IMPROVING AND REFORMING THE NATION’S 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

(112–19) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 29 AND 30, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

IMPROVING AND REFORMING THE NATION’S 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–478 PDF 2011

IMPROVING AND REFORMING THE NATION’S 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

(112–19) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 29 AND 30, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

TOM REED, New York 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York, Vice Chair 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011 

Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... ix 

TESTIMONY 

Betkey, Vernon F., Jr., Director, Maryland Highway Safety Office, on behalf 

of the Governors Highway Safety Association ................................................... 4 

Byrd, LaMont, Director, Safety and Health Department, International Brotherhood of Teamsters ............................................................................................. 4 

Dexter, Jennifer, Assistant Vice President, Government Relations, Easter 

Seals ...................................................................................................................... 4 

Dowling, Captain Steve, California Highway Patrol, on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ................................................................................. 4 

Downey, Mortimer L., III, Senior Advisor, Parsons Brinckerhoff, on behalf 

of the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors ......................... 4 

Hanley, Larry, International President, Amalgamated Transit Union .............. 4 

Johnson, Wayne, Manager, Global Carrier Relations, Owens Corning, on behalf of The National Industrial Transportation League ................................... 4 

Kane, Kristopher, Professional Truck Driver, Quality Carriers, on behalf of 

the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association ..................................... 4 

Leach, Dave, President and CEO, Greyhound Lines, Inc. ................................... 4 

Letourneau, Robert, Motorcycle Rider Education Specialist, New Hampshire 

Department of Safety, on behalf of the Motorcycle Riders Foundation ........... 4 

Marsico, Dale J., Executive Director, Community Transportation Association 

of America ............................................................................................................. 4 

Martz, Jon, Vice President, Government Relations, VPSI, Inc., on behalf 

of the Association for Commuter Transportation .............................................. 4 

McBride, Robert, Operator, Metro Taxi, on behalf of the Taxicab, Limousine 

& Paratransit Association ................................................................................... 4 

Millar, William, President, American Public Transportation Association .......... 4 

Mullings, Lisa J., President and CEO, NATSO, Inc. (National Association 

of Truck Stop Operators) ..................................................................................... 4 

Nagle, Kurt J., President and CEO, American Association of Port Authorities 4 

Pantuso, Peter J., President and CEO, American Bus Association ..................... 4 

Stone, Judith Lee, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety ............. 4 

Windsor, Barbara, President and CEO, Hahn Transportation, Inc., on behalf 

of American Trucking Associations .................................................................... 4 

Withers, Jan, Member, National Board of Directors, Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving .................................................................................................................. 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., of Tennessee ............................................................... 44 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 45 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Betkey, Vernon F., Jr. ............................................................................................. 50 

Byrd, LaMont ........................................................................................................... 59 

Dexter, Jennifer ....................................................................................................... 73 

Dowling, Captain Steve ........................................................................................... 91 

Downey, Mortimer L., III ........................................................................................ 108 

Hanley, Larry ........................................................................................................... 118 

Page

VI 

Johnson, Wayne ....................................................................................................... 146 

Kane, Kristopher ..................................................................................................... 156 

Leach, Dave .............................................................................................................. 166 

Letourneau, Robert .................................................................................................. 171 

Marsico, Dale J. ....................................................................................................... 177 

Martz, Jon ................................................................................................................ 197 

McBride, Robert ....................................................................................................... 203 

Millar, William ......................................................................................................... 211 

Mullings, Lisa J. ...................................................................................................... 235 

Nagle, Kurt J. .......................................................................................................... 241 

Pantuso, Peter J. ..................................................................................................... 245 

Stone, Judith Lee ..................................................................................................... 265 

Windsor, Barbara ..................................................................................................... 285 

Withers, Jan ............................................................................................................. 308 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Betkey, Vernon F., Jr., Director, Maryland Highway Safety Office, on behalf 

of the Governors Highway Safety Association, response to question .............. 57 

Dowling, Captain Steve, California Highway Patrol, on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, response to question ............................................. 101 

Downey, Mortimer L., III, Senior Advisor, Parsons Brinckerhoff, on behalf 

of the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors, responses 

to questions ........................................................................................................... 114 

Hanley, Larry, International President, Amalgamated Transit Union, responses to questions ............................................................................................. 144 

Kane, Kristopher, Professional Truck Driver, Quality Carriers, on behalf of 

the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, response to question 165 

Millar, William, President, American Public Transportation Association, responses to questions ............................................................................................. 229 

Stone, Judith Lee, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, response to question ................................................................................................ 282 

Windsor, Barbara, President and CEO, Hahn Transportation, Inc., on behalf 

of American Trucking Associations, responses to questions ............................. 303 

Withers, Jan, Member, National Board of Directors, Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving, request to include Washington Post editorial, ‘‘Plastered’’ ................ 316 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011 

TESTIMONY 

Belcher, Scott, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of 

America ................................................................................................................. 321 

Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood, on behalf of the Bipartisan Policy Center ................. 321 

Burke, John, CEO, Trek Bicycle Corporation, on behalf of the Bikes Belong 

Coalition ................................................................................................................ 321 

Caldwell, Kathy J., P.E., F.ASCE, President, American Society of Civil Engineers ...................................................................................................................... 321

Calvert, Sharon, Co-Founder, Florida Alliance ..................................................... 321 

Cohen, Gregory M., President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance .... 321 

Cox, William G., President, Corman Construction, Inc., on behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association ............................................ 321 

Diederich, Paul, President, Industrial Builders, Inc., on behalf of The Associated General Contractors of America ................................................................. 321 

Grote, Bryan, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, and Member, National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission ............................. 321 

Jeffrey, Joe, President, Road-Tech Safety Services, on behalf of the American 

Traffic Safety Services Association ..................................................................... 321 

Johnson, Ashby, AICP, Deputy Director of Transportation, Houston-Galveston 

Area Council, on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations ................................................................................................................... 321 

Lovaas, Deron, Federal Transportation Policy Director, Natural Resources 

Defense Council .................................................................................................... 321 

Page

VII 

McCartney, Frank, Executive Director, Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge 

Commission, on behalf of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike 

Association ............................................................................................................ 321 

Moore, Adrian, Vice President, Reason Foundation, and Member, National 

Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission ....................... 321 

Njord, John R., P.E., Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation 321 

Poupore, Raymond J., Executive Vice President, National Construction Alliance II ................................................................................................................... 321 

Smith, John Robert, President and CEO, Reconnecting America ....................... 321 

Stump, Jerry, Executive Vice President and COO, Wilbur Smith Associates, 

on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies ........................ 321 

Thomey, David R., Executive Vice President, Maryland Materials, Inc., on 

behalf of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association ................................ 321 

Ware, Timothy, Executive Director, Mid-East Commission, on behalf of the 

National Association of Development Organizations ........................................ 321 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Belcher, Scott ........................................................................................................... 363 

Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood ......................................................................................... 375 

Burke, John .............................................................................................................. 384 

Caldwell, Kathy J., P.E., F.ASCE .......................................................................... 391 

Calvert, Sharon ........................................................................................................ 403 

Cohen, Gregory M. ................................................................................................... 414 

Cox, William G. ........................................................................................................ 424 

Diederich, Paul ........................................................................................................ 437 

Grote, Bryan ............................................................................................................. 452 

Jeffrey, Joe ............................................................................................................... 460

Johnson, Ashby, AICP ............................................................................................. 490 

Lovaas, Deron .......................................................................................................... 497 

McCartney, Frank ................................................................................................... 513 

Moore, Adrian .......................................................................................................... 521 

Njord, John R., P.E. ................................................................................................. 524 

Poupore, Raymond J. ............................................................................................... 531 

Smith, John Robert .................................................................................................. 540 

Stump, Jerry ............................................................................................................ 552 

Thomey, David R. .................................................................................................... 557 

Ware, Timothy ......................................................................................................... 562 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood, on behalf of the Bipartisan Policy Center, response 

to question ............................................................................................................ 382 

Burke, John, CEO, Trek Bicycle Corporation, on behalf of the Bikes Belong 

Coalition, response to question ........................................................................... 390 

Caldwell, Kathy J., P.E., F.ASCE, President, American Society of Civil Engineers, responses to questions .............................................................................. 399 

Cohen, Gregory M., President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance, 

response to question ............................................................................................. 422 

Cox, William G., President, Corman Construction, Inc., on behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, responses to questions .... 434 

Diederich, Paul, President, Industrial Builders, Inc., on behalf of The Associated General Contractors of America, responses to questions ......................... 449 

Grote, Bryan, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, and Member, National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, responses to 

questions ............................................................................................................... 457 

Jeffrey, Joe, President, Road-Tech Safety Services, on behalf of the American 

Traffic Safety Services Association: 

Responses to questions ........................................................................................ 468 

Request to include ‘‘Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Obligations and Fatalities on U.S. Highways: Final Report,’’ June 29, 2010, 

prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) ........... 471 

Johnson, Ashby, AICP, Deputy Director of Transportation, Houston-Galveston 

Area Council, on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, responses to questions ........................................................................... 494 

Njord, John R., P.E., Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation, 

responses to questions ......................................................................................... 530 

Page

VIII 

Poupore, Raymond J., Executive Vice President, National Construction Alliance II, responses to questions ........................................................................... 534 

Smith, John Robert, President and CEO, Reconnecting America, response 

to question ............................................................................................................ 549 

Ware, Timothy, Executive Director, Mid-East Commission, on behalf of the 

National Association of Development Organizations, responses to questions 571 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD FOR MARCH 29 AND MARCH 30, 2011 

Alliance for Biking and Walking; Alternatives for Community & Environment; 

Amalgamated Transit Union; America Bikes; Apollo Alliance; Association 

of Programs for Rural Independent Living; Campaign for Community 

Change; Change to Win; CLASP; Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race 

and Ethnicity; Local Initiatives Support Corporation; NAACP; NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., National Coalition for Asian 

Pacific American Community Development; National Complete Streets Coalition; National Council of La Raza; National Housing Conference; National 

Housing Trust; National Low Income Housing Coalition; Partnership for 

Working Families; PolicyLink; Poverty & Race Research Action Council; 

Public Advocates; Reconnecting America; Safe Routes to School National 

Partnership; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The 

National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations; Transit Riders for Public Transportation; Transport Workers Union of America, 

AFL–CIO; Trust for America’s Health; and the William C. Velasquez Institute; written testimony ........................................................................................ 573 

Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Truck Transportation, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 579 

America Bikes, written testimony .......................................................................... 583 

Andrew J. Warcaba & Associates, Inc., Andy Warcaba, President, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 585 

Apollo Alliance, written statement ......................................................................... 588 

International Downtown Association, James A. Cloar, Interim President, written testimony ........................................................................................................ 596 

National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a), Sandy Markwood, 

CEO, written statement ...................................................................................... 601 

National Association of Home Builders, written statement ................................. 605 

National Association of Realtors, written statement ......................................... 608 

National Complete Streets Coalition, written testimony ..................................... 610 

National Congress of American Indians, written testimony ................................ 613 

National Steel Bridge Alliance, Roger Ferch, Executive Director, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 619 

Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Deborah A. Hubsmith, Director, 

written testimony ................................................................................................. 625 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Wade Henderson, 

President and CEO, written testimony .............................................................. 634 

Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and Wyoming, written statement ....................................................................... 640 

United Motorcoach Association, written testimony .............................................. 652 

ix 


Insert offset folio 1 here 65478.001
x 


Insert offset folio 2 here 65478.002
xi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 65478.003
xii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 65478.004
xiii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 65478.005
xiv 


Insert offset folio 6 here 65478.006
xv 


Insert offset folio 7 here 65478.007
(1) 

IMPROVING AND REFORMING 

THE NATION’S SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Today the subcommittee is convening a 2-day hearing to receive 

testimony from the Transportation Committee on their ideas for 

the reauthorization of the Federal surface transportation programs. 

This reauthorization of the highway, transit, and highway safety 

programs will be more challenging than probably any other in recent memory. Fiscal constraints and calls for Congress to redefine 

the Federal role in surface transportation will require us to consider dramatic changes to these programs. 

One of the key initiatives that the subcommittee will focus on is 

streamlining the project delivery process. Time delays and inefficiencies in project delivery not only postpone needed improvements 

in our Nation’s transportation infrastructure but also result in increases in the cost of the project. 

The subcommittee will also be looking at innovative financing. 

Bonding, loan programs, and public-private partnerships are just 

some of the innovative financing techniques that the subcommittee 

can utilize to leverage the Nation’s limited Highway Trust Fund 

dollars. 

Additionally, the subcommittee must take a hard look at the 

number of Federal surface transportation programs. Today, there 

are more than 100 highway, transit, and highway safety programs. 

We don’t need that many. We should consolidate duplicative Federal programs to eliminate waste and eliminate programs that do 

not serve a national need. 

I am pleased that we have the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Rahall. I was told that Ms. Richardson was on the way, 

and I was going to wait on her, but Ranking Member Rahall told 

us to go ahead. 

We are doing this a little differently than we have done before. 

We have had a few days of Member requests in which we had a 

great number of witnesses, but we have never had quite this many 

2 

witnesses for another type of hearing, so we are sort of experimenting here today. I understand that all the witnesses have been 

told that the goal is to try to limit their statements to 4 minutes 

each. We realize that we will not be able to exactly do that. 

But, at this point, I would like to welcome, as the Ranking Member of the subcommittee for the day, the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Only for today? 

Mr. DUNCAN. As long as you want. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for 

convening this hearing to discuss our surface transportation programs. 

Our Nation’s infrastructure is falling further and further into a 

state of disrepair every day, and it is our duty as being members 

of this committee to address it and to get a long-term bill done. 

The SAFETEA–LU created commissions that studied the Nation’s need to invest in our infrastructure specifically for the purpose of forming on the decision that we are talking about now. 

Through this process, the National Surface Transportation Policy 

and Revenue Study Commission concluded that we must invest 

$225 billion annually from all sources to bring our infrastructure 

up to a state of good repair. 

While the Federal Government is clearly not the sole source and 

we will be exploring private-public partnerships, one of many, we 

all know that it is the primary source. And, thus, our investment 

must be up to scale to meet the Commission’s—the charter that 

they have given us. 

Congestion is crippling our major cities. The quality of our transportation system is deteriorating. Almost 61,000 miles, 37 percent 

of our roads, are in poor or fair condition, and 152,000 bridges are 

25 percent structurally deficient. When you consider all of these 

things, unfortunately the Highway Trust Fund is not collecting a 

sufficient amount of receipts to be able to enable us to make the 

repairs that are necessary. 

The President has laid out a good start of his bill proposal of 

$556 billion over 6 years. He also has included in that a national 

infrastructure bank and other innovative financing ideas to help 

bring this sort of investment to fruition. We saw with the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act that, through the $64.1 billion, it 

created 1.8 million jobs and $323 billion in economic activity. 

We must think of additional creative ways. I have suggested several that I believe the Chairman and our Ranking Member are 

both aware of. I won’t go too much into detail with them. 

However, I will say one thing I think is absolutely necessary, and 

that is a goods movement trust fund. We have suggested on the 

table a 12 percent increase, a diesel tax, that has been supported 

by the industry itself. There are other things that we should consider, such as a TIFIA enhancement, which would enable better financing, and also considering making environmental changes, as 

well. 

Because I do know you, Mr. Duncan, I have actually cut my comments by about 20 percent of what I had here, because I know he 

likes us to keep it brief. But it would suffice to say, we are looking 

forward to working in a bipartisan fashion. However, we hope that 

3 

you will be open to consider innovative financing as a part of that 

proposal. 

I yield back and submit my final statement for the record. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Richardson. You 

know you are one of my favorite Members, so I appreciate that. 

And we will now hear from our distinguished Ranking Member, 

the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have no prepared statement, only to commend you for conducting these hearings today. 

And I commend all the witnesses, many of whom have traveled 

from far away to be here. Others, as I recognize, are right here in 

DC. So, welcome. 

I have no further comments. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boswell? 

Mr. BOSWELL. No comment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Another way we are experimenting here today, we have 20 witnesses today and I guess another 20 tomorrow, and then we have 

other groups that have requested—we had additional witnesses 

who wanted to testify. We wanted to give everybody a chance to 

have their say and put their statements in the record and so forth. 

We will let additional groups put their statements into the record, 

but we have sort of hit a limit on the number of witnesses that we 

could accommodate. 

But we have asked that the witnesses remain. And if there are 

any Members present at the end, we will hold questions until the 

end. 

And I ask unanimous consent that members of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure who are not on the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit be permitted to sit with the 

subcommittee at today’s hearing, offer testimony and ask questions. Are there any objections? 

Hearing none, it will be so ordered. 

All right. The first witness will be Mr. William Millar, president 

of the American Public Transportation Association. 

Mr. Millar? 

4 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; LARRY HANLEY, 

INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT 

UNION; DALE J. MARSICO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; JON 

MARTZ, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, VPSI, 

INC., ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUTER 

TRANSPORTATION; ROBERT MCBRIDE, OPERATOR, METRO 

TAXI, ON BEHALF OF THE TAXICAB, LIMOUSINE & PARATRANSIT ASSOCIATION; JENNIFER DEXTER, ASSISTANT VICE 

PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, EASTER SEALS; 

BARBARA WINDSOR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HAHN TRANSPORTATION, INC., ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; KRISTOPHER KANE, PROFESSIONAL TRUCK 

DRIVER, QUALITY CARRIERS, ON BEHALF OF THE OWNEROPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION; LAMONT 

BYRD, DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; DAVE 

LEACH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; 

PETER J. PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN BUS 

ASSOCIATION; CAPTAIN STEVE DOWLING, CALIFORNIA 

HIGHWAY PATROL, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE; VERNON F. BETKEY, JR., DIRECTOR, 

MARYLAND HIGHWAY SAFETY OFFICE, ON BEHALF OF THE 

GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIATION; JUDITH LEE 

STONE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO 

SAFETY; JAN WITHERS, MEMBER, NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING; ROBERT 

LETOURNEAU, MOTORCYCLE RIDER EDUCATION SPECIALIST, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, ON BEHALF OF THE MOTORCYCLE RIDERS FOUNDATION; 

MORTIMER L. DOWNEY III, SENIOR ADVISOR, PARSONS 

BRINCKERHOFF, ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR AMERICA’S GATEWAYS AND TRADE CORRIDORS; KURT J. NAGLE, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT 

AUTHORITIES; WAYNE JOHNSON, MANAGER, GLOBAL CARRIER RELATIONS, OWENS CORNING, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION LEAGUE; LISA J. 

MULLINGS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATSO, INC. (NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF TRUCK STOP OPERATORS) 

Mr. MILLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify today. 

APTA’s 1,500 public and private members provide 90 percent of 

the Nation’s 35 million daily transit trips. 

Enacting a well-funded, 6-year, multimodal surface transportation bill is one of the most important actions Congress can take 

to put our Nation’s economic engine into higher gear and prepare 

the Nation for future population and economic growth. Conversely, 

further delay in passing a bill will have the opposite effect, forcing 

businesses to lay off employees and invest overseas, while our Nation’s transit systems fall further behind. 

In many ways, the current Federal program works well. President Reagan and the Congress created the Mass Transit Account 

within the Highway Trust Fund in 1983. The steady, predictable 

5 

funding provided by the trust fund has been essential to the success of the program. 

But due to underfunding, problems are becoming evident in deferred maintenance, overage vehicles, and more Americans without 

service. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that 

more than $78 billion is required to bring transit infrastructure up 

to a state of good repair, and much more investment is needed on 

an annual basis to accommodate the growth of the industry. We 

are pleased that the President’s budget proposal begins to address 

these growing transit needs. 

When I talk about new ridership, I am talking not about the faroff future; it is happening today. If regular gas prices average $4 

a gallon this year, as many predict, some 2 million new trips per 

day can be expected on our systems. If pump prices jump to $5 a 

gallon, at least 5 million more trips per day can be expected, as motorists seek to beat the high cost of gasoline. 

Now, turning to our ideas for improving the Federal transit program, let’s begin with the New Starts program. New Starts is the 

main construction program for bus rapid transit, subways, light 

rail, and new commuter rail systems. But developing a project can 

take 12 years. We suggest eliminating the duplicative alternatives 

analysis stage of the program, and about 2 years can be saved. We 

also propose that the Federal Transit Administration reduce the 

number of approvals needed for each project. Each pause for Federal approval adds many months to the project schedule. 

On the formula side of the law, APTA proposes changes to the 

bus program, simplifying the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program, and consolidating three existing programs into a simplified 

coordinated mobility program that would allow communities to continue to carry out existing services or make changes they desire but 

consolidate the administrative and grant-making processes and 

costs. 

Finally, I want to speak about innovative finance. Relying on alternative financing mechanisms to leverage Federal investments 

makes a great deal of sense to speed up projects, as long as we understand that financing does not replace the need for expanded investment. Our experience is that current financing programs just 

don’t work well for transit projects, but there are ideas to change 

that. 

APTA supports growing the TIFIA program, allowing it to finance a suite of multimodal projects in a region and modifying the 

so-called ‘‘springing lien’’ provision, which unnecessarily limits 

some sources of revenue to finance projects. 

Now, I don’t have time in the short time allotted to go into the 

details of many of our other proposals, but my written testimony 

includes many suggestions, including some computer links to very 

detailed ideas. 

APTA certainly looks forward to working with the committee as 

you wrestle with the issues needed to put together a brand-new, 

multimodal, 6-year, well-funded surface transportation program. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Millar. Good 

suggestions. 

6 

And all of the full statements of all the witnesses will be placed 

in the record and reviewed by the committee leadership and staff. 

Our next witness is Mr. Larry Hanley, the international president of the Amalgamated Transit Union. 

Mr. Hanley? 

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. 

Our union represents 190,000 members in 46 States and in 9 

provinces in Canada. 

We are here today, first of all, to agree with much of what Bill 

Millar said, but also to point out that America is suffering from a 

transit crisis that is largely being ignored. This is a crisis throughout urban America, where service has been cut, fares have been increased, at a time when the Federal Government has spent more 

money in the last year on transit than any year in history. 

We have experienced not only layoffs of our members but the diminishing of service in cities throughout the country. In Chicago, 

the Transit Authority has cut 18 percent of its bus service and 9 

percent of its rail service. In Cleveland, 12 percent of the service 

has been cut. Detroit has lost 25 percent of its transit service, 

while, 2 days ago, in Pittsburgh, despite the fact that there appears 

to be adequate local funding, the system voted to shut down 15 percent of its transit service. 

This comes at a time when we have wars going on around the 

world in order for us to secure more oil. And we are ignoring—despite the investment we have made, we are ignoring the fact that 

transit needs operating aid and it needs it now. At a time when 

local budgets are under strain because of falling tax revenues, we 

believe the Federal Government should step up and allow flexibility in its funding programs so that our systems can continue to 

operate. 

In my home city of New York, we have seen services that ran for 

the last 100 years being eliminated on weekends and at nights because of the current funding crisis, despite the fact that there are 

currently projects going on to build systems even in New York City 

that won’t be available for 5 or 10 years to our riders. This is a 

short-sighted view that we believe Congress has, and we hope that 

you will consider taking another look at it. 

Additionally, though, you should know that, in the coming days, 

Tacoma, Washington, is facing a 15 percent cut in service. In Birmingham, Alabama, and Long Island, New York, there are cuts on 

the table of 50 percent of the bus service that currently operates. 

This has to be recognized by Congress as a national crisis. It is 

not something that is restricted to one local area. And we call upon 

you to act to allow more flexibility in the existing program so that 

transit systems can survive this economic crisis. 

Additionally, though, I could not speak to a Member of Congress 

without addressing the fact that there was an accident—there were 

actually two accidents in New York and New Jersey in the last 

month involving fatalities in the intercity bus industry. And this is 

a problem that has come about because of a lack of regulation and 

also, significantly, a lack of enforcement in the intercity bus industry. 

More people are dying every month in America as a consequence 

of the Federal Government turning a blind eye to fierce, unreguVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
7 

lated competition in that industry. And we call upon Congress to 

act to try and remedy that, and we certainly believe that it is within your reach. 

Finally, we have, our workers, America’s workers, the people 

that populate the labor movement and the people that make this 

country run, have been told over and over again in the last 3 or 

4 months that everything we have, everything we bargained for is 

unsustainable. And this comes at a time when Congress has approved over $1 trillion to be spent in wars in foreign countries. 

And I could not sit before a committee of Congress and not raise 

the specter of that, having heard how limited funding is available 

to keep our country alive, to keep our country moving, to keep our 

country working, while we squander our resources, our treasure, 

and our children on foreign wars. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Could I just clarify what is going to be the 

process for questions? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Earlier, we told all the witnesses that we would 

hold the questions until all the witnesses have had a chance to testify. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So they are all going to stay even though they 

will be changing places? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. And then could I just ask a clarification, 

as people say they want flexibility in funding, could they give us 

a specific example of what do they mean by that, because several—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Sure. 

Ms. RICHARDSON [continuing]. Are on the table, since we are not 

going to have an opportunity to interact as they are going through? 

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. All right. Thank you very much. 

The next witness will be Mr. Dale Marsico, the executive director 

of the Community Transportation Association of America. 

Mr. MARSICO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

this opportunity to be here to speak on behalf of the 4,000 members of our association who provide and support mobility across our 

country. 

In my written testimony, I have addressed our goals for reauthorization using four important areas that include: the need for 

improvements in rural transit, the need for new efforts in our 

urban transit systems, the need to create a national strategy based 

on connecting communities, and the need to explore new and innovative instruments for investment in public transit. 

Since SAFETEA–LU was enacted, public and community transportation have created an outstanding record of success in responding to our Nation’s mobility needs during one of the most challenging economic periods in our Nation’s history. Our progress has 

been built on the unique and historic partnership for transit investment, where Federal, State, and local communities come together 

to make our dreams and visions for mobility a reality. 

8 

Despite our record, our continued progress is threatened by the 

profound difficulties created by the economic situation that has 

weakened our traditional partners at the State and local level. 

Knowing that we face similar challenges at the Federal level, we 

must explore new ways to help transit during this period of uncertainty. 

The challenges that all transit providers face can best be met by 

allowing these operators greater flexibility to meet the needs for 

continuing services in the communities and for the passengers they 

serve. 

In urbanized communities, we believe the use of transit funds 

must be flexible enough to include emergency operating assistance 

if necessary, to avoid service cuts and fare increases that reduce access to jobs at the time we need that access as part of any economic 

recovery. As the committee knows, service cuts have dire consequences for people with disabilities and low-income working families, who use transit as their primary means of mobility. 

For rural transit, enhanced flexibility is needed to stretch every 

single State and local dollar in the face of these significant budget 

challenges. 

In both cases, we support providing this help, not as a major 

change to the existing formula programs, but by waivers made possible by economic triggers to help transit through these difficult 

times. 

Connecting America to jobs and health care is contributing to the 

growth of transit and transit demand in every community of every 

size. Connectivity between communities is essential to meeting 

these transportation challenges, especially for our growing senior 

populations who must travel greater and greater distances for 

health care. 

To address this challenge, we must begin linking together urban 

and rural transit today in a cohesive regional and national structure of intercity connections to have the services we need for tomorrow. We think that our Nation’s rural transit providers and our colleagues in the intercity bus industry are a cost-effective means of 

resolving these issues. 

Like it or not, we live in a time when investments are necessary 

for us. By new tools, we need to attract new investment, especially 

from the private sector. And we support your efforts to make the 

private sector part of that traditional partnership of Federal, State, 

and local investment that has made our efforts successful. Our testimony includes ideas about this, ranging from tax credits to other 

kinds of leveraged investments. 

In closing, let me say that the transportation industry owes 

much of our success to the vision and work of this subcommittee. 

Based on that history, we know that you will continue to do all 

that you can to help us move the Nation forward. So I want to 

thank you for our opportunity to be here today, and I look forward 

to answering questions but, more importantly, working with you as 

we continue the progress we have made in this committee, in this 

Nation, for transit. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you. 

9 

And, as I earlier stated, we are doing this in a little different 

way. We are trying to accommodate as many different groups and 

witnesses as we can, and so we were going to run through all these 

witnesses and then get to questions at the end. 

But we have been joined by several different Members here. We 

have been joined by Ms. Napolitano, also Mr. Farenthold, Mr. 

Barletta, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Bucshon, Dr. Harris. And if any 

of you have a brief 2-minute opening statement you would like to 

make, I will be glad to call on you at this time, if any of you wish 

to say something. 

Ms. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for 

hosting this hearing. I am glad to hear from all the witnesses. 

We have great issues in our respective districts in regard to 

transportation funding. The more the delay, the more impact it has 

on communities, whether it is job creation or infrastructure repair. 

So it is critical that we continue moving the TEA–LU bill and being 

able to understand how critical this is to our Nation’s economy and 

to all the transportation issues. 

So thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Anybody on the Republican side wish to say anything at this 

point? 

All right, thank you. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness will be Mr. Jon Martz, the vice president of 

government relations for VPSI, Incorporated, on behalf of the Association for Commuