for 

innovative programs to fight congestion in metropolitan areas and 

along major highway corridors. These projects will help us find a 

new way forward as we approach the reauthorization of our surface 

transportation programs in 2009. 

Fiscal Year 2009 is the final year of the current surface transportation authorization, as we all know, called ‘‘SAFETEA–LU.’’ The 

President’s budget completes a six-year, $286.4 billion investment 

by providing $52 billion in 2009 for highway, highway safety and 

public transportation. To honor that commitment, even with anticipated shortfalls in the highway balances, the President is requesting temporary authority to allow what we call ‘‘repayable advances’’ between the two accounts in the trust fund. This flexibility 

will get us through the current authorization without any impact 

on transit funding in 2009. 

But as you have both mentioned, unreliable trust fund revenues 

are another sign that we need to move away from our reliance on 

the past systems, primarily gasoline taxes, and be open to new 

ways to finance our infrastructure in the future. 

It is increasingly clear that America’s transportation systems are 

indeed at a crossroads. The President’s budget builds on the exciting things that we are doing at the Department of Transportation 

to help us move forward with a new course, a course that delivers 

high levels of safety, takes advantage of modern technology and financing mechanisms, and mitigates congestion with efficient and 

reliable transportation systems. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. I look forward to working with each of you and the 

transportation community to ensure that America continues to 

have the best transportation system in the world. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
6 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 43749A.001
7 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 43749A.002
8 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 43749A.003
9 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 43749A.004
10 

FUNDING FOR SAFETEA–LU

Mr. OLVER. Well, Madam Secretary, you have become quite good 

at holding that down to within a five-minute period. 

We will now move on to the questions, and as has been our usual 

procedure, the Chair and Ranking Member will each, in the first 

round, have 10 minutes, and then we will start five-minute sequences with the Members, as many rounds as we get to here in 

the time that we have allotted for us. 

I probably, in my 10 minutes, will only get just about to the point 

of a question, so let me get going. 

Last year, at this time, we had very different projections before 

us about the status of the Highway Trust Fund and its solvency. 

If the SAFETEA–LU funding guarantees were honored, the balance in the highway account for the Highway Trust Fund would 

drop to around a negative $700 million by the end of 2009, according to OMB. 

A similar projection by the Congressional Budget Office showed 

that honoring SAFETEA–LU would drive the highway account into 

the red, a negative $3.6 billion—both projections negative, but 

CBO, dramatically more negative. 

Since that time, several things have changed. The enacted funding level for the highway program for Fiscal Year 2008 was actually $1 billion higher than those SAFETEA–LU guarantees. That 

was a move by the Committee to address the concerns over the 

aging infrastructure, in light of the collapse of the I–35 bridge in 

Minnesota. 

We also spent a little more in Fiscal Year 2007 than was projected, and making matters worse, current highway account estimates made by both OMB and CBO for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 

are lower than the estimates that we were using a year ago. 

All of this points to a greater deficit in the highway account, yet 

despite those trends, CBO shows the highway account balance two 

and a half billion dollars less negative by the end of 2009 than they 

had projected last year that it would be, and OMB, conversely, 

projects a deficit which is $2.3 billion more negative by the end of 

2009 than what OMB was projecting a year ago. If you followed 

that reasoning, they were, last time, projecting $700 million negative, and now they are up to a little over $3 billion negative. 

So although the roles are reversed, we still have a $2 billion difference from those estimates, and, Madam Secretary, I wonder if 

you could identify for us some of the underlying assumptions in the 

President’s budget and CBO projections, if you are familiar with 

those, that have led to this $2 billion difference. 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer 

that, and I will also ask our assistant secretary for budget and programs, our CFO, Phyllis Scheinberg, to talk about some of the factors that are affecting this as well. 

As you indicated, the Administration’s latest estimate for the 

Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund predicts a shortfall 

of $3.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2009. Mid-session estimates, as indicated, released in August of 2007, predicted a $3.8 billion shortfall, 

a slight improvement in the Highway Account of the trust fund’s 

long-term viability. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
11 

This improvement is based primarily on Fiscal Year 2007 actual 

receipts being slightly higher than were projected at mid-term— 

they are better by $700 million—and Fiscal Year 2007 actual outlays being a little bit lower than had been projected. So the income 

came in a little higher, and the outlays came in a little lower. That 

constitutes some of the reason for movement. 

As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, projections are showing decreasing receipts for both Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2009, 

so we remain concerned about what the balance of these accounts 

would be. 

Now, some ask, why is there a difference between CBO’s estimates and OMB’s estimates for the trust fund? The Congressional 

Budget Office projects $1.1 billion shortfall in the Highway Account 

in Fiscal Year 2009. We have comparable estimates, for the most 

part, but some of the differences are technical assumptions that are 

used to support the calculations. 

For example, OMB takes what I would call a more prudent approach to the outlays. They assume that all valid obligations that 

are currently on the books will begin spending during the Fiscal 

Year 2009 budget year, and, additionally, OMB reflects faster 

spending of the earmarked funds. 

On the other hand, CBO reviews the historical outlay streams, 

which indicate that earmarked funds, especially, do not always 

begin to spend out in the first year and do not spend out as rapidly 

as the other funds do. 

So this apparent contradiction, I think, underscores the fact that 

we need to talk about, with respect to the current highway programs, the fact that earmarks and special-interest programs spend 

out at a slower rate and especially at a time when state and local 

governments need all of the money they can get their hands on. To 

have the slower spending does become problematic, but it also affects the balance in the Trust Fund, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLVER. Madam Secretary, did my staff tell you that I was 

going to ask that question? 

Secretary PETERS. No, sir, but my Assistant Secretary thought 

you might. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. All right. Well, I will have to study the answer. I am usually fairly good at numbers. 

Secretary PETERS. It is a moving target. 

CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY

Mr. OLVER. Okay. Thank you. I am going to pass on to my Ranking Member, Mr. Knollenberg. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the 2007 Energy Bill, there is a requirement that new cars and light trucks, 

and I know you are familiar with this, in the 2020 model year, 

must achieve a combined fuel economy of at least 35 miles per gallon. Please explain, if you would, NHTSA’s role in ensuring that 

the auto industry meets this standard and the associated activity. 

You can be brief in that statement, if you will. 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Knollenberg, I absolutely will be brief. Under the new law, the Energy Act, NHTSA 

has the authority and the responsibility to issue fuel economy regulations for the model years 2011 through 2019. In fact, we are in 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
12 

the process right now of writing regulations and hope to, in the 

very near future, get those out for comment. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Will NHTSA’s research or testing programs 

be able to coordinate with DOE and the EPA as the new vehicle 

technologies are developed to implement these higher fuel economy 

standards? Is that going to be possible? 

Secretary PETERS. Yes, it is, sir. We certainly will confer with 

EPA and with DOE, and especially as new methods of fueling automobiles come online. But we felt it was important, and certainly 

the President felt it was important, for one agency, one entity, to 

have the responsibility for writing the rule and then conferring 

with the others. So that is what we are doing. 

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I am thinking of both the plug-in hybrids and 

also the new generation of diesel-fuel vehicles, and there are many 

of those that are widely used in Europe, and, in 2009, we will have 

an opportunity to get more of those vehicles in play here, too. 

Motorcycle fatalities—you know something about this, being a 

motorcyclist yourself—have increased for the ninth year in a row. 

What is NHTSA doing to reduce the number of crashes involving 

motorcycles? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Knollenberg, you are right. I know something about this. I have crashed a motorcycle myself and, fortunately, had a helmet on the day I did, so I did not sustain very serious injury. But I am a bit emblematic of what we are seeing in 

motorcycling. 

We have seen a substantial increase in the number of motorcycle 

injuries and deaths, and it is disproportionate, even to the number 

of increased riders. Some people say it is because more people are 

riding today, and that is not entirely the case. The proportion is 

going up substantially. In fact, in my age group, and I will just tell 

you that I am eligible for AARP, there is a 400-percent increase in 

motorcycle crashes. 

We are taking the $7 million that SAFETEA–LU authorized for 

motorcycle safety grants, and using those funds for motorcycle safety training and awareness. 

We remain concerned because these fatalities and injuries have 

increased for 9 years in a row. When Norm Mineta was Secretary 

of Transportation we set a goal of having a fatality rate of 1.0 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled. We have not met 

that but we have made some progress. If we were to segregate out 

motorcyclists from passenger automobiles, we would achieve that 

rate by next year. That is the significant impact that motorcycle 

crashes are having on the overall fatality rate. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. You have more motorcycles, more riders, and 

more accidents, but not necessarily beyond, if you would progress 

to how many more motorcycles are on the road today than, say, 10 

years ago? 

Secretary PETERS. I will get that number back to you, Mr. 

Knollenberg. I do not have that right in front of me. But the crashes and fatalities are disproportionate to the increase. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
13 

The number of registered motorcycles in 1996 was 3,871,599. This compares to 

6,686,147 registered motorcycles in 2006, an increase of 73 percent over this tenyear period. 

The fatality rate for motorcyles in 1996 was 55.82 per 100,000 registrations. This 

compares to 71.94 in 2006, an increase of 29 percent over this ten-year period. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. They are. 

Secretary PETERS. That is the real concern. 

CHILD SAFETY SEATS

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. That is the answer that I want. 

I see that you released a new campaign on child safety seats as 

well, and DOT is requesting some $7 million for the Child Safety 

Seat Incentive Grants. How will these grants actually be used to 

increase safety for children? 

Secretary PETERS. That is a very good question, sir. We are allocating the grants to the states. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago 

we rolled out a new star rating system for car seats based on the 

ease of putting these seats in. 

One of the things we found with car seats, unfortunately, is that 

they sometimes are improperly installed. If they are improperly installed, they do not provide the same protection to the child that 

they would otherwise. 

The other thing we are doing is getting out information that children need to be in either a booster seat or a child safety seat and 

in the back seat of the car until they are, I believe, 65 pounds and 

four-foot-nine. Sometimes parents take children out of those seats 

earlier than they should, thinking that they do not need to be 

there. The unfortunate fact is that seatbelts do not properly restrain a child that is under four-foot-nine or under 65 pounds. So 

we are encouraging parents to look at the star ratings on car seats 

so that they know what is easy to put in. How do you know if it 

is put in right or not? 

I will tell you that, as a grandmother, my son-in-law is the average person who installs car safety seats because he does a very 

good job of it, but it is not easy to do. 

So we are providing some education on this, but most of the 

money will go out to the states in grants. 

NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND REVENUE STUDY

COMMISSION

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Let me go on to another area: surface transportation policy and the revenue study performed by the Commission. 

I know that you are strongly opposed to the Commission’s recommendation to greatly increase the gas tax at the federal and also 

at the state levels, and I certainly agree that a tax of this magnitude will have significant unforeseen circumstances. But so might 

electronic tolling, and, as you know, the concept has not been universally supported. 

Let me ask you two quick questions, just to get your reaction and 

find out if the Department has really analyzed the potential outcomes of both proposed solutions. 

Would it not be fair to say that electronic tolling, for the first 

time, sets up a class system that unfairly advantages higher-inVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
14 

come drivers and eliminates what has, up to now, been thought of 

as an equal-access infrastructure in this country? 

Then the second question: Has the Department analyzed the implications of such a system on lower-income drivers? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, I will answer your second question first. 

We have not analyzed the impact. In fact, we are in the process of 

identifying a study to do that. The data that we have today indicates that, where pricing is used, we generally have very high approval rates for people in the lower-income ranks to those pricing 

systems, especially if it is a toll lane or a high-occupancy toll HOT 

lane, as opposed to a facility. 

We find that they use the facility occasionally, not every day but 

on occasion. The other factor is that people in the lower-income 

ranks often live farther away from their jobs, so the gas tax, which 

is regressive, has a greater negative impact on them. Tolling and 

pricing, however, sometimes give them options. 

An example I have often used, and perhaps I have even mentioned to you before, is that people who are in the lower-income 

ranks more often have children in day care as opposed to an au 

pair, a nanny, or someone who watches their children at home. If 

they are late picking that child up, there are very significant late 

fees—I call it an impound fee for getting your own child back—at 

the end of the day. They are very expensive. 

If a lower-income driver had the occasion to use a HOT lane so 

they could pick up their child on time and not have to pay that late 

fee, then that would generally be cost effective for them to do that. 

But, again, we are looking at studies of this. In three different surveys, and I will get you the specific data, well over 50 percent— 

in some cases, it is as high as 70 percent—of people in the lower 

income ranks approve the use of toll lanes. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE GASOLINE TAX

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I am going to go in another direction now. I 

would like to get into this area of, would it not be fair to state that, 

other than a tax on food and medicine, there is no more regressive 

and hurtful tax on low-income families than a huge increase in the 

gas tax. 

Has the Department looked into this deeply, explored the implications of this tax on lower-income drivers and, of course, small 

business? I see nothing about this in articles, newspapers, or magazines, and until the report was made available by the Commission, 

I do not think it was even public. 

If you would just respond with your view as to the implications 

of this tax and how it would impact the lower-income grouping of 

people and also small business. 

Secretary PETERS. I will do so, Mr. Knollenberg. It does have a 

very high, disproportionate effect on lower-income families to pay 

significantly higher fuel costs. In fact, transportation cost, as a percent of budgets for lower-income individuals and families, is a higher percentage than it is for families as they move up through the 

income ranks. So it has a very significant effect on those families, 

especially as we have seen fuel costs escalate recently. 

I have talked anecdotally to people about the impact, but certainly it does have a much higher effect on lower-income people, 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
15 

and especially on small businesses who depend on having their vehicles out on the road to make deliveries or service calls. This is 

another area, sir, where there is not a lot of documentation, but we 

are collecting information and will be doing further analysis. 

ALTERNATIVES TO TOLLING FEES

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Just a final question. A lot of people may conclude that both mechanisms are inappropriate. Were there any 

other options you considered or had discussions about that might 

help solve the congestion problem but would not involve a tax in 

the form of tolling or a direct surcharge? 

Secretary PETERS. I will give you a bit of an answer that uses 

technology, Mr. Knollenberg. If, for example, you are using electronic tolling that is collected via a transponder, it would be possible for a jurisdiction to subsidize transportation costs for lowerincome individuals, that is ‘‘open-road tolling,’’ to allow people of a 

certain income to be subsidized. Their transponder would simply 

read ‘‘paid,’’ or they would pay at a significantly lower rate than 

others would. That is one of the ways that is helpful. 

Another proposal, that Mayor Bloomberg has offered up in New 

York City to price entry into lower Manhattan similar to what is 

done in London today. The advantage of what he has proposed is 

that all of the money that he would collect from the system, which 

would substantially reduce congestion and improve air quality in 

lower Manhattan, would then be used to build, expand, and improve the transit system, thereby offering more opportunities for 

people who do not drive into the city. 

I spoke to one councilwoman there, and she said that less than 

five percent of the population of her district drives into the city. 

The rest of them use transit, and she, in fact, is very supportive 

of what the mayor has proposed because it would put significant 

additional investment into improving transit systems. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and I will save 

another question for the next round on that same subject. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Rodriguez? 

TRANSIT SMALL STARTS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Secretary, let me ask you. Congress 

passed the Small Starts program for the express purpose, at least, 

it is my understanding, to try to establish a quick path for securing 

federal funds, and the proposed rules of the Department basically 

require the limited projects to go through a variety of multiyear, 

multimillion-dollar review processes, and yet the intent was to try 

to make it as simple as possible. It seems like the Department 

made it extremely complex and very bureaucratic. 

So why was the agency so, in terms of ignoring the congressional 

intent, to create this fast track to speed up federal investment in 

the communities? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, you are correct that it took too 

long, and the process was very complex for the Small Starts program. Part of that had to do with the rule-making process that was 

undertaken and the very long time it took. But that is not a good 

excuse. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
16 

I will tell you that when I became Secretary, about a year and 

a half ago, I met with Administrator Jim Simpson, who had recently become the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration. We agreed that we needed to do something about that. 

I am very pleased to report to you today that we have proposals ready that would expend the full $200 million for small starts that 

the Chairman spoke about earlier today. We think that these 

projects have a tremendous ability to provide public transportation 

in areas where heavy rail or heavier systems are not appropriate. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What do you estimate in terms of how the process is going to be, based on your recommendations now versus 

what we have? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Rodriguez, I will get back to you 

on that. I do not have a timeframe, and I do not want to speak inaccurately, so I will get back to you. 

[The information follows:] 

FTA has significantly reduced the effort required to produce information for FTA 

by project sponsors of Small Starts projects compared to that for New Starts 

projects. Below are specific examples: • Small Starts projects that do not significantly increase system-wide operating 

costs do not require a financial plan, as do New Starts projects. • Small Starts projects have two major project approval milestones: Project Development and Project Construction Grant Agreement. New Starts projects have three 

major approval milestones: Preliminary Engineering, Final Design, and Full Funding Grant Agreement. • Small Starts projects use opening year travel forecasts and are permitted to use 

simplified travel forecasting methods. New Starts projects must use regional travel 

forecasting models and prepare opening year as well as 2030 forecasts. • Small Starts projects are required to submit far less information about their 

transit-supportive land use and plans and policies compared to New Starts projects. • Overall, because of the reduced level of paperwork and analysis required, FTA 

has been able to significantly reduce the timeframe for Small Starts Project Development approvals compared to New Starts. • For Small Starts projects, the timeframe between Project Development approval 

to obtaining an FTA funding recommendation has ranged from to 6 to 9 months. 

This compares to a 2 to 4 year timeframe typically required for a New Starts project 

between Preliminary Engineering approval and receipt of a Full Funding Grant 

Agreement. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. We have gotten complaints from not only my 

area and background but throughout that people also made a serious investment in terms of trying to go after some of the application programs, and they spent a lot of hours working on very expensive programs in terms of trying to reach out for the 2007 funding in terms of going and seeking out some of those. Then only a 

very few number were actually granted. 

So all of these other people that submitted applications, it was, 

like, for nothing, except that they had to invest a great deal of resources throughout the nation to try to seek this, and then, like, 

an arbitrary decision was made that that was not going to get 

funded. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Rodriguez, I will ask the Assistant Secretary to tell you how many Small Starts are included in 

the President’s budget with the $200 million this year. 

I will tell you what I believe is absolutely accurate, and I will 

confirm this for you: every project that is ready to move forward 

is funded in the President’s budget. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And there was some implication that there was 

some favoritism played also. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
17 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, I did not know that. I would be very 

happy to hear more about that and look into it. 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Congressman, there are 13 Small Start projects 

in the President’s 2009 budget. This is fully funding the authorized 

level of $200 million. This is the first time we have had a full complement of projects ready to go. 

Part of the problem in the past was that the projects were not 

ready. I appreciate what you are saying. We are talking about a 

brand-new program. This program did not exist before 2007, and, 

in the process of promulgating the regulations, we went out to the 

communities to find out what kinds of projects people would be 

looking for. So there was some give and take going on. I think 

probably what you are referring to is some startup issues in a new 

program. 

The Congress funded this program at a reduced level last year, 

and we would encourage the Congress to fully fund it in the 2009 

budget. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You are looking at an additional 13 or 13 total? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Thirteen new projects in 2009. 

OUTLAY RATES FOR DESIGNATED PROJECTS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me ask you, Madam Secretary, you made 

some comment as you were giving your response, and you said that 

earmarks slow down the spending. An earmark tells you directly 

what to do with it. You just send a check. It should not slow you 

down at all. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, let me explain the basis of my 

remark. As you and I discussed earlier today, I spent 17 years at 

the Arizona Department of Transportation administering programs 

like this. 

If the earmarked project is not yet on the state transportation 

improvement plan, the TIP, then it has to go through the process 

to get in that plan to be eligible. Of course, environmental and 

planning studies most often have to be done, too. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I understand, but a lot of times most of the 

projects that are funded are projects that have been out there for 

some time and are things that have been eyesores. So that might 

apply to a very small percentage of the earmarks, not all of them. 

That would be my stereotype, that most earmarks are already 

projects that are serious and that need to be taken care of. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, you are exactly right. If they 

have already gone through the TIP process, then they do spend as 

rapidly or more rapidly than the others. Unfortunately, that is not 

always the case, and that is why, as a group, earmarks do spend 

out a little bit slower than other projects do. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you. Mr. Wolf? 

DULLES CORRIDOR METRORAIL PROJECT

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Madam Secretary and Assistant Secretary Scheinberg. I appreciate your being 

here. 

I want to just comment and talk about a transportation project 

which is of critical importance to my congressional district, to 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
18 

Northern Virginia, to the nation’s capital, and, quite frankly, to the 

entire country. 

I appreciate your being here today, and I want to publicly thank 

you for your assistance regarding the Dulles Corridor Metrorail 

Project. We are indebted for your willingness to have a pause 

where we can come together and kind of deal with this and work 

this out. I also want to urge Members, if you have not seen the article in USA Today in yesterday’s paper, you ought to see it. It is 

a pretty impressive article. I do not know if any of the other Members have read it. We will send a copy around to the Members of 

the staff. I was impressed with the article, and I urge people to 

read it. 

I know you understand the importance of bringing needed transit 

to the Dulles Corridor. This region has the second-worst traffic congestion in the country. The region has been talking about for decades—I think there have been five congressional studies—Senator 

Cannon had the first one—with regard to connecting the nation’s 

capital to the international airport, which serves as America’s gateway. 

Bold ideas often take bold leadership. This region faced a similar 

decision over 20 years ago when Congress considered the future of 

Dulles and National Airport, the only two federally operated airports in the nation. They were in the pits. Decay was at Reagan 

National. Dulles had 2.1 million passengers. That is all. The first 

bill I introduced when I got elected, and I got criticized for it—I 

got criticized by this body because they were all worried about losing their congressional parking spots at National and Dulles Airports. 

My first bill was to introduce a bill to transfer Dulles Airport 

over. We went through a battle. There were some Members of this 

Committee and other committees who sent ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letters 

criticizing me and saying, if this happened, the end of the world 

was coming. 

Fortunately, Secretary Dole had the vision, and you fly out of one 

or two of those airports—I do not know which one, but Reagan National is a modern airport, clean, efficient, and Dulles now has, and 

I just got the figures today—National had the best year ever, 18.7 

million passengers, and Dulles had the second-best year, 24.7 million passengers. 

Today, I was at the National Prayer Breakfast. Four thousand 

people in the room; most of them came through one of those two 

airports, and I would wager and think, although I do not bet—I 

was the author of the National Commission on Gambling, and, 

quite frankly, there is too much gambling, and both political parties have taken the gambling money, a plague on both of them. 

I will tell you, though, that that airport has made all the difference in the world, and most of the people in that room probably 

came through Dulles. 

Something needs to change. Some said, ‘‘Well, it won’t happen if 

we do this,’’ and, fortunately, Secretary Dole was willing to buck 

the Congress and buck everybody else, and we now have transferred those over. 

Today, the Metropolitan Airport Authority has transformed both 

Washington Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
19 

Washington National into first-class facilities, and you know, obviously, because you fly into them. 

There is an opportunity today, as Secretary Dole did, to be bold, 

have the vision to understand the importance of this transportation 

project, and it is a transportation project. It is not a redevelopment 

project. It is a transportation project to move people from the airports and to move people that are living out in that corridor, not 

only for this region but for the nation. 

The original 103-mile Metro system is often called ‘‘America’s 

Subway’’ because it serves not only those who live in this region 

but the many visitors to the nation’s capital who come from across 

America. Steny Hoyer and I, for years, used to work in this Committee when I was in the minority. We always tried to support 

Metro, and if we did not have Metro in this region, the traffic 

would be unbelievable. 

There is a vital need today to extend ‘‘America’s Subway’’ so that 

it can continue to be the transportation link to America, and the 

federal government has a responsibility to be a partner in this 

project: federal employees evacuation. Those airports are owned by 

the federal government. They are not owned by anybody else. They 

are held by the airport authority to promote them, but the federal 

government ultimately owns them. 

To assure the continued success of a thriving asset, I am confident, as the project discussions continue, you will make sure we 

have a fair process free from outside influence, which may have a 

conflicting agenda. There are probably a couple of lobbyists out 

here. If we could infrared them, I would ask them to stand up and 

tell them, are they working for the public interest, or are they 

working for a private company? 

I watched in my area the Dulles Greenway. We had a public-private partnership. This company, McCrory, bought it out, and now 

it is $4.80 to go 13 miles. I see somebody smiling. If you get on at 

Route 28 and go to the first exit, it is $4.80. Talking about a single 

parent, where are the lobbyists for the single parents? Is there, if 

you want to stand up, a lobbyist for the McCrory Company who 

wants to take this over? 

So I see all of these agendas, and I put this on paper so I will 

not get too far outside of the realm, but this should be in the public 

interest. This should be in the public interest, done on merit, honesty, integrity, truthfulness, and that is the way we want it approached. I am encouraged and grateful for your willingness to 

work with Governor Kaine, and the governor is really doing everything he can. 

We have asked the governor, and he has agreed, to bring in the 

best minds that there are, and he has agreed to do that, to come 

together, whereby we can hopefully get this thing moving. I believe 

this is a project which can be one that you can take pride, later 

on, as secretary of transportation. 

The last issue: When I was chairman here, I fought hard, and 

I might say, I also abolished earmarks—that only lasted for about 

one year. The fact is, when I became chairman, my governor called 

me up and said, Why are you abolishing earmarks now when you 

have just taken over as chairman? That only lasted for one year. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
20 

Another thing we urged to do was to reduce the federal match 

from 80/20 down to 50/50. I thought that was a pretty bold move. 

The match now for this project, for the first segment, is 70 local 

and 30 federal, and if you do the entire process, it is roughly 85 

local and 15 federal. 

So I hope, and I appreciate your willingness to work whereby we 

can do this so moms and dads and people coming into that airport 

have this. Had Secretary Dole not done this, I do not know where 

those airports would have been, and I think the same type of vision 

and boldness, if we can come together to bring the best minds, honesty, integrity—we are not looking to cook any books to change 

anything—I think we can build this so we can all be proud of it. 

That is really not a question, and I think my time is probably 

up. I have been working on this for years, and this Committee has 

funded this, if my memory serves me, at about $250 million. We 

have got to build it. Thank you very, very much. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, thank you for your leadership. 

I do appreciate that. We received a very substantive response from 

Governor Kaine and the project sponsors, and we are going through 

that in a great deal of detail. I commit to you and this Committee 

that it will continue to have my personal attention. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Wolf, I would not have dared to stop you in that 

oration, and for you, Madam Secretary, I think that Mr. Wolf has 

offered you a fine legacy there, identified a fine legacy for you. So 

thank you very much for your returned comment, not in the form, 

by the way, of a rebuttal of any sort at all. Thank you. Mr. Price. 

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PILOT PROGRAM

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me add my welcome. 

Madam Secretary, we appreciate your presence here today and 

your testimony. 

I am going to raise one matter very briefly and ask you to respond for the record. It has to do, as you may recall, with a meeting that you and I had last April and a letter that we sent you as 

a follow-up to that, to which, unfortunately, we have not had a 

reply, and I hope we can get one because it has to do with this innovative approach that the FTA has proposed for transit funding. 

It has to do with the public-private partnership pilot program, the 

so-called ‘‘Penta-P program.’’ 

I have expressed for some time a concern that the FTA’s guidelines appear to limit the potential benefits of public-private transit 

partnerships to innovative procurement, where it seems to me the 

more significant financial benefit may be in finding private sector 

funding to support transit new starts and to have innovative financing arrangements to facilitate the completion of transit 

projects that might otherwise be held up. 

So I am still interested in that. There is a local angle on this, 

as you may recall, but it is not just a local concern. It is a concern 

for the direction of this program. So I will submit for the record a 

more pointed question, which I hope you can provide us with a response for. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
21 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I will do that, and my apologies 

to you if we have not responded to your earlier letter. We will look 

into that immediately. 

NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND REVENUE STUDY

COMMISSION

Mr. PRICE. Fine. Thank you. I want to back off from particular 

matters of this sort and look at the overall funding picture, if I 

might. You are, of course, Chair of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. I congratulate you 

for that work, although you dissented from some of the major conclusions of this Commission that we have just been studying. 

You are well aware that the final report makes proposals for improving the nation’s transportation system that, in the context of 

today’s funding, appear very ambitious, indeed. The Commission 

reported that, as a nation, the U.S. should be spending between 

$224 billion to $340 billion per year for the next 50 years on its 

surface transportation system from all levels of government, not 

just the federal government, but the Commission also recommends 

a continuing strong role for the federal government. So a good portion of that would be federal funding. 

When we turn to this year’s budget request from the administration, we are talking, I believe, about just over $50 billion for surface transportation and $68 billion for your entire Department. So 

that pales in comparison to what the Commission suggested, and, 

in fact, it falls short of what we thought we had coming by virtue 

of the authorized levels in SAFETEA–LU. 

In addition, as you well know, the Highway Trust Fund is expected to be insolvent by Fiscal Year 2009. 

So there are funding gaps. There are major funding gaps in 

terms of what the nation’s transportation experts have said are 

needed in the way of dollars. 

I think, if the pie is not expanding in a way that lets us take 

care of some of these challenges, we are going to not only fall short 

overall, but we are also going to exacerbate the existing problems 

that we have that we are all too familiar with. 

I come from a donor state in terms of highway funding, and I 

know very well that, under these funding circumstances, we are 

never going to solve that donor state inequity. 

I am in a community that wants to be forward looking and get 

into mass transit, but I know very well that we are going to exacerbate the conflict between highway funding and transit funding 

when we really should be doing both, unless we can get a better 

overall funding level. 

So I want to ask you about that in general, and I also want to 

ask you, of course, about the Commission’s proposal as to how this 

might be paid for. The Commission recommended increasing the 

federal gas tax by between seven and 22 cents over a period of five 

years. I know you disagreed with that, as well as with the overall 

recommendations as to the federal role. But any way you look at 

it, with the trust fund running out of money, there are going to 

have to be some new revenue sources, and if not a gas tax, which 

you have opposed, what do you suggest in terms of the revenue to 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
22 

fund the transit needs we know we are going to have, let alone 

those that have been projected by the Commission? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Price, I would be pleased to answer, and, Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as possible in answering the question. 

There were many things in the Commission’s report, Mr. Price, 

that I did agree with. We need to have a higher level of investment. We need to make sure that we are paying attention, in a 

multimodal sense, to what our transportation needs are in this nation in the future. Freight transportation is very important, especially as we compete in a global marketplace. 

Where I disagreed with the other members of the Commission, 

as did two others—so three of us filed a minority report—is the almost predominant dependence on the gas tax for the next 18 years, 

continuing through 2025. I also disagreed on having substantial increases in that gas tax, between five and seven cents a year over 

a five-year period, which according to the recommendation, would 

require state and local governments to raise their gas taxes as well 

in a proportionate amount. 

Right now, the Federal funding comprises about 40 percent of 

overall transportation funding, so the nine members of the majority 

of the Commission suggested that the additional 40 cents contribute to the 40-percent federal share. But there would also be corollary increases on a state and local level. 

My basic disagreement with increasing the fuel tax has to do 

with several things. First of all, I think it is politically untenable, 

when we are paying the high prices that we are today for fuel, and 

every indication is that it will go further. But if that were my only 

concern, I would have supported the Commission’s report and 

would have filed that objection. 

My real concern is that this body had a very ambitious energy 

package late last year. That package said that we want greater fuel 

efficiency, and we are in the process of making sure that cars will 

be significantly more fuel efficient in the future. That is good for 

our economy, and that is good for our environment. 

We want alternative and renewable fuels, preferably fuels like 

fuel cells or other things that will not have a negative impact on 

the environment at all and will not require us to be dependent on 

foreign nations that do not have our best interests in mind for oil. 

So I see us increasingly moving away from fossil-based fuels, and 

that has been the predominant method of funding transportation 

since President Eisenhower proposed the interstate highway system. 

Sir, I have spent well over 20 years of my life in the transportation field, and if I honestly thought that the gas tax were the 

right method into the future, I would support that. But I do not. 

I think we have to diversify our funding for surface transportation. 

I think we have to have funding that can be used on the best mode, 

whatever the best mode is, to provide the transportation. The funding should be fungible and be able to be spent on that. 

I believe that the Federal role should reflect only those things 

that are truly in the Federal interest. When the federal role is 

broader than what perhaps is the Federal interest, too much opportunity comes to spend money in other places. I think there is no 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
23 

better evidence of that than the fact that, today, in the highway 

and transit programs, we have 108 different programs that slice 

and dice up this money that donor states like yours and other 

states remit, to Washington. And it comes back to them with many 

strings attached about how and where they can spend it, instead 

of allowing state and local governments to make that determination. 

I feel very strongly that we should collect revenues at the closest 

possible level to those who have authority over spending them so 

that the public has recourse, and, in most cases, that would be 

state and local officials. 

But in conclusion, I do think there is an important Federal role. 

I think the Federal Government does need to provide leadership. 

I just do not believe that the Federal Government has to manage 

every one of these programs, and I truly do not believe, and the 

Commission agreed with this, that we need 108 programs. Thank 

you. 

Mr. OLVER. I suspect that Mr. Price will have some followups in 

the next round. Mr. Walsh? 

NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Peters, for your comments today and for your service to the country 

and also to your deputy. 

I just want to make a couple of general comments on what I have 

seen in the last number of years, as a subcommittee chair and now 

as a ranking member. It seems like all of the savings that this administration expects us to find are in nondefense discretionary 

spending. There does not seem to be any real pressure on entitlements. There does not seem to be any real pressure on defense, 

homeland security discretionary spending. It all seems to come in 

the nondefense discretionary portion of the budget. 

In fact, in this bill, based on my staff analysis, we will be spend- ing $6 billion less than last year on discretionary spending for our 

transportation in the country. At the same time—I am not sure if 

this number is right, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 

22 to $23 billion on homeland security. If that is true, and I am 

not sure of my numbers, we are spending just three times as much 

on our national transportation system as we are on homeland security. It is an astounding amount of money, considering the fact that 

there was no Homeland Security Department six years ago. 

I saw this happen when I had the VA/HUD Subcommittee when 

we had EPA. Stag grants having slashed. State revolving fund has 

been dramatically reduced, and the population increases the pressures on our waters—lakes, river systems, drinking water systems—get heavier and heavier. 

I also had NASA in that budget. The President came out in favor 

of a mission to Mars with all of these goals and rallying around 

NASA, and then there was no money to follow. You cannot get to 

Mars without a few bucks. 

So I just really worry about where we are going with our transportation infrastructure. We saw the bridge collapse. There is a 

number of other bridges similar to that in construction all across 

the country that are in very bad condition, and yet we are spending 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
24 

actually a dramatically smaller amount of discretionary funds for 

our infrastructure. As I said, it is not just transportation; it is 

waste water, it is drinking water. In fact, it is NASA’s infrastructure, too, that is 1960’s construction with no new money going into 

any of those areas to speak of. 

RUNWAY INCURSIONS

Let me just specifically, and I am not sure if you are prepared 

to answer this—you can answer this one by responding back in 

writing, if you would. A recent study was done regarding runway 

incursions at airports. We all know about the dramatic increase in 

air traffic since September 11, 2001. It has gone up dramatically. 

It has been estimated that there was one runway incursion per 

day, each day, between the years 2001 and 2004. We now have 

technology that can help us to manage that and dramatically reduce the potential for accidents and loss of life, and they are estimating that hundreds of people could be killed in those accidents 

if we do not do anything about it. Last year, we spent about $40 million on this ASDEX ground 

transportation management system. This year, we are going to 

spend less. We have got 200-plus airports that need this type of 

coverage, and yet we are only somewhere near 30, 35 airports in 

the country that now have it. Some of those are being upgraded. 

The others have no systems to protect against this. 

This is a serious problem, and yet, again, we are reducing the 

amount of money we are putting into this very dramatic potential 

problem. So if you could comment on the ASDEX system implementation and why you are reducing the amount of money for it. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Walsh, unless I am misreading 

my notes from our budget, we actually are putting significantly 

more money into the ADS–B program and actually into next generation technologies overall. This year our budget request includes $688 million for these 

NextGen technologies, and, as you indicated, ADS–B is one of the 

best technologies helping us on the incursion issue. 

I have been meeting, on a regular basis, with our acting administrator, Bobby Sturgell, and, in fact, two days ago, he and I discussed a very aggressive plan, in the near term, mid term, and 

longer term, to take action to prevent and eliminate potential runway incursions. We are concerned about them. There are more 

planes flying today, and there is more traffic. We are still using a 

very outdated, radar-based technology in the short term until 

NextGen is fully on board. But, again, this has our attention. 

We recognize the potential that technology brings to us. In addition to the $330 billion for ADS–B, we are also including $400 million for another surveillance technology, $29 million for data communications, including network-enabled weather that will let pilots 

have access to weather right in the cockpit, and another $40 million on trajectory-based operations. 

I will get you a more substantive breakdown of this, but just to 

wrap up here, our funding this year has increased by over $470 

million for this type of technology so that we can move our airspace 

operations into the future. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
25 

In clarification, the FAA’s FY 2009 request for ASDE-X reflects the approved September 2005 program baseline for deployment to 35 airports. It also supports the 

FAA’s commitment to accelerate system deployment to 2010 instead of 2011. ASDE– 

X is currently fully operational at 12 airports. 

Much of the deployment activity and the funding needs to occur in FY 2008. Because it takes three years for an ASDE–X system to become fully operational, funding has already been obligated for the system hardware, planned software, and system enhancements for all 35 sites. The FY 2009 request is sufficient to support the 

activities in the approved ASDE–X project schedule. 

In the approved business case, the FAA determined that the maximum benefit 

would be achieved by deploying ASDE–X to airports with larger traffic counts and/ 

or more complex operations, e.g. airports that use the same runway(s) for arrivals 

and departures. The ASDE–X system also requires certain infrastructure. For instance, the system depends on flight data from an automation system (ARTS IIE 

or STARS) in the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) and incoming flight 

data from airport surveillance radar (ASR–9 or ASR–11). The 35 airports identified 

in the current ASDE–X business case met the business case criteria and had the 

required infrastructure. 

Since very few, if any, additional airports would meet the business case criteria 

for an ASDE–X system, the FAA is evaluating low-cost ground surveillance (LCGS) 

systems for other airports. The FAA is in the process of preparing a business case 

for LCGS and testing prototypes in Spokane, Washington. FAA plans on expanding 

this test to more sites this year. To date, FAA has spent $4.5 million on this project 

and is assessing if it is an alternative safety measure for less busy airports not 

scheduled to receive the ASDE–X system. 

ASDE–X alone does not solve the entire runway incursion problem. FAA is deploying runway status lights (RWSL) which integrate airport lighting equipment 

with approach and surface surveillance systems to provide a visual signal to pilots 

indicating that it is unsafe to enter, cross, or begin takeoff on a runway. RWSL will 

be installed at 21 ASDE–X airports, with two support systems located at Oklahoma 

City, OK. The Runway Status Light program has FY 2008 funding of $9.0 million 

and an FY 2009 request of $26.9 million. 

Additionally, the Runway Incursion Reduction Program (RIRP) is a contributor 

project of the Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping Program (ATDP). 

The RIRP has initiated activities to promote safety technologies. The program is 

funded at $8.0 million in FY 2008 and FAA is requesting $10.0 million in FY 2009 

to promote runway safety technologies, reduce incursion, and reduce the risk of a 

runway collision 

If I may, sir, just briefly, in terms of our overall budget, the 

President has asked us to hold the line on nondefense discretionary 

spending and non-Homeland Security spending, and we certainly 

have done that. I think that with respect to the focus on homeland 

security and defense, there is no better evidence of the need to expend money there than the fact that this Nation has not endured 

another terrorist attack in the last seven years. The President has 

talked about entitlement programs and is greatly concerned about 

those, but he also, with us, put together the budget that we felt 

best met our nation’s needs at this time. 

Mr. PRICE. One last comment. I think the point I was trying to 

make was as defense and other security discretionary funding becomes a larger and larger portion of our discretionary budget—it 

is much more than half now—we cannot find those savings in nondefense discretionary without dramatically affecting the infrastructure of the country. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you. Ms. Roybal-Allard? 

GRANTS TO MITIGATE CONGESTION

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Secretary Peters, to qualify for a U.S. DOT 

Congestion Reduction Demonstration Grant, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has proposed converting 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
26 

high-occupancy vehicle lanes into high-occupancy toll lanes on sections of three of our local interstate highways. 

As you know, many of my colleagues are very concerned about 

what affect this and other proposals, such as charges per mile driven, will have on lower-income communities. In awarding congestion-reduction grants, to what degree does the Department take 

into consideration the impact a proposal would have on modest-income commuters and car-pooling programs, and how does the Department ensure that these new programs do not result in a payto-drive policy where only commuters with higher incomes are able 

to take longer road trips and use less-congested lanes than those 

of lesser means? 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman, it is an important consideration, and certainly the L.A. area has put together a very ambitious proposal for converting high-occupancy vehicle lanes to highoccupancy toll lanes. 

We have studied surveys that have been done in several areas, 

and I will get the specific data to you, as I indicated to others on 

the Committee that I would: 

The Department of Transportation currently has reference to three formal studies: 

• Orange County, California—Continuation Study to Evaluate the Impacts of the 

SR 91 Value-Priced Express Lanes: Final Report (December 2000), p 131. In 1999, 

over 50% in all income categories approve allowing Single-Occupancy Vehicles 

(SOVs) using HOV lane capacity for a fee. Among respondents with annual incomes 

less than $25,000, 51% approved. http://ceenve.calpoly.edu/sullivan/SR91/ 

finallrpt/FinalRep2000.pdf 

• San Diego California—1–15 Managed Lanes Value Pricing Project Planning 

Study (Telephone Survey Report, February 2002, p. 25.) Overall support for 

‘‘FasTrak’’ congestion pricing program was 66%. Support was 60% among those with 

annual incomes below $40,000. Support was 59% among those with incomes between $40,000 and $70,000. http://www.sandag.org/services/fastrak/pdfs/ 

2002lfastraklpublicloutreach.pdf. 

• Minneapolis, Minnesota—MNPass Evaluation Attitudinal Panel Survey, Final 

Report, August 2006, p.2. Overall support for allowing single drivers to use carpool 

lanes by paying a fee was 65% one year after MnPASS implementation (71% higher 

income, 61% middle income, and 64% lower income.) http://www.mnpass.org/pdfs/ 

mnpasslattitude-study.pdf 

It is important to note that relatively few HOT lane drivers are everyday users. 

Instead, most use the priced facility on an as-needed basis, which is typically a few 

days per month. Low income travelers, just like middle and upper income travelers, 

often have work, medical, family, and social appointments for which they must or 

want to be on time. High speed, reliable trip times allow them to keep their schedules, and they are willing to pay for that quality of travel. For example, in Minneapolis, there are close to: 

• 20,000+ total toll lane subscribers who have the electronic toll collection device 

needed to access and pay for the I–394 priced lanes; 

• 3,500 of the total 20,000 subscribers who use the facility on any given day (but 

not the same 3,500 each day); and 

• a couple hundred ‘‘everyday users,’’ i.e., the same individuals using the facilities 

4–5 weekdays per week. 

Low-income respondents to these surveys overwhelmingly like 

systems where there is that type of conversion, and there are several reasons for that. 

One, it gives them an option to use when they need it. If they 

are going to be late picking up a child at day care, which we have 

talked about before, then they have the option of using the toll 

lanes. But it also lures other people off the lanes so they have lesscongested conditions to deal with. I believe that the L.A. proposal 

is consistent with this. Car-pools, high-occupancy vehicles, and 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
27 

transit systems do not pay. In fact, bus rapid transit, for example 

works significantly better in a hot-lane configuration than it does 

in a regular HOV-lane configuration because those buses are kept 

moving. 

The other opportunity we have by using transponders and collecting tolls electronically, or what we call ‘‘open-road tolling,’’ is 

that transponders for lower-income individuals can be programmed 

to pay less or not pay at all, depending on what the local jurisdiction would like to do. We are having discussions with those who 

have applied for congestion-reduction grants about whether or not 

that is something that they would want to factor in. 

I know that Mayor Villaraigosa is very interested in looking at 

this type of system. In fact, he and I had planned to take a trip 

together to look at some systems, but he ultimately was not able 

to go. 

You raise a valid concern. We are very aware of it, and, as I told 

Mr. Knollenberg, we are going to be doing some studies, particularly on the impact on low income. 

CORRIDORS OF THE FUTURE

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. With some 40 percent of the goods traffic 

at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach having a destination 

outside of Southern California, the prompt and efficient movement 

of goods between manufacturing centers and markets is naturally 

critical to our economy. Goods that are shipped out of the region 

by rail or on our highways via trucks make it extremely important 

that our highways, as well as our rail systems, are operating in a 

very efficient manner. 

Can you tell us what the status of the Corridors for the Future 

program is, particularly with respect to the I–5 and the I–10 corridors, and what is the current status of the Southern California 

Freight Congestion Initiative, which looks into these problems? 

Secretary PETERS. Certainly. Congresswoman, on the I–5 corridors, part of the Corridors of the Future, we are having ongoing 

discussions with the project sponsors and those who proposed I–5 

as a corridor for the future. We think it is tremendously important 

because of the amount of traffic that that corridor carries, and, as 

you said, it intersects an area where there is a lot of freight and 

goods movement, as well as commuter traffic. 

I will get a written report to you that tells you exactly where we 

are with that particular corridor. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department’s National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network contains a strong focus on forging stakeholder consensus on developing immediate and long term congestion solutions. The National Strategy targeted 

major freight bottlenecks in Southern California and development of stakeholder 

consensus on transportation solutions. The Department spearheaded a Federal, 

State and local cooperative effort that is actively working to achieve sustainable and 

efficient freight transportation operations in the region in harmony with California’s 

Goods Movement Action Plan. 

In October 2007, DOT along with U.S. EPA Region 9, California’s Business, 

Transportation and Housing Agency, the Southern California Association of Governments and other Federal, state and local agencies signed the Southern California 

National Freight Gateway Cooperation Agreement. The agreement is a public commitment by the signing parties to work together to improve regional freight 

throughput capacity in balance with environmental and community concerns. The 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
28 

agreement creates a forum to promote better understanding of the underlying considerations, potential impacts and alternatives for proposed Southern California 

transportation projects that affect goods movement. 

Signatories to the agreement will work to develop a Strategic Framework for 

achieving sustainable and efficient freight transportation operations in the area consistent with California’s Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP.) This framework will 

focus on improvements of the transportation decision-making process and the environmental review process. 

During this time, DOT has set up a Gateway office in Long Beach California to 

be proactive with the state and local governments, ports and the public regarding 

goods/freight movement in the California area. The Maritime Administration staffed 

this office with a Gateway director, who participated in the GMAP development 

process as did a U.S. EPA staff member. 

As for the Corridors of the Future Program, DOT is working with each corridor 

to create a development agreement that sets forth a clear path to achieving the 

goals of the program. Over the past few months, DOT held an initial negotiation 

meeting with each corridor and agreed to work towards executing the development 

agreements this spring. 

Specifically, with respect to 1–5, DOT met with representatives from Washington, 

Oregon and California on January 10, 2008. Subsequent to that meeting, the States 

and DOT formed a negotiating team. DOT is preparing a draft development agreement to be used by the parties in their negotiations. DOT hopes to have a signed 

development agreement by late spring 2008. 

With respect to 1–10, DOT met with representatives from California, Arizona, 

New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida on February 12, 

2008. Subsequent to that meeting, the States and DOT formed a negotiating team. 

DOT is preparing a draft development agreement to be used by the parties in their 

negotiations. DOT hopes to have a signed development agreement by late spring 

2008. 

In terms of Southern California ports, we are actively working 

with them to reduce congestion, and certainly the Alameda East 

project is one that I think will help tremendously. But as you and 

I have discussed in the past, that area takes a disproportionate impact of all of the freight traffic that comes into L.A.-Long Beach because the traffic has to move through the neighborhoods of Los Angeles before it ultimately gets on its way. 

We are working aggressively with the port and with the highway 

community in that area to see what we can do to fix things. One 

of the things that we have found to be successful is what we call 

‘‘congestion pricing,’’ or pricing differently for different times of day 

so containers that move through during peak periods of time pay 

more than containers that move off peak. 

What that has allowed us to do, and very successfully so far, is 

to ‘‘de-peak’’ demand in certain areas, keep the traffic flowing 

smoothly, and, therefore, get more throughput than we otherwise 

would, but with less negative impacts on the neighborhoods and on 

the environment. 

It is an area where I have our deputy administrator for maritime 

working very personally and very directly on that project for me, 

and we will continue to report progress to you. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Pastor, my vice chairman. 

CROSS BORDER TRUCKING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Mr. PASTOR. How are you, Madam Secretary? I want to apologize, first of all, for being late. It is not that I did not want to be 

here for the entire two hours, but I was presiding over the chair, 

and so I have probably missed part of the discussion, but there are 

two subjects I would like to discuss with you. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
29 

One deals with a program that is very close and dear to your 

heart, and that deals with the pilot program you wanted to do with 

the Mexico trucks. I tell you that it has been debated here in the 

House and the Senate now for a number of years, that, there was 

a limitation on the use of funds to allow the pilot program to go 

forward, which was signed by the President and is now the current 

law. 

I guess there is some misunderstanding or confusion on what is 

going to happen to the pilot program. I would caution you that because of the separation of powers and currently the law’s limitation 

of funds that possibly you would consider looking at the law that 

Congress has passed and signed by the President, that does limit 

you with funds. So, with caution, I advise you that probably that 

program, as of yet, should not be implemented. So I bring this, constitutional argument to you so that you may look at it. If you would 

like to respond, I would be happy—— 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Vice Chairman, I would like to respond 

briefly, and I realize that there is not exactly unanimity in terms 

of opinion on what we are doing with this. You know that I have 

tremendous respect for you, as a fellow Arizonan. I have known 

you much longer than I have been in this position and have great 

respect for you. 

We do understand that the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 prohibits spending 2008 funds to establish a 

cross-border trucking program, and I assure you, we will not use 

any 2008 funds to establish a program. We will, however, based 

upon an interpretation of our attorneys, continue to implement the 

program that was started in February 2007. 

Safety is the first, the last, the most predominant concern we 

have, and we have held those drivers and those trucks coming 

across the border from Mexico to not just the same, but even higher standards than we are holding U.S. trucks and U.S. drivers. 

The program is fully reciprocal, in that a limited number of U.S. 

drivers and U.S. trucks can go into Mexico, the first time they have 

been able to do that. And Mexican trucks and Mexican drivers can 

come into the U.S. and go beyond the Free Trade Zone, where they 

were limited in the past. 

I have established a very rigorous evaluation process for this program because safety is so important, and I have asked our former 

Inspector General, Ken Meade, Former Congressman Jim Colby, 

and Former Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation Mort Downey to form an independent evaluation panel to ensure that we are meeting all of the rigorous safety requirements of 

this demonstration program. We will evaluate everything that we 

are doing and ensure that we can tell the American people that we 

are not putting them in danger by engaging in this demonstration 

program. 

ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT GASOLINE TAX

Mr. OLVER. We will let you regroup for a follow-up on that one. 

We will start a second round here, and we clearly should have 

time for everybody to have their five-minute period. 

I would like to follow up just a little bit on some comments that 

were made by my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Price, who 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
30 

then had to be elsewhere. The whole issue of the pricing seems to 

me to be very critical. 

Madam Secretary, you said that the price of gasoline is high. It 

is clearly high. But the price of tolling and of any of the congestion 

mechanisms that you might come up with, or the public-private 

partnership, already embeds the price of gasoline in it, and those 

prices are going to continue to go up, too, as we move forward. 

So as we try to bring in these other mechanisms, which some 

other places have used—London has used, as you indicated, and 

New York has proposed to use. They have very good public transportation systems that connect to all around Manhattan or the 

whole subway system of New York City so that people wanting to 

come in have many choices. They can choose to not drive in or to 

drive in, knowing that they have a very good option for something 

else. 

But building those is exceptionally expensive, and trying to impose them in places where there is not a very solid transportation 

system is going to be a very expensive thing, in the first place, and 

at the higher prices; none of these are going to be low prices. 

So my sense here is that, yes, we have used the gasoline tax as 

a way to fund. 

Do you have a sense of what you think, or did in total, the balance of tolling and public-private partnerships and congestion pricing, as well as gasoline tax—should be? Do you believe we are not 

going to not use gasoline taxes again? How do you see that going 

over time? What are the kinds of mechanisms for which we raise 

revenues for a system that has to have local and state and national 

inputs into? What do you think is the sense of how that will 

evolve? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to diversify 

our funding sources as we move forward. 

There were two areas where I was in disagreement with the rest 

of the commissioners, and one of those areas was quantifying the 

overall needs. I think the overall needs, at $225 billion over 50– 

years is perhaps overstated because there was not the same rigorous benefit-cost analysis performed on every mode of transportation. 

But that said, you are right. We have to have more funding. We 

cannot continue to be as competitive as we need to be as a nation 

if our transportation system is not serving us well. I have often 

stated that my job is to ensure that the transportation system is 

an accelerator on the economy, not a brake, so we have to find new 

ways to fund it. 

One of the things that appeals to me about pricing is that, first, 

it moves us away from burning fossil-based-fuel. It also can help 

us manage demand very effectively. 

When we pay gasoline taxes, it is an indirect mechanism and indiscriminate in terms of when and how you use the system. You 

pay the gas tax when you fill your car. As you said, it is related 

to the number of miles you travel, but it is not related to when and 

how you use the system. 

We recently completed a household travel survey at the U.S. Department of Transportation, and 50 percent—this was amazing, 

even to me—50 percent of the people who are using the highway 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
31 

system during peak periods are not commuting to work and back. 

In fact, a full 20 percent of them are actually retired individuals, 

my sister among them. If she paid, to go out and pick up her dry 

cleaning or meet her friends for coffee during rush periods, she 

would not do it. But because she does not pay directly, she does do 

it. 

Studies indicate that by using pricing mechanisms, we can get 40 

percent greater throughput for the same lane configuration than 

we could otherwise. So I think pricing helps us in dense urbanized 

areas. You are correct, you have to have alternatives. 

We can use pricing mechanisms in areas where there are densities and demand that would warrant it, thereby freeing up increasingly scarce public dollars for areas that cannot successfully 

use pricing, particularly rural areas where safety and accessibility 

continue to be a problem. 

Other areas have used fuel taxes, development fees, income 

taxes, or sales taxes to fund transportation. I think we need to diversify our funding portfolio. 

The Commission and I also agreed that at some point in the future, we will have what I will call a ‘‘vehicle-miles-traveled system.’’ That basically is a utility-type model where I will pay for the 

amount of miles I drive, the time of day that I drive, the weight 

of my vehicle, how many people are in my vehicle, whether I am 

driving in my own neighborhood, or I am driving on a congested 

commuter corridor. Technology makes all of this possible today. 

We do need to deal with privacy concerns. There are big privacy 

issues, but, nonetheless, I believe we can satisfy those concerns and 

eventually move to a vehicle-miles-traveled system. All 12 commissioners did agree on that. 

Mr. OLVER. I will follow up on that in the next round. Mr. 

Knollenberg? 

GRANTS TO MITIGATE CONGESTION

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the congestion 

pricing initiative, for which you used existing funds, for example, 

that were targeted to specific projects in prior years, there is one 

that comes to mind. When Congress passed the year-long CR for 

2007, a large chunk of discretionary money, some $800 million, was 

parceled out to five cities in five states: New York, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Washington State, and Florida. 

I have some major concerns with that decision. Can you explain 

what factors you used to come up with your decision to provide 

money to those select cities and nobody else? I would also state 

that that money was formerly known as a series of earmarks by 

a variety of members of the House, and so just your response, 

please. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Knollenberg, I would be pleased 

to do that. Here again, I recognize that we are not always of unanimous opinion on this. 

Because congestion is such a pervasive problem in the United 

States today, when the year-long continuing resolution was passed 

for Fiscal Year 2007, we elected to target money at major cities 

where there was significant congestion. We could provide relief that 

would then be replicable in other areas as well and also the CorVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
32 

ridors of the Future that I mentioned earlier, these travel-andtrade corridors. 

We held a competition, and, to my recollection, there were 26 cities who applied for these congestion-pricing grants. I mentioned 

briefly the project in New York earlier. There are projects in San 

Francisco, Seattle, Miami, and in Minneapolis. Each of them is a 

little bit different and piloting, if you will, new ways of relieving 

congestion in the near term and making travel better for everyone. 

We have talked a bit about the condition of our highways, and 

some believe that our nation’s infrastructure condition is deplorable 

and falling apart. The bridge collapse in Minneapolis is an absolute 

tragedy, but early results from National Transportation Safety 

Board indicate that it was not neglected and fell down. In fact, 

overall, our Nation’s highway pavements and bridge conditions are 

slightly better than they were 10, 15, or 20 years ago. So we are 

making progress. 

Where we are making no progress is in the performance of the 

system. In spite of a 100-percent increase in funding over the last 

25 years, performance is 300-percent worse. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Here is the focus of my asking this question. 

I heard from a variety of people around the country who are very 

upset with that decision because they did not get it. In fact, in my 

own state, in my own backyard, the Smart program; they were denied money. They thought they were going to be able to compete, 

but they could not compete, could not even get heard. 

So I am not faulting that you had to make a decision. You did 

have to make a decision, presumably, but I am wondering if there 

were not some people that were overlooked, and, frankly, I do not 

know that that decision—time will tell—was one that was really 

the best for the entire country because there are a lot of people out 

there that do live in big cities, in many cases, but do have a need 

that certainly should be centered in that grouping that was picked 

from. 

Here is what I wanted to also say. On the subject of the local 

transit agencies around the country, there are so many of them, 

and I know these are big cities, and yes, in big cities they have congestion, but you have congestion in suburban areas, et cetera, because I do in my own area. So I wonder if you would repeat that 

decision in the future where there is some sum close to a billion 

dollars that comes into your lap that you wanted to put somewhere. How would the decision be made then? Would you have any 

thought about changing what you did this time? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, you raise a valid point, and I 

am sorry that the cities in your state were not selected. We had 

many meritorious applications and we did spend those monies 

within the statutorily required areas. 

In fact, we are conducting another round of competition today. 

We have proposed, in the President’s budget, to make available 

$175 million to do another round—— 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I was just coming to that, as a matter of fact. 

That is the ISTEA funds? 

Secretary PETERS. That is old unobligated funds from ISTEA and 

TAE–21. Should this body adopt the budget as we have proposed, 

we hope to have another round. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
33 

The other thing is the first five cities that were selected, New 

York, for example, have to get state-level enabling legislation. The 

General Assembly has to make a decision by the end of March of 

this year. If they do not, we will bring that money back and reallocate it to other meritorious cities. So there still is an opportunity 

to go back to cities in Michigan. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. It is the determination that you made to suggest that they were inactive, and, obviously, you found enough inactive situations to consolidate these funds to reach that $175 million mark. This would be an ongoing process. Is that what you are 

suggesting? 

Secretary PETERS. We hope it would be because we think we can 

relieve congestion in major cities and medium-sized cities, who also 

are suffering from congestion. In fact, cities of over 200,000 are seeing dramatic increases in congestion. We hope to continue it, sir. 

That would certainly be the will of this body as we move forward 

with the appropriation process. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Would these be smaller grants? 

Secretary PETERS. We would anticipate that they would be. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Rodriguez. 

CROSS BORDER TRUCKING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. Let me follow up on Congressman Pastor’s question. Given the situation that, Madam Secretary, the 2007 monies that were to be used for the pilot project, 

the question, I guess, would be a legal question I would ask for the 

record: Does the Department have the legal authority to disregard 

congressional intent, or is it a matter of just budgeting from one 

year to the other and still disregarding language that ought to be 

taken into consideration? 

I wanted to put that for the record because it seems, unless I 

misunderstood, that the pilot project continues because of utilizing 

resources from 2007, but the intent of the language was to prohibit 

that from occurring. So I just wanted to put that for the record. 

Secondly, I put language, Madam Secretary, on the appropriation 

bill cycle at the conference process at the very end, and I was successful in including language there with Senator Hutchison that 

prohibits the State of Texas from privatizing existing roads paid by 

federal dollars to be made into private toll roads, and I just want 

to get your feedback on that, whether you are going to maybe abide 

by that, at least for this year, based on your last comments on the 

trucking. 

Secretary PETERS. On the trucking issue, let me reiterate the 

specific language says that ‘‘none of the funds made available 

under this Act may be used to establish—’’ and I am adding emphasis on the word ‘‘establish’’ ‘‘—a cross-border carrier demonstration program.’’ 

That is the interpretation of our attorneys. I am not an attorney, 

so I will not debate you on the legal merits of that. I can respond 

to this Committee in writing about our interpretation of that particular issue. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
34 

The Administration has looked very closely at the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2008, and section 136 thereof in particular. By prohibiting the use of funds ‘‘to 

establish’’ a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program, section 136 does not 

prohibit spending to continue to implement the ongoing cross border demonstration 

project, which was established in September 2007—well before enactment of the 

current appropriations act. Consistent with the appropriations act prohibition, 

FMCSA will not establish any new cross-border demonstration programs with Mexico. 

The appropriation bill passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 3074, 110 

Cong. § 410 (2007)) would have barred spending ‘‘to establish or implement’’ a crossborder demonstration project. However, the enacted version of the bill is more narrowly drafted and prohibits only use of funds ‘‘to establish’’ such a project. 

To the question about Texas and tolling, I recently met with Senator Hutchison. We talked about the provision that you and she 

and others sponsored. We fully understand what is to be done and 

are enforcing that through the process of working with the State 

of Texas. 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL WORKFORCE

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Thank you very much. Secondly, my understanding is that we also have a significant problem when it 

deals with air controllers and the fact that we have a large number 

of them retiring. 

My concern has always been, and I initially verbalized that last 

year, and I think Senator Roybal-Allard also talked about the diversification of that group as we train the next batch of air controllers. Where are the institutions now that do some of that training? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I will get back to you on the 

specific locations. There are five locations that are certified schools, 

as well as Oklahoma City, but let me get back to you on the record 

with that so that I can be accurate. 

[The information follows:] 

The Controller Training Institute program is available at the following schools: 

Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ 

Community College of Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 

Community College of Beaver County, Beaver Falls, PA 

Daniel Webster College, Nashua, NH 

Dowling College, Shirley, NY 

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL 

Florida Community College, Jacksonville, FL 

Green River Community College, Auburn, WA 

Hampton University, Hampton, VA 

Inter American University of Puerto Rico, Bayamon, PR 

Kent State University, Kent, OH 

Lewis University, Romeoville, IL 

Metropolitan State College of Denver, Denver, CO 

Miami Dade County College, Homestead, FL 

Middle Georgia College, Cochran, GA 

Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 

Minneapolis Community and Technical College, Eden Prairie, MN 

Mount San Antonio, Walnut, CA 

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 

University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK 

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 

University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 

Vaughn College of Aeronautics, Flushing, NY 

FAA is opening the AT–CTI program for new schools to apply again this year. 

FAA forwarded the announcement information and appropriate contacts to its corporate civil rights for distribution to their constituents. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
35 

The Chairman mentioned, at the outset of this hearing, about air 

traffic controllers. I need to say, I have the highest respect for the 

men and women who perform that very important task every day. 

What we are facing right now is a period of increased retirements, 

for several reasons. Many of the air traffic controllers who came on 

board after the PATCO situation back in the 1980’s are now reaching retirement age. 

So we do do a very extensive workforce plan to address these retirements. In fact, last year, we missed, as the Chairman indicated, 

the number of retirees by about 128 retirees. We had also planned 

to hire just under 1,400 last year, and we actually hired 1,800. 

As you mentioned, training is important. We call those who have 

not been fully certified on every aspect ‘‘developmentals.’’ I assure 

you that we do not put an air traffic controller on a terminal to do 

a certain task that is not certified. Because of this big hiring and 

retirement phase that we are going through now, there are going 

to be more developmentals in our workforce. This is a period of 

time that we will work through, but we are very concerned and will 

not put anyone who is not fully certified on a terminal to work that 

terminal. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I would like to get that additional information 

from you as we move forward because I would also like to see some 

diversification occur in that area when it comes to air controllers 

and the type of training. 

I know that we were also talking about moving into a different 

system for air controllers where, I gather, they all will have to go 

through some training completely. Where are we on that, real 

quickly? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Rodriguez, that training is designed and being implemented in certain areas where we are rolling out early phases of what we call the ‘‘NextGen Air Transportation System.’’ 

The legacy system that we are using today is largely based on 

ground-based radar, and that has been the system that most of our 

air traffic controllers have been trained on and have been using. 

But as we begin to implement phases of this NextGen technology 

that I spoke about earlier, the controllers are being trained on that 

equipment. 

There will have to be overlap. We cannot simply turn off the legacy systems and turn on NextGen. So as we make that transition, 

the controllers will be trained to operate the new equipment. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you. Mr. Wolf? 

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN U.S. ASSETS

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, this is 

really an issue—Jim Walsh’s question triggered it. You can relax. 

I am not asking you to get into detail. Hopefully, you will say, ‘‘Yes, 

I will,’’ at the end, but this is the issue. 

I worry about our country, insofar as the selling off of America. 

I had a study done last week, which I will share with the Committee. The number of foreign interests that are coming in and 

buying up our country are the Saudis. There were 15 people on the 

airplanes on 911 that killed people from my district in the attack 

on the Pentagon, 15. This fellow, Alwaleed bin Talal, who has 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
36 

bought a portion of Citicorp, which is in the study which I will 

share with the Members, has been accused of anti-Semitic activities, anti-Christian activities, the radical Wahhabism. 

If we sell off America to the Chinese, the Chinese now—there are 

five Catholic bishops in jail. There are Protestant pastors in jail. 

They have plundered Tibet, and I urge every Member here. There 

is a U.S.-China Commission Report that almost no Members, other 

than Mr. Price—God bless him—I think he has left—that I went 

up and read. It is a top-secret, classified report. Read it to see what 

the Chinese are doing to us. 

I wish I could lay it out, but I cannot, but every Member, I did 

a ‘‘Dear Colleague.’’ I do not think anybody reads ‘‘Dear Colleagues’’ 

anymore, but I did a ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ to every Member, urging 

them to go up and read the report. China is responsible, to a large 

degree, for the genocide in Darfur. I was the first Member to go to 

Darfur. They could stop it today. 

So when we sell off our assets—I wish Secretary Paulson would 

spend more time talking to the Congress about a long-term deal, 

and I am going to get to that, than he does spending time in China 

talking to the Chinese. There is a bill, the Cooper-Wolf Bill. We 

have 72 co-sponsors. Secretary Paulson told me that if I got the 

leadership to be for this bill, they would be for it. 

Congressman Hoyer has come out for the bill. I appreciate 

Steny’s leadership. John Bainer is on the bill. Blunt is on the bill. 

Jim Cooper, who probably has forgotten more about these issues 

than most people. 

We have 72 co-sponsors. We set up a national commission, putting everything on the table, but if we do not deal with Medicare, 

Medicaid, all of the entitlements that we begged the administration, and I appreciate the President mentioning it. I would have 

hoped he would have said, ‘‘I am going to come up here, hand in 

glove, and work in a bipartisan way.’’ 

David Walker, and I will send everyone a copy, just sent me a 

letter. He said there is a tsunami, a financial tsunami, off the 

coast. 

I have 12 grandkids. If somebody told me—we are on the beach, 

and there is a tsunami down at Ocean City, and it is coming in, 

I would do everything I can. But we just stand by and do nothing. 

Financial Times, a month ago, and I will send this to every Member, said Moodys will downgrade our triple-A bond rating to a junk 

bond status in 10 years, junk bond status in 10 years. The Cooper 

Bill sets up a national commission: eight Republicans and eight 

Democrats. They take a year to go around the country with everything—Medicare, Medicaid, tax policy, too. Many of my friends 

from the other side say, Well, you know, we put everything on the 

table. This would be a gift to the next President, whoever he or she 

is. 

So my question is, and this is also a moral issue—the Tenth 

Commandment says, ‘‘Thou shall not steal’’—we are stealing from 

our children and our grandchildren, and we have an obligation to 

our parents. My dad fought in World War II. He was in the Marine 

Corps Reserves. He was in the Navy. My father-in-law fought in 

World War II. They did not fight to have us sell our nation to forVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
37 

eigners. It is okay when the British come in, when the Chinese 

come in. 

Also, this will have, and I hope you take it back, this will have 

an impact on our foreign policy if the U.A.E. and the Saudis and 

the Chinese control Morgan Stanley, Citicorp, and large companies. 

So this is an issue, and I would hope that we could get the administration to say, not next year but in this Congress, and I am 

going to look for every opportunity I can, and this is a bipartisan 

bill. Frankly, I think the American people are thirsty for something 

that is bipartisan. There is a similar bill in the Senate. Senator 

Conrad and Senator Gregg, and I believe Senator Voinavich is on 

it from Ohio. 

I hope you will take the word back to the President and to the 

cabinet. We need the administration not to just say, ‘‘Okay, Congress, send it to me,’’ but we need to come up and advocate. We 

can do this for our country, but I think the worry that I have, and 

maybe I am alone—sometimes maybe I feel things that others do 

not feel—when we sell off our assets, and I saw an article in the 

Washington Post the other day—one out of five jobs in South Carolina are foreign-owned companies. Now, it is okay if it is Canada, 

it is okay if it is Great Britain, but China that is allowed the genocide to take place in Darfur, I do not want them to own our country. I do not want them to own our large banks, and I certainly do 

not want the Saudis, who funded all of the madrassas up along the 

Pakistan-Afghan border, where Mullah Mohammad Omar went to, 

that literally brought about 9/11. 

So the message is, no answer. I know you are not the secretary 

of—but you are highly respected, to take it back and say, ‘‘Mr. 

President, this guy, Wolf, from Virginia, he said, We need you to 

participate, and we need Paulson,’’ and Paulson moved the goal 

post on me. He said, Wolf, you get Bainer, you get Blunt, you get 

the leadership. Well, Steny Hoyer has come out for it, John Bainer 

is on the bill, and Blunt is on the bill. We really need the administration to take this up. With that, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I will take that message back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. I welcome any co-sponsors on the Committee. We have 32 Democrats on it, too, so it is totally bipartisan. 

Mr. OLVER. Would you like to sign on? 

Secretary PETERS. I do not think I am qualified, sir. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Pastor? 

AMTRAK PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY BOARD

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will look forward to 

reading the legal beagles and their opinions. I was told that, in the 

House version, we had established and implemented it, but the 

Senate then changed it, and then I am told the history is that one 

truck came across, and then we stopped the program with the Senate language in implementing the pilot. I look forward to getting 

a response. 

I am curious. For the longest time I have been here, we have 

been dealing with Amtrak and dealing with the President’s budget 

and how he tries to zero out Amtrak, and, in a bipartisan manner, 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
38 

we restore some of the monies. But the workers of Amtrak worked 

without a contract for about eight years, and recently, in December, the Presidential Emergency Board basically came out with a 

recommendation that Amtrak provide retroactive pay for the workforce over a period of time. 

I could not find in the budget whether that recommendation 

which was supported by all of the members of the PEB, who, I 

imagine, were all the President’s appointees, included the retroactive pay for the workforce of Amtrak. 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman Pastor, let me explain why it 

was not in the budget. The President’s budget was completed well 

in advance of the PEB recommendations, and, as you indicated, the 

recommendations did find in favor of the unions. 

What is going on right now is that Amtrak management has negotiated a settlement agreement with the unions that is in the 

process of being ratified. However, I am told that those ratifications 

will not be completed until March. 

There are several alternatives that Amtrak can pursue. We will 

continue to monitor the situation. Joe Boardman, who is our Federal Railroad administrator, sits on the Amtrak board and keeps 

me informed, but the simple fact is the budget was completed well 

in advance of those recommendations having been received. 

Mr. PASTOR. Talking about the railroad administrator, last year, 

when he was here for the Amtrak hearing, we talked about the 

program. Following that the Chairman of the Subcommittee funded 

planning grants which will be made available for city-to-city connections. At the time, we talked about the possibility of linking 

Phoenix, Maricopa County, with Tucson, Pima County, and, by 

doing that, you would probably connect with commuter rail about 

85 percent of the population in Arizona. As you know, this would 

help address congestion that we have on the freeway today. 

To follow up, a representative from administrator’s office will be 

going to Phoenix February 22nd, for a meeting with ADOT, members of the congressional delegation, and other leadership, to talk 

about the possibility of ADOT receiving a grant. I was just curious. 

What is the time schedule that you have in application and then 

evaluation of the grants and then possible funding of a grant to a 

successful applicant? 

Secretary PETERS. Congressman, I will go back and check if we 

have current authority, or if we need to wait for the appropriation 

bill to be adopted. But you are correct. We have proposed for at 

least the second year in a row, $100 million for grants. You may 

not know, but I first studied that Phoenix-to-Tucson corridor when 

I was deputy director at Arizona DOT in the late 1990s and absolutely understand the need for it. 

At the time, because there were not viable transit systems, at 

least on the Phoenix end, that seemed to be problematic, but, of 

course, that is not the case today, and you and many others have 

supported a very good transit project that is going in in Phoenix. 

The team, as you indicated, will be meeting in Phoenix with the 

DOT folks in mid-February, around Presidents’ Day break, and 

should they come back and make a recommendation, we will move 

as expeditiously as possible. I just need to confirm to you whether 

or not we have funding available in the current year or have to 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
39 

wait until the budget is passed to have that planning grant money 

available to us, unless the assistant secretary may know. 

[The information follows:] 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, appropriated $30 million for the new 

intercity passenger rail grant program. Under this competitive grant program, a 

State or States would apply to FRA for grants for up to 50 percent of the cost of 

capital investments necessary to support improved intercity passenger rail service 

that either requires no operating subsidy or for which the State or States agree to 

provide any needed operating subsidy. Several States have already expressed interest in this program, and are anxious to submit applications. On February 19, 2008, 

FRA issued a Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) in the Federal Register (Vol. 73, 

No. 33) officially announcing this program. Arizona would be required to apply 

under this process outlined in the NOFA. The FRA FY 2009 budget requests an additional $100 million for this program. 

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, wasn’t there money in this omnibus 

bill that we just passed and signed, $30 million? 

Secretary PETERS. Thirty million dollars. That is what I was not 

positive about. So it could happen very quickly, then. 

Mr. PASTOR. But there is $30 million available. Well, thank you 

very much. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you. Ms. Kaptur? 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry for not having been here on the first round. I had a competing Budget Committee hearing, and I have a competing Defense hearing while I am 

here. So it is just great to be here. Secretary, welcome back. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you. 

CROSS BORDER TRUCKING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

Ms. KAPTUR. I have four quick questions. One, what can you do 

to bring back within the border commercial zone the Mexican 

trucks that are involved in this study that your Department is conducting in violation of federal law? We voted to only allow those 

trucks within the border commercial zone. You violated the law. 

What are you going to do to bring those trucks back within that 

zone? 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman, we have looked at the law, 

and we will not use any 2008 monies to establish a program. However, our interpretation is that we are not establishing a program. 

That program was established prior. We are continuing a very limited, one-year demonstration program that would allow a maximum 

of 100 Mexican companies and their trucks to come into the U.S. 

and a maximum 100 U.S. companies and their trucks to go into 

Mexico. 

We have set very rigorous safety standards for that program. We 

have an independent evaluation panel, and we will certainly evaluate, at the conclusion of this phase of the program next year, the 

progress and the safety. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Well, that is a very interesting interpretation of the 

law. Congress voted very strongly for that as part of the bill, and, 

obviously, I am not pleased with what you are saying to me, and 

it is a mystery to me why, with all of the other transportation 

needs we have in this country, you are spending money on a program that we specifically asked you not to do. 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman, if I may, Congress reauthorized the NAFTA Treaty in 1994 and, since that time, has put nuVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
40 

merous requirements, good and substantial requirements, on the 

U.S. Department of Transportation for moving forward with implementing that NAFTA provision and, indeed, have appropriated 

over $500 million since 1994 to set up and operate that program. 

So we certainly are—— 

Ms. KAPTUR. Which program, the data testing or the commercial 

zone? 

Secretary PETERS. This would be the program that would allow 

implementation of the NAFTA provision. 

When I became Secretary in 2006, I felt the prudent thing to do, 

rather than opening the border in its entirety, would be to set up 

a very limited demonstration program by which we could have a 

limited number of trucks and companies go on either side of the 

border and put very strict safety requirements on those, the same, 

actually more, safety requirements than U.S. trucks and U.S. drivers are required to adhere to. 

Safety is, was, and remains my highest priority in this program. 

Ms. KAPTUR. And you said there were 100 Mexican companies 

participating. 

Secretary PETERS. No, ma’am. There are not 100. In fact, right 

now, there are 13 Mexican companies that are operating that have 

been authorized by a pre-authority safety audit to operate 58 vehicles, and there are four U.S. companies that are operating 41 vehicles going in the opposite direction right now. This is all part of 

this process. In spite of extensive evaluation and surveying, there 

have been no safety incidents involving these vehicles to date. 

Ms. KAPTUR. When you said you were implementing the NAFTA 

provision, which provision are you referencing? 

Secretary PETERS. This is a provision for cross-border trucking, 

Congresswoman, and I would be happy to get back to you with a 

specific citation of when that law was passed. 

[The information follows:] 

Mexican trucks were allowed to operate in the ‘‘border commercial zones’’ prior 

to the NAFTA. Before 1982, Mexican trucks were allowed to operate in the United 

States under the same conditions as U.S. and Canadian trucks. The Bus Regulatory 

Reform Act of 1982 imposed a moratorium on issuing new operating authority to 

for-hire Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the border commercial 

zones. However, Mexican trucks were allowed to continue operating in the border 

zones and Congress established a certification requirement for such operations in 

section 226 of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, as amended by section 9111(g) 

of the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act of 1988. 

In Annex I to the NAFTA, at page I–U–19, the United States specifically recognized the existence of Federally-certified border zone operations that were not subject to the 1982 moratorium. The NAFTA intended to expand the scope of Mexican 

cross-border truck services by modifying the moratorium on new operating authority 

to provide such services beyond the border commercial zones in two separate phases 

(page I–U–20). Because border commercial zone trucking was an established practice recognized by the NAFTA, the Agreement does not include a provision allowing 

such operations, and none was necessary. 

AIRSPACE SEPARATION

Ms. KAPTUR. I would appreciate that. I want to move on to air 

travel. 

Is it true that the FAA has reduced the air space between planes 

from 2,000 to 1,000 feet? Is that true, the air separation? 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman, I do not know that. I do not 

believe that is the case, but I do not know. I know there are difVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
41 

ferent requirements for different types of aviation, both horizontal 

and vertical clearances. What I can do is get back to you on the 

record with the specifics, and, if variances are allowed, what are 

the circumstances, and which are allowed. 

[The information follows:] 

The FAA implemented the Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) in Continental US airspace on January 20, 2005. RVSM applies to an exclusionary airspace, 

from 29,000 feet to 41,000 feet, in which properly equipped and certified aircraft 

with specially trained flight crews can be separated by 1,000 feet vertically. The previous break point above which the 2,000 feet separation standard applied was 

29,000 feet. 

FAA implemented Domestic RVSM after extensive testing to ensure the safety of 

these procedures. Previously, FAA applied the RVSM standards in oceanic and Alaskan Flight Information Regions (FIRs), proving that the target level of safety would 

be maintained. Implementation aligned US airspace and procedures with those used 

by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 

For non-RVSM equipped aircraft operating between 29,000 feet and 41,000 feet, 

and all aircraft operating at or above 41,000 feet, the vertical separation standard 

remains 2,000 feet. 

FAA has made limited exceptions in the RVSM rules to allow non-equipped aircraft to operate in the exclusionary airspace, or to transition through the exclusionary airspace to altitudes above 41,000 feet. These exceptions require specific approval by air traffic control. Special markings on the controller main display monitor 

identify these aircraft. 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER TRAINING

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes. I am very interested if, in fact, the FAA has, 

in the last year or two, adopted a policy to collapse that airspace 

between planes as the number of planes is increasing, and it is my 

understanding that that has been done. I would like verification, 

and I thank you for that. 

Also, are you aware that when air controllers go for training, 

they have to leave their home communities many times and go to 

the place where the training is provided and that, in fact, many of 

them have to quit their jobs in order to do that, and they are at 

another location, whether it is Colorado or wherever it is? And it 

is quite expensive for them to maintain themselves. Many of them 

are putting their expenses while they are away from home on credit cards. 

Are you aware of what goes on in these training programs? And 

then, many times, even upon graduation, they may have to wait up 

to two years to get a job. Have you ever looked at the glide path 

for training of controllers and how easy or difficult it is for them 

to get to the point where they can actually be hired? 

Secretary PETERS. Congresswoman, I do know it is very extensive 

and complex training, and the work they do is also very complex. 

They do a very good job of it. 

We recently made a change, that while those who have been 

hired go through the training programs in our large facility, for example, at Oklahoma City, they are paid a per diem or cost of living 

while they are there taking that training. 

At one point in time, that had not been the case and both Acting 

Administrator Sturgell and I felt it was appropriate to do that. So 

they are being paid a per diem while they are being trained, and 

I believe they are actually being paid wages. Is that accurate? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Yes. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
42 

Ms. KAPTUR. Do you know what wage level? Are they at minimum wage? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. It is above minimum wage, but we can get you 

the exact amount. 

Ms. KAPTUR. But you are paying for their lodging now. 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Yes. They are getting paid while they are being 

trained, and they are getting paid for their expenses. 

Ms. KAPTUR. And they are not incurring debt, then, while they 

are being trained. 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Hopefully, not. Much of the training is occurring in Oklahoma City, which should not be a high-expense area. 

Ms. KAPTUR. And then do you have the glide path to hiring? Do 

you know how long it is before, once they are trained, before they 

are hired? Can you provide that for the record, please? 

Secretary PETERS. Ma’am, I will get back to you on the record for 

that. I do now have numbers that indicate that we had planned to 

hire just about 1,400 controllers last year. We actually hired 1,815 

controllers, again, into this retirement wave, but we will give you 

a timeline for the training. 

[The information follows:] 

Applicants selected from announcements that require previous air traffic control 

experience (i.e., Veterans Recruitment Appointment, Remote Monitoring and Control, Re-instatement, etc.) are hired at the Academy Grade (AG) level. The current 

AG pay is $33,100 plus the appropriate locality percentage for their assigned facility. 

Applicants that are selected from announcements that do not require previous air 

traffic control experience (CTI and General Public) are hired at the FG–l pay level. 

The current FG–l pay is $17,046 plus the appropriate locality percentage for their 

assigned facility. 

ATCS students attend the Academy as their first duty station and receive longterm per diem. The current long-term per diem rate for the Oklahoma City area is 

$48.60/per day for lodging and $30.60/per day for meals and expenses for a total of 

$79.20/per day. 

When controllers are hired, they are offered a facility location with their formal 

job offer. As a result, trainees know where they will be placed prior to their Academy training. Therefore, there is no lag time between successful graduation and 

placement in a facility. Trainees report directly to their assigned facility immediately upon graduation from the Academy. 

I do know that controllers are trained on various aspects of their 

duties, and once they are certified to perform a certain task, they 

can work on a terminal and perform that task while they are still 

being trained for other tasks. They do not have to wait until they 

have completed all of their training before they can be hired to 

work on a terminal. 

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

I just want to say, I will be submitting some questions for the 

record, just so the secretary is thinking about the Midwest, the 

Saint Lawrence Seaway System, and we will have some questions 

on that and high-speed rail from Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Sandusky, 

Toledo, Fort Wayne, Gary, Chicago. We will have some questions 

about that. 

Secretary PETERS. I look forward to those, ma’am. Thank you. 

CROSS BORDER TRUCKING CONGESTION RELIEF, AND TRANSIT

Mr. OLVER. Madam Secretary, we are just about at the point 

where my Ranking Member and I will close. I am going to make 

a couple of comments, and it will probably take the full five minVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
43 

utes, and then let it go over to him. Thank you very much for your 

being here today. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OLVER. My guess is, my suspicion is, in the issue that has 

been brought up about the Mexican trucks, that the legal interpretation is going to be based upon the idea that what was established 

during Fiscal Year 2007 and before we ended up passing something 

in December, that what was established. 

I will wait and hear what the interpretation actually is. 

Just, very quickly, going back, most of the congestion implies a 

lack of capacity, and we can encourage people to not do things at 

times when things are likely to be congested, if they do not have 

to be there, if it is not absolutely necessary. 

The private-public-partnership aspect; we have examples of cases 

where some of our toll roads have essentially been sold off for a 

fixed price, but then, if you look at what the price is that the purchaser of the toll road is going to get in terms of profits, what they 

have projected as profits, many times that over a reasonable period 

of the lifetime of that asset. 

So one really has to wonder whether we are getting, and that 

goes to the Texas case a little bit, I think, whether we are getting 

a good price for that situation. And clearly, if you are tolling, if you 

are tolling only what was already there, another lane of what was 

already there, you are not getting any additional capacity. And, in 

addition, we have problems in other places that have tried this that 

get into the questions of security and privacy and the reliability of 

the transponder systems and so forth. Are we really ready to deal 

with all of the issues I have just raised? 

I do not need you to answer this right now. But it seems to me 

there are problems involved in this one that are pretty extensive, 

and we are going to need some gas tax revenue, the good old traditional gas tax revenue, for a while at least until we sort out some 

of these other issues. 

On another point, Madam Secretary, in our hearings last year, 

we had learned that FTA and HUD had been working together on 

a program entitled ‘‘Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing 

Opportunities Near Transit,’’ and, in the final budget last December, half a million dollars was assigned to each of those two agencies, one of which is in your bailiwick; the other one, in the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, to work together on developing a 

practices manual for local communities that wanted to establish or 

increase mixed-income, transit-oriented development and so on. 

I am interested in your views on the current relationship between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 

your Department and how you think the federal government could 

help promote transit near affordable housing. Do you think there 

should be a coordinated federal role in that area? 

Secretary PETERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I think there should be, 

and, in fact, there is. Based on your leadership, FTA and HUD 

have an interagency working group to better coordinate transportation housing programs so they can look at more affordable housing, particularly near transit locations, and, as part of this effort, 

they developed a best-practices manual. This will assist communities as they plan for the future. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
44 

They have also developed action plans on new ways to better coordinate both housing and transit programs together, and that was 

submitted to this Committee, I believe, in June of last year. 

The issue of transit-oriented development is incredibly important 

and a very good opportunity to move forward in the future. In fact, 

in April, FTA and HUD, in conjunction with the Center for TransitOriented Development, which has now been established, published 

a report called ‘‘Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit,’’ which had several key findings. 

Localities can better coordinate their housing plans with their 

transportation plans. Housing investments need to consider the locations of retail and commercial development in order to maximize 

travel by foot or by transit in more walkable communities, and the 

private development market should partner with local governments 

to better integrate transit and housing solutions. 

In fact, these recommendations are being applied, as we speak, 

in Charlotte, North Carolina. Charlotte is developing a transit system and working with housing along that corridor. We should be 

able to report back to you with real-world examples of how this is 

working well together. 

Mr. OLVER. I will ask, from time to time during this 2008 year, 

about the progress of that, and I hope very much that your memoranda of agreement have teeth in them. 

Secretary PETERS. I suspect it did. I cut my teeth writing contracts. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. Mr. Knollenberg. 

HIGHWAY BRIDGES

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be fairly 

quick here, but I do want to bring up the Minnesota Bridge situation. I know Congress added in the 2008 Omnibus bill a billion dollars as a funding method for the inspection of bridges. 

My question is, are you confident that the condition of these 

bridges and their operation does not mandate additional money for 

the 2009 budget? In particular, I would like to know what your assessment of the condition of that bridge was and why it happened 

there. What might we expect around the country, if you have any 

idea about that. I do not know how much of an investigatory process you have established, but I would be interested in knowing 

what you have learned about bridge repair, because there are a lot 

of bridges around the country besides that one. So if you would respond. 

Secretary PETERS. Absolutely, Congressman Knollenberg. Congress did, very assertively, move forward last year, in the budget 

that was recently enacted, by funding a $1 billion program to further bridge inspection and repair. We are in the process of implementing that right now. 

We have proposed, in the President’s budget this year, $4.5 billion for the bridge program, and that is up from $4.2 billion in the 

prior year. 

I asked each of the states, and through the Federal Highway Administration, to complete an analysis of bridge inspections. I have 

also asked them to inspect again specifically the type of bridge that 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
45 

collapsed in Minnesota and asked that this be done shortly after 

the tragic collapse occurred there. 

I further asked our Inspector General to do a very rigorous scrub 

of our bridge-inspection program and report back to me the adequacy/sufficiency of that program, how data from that inspection 

program is then being used to prioritize projects for bridge renewal 

or replacement, and things like that. That work is ongoing. The 

states have completed their initial investigation of this type of 

bridge as well as a real scrub of their bridge-inspection programs. 

We found a few places where they are going back and doing some 

additional work. 

As to the specific I–35W bridge, NTSB, of course, is the body that 

will ultimately make findings about what happened with that 

bridge, and we have worked very closely with Mark Rosenker and 

the other members of the NTSB literally from the morning after 

the collapse when we met there just at daylight. All of us were very 

aggrieved about what happened and wanted to try to find out why 

it did happen. That is why, I ordered inspections of all similar 

types of bridges because the bridge-inspection report, and I will get 

you the specific ratings, indicating that that bridge should not have 

collapsed the way it did. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Should not have collapsed? 

Secretary PETERS. It should not have collapsed, based on the rating and the inspection reports. 

What NTSB has found to date, and this a point-in-time finding, 

as they have indicated to me, is that gusset plates were undersized, 

a design error when the bridge was originally built, and the bridge 

had stood for 40 years. Gusset plates are metal plates that various 

beams are bolted into, and, in this particular bridge, the design 

error was that they put half-inch-thick gusset plates when they 

should have put a full-inch-thick gusset plates. 

From what Mark Rosenker and the NTSB have been able to tell 

me to date is that some of the video that they have of the bridge 

collapse would indicate a puff of concrete dust in that area. That 

is why they made the initial finding that these undersized gusset 

plates may have contributed to the collapse. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Well, these undersized plates apparently 

were not big enough in the case of the Minnesota bridge. Did that 

send out an alert across the country that they had better check 

them all out? 

Secretary PETERS. Absolutely, sir. In fact, we have done that as 

well. We do not believe that it is a pervasive problem among bridge 

designs. Nonetheless, the day that NTSB gave us that information, 

the Federal Highway Administration sent out a directive for all 

states to check the loading on all of their bridges that have that 

particular design feature and go back and look at the design plans 

and make sure that they do not have undersized gusset plates in 

other areas. 

NTSB is very clear that there may be other issues. This is not 

a conclusive, final finding; they will continue with their investigation. As they have done in the past, when they find something that 

they believe is an issue that we need to take action on immediately, they report that to us, and that certainly was the case with 

this gusset plate design. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
46 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I wonder what they are doing about this plywood that, as you pass under a highway bridge, does not give you 

a lot of comfort? You have a four-foot-by-eight-foot plywood piece or 

two or three or four to hold up what must be something coming 

down. So I hope they look at those, too. 

Secretary PETERS. That falsework is supposed to be taken down 

once the bridge is completed, but we will ask our— 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. That is not a recommended process, is it, putting up plywood? 

Secretary PETERS. Sir, plywood is generally only used to hold the 

forms in place when they are doing pours of concrete, and, in most 

cases, that ‘‘falsework,’’ as we call it, should be moved once the concrete is set, but we will check on that. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 

being here today. 

Secretary PETERS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Ms. Scheinberg. I appreciate your 

being here as well. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us 

today. That concludes the hearing. Thank you. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
47 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 43749A.005
48 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 43749A.006
49 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 43749A.007
50 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 43749A.008
51 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 43749A.009
52 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 43749A.010
53 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 43749A.011
54 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 43749A.012
55 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 43749A.013
56 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 43749A.014
57 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 43749A.015
58 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 43749A.016
59 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 43749A.017
60 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 43749A.018
61 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 43749A.019
62 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 43749A.020
63 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 43749A.021
64 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 43749A.022
65 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 43749A.023
66 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 43749A.024
67 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 43749A.025
68 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 43749A.026
69 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 43749A.027
70 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 43749A.028
71 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 43749A.029
72 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 43749A.030
73 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 43749A.031
74 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 43749A.032
75 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 43749A.033
76 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 43749A.034
77 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 43749A.035
78 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 43749A.036
79 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 43749A.037
80 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 43749A.038
81 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 43749A.039
82 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 43749A.040
83 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 43749A.041
84 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 43749A.042
85 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 43749A.043
86 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 43749A.044
87 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 43749A.045
88 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 43749A.046
89 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 43749A.047
90 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 43749A.048
91 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 43749A.049
92 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 43749A.050
93 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 43749A.051
94 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 43749A.052
95 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 43749A.053
96 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 43749A.054
97 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 43749A.055
98 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 43749A.056
99 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 43749A.057
100 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 43749A.058
101 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 43749A.059
102 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 43749A.060
103 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 43749A.061
104 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 43749A.062
105 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 43749A.063
106 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 43749A.064
107 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 43749A.065
108 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 43749A.066
109 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 43749A.067
110 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 43749A.068
111 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 43749A.069
112 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 43749A.070
113 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 43749A.071
114 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 43749A.072
115 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 43749A.073
116 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 43749A.074
117 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 43749A.075
118 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 43749A.076
119 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 43749A.077
120 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 43749A.078
121 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 43749A.079
122 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 43749A.080
123 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 43749A.081
124 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 43749A.082
125 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 43749A.083
126 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 43749A.084
127 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 43749A.085
128 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 43749A.086
129 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 43749A.087
130 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 43749A.088
131 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 43749A.089
132 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 43749A.090
133 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 43749A.091
134 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 43749A.092
135 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 43749A.093
136 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 43749A.094
137 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 43749A.095
138 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 43749A.096
139 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 43749A.097
140 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 43749A.098
141 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 43749A.099
142 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 43749A.100
143 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 43749A.101
144 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 43749A.102
145 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 43749A.103
146 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 43749A.104
147 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 43749A.105
148 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 43749A.106
149 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 43749A.107
150 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 43749A.108
151 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 43749A.109
152 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 43749A.110
153 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 43749A.111
154 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 43749A.112
155 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 43749A.113
156 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 43749A.114
157 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 43749A.115
158 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 43749A.116
159 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 43749A.117
160 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 43749A.118
161 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 43749A.119
162 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 43749A.120
163 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 43749A.121
164 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 43749A.122
165 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 43749A.123
166 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 43749A.124
167 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 43749A.125
168 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 43749A.126
169 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 43749A.127
170 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 43749A.128
171 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 43749A.129
172 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 43749A.130
173 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 43749A.131
174 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 43749A.132
175 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 43749A.133
176 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 43749A.134
177 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 43749A.135
178 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 43749A.136
179 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 43749A.137
180 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 43749A.138
181 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 43749A.139
182 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 43749A.140
183 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 43749A.141
184 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 43749A.142
185 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 43749A.143
186 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 43749A.144
187 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 43749A.145
188 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 43749A.146
189 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 43749A.147
190 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 43749A.148
191 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 43749A.149
192 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 43749A.150
193 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 43749A.151
194 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 43749A.152
195 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 43749A.153
196 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 43749A.154
197 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 43749A.155
198 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 43749A.156
199 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 43749A.157
200 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 43749A.158
201 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 43749A.159
202 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 43749A.160
203 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 43749A.161
204 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 43749A.162
205 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 43749A.163
206 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 43749A.164
207 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 43749A.165
208 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 43749A.166
209 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 43749A.167
210 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 43749A.168
211 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 43749A.169
212 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 43749A.170
213 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 43749A.171
214 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 43749A.172
215 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 43749A.173
216 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 43749A.174
217 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 43749A.175
218 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 43749A.176
219 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 43749A.177
220 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 43749A.178
221 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 284 here 43749A.179
222 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 285 here 43749A.180
223 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 286 here 43749A.181
224 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 287 here 43749A.182
225 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 288 here 43749A.183
226 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 289 here 43749A.184
227 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 290 here 43749A.185
228 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 291 here 43749A.186
229 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 292 here 43749A.187
230 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 293 here 43749A.188
231 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 294 here 43749A.189
232 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 295 here 43749A.190
233 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 296 here 43749A.191
234 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 297 here 43749A.192
235 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 43749A.193
236 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 43749A.194
237 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 300 here 43749A.195
238 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 301 here 43749A.196
239 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 43749A.197
240 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 43749A.198
241 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 43749A.199
242 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 43749A.200
243 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 43749A.201
244 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 307 here 43749A.202
245 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 308 here 43749A.203
246 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 309 here 43749A.204
247 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 43749A.205
248 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 43749A.206
249 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 43749A.207
250 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 43749A.208
251 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 43749A.209
252 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 43749A.210
253 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 43749A.211
254 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 43749A.212
255 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 43749A.213
256 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 43749A.214
257 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 43749A.215
258 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 321 here 43749A.216
259 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 322 here 43749A.217
260 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 323 here 43749A.218
261 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 324 here 43749A.219
262 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 325 here 43749A.220
263 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 326 here 43749A.221
264 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 43749A.222
265 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 43749A.223
266 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 43749A.224
267 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 43749A.225
268 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 43749A.226
269 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 43749A.227
270 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333 here 43749A.228
271 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 334 here 43749A.229
272 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 335 here 43749A.230
273 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 43749A.231
274 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 337 here 43749A.232
275 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 43749A.233
276 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 43749A.234
277 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 43749A.235
278 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 43749A.236
279 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 43749A.237
280 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 343 here 43749A.238
281 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 344 here 43749A.239
282 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 345 here 43749A.240
283 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 346 here 43749A.241
284 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 347 here 43749A.242
285 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 348 here 43749A.243
286 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 349 here 43749A.244
287 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 350 here 43749A.245
288 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 351 here 43749A.246
289 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 352 here 43749A.247
290 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 353 here 43749A.248
291 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 354 here 43749A.249
292 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 355 here 43749A.250
293 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here 43749A.251
294 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here 43749A.252
295 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 here 43749A.253
296 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 43749A.254
297 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 43749A.255
298 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361 here 43749A.256
299 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 362 here 43749A.257
300 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here 43749A.258
301 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here 43749A.259
302 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here 43749A.260
303 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here 43749A.261
304 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here 43749A.262
305 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here 43749A.263
306 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 43749A.264
307 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 43749A.265
308 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 371 here 43749A.266
309 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 372 here 43749A.267
310 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 373 here 43749A.268
311 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 374 here 43749A.269
312 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 375 here 43749A.270
313 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here 43749A.271
314 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 377 here 43749A.272
315 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 378 here 43749A.273
316 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 379 here 43749A.274
317 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 380 here 43749A.275
318 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 381 here 43749A.276
319 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 382 here 43749A.277
320 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 383 here 43749A.278
321 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 384 here 43749A.279
322 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 385 here 43749A.280
323 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 386 here 43749A.281
324 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 387 here 43749A.282
325 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 388 here 43749A.283
326 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 389 here 43749A.284
327 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 390 here 43749A.285
328 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 391 here 43749A.286
(329) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WITNESS 

HON. ROBERT STURGELL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR 

Mr. OLVER. The hearing will come to order. I would like to welcome the acting FAA Administrator, Bobby Sturgell, to the subcommittee. 

Mr. Sturgell, I understand that you are wearing multiple hats, 

that of the deputy administrator as well, and I am glad you could 

come before the subcommittee to testify on the FAA’s fiscal year 

2009 budget request. 

The FAA is requesting a $14.6 billion appropriation, a reduction 

of $272 million from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Like last 

year, the budget proposes a new account structure, eliminating two 

existing accounts and replacing them with two new ones. As you 

know, our Nation faces a number of aviation challenges, explosive 

passenger growth, increasingly congested airspace, an antiquated 

Air Traffic Control System in desperate need of modernization, and 

an aging and changing workforce. Over the last dozen years, air 

traffic grew from 545 million passengers a year to over 750 million. 

It is expected to reach a billion by the year 2015. And further forecasts indicate that passenger travel could double or even triple by 

2025. 

General aviation is also growing. The number of general aviation 

aircraft in use is currently 230,000, expected to grow to 275,000 by 

the year 2020, as very light jets begin to occupy the Nation’s airspace. As passengers and air traffic increase, so do delays. Last 

year, delays and consumer complaints reached an all-time high, 

with nearly one in four flights experiencing 15 minutes or more 

delay. Delays cause more than just passenger headaches. DOT’s 

own estimates indicate that aviation delays cost the Nation as 

much as $15 billion a year. 

To mitigate the effects of congestion, the FAA is employing a 

number of mechanisms, redesigning airspace, instituting caps on 

operations, and embarking on a multiyear, multibillion dollar effort 

to modernize the national air system. To address the limitations of 

the antiquated air traffic technology, the FAA is requesting $688 

million for Next Generation air traffic control programs, which will 

transform the National Airspace System. FAA estimates that 

NextGen will cost $4.6 billion over the next 5 years and require billions more beyond 2012. The IG, however, has cautioned that the 

software development effort to bridge the gap between the current 

system and future NextGen architectures could cost as much as 

$50 billion. Clearly, this is an extremely complex and expensive endeavor. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
330 

We must also invest in the people who ensure the day-to-day 

safety of the air traffic system. Since 2005, the FAA has had to significantly increase its hiring effort to offset the increase in controller retirements over projections. As a result, composition of the 

workforce has undergone a fundamental transformation, and this 

could have serious safety implications. The Washington Post recently reported that the ratio of certified controllers to trainees has 

plummeted from five to one in 2002 down to three to one today. As 

more than half of the world’s air traffic is managed by FAA controllers, we must ensure that an adequate number are well trained. 

Finally, the lack of mutual agreement between FAA and the controllers concerns me deeply, and I urge you to continue discussions 

with them and others in the FAA workforce. 

Before we have the opportunity to hear from you and Ranking 

Member Knollenberg, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge Cheryle Tucker, who is sitting beside me here, has worked on 

the subcommittee for the last 7 years for both Mr. Knollenberg and 

me. This will be Cheryle’s last hearing before she heads to the committee’s surveys and investigations staff. I think that is why she 

is smiling. Cheryle has handled just about every account within 

DOT at one time or another and has worked tirelessly to ensure 

limited Federal resources are directed toward programs that benefit the greater good. Cheryle has also been a strong mentor to the 

staff, and I know they have appreciated her leadership on the subcommittee’s staff. After the hearing, I hope you will all take a moment to wish Cheryle well in her new position. 

With that, let me recognize my ranking member, Mr. Knollenberg from Michigan, for any comments he would like it make. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, want to salute Cheryle. She has been extraordinary in so 

many, many ways. We are sorry you are leaving, but we can see 

a smile on your face. As the Chairman has said, maybe that is a 

reason for you to be excited about where you are going. So, hopefully, that will be the case. 

Let me add my welcome, obviously, to Acting Administrator 

Sturgell and to his staff who are here this afternoon. We do appreciate your coming to update us on the major changes facing the airline industry and, in particular, the FAA as reflected in the 2009 

budget request. Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of any greater set of 

issues facing us today than the future of air traffic in this country. 

A recent study entitled, ‘‘The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on 

the U.S. Economy,’’ which was released last July, estimated that 

aviation accounted for over $1 trillion in economic activity in 2005. 

This represents about 6 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic 

product. It created over 10 million jobs and flew over 30 billion tons 

of revenue-ton miles of cargo. 

And needless to say, a safe, efficient, and growing air traffic system is essential to the Nation’s sustained economic growth. In fact, 

the annual rate of growth of air travel demand has matched the 

rate of growth of the economy almost precisely each year over the 

last 25 years. In spite of how critical to the economy the National 

Airspace Program or System is, we find ourselves bogged down and 

mired in the status quo. We still do not have a reauthorization of 

the program. Instead, we have yet another extension, only 9 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
331 

months in duration, and no real prospect for a reformed or modernized program. This extension takes us to June 30th, about the time 

the summer holiday season moves into full swing. 

In fact, the chances of real reform and modernization seem to be 

less likely today than they have been to this date. I hope I am 

wrong about that, and perhaps the acting administrator can shed 

some hope or light on the status of negotiations with the authorizing committees. I think we would all welcome a breakthrough. At 

the moment, however, the chances for real reform and modernization or even a multiyear reauthorization seem to be less likely 

today than they have been right along. But simple extensions often 

bring with them both short- and long-term downside risks, and this 

extension is no different. 

The most recent extension, for example, required a 25 percent reduction to stay within the allotted contract authority, and that reduction will cause many airports to lose a substantial portion of 

their protected or saved funding that has been appropriated in 

prior years. Unintended or not, this is the kind of outcome that is 

realized by not having a long-term reauthorization in place in a 

timely manner. I intend to ask the acting administrator to elaborate on just which airports are going to lose funds and how significant a problem this is going to be this year. The long-term consequences are just as disheartening. According to the budget information provided so far, the current trust fund mechanism would 

actually be adequate to cover the costs of putting in place the Next 

Generation equipment and facilities in a timely manner. The administration thinks the makeup of those revenues should be 

changed. I do not know if the administration’s proposal is a better 

idea or a fairer solution, but we all know that the airport congestion problem gets larger each and every day. To the extent that 

NextGen is part of the solution, we had better again on with implementing the program, in my opinion. 

Before I leave that topic, however, I also want to raise some concerns about the budget request for NextGen that is before us today. 

There is in total I believe some $680 million for Next Generation 

activities all combined, and about $630 million in equipment and 

facilities. At the same time, the funding for the current system and 

equipment upgrades is reduced by some $235 million compared to 

the current year. I want to be sure that what is given up in current 

upgrades is in fact less important than the new addition of Next 

Generation technology. I do not want to see NextGen implementation take on a life of its own and end up superseding other activities that should be considered a higher priority. I will follow up on 

that during the questioning period. 

The Department has just issued its National Airspace System 

Capital Investment Plan. One of the more interesting features of 

the plan is its discussion of how rapidly the nature of aviation is 

changing: Smaller, regional jets flying point to point, and very light 

jets flying to smaller airports. Consider, for example, the regional 

jets now are 34 percent of the traffic handled at the 35 busiest airports. All of this suggests that the workload will increase. And 

where it increases may well be away from the large hubs. The FAA 

has a new contract with air traffic controllers. And I would like to 

explore where the administrator believes that the FAA has suffiVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00331 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
332 

cient flexibility to make rapid changes in skill mixes and staffing 

levels at airports and TRACONS to keep pace with the changing 

operations and demands of the aviation industry. 

Finally, we have all heard the Department describe its 2009 

budget, and I endorse and congratulate the department for that 

emphasis. Certainly the rapid increase in predicted air traffic demands that we provide all the controllers the equipment and technology that we can afford. I am somewhat disturbed by the fact, 

however, that in spite of a new increase in new entrants, new aircraft needing operational standards, new unmanned aircraft, and 

very light jets, that the size of the Aviation Safety, the AVS program, remains flat from 2008 until 2013. I would like to get a better understanding of the rationale behind that and how the FAA 

intends to fill that gap and workload. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, our subcommittee has some very difficult 

choices to make. We find ourselves, all of us on the subcommittee, 

faced with rapidly rising costs for programs throughout the bill, 

and not just the FAA, but across the bill. It seems that at every 

hearing we hear about the shortfall in funding or the essential increase needed to keep pace with the economy. We have to meet infrastructure requirements in the transportation sector, and we 

have to continue our support for housing and services for nearly 5 

million low-income individuals and their families. 

I hope to delve into some of these issues, assuming there is time, 

that I have raised here today, and I look forward to working with 

you to sort out how we meet all these priorities for the committee 

as we move forward in the weeks ahead. I yield back now, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Sturgell, your complete written statement will be 

included in the record. And I would urge you to, in your informal 

remarks, to make them fit somewhere within the time frame that 

we have taken here, each of us. Thank you. 

Mr. STURGELL. Fair enough. Good afternoon, Chairman Olver, 

Congressman Knollenberg, it is a pleasure to testify before you and 

the committee to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2009. As the operators and regulators 

of the world’s safest aviation system, we believe the 2009 budget 

request of $14.6 billion will provide adequate funding to support all 

our critical priorities, priorities on which the flying public and the 

taxpayer depend. 

Mr. Chairman, you maintained many times that safety must be 

the FAA’s primary concern. That concern has been evident in your 

unwavering support of our critical safety initiatives, especially on 

the staffing front. Funding provided by this committee in fiscal 

years 2007 and 2008 will allow us to increase our controller workforce by over 500, and over the last several years, as has been 

pointed out, our safety staff by over 400. Our budget request continues that emphasis, with more than two-thirds of the funding 

dedicated to the safety mission. 

The subcommittee has been very clear that our industry’s remarkable safety record must not be just maintained but improved 

in the future, and I certainly concur with that. We do have to avoid 

complacency, despite having the best safety record over the last 5 

years here that we have ever had. We should always be striving 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
333 

for continuous improvement in that record. I think we are being 

particularly aggressive in ratcheting up the level of safety on our 

runways in particular. Last year we had eight runway incursions— 

only eight—that involved commercial aircraft. That is out of 61 million total operations. So a very small number, but a number that 

we need to continue to drive down smaller and smaller. 

We have taken several actions over the last year with the industry and the airport community. I want to particularly thank our 

controllers and flight standards inspectors unions, who have been 

involved in this Call to Action effort to improve runway safety. Everybody on every front has stepped up, the airports, the air carriers. As a former airline pilot, I would like to thank particularly 

the chief pilots and the safety officers from the carriers who have 

been involved in meetings with our senior flight standards people. 

They have been getting the word out to the pilots individually 

about the importance of this area and the need to continue to improve it. 

On the technology front, we are looking at further deployment of 

ASDE–X. Runway status lights will be our next major safety program in this area, and the budget has $26 million for that program 

in 2009. It is this kind of push on technology and focus on people 

that I think the NextGen program represents. We made sure everybody has had a seat at the table. And for those who say we do not 

have plans for it, the plans are there, and they are being continuously developed with everyone involved: all the stakeholders, the 

industry, the labor unions. NATCA, for example, participates in 

four committees that are shaping the Next Generation Air Transportation System. The Institute Management Council, where they 

are one of 16 members, this was a congressionally formed council 

to ensure industry stakeholder involvement in it. A couple of committees that we have: Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee 

and Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee, as well as the 

Operational Evolution Partnership. 

You did mention the staffing effort with the workforce. We hired 

over 1,800 controllers last year. We are going to hire 1,800 again 

this year. And the 2009 budget has another net increase of over 

300 controllers. So we are moving forward in that effort. 

Again, I just want to echo some of the comments from Mr. 

Knollenberg about the need for, in the long run, finance reform, a 

reliable revenue stream. If we do not have predictable funding, 

then we end up in a series of extensions—six this year, I believe— 

with kind of a state of flux. And it is a problem for an operating 

agency like the FAA. 

Finally, I will throw in my sentiments and recognition of 

Cheryle. She has been great to work with, both personally with me 

and with our staff. I will do my best to keep her involved with us 

as long as possible and as much as we can. 

So thanks very much Cheryle, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Knollenberg. 

[The justification follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
334 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 405 43749A.287
335 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 406 43749A.288
336 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 407 43749A.289
337 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 408 43749A.290
338 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 409 43749A.291
339 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 43749A.292
340 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 43749A.293
341 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 43749A.294
342 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 43749A.295
343 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 43749A.296
344 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 43749A.297
345 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 416 43749A.298
346 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 417 43749A.299
347 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 418 43749A.300
348 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you for your statement. 

We will now turn to questions. And as usual, I and Mr. Knollenberg will each take 10 minutes. We do not seem to have much competition here. They are going to call votes any minute now. Maybe 

not any minute, but not too long. And let’s see if we can get at least 

two rounds of 10 in here before we have to move on and go back 

to the other part of our job, voting. 

I think it is truly remarkable that our controllers, we have at 

least half of the whole air traffic in the world, and it is covered by 

our controllers functioning. To have the safety record that we do 

have is, in fact, I think quite remarkable. And you are right, we 

have to maintain that and try to improve on what it is. It always 

is a big matter. But I have to say that the FAA has done a fine 

job in achieving what has been achieved. I started to talk about the 

ratios of the certified professional controllers, the CPCs. We are the 

only people who may do the training on sites after one is finished 

with the academies, and the number of trainees that are being 

done. And within a very short period of time, we have gone from 

a ratio of about five to one of the CPCs to the trainees now down 

to three to one. That is 83 percent down to 75 percent of the total 

being CPCs versus now only 75 percent in that system, which 

means that a lot of new people are coming in. 

You mentioned the figures 1,800 for the last 2 years, and then 

some more people that this budget will provide for. But that is 

what is feeding that quick turnover. We are told that we still have 

turnover in terms of the number who may retire over the next few 

years, between now and 2012 or 2013, that a substantial majority 

of the workforce is in position to be able to retire. So the situation 

does continue. Am I using the figures correctly? I know the IG, I 

was basically using the IG’s figures on the ratio of CPCs to trainees. Do you agree with those? 

Mr. STURGELL. The three to one would match up with what I 

think the current ratio is, which is, we are just under 25 percent 

in terms of developmentals versus the entire workforce. And that 

has increased substantially. 

Mr. OLVER. You agree it was five to one only a few years ago, 

a handful of years ago. 

Mr. STURGELL. I cannot say without knowing the particular year, 

but I would say, I think that number has probably gone up 10 percent in the last 2, 3 years or so. You know, we were under a long 

period there where the hiring needs were not that great. So it was 

natural that the developmental ratios were fairly low. But look at 

what happened before the strike versus after the strike. Before the 

strike, we were at 44 percent or so in terms of developmentals. 

After the strike, I think the peak was in the low to mid-50s in 

terms of percentage. And of course, that slowly came down. So, you 

know, what we are seeing is a turnover in the workforce that is a 

natural result from the activity after the strike in terms of hiring 

a large number of people throughout that decade. And controllers 

can retire at age 50 with 20 years of service, or any age with 25 

years of service. That is what we are seeing. 

Mr. OLVER. Now, when you talk about the period after the strike, 

you are talking about back into the early to mid 1980s I take it, 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
349 

when the ratio of trainers to trainees might have been close to 50 

percent; the ratio might have been close to one to one. 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. But that was almost a decade-long effort, 

replacing that workforce. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay, but this clearly indicates a fairly substantial 

transformation in the composition of the controller workforce as 

that ratio of trainers to trainees comes down, as it seems to be 

doing and as it will if we are continuing to replace a fair number. 

What implications does that have for the safety of the system? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, just to go to the numbers themselves again. 

Our workforce plan, which we put out 3 years ago in anticipation 

of this hiring and retirement wave, sets it up such that we are 

planning on keeping the system percentages at below 35 percent in 

terms of developmentals. So we set this up to manage this transition, I think, fairly well. Right now, we are at 25 percent. So I expect the number will increase over the next couple of years. 

Mr. OLVER. So you are not any worse under your training plan 

than two to one as a ratio of trainers to trainees. 

Mr. STURGELL. That is correct. 

Mr. OLVER. Essentially. 

Mr. STURGELL. Essentially, right. 

Mr. OLVER. Yeah. Okay. But, now, is it possible to sustain the 

reduction in training time if we are going to have an ever-reducing 

number of trainers to trainees? Is it possible to sustain that under 

those circumstances? 

Mr. STURGELL. It is possible, and we are seeing those results. 

Mr. OLVER. But you have not reached that point yet. You are 

headed downward further. 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, prior to this effort, we saw full certification 

timeframes in the neighborhood of 3 to 5 years for en route and 2 

years for the towers. Our latest information, based on the most recent people achieving CPC status, we have got the en route down 

to 2.4 years or 2.6 years, and the tower down to 1.4 years. So we 

are making gains. And we are making those gains by using advanced simulators. We are taking advantage of what the pilot community said, and we are buying en route simulators. We are buying 

tower simulators, and we are going to start buying TRACON simulators. So I think it is achievable. 

Mr. OLVER. Do you see training time increasing at facilities 

where there is a high denominator in that ratio, a high proportion 

of controllers? Do you anticipate that? 

Mr. STURGELL. Sir, the challenge at this point is drilling this farther down to the individual facility levels and making adjustments 

at those facilities where we do have higher amounts than we would 

otherwise like, and just, you know, a continual emphasis on training over the next several years. 

Mr. OLVER. I hope I am not causing you a problem. I had data 

given to me in percentages, and I could not quite figure out what 

for a while, and I turned it into ratios. And you seem to be working 

in percentages and me in ratios. 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. 

Mr. OLVER. And so I am turning them back into, trying to return 

them into ratios. Okay. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
350 

Look, given that we are hiring heavily, has that led to any 

change in the caliber of the people who are coming into the controller ranks? 

Mr. STURGELL. I think we have got a very high caliber new hire 

controller workforce. We have now got 23 colleges and universities 

that we are working with to bring in new hires. For example, last 

year, of those 1,800, over a thousand came from these colleges. The 

bulk of the rest came from the military, experienced controllers 

from the military. 

Mr. OLVER. Do you see any change in the ratio of where those 

are coming from? 

Mr. STURGELL. Of where—— 

Mr. OLVER. Whether they are coming out of the schools, the CTI 

schools, the universities, the military? 

Mr. STURGELL. We are actually increasing the percentages of the 

CTI school students and the number of schools themselves. I expect 

that will further increase again this year. We are going to try to 

add some more schools to that program. 

Mr. Chairman, I do want to go back to a couple of points real 

quick that you made. I want people to understand that not just do 

we train controllers with CPCs, but we also use contract trainers, 

many of whom are former controllers and sometimes former controllers at the facility where they are doing the training. 

Mr. OLVER. You are using contractors. 

Mr. STURGELL. We use an extensive number of contract support. 

Mr. OLVER. Cheryle has assured me that I knew that. 

Mr. STURGELL. And with respect to safety, we do not put people 

on these positions unless they are certified for that position unless 

they have gone through the training for that position and they 

have been checked out. The agency has always used developmental 

controllers to staff the positions for which they are certified. And 

it is important, for example, if you are certified on one, two, or several positions, that you get experience in those positions during 

your training cycle. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. Well, I have troubled you enough I think for 

the moment. Mr. Knollenberg? We are going to at least get his 10 

minutes in this time clearly. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Well, I accept the time, whatever it is, Chairman. 

I want to turn first, Mr. Sturgell, to the AIP, the Airport Improvement Program. I am trying to get a handle on what may be 

a serious, even if unintended, consequence of the most recent extension. Is it not the case that many of the smaller eligible airports 

will protect or save their allotment from one year to the next, and 

that airports can protect, they can protect their allotment for 3 

years? Is that not true? 

Mr. STURGELL. The nonprimaries can protect it for 3 years, yes. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Is it true also that the 25 percent reduction 

in AIP contract authority that was included in the most recent extension applies to the saved or protected portion of the funding as 

well as what might be called the current year allotment? 

Mr. STURGELL. It does. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Both? 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
351 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Was this known to the authorizing committee 

members before the bill was passed? 

Mr. STURGELL. My understanding is that they were aware of 

this, and that, I believe, one of the reasons for this was to help protect our important safety projects like runway safety areas. We 

have got a tremendous effort going on in runway safety areas with 

our discretionary funding. And the other piece was to protect the 

letters of intent which we have previously committed. So I think 

that is the reasoning behind it. 

You know, whether this is a big problem or not, what we are trying to do to mitigate this is that we are using the oldest money 

first so that new money that may be reduced will actually still 

have other years left in its life. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I guess what I really was meaning by that 

question, did you or your department express that this outcome 

would occur to the Members or the staff? 

Mr. STURGELL. Mr. Knollenberg, my understanding is that the 

Congress knew what it was doing here, and this was the language 

we got. That is my understanding of the situation. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Okay. Can you tell us how many airports had 

protected prior year funds and will lose a portion of their protected 

funds, and how much each will lose? That may be a tough question. 

But if you can get that information to me quickly if not via a response. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
352 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 428 43749A.031
353 

Mr. STURGELL. I think we can get it to you probably in a week 

or so. 

Yeah, as far as the overall number, it is somewhere around 550. 

Where we are in the process right now is we have got the allotments. We are dividing this up and figuring out the airports. This 

will go to the regions, and the regions will then contact the individual airports and try and work through these issues with them 

in terms of letting them know how much and all that. We will get 

you some detailed information though. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Great. Have you informed the impacted airports of the fact that the saved or the protected funds were cut by 

the 25 percent reduction as of this time? 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes, I think they are aware of that. What I do 

not think at this point they are aware of is what specifically does 

that mean with respect to whatever specific project they had 

planned, or ongoing, or the actual dollar amount. That is still being 

flowed down to the regions and quickly to the airports themselves. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I know it is going to vary across airports, but 

can you give us an idea of how serious a problem this could be? 

In other words, do you have a recommendation for fixing the problem if you believe the problem is serious and needs to be fixed? Or 

do you believe perhaps that it is not a problem? 

Mr. STURGELL. Again, Mr. Knollenberg, there may be individual 

airports that will have a substantial problem here. I think generally the way we are trying to address it in terms of using the 

older money first will prevent any kind of broad substantial or significant problem with this. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The FAA has requested $2.7 billion for AIP 

for 2009, which is about the same, I believe, as was enacted in 

2008. I am aware, however, that the needs estimate for the air side 

improvements alone ranges from $7 billion to $10 billion per year. 

I am interested in how you arrived at the 2009 estimate, given the 

needs estimate. But more importantly, given that the AIP program 

level is not likely to ever be $7 billion to $10 billion a year, what 

is your recommendation for closing that gap, or what are you assuming will happen to reduce the backlog over the long run? 

Mr. STURGELL. Sir, we put out the needs estimate through the 

NPIAS, the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, every 

other year. And this fall we will have an updated version of that. 

We did see a drop off in needs after 9/11. That has come back over 

the last couple of years and there is a greater need now. AIP, 

though, was never intended to fully fund all of the airport needs 

as a Federal program generally. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Yeah. 

Mr. STURGELL. The large airports these days and a lot of the medium-sized commercial airports are very complex financial entities. 

They do a lot of their funding from debt and bonds, through passenger facility charges, things like that. If you look at the AIP portion, for example, I think it generally runs 10 to 30 percent of an 

airport’s funding, these types of big airports. They have other ways 

to do that. So when you look at our level, and I understand the concerns about the level, but I think it needs to be taken in context 

with the reauthorization proposal, which proposed a PFC increase 

that would bring in another $1.5 billion in new money. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
354 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would hope so. 

Mr. STURGELL. So along with some other changes, I think that 

is the right way to look at that figure. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. According to GAMA, the General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association, the number of revenue shipments increased by 13 percent, and the billings increased by 24 percent during 2005 and 2006. These are huge increases. Is that trend going 

to continue and will that increase significantly after the relative 

costs of general aviation compared to the total cost of operating the 

National Airspace System? So is it going to increase significantly? 

And just your comment on that huge trend it seems is in place. 

Mr. STURGELL. They are enjoying a great period of economic 

growth, that part of our industry in particular. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. So they are not hurting? 

Mr. STURGELL. No, they are growing, which is good to see. It is 

an important part of the industry. I think it is going to continue 

to grow in the foreseeable future. And I believe, if you ask them, 

they are all saying, wow, when is it going to slow down? That is 

their big question, because it is not in the cards right now. It continues to grow. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. It does not appear to be slowing down. Does 

there appear to be any reason why it should? 

Mr. STURGELL. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. We all remember last summer was a particularly difficult time at airports in the northeast, especially JFK, 

LaGuardia and Newark. Are the operating measures that were put 

in place to ease delays last summer still in effect? And will they 

remain in effect this summer as well? 

Mr. STURGELL. There are a couple of things we are doing on that 

line. The most prominent would be caps at these airports. 

LaGuardia has been under a cap in terms of number of flights per 

hour. We did reach a voluntary agreement at JFK on caps, which 

I think will reduce delays at that airport next summer. And we are 

currently in the process of doing the same thing at Newark airport. 

So we are trying to take the region as a whole. Lowering the number of operations per hour and spreading them throughout the day 

will help in decreasing delay. 

We are also looking at other measures, like operational improvements. The aviation rulemaking group that got together last fall 

came up with a list of 77 items that they thought would improve 

it. We have agreed to focus, with the industry, on about 17 of 

those. We are about halfway through getting those done before the 

end of this summer. We have got eight done. We have got nine we 

are working on. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. So you are making progress. 

Mr. STURGELL. We are making progress on that front. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Looking a little further down the road, while 

the Administration’s initiative to modernize the Nation’s Air Traffic 

Control System, NextGen, will certainly help to reduce delays in 

the future, full implementation is not planned, they tell me now, 

until 2025. That may have been the ordained date from the beginning. But what initiatives are you planning to address delays in 

this interim? In that interim? 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
355 

Mr. STURGELL. Operational improvements: we are always trying 

to improve upon our ability to deliver the airplanes safely and efficiently. We are implementing a large number of satellite-based procedures, both RNAV and RNP procedures, which are helping reduce delays and save fuel for the airlines as well. Airport construction should continue to remain in the forefront this year. We are 

going to open up Dulles, Seattle, and Chicago. We have had a great 

run over the last 7 or 8 years in terms of airport construction. 

When you look around the system, though, there may be areas 

where there is just not any room to build. And so you have to start 

doing things like taking a regional approach to the airport systems. 

For example, the Port Authority in New York has now purchased 

Stewart. And then, if there is truly no capacity, which I think 

should be first and foremost, you are going to have to start looking 

at the efficient use of the individual airport and how you want to 

maximize that airport. Whether the focus should be on passenger 

through-put or some other measure is a question we are all going 

to have to address in the future. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Well, I appreciate your responses. I guess my 

time has expired. So I will turn it back to the Chairman then for 

his role in the next level. 

Mr. OLVER. We have the good news that we are not having any 

more votes today, so we now are free, to continue. Normally we 

turn to 5-minute sequences here. Okay. We will go to 5-minute sequences at this point, and I will take a 5-minute sequence. You 

have already mentioned the New York area situation. The New 

York area situation, which seems to be our most complicated system, had exceedingly heavy traffic. And the whole airspace was redesigned probably 30, 40 years or so ago. And, then, again, you had 

instituted a new redesign program there over the last few years. 

Is that now, that redesign program in full—I recognize that Mr. 

Knollenberg asked about measures that you had taken. Was that 

part of the measure that he was saying had been instituted a year 

ago or something like that? Give me a little bit further about that. 

Mr. STURGELL. Sure. The airspace redesign project for the Philadelphia/New York/New Jersey metropolitan area began about a 

decade ago. Congress appropriated about $53 million for this effort. 

And last September, we reached a record of decision to make some 

changes to that airspace. In December, about 3 months after the 

record of decision, we implemented, on a very limited basis, what 

we call dispersal headings at Newark and Philadelphia. 

Mr. OLVER. Dispersal? 

Mr. STURGELL. So Mr. Chairman, right now, or prior to this, airplanes would go off the end of the runway, and they would have 

a fixed route to fly for a certain number of miles before being 

turned on their course. So there are restrictions in terms of how 

long the controller has to wait to get enough separation between 

those two aircraft to send the next one off. Dispersal headings give 

the controller the ability to use more than one heading off the end 

of the runway. So if you start turning an aircraft away, now you 

can launch another aircraft sooner. And this project is all about reducing delay, which is the net effect of that kind of an operational 

change. We are seeing improvements in delay reduction. 

Mr. OLVER. You have seen improvements? 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
356 

Mr. STURGELL. At Philadelphia and at Newark, for the limited 

time that we have been using these headings. As you know, this 

has been very controversial. We are in 12 lawsuits now, I think, 

if I get the number right. But I think we took all the right steps 

here. 

Mr. OLVER. Capped flights have been only associated with Kennedy, then, and LaGuardia, while the others have not capped either Newark or Philadelphia? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, Philadelphia is not capped in terms of total 

operations. We do not see the level of delay at Philadelphia that 

we saw at Kennedy. So there are several pieces to this. Caps are 

one piece of this congestion reduction activity. The operational improvements we talk about, the list of 77, that is another piece. A 

third piece is the airspace redesign. Other than these initial heading changes, we will not have any other operational changes with 

noise effects until the fall. 

Mr. OLVER. My impression is that the delay system, some of the 

worst certainly have been in that New York system. 

Mr. STURGELL. It is. 

Mr. OLVER. And then it ripples into virtually every place else. 

Mr. STURGELL. It does. 

Mr. OLVER. And you are thinking we are now beyond that, that 

the redesign is managing to have some impact on that? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, this is a very, very small piece of the redesign. The redesign is going to take several years to—— 

Mr. OLVER. Redesign just in that area, just in that—— 

Mr. STURGELL. Just in that Philadelphia/New York/New Jersey 

area. 

Mr. OLVER. Where else are you in the midst of—can you describe 

some of the other key places where you are doing redesign? 

Mr. STURGELL. Sure. We have done a lot in Chicago that will be 

coming on line with the new runways. We are currently making 

some changes in the D.C. area with the airspace that the Potomac 

TRACON controls. We did some airspace redesign in south Florida 

when Fort Lauderdale became such a significant delay problem a 

couple of years ago. Improving the airspace is as important to delay 

reduction, safety, and efficiency as runway projects. It is a very important part of the system. 

Mr. OLVER. This sounds like a lot of moving parts. I am wondering when we will begin to see people smiling and not complaining about the level of delays and that ripple effect that seems 

to have been coming out of that area. 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, there will still be delays. 

Mr. OLVER. Weather delays. 

Mr. STURGELL. Weather delays and some level of delay with the 

operation itself. But we are predicting right now at Kennedy that 

we will see a 15 percent reduction over last year and a more significant reduction in chronic delays over an hour, which I think are 

the delays that really get to people. 

Mr. OLVER. By next year. 

Mr. STURGELL. By this summer, yes. 

Mr. OLVER. By this summer? 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
357 

Mr. OLVER. You think you can begin to see some results that you 

are going to rely on? 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes. We had a similar problem in Chicago several 

years ago, and we have caps at Chicago, which we intend to lift 

pending the development of their new runways that are coming on 

line in the fall. But it took us about three rounds of voluntary reductions to get to a level of delay reduction that we thought worked 

for the system. So this is our first cut at New York. 

Mr. OLVER. You will get much better with time. Mr. Knollenberg. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, would Mr. Rodriguez like to 

precede me? 

Mr. OLVER. Well, we were sort of starting that second round, and 

I was giving him time to gather his thoughts. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I can do it either way. 

Mr. OLVER. Are you ready to go? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. My problem is, I do not gather my thoughts, but 

that is okay. Thank you. 

Thank you very much for yielding. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. You are welcome. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Let me ask you, I know that we have been talking about going into a new system for the air controllers. Where 

are we at on that situation? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, we have the plans right here today. We 

have already begun implementing parts of the Next Generation air 

transportation system. The 2009 request has ramp up in research, 

engineering, and development dollars as well as a ramp up in capital program dollars; $600-plus million of it is dedicated to the efforts surrounding the Next Generation system. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And I know the administration has requested a 

22 percent cut on resources for, I think, is it for the renovations 

and those kind of things? Does that have an impact on that? 

Mr. STURGELL. 22 percent cut in renovations. Sir, it was pointed 

out earlier there is a reduction in some of the legacy dollars. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Airport Improvement Programs. 

Mr. STURGELL. Okay, Airport Improvement Programs. The level 

we proposed is not the level that was enacted in 2008. I think you 

need to look at the level we proposed in conjunction with our reauthorization proposal. It increased passenger facility charges, which 

would bring an additional $1.5 billion to the airport community. So 

when you add up the $1.5 billion and the $2.7—— 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You are sure that is not fuzzy math? I saw that 

in the VA Committee for 8 years. 

Mr. STURGELL. This is an increase. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. This is actual dollars coming in. Okay. Now, 

does that have any impact on implementing this program as we 

look in terms of renovating and looking at the technology that is 

going to be utilized? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, we are certainly hoping airports continue to 

construct and build new runways, which will be important for the 

system. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. As we go into the new system, you know, what 

is the proposal in terms of the requests and the training that is 

going to be needed, and also, in the retirement of the air controlVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
358 

lers, in terms of the percentage dropping out and we are having to 

retrain? 

Mr. STURGELL. This year and last year, we have increased the 

controller workforce by over 500. The 2009 request has another net 

increase of 306 controllers. So we are continuing to grow this workforce. As I see it, what we want is not fewer controllers, but controllers able to handle more traffic. With a much more automated 

system, they will be able to do that. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. And now, the only thing I can tell you is 

the difficulty we are having with Border Patrol people as we try 

to train as much more we are having some problems with the quality and those kind of issues. And so you are saying you have got 

500 in 1 year? 

Mr. STURGELL. Over 2 years. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Over a 2-year period? 

Mr. STURGELL. Over 2 years. And another 300. Training is going 

to be one of this agency’s highest priorities over the foreseeable future. It is going to be extremely important that we execute on the 

training. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know also Congresswoman Roybal-Allard and 

others have brought up the issue in terms of diversity in that area. 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The only way I figure that you are going to get 

that diversity is where those schools are located. And I know there 

are some attempts out there for some to get certified in that area. 

Have you all looked at that at all? 

Mr. STURGELL. We expect this spring to be adding additional 

schools to our Collegiate Training Initiative program, which is 

where we are getting over half of our new controllers. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Well, I would hope as you get those new 

schools that you look in terms of the locality of those schools to look 

at that diversity. Otherwise, it does not happen. 

Mr. STURGELL. I think that is important, yes. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Internationally, as we look—do you have any, in 

terms of what occurs here internationally in our places abroad, do 

you have control over that? 

Mr. STURGELL. We have a number of international offices at the 

FAA, and we do a large amount of work in the international arena. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. How are we doing there? Do you feel comfortable 

where we are at? 

Mr. STURGELL. I do. I think we are working very effectively with 

the Europeans to harmonize changes in air traffic, as well as making agreements with folks like China, which we see is a country 

rising in the aviation ranks. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Because as we look at that new proposal 

by the President for $1.4 billion to Mexico, and I am wondering if 

there is any attempt there to try to work with that other committee 

as it deals with those resources, if some of that could be utilized 

in Mexico. And also, actually, I do not think we provide anything 

for Canada, but if we are allowing resources to go in there as a way 

of also safeguarding our situation there right across the border 

with Mexico and looking at those resources. Is there any attempt 

that you know right now? 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
359 

Mr. STURGELL. We have a substantial amount of involvement 

with both Mexico and Canada at the FAA. In fact, once a year, I 

meet with the heads of my counterparts from Mexico and from 

Canada. And we are involved in a number of activities and air traffic oversight. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And one last question if I can, Mr. Chairman, 

and I will stop, I promise. That is, I just heard this morning when 

we talk about internationally, and also Mexico and other places, although it was in Spanish, the problem we have with language. I 

heard that on TV today. That seemed like a very serious situation 

there. At least what I heard over the TV, where the person was 

telling them, you know, do you have authorization? And I think it 

was Chinese, I am not sure, and did you hear that? 

Mr. STURGELL. I did not. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. On TV? 

Mr. STURGELL. I did not. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Somebody in your department I am sure probably heard that. We have got a serious problem when they are told 

to stop and they do not have—and the person is assuming they are 

saying something else and was not getting it. And so have we had 

any problems with that? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, English is the language for the international aviation community. And all the nations are involved in 

English proficiency and training in the English language. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Then I am going to tell you what somebody 

would say when you say that, si. Give you another question, si. 

That is the way it sounded when the person was talking to him 

over the intercom as he had his plane coming in. He was reacting 

as if he understood, and he did not, at least initially. 

Mr. STURGELL. Interesting. I will look forward to hearing about 

the story then. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You will hear about it. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Knollenberg. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sturgell, last summer the FAA launched an ambitious runway safety initiative. It was called, or is called, Call to Action. 

What is the status of this program, and how has it helped reduce 

runway incursion? 

Mr. STURGELL. We had 24 total runway incursions last year. We 

initiated that Call to Action because last year we started seeing a 

rise. We were having a very good year, and we started seeing a rise 

in the numbers, some human factors, and issues that were of concern to us. So we brought the community together—the airport 

community, the operators, the FAA, the unions involved—and we 

set some goals in a number of areas, things like lighting and markings for airports, simulator training for pilots, and air traffic procedures at individual airports. We went to 20 different airports. The 

fall has not gone as well as I would have liked, but the actions and 

the responses have been extremely good. And we are now at a 

point where I think we have seen a reduction; we are tracking with 

our performance goal for this year. We are going to continue to 

focus on this area and do more follow up. And again, we will be 

deploying more technology in the runway safety area as well. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. So you see it as a positive kind of thing? 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
360 

Mr. STURGELL. I do. I think it has had a very positive effort, and 

I commend everybody that has been involved in it. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would like to turn just a moment to get a 

feel for how well the ASDE–X system is working as a near- and 

a mid-term safety improvement. I understand that there were two 

incursions last week, or perhaps it was the week before, but nonetheless, what happened was wings apparently got clipped on different planes. In your opinion, would the installation of ASDE–X 

have prevented those incidents? And I am relating back to the last 

couple weeks on these incidents. 

Mr. STURGELL. Mr. Knollenberg, I think what you are referring 

to is a ramp incident. These are cases of planes taxiing and perhaps the pilot misjudging the distances between the wing tips, as 

opposed to a runway incursion. I think those events are still under 

investigation, so I am not sure what the final result is. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. You do not know if that has an impact or 

not? 

Mr. STURGELL. I do not think on these particular incidents. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. In the eight commission places that ASDE– 

X has been installed has it eliminated the class A and class B incursions? 

Mr. STURGELL. It has not eliminated them. And I do not know 

that we can ever eliminate this issue because of the human factors 

involved. Certainly technology would help, and certainly we are 

taking a layered defense approach. It has a lot of benefit to us in 

this area. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. This is maybe a futile example, but is it like 

the automobiles perhaps, if they can do something about as you approach the vehicle, it starts to buzz in the cockpit or some such so 

they know they are a little closer than they should be? Maybe that 

does not apply as well to the aeronautical end of it. But it does 

work on automobiles. I know that. 

Mr. STURGELL. The NTSB has been at us for years to get a direct 

warning into the cockpit. And we are working very hard to find 

that particular solution. This is an area you cannot let up on. You 

have to keep driving and driving the number down. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Based on what you know now, would you recommend that ASDE–X installation be accelerated despite these—— 

Mr. STURGELL. I have accelerated it the best that I can. We 

brought it to Chicago about 2 years ahead of time, and we are 

bringing it to Kennedy about a year ahead of time. So, at this 

point, we have done what we can. That may end up adjusting the 

cost of the program in the long run. But I think that is money that 

is well spent. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Yeah. I have an interest in this because I understand that Detroit is scheduled for—— 

Mr. STURGELL. This year. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG [continuing]. For August installation. So it 

does interest me. But it does continue, and it will continue for as 

long as you can see right now. 

Mr. STURGELL. Yeah. We have got it going to 35 of our biggest 

and most complex airports. We are looking at a lower cost system 

to go at smaller airports. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
361 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Actually the damage that is done in these incursions typically is pretty minor, isn’t it; or am I wrong. 

Mr. STURGELL. Fortunately we haven’t had one in many, many 

years. These can be very catastrophic collisions. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Obviously, I know, but it seems to me that 

you are winning to some extent by virtue of what has taken place 

thus far. So we should stay tuned is what you are saying? 

Mr. STURGELL. We are working very hard on this particular area. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. OLVER. I am going to continue a little bit on the ASDE–X 

here. I have a feeling my Ranking Member is working from my 

playbook here as well, but I will try to cover a little bit of additional ground, maybe not quite as specific. 

You mentioned 35 places the ASDE–X system is sort of the platinum standard for at least cost. I mean platinum is fairly costly 

these days, passed $200 an ounce more than a few days ago, and 

you have only installed—is it 11 or is it 8? 

Mr. STURGELL. I think 11 is right. 

Mr. OLVER. That is now installed. Are you still headed toward 

trying to do 35, is that the plan? My impression was the recognition of how expensive this was, that you were now looking at some 

lower-cost kinds of provisions in testing those out. So I would like 

to ask you something about how this testing on the lower-cost incursion prevention mechanisms that you are working out, how that 

is—when are we going to see results of that and how is that going 

to change what you think is the appropriate place that we use 

ASDE–X versus some of the lower-cost stuff. 

Mr. STURGELL. The ASDE–X program is planned for 35 airports. 

I don’t see it being any fewer than 35 airports. 

Mr. OLVER. Is that supposed to be the busiest? When you speak 

of busiest, is it enplanements or is it operations or a combination 

of both, or what? 

Mr. STURGELL. It is operations and a number of factors: operations, type of operations, complexity of the airport itself, past history at the airport. There are a number of things that go into the 

investment decision, and it is the gold standard right now. It is 

about $141⁄2 million per airport for that system. 

Mr. OLVER. You never make it easier for me. I can’t keep all of 

those different things in the right cubbyhole for the right ratio of 

the total scoring that goes into how you make that decision. I was 

looking for something that I could see a list of airports and go down 

it and find number 35 and say, well, that is where we are going. 

Mr. STURGELL. I could give you that list, yeah. 

Mr. OLVER. But it wouldn’t relate to any one of the other lists, 

I suppose, is the problem. 

Mr. STURGELL. The other technology that is coming behind this 

is runway status lights, which interact with ASDE–X, and which 

we now have at Dallas/Fort Worth and San Diego. And Los Angeles 

just put up their own money to allow us to bring this system there 

for further testing. Right now we are looking at an investment decision this summer and going forward in 2009 to some extent. 

You talked about lower-cost systems. We are testing two systems 

in Spokane that are much, much lower cost than the ASDE–X system and do not have all the bells and whistles of ASDE–X. But it 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
362 

is another tool, additional information that we can give to the controller workforce to help in this area. 

Mr. OLVER. Are you hoping then to do this group of other mechanisms that are lower cost than our platinum system up to the point 

of 35, or is—do you have any idea where it is going to be appropriate, how far up the list of complexity business, enplanements, 

whatever that factor is, how far up—are you really planning to do 

only 35, or is that still very much up in the air and all the others 

on the lesser mechanisms? 

Mr. STURGELL. Right now we are only planning ASDE–X at the 

35 airports under the current program. We have not made any concrete decisions about what to do with numbers 36 and beyond. Part 

of it does go to the investment case, the business case, the cost of 

technology, and the problems at the particular airports in terms of 

runway incursions or traffic management or other safety issues. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. 

Mr. STURGELL. That is just part of our acquisition management 

process and our investment analysis of these technologies. 

Mr. OLVER. I want to—let’s see where we are here. I am still 

green—well, I am about to go yellow or red. 

You can have another round here. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Me? 

Mr. OLVER. Yes, Mr. Knollenberg. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to move into another question on the next generation. 

According to your NAS capital investment plan, between 2009 and 

2013 the Nation will invest over 3 billion in new technology and 

over 300 million in research to implement the next-generation technology for aviation travel. I have been told that the total funding 

by 2025 will be between 15 and 20 billion by your own estimate; 

is that right? 

Mr. STURGELL. That is correct. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Annual funding request will steadily rise 

over the next 5 years to reach a staggering 900 million in 2012 and 

2013. Needless to say, those of us in the business of appropriating 

funds need to be cautious before we jump into that ocean. 

As a matter of process and to get a better handle on who needs 

what, is it possible for JPDO to submit a consolidated, unified 

cross-agency budget request showing all the partners and how each 

is part of or impacted by the request? If you do that now just for 

internal purposes, could you share that with this committee if you 

were in that process at the present time? 

[The information follows.] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
363 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 454 here 43749A.302
364 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 455 here 43749A.303
365 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 456 here 43749A.304
366 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 457 here 43749A.305
367 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 458 here 43749A.306
368 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 459 here 43749A.307
369 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 460 here 43749A.308
370 

Mr. STURGELL. I think the individual departments and agencies 

involved in the NextGen system and JPDO highlight next-generation programs in their individual budgets. I think we ought to be 

able to put that together for you and show you what other agencies 

are spending in this area as well. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Next, the NextGen transformation indicates 

that 5 new business models have to be decided: The ADS–B system, white information management, data communications, national voice switch and weather enabler. I don’t know what the last 

one is, but I know you do. 

Has a business model for each of these been approved or are initial investment decisions still pending on some; and, if so, which 

ones among those that I mentioned? 

Mr. STURGELL. I think investment decisions for some of them are 

still pending. They are in various stages. ADS–B was a program 

that we began last year and I have pretty much approved that program in segments. You have a contract in place. After an initial 3- 

year period I believe we will make the decision on whether to continue with that effort or not. But as far as our own acquisition 

analysis, that is the most advanced program of the five that you 

listed. And I guess the next one would be the systemwide information management system, which I think Phase I has been through 

our process and approved. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Uh-huh. 

Mr. STURGELL. The others are in various states of investment 

analysis. These are five foundational programs that are part of this 

system. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Does it look like all of them will be implemented in time, maybe at a different pace, but nevertheless they 

are all being considered? 

Mr. STURGELL. They are all being considered. I think the question, as you said, comes down to time. Are we going to be able to 

roll out some of the changes to the system fast enough to keep pace 

with the predicted demand? Our focus area is the 2015–2016 time 

frame because that is where we see at least two times growth in 

some particular areas which could become problems for us. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Some of this will be based on existing but 

yet-to-be-fully-tested kind of technologies, too, I would assume. So 

you are partially blind about guaranteeing what will develop in the 

next few years. But sometimes we will have to wait for some other 

research, I guess, to blend into the formula here to bring about a 

success. 

Mr. STURGELL. There is a fair amount of research involved. I 

think the difference, though, is that a lot of this technology exists 

and has been proven in different areas. Certainly, we’ve had ADS– 

B up in Alaska for many years now. It is a proven technology and 

a number of countries around the world are moving out with it. 

Systemwide information management, the Department of Defense 

is heavily involved in these types of programs. NASA is heavily involved in better weather forecasting products. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. That is such a buttress of what you are trying to accomplish, I would think, isn’t it? 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
371 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I noticed earlier that NextGen technology-re- lated funding has increased to $631 million. Funds to upgrade existing systems would be reduced by $237 million from the 2008 enacted levels. Given the long lead times that NextGen implementation will involve, and given the rather urgent needs to upgrade 

equipment and facilities now, I would like your assurance and explanation why the trade-off is worth it. You believe it is? 

Mr. STURGELL. Sure. Mr. Knollenberg, two things I think you 

need to consider: One is that the actual funding level for the capital programs goes up by about $210 million, so that is part of the 

trade-off. The other one is if you look at some of the legacy programs, they are in stages where they are winding down. The En 

Route Automation Modernization program, for example, ERAM, is 

down $165 million in 2009 from its 2008 request, and that represents where that program is in its life cycle. The ATOP oceanic 

system is down by about $32 million in 2009 because it is largely 

deployed and it has been a very successful program. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I guess my question is why we are not sometimes greatly accelerating the implementation of runway lights and 

the STARS to avoid accidents now. I presume that is the case, is 

it not? The fact that we are not—— 

Mr. STURGELL. We are trying to move out on these programs as 

quickly as we can. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Accelerating, are you, at a very rapid pace? 

Mr. STURGELL. I think bringing in ASDE–X in a year is something that is going to be very challenging. It is something that has 

probably not been done before. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. So innovation is part of your repertoire. 

Mr. STURGELL. Yes, yes. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. OLVER. I think we are going to run down eventually here 

back and forth. We can hardly keep ahead of each other, I think. 

I want to take up—— 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Truce. 

Mr. OLVER. I want to take up one more sort of staffing issue. You 

know we have spent a lot of time back and forth over the controllers and training and how to get the training time down. A number 

of years ago, you know, and the numbers as you pointed out gross 

new trainers—the 1,800, 1,800 and 500 more we are putting in— 

what that will end up with by the end of the year we will see. But 

we rarely talk much about the other large group of technicians and 

inspectors, maintenance technicians, and inspectors. And I think 

that the IG has indicated in some recent report, maybe you know 

what I am talking about—but I think you said by the year 2012 

something like 50 percent of the inspectors are eligible for retirement. That is a number not well—we are well into the 72 percent. 

We have already gone through a certain portion of the 72 percent. 

They have already retired in the case of controllers. How many 

more we will have by 2012, I don’t know exactly, in that 4- and 5- 

year period. 

But now on the inspectors, how much of a problem do you think 

that is going to provide us? 

Mr. STURGELL. I think the FAA is representative of the Federal 

Government as a whole. It is not just our controllers, it is other 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
372 

parts of the agency. A lot of parts of the agency face the same retention and recruitment challenges we are facing in the controller 

workforce. Inspectors—— 

Mr. OLVER. Providing for only about 40, I think is the request 

in new inspectors, do you think that that is representative of the 

need if we have got that many—if 50 percent is right, that is a big 

group, isn’t it? Is the inspectors 3,000, something like that? 

Mr. STURGELL. It is over 3,000. The increase in the 2009 budget 

is the part of that workforce that oversees the Air Traffic Organization, the Safety Oversight Office. Over the last several years, Mr. 

Chairman, the Office of Aviation Safety has, with your support and 

Senate support, gone up by over 400 people. That is a much higher 

rate than we have typically grown that workforce. What we need 

to do is balance that workforce out and, with that kind of increase, 

that we take 2009 and make sure they have the right training, that 

they are deployed in the right places, and that they have the right 

tools to conduct the effective oversight that they need to do. That 

is where we are. 

Mr. OLVER. You have sort of triggered into what I was going to 

go into next, which is my understanding is that we have a lot of 

outsourcing of maintenance of our fleets, of airplanes. I don’t know, 

when I say a lot, maybe you can tell me what proportion of the 

maintenance by, for instance, legacy airlines is now being done in 

other places? I am hearing we have sites in Singapore, in Europe, 

in Central America, El Salvador, Mexico and so forth, that are 

going on. Can you give me a sense of how much movement there 

is to do the outsourcing of this maintenance? 

Mr. STURGELL. I can’t tell you offhand what percentage is 

outsourced. I think we have that data, and I could get you that 

data. 

Mr. OLVER. I would like to have that data, what is the best we 

know and how that is growing, some sort of rate of what it was in 

the last—in 2006, and what the rate—I love graphs that tell me 

where we are headed. You can get a trend line rather than having 

one dot on the line, which doesn’t tell us very much. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
373 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 43749A.309
374 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 469 here 43749A.310
375 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. 

Mr. OLVER. Then it is useful, I think. 

Mr. STURGELL. I can get you that. It is a global industry and 

there are 700 foreign repairs stations that we oversee at this point, 

but there are 4,000 domestic repair stations here. 

Mr. OLVER. How many inspectors are we using to keep track of 

those locations? And it can’t get down to looking at what and 

verifying what has been done with each of the planes, I would assume. 

Mr. STURGELL. Each one of these gets either—— 

Mr. OLVER. They don’t have to work at these places—— 

Mr. STURGELL. They either get an inspection from us annually or 

a renewal, the foreign repair stations. They also get overseen by 

other countries for which they are doing business with their carriers, as well as the country where they are located. Aviation safety 

has evolved: it is no longer just you go out and touch the airplane, 

you kick the tires, that kind of inspection and oversight process. 

That is still a piece of it, but it has moved to a much more riskbased system safety approach in terms of overseeing the systems 

involved, the work involved, and the carriers and these repair stations. 

Mr. OLVER. Oh, is 40—30 enough here? 

Mr. STURGELL. It is 30. 

Mr. OLVER. Cheryle tells me it is 30. 

Mr. STURGELL. Cheryle is right. 

Mr. OLVER. Well you could tell me, you could correct me. I would 

be perfectly happy if you correct me. Do you think that is meeting 

the needs of this outsourcing situation as it is evolving? 

Mr. STURGELL. I do, because of the growth in the workforce over 

the prior years. Again, it is a growth level that we traditionally 

have not used. Now we are developing a staffing model over the 

next year and a half or so which will help us nail down our needs 

more precisely. 

We have been submitting staffing plans to the Congress about 

where we are with this workforce. 

Mr. OLVER. I will wait and see what data you give me as to how 

the outsourcing and proportions of that kind of work is moving over 

a period of time. If you have that kind of data, that would be good. 

Mr. STURGELL. Sure. 

Mr. OLVER. And from my point of view, on the other large group 

of your employees, which is the maintenance technicians, my understanding was there was a labor agreement which set a floor of 

6,100 persons in the maintenance technician category. How are we 

in relation to that? I understand there is a grievance that has been 

issued because that is somewhat below. Is it actually somewhat 

below and what gets done about that? 

Mr. STURGELL. Sure. You are correct. We do have a contractual 

agreement with our airway system specialists, our technicians in 

the air traffic organization, which requires us to maintain a level 

of at least 6,100 persons in this workforce. 

For about 2 years we had achieved that. In January, which as 

you know is traditionally a high retirement month for folks in the 

Federal workforce, we went below the 6,100. We were not able to 

recruit enough to match the unexpected attrition we had during 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
376 

that time frame. So we missed January, and I suspect we will likely miss February because we need to ramp up the hiring side. I am 

hoping we can get this corrected quickly. There is a ULP that is 

filed, you know. We will probably be required to maintain this level 

for the months which we have missed it beyond whatever date—— 

Mr. OLVER. That agreement may have been made years ago. Is 

there any reason to think we don’t need 6,100 people in that category nowadays? 

We seem to have more planes all the time, we are expecting 

more traffic. Probably there will have to be a certain amount of 

maintenance done on all of it, even if a fair amount of it is relatively moderate. 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. We are in contract negotiations with that 

union, which do include the staffing level. Right now there are 

some issues related to litigation, which I can’t really get into in 

terms of where we are, but we are expecting some—— 

Mr. OLVER. There are always issues. 

Mr. STURGELL. Yeah. We have 9 unions, and we have 44 bargaining units. The agency is over 80 percent unionized and these 

agreements ofte take a long time to work through. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you very much. 

I have just about run out. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. You are finished? That is good because of the 

fact that I have a 4 o’clock appointment—— 

Mr. OLVER. If you want to close out, or I will close it out. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I will do that and be relatively brief on this. 

Following up on Mr. Olver’s question concerning the AVS resource 

cap. With respect to the increase in delegators or designees, 

outsourced individuals I guess, is there any concern that most designees are members of the industry that you are charged to regulate? 

Mr. STURGELL. Mr. Knollenberg, I know people raised that as an 

issue, but I think it is important to understand that the folks who 

are designees on behalf of the FAA prize that designation. And my 

sense is that they value that and they would not want to jeopardize 

that. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. You did say prize, right? 

Mr. STURGELL. As in value, yes. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. With respect to the safety management system, how dependent is the risk-based model on self-reported information that is exempt from penalty. As a general matter, has the 

ability of individuals to report without the threat of punishment 

provided the FAA with valuable and verifiable information? 

Mr. STURGELL. I think the voluntary self-disclosure systems that 

are in place have played a substantial role in improving the safety 

record of the industry. Now, I know there are individual cases 

where there are lapses in certain events, but I don’t think that 

should affect the overall benefit we get from these programs. Of 

course disclosure, who is involved, that kind of thing, it is very important that we protect that to the maximum extent possible to 

make these programs work. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. There is a requirement to have the confidentiality of this information to be protected—— 

Mr. STURGELL. Right. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
377 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG [continuing]. Through that process, right? 

Mr. STURGELL. It is extremely important. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. We are aware that the workload for the engineers and other staff needed to install this new surge of new-generation equipment, as well as the other facilities and equipment, 

will increase significantly. 

However, it appears that the staffing level for the F&E, facility 

and equipment, declines by more than—and this is a little out of 

my book, beyond my book, I should say— declines by more than 50 

work years to 2,830 work years. I know there is a significant thing 

happening here. I just don’t know how to interpret it precisely. 

If that is correct, and if so, what is the rationale for the declining 

workforce in a new era of increased equipment installation? 

I can repeat that question if you wish, but if you got it down—— 

Mr. STURGELL. I will look into the numbers. I know the dollar 

amount has gone up, but I think the numbers are less important 

than the particular skill sets. We have increased in areas like program management, contracting officers, contracting technical representatives, systems engineers, which are going to be important as 

these new programs come on line. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The traffic management specialist manages 

the flow of air traffic nationwide in the system command center, 

and as you well know, are considered the most experienced, I presume, and the most senior controllers in the FAA; is that not true? 

Mr. STURGELL. I don’t know if that is true as a general statement. The workforce overall is fairly senior. They are certainly one 

of the more specialized parts of the workforce. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Given the large number of controllers leaving 

and being replaced by the entry-level controllers over the next several years, what measures do you have in place to be sure that the 

command center will always have the level of experienced controller or controllers available? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, we do have capability to use recruitment bonuses, incentives like PCS moves, and different things like that to 

attract people into these positions. I see the traffic flow management piece of the agency playing a bigger and bigger role in our 

operation of the system itself, just like the rest of the workforce. 

We are putting a lot of emphasis on recruiting and bringing in the 

right people, and I am not seeing any issues along that line at this 

point. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I think I am complete with my questions and 

I want to appreciate very much your being here, Mr. Sturgell. This 

is helpful to us and it is also important that we have this tug of 

war, so to speak, and it is not a tug of war, it is just asking information and getting—— 

Mr. STURGELL. I appreciate the discussion. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I think we have had a good discussion today, 

Mr. Chairman. I will yield back to you and I am convinced I am 

done, too. 

Mr. OLVER. Well, I thank you. 

Mr. Berry, you have arrived just in time to forestall our adjournment. So we will let you have 5 minutes now, okay. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
378 

Mr. BERRY. Well, I apologize for my tardiness, Mr. Chairman, 

and I appreciate you yielding me some time. I will be as brief as 

I know how. 

The air traffic controllers in the locations in the district that I 

represent, the morale is terrible. We have press accounts on a frequency that is, I think, of concern about near accidents and things 

that are going wrong in the towers and on the runways, and complaints from the people that are doing the air traffic controlling 

that they are being basically abused by whoever the managers are 

on those locations with their work rules. 

I know you imposed a labor contract without collective bargaining in the fall of 2006. Why was that done? 

Mr. STURGELL. Mr. Berry, as much as we would have liked to 

have reached a voluntary agreement, the parties were simply too 

far apart on the few remaining issues that were left. We did reach 

agreement on over 90 percent of the issues in that contract. But 

on the few remaining, like specialty pay, we were just too far apart. 

So we followed the law. We followed the procedures that Congress 

put in place, and the litigation just this month or a couple of weeks 

ago has come to an end with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. They have ruled that we did follow the law and we did bargain 

in good faith. As much as we would have liked to have gotten a 

voluntary agreement, we just could not. 

Mr. BERRY. Do you consider that there is any risk involved in the 

extended hours and the uncertainty of the hours that are being imposed on some of these ATC workers and the unusual requests that 

are being put on them by having them come in 2 hours earlier one 

day, then the next, and work through two heavy schedule times 

during the day and things like that? 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, I would be interested in the specifics to 

which you are referring. But I would say, in general, it is not unlike the way we have run the system before this contract. Sometimes we do call people in ahead, sometimes we call them in for 

overtime. It is the nature of the business. We have tried to set our 

staffing to the traffic levels we see at facilities. And as we discussed earlier, we are in a tremendous transition period in terms 

of number of retirements and replacing those retirements with new 

controllers, and there is a lot of training going on. 

I know we have individual facilities that we need to better focus 

on. Butwe are at 2 percent overtime, and systemwide the workforce 

continues to grow and the training continues to take place. If there 

are specifics that I think were inappropriate, I will take a look at 

them. 

Mr. BERRY. I have to tell you I think you have a serious problem 

in Memphis and somebody needs to see about it this afternoon. I 

am going to fly in there in the morning, and I would like to have 

it fixed before I get there. 

Mr. STURGELL. And the problem goes to—— 

Mr. BERRY. I think you have a serious morale problem and a 

management team that has abused workers, and it creates a safety 

issue for the entire—that cover a huge part of the map down there, 

and it reaches almost to here anyway. And I am not an air traffic 

controller nor an expert in these matters, but I know unhappy people when I see them, and they come to me a lot. And I don’t think 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
379 

that they are being frivolous or just trying to cause trouble or anything like that. I think there is a problem there and I think it 

needs to be dealt with. 

Mr. STURGELL. Well, I appreciate that. I think they do a great 

job, and the Fed Ex hub there is a tremendous asset to the economy. I will talk to the chief operating officer about it. 

I do want you to know we have tried in a number of areas to resolve the lingering dissatisfaction from the contract of September 

2006 which has been in place about 18 months now. We made a 

substantial settlement offer last summer. There is a substantial 

settlement offer on the table today. So I am hoping we can get 

there. 

We have also instituted or are instituting other things like a 

child care subsidy and tuition reimbursement. I started talking to 

TSA about a new program to get that started for our controllers. 

We are working on this a great deal, and I just want you to know 

that. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Berry. 

You have raised that issue antenna up and we will follow that 

up. Thank you very much for being with us today. We are very 

grateful for your testimony and for the back-and-forth that has 

gone on in the course of the afternoon. Thank you very much, the 

hearing will be adjourned. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
380 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here 43749A.311
381 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here 43749A.312
382 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 483 here 43749A.313
383 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 484 here 43749A.314
384 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 485 here 43749A.315
385 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 486 here 43749A.316
386 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 487 here 43749A.317
387 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 488 here 43749A.318
388 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 489 here 43749A.319
389 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 490 here 43749A.320
390 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 491 here 43749A.321
391 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 492 here 43749A.322
392 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 493 here 43749A.323
393 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here 43749A.324
394 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here 43749A.325
395 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here 43749A.326
396 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 497 here 43749A.327
397 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 498 here 43749A.328
398 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 499 here 43749A.329
399 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 500 here 43749A.330
400 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 501 here 43749A.331
401 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here 43749A.332
402 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here 43749A.333
403 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here 43749A.334
404 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 43749A.335
405 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 43749A.336
406 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 43749A.337
407 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 43749A.338
408 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 43749A.339
409 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 43749A.340
410 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 43749A.341
411 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 43749A.342
412 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 43749A.343
413 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 43749A.344
414 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 43749A.345
415 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 43749A.346
416 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 43749A.347
417 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 43749A.348
418 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 43749A.349
419 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 43749A.350
420 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 43749A.351
421 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 43749A.352
422 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 43749A.353
423 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 43749A.354
424 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 43749A.355
425 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 43749A.356
426 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 43749A.357
427 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 43749A.358
428 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here 43749A.359
429 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 530 here 43749A.360
430 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here 43749A.361
431 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here 43749A.362
432 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here 43749A.363
433 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here 43749A.364
434 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here 43749A.365
435 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 43749A.366
436 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 43749A.367
437 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 43749A.368
438 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 43749A.369
439 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 43749A.370
440 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here 43749A.371
441 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 542 here 43749A.372
442 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 543 here 43749A.373
443 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 544 here 43749A.374
444 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 545 here 43749A.375
445 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 546 here 43749A.376
446 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 547 here 43749A.377
447 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here 43749A.378
448 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here 43749A.379
449 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here 43749A.380
450 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here 43749A.381
451 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here 43749A.382
452 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here 43749A.383
453 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 554 here 43749A.384
454 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 555 here 43749A.385
455 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here 43749A.386
456 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here 43749A.387
457 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here 43749A.388
458 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here 43749A.389
459 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 43749A.390
460 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 43749A.391
461 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 43749A.392
462 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 43749A.393
463 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 43749A.394
464 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 565 here 43749A.395
465 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 566 here 43749A.396
466 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 567 here 43749A.397
467 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 568 here 43749A.398
468 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 569 here 43749A.399
469 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 570 here 43749A.400
470 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 571 here 43749A.401
471 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 572 here 43749A.402
472 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 573 here 43749A.403
473 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 574 here 43749A.404
474 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 575 here 43749A.405
475 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 576 here 43749A.406
476 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 577 here 43749A.407
477 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 578 here 43749A.408
478 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 579 here 43749A.409
479 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 580 here 43749A.410
480 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 581 here 43749A.411
481 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 582 here 43749A.412
482 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 583 here 43749A.413
483 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 584 here 43749A.414
484 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 585 here 43749A.415
485 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 586 here 43749A.416
486 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 587 here 43749A.417
487 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 588 here 43749A.418
488 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 589 here 43749A.419
489 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 590 here 43749A.420
490 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 591 here 43749A.421
491 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 592 here 43749A.422
492 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 593 here 43749A.423
493 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here 43749A.424
494 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here 43749A.425
495 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here 43749A.426
496 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here 43749A.427
497 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here 43749A.428
498 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here 43749A.429
499 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 600 here 43749A.430
500 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here 43749A.431
501 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here 43749A.432
502 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 43749A.433
503 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here 43749A.434
504 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here 43749A.435
505 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here 43749A.436
506 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 43749A.437
507 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 43749A.438
508 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 43749A.439
509 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 43749A.440
510 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 611 here 43749A.441
511 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 612 here 43749A.442
512 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 613 here 43749A.443
513 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 614 here 43749A.444
514 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 43749A.445
515 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 43749A.446
516 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 43749A.447
517 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 618 here 43749A.448
518 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 619 here 43749A.449
519 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 620 here 43749A.450
520 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 621 here 43749A.451
521 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 622 here 43749A.452
522 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 623 here 43749A.453
523 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 624 here 43749A.454
524 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 625 here 43749A.455
525 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 626 here 43749A.456
526 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627 here 43749A.457
527 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 43749A.458
528 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 43749A.459
529 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 43749A.460
530 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 43749A.461
531 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 632 here 43749A.462
532 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 43749A.463
533 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 43749A.464
534 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 635 here 43749A.465
535 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 43749A.466
536 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 43749A.467
537 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 638 here 43749A.468
538 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 639 here 43749A.469
539 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 640 here 43749A.470
540 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 641 here 43749A.471
541 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 642 here 43749A.472
542 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 643 here 43749A.473
543 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 644 here 43749A.474
544 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 645 here 43749A.475
545 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 646 here 43749A.476
546 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 647 here 43749A.477
547 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 648 here 43749A.478
548 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 649 here 43749A.479
549 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 650 here 43749A.480
550 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 651 here 43749A.481
551 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 652 here 43749A.482
552 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 653 here 43749A.483
553 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 654 here 43749A.484
554 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 655 here 43749A.485
555 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 43749A.486
556 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 43749A.487
557 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 43749A.488
558 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 43749A.489
559 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 43749A.490
560 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 43749A.491
561 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 43749A.492
562 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 43749A.493
563 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 43749A.494
564 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 43749A.495
565 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 666 here 43749A.496
566 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 667 here 43749A.497
567 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 668 here 43749A.498
568 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 669 here 43749A.499
569 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 670 here 43749A.500
570 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 671 here 43749A.501
571 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 672 here 43749A.502
572 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 673 here 43749A.503
573 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 674 here 43749A.504
574 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 675 here 43749A.505
575 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 676 here 43749A.506
576 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 677 here 43749A.507
577 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 678 here 43749A.508
578 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 679 here 43749A.509
579 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 680 here 43749A.510
580 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 681 here 43749A.511
581 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 682 here 43749A.512
582 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 683 here 43749A.513
583 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 684 here 43749A.514
584 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 685 here 43749A.515
585 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 686 here 43749A.516
586 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 687 here 43749A.517
587 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 688 here 43749A.518
588 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 689 here 43749A.519
589 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 690 here 43749A.520
590 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 691 here 43749A.521
591 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 692 here 43749A.522
592 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 693 here 43749A.523
593 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 694 here 43749A.524
594 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 695 here 43749A.525
595 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 696 here 43749A.526
596 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 697 here 43749A.527
597 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 698 here 43749A.528
598 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 699 here 43749A.529
599 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 700 here 43749A.530
600 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 701 here 43749A.531
601 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 702 here 43749A.532
602 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 703 here 43749A.533
603 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 704 here 43749A.534
604 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 705 here 43749A.535
605 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 706 here 43749A.536
606 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 707 here 43749A.537
607 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 708 here 43749A.538
608 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 709 here 43749A.539
609 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 710 here 43749A.540
610 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 711 here 43749A.541
611 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 712 here 43749A.542
612 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 713 here 43749A.543
613 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 714 here 43749A.544
614 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 715 here 43749A.545
615 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 716 here 43749A.546
616 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 717 here 43749A.547
617 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 718 here 43749A.548
618 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 719 here 43749A.549
619 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 720 here 43749A.550
620 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 721 here 43749A.551
621 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 722 here 43749A.552
622 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 723 here 43749A.553
623 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 724 here 43749A.554
624 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 725 here 43749A.555
625 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 726 here 43749A.556
626 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 727 here 43749A.557
627 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 728 here 43749A.558
628 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 729 here 43749A.559
629 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 730 here 43749A.560
630 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 731 here 43749A.561
631 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 732 here 43749A.562
632 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 733 here 43749A.563
633 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 734 here 43749A.564
634 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 735 here 43749A.565
635 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 736 here 43749A.566
636 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 737 here 43749A.567
637 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 738 here 43749A.568
638 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 739 here 43749A.569
639 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 740 here 43749A.570
640 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 741 here 43749A.571
641 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 43749A.572
642 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 43749A.573
643 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 43749A.574
644 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 43749A.575
645 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 43749A.576
646 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 747 here 43749A.577
647 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 748 here 43749A.578
648 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 749 here 43749A.579
649 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 750 here 43749A.580
650 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 751 here 43749A.581
651 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 752 here 43749A.582
652 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 753 here 43749A.583
653 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 754 here 43749A.584
654 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 755 here 43749A.585
655 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 756 here 43749A.586
656 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 757 here 43749A.587
657 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 758 here 43749A.588
658 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 759 here 43749A.589
659 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 760 here 43749A.590
660 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 761 here 43749A.591
661 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 762 here 43749A.592
662 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 763 here 43749A.593
663 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 764 here 43749A.594
664 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 765 here 43749A.595
665 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 766 here 43749A.596
666 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 767 here 43749A.597
667 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 768 here 43749A.598
668 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 769 here 43749A.599
669 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 770 here 43749A.600
670 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 771 here 43749A.601
671 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 772 here 43749A.602
672 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 773 here 43749A.603
673 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 774 here 43749A.604
674 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 775 here 43749A.605
675 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 776 here 43749A.606
676 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 777 here 43749A.607
677 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 778 here 43749A.608
678 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 779 here 43749A.609
679 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 780 here 43749A.610
680 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 781 here 43749A.611
681 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 782 here 43749A.612
682 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 783 here 43749A.613
683 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 784 here 43749A.614
684 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 785 here 43749A.615
685 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 786 here 43749A.616
686 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 787 here 43749A.617
687 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 788 here 43749A.618
688 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 789 here 43749A.619
689 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 790 here 43749A.620
690 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 791 here 43749A.621
691 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 792 here 43749A.622
692 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 793 here 43749A.623
693 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 794 here 43749A.624
694 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 795 here 43749A.625
695 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 796 here 43749A.626
696 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 797 here 43749A.627
697 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 798 here 43749A.628
698 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 799 here 43749A.629
699 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 800 here 43749A.630

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
(701) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008. 

HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PROGRAMS: THE DOT PERSPECTIVE ON THE URGENT FUNDING NEEDS FOR 

TODAY AND TOMORROW 

WITNESSES: 

PHYLLIS SCHEINBERG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND 

PROGRAMS AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

JAMES SIMPSON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

JAMES RAY, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN OLVER

Mr. OLVER. The Committee will come to order. Let me welcome 

Phyllis Scheinberg, the Assistant Secretary of Transportation for 

Budget and Programs; Jim Simpson, the Federal Transit Administrator; and Jim Ray, the acting Administrator for the Federal 

Highway Administration. 

This year’s surface transportation hearing is going to consist of 

two panels. This morning we will explore with this panel whether 

the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request for surface transportation programs to prepare the nation to meet our short and 

long-term transportation challenges. 

Our second panel this afternoon will be with members from the 

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, and Commission members will share their views on what 

policy and transportation financing changes may be needed to ensure that our surface transportation system is able to meet the demographic and economic challenges into the future. 

For our panel this morning, the most immediate challenge that 

the Congress will face is the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. 

The Highway Trust Fund will go broke in fiscal year 2009, and the 

future viability of transportation financing is in doubt. The administration has put forward two proposals to forestall the impending 

collapse of the Highway Trust Fund. 

First, the administration has recommended underfunding the 

highway program. President’s budget requests $39.4 billion for the 

highway program, which is $800 million below, again, the amount 

guaranteed in the SAFETEA–LU authorization. 

Even with this adjustment, the administration projects that the 

highway account will still run a negative balance of over $3 billion 

by the end of 2009, so short funding the guarantees will have very 

little impact on keeping the highway account solvent. 

The second proposal from the administration is both short-sighted and controversial. The administration has recommended allowVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00701 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
702 

ing the highway account to borrow money from the mass transit account to make up the shortfall. Now, this proposal is potentially 

harmful to transit, certainly. 

Taking money from the mass transit account will only hasten the 

bankruptcy of that account as the backlog of transit projects nationwide grows. The proposal is also extremely short-sighted in 

that it does nothing to address the long-term solvency of the overall 

fund and provides no guidance as to how to pay for the urgent future needs of our highway system. Concerning transit, the administration has requested $10.135 bil- lion for Federal Transit Administration, which is just over $200 

million below the amount guaranteed in SAFETEA–LU. Every year 

the need to improve our nation’s public transportation system 

grows. A case in point, SAFETEA–LU created a New Small Starts 

Program for smaller, less expensive fixed guide way projects, such 

as bus, rapid transit, commuter rail and streetcar projects. 

While this program is only a few years old I would note from the 

budget request that there are sufficient projects in the pipeline to 

utilize the fully-authorized level of $200 million. The National 

Service Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission believes our nation’s annual public transportation needs are in the 

range of $26 billion to $46 billion, which is at least two and a half 

times this year’s $10 billion request. 

Yet, the President’s budget does not even meet the fully-authorized level for the New Starts Program. Furthermore, communities 

across the country have complained that the new starts process has 

become too lengthy and that FTA does not adequately incorporate 

economic development and land use criteria into the rating system 

for new starts, as required by law. 

Mr. Simpson, I hope we can explore these issues with you when 

we get to questions. I am also very interested in promoting a transit-oriented development and the need for affordable housing within these transit corridors. In the 2008 budget, which was enacted 

in December, the Congress included funding for both the FTA and 

HUD to develop a best practices manual for local communities who 

want to establish or increase mixed income, transit-oriented development. 

We also requested that the FTA and HUD report back to us on 

how they would better coordinate and provide incentives within existing programs to promote affordable housing near transit, and I 

will be interested to hear more about FTA’s progress on that endeavor with HUD. 

Finally, I would like to close with some general thoughts on our 

surface transportation systems. How we fund and think about 

transportation is clearly at a crossroads. The needs of the system 

are rising. The Policy Commission recommended an average of 

$225 billion annually over the next 50 years. 

That is far more than twice what we presently invest in surface 

transportation by federal, state and local governments combined in 

order to maintain, upgrade and expand our transportation networks; yet, our ability to adequately fund even the present level of 

investment in transportation is clearly in doubt. 

From the ideological fervor to inject so-called premarket principles into transportation through congestion pricing, the privatizaVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00702 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
703 

tion of our public roads, and constant opposition to raising further 

federal revenues for the system to the yearly budget request that 

would shortfund our rail and transit system, I fear that there has 

been a deliberate effort by the administration to slowly chip away 

at the federal role in transportation. 

Federal government must, in my view, remain an active partner 

with the states and local government when it comes to funding our 

transportation infrastructure. So I hope that we will be able to discuss each of your views on the proper role of the federal government in transportation policy this morning. 

Now, before we have an opportunity to hear from you, I would 

like to recognize my Ranking Member, Mr. Knollenberg, who was 

former Chair of this Committee, now Ranking Member, for any 

opening remarks that he would like to make. 

OPENING REMARKS BY CONGRESSMAN KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very kindly, and 

thanks to all of you for being here today, Ms. Scheinberg, Mr. Ray 

and Mr. Simpson. I think that you can judge by the number of people that are here—and the reason for that is the fact that there is 

several hearings that have pulled everybody away. 

In fact, I think that check has already been made, and too many 

hearings and not enough people is what it amounts to, but we will 

get into it. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate your comments. 

Let me also add, I appreciate your coming before us this morning 

as we continue to evaluate the President’s proposal to allocate some 

$51.7 billion for highways, for highway safety transit programs, as 

well as to discuss the future of surface service and public transportation programs and the means by which these programs will be 

funded in the years to come. 

As you know, fiscal year 2009 marks the final year of the current 

surface transportation authorization, SAFETEA–LU, and in just a 

few months Congress will begin the task of reevaluating the overarching objectives for the Federal Aid Highway and Transit Programs, perhaps even redirecting funds to meet priorities to address 

transportation related issues, such as congestion mitigation and 

the aging surface transportation and transit infrastructure. 

According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Annual 

Urban Mobility Study, which was released in September of 2007, 

which you are all familiar with, our nation’s drivers sit in traffic 

on an average of 38 hours per year and waste 26 gallons of fuel 

doing so. 

The recent collapse of the Minnesota’s I–35W bridge during rush 

hour disrupted personal travel patterns as well as the movement 

of goods and freight, but even more so, a spotlight on the condition 

of the nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

With statistics, such as those found in the TTI report, and tragedies like the I–35W bridge collapse, it is apparent that we have become a nation of too many people taking too many trips over too 

short of a time period on a system that is too small. 

For these reasons, we find ourselves in a unique position, a crossroads, if you will, of our nation’s surface transportation infrastructure. This country is facing some hard questions. How do we comVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00703 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
704 

bat congestion efficiently and effectively? Do we simply build more 

roads or will that just create more incentive to drive? 

Do we build a different infrastructure, such as high speed rails, 

instead of more roads or do we live with what we have for the most 

part, and keep it in good order and perhaps better allocate the cost 

of using highways to those who use it the most or cause the most 

damage? 

I asked this question of the Secretary and had not yet received 

a response, but I think it is worth pursuing again. We, in my opinion, are looking at the highway version of the perfect storm. At the 

very time we are seeing rapidly diminishing trust fund revenues 

both of the prominent solutions are to increase taxes, one on gasoline and one on access to highways; yet, we, as a nation, have just 

decided to pursue the opposite pathway. 

We have decided that it is best to reduce gasoline consumption 

through the use of new, advanced technology, such as the new diesel engines, hybrids, electric vehicles, lithium ion batteries, et 

cetera. We also, as a nation, have adopted the policy to reduce gasoline consumption at a great cost to the taxpayers, and we have decided to pursue alternative modes of transportation as well. 

As a result, the old assumptions are no longer valid. Gasoline 

consumption will no longer be so directly tied to the amount of 

travel or the amount of damage done to the highway system. All 

of this suggests that perhaps neither of the approaches are allocating the costs of highway maintenance of construction to those 

who will actually be using the system and doing the damage. 

Now, one could pursue this for a moment in both this morning’s 

hearing and later this afternoon with the second panel, and perhaps an even more daunting question would be how do we pay for 

any and all of this because it is clear that the current level of highway receipts will not be sufficient to fund the current program. I 

know you all are aware of that. 

This past January the Office of Management and Budget projected that the Highway Trust Fund would face a 2009 shortfall of 

$3.2 billion. I have heard more, I have heard less, but it is in that 

ballpark. 

In order to honor the guaranteed funding levels under 

SAFETEA–LU, the President’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposal requests that temporary authority be granted to the Secretary of 

Transportation to advance funds between the highway and mass 

transit accounts to cover insufficient fund balances. Now, such a 

budgetary gimmick has not been used I believe since the 1960s. 

That assumes that the funds would be there and that somehow 

it could be repaid, both of which are very huge ifs. Just one month 

prior to the release of OMB’s estimates the report of the National 

Service Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission recommended an increase of 40 cents per gallon federal gasoline tax 

to be phased in over the next five years with automatic increases 

every year thereafter tied to inflation. 

Now, there is no guarantee that either of these suggestions will 

keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent. In my opinion, I believe the 

Chairman agrees with me, proposals to borrow from other funds 

and programs only postpone the day of reckoning. Big gas taxes, 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
705 

whatever their variety, come at what cost to low income families 

and small businesses across the country. 

These are hard questions, I know, but nevertheless, hard questions that require a not just ideological answers but real life solutions and real taxpayer dollars. We need measured reforms to not 

only what we finance but how we finance. As I noted with Secretary Peters who came before this subcommittee, I am also troubled by several other areas in the President’s budget proposal for 

highways, as I am sure others on this subcommittee feel as well. 

I believe that we should carefully explore the unilateral decision by the Secretary to sweep $175 million in funds previously appropriated by the Committee and allocate those funds to five cities for 

a demonstration program on congestion pricing. Why those five? 

We will have a question about that. 

While certainly supportive of the Secretary’s opinion that the 

price of travel should determine who gets to ride, this subcommittee has yet to agree to that as a matter of policy. The subcommittee needs to explore why the five cities were chosen and 

why their selection will in any way yield results or allow recommendations that are in any way representative of the nature of 

congestion that is widespread and diverse throughout the country. 

Mr. Chairman, I will have questions for the three witnesses, the 

specifics of the request for their respective programs and the pathway forward. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight what I think 

are some very serious issues for not just this subcommittee but for 

the whole Congress. 

To paraphrase the budget submission by the Federal Highway 

Administration, I look forward to exploring these topics this morning in an effort to strive to achieve progress in realizing the improvements to the nation’s highway and transit system while looking ahead to the next surface transportation authorization and the 

challenges that lie ahead. 

With that, I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Knollenberg. Now, we will hear from 

the panel. Ms. Scheinberg, I hear you are going to be providing oral 

testimony for the Department. Your written statement is before us. 

We will then go on from there to your right, and then to your left, 

I guess, or maybe I should be doing the opposite, but we will do 

it that way. 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Okay. 

Mr. OLVER. We will do it that way. So, Ms. Scheinberg, your 

opening statement. 

ORAL STATEMENT BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY SCHEINBERG

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank you and the members of the subcommittee 

for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President’s budget for the Department of Transportation’s surface transportation programs for Fiscal Year 2009. 

I am very pleased to report to you that the President’s budget for 

all of the Department’s programs is $68 billion. Of this amount, 76 

percent, or $51.7 billion, would go to our highways and for highway 

safety and transit programs. As you mentioned, fiscal year 2009 is 

the final year of the current surface transportation authorization 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
706 

known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA–LU. 

Our request fulfills the President’s commitment to provide the 

total six year, $286.4 billion investment that was agreed to when 

SAFETEA–LU was enacted in 2005. It does so without raising 

taxes or subsidizing transportation spending with other tax dollars. 

The President’s request for the Federal Highway Administration 

reflects the final installment to the total agreement for SAFETEA– 

LU. 

It totals $40 billion in new budgetary resources and reflects a 

downward adjustment of $1 billion in accordance with the statutorily directed, revenue aligned budget authority calculation. The 

requested funding will be used to improve highway safety, improve 

the Nation’s highway system. 

The request also encourages new approaches to fighting gridlock 

by proposing to use $175 million of inactive earmarks, and 75 percent of certain discretionary program funds, to fight congestion. 

The President’s request for the Federal Transit Administration’s 

2009 budget provides a record level of funding, $10 billion, for federal public transit programs. 

Funding will be used to increase transit system capacity and improve safety. It will also leverage private investment in public transit through joint development activities. FTA’s request fully funds 

what is needed in fiscal year 2009 for the New Starts and Small 

Starts Programs. The request for the major capital investment 

grant of $1.6 billion includes funding for 15 existing and two pending full-funding grant agreements. 

When completed, these projects will encourage transit-oriented 

development and promote new economic activity throughout the 

nation. Receipts in the Highway Trust Fund have not kept pace 

with SAFETEA–LU’s funding levels. This has resulted in the continual decline of the cash balances of the Highway Trust Fund. 

During fiscal year 2009, we are projecting a possible $3.2 billion 

shortfall in the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. However, the mass transit account is expected to remain solvent 

throughout this time with an estimated balance at the end of fiscal 

year 2009 of $4.4 billion. This would leave a combined total of $1.2 

billion in the Highway Trust Fund at the end of fiscal year 2009. 

To ensure that we can continue to meet our commitments to 

SAFETEA–LU, the Administration is proposing a new flexibility to 

manage the funds in the Highway Trust Fund. By allowing repayable advances between the Highway Account and the Mass Transit 

Account we will be able to support authorized levels for surface 

transportation programs. 

Within the existing tax structure our proposal would not impact 

the transit program in fiscal year 2009. The President’s budget 

builds on the exciting things we are doing at the Department of 

Transportation to help us move forward on a new course, a course 

that provides a high level of safety and mitigates congestion. 

As we look to the next surface transportation authorization, we 

have an opportunity to come together and completely reassess our 

approach to financing and managing these programs. The Department looks forward to working with the Congress to address the 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
707 

challenges we face in transportation and to meet our transportation 

financing needs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. 

My colleagues and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
708 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 816 here 43749A.632
709 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 817 here 43749A.633
710 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 818 here 43749A.634
711 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 819 here 43749A.635
712 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 820 here 43749A.636
713 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 821 here 43749A.637
714 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you very much. I have been reminded that the 

plan here was that we would go directly to questions after your 

oral statement, so we will do that. I am going to turn, again, to my 

distinguished Ranking Member to start the questioning here. That 

is going to allow us to get to the other members of the subcommittee more quickly, rather than passing so much time through 

me. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TOLLING

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 

yielding that time to me, and I will begin with the first question. 

This would be for Administrator Ray. 

In the creation of the Urban Partnership and Corridors for the 

Future Program, the Department has clearly come down on tolling 

as the best method for easing congestion and has rejected the notion of a significant increase in gasoline taxes, is that correct? 

Mr. RAY. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Did the Department estimate, and will it consider as part of its two initiatives, the potential adverse impacts 

that both tolling and a gasoline tax may have on low and moderate 

income families and on small business, and is the economic impact 

of each being assessed, and, if not, why not? Those couple quick 

questions, if you can respond, and I have a follow-up question. 

Mr. RAY. Sure. Yes, sir. I appreciate the question. It is one that 

we are very sensitive to and receives a lot of attention around the 

country. First and foremost, let me suggest that low-income citizens share the same transportation needs as high-income citizens, 

and we are very sensitive to that. 

The data, frankly, does not indicate that these types of approaches would treat low-income individuals unfairly. In fact, studies of SR 91, which I am sure you are familiar with in California, 

show that only about a third of the users are, high-income individuals. 

If you think about this in a real life experiment, if you were a 

plumber and you make your living based on how many houses you 

can get to in a given day, congestion is your enemy. Buying your 

way into a free-flow, reliable and safe transportation network is 

something that is absolutely in your interest. 

A recent survey shows that 51 percent of those with incomes 

below $25,000 support the mechanisms in place in SR 91, and 

those numbers actually go up and vary with other systems across 

the world and across the country. 

I would also suggest that the gas taxes are applied to us evenly 

as citizens, everyone pays the exact same amount depending on the 

state that they are in, and that there is really no way to offset that 

burden. 

Most of the time our low-income individuals live far from urban 

centers. They are the ones that are commuting the most; they oftentimes have the least fuel efficient vehicles, and right now the 

system that we have is not dynamic enough to take into account 

the impact on low-income individuals, but tolling can. 

You can direct subsidies, if you wish to, from a policy perspective 

to those on the lower economic strata. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
715 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The economic impact of those that are in the 

lower income bracket still is going to be a factor. 

In regard to the second, the tolling situation which you just 

brought up, with respect to tolling, does the Department agree that 

this would fundamentally alter what has always been a system 

that provides equal access historically and equal benefit to all to 

one that would provide more access and benefits to the wealthy at 

the expense of low and moderate income families? 

Mr. RAY. I think not. I think that certainly there are a number 

of policy opportunities at our disposal with pricing and tolling that 

could target subsidies, whether they be free credits or discounted 

rates onto the systems. We can do that in a more effective way 

than we can with the gas tax. 

So there is that opportunity and let me give you two statistics 

in terms of equal access. We certainly believe in equal access to the 

system, but right now the system is being used in largely irrational 

ways. Over 50 percent of the users during the a.m. and the p.m. 

peak periods are not making a trip to and from work. 

In the a.m. peak periods here in the Washington, D.C., area, 23 

percent of the users are retired. Now, we are not suggesting that 

these folks should not have access to the system during that time 

period. What we are suggesting is that some of those citizens have 

flexibility in their schedules. 

We could make smarter use of our system with pricing strategies. We could squeeze more productivity out of our system and the 

Government Accountability Office recognizes this in its own studies. 

STATES’ USE OF TOLL ROADS

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. You know, the other thing is how many 

states actually have a system? I know California does and there 

are some others, but just quickly, how many states have that kind 

of a system in place right now? 

Mr. RAY. Minnesota probably has the most advanced toll road in 

the world right now. It functions very well, and it comes with a 

performance guarantee. If your average operating speed drops 

below 45 miles an hour, your ride is free. Northern Virginia will 

put in place another dynamic system within the next few years. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. With not having some figures from the Minnesota situation, I think we have got numbers from the California 

side, but if you can? 

Mr. RAY. We would be happy to provide that, sir. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
716 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 827 here 43749A.638
717 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 828 here 43749A.639
718 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 829 here 43749A.640
719 

REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. This question, the next question, is for Secretary Scheinberg. The Department’s budget proposal counts the 

fact that it maintains the $286 billion multiyear levels authorized 

by SAFETEA–LU. 

While the President’s request of $40.1 billion is required to maintain the guaranteed funding levels, I note that the fiscal year 2009 

contract authority levels and the FHWA’s budget submission did 

not include the downward adjustment that is statutorily mandated 

by the revenue aligned budget authority calculation and 

SAFETEA–LU. 

Now, if you heard all that and got it all down, I do not want to 

repeat it a second time, but if both contract authority and obligation limitation are to be reduced pursuant to SAFETEA–LU, why 

even mention the reduction in the obligation limitation and not the 

reduction in contract authority? In other words, why is it even 

being mentioned? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. We are reducing both the contract authority 

and the obligation limitation for the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. All right. If the fiscal year 2009 contract authority levels are to be reduced by $1 billion, and I think you mentioned that, is it a fair assessment that although the amount being 

requested by the President fulfills the last installment of the guaranteed SAFETEA–LU funding levels that in all actuality it is an 

overestimate of what will actually be required. Would you agree 

with that? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. You are referring to RABA, which is the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority. The mechanism was established in 

TEA–21 to adjust for actual receipts versus the estimated receipts 

in the original bill. 

Each year we go through this exercise, and in many years, the 

adjustment was positive. This year, reflecting the fact that 

SAFETEA–LU overestimated the receipts that were going to come 

in, the adjustment is a negative $1 billion. We have followed the 

same formula each year. The fiscal year 2009 budget shows a negative $1 billion in both contract authority and obligation limitations. 

FTA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I know this is not average fodder for most 

people, but it is one that we question because it does kind of throw 

us a curve in trying to determine what is being done, but I appreciate your response. I have a question now for Administrator Simpson. This does not require a lot of talk. It is a very short question, 

by the way. 

The FTA is requesting $10.1 billion for fiscal year 2009, which 

is a $644 million increase over 2008 levels. How will these additional funds be used, and have all programs received a slight increase or will the additional funding be used to a limited, specific 

initiative? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Over 85 percent of the formula program is funded 

at the SAFETEA–LU levels. The $202 million reduction from 

SAFETEA–LU in our 2009 budget request is primarily from the 

New Starts Program, not the Small Starts Program. The Small 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
720 

Starts is fully-funded at the $200 million limitation. All projects in 

the New Starts Program will be funded. 

The short answer is everything in the program will be funded. 

We took a little bit of a haircut on the administrative budget which 

we just believe is good government. 

We did not hire people, and we cut our travel and things like 

that. And we cut a little bit of our own just internal discretionary 

research money because quite honestly I, as the Administrator, am 

not happy with some of the outcomes from some of our research. 

We are refocusing our research and working in collaboration with 

the Research and Innovative Technology Administration organization within DOT. So all programs are being funded. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Nothing is left out? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Nothing. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. You are just adding a pinch to whatever is 

in there? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Every New Start and Small Start Project will be 

funded fully, and every formula program will be funded at the 

SAFETEA–LU limit. 

CLEAN FUELS PROGRAM

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. And one quick question. This would also be 

for you, Administrator Simpson. I would like to talk about the 

FTA’s role in supporting the President’s 2010 plan. The FTA is requesting $51.5 million for the Clean Fuels Grant Program. 

Since the conversion of the program from a formula-based last 

April, how many grants have been awarded, and on average, what 

was the amount of the award? Then, secondly, what is the FTA 

doing, aside from purchasing clean fuel buses, to contribute towards reaching the goals set forth in the 2010 program? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right. Well, first and foremost, we can start with 

2008. We have $49 million as per SAFETEA–LU for clean fuels. I 

believe this Committee asked for an additional $24 million from 

the discretionary funding of 2008, so this year alone we will have 

at least $73 million for clean fuels. I am happy to report that the 

number of clean fuel and hybrid buses, purchased exceeds 26 percent of the total now. 

So we are seeing a big uptick in hybrid technology, which you 

know better than I, works to clean the environment. We also have 

$3.3 million in fiscal 2009 for clean fuels and electric drive research. We have the SAFETEA–LU mandated National Fuel Cell 

Technology Program, which is $49 million over four years, and that 

is matched dollar per dollar, so that is a total of $98 million. 

We have several demonstration projects, and if you would like, 

I can send you those for the record. I could go on if you would like 

as well. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. It would be a help, if you would. Just a clean, 

quick sheet. I see my time has expired here, so I do not want to 

extend at the moment, but, yes, we would not mind having some 

of that data. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. SIMPSON. Fine. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
721 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 835 43749A.641
722 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. OLVER. We will now move to individual questions. Mr. 

Cramer. You are back on the five-minute rule. 

HIGHWAY-RAILROAD INTERSECTION IN HARTSELLE, ALABAMA

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. Yes, sir, I think I can do that. I will 

have to talk fast, though. 

Administrator Ray, this is a question for you that you may need 

to take for the record. But I tried to help one of my local communities, Mr. Aderholt and I share parts of a town called Hartselle. 

I have the main part of it. But there is a big dangerous intersection, railroad intersection there, CSX. We are trying to build a 

bridge overpass there. The state DOT, Alabama State DOT says 

that we are in an impasse over an issue regarding CSX is requesting an increase in liability limits insurance from a certain cap and 

they have been denied that. 

So would you take that for the record? I am told that there are 

certain criteria that FHWA uses to determine liability limits coverage. So if you could shed some light on that in general I would 

appreciate that. 

Mr. RAY. Of course, sir. I would be happy to take that back and 

we will get an answer back to you for the record. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
723 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 838 here 43749A.642
724 

TOLLING AND PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Mr. CRAMER. All right. And then I want to come back to the 

issue of tolling. Secretary Peters was in my state and talked about 

the issue of tolling and public/private sector partnerships with regard to tolling. And in my area of Alabama, north Alabama, there 

are some 20,000 BRAC-related jobs that are coming to my area, so 

we have our version of struggles with congestion and moving work 

forces, income levels around our area. And there is a particular corridor that will be enormously expensive that we tried to engage the 

governor in to try to move these federal employees for the most 

part across this arsenal there. Could you shed some light on how 

you see public/private sector partnerships with regard to tolling, 

particularly my city that this would be in a medium size city of 

300,000? 

Mr. RAY. I would be happy to answer the question, sir. First and 

foremost, public/private partnerships can take a number of forms. 

In fact, I would suggest that we have not even seen the full panoply of forms that they can take. The most common is, as you have 

mentioned, tolling and direct user pricing. That is how the private 

sector recoups its investment and makes a return on equity. 

We have estimated, and others have estimated, that there is the 

potential for $400 billion of private investment in American infrastructure today. I would like to compare that to the total amounts 

used or invested over the life of SAFETEA–LU of $286.4 billion. 

We are talking about a significant amount of money to invest in 

American infrastructure today. Once a state decides to take advantage of that, there are a number of paths they can take. 

Mr. CRAMER. But is that strictly up to the state to decide that, 

the state DOT? Or is it state DOT in partnership with you? 

Mr. RAY. It depends on the facility. If there is an existing interstate right-of-way or if there is an existing interstate facility that 

the state wants to bring the private sector in and put tolls on, then 

it is a partnership with us. If it is a state-only facility, then there 

is no federal role. There may be some intersection or issue where 

we have to provide access to the interstate or otherwise, but it depends. 

We would be happy to work with your staff and explain some of 

these nuances to you. The private sector can bring a tremendous 

amount of efficiency both in the design and the construction of 

these facilities, as well as the management of these facilities to 

make sure that they are managed appropriately, and do not break 

down into parking lots. Certainly it was not the intent for our 

major arterials and interstate system to be parking lots restricting 

access. They were supposed to provide access and connectivity. 

Mr. CRAMER. Then who owns that project in a public/private sector partnership? 

Mr. RAY. The way the model is manifesting itself in the United 

States is consistent with the way it has manifested itself across the 

world. Ownership remains with the public entity. So in your case, 

it would be the state DOT or the state DOT would hold it in trust 

for the public, for the state. They would hold the ownership; they 

would own the deed to that. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
725 

The way the model is manifesting itself here is that the state enters into a concession agreement to allow the private sector to build 

and operate the facility for a period of time after which full title 

would revert back. 

Mr. CRAMER. And who controls the tolls during that period of 

time? 

Mr. RAY. Again that is a matter to be determined in an agreement. The contract is executed between the state and the private 

entity in terms of toll caps, revenue sharing, what the tolls will be, 

and how they will be levied. 

TOLLING FLEXIBILITY

Mr. CRAMER. And then how about flexibility, would work forces, 

say you have a federal work force that has to travel this particular 

route to and from work—can exceptions be made for the payment 

of tolls there based on getting from point A to point B, or do you 

have any experience with that? 

Mr. RAY. Sir, what I would say is that these models and the technology have enabled maximum flexibility. We can target these and 

we can do some creative, amazing things. 

Mr. CRAMER. And you are doing that in places around the country? 

Mr. RAY. Well, not so much with targeting federal employees, but 

you can target things in very interesting and dynamic ways. There 

is no reason that you could not think about it in other ways. I have 

not heard the federal employees mechanism. But you could do a 

number of things. 

I would like to mention, though, there is a bar of course. We 

have a critical interest in interstate commerce. So if a state or a 

private entity were charging tolls to interfere with interstate commerce, we would have to intervene. We would have to have some 

say in that because that is vested at the federal level. 

There are certain things that are appropriate at a state and local 

level, there are certain things that are appropriate at a federal 

level. Our forefathers vested interstate commerce here. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I want to be more aggressive in working with 

you. Obviously we do not know as much about toll roads as some 

other areas of the country. And this is not an easy thing to kind 

of go back home and advocate for— 

Mr. RAY. Sure. 

Mr. CRAMER [continuing]. Without a full grip on the information. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. OLVER. Those questions opened quite a bunch of opportunities. I could imagine that we would have exemptions for members 

of staff and members of Congress and things like that. My goodness. 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure. 

Mr. OLVER. My goodness. 

Mr. Walsh. 

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I came in after a number of the other 

members and I would just assume wait a little while to see if I 

could go back in turn later on. I would be prepared to wait. 

Mr. OLVER. I will give you an exemption meanwhile farther down 

the road. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
726 

Mr. WALSH. Thank you. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Rodriguez. 

NEW TOLL ROAD PROJECTS

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. 

Let me first of all indicate do we know how many states have 

already started to move on the toll road situation or how many do 

we have? I do not know who can answer this question. 

Mr. RAY. There are a number of states. We can get the exact 

number to you later. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Can you get that for me? I would appreciate it. 

[The information follows:] 

Presently, there are about 25 states that either have or are planning to have toll 

facilities. Most of these include states with existing toll (i.e., turnpike-type) facilities, such as New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida. Of these states, 5 are tolling existing 

or new highway lanes to create high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes or express toll 

lanes. 

Mr. RAY. Absolutely. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know we have language in Texas at least not 

to use existing roads that have been paid for by taxpayers to be 

turned into the private sector for the purpose of toll roads. Do we 

have, you know, do we have any of those occurring in any other 

states? 

Mr. RAY. Sir, let me see if I understand the question correctly. 

Texas is the first one to restrict that. There are concession-type arrangements being conducted in other states similar to what was 

taking place in Texas before Senator Hutchison’s amendment to 

the legislation that prevented that in the State of Texas. 

USE OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And let me also ask you, I know, Madam Secretary, you talked about no taxes but it reminded me of my child 

when they said that the tuition was going to remain the same and 

the fees kept going up. In this case you are raising the fees and 

doing those items. Do we know what that amount of revenue that 

would be anticipated based on trying to balance the budget on toll 

roads and fees? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. The reference to no taxes is specifically for 

2009 to keep the transportation program within the Highway Trust 

Fund, without going outside of the trust fund to pay for 2009 programs. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What is the anticipation of the Administration 

that the deals with fees that would be coming into the former toll 

roads and those kinds of things? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. The Federal Government and the federal programs do not receive any of those revenues. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. What are the amounts of resources, I know the 

same thing with the VA budget there were fees and co-payments 

on the part of veterans coming in, in this case it was part of balancing the budget, how much of these resources that are anticipated would be used in terms of trying to balance the budget that 

is being proposed in the later years? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Revenues from fees that are levied at the state 

and local level go back to the state and local governments. The fedVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00726 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
727 

eral gas tax has stayed at 18.4 cents per gallon and the Administration is not proposing new fees. 

CONGESTION MITIGATION

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Okay. Now, I know that, you know, we had that 

language in Texas to restrict that from using existing roads. And 

I know that they are working on some other forms of mechanisms 

in order to make some of that happen. As it deals with highways 

and then mass transit, you know, what is the anticipated, you 

know, in terms of the Administration’s perspective in terms of looking at how do we reduce the car loads on those highways and using 

some other, you know, and prioritizing mass transit, other forms of, 

you know, what are the plans on the part of the Administration? 

Mr. RAY. I think I can respond and then defer to my colleague 

from the Federal Transit Administration. 

First and foremost, you can price and toll for a number of reasons. One, you can do it for revenue generation; and two, you can 

do it for facility management. This is what is happening in New 

York City; you may have read a little bit about Mayor Bloomberg’s 

ideas. You can toll for congestion management. If you toll for congestion management, it is really a surface transportation solution. 

Whether you are talking about buses or mass transit on light rail, 

there is tremendous opportunity there. 

I will let my colleagues address this further. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I apologize. Maybe there is a misunderstanding 

of the question. More in terms of as we look at in terms of the future how do we come to grips with the situation that we need, you 

know, the resources for highways but the other way would also be 

to try to fund programs that allow for mass transit and reduce the 

flow so that we do not have to move in that direction? 

Mr. RAY. We estimate that if you were to implement congestion 

pricing, in the 50 most urbanized areas, that would produce revenues in excess of $100 billion. Those dollars could be used for highway as well as for transit purposes. Also, price signals are a very 

valuable tool. User demand tells us what facilities need to be expanded, what facilities need to be built, and what transportation 

solutions need to be implemented. We really see this as a multimodal solution to congestion. 

Again, our urban centers are the heartbeat of our economic lifeblood. Seventy-five percent of our GDP is produced in our most urbanized areas. Congestion is robbing us of opportunity there. 

Administrator Simpson, would you like to comment on the transit side? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

In a nutshell, the way I see it as the FTA Administrator is there 

is no such a thing as congestion mitigation unless transit is part 

of the equation, unless you want to get people rollerskates and 

skateboards, which I know we do not want to do, or have them stay 

home. If you look at the structure of the urban partnership agreements, a major component of each one is transit. 

And I will just take New York City, which happens to be the biggest one. We are about to grant New York $324 million to implement a very aggressive and a very provocative congestion mitigation plan for Manhattan, without going into details. That one-time, 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
728 

one-shot investment of $324 million will unleash, let us call it profit, of at least $300 million a year. New York pays for the additional 

amount of public transportation that is needed. So the goal is to 

free up the highway system because the arteries are clogged, to 

free commerce and all the things that go along with it, and then 

to use a lot of that money to make sure the roadways are adequate. 

Then you have to have robust transit; without robust transit it is 

a non-starter. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yes. Let me just give quickly one example. I 

know we have had on the border we have had to because of 9/11 

we, you know, started to look at the issue of security. But it has 

also hurt the border communities tremendously. In some cases we 

have lost 20, 40 percent of the, you know, traffic back and forth for 

commerce in the local communities. And there is some, you know, 

efforts there in terms of looking at something that makes more 

sense in terms of coming and going that, you know, and I would 

hope that we always keep that in mind in bringing down the number of vehicles on our highways. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Aderholt. 

HIGHWAY PROJECTS IN ALABAMA

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you each for being here this morning. Thank you for your 

testimony. I want to mention the high referral road program, of 

course a part of the HSIP. We have been told that it is somewhat 

burdensome on the states as they try to implement this program. 

But saying that, even though with the fact that it can be burdensome, from what we have been told, it has been very helpful in trying to improve safety conditions in many areas. And for that reason 

I want to say that it has been a good program. The feedback that 

we are getting has been very positive. 

The other program I wanted to mention that you mentioned in 

your testimony I think on page 2, you talk about the use of the 

$175 million in active earmarks. And it is our understanding that 

our state, Alabama, has not been contacted about any of these 

projects. As you know, there are often environmental issues which 

slow down projects. 

And such is the case, in particular with one of them, is a project 

which would in fact alleviate congestion in an industrial area near 

the airport. So I guess with that being said I would just like to note 

my concerns about that that, you know, sometimes these environmental and various other issues can slow down projects sometimes 

is the reason for that. And so that I would just say maybe take a 

closer look at this and reevaluate this particular issue. If you would 

care to respond to that? 

Mr. RAY. Yes, I would. The $175 million that the President has 

proposed for congestion is broken into two parts. Of this amount, 

$75 million is for the Corridors of the Future Program. We have 

already solicited and selected the corridors. That money is meant 

to facilitate the wonderful dialogue that we have seen come from 

the states. At least in the context of this program, no longer does 

state transportation forecasting and planning start and stop at 

state borders. People are looking at problems existing in other 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
729 

states, neighboring states, and even further downstream and looking at how to solve problems from a corridor context. The $100 million is intended for congestion reduction. So there 

may be an opportunity for Alabama. There has not yet been a solicitation. We do have the urban partnerships and the congestion reduction demonstration solicitation out. But there may yet be future 

opportunities should the Congress give us the $175 million that the 

President has requested. 

HIGHWAY PROJECT DELAYS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me ask your opinion on two matters which 

as we approach the reauthorization of the Federal Highway Program, what can be done in a future bill to alleviate the delays that 

occur due to environmental studies and historical studies? 

Mr. RAY. First and foremost, Congressman, I would like to tell 

you that the average time for an environmental review to be completed has crept up to 68 months. We at the Federal Highway Administration see this as unacceptable. Five-and-a-half years is, 

frankly, a tragedy, and we need to do much better. 

Now, SAFETEA–LU did provide us some new tools to reduce 

that time frame. It takes some time for these processes to be implemented. Frankly, it takes some time for states to become comfortable with them and begin using some of the new tools. But I 

think you will see some new ideas from this Administration about 

how to bring that number down even further, especially with the 

inflationary costs of construction. While it is important that we do 

things in an environmentally sensitive way, we must do things 

more quickly. 

So let me just say that I hear your concern. We share it and are 

working hard to correct it. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Do we need more specific laws about how agencies respond by certain timelines, or perhaps boost their budgets so 

they can accomplish this? Is that something that we should consider? 

Mr. RAY. It is certainly something worth considering and discussing. Those are concepts that we have discussed ourselves. 

There are some accompanying legal issues that would have to be 

dealt with. But I think those ideas and others are going to be the 

subject of a lot of debate through the next reauthorization. We 

have to bring that 68 month number down. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I realize that there are a lot of federal agencies 

who are required by law to be involved but yet answers are very 

slow forthcoming from those agencies. So that was something that 

was—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Can I add something on SAFETEA–LU? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Please. 

Mr. SIMPSON. SAFETEA–LU did add some provisions to have 

more of that. And it has been successful. So in the next reauthorization it should be looked at. But SAFETEA–LU has been helpful, 

at least at the FTA level. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. It is helpful to some extent anyway. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
730 

Mr. OLVER. Ms. Roybal-Allard? 

TRANSIT SYSTEM USER BENEFIT

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Administrator Simpson, first I would like to 

commend you and the FTA for fostering a very cooperative working 

relationship with the Los Angeles Metro which is the lead agency 

for the Eastside Light Rail Project, located in my district. As you 

know, the project is proceeding smoothly, it is on time, and on 

budget. And when it is completed it is going to play a very important role in connecting my eastside community to the rest of the 

metro system in L.A. County. 

One exciting thing about the project is also the fact that it is 

going to generate much-needed economic development in the area. 

And so we are looking forward to starting the service next year. 

Again, I want to thank you, your staff at headquarters here in 

Washington, as well as your regional staff—for being so cooperative. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Simpson, the FTA relies on a formula 

called the Transit System User Benefit—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD [continuing]. To evaluate the worthiness of 

projects. The benefits of using just a piece of a methodology are not 

very clear to transit agencies in my district. A concern is that the 

formula places a disproportionately heavy emphasis on cost effectiveness which has not fully taken into account the potential economic development benefits of the transit project to a community. 

For example, the eastside project that I just spoke of earlier was 

one of the most highly-rated projects when it was evaluated several 

years ago. However, in spite of this high rating it was still a major 

struggle to obtain the full funding grant agreement, largely because of the restrictive nature of the TSUB formula. 

I am also told that the TSUB is creating a situation where transit agencies make changes to their projects in order to increase the 

TSUB measurement even though the changes do not necessarily 

benefit the project. I understand and support the goal of trying to 

maximize federal investment by allocating dollars to the most 

worthwhile projects but it appears that it is becoming increasingly 

more challenging for worthwhile projects to satisfy the threshold 

requirement imposed by TSUB. 

In an effort to avoid any of these concerns, is the Administration 

considering revising the TSUB formula or considering any other 

approaches to measure the potential economic success of a project? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Congresswoman, the House T&I Committee had 

two stand-alone hearings on new starts process last year. We occupied four hours of the Congress’s time to talk about TSUB and cost 

effectiveness in the New Starts process. And I probably spent an 

hour just talking about TSUB, which unfortunately we cannot do 

today. But in a nutshell you should know that L.A. does very well 

because of urban density. So if you look at it as a national program, L.A. is at an advantage because they have so much density 

so that it really does help. 

And for those of you that do not know, TSUB is the closest thing 

to a true cost/benefit analysis. I like to use analogies because it 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
731 

saves original thought. If you were talking about getting into 

school, you could look at the SAT scores. Really good schools every 

individual is different around the country. They need one metric 

that is cross-cutting. For them, that is the SAT score. For us it is 

the TSUB. We look at economic development and other measures. 

But at the end of the day, the TSUB says if you have a lot of mobility and you are getting people from point A to point B quickly in 

a cost-effective matter, you have a good surrogate measure for economic development. 

There is really not enough time now to talk about the economic 

development issue, unless you would like to discuss it during the 

second round. It is very complex. But if you have a good project 

with good mobility, then you will have good economic development. 

We have been trying to measure economic develoment, and have 

hired the best transportation economists in the country. We have 

had a group working on this. It is a lot harder to quantify economic 

development. than TSUB. 

The last thing which really bothers us, and that is probably a 

subject for another time, is we have come along with these multiyear projects and all of a sudden, the projects exceed the cost estimate by 20 or 30 percent. You have to start taking station coverings away or taking hubcaps off the buses and things like that. 

I will tell you that it is the perfect storm in this global economy, 

putting the pressure on commodities. We have seen a run-up of 37 

percent from 2003 to 2007 in commodity prices. And the Inspector 

General just put out a highway report which hit my desk this 

morning that said from 2003 to 2007 commodity prices in projects 

have gone up 47 percent. 

We take that into account, but I do not know if we have been 

keeping up with it. This is unprecedented as long as the New 

Starts process has been going on. We are trying, in a real life fashion, to deal with it. We look at the commodity costs and normalize 

everything, and then the Federal Government shares as well. We 

probably need a couple hours just to discuss this issue. But in an 

environment where you have unlimited projects and limited resources TSUB is the closest thing to a true cost/benefit analysis. 

Other departments like the Army Corps of Engineers and three or 

four other federal agencies have come to the FTA to say, could you 

show us how you do your TSUB and your cost/benefit analysis because we do not have anything like it? It is really cutting edge. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I see that my time is up. I wanted to make 

the one comment that if it is true that transit agencies are downgrading materials or they are delaying necessary railcar purchases, 

in the long run it is going to be much more costly. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Absolutely. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. So I see we need to find some balance 

there. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Absolutely. We are aware of it. We are on the same 

page. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Okay. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Absolutely, positively. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Wolf. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
732 

DULLES METRORAIL EXTENSION

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome all three of you. I am in another hearing next 

door where I am the Ranking Member. But I wanted to come over 

to tell you to go back and tell the Secretary that I want to thank 

her personally for her openness on this rail thing, willing to look 

at this. And so I think I would have been neglectful had I not come 

back to say thank you. Please tell her that I said thank you. 

PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

And then I was going to leave. But I think the comment was 

made by Mr. Cramer to Mr. Ray, I just wanted to tell you as you 

are push these public/private partnership perhaps there needs to 

be some standards. There is if you could take a look at the Greenway out in Northern Virginia, that is about a 13-mile road. The 

tolls will be $4.80. It is having an impact on my area. What they 

are currently finding are trucks, heavy, heavy dump trucks and all 

who are using the road. Initially people got on the road, it was very 

low, kind of bait and switch, have it low, come and enjoy. Now new 

communities have been built up along there. It is now $4.80. In 

fact, if you get on and go for 1.1 miles it is $4.00, it will be $4.80. 

It will be the most expensive toll road in the world: $4.80 for 1.1 

miles. 

No standards. And so I think the department, I think public/private partnerships can be very, very helpful but it needs some 

standards. Now, as I said on trucks and truck safety, many trucks 

that were on the road are leaving the road and now are cutting, 

in order to save money are now cutting through neighborhoods, residential neighborhoods. And it has a safety aspect. Because if you 

ever go out on a truck inspection many of these trucks are bald 

tires and brakes are not very good. So it is really impacting. 

We have a mom and dad, maybe the husband works at Tysons, 

the wife works downtown, it will be almost $100 a week for tolls. 

Or maybe you are taking somebody to daycare or to a ballet lesson 

or to something else to get off, if you live in Leesburg, get off, go 

in and come back on it is now more expensive than, it will be more 

expensive than your cable bill. 

And so this is 12 miles. I am not talking about 100; 12 point 

whatever miles. So I think the committee and the Congress and 

maybe, Mr. Ray, knowing that public/private partnerships are important to the country there ought to be some, some standards. 

And the concern is now we have this Australian company, McCary, 

has hired a powerful lobbyist in the state legislature, actually has 

hired a former Secretary of Transportation whose job was to help 

us, now he is hurting us. And it is really having an impact. 

Now, we are really the test state for what is going to take place 

around the country. So I hope that Congress, I know Mr. Oberstar 

is interested, I think the department should say, okay, we are 

going to have these public/private partnerships, what are the 

standards that ought to go in? Who owns this? How can the public 

be protected? 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
733 

And do you have any comments about that, about if we can have 

some standards that a community could look to as they were thinking of doing this? 

Mr. RAY. I do. Sir, let me just say that we appreciate and we understand your concerns. You are not the only one to espouse them. 

This is occurring across the country. 

Toll rates are certainly something that can be addressed through 

the contractual mechanism. That does not mean that they should 

not be addressed through a public policy forum, either by the state 

legislature or possibly in this body. But let me also caution you and 

others that we are learning so much so fast. Pocahontas Parkway 

just outside of Richmond, no one would do that deal the same way 

that it was done, and that is just 12 to 14 months old. The Commission report, which you will hear about later, has come forward 

with a number of restrictions. 

I am not sure that we know enough about this very youthful 

model to come out from a kind of central government position, and 

then layer restriction upon restriction. We need to be very cautious 

about what we do, otherwise we will risk stifling innovation and 

the creativity that we see coming from these. 

The Dulles Greenway is one of the earliest ones. Again, no one 

would do a deal like the Greenway again. I think we need to decide 

as a country how much tolerance we have for mistakes along the 

way, because we will make mistakes. How can we recalibrate and 

make up for those mistakes? We need to maximize the learning opportunity so that we can advance the country as fast and as quickly as possible. 

Mr. WOLF. Should you be publishing standards or that any locality would go to to see what should be looking for? 

Mr. RAY. We established guidelines and a list of smart practices. 

We are publicizing those around the country. 

Mr. WOLF. Could I get a copy so I could see what you are doing? 

[The information follows:] 

FHWA espouses ‘‘smart practices’’ when we discuss Public Private Partnerships 

(PPPs) around the Nation. There are a number of resources from which we draw 

in this regard, and several of the resources are highlighted prominently on the 

FHWA PPP website at www.fhwa.dotgov/ppp. These include ‘‘Case Studies of 

Transportation Public-Private Partnerships in the United States’’ (http:// 

www.fhwa.dotgov/ppp/uslppplcaselstudieslfinallreportl7-7-07.pdf), and 

‘‘Protecting the Public Interest: The Role of Long Term Concession Agreements for 

Providing Transportation Infrastructure’’ (http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/ 

keston/pdf/20070618-trans-concessionagreements.pdf). FHWA is participating in a 

follow-up report to the ‘‘Protecting the Public Interest’’ paper as a National Cooperative Highway Research Program/Transportation Research Board effort. It is expected to be completed by the end of the year. 

Further, FHWA has developed a ‘‘PPP Toolkit for Highways’’ (http:// 

www.ppptoolkitfhwa.dot.gov) and continues to expand this resource. The Department also is developing a document specifying best practices/guidelines for PPPs. 

Mr. RAY. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF. Anyway, if you have any help with the Greenway, we 

have asked the Attorney General, who has agreed to do it for an 

outside ethics but to comment, we are waiting for his comment. 

But nobody can justify $4.80 for 1.1 miles. I just do not think you 

can. And I think you find, and so if anybody has any thought on 

what this committee could do for the Greenway we would be certainly open to offering that amendment. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
734 

But in closing, please take back to the Secretary I wanted to 

thank her very, very much. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Wolf, of course, is a former chairman of this subcommittee so he speaks from long experience. I have heard the 

term ‘‘Lexus road’’ in some different way but it certainly seems it 

would also apply to that kind of situation. Although I am hearing 

that trucks have gotten in very heavily now; surely not low income 

people are getting in on that one I would guess. 

Ms. Kaptur? 

PITTSBURGH-CHICAGO CORRIDOR

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Welcome. 

Ms. Scheinberg, I wonder if you could take a message back to the 

department for me. I would like the Department’s help in brokering 

a conversation between the governors of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois maybe when they come into town and your key 

people that are looking at rail corridors, high speed rail between 

Pittsburgh and Chicago and right-of-way easements. It is hard to 

find the right people to put in a room to have that discussion. 

The reason I mention it while you are all here, even though you 

are the transit and highway folks, is because I represent the longest segment of Ohio Turnpike. And, of course, we have the Pennsylvania and the Indiana Turnpike and they all connect very close to 

the Pittsburgh-Chicago corridor. And let me posit this thought because the answer they always give us when we talk about high 

speed rail, and I mean really high speed: well, we do not have any 

dedicated revenue source, so therefore we cannot do it. And we 

never seem to be able to move anywhere. 

Well, it is my understanding that in terms of turnpike funding 

those, the Ohio Turnpike, which is I–80/90, Interstate 80/90, receives no federal funds because it is a state turnpike. And I do not 

know about Pennsylvania and I do not know about Indiana, but as 

we look towards a new highway bill one of the thoughts in my 

mind is in my region what I see happening in Ohio is that because 

those federal gas tax dollars do not come back to I–80/90 in the 

north they are expended elsewhere in the state for I–30, I–70, Indiana to Pennsylvania Freeway corridors. So technically the aorta of 

my region is the Turnpike. But it is more costly as a corridor because people have to pay the toll. 

So I see all these stories, you know, Columbus, fastest growing 

city in Ohio. You know, I—I guess 70 whips through it, free road. 

Here I am in the industrial north, beleaguered region of the state, 

with this economic tourniquet we call the Turnpike. And I cannot 

even bring back the gas tax dollars that my people pay to that 

interstate corridor. 

Is Ohio the only state that has this anomaly of not using federal 

funds for the turnpike corridor or is this endemic across the system? Mr. Ray. 

Mr. RAY. Please. 

Ms. KAPTUR. All right. 

Mr. RAY. That is common across the country. 

Ms. KAPTUR. That is common. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
735 

Mr. RAY. Where a turnpike or tolling exists on the interstate, you 

do get credit for the interstate miles that you have. But federal 

interstate maintenance funds cannot be expended on those tolled 

portions, which means they have to be expended elsewhere in the 

state. 

Certainly within the State of Ohio it is the State Department of 

Transportation and the state legislature who decide where those 

funds go to within the state. And where the funds go has to do with 

the statewide plan, et cetera. While the system that you have articulated is correct, the fact that those dollars are sent to the south 

and elsewhere is more of a state decision than it is a flaw in the 

federal system. 

Ms. KAPTUR. I hear what you are saying. 

Mr. RAY. Right. 

Ms. KAPTUR. And but in looking forward rather than backwards, 

you know the greatest force in the world is inertia. Boy, that is 

true in everything. You know, you try to change something, you get 

caught up in history from 50 years ago or more. I want your best 

thinking about the turnpike corridor and its under utilized capacity. 

Even its easements as we look at that particular corridor and we 

are looking at revenue, now you have to think pretty big for this, 

we cannot be down into, you know, subtitle FD0125, no, we have 

to think big. We have an old system we have inherited. And what 

are the powers that we have to create high speed rail between 

Pittsburgh and Chicago? That is the discussion I want to have. 

And I want to put every asset we have on the table. And I want 

to look at where we are not using federal authorities effectively or 

just because of bureaucratic whatever that we have inherited we 

cannot look at it fresh and say, okay, as we move towards a new 

highway bill what can we do to relieve the congestion and create 

a high speed corridor there, even using some of the highway powers we currently have that we are not utilizing effectively? 

And when you say, you know, depend on the State of Ohio; hey, 

if I had to depend on the State of Ohio for anything I could not 

get it done. All right? So that is not an answer for me. If you look 

at the politics of a place like Ohio, Cleveland, it is called the 3 C’s: 

Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati. They have the political power 

down in the statehouse. And all you have to do is look at a map 

of Ohio and where the highways are to understand the power of 

Ohio; right? And you will see how skewed it is. 

There is another Ohio, it goes from Toledo, which I represent, 

down to Marietta. There is no highway. There is a reason for that. 

It goes back to who settled in which cities when. Now it is 2008, 

so I am just asking your best thinking if you could help me broker 

a meeting, Ms. Scheinberg, back you know at the department 

bringing together these forces across the region to take a fresh look 

at that corridor. And I am thinking there is some role that some 

of the authorities you currently have could play in helping us find 

a financing answer to high speed across that. Even though ‘‘rail’’ 

is not in your title you have some of the power that I think is a 

part of the answer. But we have to think fresh. 

Is it possible for you to help me broker that meeting? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. I would be glad to. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
736 

Ms. KAPTUR. Great. 

Mr. RAY. May I just follow up very quickly? I am sorry; I know 

we are short on time. But the Corridors of the Future Program, 

which I managed, facilitated some very innovative thinking about 

how to use highway right-of-way and how to provide multi-modal 

transportation solutions, whether you are talking about freight or 

people, through these corridors. We have seen those types of ideas, 

which I found to be very exciting, elsewhere in the country. I certainly will carry your message back and am happy to work with 

you on that. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you. We do not want to be buried in any one 

instrumentality, we want to cross across them. 

Mr. OLVER. Ms. Scheinberg, consider this meeting a mandate. 

Mr. Walsh. From a regional planner and economics planner, and 

she is adamant about that. 

RECONFIGURING I–81 THROUGH SYRACUSE, NY

Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a 

question of Mr. Ray. 

I represent central New York, Upstate New York and Syracuse. 

Through Syracuse runs Interstate I–81. It is an elevated highway. 

It requires a tremendous amount of maintenance because of our 

winters and the use of salt and so on, so they are constantly working on the superstructure of that. There are a number of people in 

the community who have decided that this creates a barrier within 

the community keeping neighborhoods apart. So there has been 

this interesting discussion and debate about what to do about the 

elevated portion of Route 81. 

It also uses up a tremendous amount of valuable real estate. It 

is tax exempt also, as you would imagine. So our city’s tax base is 

less than 50 percent of the real estate in Syracuse is taxable, partially because of the interstates that run through the city. So, and 

within the last 15 years or so a bypass was built to take traffic 

around the city connecting Route 81 at the north end of the city 

and the south end of the city. 

So the question is what sort of funding mix would there be if indeed this idea, people coalesced around this idea of dropping that 

down, putting it back on the surface, all through traffic would go 

around the city and just commuter traffic and otherwise people 

coming into the city and out of the city would utilize this now-level 

roadway? Would it be a mix of local, state, federal and just give me 

your general comments of a project like that? 

Mr. RAY. Sir, I think it would have to be a mix of funding. But 

there are enormous cost implications of that, depending on where 

you are in the useful life of that particular facility. And, of course, 

we want to maximize the economic benefit of investments that we 

have made in years past. Certainly we would have to look at those. 

But I think certainly you would be looking at a mix. 

The other thing that I would suggest is even though the particular area that you are talking about does not have as dense a 

population as Mr. Simpson’s hometown of New York City, there is 

still a significant population. I think there would be opportunities 

to look at tapping into the private marketplace for solving some of 

these transportation solutions too. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
737 

Mr. WALSH. For example? 

Mr. RAY. Well, the number that I put out earlier was that we es- timate approximately $400 billion of—— 

Mr. WALSH. I heard that, yes. 

Mr. RAY [continuing]. Private equity available today. 

Mr. WALSH. Why would a private developer want to help us take 

the elevated portion of Route 81 down to the ground level? 

Mr. RAY. They would be looking to do it for a return on investment. 

Mr. WALSH. How would they get a return on that? 

Mr. RAY. Well, it could be through a variety of mechanisms. 

Again, there are a couple of different paths. One could have the 

state provide an availability payment, similar to the way that I pay 

for my house. I write a mortgage check every month and at the end 

of my mortgage, I take title to the house. You can do it through 

an availability payment where you pay a private entity to provide 

that facility to you. You are factoring the cost over a number of 

years; we could talk about how long that arrangement could be. 

Mr. WALSH. Where is the revenue stream to the private developer? 

Mr. RAY. It is built into the availability payment. The state is 

making an availability payment to the private sector. 

Mr. WALSH. I am not sure I understand ‘‘availability payment.’’ 

Mr. RAY. For every day that a facility is available to the State 

of New York, or any state, the state would pay the private sector 

a payment for having that facility available. We can define availability a number of ways. Is there more than three-quarters of an 

inch of snow on the road? Is there too much garbage there? The 

contractual mechanisms can be very detailed as to what constitutes 

‘‘available’’ but we would pay an availability payment for that facility to be delivered to us. 

Of course there is the construction cost that would be paid by the 

public sector or the private sector. Things do not come free in this 

world; the actual cost of the asphalt and the steel will be there. 

There is obviously an element of rate of return. Through the traditional mechanism, if we are issuing bonds at the state and local 

level to build something, there is a rate of return on those instruments. There is a rate of return in this availability model as well, 

and that would be paid to the private sector in the long run. 

Certainly tolling and applying tolls as a direct user fee is another. The private sector is open to a number of revenue-generating 

mechanisms. 

Mr. WALSH. I do not know how you could have a toll road—you 

could have it now on the elevated portion of this, it would be relatively easy to do, but once you take that down all these city 

streets will have access to this road, so there is no way to do that. 

Mr. RAY. Let me say this, the technology is moving—— 

Mr. WALSH. And I would not want it anyway, but. 

Mr. RAY. Technology is moving at such a quick pace that it is 

technologically feasible to charge people for their exact usage and 

no more. 

OWNERSHIP OF THE INTERSTATE RIGHT-OF-WAY

Mr. WALSH. Well, I cannot imagine people wanting that. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
738 

But the last thing is on an interstate there is a fairly substantial 

right-of-way. Does the Federal Government own that interstate, 

that right-of-way? 

Mr. RAY. Originally the Federal Government paid its portion, 

and that has varied a little bit over time as to what the original 

federal investment was. The right-of-way belongs to the state. 

Mr. WALSH. The state owns the right-of-way? 

Mr. RAY. That is correct. 

Mr. WALSH. So conceivably if you took that down and you narrowed the right-of-way that real estate would then be available for 

sale or otherwise other utilization? 

Mr. RAY. It could be. There are some legal issues that you have 

to deal with. If the Federal Government paid for the original rightof-way, then the proceeds of that have to be spent on Title 23 purposes. We can certainly talk to you about the intricacies of that, the 

nuances of that, later. But in effect, there is a mechanism to sell 

unneeded space. 

I should mention there are also federal requirements on the 

right-of-way and the space that is needed for an interstate facility. 

Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLVER. I heard you to consider the cost of the Big Dig. And 

also—— 

Mr. WALSH. Well, we are not going underground. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay, that is true. But, yes, you were getting around 

to where the right-of-way is, and those are of value, and also the 

air rights for development over the top. I suppose it could have an 

impact about for a city that has lost a third of its population in the 

last four or five decades you know. 

Mr. WALSH. Real estate does become more valuable as it frees 

up. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Pastor? 

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

Mr. PASTOR. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to the panel 

members. 

Mr. Simpson, let me invite you December 27 of this year we will 

open up the Valley of the Sun metro light rail system. And as of 

today even though costs of the land is quickly increasing we still 

have within that 20-mile corridor land that is low density development and also in some areas undeveloped in terms of economic or 

housing. 

I know the last year through the Chairman’s initiative we funded 

HUD and FTA to come back and look and tell us what incentives 

could be provided so that the corridor would reduce congestion, increase the economic development, and also hopefully provide affordable housing so a community could sustain itself. Where are we on 

that? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, we have a robust program and it is moving 

right along. We did provide the full report on affordable housing, 

almost a year ago, at the last appropriations hearing. At this time 

have an interagency working group. In 2008 the Committee directed $250,000 for HUD and $250,000 for FTA to move forward. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
739 

We have an important report on this. A lot of it gets back to the 

local level. But I have to tell you that FTA is doing everything that 

it can to promote affordable housing. We know why it is needed 

and it is necessary. 

Mr. PASTOR. Right. Right. 

Mr. SIMPSON. People who cannot afford automobiles, in particular, need to be near transit for a number of reasons. 

Mr. PASTOR. And also we will remove some old cars out of the 

freeways and highways, yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is only a matter of time. We work very closely 

with the Center for Transit-Oriented Development. And our regional administrators are around the country touting the success of 

transit-oriented development particularly with affordable housing. 

At the end of the day it gets to the profit motive and programs that 

HUD may have available to investors and to builders who are actually building the property. Again, a lot of it is at the local level, 

but we at FTA are supporting affordable housing near transit at 

every opportunity we can. 

And we are coming out with another report for you by the end 

of June. 

Mr. PASTOR. Okay. So that report will be available? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. It is more of a strategic plan, an action plan. 

Mr. PASTOR. It is an action plan? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. PASTOR. Do you think in that plan will be initiatives and incentives for the development in terms of grants or tax exemptions 

or? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, the FTA’s role is somewhat limited. We stop 

at the transit side, but we are working with our counterparts. I am 

not trying to punt this, it is just that it is more on the side of HUD. 

Mr. PASTOR. Okay. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And a lot of city, state and local taxing authorities 

to do that. 

Mr. PASTOR. Yes, because I think if you try to reduce congestion 

and improve the mobility of people—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Right. 

Mr. PASTOR [continuing]. If you use those corridors, the light rail 

corridors more effectively and providing house and economic development that you will achieve reducing congestion. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. Well, you are very lucky in Phoenix; you have 

land that is available, which is good. And a lot of it is vacant, 

which allows those local policies to encourage affordable housing. 

Mr. PASTOR. I think that is why we are kind of saying hurry up 

as quickly as you can. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. PASTOR. Because as you well know, once that light rail starts 

running the land values start going up and people bring plans. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

I–10 AND THE CORRIDORS OF THE FUTURE PROGRAM

Mr. PASTOR. And sometimes we do not have the foresight at the 

local levels to ensure that we use multi-use along the corridor. 

I saw where the Corridors of the Future provided $8.6 million for 

I–10 from California to Florida. In between Phoenix and Tucson is 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
740 

the I–10 which, as you well know, is getting congested. And a lot 

of it is due to the trade that we are having from the Far East coming into Long Beach, coming into L.A. that now many of the truckers and distributors are finding it easier to use Phoenix and Tucson 

as a hub. And so now you find more 18-wheelers on I–10 in that 

area. And you also know that the population growth between Phoenix and Tucson is increasing, it is probably right now the fastest 

growing area in the United States. 

And following a lead from my colleagues we have applied to the 

Railroad Administrator for a planning grant to develop a rail, 

intercity rail system between the two cities’ metropolitan areas. At 

the same time we have need for increased capacity on the interstate. And so the question is this: where did that 8.6 go and where 

can we get part of the action? 

Mr. RAY. Sir, let me start by saying I am acutely aware of the 

transportation problems affecting your citizens because my wife is 

one. 

Mr. PASTOR. Oh, good. 

Mr. RAY. I spend a fair amount of time out in your neck of the 

woods. 

Mr. PASTOR. Hopefully you have driven I–10. 

Mr. RAY. Interstate 10 through Phoenix, especially at the wrong 

time of day, can be quite grueling. Sir, I would have to get into specifics of where those dollars went. The purpose of Corridors of the 

Future program was not to fully fund the transportation solutions 

across those corridors. 

[The information follows:] 

The I–10 Corridor of the Future received $4 million in Interstate Maintenance 

Discretionary (IMD) funds related to the widening of I–10 in Arizona from the Gila 

River Indian Community to the I–8 interchange. The remaining $4.6 million is 

under the Delta Regional Transportation Development Program for the widening of 

I–10 in Louisiana from I–12 to SR–3246. 

Mr. PASTOR. I understand. 

Mr. RAY. It was to highlight critical corridors that we saw both 

from the standpoint of mobility for our citizens and also from the 

standpoint of freight mobility. Certainly, those issues are very relevant to I–10. The idea was to provide some seed money. The $75 

million that the President has requested as part of the broader 

$175 million will be part of an effort to facilitate this dialogue, to 

help the states work together. As a status update, all of the states 

are now in the process of negotiating comprehensive development 

agreements, so all the states along I–10 can create a framework to 

solve congestion problems across the entire corridor. 

We are particularly happy with the efforts that Victor Mendez 

and other Arizona DOT folks have put into this. I think it is a 

great effort. And you are absolutely right, the congestion, the 

growth, and the change in demographics that is occurring in Arizona, that is the front line of the fight on congestion in this country. Let me be very clear, the growth rates that Arizona is seeing 

are unlike any other place in the country and the Corridors of the 

Future program are part of an effort to try to solve that. 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, on your wife’s behalf and my behalf hopefully 

you will keep your eye on I–10 between Phoenix and Tucson and 

make sure that the money is used wisely and to ensure that. We 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
741 

all recognize that in a very short time, the next 15 to 20 years, this 

part of the world is going to be within the megacities that we find 

the five largest megacities of the United States. 

Mr. RAY. Absolutely. 

Mr. PASTOR. And so we are trying to address the congestion problems, the mobility problems today. So thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CONGESTION INITIATIVE

Mr. OLVER. Thank you. We have a series of votes coming up here 

so we are going to have to finish up within 15 minutes or so. And 

I am going to take a few of those right now. And then we will not 

come back. So we will finish up here with whatever time my Ranking Member probably has to say about it. Okay? 

I want to go back and explore just a little bit. In the 2007 budget 

there were no earmarks because you had full discretionary—you 

had use of discretionary funds, virtually all of which since we had 

not earmarked discretionary accounts for those parts you then used 

the something like $850 million to feed these five major congestion 

accounts, five cities. And I wanted to ask how many of those five 

states have now authorized the tolling as you required? 

I mean it seems to me one of the things—is that you departed 

rather significantly from the intent of those programs because you 

sort of swept up monies from several different programs in both 

transit and highways that had very specific intents related to them 

and put them into this congestion account that went to these five 

cities. 

One of the things, for instance, you had in those was to each of 

the cities were required to implement tolling as part of their plan 

to receive the grants. Have all of these five now reached agreements, the urban partnership agreements that do adopt your requirement for tolling? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. I would like to answer your question and then 

provide further comments for the record. Not all of the cities have 

achieved final agreements. 

Mr. OLVER. Which ones have? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Miami already had the authority. San Francisco recently obtained it. The others are very close to getting it. 

But may I expand on the question? I think this is a very important issue. This morning we have heard from the members of this 

subcommittee about problems in their areas; problems in corridors, 

and problems in urban areas. This is exactly what we were trying 

to address in these programs. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay, fine. I understand that. But Mr. Ray earlier 

commented that some of the things that we had early efforts at we 

certainly would not do the same way now. So we had experience 

earlier from some of the problems that might give us direction for 

these. Presumably that has been done. I am sure that we would 

not end up finding in Indiana that the toll road, the Indiana Turnpike would be sold off in the way that it was. Not that that was 

done by you, that was done by Indiana. 

And I just want to go on. Did you have legal opinions that these 

12 programs, dozen programs in FTA and FHWA could be lumped 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
742 

together in this kind of a way and given out as this congestion initiative? I am talking about the 2007 budget—— 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Yes, I understand. 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. When these grants were actually made 

in August—— 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Right. 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. Of 2007? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Yes. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. The answer is yes. But I will ask. 

Mr. RAY. Just for a point of clarification, and it may not have 

been your intent but let me just clarify. The various programs were 

not lumped together per se. 

Mr. OLVER. Money was drawn from all those programs. 

Mr. RAY. That is correct. 

Mr. OLVER. And put into a pot and then given out in five large 

grants. 

Mr. RAY. That may have been the way that it appeared to you, 

although that is not in practice actually what occurred. There were 

applications for funding under each program. The legal eligibility 

requirements of each particular program were met. So whether 

money was coming from interstate maintenance—— 

Mr. OLVER. Right. We are really under a time bind right now 

and I want to get—you can answer that in writing for this committee. I think it would be very important. 

Mr. RAY. Happy to. 

Mr. OLVER. Because it has been very controversial both here and 

on the other side of the Capitol—— 

Mr. RAY. Sure. We would be happy to. 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. On the part of both parties in that instance. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department of Transportation allocated funds from existing FHWA, FTA and 

RITA discretionary grant programs to contribute toward funding the Urban Partnership Agreements (UPA) and Corridors of the Future Program (CFP), under the Congestion Initiative. DOT obligated allocated or reserved funds for qualified UPA or 

CFP recipients in accordance with the authorizing legislation and implementing regulations of each existing discretionary grant. In the Federal Register notices soliciting UPA and CFP applications, applicants had to apply separately to each of the 

grant programs from which they sought funding and had to meet each program’s 

statutory requirements. 

The authorizing statutes of the discretionary grant programs cited above, together 

with the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, authorize the allocation, appropriation and obligation of funds to the eligible projects within the UPAs 

and designated CFP. The lack of Congressional earmarks in the Revised Continuing 

Appropriations Resolution, 2007, permitted the Secretary to exercise her discretion 

to award various DOT grant programs. 

Each of the relevant discretionary grant programs permits the Secretary of Transportation to exercise her discretion in awarding grants consistent with statutory criteria. Where Congress does not mandate distribution in statute or provide specific 

weights to the criteria associated with funding project activities, the Secretary is 

free to select projects and obligate funds consistent with the purpose of the availability of funding under the program. See the following two references: (1) 31 U.S.C. 

1301(a). Comp. Gen. Opinion B–228675 (August 17, 1978). The General Accounting 

Office approved the Department of Health, Education and Welfare’s ‘‘cross-cutting’’ 

grants provided that the grants were limited to projects within the scope of the 

grant programs. (2) Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. EPA, 947 F.2d 283 

(7th Cir. 1991). The court permitted the United States EPA to reallocate grant monVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00742 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
743 

ies where the appropriations act did not earmark a specific sum of money for grants 

and funds were used for the express purpose for which they were appropriated. 

USE OF FISCAL YEAR 2008 DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

Mr. OLVER. Now let me just go on, add to it. In the 2008 budget 

you asked us for the same $175 million of positions essentially, of 

transfers, use of the monies from old earmarks which we refused 

to do. But you also had some discretionary money in the 2008 

budget. Now, can each of you tell me whether that discretionary 

money that was not earmarked in the 2008 budget has that also 

been since you had the, assumed you had the authority, and I 

would like to see your legal, what your legal opinions were that 

gave you the authority to pull those things together and use them 

in that way, you are indicating that, yes, in each one you did have 

that but I want to see it on paper—what has the discretionary 

money in the same accounts been going to for the 2008 budget, 

have you planned on how that is going to go out? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you mean on the transit side? 

Mr. OLVER. Well, both sides. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We have not planned for it yet on the transit side. 

We have basically our discretion—— 

Mr. OLVER. But you have the authority you believe to put it back 

into more congestion accounts? 

Mr. SIMPSON. In 2008? 

Mr. OLVER. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. With the limitation of 10 percent for UPAs. 

Mr. OLVER. For 10 percent. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We have about $96 million. We need to deduct $24 

million for the clean fuels, so we have about $9.6 million for UPA 

and about $62 million left for the buses. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. And maybe in this instance since we are, 

maybe we ought to get you both to sort of summarize how you intend to use those monies in the same instance given the constraint 

of the 10 percent that was placed on it? Then you are asking this 

year for us to give you the 175 back and, and your intent is clear 

from what has been your testimony, to again put a sizeable portion 

of that, well, that plus some more of your discretionary money if 

there is any left when we get finished with this budget into again 

more congestion things. 

When do we wait and see exactly what happened with the original ones to see what the tests show before we go charging ahead 

with these approaches? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Mr. Chairman, we are learning every day from 

this example. We are learning how—— 

Mr. OLVER. But we have not learned much yet. We could not 

have learned much from the original 850—— 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. No. We—— 

Mr. OLVER [contiuning]. Since that was only put on the road last 

August. 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Yes. I agree. 

Mr. OLVER. And you are saying that you do not yet have the 

agreement with four of the five states because to use it they have 

to have this tolling thing done. They already had it in Miami for 

the Florida case. And the others have not happened even though 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
744 

of course New York, Mr. Simpson has pointed out quite clearly that 

New York has a great commitment toward using transit as a part 

of it. You have the 2nd Avenue sub, you have the eastside access 

or Long Island access and a whole bunch of other big problems 

there. So, yes, we have to make this all fit together. 

Should we not test clearly what we have from the ones, the big 

ones that got out? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. We want to learn from those and others. As 

you said, there are just five cities. We have of over 50 cities and 

localities that have come in, asked and competed for this money. 

Mr. OLVER. For much smaller specific kinds of things? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Exactly. The 2008 money is smaller. So we are 

looking at different size cities, covering different size areas. We 

need to learn from this so that we can be ready for the next reauthorization. If we wait for these things to totally play out we will 

not have the information for the next reauthorization. 

These are the kinds of problems that these cities have. We need 

solutions. 

[The information follows:] 

The budget proposes to redirect $175 million in unobligated balances for inactive 

projects authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) 

of 1991. The funds will be used to carry out the Department’s National Strategy to 

Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network (the ‘‘Congestion Initiative’’) and will support metropolitan area congestion reduction demonstration initiatives and the Corridors of the Future Program. The Department requests $100 million to fund qualified projects in 2009 that 

would implement congestion pricing along with complementary transportation solutions, including transit service and innovative operational technologies. In December 

2007, DOT received approximately 20 applications from a wide range of jurisdictions. 

The Department requests $75 million in the FY 2009 budget to support the Department’s Corridors of the Future Program (CFP), which is part of the Department’s Congestion Initiative. In September 2007, the Department identified Interstates 5, 15, 10, 69, 70, and 95 as nationally significant Corridors of the Future, 

whose improvement will alleviate congestion and provide national and regional longterm transportation benefits. 

The Department will be entering into Development Agreements with the States along the Corridors during FY 2008. The $75 million requested will support projects 

negotiated and included within the Development Agreements that demonstrate an 

aggressive approach to congestion management. Selected projects are expected to include technology purchases to support electronic tolling and other intelligent transportation system technologies, financing analysis and targeted infrastructure investments. 

In addition, the Department requests that 75 percent of the funds available for 

allocation under discretionary programs be designated for support of critical congestion relief projects. Projects that combine various road pricing, transit and technology solutions would receive priority consideration and be selected by the Department according to transparent, competitive, and merit-based criteria. Projects eligible for funding under this provision would include, but would not be limited to, 

those congestion reduction projects supported by the Department in FY 2008. 

FUTURE OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

Mr. OLVER. All right, we know that we have got to close here 

very shortly. I will take the argument that you want to make on 

how fast these things should be done. But let me point out, when 

I started on this subcommittee, and I have now been Ranking 

Member on it for a couple of terms and now Chair, but I have been 

on the subcommittee for some years before, within this Administration we started out with a trust fund balance in the $8 billion 

range. It was always a goal to keep it up there in the $6 to $8 bilVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00744 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
745 

lion dollar range. I cannot remember precisely what it was, but on 

the trust fund part of it was in the highway account and part of 

it in the transit account. 

Now we are down to the point where you by the request in the 

budget are asking that we allow the last bit of the highway fund 

to go into the transit fund because if there is $1 billion left that 

is what others in your own administration have said is within the 

margin of error depending upon what the economy happens to be 

doing in the course of a year. So we may be down to both of them 

being at the end of their life. And what I was coming to is here 

that you are leaving us, going out the door at the end of this year, 

you are leaving us with a problem that where the monies have 

been stripped. And you are saying, and I agree, that the gasoline 

tax is not a reliable thing for the future given what our policies are 

and having to get away from the use of gasoline and wanting to 

reduce our usage and all of the other efforts that we are making 

are designed to try to be more efficient about this process. 

But how quickly are we going to—you are asking us to move to 

these other procedures, at least by the policy of the Administration, 

which was to not do anything about gasoline increases all of that 

goes back to my comments earlier that it looks to me as if this is 

a process of reducing dramatically, dramatically, the proportion of 

the surface transportation construction and maintenance, development and maintenance funds that will come from the Federal Government. That worries me greatly. 

Now, we do not have more time. We are going to have to give 

my Ranking Member two minutes as I think we still have enough 

time. You can answer anything you want on that in writing here. 

I am sorry we do not have a little bit more time to explore it. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
746 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 895 here 43749A.643
747 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 896 here 43749A.644
748 

SC PROPOSAL TO BORROW FROM THE MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief 

as I possibly can. 

But I did want to ask a question about the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. I mentioned that at the beginning. And I have 

reservations about the Department’s proposal to allow the highway 

account to borrow from the mass transit account to cover its insufficient balances. And the other thing is, what authority does the 

department have to make such a transfer absent any specific authorization? And has some, has legislation been submitted to the 

Ways and Means people? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. The legislation is in the budget as appropriations language. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. So it has just been offered. But it has not— 

have you clarified anything with the Ways and Means people or 

with the T&I folks? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. We have submitted legislation that has been 

used in the past. We also cleared it through the Treasury Department. This legislation can be used as a general provision for the 

appropriations bill. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. But have either one of these agencies been 

contacted? And what is their opinion right now about passing this 

legislation? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. It is not really in their jurisdiction; it is in your 

jurisdiction, Congressman. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. It seems to me we went through the others 

too I think the last time, did we not? 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. This is inside the Highway Trust Fund. It is 

not new revenue. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Yes. Well, I guess we are going to have to get 

out of here. 

Mr. OLVER. We will ask, if we have further here we will have to 

ask it in questions. 

Ms. SCHEINBERG. Okay. 

Mr. OLVER. But you have gotten at least the gist of where I was 

headed anyway. 

Thank you very, very much for being with us this morning. Very 

interesting. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
749 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 899 here 43749A.645
750 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 900 here 43749A.646
751 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 901 here 43749A.647
752 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 902 here 43749A.648
753 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 903 here 43749A.649
754 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 904 here 43749A.650
755 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 905 here 43749A.651
756 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 43749A.652
757 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 43749A.653
758 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 43749A.654
759 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 43749A.655
760 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 43749A.656
761 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 911 here 43749A.657
762 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 912 here 43749A.658
763 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 43749A.659
764 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 43749A.660
765 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 43749A.661
766 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 43749A.662
767 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 917 here 43749A.663
768 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 918 here 43749A.664
769 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 919 here 43749A.665
770 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 920 here 43749A.666
771 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 921 here 43749A.667
772 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 922 here 43749A.668
773 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 923 here 43749A.669
774 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 43749A.670
775 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 43749A.671
776 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 926 here 43749A.672
777 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 927 here 43749A.673
778 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 928 here 43749A.674
779 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 929 here 43749A.675
780 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 930 here 43749A.676
781 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 931 here 43749A.677
782 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 932 here 43749A.678
783 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 933 here 43749A.679
784 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 934 here 43749A.680
785 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 935 here 43749A.681
786 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 936 here 43749A.682
787 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 937 here 43749A.683
788 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 938 here 43749A.684
789 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 939 here 43749A.685
790 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 940 here 43749A.686
791 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 941 here 43749A.687
792 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 43749A.688
793 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 943 here 43749A.689
794 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 944 here 43749A.690
795 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 945 here 43749A.691
796 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 946 here 43749A.692
797 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 947 here 43749A.693
798 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 948 here 43749A.694
799 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 949 here 43749A.695
800 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 950 here 43749A.696
801 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 951 here 43749A.697
802 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 952 here 43749A.698
803 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 953 here 43749A.699
804 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 954 here 43749A.700
805 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 955 here 43749A.701
806 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 956 here 43749A.702
807 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 957 here 43749A.703
808 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 958 here 43749A.704
809 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 959 here 43749A.705
810 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 960 here 43749A.706
811 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 961 here 43749A.707
812 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 962 here 43749A.708
813 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 963 here 43749A.709
814 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 964 here 43749A.710
815 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 965 here 43749A.711
816 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 966 here 43749A.712
817 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 967 here 43749A.713
818 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 968 here 43749A.714
819 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 969 here 43749A.715
820 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 970 here 43749A.716
821 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 971 here 43749A.717
822 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 972 here 43749A.718
823 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 973 here 43749A.719
824 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 974 here 43749A.720
825 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 975 here 43749A.721
826 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 976 here 43749A.722
827 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 977 here 43749A.723
828 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 978 here 43749A.724
829 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 979 here 43749A.725
830 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 980 here 43749A.726
831 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 981 here 43749A.727
832 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 982 here 43749A.728
833 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 983 here 43749A.729
834 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 984 here 43749A.730
835 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 985 here 43749A.731
836 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 986 here 43749A.732
837 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 987 here 43749A.733
838 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 988 here 43749A.734
839 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 989 here 43749A.735
840 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 990 here 43749A.736
841 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 991 here 43749A.737
842 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 992 here 43749A.738
843 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 993 here 43749A.739
844 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 994 here 43749A.740
845 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 995 here 43749A.741
846 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 996 here 43749A.742
847 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 997 here 43749A.743
848 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 998 here 43749A.744
849 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 999 here 43749A.745
850 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1000 here 43749A.746
851 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1001 here 43749A.747
852 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1002 here 43749A.748
853 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1003 here 43749A.749
854 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1004 here 43749A.750
855 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1005 here 43749A.751
856 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1006 here 43749A.752
(857) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008. 

THOUGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND 

REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION 

WITNESSES 

JACK SCHENENDORF, VICE CHAIR, NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION [OF COUNSEL, 

COVINGTON & BURLING] 

FRANK BUSALACCHI, COMMISSIONER [SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION] 

RICK R. GEDDES, COMMISSIONER [DIRECTOR OF UNDERGRADUATE 

STUDIES, CORNELL UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT] 

STEVE HEMINGER, COMMISSIONER [EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION] 

Mr. OLVER. The Subcommittee will come to order. I am pleased 

to welcome members of the National Surface Transportation Policy 

and Revenue Study Commission to the Subcommittee. The Commission was created by the SAFETEA–LU authorizing legislation 

in the summer of 2005. It recently issued a report entitled ‘‘Transportation for Tomorrow,’’ which details the long-term surface transportation policy and financing changes the Commission believes 

Congress and the Executive Branch must begin to implement. 

The report concluded that we need to significantly increase our 

investments in surface transportation and dramatically restructure 

the way we allocate transportation resources to remain economically competitive and to also meet the challenges of the country’s 

changing demographics. 

The Commission’s final report was endorsed by nine of the 12 

commissioners. Of those nine commissioners that endorsed the 

final report, five were appointed by Republicans and four by Democrats, so it was a very bipartisan result. 

Today, we want to hear about the work you have done on surface 

transportation policy over the last two years, and we are looking 

forward to that testimony. Before I recognize my Ranking Member 

and my chairman, I do want to introduce the members of the Commission to the group. 

Jack Schenendorf, vice chairman of the Revenue Study Commission, of counsel to Covington & Burling since 2001, my understanding is that you spent 25 years on the T&I Committee—— 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. And was chief of staff of that committee 

from 1995 to 2001. So I want to welcome you back to the Hill. That 

is a wonderful background for this. 

Frank Busalacchi has been the secretary of transportation to 

Wisconsin DOT since 2003. I had the opportunity to meet Frank 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
858 

a few months ago at a meeting in Chairman Obey’s office, where 

I received a briefing on the Commission’s work. You, I know, have 

been a strong advocate for passenger rail, and I am pleased that 

you are with us today. 

We have Ray Geddes, director of undergraduate studies at Cornell, Department of Policy Analysis and Management. Ray is an 

economist who has authored a number of books and essays on corporate governance and regulation. Thank you for being here. 

Finally, Steve Heminger, the executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

Mr. Heminger, thank you for your being here also. 

Now, let me recognize the big chairman for his opening comments. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to leave early, so 

I do not want to take any time talking. I just came here to listen 

for as long as possible. I am glad to be here. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. You cannot sit there and listen for long, I am 

sure. 

All right. Then to my distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. 

Knollenberg, a previous chairman of the Committee, and my partner in this. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, 

Commissioners, one and all. I would like to extend my appreciation 

for you being here today because we are going to spend some time 

this afternoon discussing some of the findings and the recommendations that you are making, as well as the views of the dissenting commissioners. 

Mr. Chairman, we are nearly six months into the 2009 Fiscal 

Year, and this is the final year of the current surface transportation and authorization SAFETEA–LU, and I can think of no better time than now to address the future of surface transportation 

programs and the means by which these programs, or these types 

of programs, will be funded in the years to come. 

In the coming months, Congress will begin the task of reevaluating the overarching objectives for the Surface Transportation program, perhaps redirecting some funds to meet priorities in order to 

address the transportation-related issues, such as congestion mitigation, the movement of commodities, and the nation’s aging surface transportation infrastructure. 

According to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Annual 

Urban Mobility Study, which was released last September, our nation’s drivers sit in traffic something like, on average, 38 hours a 

year and waste 26 gallons of fuel in doing so. Last summer’s collapse of the Minnesota I–35W bridge during rush hour disrupted 

travel patterns, as well as the movement of goods and freight, but, 

even more so, it shined a spotlight on the deteriorating condition 

of this nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

With stats such as those found in the PTI report and tragedies 

like the I–35W bridge collapse, it is apparent that we have become 

a nation of too many people taking too many trips over too short 

a timeframe on a system that is too small. 

For these reasons, we find ourselves facing some hard questions 

regarding our nation’s surface transportation infrastructure. How 

do we combat congestion efficiently and effectively on an infrastrucVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00858 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
859 

ture that we have clearly outgrown? Do we simply build more 

roads, or will that just create more incentive to drive? In lieu of 

more roads, we do turn to a different type of infrastructure, such 

as high-speed rail. That is a question. Do we just live with what 

we have in an effort to keep it in good order, establish a means for 

allocating more of the costs associated with using highways to 

those who use it most or cause the most wear and tear? 

As I noted in this morning’s hearing, in my opinion, we are looking at a highway version of the ‘‘perfect storm.’’ At the very time 

that we are seeing rapidly diminishing trust fund revenues and 

rapid increases in fuel prices, both of the prominent solutions being 

discussed are to increase taxes, one on gasoline and one on access 

to highways, yet we, as a nation, have decided to move in a different direction: alleviate stress on the environment and reduce our 

dependency on gasoline. 

Many Americans are opting to take advantage of the technological strides made in recent years to reduce gasoline consumption 

by purchasing vehicles powered by a new generation of diesel engines, hybrids, electricity, and also any other alternative fuels that 

may be available. 

As a result, the old assumptions may not be reliable anymore. In 

a nutshell, if you look at this, these trends, if they continue, gasoline consumption will no longer be as closely or directly tied to the 

amount of travel or the amount of damage done to the highway 

system as much as it has in the past. 

All of this suggests that perhaps raising the gas tax—I know 

some of you agree with that—and assessing access fees are not the 

most equitable or efficient means of allocating the cost of highway 

maintenance and construction to those who will actually be using 

the system and doing the most damage. Then the question is, how 

do we pay for any or all of this? It is clear that the current level 

of highway receipts will not be sufficient to fund the current program, let alone any future programs. 

This past January, OMB projected that the Highway Trust Fund 

will face a shortfall of some $3.2 billion in 2009. That is just 

around the corner. There appears to be a short- and a long-term 

solution that are being discussed, and, in the short term, the president’s Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal requests that temporary 

authority be granted to the secretary of transportation to advance 

funds between the highway and the mass transit accounts to cover 

insufficient fund balances. Such a budgetary gimmick has not been 

used since the 1960s that I am aware of, and that assumes that 

the funds would be there and that somehow it could be repaid, both 

of which are huge if’s. 

Other long-term recommendations to partially solve our looming 

funding question were put forth in the report by our panel of witnesses and their fellow commissioners. One such recommendation 

was an increase of 40 cents per gallon federal gasoline tax to be 

phased in over the next five years, with automatic increases every 

year thereafter tied to inflation. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I both know that there are no guarantees 

that either borrowing from other programs or big tax increases will 

keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent, and I have serious reservations as to what type of ripple effect some of these proposed taxes 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
860 

will have on our society overall, in particular, those struggling to 

make ends meet on a daily basis and on small business. 

I cannot think of a more regressive tax on low- and moderateincome families than a 40-cent-per-gallon increase in taxes on gasoline. In my opinion, and I believe the Chairman would tend to 

agree with me, proposals to borrow from other programs only 

postpones the day of reckoning, and big tax increases, whatever 

their variety, come with significant adverse impacts on the very 

families that we are trying to help with the other half of our bill, 

and that is the HUD half. 

Now, I realize that some may prefer to call these increases ‘‘user 

fees.’’ Well, let us call them what they are. They are taxes. In my 

opinion, we need major reforms to not only what we finance but 

how we finance, and, Mr. Chairman, I will have some questions for 

the witnesses regarding the specifics of the Commission’s recommendations. 

I appreciate the opportunity to highlight what I think are some 

very serious issues for not just this Subcommittee but for the upcoming reauthorization process, too, and I share the Commission’s 

vision, and I quote, ‘‘to create and sustain the preeminent surface 

transportation system in the world.’’ 

I look forward to exploring these topics with you, and, at the moment, I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Knollenberg. 

We will go to the panel. We have lined you up here with the commissioner who was the vice chairman of the Commission, and then 

the rest of you are alphabetical. So, Mr. Schenendorf, it is your 

turn. All of your formal testimony will be in the record. You can 

do with it as you wish in your oral testimony. 

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. How did we 

let an authorizer in? [Laughter.] 

Mr. OLVER. Those are the old days. 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. Thank you, Chairman Olver. Thank you, 

Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Knollenberg, and other Members of the Subcommittee. I am Jack Schenendorf with Covington 

& Burling Law Firm in Washington, and I was honored to be vice 

chair of the Commission, and I am testifying in that capacity. 

In my allotted time, I would just like to briefly summarize five 

of our key findings and conclusions and recommendations. 

First, the next transportation bill has to be bold and transformational. Simply put, we have outgrown our aging surface 

transportation system. New leadership must step up with a vision 

for the next 50 years that will ensure the U.S. prosperity and global preeminence for the generations to come. 

We cannot have a healthy and robust economy without having a 

healthy and robust surface transportation system. We must act 

now. There is not time for delays. There is not time for more studies. This next transportation bill needs to be the bill. 

Second, any effort to address future transportation needs of the 

United States must come to grips with the sobering financial reality of such an undertaking. We are recommending that all levels 

of government and the private sector invest at least $225 billion 

annually over the next 50 years to upgrade our existing network 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
861 

to a state of good repair and to build the more advanced facilities 

we will require to remain competitive. We are spending less than 

40 percent of this amount today. 

Third, we recommend that the federal government be a full partner with states and local governments and the private sector in addressing this looming transportation crisis. Our national transportation system is essential to our national security, to our economic 

prosperity, to our global competitiveness, and to our way of life. 

Our transportation crisis requires a national solution. 

At a time when countries around the world, from China and 

India to the European Union to Panama, are pursuing major national infrastructure investments, how ironic and how unfortunate 

it would be if the federal government was to abdicate its responsibilities? Moreover, the problem is simply too big to be dumped in 

the laps of state and local governments and the private sector. 

Fourth, we are recommending fundamental and wide-ranging reform. Since completion of the interstate system, the federal program has had no clear mission. It is now essentially a bloc grant 

model with little or no accountability for specific outcomes. 

We believe that a mission or sense of purpose must be restored 

to the federal program. That is why we are recommending that the 

108 existing Surface Transportation programs be replaced with 10 

new federal programs that are performance driven, outcome based, 

generally mode neutral, and refocused to pursue objectives of genuine national interest. These programs include a state-of-good-repair program, a national freight program, and other programs that 

will be discussed by my colleagues. 

Fifth, to close the investment gap, we are recommending a wide 

range of revenue enhancements. There is no free lunch when it 

comes to infrastructure investment. We will need a significant increase in public funding to keep America competitive, and we have 

recommended a number of different types of increases at the federal level. We will also need additional private investment, we will 

need more tolling, and we will need to price for use of the system. 

Simply stated, we must use all of the financial tools available to 

us. The users of the system should pay, and money derived from 

transportation should stay in transportation. 

In closing, let me just say, it was already mentioned that of the 

nine commissioners that supported this, five were appointed by Republicans, four by Democrats. It is the full range of the political 

spectrum from one end to the other, everywhere in between. We 

have a CEO of a major railroad, a CEO of a major trucking company, a CEO of a major user of the system, the secretary of transportation of a state, a local official. So it is a very diverse group 

of commissioners who strongly support our recommendations. 

Let me just close by saying that our parents and grandparents 

gave us a great gift with the interstate system. They gave us a new 

system with excess capacity that has served this country very, very 

well and has helped this country to grow and to build itself into 

what it is today. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
862 

Well, as has been stated, that system is aging, we have outgrown 

it, and we need to do for our children and grandchildren what our 

grandparents and parents did for us, and we need to do it soon, 

and we need to do it efficiently. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
863 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1020 here 43749A.753
864 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1021 here 43749A.754
865 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1022 here 43749A.755
866 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1023 here 43749A.756
867 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1024 here 43749A.757
868 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1025 here 43749A.758
869 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1026 here 43749A.759
870 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1027 here 43749A.760
871 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1028 here 43749A.761
872 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1029 here 43749A.762
873 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Schenendorf. Mr. Busalacchi? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Olver, 

Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Knollenberg, and Members of 

the Committee. My name is Frank Busalacchi. I am secretary of 

the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and also chair of the 

States for Passenger Rail Coalition. 

As a state DOT secretary, I see firsthand how transportation affects our citizens’ lives. Serving on the Commission allowed me to 

consider how federal policy could be crafted to best serve citizens 

nationwide and to assure that states work together to achieve national goals. 

Let me speak briefly to issues not addressed by my colleagues. 

The commissioners adopted inner-city passenger rail as a part of 

our multimodal vision for the future. Rail can help alleviate congestion, high gas prices, and global warming impacts. We heard testimony from state and local officials asking for additional public investment in passenger rail. 

To assist the Commission in advising Congress, I engaged a 

working group to provide analysis. They created a 20/50 map and 

cost estimates for rail improvements connecting cities in corridors 

of 500 miles or less. Of the 10 new programs recommended, innercity passenger rail is the only modal-focused program. The federal 

government will fund 80 percent of the program, similar to the 

funding partnerships for highways, transit, and aviation. 

The commissioners recognize the problems of a limited passenger 

rail system, lack of transit options in some cities, inadequate 

freight capacity, and congestion. There were strong voices as well 

for the transportation challenges of rural America. 

Our transportation system is a network that passes through 

urban, suburban, and rural areas. ‘‘Connecting America,’’ a national program for smaller cities and rural areas, assures that 

states with rural populations will continue to receive federal transportation funds. We need to support all segments of our national 

network. Without this federal commitment, between 20 and 25 

states would miss out on the economic-development and quality-oflife benefits that come from improved transportation. 

Your predecessors showed wisdom in establishing the Highway 

Trust Fund to build the interstate system, rejecting Clay Commission’s original recommendation for debt financing. For 50 years, the 

trust fund has been the primary mechanism for funding our transportation system. However, its revenues have not been raised in 

over 15 years; nor is the fund index protected from inflation. 

Commissioners are concerned that the balance of the highway account of the trust fund is projected to fall negative $1.4 billion by 

the year 2009. I am troubled by the administration’s 2009 budget 

proposal and its unwillingness to outline a long-term solution that 

assures the growth and predictability of revenues to fund our nation’s surface transportation needs. 

In my written testimony, I outline the potential impact of a negative cash balance on my state, assuming no other formula changes 

or corrective action. In 2009, Wisconsin’s funding will be reduced 

by close to $100 million. All states will be similarly affected. 

We spoke plainly in our Commission report: There is no free 

lunch when it comes to financing. We recommended a variety of 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
874 

revenue sources, and it came down squarely on the side of pay-asyou-go financing. The Commission looked at long-term leases by 

private investment companies used to build interstate tolling 

projects. Our roads and transit systems are public assets and 

should be protected. We should not allow private companies to take 

their profits from infrastructure built with public funds. 

The current issues plaguing Wall Street and our economy speak 

to this issue: The government must assure that the public is not 

assuming the risk associated with investment decisions made by 

the private sector. It was a bold vision and a strong commitment 

to funding the interstate highway system that made it possible 50 

years ago. Today, our highway and aviation systems are congested, 

and it is time to create a truly multimodal system. A strong federal 

partner will be required to help finance the Commission’s vision for 

the preeminent transportation system in the world. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
875 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1034 here 43749A.763
876 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1035 here 43749A.764
877 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1036 here 43749A.765
878 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1037 here 43749A.766
879 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1038 here 43749A.767
880 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1039 here 43749A.768
881 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1040 here 43749A.769
882 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1041 here 43749A.770
883 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1042 here 43749A.771
884 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1043 here 43749A.772
885 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1044 here 43749A.773
886 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you very much. Mr. Geddes. 

Mr. GEDDES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Obey, Committee Members, and Fellow Commissioners. Thanks for the opportunity to appear today, and thank you for the opportunity to serve 

on this Commission. It has been an honor to serve with such a 

wonderful group of people, and thank you for taking a careful look 

at this crucial issue that is facing our nation today. 

As you know, there was a minority report filed. I was one of the 

signatories of the minority report, and I am happy to discuss in detail my reasons for signing onto the minority report, but I would 

like to start off by emphasizing the number of areas where the 

Commission was unanimous in its recommendations to Congress, 

and I think those are critical to articulate. 

The Commission was unanimous in its recommendations for the 

use of increased tolling, congestion pricing, private investment, performance standards, enhanced use of performance standards, enhanced use of cost-benefit analyses, increasing our efforts to improve safety on our nation’s roads, streamlining the number of federal programs that are out there. As Commissioner Schenendorf 

mentioned, there are 108, and our Commission’s recommendations 

would reduce those down to 10. That is a significant streamlining. 

Increasing the speed of project delivery is something that the Commission is unanimous on, and I encourage you to carefully consider 

the recommendations that the Commission has made as a whole. 

But I would like to note from there that I believe that the nation 

is essentially on the verge of a major paradigm shift in the way 

that transportation services in the United States are going to be 

funded and managed. 

I believe that this largely will stem, partly, I would say, will 

stem from what I view as the political unfeasibility of raising fuel 

taxes at this time or in the foreseeable future. I predict that it is 

going to be very difficult to increase fuel taxes by anything other 

than a very small amount, perhaps not at all, in the future, for a 

couple of reasons. 

First of all, fuel prices are now very high, by historical standards, and I believe that the economic forces that are in place that 

cause those high fuel prices are not going away in the future, that 

they will remain sustained for the long term and that that will reduce the political feasibility of relying on the fuel taxes as we have 

in the past. 

Basically, what we are seeing is standard Economics 101 competition amongst various groups for a scarce resource driving up 

the price. There is a global price for crude oil, and we are seeing 

China, developing countries overall, but mainly China and India, 

increasing the demand for fuel, resulting in very high fuel prices 

that are not, in my view, going to be alleviated unless you believe 

that the rate of growth of those economies is going to slow. 

The middle class is growing in those countries quite rapidly. 

Along with the middle class growth comes increases in car ownership, the desire to own a car, and that will drive the demand for 

this type of fuel. We already have seen the truckers strike in the 

past couple of days regarding high fuel prices, so I think that gives 

us some indication. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
887 

The second point is Mr. Knollenberg’s point regarding the 

regressivity of fuel taxes. There was a 2007 study done by the 

comptroller of the State of Texas which assessed all of the State 

of Texas’s taxes, which include sales taxes, franchise taxes, natural 

gas taxes, school property taxes, and, using standard measures of 

regressivity, the gas tax was the most regressive tax of all of those 

taxes. 

So I do not believe that the nation, at a time when it is concerned about enterprise and inequality, is going to significantly 

raise a tax that is that regressive. 

I believe that these also apply at the state level for fuel taxes. 

States are going to have that difficulty in raising the funds, but yet 

our Commission, and I think, again, unanimously, has understood 

the massive needs of the transportation system in the United 

States. So where is that funding going to come from? 

Well, clearly, in the short term, it is going to continue to come 

from fuel taxes, but over the longer term, I believe we are increasingly going to have to rely on alternative revenue sources. I believe 

those must come from increased use of pricing and toll concessions 

or public-private partnerships. Indeed, data indicate that this is already occurring. 

From 2000 to 2004, revenue from tolls increased 21 percent, 

while that from fuel taxes increased 2.4 percent, so a very significant difference in trends there. 

So I believe that what we should be doing, in a policy sense, is 

focusing on facilitating and managing this paradigm shift that I see 

occurring, and I believe our Commission has already laid the 

groundwork for that facilitation. As I mentioned, we unanimously 

support the use of tolls and toll concessions. 

This paradigm shift raises a host of important policy issues, a 

vast array, which would take me far too long than I have in my 

oral testimony here to discuss, but I believe it will raise important 

issues of regulation, and essentially our transportation system is a 

network industry, and the economics profession, from which I 

come, has a vast amount of experience with regulating network industries, such as telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas. 

To make a couple of concrete suggestions, just to suggest some 

of the nature of the things that I think we should be talking about, 

given that you believe there is a paradigm shift that is going to 

take place. 

First, regarding toll concessions, I believe we should avoid any 

type of rate-of-return regulation. Other industries have experimented with rate-of-return regulation. It has been used for a number of years, and those industries are moving away from rate-ofreturn regulation in favor of various types of what we call ‘‘incentive regulation,’’ regulation that is designed to give firm, solid incentives. Rate-of-return regulation is well known for generating a 

host of negative incentive effects, such as blunting the incentive to 

innovate, and I believe one thing our transportation system really, 

really needs is the incentive to innovate. 

I was impressed to learn on the Commission about the number 

of ways that innovation could be brought into our system, new materials for roads, faster use of electronic tolling. There is a whole 

host of innovations that could be brought in. Second, rate-of-return 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
888 

regulation has the effect of blunting incentives to keep costs down, 

so I think we need to avoid that. 

The second point that I would make, essentially in conclusion, is 

that flexibility in the way we approach this, I think, is key, and 

the new learning suggests that a sort of centralized, one-size-fitsall approach may not be the way that we want to go. 

Instead, we would want to adopt a flexible approach to this new 

paradigm, and I would just quote from a recent article that I was 

reading in a prestigious journal in economics called the Journal of 

Economic Literature. It is from the December 2006 issue. It is essentially a survey article that is surveying the economics literature 

on infrastructure regulation, and it is written by a New Zealander 

by the name of Graham Guthrie. 

It was just this quote that struck me about this. It says: ‘‘The 

two most important lessons to be drawn from the literature surveyed here are that there is no single combination of regulatory 

settings that is best in all situations and that the various components of a regulatory scheme are interrelated. The most appropriate regulatory scheme for a given situation will depend on the 

characteristics of the firm and the industry being regulated, as well 

as the institutional environment,’’ which, to me, suggests that a 

flexible approach in this case is warranted. 

So these are just some examples of things that I think we are 

going to have to confront in this new paradigm, and I hope those 

thoughts are helpful. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
889 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1052 here 43749A.774
890 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1053 here 43749A.775
891 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1054 here 43749A.776
892 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1055 here 43749A.777
893 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1056 here 43749A.778
894 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1057 here 43749A.779
895 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1058 here 43749A.780
896 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1059 here 43749A.781
897 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you. Mr. Heminger. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Knollenberg, Members of the Committee. In my brief testimony, I 

would like to describe four of the 10 new surface transportation investment categories that Jack mentioned in his that would telescope the program from over 100 down to 10, and, in a way, they 

are our answer to the question which we thought was critical in 

our work: How do you define the federal interest in surface transportation? 

The first of these new programs has the working title of ‘‘Metropolitan Mobility,’’ and, in simple terms, it is designed to decongest 

our major urban areas. We have focused on major metropolitan 

areas with more than one million residents in our work. These 50 

or so areas capture an astonishing 90 percent of national market 

share for three key transportation indicators: traffic congestion, 

transit ridership, and population exposure to air pollution. In a 

nutshell, these major metros are where the action is. 

We think the nation should set ambitious targets to reduce traffic congestion in these areas, not just slow the rate of increase. As 

former transportation secretary and Congressman Norm Manetta 

has said, alas, another authorizer, ‘‘Congestion is not a fact of life.’’ 

The second program area is traffic safety, one that Rick touched 

on, where our track record as a nation is really a tragedy. Every 

year, as you well know, 40,000 of our fellow citizens die on the nation’s highways, which is equivalent to a 9/11 every month, month 

after month, year after year. 

In addition to the horrible human cost, the economic consequences are enormous. According to a study released just last 

month by Triple A, the annual cost of traffic crashes in lost earnings, medical bills, and other economic impacts is nearly two and 

one-half times the annual cost of traffic congestion in the nation’s 

urban areas. 

Our Commission report proposes, again, a performance-based, 

outcome-oriented approach, an aggressive but achievable goal of 

cutting traffic fatalities in half by 2025. We can reach that goal, 

but only if the combined might and muscle of our federal, state, 

and local governments are brought to bear. 

When it comes to the third area that I would like to discuss 

briefly, environmental protection and enhancement, the Federal 

Surface Transportation program, in a way, is living in the worst of 

both worlds: too much process and too few results. On the process 

side, the average time to complete an environmental impact statement for a highway project is about five years. Perversely, it can 

take even longer for environmentally friendly rail extensions to run 

the gauntlet of the Federal New Starts program. 

The process is clearly taking too long, and with construction inflation running a seven to 10 percent a year, it is costing us a boat 

load of money. In this area, I would like to acknowledge that there 

is actually a fifth member of our Commission present, Tom Skanky, 

from the great state of Nevada, and it was Tom’s special passion 

to have us focus in this area. 

We fully support maintaining all of the relevant environmental 

standards that govern how and where we build transportation 

projects, but our report contains a series of detailed recommendaVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00897 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
898 

tions for complying with those standards in ways that are both 

faster and smarter. 

On the results side, the transportation sector is the fastest-growing and largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United 

States, and while this Congress is to be commended for raising 

CAFE standards for the first time in decades last year, much more 

will need to be done in the transportation arena to confront the 

challenge of global warming. 

For our part, we recommend a new federal investment program 

called ‘‘Environmental Stewardship.’’ This program would consolidate several existing categories, but it would represent a larger 

percentage of total funding in the Federal Surface Transportation 

program because of the importance we place on maximizing both 

the economic and environmental potential of the nation’s transportation system. 

The fourth, and final, area I would like to touch on is energy security, which has become a critical transportation issue. As you 

know, the nation’s mobility is largely dependent on gasoline and 

diesel fuel, and the transportation sector accounts for two-thirds of 

U.S. petroleum use. Federal transportation policy must work in 

tandem with national energy policy to reduce reliance on petroleum 

fuels. 

Our Commission recommends that a transportation energy re- search and development program be authorized for $200 million 

annually over the next decades, as was recommended by another 

bipartisan Commission on National Energy Policy in 2004. While 

this use of federal fuel tax funds would be unprecedented, it is a 

strategy that the public supports. 

We have talked a little bit about the fuel tax already this afternoon. I would draw your attention to polling conducted last year by 

the New York Times and CBS News, which found that 64 percent 

of Americans would be willing to pay higher gas taxes if the money 

were used for research into renewable energy sources, and the investment would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil. 

In conclusion, let me say this: The inefficiencies and underinvestment that plague the nation’s transportation network are not just 

about concrete, asphalt, and steel. They jeopardize our national security, they damage our ability to compete in a global economy, and 

they harm our enviable quality of life. We simply cannot afford to 

pass this problem on to the next generation. As Jack indicated at 

the outset, the time to act is now. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
899 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1065 here 43749A.782
900 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1066 here 43749A.783
901 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1067 here 43749A.784
902 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1068 here 43749A.785
903 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1069 here 43749A.786
904 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1070 here 43749A.787
905 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1071 here 43749A.788
906 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1072 here 43749A.789
907 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1073 here 43749A.790
908 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1074 here 43749A.791
909 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1075 here 43749A.792
910 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1076 here 43749A.793
911 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1077 here 43749A.794
912 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1078 here 43749A.795
913 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1079 here 43749A.796
914 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1080 here 43749A.797
915 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you very much. There is an old psychological 

experiment—by the way, I am just making a quick comment and 

then I will go into—questions as quickly as possible. There is an 

old psychological experiment, a list of things that the person being 

tested is asked to remember. You can remember the first and the 

second and maybe the third and the last and everything else in between, which is why we only have four people. I am not even sure 

that I can remember what all four of you will have said. But, I particularly enjoy you, Steve Heminger, for putting it in four clear 

items, which I can actually jot down quickly enough along the way. 

I want to ask a couple of quick questions. Jack, you have said, 

and I must have misunderstood this the first time, you had said 

at least 225 billion per year and I think that growing over the period of 50 years is 340 or something like that. Is that roughly correct? 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. No. The range of our findings found that 

what we needed to invest was in the range of 225 billion a year 

to 340 billion a year, depending upon how much pricing you do. If 

you do maximum pricing, that forces the number down to about 

225 billion. If you did no pricing at all, you would be up in the 340 

billion range. 

Mr. OLVER. But that implies sort of a jump from where we are 

now. 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OLVER. But this is 225 billion of federal, state, and local investment, where our present investment in those three areas is 

roughly this year 85 or 86 billion dollars. That is two-and-a-half 

times, right in one jump. In my understanding of this, I thought 

you were going to maybe 125, a 50 percent increase, and then going 

up by a percent, a couple of percent per year until you got to a 

higher number. 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. Well, I would say that, obviously, as this program, if Congress enacted something similar to this, it would have 

to be a transition period, in which the rules were changing, the 

programs were changing, and obviously the funding would be 

changing. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. So, we did not say absolutely have it be a 

step jump. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. But, obviously, it has to phase up to that 

level pretty quickly. 

Mr. OLVER. Then let me just ask Mr. Geddes, you said, you gave 

a list of things that the Commission was unanimous about. There 

was a whole group, longer than just four, seven or eight. And then 

you said later, that you had thought unanimous, is that correct, on 

the issue that we need a substantially increased investment in 

service transportation? Is the idea that we need to go up to that 

level of 225, is that agreed to by the Commission, as a whole—— 

Mr. GEDDES. I do not think the specific—— 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. In the terms that Schenendorf has said? 

Mr. GEDDES. I believe what we all agree on is the need for substantial increases in investment. The particular number—— 

Mr. OLVER. Particularly for the number of the—— 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
916 

Mr. GEDDES. Right, right. I am happy to go into the discussion 

of why. As Commissioner Schenendorf said, the 225 billion dollar 

number is based on the use of tolling. One of the recommendations 

of the minority report is that the proceeds from tolling be used on 

transportation, but that number does not assume that there proceeds are, in fact, used on transportation. 

I have sort of more of a conceptual problem with the notion that 

we can simply take a step back and say here are the needs of the 

system. As an economist, the term ‘‘needs’’ to me is a very alien, 

foreign term. I think more in terms of the demand, what are people 

willing to pay for, like the way we would have any other good provided. So, you can come up with models that say any positive net 

present value project should be funded and those are needs, but I 

am not sure I believe that the—— 

Mr. OLVER. I understand what you are saying. That complicates 

my characterization here a good deal. My understanding was that 

the Commission on the issue of transit is suggesting that we should 

be doing somewhere between 26 and 40, 45 billion dollars per year, 

which is a big step up. But, again, it is sort of like that two-anda-half times step upward for transit purposes and I am putting in 

the back of my mind exactly what you said. But, we are now this 

year going to be—the request is 10 billion dollars now for this year. 

In the case of rail, which is Frank’s major role, we have a hard 

time coming up with 500 million for capital investment in passenger rail, which is Amtrak, and the terrible fight about it every 

year. We have done exactly nothing on high-speed rail in this country. That whole thing in a balanced transportation system has not 

been touched. And I think your recommendation there, as a Commission, or at least the majority now—I am accepting that maybe 

the minority does not agree with these kinds of needs within your 

caveats—that that should be somewhere in the seven, eight billion 

dollars year on an ongoing basis. 

My goodness, I note that Korea, in two-and-a-half years with its 

new program opened from Puson to Seoul, has gotten up to 40 million passengers per year. And we, and all of Amtrak, which we 

have been struggling with, like a fishbone caught in our throat, 

have not reached—well, we have gotten to about 26 million passengers per year for the whole system. But, we refuse to put more 

than a half a billion dollars per year in the capital funding and 

that is saying nothing about freight rail and so on. 

The Assistant Secretary this morning gave us a table, which 

showed the erosion of the trust fund over the years, in particular 

that erosion has been dramatic since the 2005 SAFETLU was 

adopted and now we are going to, in this year, be within a margin 

of error, essentially, on what money gets funded. It is gone in the 

fiscal year 2009. So, the crux of the issue is how you fund this. 

Whatever it is, our needs, our demands, however you put it, the 

crux is the possible funding. That is enough for me. Mr. Knollenberg. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the Commission report, there were several recommendations, and this is for 

Mr. Schenendorf, by the way, several recommendations to increase 

revenues to support the multi-modal trust fund, one of which was 

the levying of a federal ticket tax on all transit and passenger and 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
917 

rail trips and the imposition of a federal freight fee to finance 

freight-related improvements, plus the redirection of a share of 

Customs taxes paid on all imports, increases in container fees, 

state fuel taxes, and other highway user fees and the use of variable pricing on the tolling mechanisms. However, out of all of 

these, the most talked about, I believe, was the Commission’s recommendation to increase the federal gasoline tax by at least 40 

cents a gallon, as they pointed out, to be phased over five years, 

et cetera. Whatever taxes are imposed or increased, the impact on 

many segments of society can be very severe. Before making this 

recommendation, did the Commission have experts to do an indepth analysis of the differential impacts that a 40 cent per gallon 

federal gasoline tax or, in fact, any other proposed tax, user fee, increase would have on families of low, median, and very low income? 

If so, what were their findings and, if not, do you not think that 

the economic and social impacts on those least able to afford the 

tax should be a critical factor in your analysis and your final outcome? 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. Yes. I mean, I think you have stated correctly 

that we did have a wide range of recommendations on the tax area. 

Our recommendation on the fuel tax was 25 cents to 40 cents, depending upon whether it is 225 or the 340, somewhere in that 

range, five to eight cents a gallon over five years. I would say that 

we do have an extensive analysis of a number of different factors 

of a number of different ways that are in our report. We have an 

entire chapter on it. It goes through this analysis. 

I would disagree with the gas tax being the most regressive way 

to fund this program. First of all, these investments help America. 

We have to have a strong economy. You cannot have that without 

having a strong surface transportation system. So, everybody—the 

jobs that people have, how much they are able to earn, how we are 

willing to compete in the world, how much money we have for education, how much money we have for national defense all flows 

from a strong national economy and you cannot have a first-class 

economy with a second- or third-class transportation system. So, 

everybody benefits by those investments in that system. 

The question is what is the fairest way to do it. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. That is what I am coming to. 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. And when you have a national network the 

way we do, having everybody pay through a gas tax, spreads it out 

over the widest base, so that people are actually paying less than 

they might otherwise pay. Compare this to congestion pricing. Congestion pricing is the most regressive. That is imposing a fee that 

basically is forcing people to not be able to drive. So, when you congestion price, it is the lowest in society that are not going to be 

able to use those lanes. The hot lanes in Northern Virginia— 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I understand that. But the gas tax is the one 

that impacts people. We have people in Michigan, for example, that 

do not have a job. They do not have to pay the gas tax. But, those 

that do are paying mightily, because now with gasoline prices 

above 3.50, and this is just one tax, I talked about several options 

or recommendations you made here. But, I do think if they piggyback, let us say, all the others—let us take the gasoline tax, the 

transit tax, the passenger-rail—the state fuel tax and the federal 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
918 

tax ticket on transit, those are others, if they parallel, in fact, come 

along with the gasoline tax, you have got yourself a severe problem, I think, with the low, the median income people. 

You are saying investment. Now, tax may be one way of investing; but, honestly, there are other things that can be done besides 

taxing people. 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. Well, I think that it is a question of what is 

the fairest overall way at the end of the day. If you just look at 

this hot lane project in Northern Virginia, this 14 miles that has 

been touted as a national model, if you take the gas tax, let us take 

it at the high end, the 40 cents per gallon, let us say that a driver 

gets 20 miles to the gallon, let us say they drive 20,000 miles a 

year, that driver would pay about two cents per mile. It would pay 

a total of about 400 dollars. The average price to just use those 

new lanes on the Beltway are five to six dollars a day. That is 120 

dollars a month. That is 1,400 a year. That is three times what the 

gas tax would cost over the year just to drive on that one segment 

of the Beltway. So, all of these approaches are going to cost more. 

The question is only what is the best way, as a society, to pay for 

all of this. 

What we are recommending is a combination, try to use the gas 

tax, try to use other things, use tolling in some places, congestion 

pricing in others, but try to do it in a balanced way, so that obviously if you are going to use congestion pricing, you are going to 

need transit in that area. You may need to subsidize people for 

transit. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Let me interrupt, Mr. Schenendorf. I want to 

go to Mr. Geddes real quickly for a quick question. I hear you, but 

I also know that—Mr. Geddes, you mentioned in your comments 

that the federal gas tax is a very highly regressive tax in the sense 

of how it disproportionately hits the poor. Other than the study 

conducted by the Controller of Texas, in your research, were you 

able to locate any national or regional data regarding by which 

such attacks would impact the low-income family and, if so, can 

you tell us quickly? 

Mr. GEDDES. Yes. Thank you, very much, for the question. I 

asked the chief economist at the U.S. Department of Transportation to help me out on a literature search on this and we sort 

of did it together and the best we were able to do, in terms of a 

rigorous—there is standard way of measuring regressivity of a tax 

in public finance. It is something called a suit’s index. And the only 

thing that we were able to find that compared these types of taxes 

was for the State of Texas. I can go back and try to do a more exhaustive survey, if you would find that helpful. But, basically, the 

best we could do was Texas. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. That survey would be interesting. If you can 

supply some information relative to that, we would like to have it. 

Mr. GEDDES. Yes, sir. I would be happy to. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Geddes. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Mr. Knollenberg, can any of the rest of us get in 

on this question? 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I think the Chairman rules on time. 

Mr. OLVER. Go ahead. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
919 

Mr. HEMINGER. And, look, I am not an economist, but the way 

I look at the issue is this. The federal gas tax is 18 cents. It was 

raised to that level in 1993 when the average retail price for gasoline in America was about one dollar. It is now over three. That 

two dollar runup has probably been regressive, but not a penny of 

it has benefitted the people paying that charge. There is no investment in infrastructure out of any of that money and quite a bit of 

it is going to places that are meaning to do us harm, not benefit. 

The way I look at it, to the extent there is some regressivity in the 

tax, if it is, as a user fee should be, benefitting the people who pay 

it, by reinvesting in the transportation system, then I think you 

start to see both sides of the equation. What we have been doing 

for the last decade or more is just watching the price go up and 

getting nothing for it. I mean, in my neighborhood, the price goes 

up five cents over the weekend and our recommendation is five 

cents per year to try to invest in our infrastructure. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Looking back to deal with things—what you 

are looking backward at, you are right, it is not that much money 

and by going to 40 cents, it would not be that much more. But, 

along with that does not just come a gas tax, it comes from other 

taxes, too, that are added on. I just relayed what some of those 

were. So, we are going to get more than just a gas tax. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Congressman, you are correct and all I would ask 

you to do is to weigh the cost and the benefit—— 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Well, that is what I am going to do. 

Mr. HEMINGER [continuing]. Because what—— 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. That is exactly what we want— 

Mr. HEMINGER [continuing]. We have been doing for the last 

many decades now is we have not been paying the cost, at least 

not to the government. We have been paying it to the oil companies. But, we have also not gotten the benefit, because our system 

is falling apart. 

Mr. OLVER. Let me go to Mr. Obey here and we will let you answer something in the next round. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Okay, all right. 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me confess to be absolutely rabidly biased on this issue. I am not in the slightest bit 

neutral on this issue. I do not like the gas tax, but I have spent 

virtually all of my career fighting politicians, who want to get credit for the benefits of public services that they provide without also 

being willing to take credit for the revenues that it requires in 

order to provide those benefits. And I spent a good deal of time in 

my state legislature arguing with the governor, who wanted to borrow like crazy to build highways today and stick a successor with 

the necessity to pay for them tomorrow. And I have had a bellyful 

of that kind of public service. 

And with respect to regressivity, I do not think there is anything 

in the transportation area quite as regressive as high user fees or 

tolls, which can literally price out of use the lowest income people 

in this population. That is the point that you were making. 

Another thing I detest about this town is euphemisms. And we 

have all of these wonderful terms that we use, public-private partnerships, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. Mr. Busalacchi and anybody else, who wants to comment, when we talk about public-priVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00919 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
920 

vate partnerships, would you do me a favor and cut through the 

bull gravy and tell me exactly what they mean? What are they? Is 

there a consistent model? Do they mean privatization of our public 

highways and other public infrastructure? Does it mean loss of 

public ownership or what public rights are lost? You mentioned the 

Hot Lanes on the Capital Beltway. Who is the private entity involved in that plan? How will it work? Who will own the roadway? 

What are the benefits to taxpayers and road users who have already paid for the Beltway? Is it true that such contracts last decades? 

I understand, up to now, many of the companies who are involved in these deals are foreign-owned and controlled. Is that 

true? How much foreign ownership is there in existing public-private partnerships? What does this mean for control of our infrastructure by the federal government, by state and local government? Those are just a few of the questions that are bugging me. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Well, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I just—what the 

Commission, I think one of the key things that we had talked 

about for me was that I was not going to agree to that language 

unless it was left up to the states. And I think the report specifically says that it is up to the states, if they want to do it or not. 

It is obvious in our state, we do no tolls. We made a policy decision. 

So, the public-private partnerships are off the table. We do not 

want congestion pricing either, because we think it is punishing 

and it is punitive on the taxpayer. 

I have an awful lot of distrust for public-private partnerships. I 

made it very obvious in various discussions that we had on it. I do 

not believe that there is any good that comes of it. And as I have 

said in earlier testimony in front of the T&I committee, this is all 

about making money. This is not what is doing the right thing. We 

need to do the right thing here. I deal with this every single day. 

Nothing against the rest of the Commissioners, but I am a DOT 

secretary. Our infrastructure is in terrible condition. We are dealing with it in the State of Wisconsin each and every day. We can 

have economic theories and everything else, but I deal with it every 

day. Projects that—an interstate system that we built—— 

Mr. OBEY. If I could interrupt. You will probably deal with this 

even worse, because our legislature was so mindless that they 

eliminated indexing. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Absolutely. You are absolutely right and it was 

a terrible, terrible decision on their part. But, we put roads up in 

the 1960s that cost 80 million dollars. We are replacing them for 

800. This is going on throughout the United States today. There is 

no way that we will get to the finish line here unless we make a 

significant investment. 

And Steve is right, we will get something for that investment. 

When this Commission started, the price of oil was 50 dollars a 

barrel. It is over 100 dollars now, in two years. We have to deal 

with this. And I understand this is not going to be an easy decision. Raising taxes is never an easy decision. But for the good of 

the country, we have to make this investment. It is an investment. 

And if at the end of the day, public-private partnerships and some 

of these other things are part of the mix, they are part of what is 

in the toolbox, that is fine. But, I can tell you that they will only 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
921 

be a very, very small piece of this enormous problem that we have 

right now. 

Mr. GEDDES. Mr. Chairman, I would really like to respond to 

your point. On the lingo, I am with you 100 percent. Call it what 

it is, whether you want to—a lot of people use toll concessions as 

the term. I think of it as just a long-term lease, where the public 

entity remains in control through the lease, the same way a landlord remains in control of their property through a lease through 

a renter. Even though toll concessions can be very long and two 

projects in the United States have had long leases, those toll concession agreements can be renegotiated at any time. And they are, 

they have been, in fact, renegotiated. So, the toll concession agreement allows the public entity to remain in control of the infrastructure even though there is a private investor providing the capital 

that we so sorely need. The Commission agrees that we sorely need 

capital to come into this activity and to fund bridges, roads, and 

tunnels, and refurbish what we already have. We can get that capital—— 

Mr. OBEY. But, you, also, have to divert part of what is collected 

for the profit for a private entity. It seems to me that that is a losing proposition, in terms of the dollars available for investing in 

public service. 

Mr. GEDDES. Typically, you only fund these projects through taxfree municipal debt, which means, of course, the federal government does not get the tax on that debt, but it also means there is 

no equity investment. So, you are going to get less investment, if 

you do not have equity holders. You are giving the equity holders 

an expected rate of return, but you are getting a massive additional 

amount of capital because of the compensation, the rate of return. 

But, I wanted to make a more fundamental point, which is we 

are talking about development of China and India. And as we all 

know, they are developing their infrastructure like crazy. I heard 

somebody say 90 new airports are coming in, in China, roads, 

bridges, tunnels, all over the place. That is not being paid for with 

the fuel tax. That is all being done with private investment. And 

the predominant model for funding these things—— 

Mr. OBEY. Well, the Chinese government’s economy, it is a government that could not care less about the needs of the poor. 

Mr. GEDDES. Well, I am happy—I do want to discuss—I am 

happy to discuss the—if we could put the equity issue aside for just 

a second, I just want to note that if we go to France, if we go to 

Spain, if we go to Chile, if we go to Korea, we go to Japan, the way 

that they fund this—we go to China, the way they fund this in 

these countries is with these long-term leases, these toll concessions through private investment. But, I would also add, in the 

United States, in other network industries, I know we are all 

thinking about transportation, but if we go to other—to an economist, other industries that are similar in structure, such as electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, that infrastructure is 

funded through private investment. It is only this one part of the 

global economy that is funded through this fuel tax mechanism. 

And I am suggesting that this paradigm shift needs to be facilitated to make it consistent with what we do not only in other countries, but in other industries. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
922 

I would just like to say something about the regressivity of the 

congestion toll, if I may. There are people, who represent the south 

Bronx and some of the poorest communities in New York City that 

are supporting Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal for congestion pricing, 

because it helps them. The poor disproportionately take public 

transit. And when the roads are smoothly rolling, the buses and 

all, they go smoothly, as well. So, congestion pricing is actually a 

progressive tax. The people that drive into the city of New York are 

disproportionately wealthy and the tax would hit them. So, I think 

it is inaccurate to say that the congestion pricing is regressive. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Schenendorf. 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. Well, I mean, I fundamentally disagree with 

that. Congestion pricing is set at a level to basically ration the system, so people, who have lesser means, can afford to drive on the 

road. But, to your original question, I mean, there are all sorts of— 

these are basically private tolling, giving leases for private tolling. 

There are all sorts of different arrangements. You really have to 

look at each one individually. What we tried to do in the Commission report is find a balance where there is a place for private investment, there is a place for tolling, but only where conditions are 

met that aligns it with the public interest. 

One of our concerns has been that some of these arrangements 

to date have had some real problems. In the Chicago skyway, part 

of those tolls are being used to pay off the debt of the City of Chicago and for home heating oil subsidies. In New Jersey, we heard 

about increases in toll rates that would be used to pay off the debt, 

so you have drivers basically paying off the debt of New Jersey and 

the governor, in his press conference, stated that that was okay, 

because it would be out-of-state people and commercial people that 

would be paying for it. That is the kind of balkinization that the 

Constitution was meant to overcome from the Articles of Confederation, that type of sectionalism and regionalism where everybody 

just taxes people as they please. 

And the other item I just wanted to mention was that we do 

have recommendations that there be limits. I think the 80–year, 

90–year concessions are in issue. And I think, also, in this hot lane 

proposal, that revenue stream that is being generated by that congestion pricing, there is no limit on the amount of profits that that 

private company can make for that 80-year period. So, they have 

an incentive to raise those prices as much as possible. There is a 

sliver of it that would go back to the state when it goes over a certain amount. But, the bulk of those profits, the bulk of those revenues would go—and that is a revenue stream that has lost the infrastructure for 80 years. 

Mr. OLVER. We are going to have to stop here for a series of 

votes. But, I was going to let Mr. Heminger have a comment. We 

have not yet had—we have a few minutes yet. But, those of you, 

who are walking out, when we come back, we will go to five minutes for anybody, who comes back. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Mr. Chairman, very quickly. I will sidestep the 

theological debate. But, just very practically, about half of that 

shortfall that you mentioned at the outset, doing your math, is rehabilitation of the existing systems. There are not a lot of investment bankers, who want to pay for that. That is going to need pubVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00922 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
923 

lic funding. A lot of the expansion that we need to do in America 

is public transit and a lot of public transit projects, as you know, 

operate at a loss, not a surplus. So, I think the very important 

practical point is that there are a class of projects, highway expansion, freight expansion in high growth areas, where there will be 

a pretty big revenue stream generated by tolls or fees, where public-private partnerships I think will make sense. I would say that 

in the majority of cases, all the rehabilitation, most of the public 

transit, the model does not work. 

So, we can argue until the cows come home about whether it is 

a good public policy or not, but my sense is that in most cases, we 

are going to need robust public funding from somewhere, if we are 

going to make the investment. 

Mr. OLVER. Okay. We are going to need to recess probably for 

about half an hour. I think it will be—if we have this correct, the 

next several votes will go fairly quickly. But, we will be back here 

as soon as we can. I am interested that you have tried to avoid the 

theology. 

[Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.] 

Mr. OLVER. We are a little bit breathless here, but I think we 

have everyone here that wanted to go back. Ms. Kaptur? 

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, thank 

you, very much, for being with us today. I think I walked into the 

room at the point at which Commissioner Heminger was stating 

our over reliance on oil and I could not agree with you more. It is 

interesting, I recall that the Exxon-Mobile profits last year were 40 

billion dollars, 40.6 billion dollars, the largest profit of any corporation in American history. And what I really do not understand is 

why, when we have seen gas prices rise from 2.16 cents a year ago, 

I paid 3.50 last year or 3.58, whatever it was—I am the pump 

thinking not a penny of this is going to benefit the country. And 

I do not understand why we do not have some type of mechanism, 

or I wanted to ask you what that might be, but these rising—we 

could impose a windfall profits tax on these companies. I would 

vote for it in a heartbeat and my constituents would all cheer. So, 

that is one solution. 

Another one is to have some kind of indexing formula, in terms 

of these rising prices. I would be interested if you have any suggestions on how to do that. 

I, also, wanted to just mention that I went to an excellent presentation in my district recently of firms that are involved in highspeed rail, passenger rail around the world, not so much here in 

the United States. It was really disappointing. And they went 

through what was done. One project in France, they were connecting, I think, from Paris to Strausburg, just really magnificent. 

If you are familiar of what they are doing there, any of you have 

any knowledge of these systems around the world? And your ideas 

for financing high-speed passenger rail across this country separated from freight. We have a particular problem in the Pittsburgh, 

Cleveland, Toledo, Ft. Wayne, Gary, Chicago corridor, in that we 

have to share track with freight. It is an impossibility. Passenger 

will never work unless it has its own right-of-way. Any thoughts 

there about how to work between states, a consortium of states? 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
924 

We would like to have a high speed that gets up to Kenosha there 

around the lake and how we would do that. 

So, the first question, what are the options for moving some of 

those higher gas prices out of the pockets of Exxon and into public 

infrastructure in this country? Any thoughts on how best to do 

that? And then, secondly, high speed way, options for financing. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Ms. Kaptur, maybe I can try the first. I know 

Frank Busalacchi, I am sure, can do the second. If I could just note 

a personal privilege here. I grew up in Toledo, so I am happy to 

be talking to you here. 

Ms. KAPTUR. No wonder I agree with so much of what you say. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Look, there are two ways, you mentioned one of 

them, to try to deal with the issue that we have an excised tax. 

That is how we fund transportation, per gallon tax. And it loses 

pace, because unless you vote to raise the rate, you fall behind. 

One way to do it is with indexing and several states have enacted 

indexing. Some of them, as you have heard from Mr. Obey, have 

repealed it, as well, as enacting it, when they find that it does not 

quite work the way they like. But, that is a way that we do recommend. If the Congress is going to adjust the fuel rate, to index 

it, so that you do not have to keep doing it all the time. 

A second would be to have an ad valorem tax, which we have in 

California. Our sales tax in California is also levied on gasoline. 

And pursuant to a ballot measure we enacted a few years ago, that 

money is now dedicated to transportation and that revenue source 

have been growing like gangbusters, as you might imagine, with 

the price going up. So, if we had something that was sensitive either to the price of the fuel or was indexed to use or was indexed 

to the construction cost index, if we had something that would get 

past the hurdle of a Congress or a legislature every couple of years 

having to actually take a vote and raise the rate, that is why, in 

part, we have not seen an increase in the federal tax since 1993. 

So, we recommend all of those kinds of strategies to you, as something that if we are going to swallow the pill, and none of us are 

here suggesting that it is an easy thing to do, let see if we can 

swallow a pill that will have some sting power and not lose 25 percent of its purchasing power. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Sir, if I could interrupt you, what if the federal government were to require indexing as a condition of their receipt of 

federal dollars back to the states? What if we were to make it uniform? 

Mr. HEMINGER. Well, I think one way to have the states follow 

is for the federal government to lead, frankly. And if the Congress 

were to enact indexing, I think you would see a lot of states following along, in part, because, if you look at some of—the volume 

of revenue increases that we are recommending are very substantial, because the needs are very substantial. If Congress were to act 

in anything like that amount, the states would have to follow, because they have to match it just to come up with the money. So, 

your leadership will have a cascading effect around the nation. 

Ms. KAPTUR. I know my time has expired, but does anybody want 

to take a stab at the rail question? 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. I will do that. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, sir. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
925 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. And thank you for asking the question. 

Ms. KAPTUR. You are welcome. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. I think it is important to remember that we are 

experiencing in this country right now a significant upsurge in people riding passenger rail, intercity passenger rail in this country. 

The numbers in all the corridors are up and we do not anticipate 

them coming down. As gas prices go up, our numbers in passenger 

rail are going to go up. 

We submitted a plan to the Commission that the Commission accepted. And I say ‘‘we,’’ we formed this passenger rail working 

group while the Commission was going on. We submitted that report and the Commission accepted the report. We have to work this 

out with the freight rails. Now, I understand that being on their 

track is very difficult and that is why our suggestion is that we 

have expansion, that we add track. It will be costly, it will be costly, but we need to do this. And if we do this, the trains will operate 

on time and the number of people riding trains will increase. But 

at the present time, it is not going to work unless we incorporate 

this with the freight rails. We cannot fight over this. We would be 

wasting way too much time if we did this. But, we must have expansion of that system. And that is what we are—that is what our 

rail working group is suggesting, segment this in these 500-mile 

corridors, where there is congestion, where there is a lot of people. 

And if we do that, if we do that, we feel that eventually, eventually, Congress will see that this has been very successful, because 

we are convinced it will be successful, and then maybe we can talk 

in terms of what our friends in California are talking about, where 

they are talking about super high-speed rail. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. But right now—— 

Ms. KAPTUR. What they are doing in France is phenomenal. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. It is phenomenal, but I do not think it is realistic for this sector right now. I think we are talking in terms of 

90 mile an hour trains here, not 200 mile an hour. 

Ms. KAPTUR. I am into the 200–300 mile per hour. 

Mr. BUSALACCHI. And I am, too. I love them. I have gone over 

to Europe. I have been to China. I have been to Japan. I think they 

are terrific. But, to get this program moving now, we will not be 

able to do that. I think it is important for us to understand that 

as the gas prices go up, we are asking ourselves what is the tipping 

point. What is really going to be that significant point that we are 

going to get to where people are going to say, I am not going to 

drive anymore. If I have to go to Pittsburgh from wherever, I am 

going to take the train. They are doing it in Milwaukee, from Milwaukee to Chicago. And when that happens, though, are we ready? 

And we are not. Amtrak will come in here right now and they will 

tell you that they are not ready. If we have a mass exodus of people 

from the automobile to get on to intercity passenger rail, we are 

not ready. We need to make this significant investment, add capacity. It will be money that will be well worth it to give people an 

option, give them an alternative to the car. 

Ms. KAPTUR. I think Mr. Schenendorf wanted to comment. 

Mr. SCHENENDORF. Yes. I just wanted to say that I think in our 

studies, we concluded that it was absolutely essential to have highVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:41 Oct 03, 2008 Jkt 043749 PO 00000 Frm 00925 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A749P2.XXX A749P2

smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
926 

speed rail in these dense corridors. You could not solve the transportation problems without that and that is why we recommended 

paying for it from the trust fund, because it benefitted all of the 

roads that are in that corridor by taking people off the highways 

and it was absolutely essential to have that high-speed rail. 

Ms. KAPTUR. Let me just place on the record—— 

Mr. OLVER. We have some votes that are going to be counted. We 

have two people, who need to make their comments—— 

Ms. KAPTUR. All right, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that—— 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. Here before we can all let these folks off. 

Ms. KAPTUR [continuing]. The report only says 110 miles per 

hour. I would not agree with that. I think it should be double that, 

minimum. 

Mr. OLVER. I am going to take a few minutes and then give a 

few minutes to Mr. Knollenberg. We probably have 10 or 15 and 

then we are going to let you go, because we at least have now seen 

all of your faces and we can get back to you with follow-up questions. Mr. Geddes, the majority here is saying a full set of mechanisms. You have gone, you have indicated for the wide range of 

funding using tolling, congestion, fuel tax, private-public partnerships, and so on, in whatever form they happen to turn up in and 

a bunch of other things. The minority, in its minority statement, 

did not include fuel tax at all. Is that a case where you do not believe fuel tax should go up at all or are you thinking that it should 

go up in some modest way in the meantime? Because, at one point, 

you made the comment that it was a key part of the funding mix 

for a period of time. Are you just seeing that as just becoming an 

ever smaller piece of the mix with never a change in the 18.4 cent? 

Because, it looked as if the minority position was no fuel tax addition. 

Mr. GEDDES. I think the position that I have, as a member of the 

minority, is that the fuel taxes will remain in place and they will 

remain a mechanism—— 

Mr. OLVER. At 18 or are they going to go up? 

Mr. GEDDES. Federal fuel tax at 18.4 cents a gallon. 

Mr. OLVER. That is the position of—— 

Mr. GEDDES. Right. 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. The minority? 

Mr. GEDDES. Right. And they will continue to be in place. They 

will not be reduced. 

Mr. OLVER. At the moment, roughly 40 billion dollars a year 

comes into the trust fund and we send it out into the transit fund 

and into highway fund, the highway, part of the transit fund—excuse me, the highway fund and the transit fund are part of the 

whole trust fund. And if we leave that exactly, that portion is going 

to continue to come down probably—— 

Mr. GEDDES. The federal portion. 

Mr. OLVER [continuing]. The federal portion, as we move to alternative fuels or to more efficient vehicles or whatever it happens to 

be. Now, the majority is saying, and you sort of—well, you do not 

agree, the majority is saying we have serious needs for our economy. And I wish I would have time to talk about how you all view 

the question of whether it is going to be an economic stimulus, because it is being talked about in the short term about economic 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
927 

stimulus, which is a different question. We have really been talking 

about the long term sorts of thing. If we do not raise revenues and 

we are trying to get to anything like the 225, which they are saying, then we are putting all of it on top of congestion pricing and 

a bunch of—and tolling and public-private partnerships and so 

forth. So, that is the position that basically, it is going to have to 

be on these other things, nothing more on the gasoline tax, right? 

Mr. GEDDES. Well, there are two issues essentially. One is the 

use of taxes to fund transportation, as opposed to prices or tolls. 

That is one. So, use of tax—the tax mechanism or a pricing tolling 

mechanism. 

Mr. OLVER. Well, I must say that I pretty much take the view 

that Mr. Heminger says, not quite perhaps as violently as Mr. 

Obey. But, one could go up, if not five cents, in lumps of five cents, 

one could go up a couple of cents per year, something like that, 

every couple of years or two or three years and it would be within 

less than 10 percent of the noise on the variation in gasoline taxes. 

It goes on. I do not see how we can get out of this without keeping 

the gasoline tax there, as an item, and I generally agree that it 

really prices very close to what the market is. You have the choice 

of whether you want to use your gas or not use your gas. 

Mr. GEDDES. As an economist, I simply believe that a more direct 

user fee is a better way go to. That is basically it. 

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Knollenberg, we are apparently—I am being told 

that we need to go back, because this vote is going to be reached 

quickly, most of the people there. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. So, how much time do I have? 

Mr. OLVER. Take two minutes. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. All right. 

Mr. OLVER. I will stand in front of the—— 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. This, to me, is a quick response, but let me 

try it. Thank you. Mr. Geddes, very quickly, if you could just answer this yes, no, maybe, or whatever. But with respect to tolling, 

do you agree that this would fundamentally alter what has always 

been a system that provides equal access and equal benefit to all, 

to one that would provide more access and benefits to the wealthy 

at the expense of the low and the moderate or low-income families, 

that tolling would do that? 

Mr. GEDDES. No, I absolutely disagree with that. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Okay. That is good, that is fine. Now, this 

next question for Mr. Heminger, if he would. One of the longest 

running debates that we have it seems is about the size of big government. And the Commission, I believe, recommended the creation 

of a sort of new federal bureaucracy, is that right—that is what I 

am calling it—that would operate outside of the executive and the 

legislative branches of government and it would be essentially in 

charge of establishing a national surface transportation policy. I 

am very concerned about that. I am concerned about the fact 

that—if you would just shed some light on what their power would 

be. For example, this new independent national service transportation commission, who would sit on this commission and how 

would those people be selected? My understanding is also that it 

requires a two-thirds vote, is that right? 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
928 

Mr. HEMINGER. Congressman, that whole idea came about after 

a lot of debate. The models we looked at were the BRAC process, 

which is a way for the Congress to deal with a very difficult political decision in sort of an up or down aggregate way and also at 

the Postal Regulatory Commission, which now has the power to set 

postal rates, which used to require an act of Congress. It is clearly 

probably the most radical idea that we suggested. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Is it just a recommendation then? 

Mr. HEMINGER. It is a recommendation, as are all of our recommendations. But, I will tell you, Congressman, that it was motivated by our concern about the inability of the Congress to raise 

the fuel tax and it was also motivated by our concern about the fact 

that we do not seem to have a national strategy for investing in 

transportation. We looked to that model of one way to accomplish 

those two things. There are doubtless other models to do so. So, we 

would not ask you to throw the whole baby out with the bath water 

on the basis of that one recommendation. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I assume it is something for consideration, 

then, consideration only, at the moment, and does two-thirds ring 

a bell, though, about the requirement? 

Mr. HEMINGER. Yes. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. That is two? 

Mr. HEMINGER. That is right. 

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Okay. With that, I conclude my questioning. 

Again, thank you all, very, very much. 

Mr. OLVER. Thank you, very much. We will let you go at this 

point. We all know where we can find you if we have follow-up 

questions. 


smartinez on PROD1PC60 with HEARING
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Busalacchi, Frank .................................................................................................... 857 

Geddes, R. R ............................................................................................................. 857 

Heminger, Steve ...................................................................................................... 857 

Peters, Hon. M. E .................................................................................................... 1 

Ray, James ............................................................................................................... 701 

Scheinberg, Phyllis .................................................................................................. 701 

Schenendorf, Jack .................................................................................................... 857 

Simpson, James ....................................................................................................... 701 

Sturgell, Robert ........................................................................................................ 329 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary 

Page 

Access of Rural Airports to NEXTGEN Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) .... 68 

Accessibility Issues (STB) ....................................................................................... 313 

Administrative Expenses (FTA) ............................................................................. 71 

Air Traffic Control Training ................................................................................... 41 

Air Traffic Control Workforce ................................................................................. 34 

Air Traffic Controller Fatigue ................................................................................. 64 

Air Traffic Controller Hiring .................................................................................. 54 

Airspace Separation ................................................................................................. 40 

Alaska Railroad (FTA) ............................................................................................ 233 

Alternatives to the Current Gasoline Tax ............................................................. 29 

Alternatives to Tolling Fees .................................................................................... 15 

Amtrak Presidential Emergency Board ................................................................. 37 

Annual Accident Data (FTA) .................................................................................. 103 

Appropriations History (MARAD) .......................................................................... 268 

Assistance to Small Shipyards (MARAD) .............................................................. 305 

Authorized New Start Projects (FTA) .................................................................... 94 

Ballast Water (MARAD) .......................................................................................... 306 

Budget ‘‘Object’’ Classification (STB) ..................................................................... 309 

Carry-Over Balances by Account (MARAD) .......................................................... 270 

Case Completion Timelines (STB) .......................................................................... 310 

Child Safety Seats ................................................................................................... 13 

Common Carrier Obligation (STB) ......................................................................... 323 

Congestion Reduction Initiative (FTA) .................................................................. 262 

Contingent Commitment Authority (FTA) ............................................................ 102 

Contracting (FTA) .................................................................................................... 266 

Coordination of Transportation Planning .............................................................. 69 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy .......................................................................... 11 

Corridors of the Future ........................................................................................... 27 

Cross Border Trucking.................................................................... 28, 31, 39, 42, 56, 66 

Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project ........................................................................... 17 

Economic Impact on the Gasoline Tax ................................................................... 14 

Enrollment in United States Merchant Marine Academy/State Maritime 

Schools .................................................................................................................. 302 

Essential Air Service ............................................................................................... 63 

Foreign Investment in U.S. Assets ......................................................................... 35 

Formula and Bus Funding (FTA) ........................................................................... 107 

FTE Request, FTE On-Board, and Vacancies (MARAD) ...................................... 273 

Full Funding Grant Agreements Funding (FTA) .................................................. 89 

Funding for SAFETEA–LU ..................................................................................... 10 

Funds Administered by MARAD ............................................................................ 271 

Grants to Mitigate Congestion................................................................................ 25, 31 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

iv 

Highway Bridges ...................................................................................................... 44 

Highway Congestion ................................................................................................ 57 

Information Technology (MARAD) ......................................................................... 305 

Integration of Rural Airports into NEXTGEN ...................................................... 68 

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (FTA) ............................................... 228 

MARAD Operations Funding Detail (MARAD) ..................................................... 270 

Marine Trade (MARAD) .......................................................................................... 303 

Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, Title XI (MARAD) .................................... 290 

Motorcycle Safety ..................................................................................................... 12 

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission......................................................................................................................... 13, 21 

New Freedom Program (FTA) ................................................................................ 230 

New Starts Funding for FY 2009 (FTA) ................................................................ 80 

Non-Defense Discretionary Spending .................................................................... 23 

North American Free Trade Agreement ................................................................ 51 

Number of Vessels on Ship Disposal List (MARAD) ............................................ 274 

Oil Discharges from Obsolete Vessels (MARAD) .................................................. 277 

Opening Statement by Chairman John W. Olver ................................................. 1 

Opening Statement by Mary E. Peters, Secretary, Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 4 

Opening Statement by Ranking Member Joe Knollenberg .................................. 3 

Outlay Rates for Designated Projects .................................................................... 17 

Outreach (STB) ........................................................................................................ 317 

Oversight Activities (FTA) ...................................................................................... 241 

Pending/Proposed Full Funding Grant Agreements Funding (FTA) ................... 93 

Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program ............................................................. 20 

Questions for the Record from Chairman John W. Olver .................................... 47 

Questions for the Record for the Federal Transit Administration ............... 71 

Questions for the Record for the Maritime Administration .......................... 268 

Questions for the Record for the Surface Transportation Board .................. 309 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Ciro Rodriguez .............................. 53 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Ed Pastor ...................................... 51 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Robert B. Aderholt ....................... 68 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Robert E. ‘‘Bud’’ Cramer .............. 58 

Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee (STB) ...................................... 314 

Recoveries (FTA) ...................................................................................................... 239 

Research and University Research Centers (FTA) ............................................... 243 

Retirement Projections (MARAD) .......................................................................... 274 

Risk Level and Location of Vessels on Ship Disposal List (MARAD) ................. 276 

Runway Incursions .................................................................................................. 24 

Savannah Disposal (MARAD) ................................................................................. 288 

Schoolship M&R (MARAD) ..................................................................................... 301 

Security Issues (FTA) .............................................................................................. 103 

Ship Construction Account (MARAD) .................................................................... 294 

Ship Disposal Appropriations and Distribution of Funds (MARAD) ................... 279 

Ship Disposal Deadline (MARAD) .......................................................................... 282 

Ship Disposal Funding and Costs (MARAD) ......................................................... 289 

Staffing (STB) .......................................................................................................... 310 

Staffing History (MARAD) ...................................................................................... 273 

State Maritime Schools (MARAD) .......................................................................... 294 

Status of Vacancies .................................................................................................. 47 

STB Calculations and Methodologies (STB) .......................................................... 319 

Streamlining Regulations ....................................................................................... 61 

Title XI Oversight (MARAD) .................................................................................. 294 

Tolling ....................................................................................................................... 58 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

v 

Transit Oriented Development (FTA) .................................................................... 264 

Transit Small Starts ................................................................................................ 15 

Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (FTA) ................................................ 253 

Trust Fund (FTA) .................................................................................................... 235 

Unobligated Balances for New Starts Projects (FTA) .......................................... 83 

User Fee Collection (STB) ....................................................................................... 309 

Written Statement by Mary E. Peters, Secretary, Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Acquisition Workforce ............................................................................................. 646 

ADS–B................................................................................................................... 583, 629 

Advisory Committees ............................................................................................... 546 

Air Traffic Congestion ............................................................................................. 659 

Air Traffic Controllers ............................................................................................. 681 

Airport and Airway Trust Fund Statistics ............................................................ 572 

Airport Improvement Plan ...................................................................................... 651 

Airport Tower Equipment ....................................................................................... 692 

Airspace Redesign .................................................................................................... 561 

Annual Leave ........................................................................................................... 449 

ASDE–X........................................................................................................ 580, 667, 697 

Assessments by OST ............................................................................................... 412 

Automatic External Defibrillators .......................................................................... 455 

Average FTE Costs .................................................................................................. 400 

Average FTE Costs for Controllers ........................................................................ 501 

Aviation Safety ......................................................................................................... 688 

Collective Bargaining Statute ................................................................................. 454 

Commercial Space Transportation ......................................................................... 540 

Contract Maintenance Support Contracts ............................................................. 417 

Contract Tower Program ......................................................................................... 548 

Contracting ............................................................................................................... 586 

Controller Attrition .................................................................................................. 494 

Controller Incentive Pay ......................................................................................... 443 

Controller New Hires .............................................................................................. 490 

Controller Retirement Waivers ............................................................................... 500 

Controller Staffing ............................................................................................... 456, 693 

Controller Training .................................................................................................. 506 

Controller Training Institute Schools .................................................................... 510 

Executive Compensation System ............................................................................ 424 

Executive Positions .................................................................................................. 391 

Executive Positions Unfilled ................................................................................... 399 

Facility Safety .......................................................................................................... 633 

Faulty Parts Supplied by Aviation Manufacturer’s Suppliers ............................. 634 

Field Maintenance—‘‘Other Object’’ Costs ............................................................. 423 

Flight Service Stations ............................................................................................ 521 

GSA Rent .................................................................................................................. 408 

Health Benefits ........................................................................................................ 401 

Inspectors ................................................................................................................. 516

John F. Kennedy Airport and Operations CAP ..................................................... 616 

Low Cost Ground Surveillance ............................................................................... 617 

Managing Major Capital Projects ........................................................................... 641 

National Air Traffic Controller Association (NATCA) Representation ............... 439 

New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign ....................................... 614 

NEXTGEN.................................................................................................... 626, 671, 695 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

vi 

Office of Communications Positions ....................................................................... 553 

Official Time ............................................................................................................. 435 

On-Board Staffing by Office .................................................................................... 385 

Opening Statement by Chairman John W. Olver ................................................. 329 

Opening Statement by Ranking Member Joe Knollenberg .................................. 330 

Opening Statement by Robert Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration .............................................................................................. 332 

Operational Error Statistics ................................................................................... 532 

Operations Budget by Organizational Element .................................................... 577 

Other Services .......................................................................................................... 413 

Outsourcing and Safety Oversight ......................................................................... 631 

Overseas Personnel ................................................................................................. 523 

Questions for the Record from Chairman John W. Olver .................................... 380 

Questions for the Record from Congressman James T. Walsh ............................ 696 

Questions for the Record from Congressman Robert E. ‘‘Bud’’ Cramer .............. 692 

Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Joe Knollenberg ..................... 651 

Regional Offices ....................................................................................................... 554 

Runway Incursions and Low Tech Solutions ......................................................... 620 

Runway Incursions Statistics ................................................................................. 537 

Runway Safety ..................................................................................................... 623, 696 

Runway Status Lights ............................................................................................. 585 

Short-Term Incentive (Executive Bonus) Awards ................................................. 427 

Sick Leave ................................................................................................................ 451 

Special Pays ............................................................................................................. 442 

Sunday Premium Pay .............................................................................................. 453 

Supervisor Workforce .............................................................................................. 514 

Ten Year Tables ....................................................................................................... 564 

Travel—Operations Funded .................................................................................... 429 

Union Workforces .................................................................................................... 432 

Use of Cost-Plus-Award Fee (CPAF) Contracts .................................................... 644 

User Fees Credited to Operations Appropriations ................................................ 409 

Workers Compensation ........................................................................................... 402 

Working Capital Fund ............................................................................................. 410 

Workload Measures and Industry Trends ............................................................. 380 

Written Statement by Robert Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Aviation Administration ................................................................................................................. 334 

Highway and Transit Programs: The DOT Perspective on the Urgent 

Funding Needs for Today and Tomorrow 

Additional Reduction to the Federal-Aid Highway Program ............................... 766 

Appalachian Development Highway System ......................................................... 770 

BYRD Test ................................................................................................................ 768 

Clean Fuels Program ............................................................................................... 720 

Congestion Initiatives .......................................................................................... 741, 841 

Congestion Mitigation ............................................................................................. 727 

Congestion Pricing ................................................................................................... 825 

Deficient Bridges ..................................................................................................... 831 

Dulles Metrorail Extension ..................................................................................... 732 

Economic Impact of Tolling ..................................................................................... 714 

Emergency Relief Program ..................................................................................... 798 

Environmental Review ............................................................................................ 815 

Federal Highway Administration ........................................................................... 837 

Federal Transit Administration ............................................................................. 839 

FTA Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request .................................................................. 719 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
Page

vii 

Future of the Highway Trust Fund.................................................................... 744, 855 

Highway Account Borrowing Authority ................................................................. 753 

Highway Program at Zero ....................................................................................... 759 

Highway Project Delays .......................................................................................... 729 

Highway Projects in Alabama ................................................................................ 728 

Highway Public-Private Partnerships .................................................................... 805 

Highway Trust Fund ........................................................................................... 726, 749 

Highway-Railroad Intersection in Hartselle, Alabama ........................................ 722 

I–10 and the Corridors of the Future Program ..................................................... 739 

Infrastructure Investment as Economic Stimulus ................................................ 823 

Innovative Finance .................................................................................................. 817 

Limitation on Administrative Expenses ................................................................ 796 

New Toll Road Projects ........................................................................................... 726 

Opening Statement by Chairman John W. Olver ................................................. 701 

Opening Statement by Phyllis F. Scheinberg, Assistant Secretary for Budget 

and Programs/Chief Financial Officer, Department of Transportation ........... 705 

Opening Statement by Ranking Member Joe Knollenberg .................................. 703 

Ownership of the Interstate Right-of-Way ............................................................ 737 

Pittsburgh-Chicago Corridor ................................................................................... 734 

Public/Private Partnerships .................................................................................... 732 

Questions for the Record from Chairman John W. Olver .................................... 749 

Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Joe Knollenberg ..................... 837 

Reconfiguring I–81 Through Syracuse, NY ........................................................... 736 

Revenue Aligned Budget Authority .................................................................... 719, 760 

SC Proposal to Borrow from the Mass Transit Account ....................................... 748 

State Gasoline Taxes ............................................................................................... 828 

State Matching Funds ............................................................................................. 770 

States’ Use of Toll Roads ......................................................................................... 715 

Strategic Management on Human Capital ............................................................ 811 

The Federal Role in Highways ............................................................................... 825 

The Policy Commission Report and the Federal Gas Tax .................................... 827 

Tolling and Public/Private Partnerships ................................................................ 724 

Tolling Flexibility .................................................................................................... 725 

Transit Orientated Development ............................................................................ 738 

Transit System User Benefit .................................................................................. 730 

Urban Partnerships ................................................................................................. 805 

Use of Fiscal Year 2009 Discretionary Funds ....................................................... 743 

Written Statement by Phyllis F. Scheinberg, Assistant Secretary for Budget 

and Programs/Chief Financial Officer, Department of Transportation ........... 708 

Thoughts and Recommendations from the National Surface 

Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission 

Opening Statement by Chairman John W. Olver ................................................. 857 

Opening Statement by Ranking Member Joe Knollenberg .................................. 858 

Statement by Frank J. Busalacchi, Commissioner, National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission .................................................. 875 

Statement by Jack Schenendorf, Vice Chair, National Surface Transportation 

Policy and Revenue Study Commission ............................................................. 863 

Statement by Rick Geddes, Associate Professor, Department of Policy Analysis and Management, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University .......... 889 

Statement by Steve Heminger, Member, National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission ................................................................... 899 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING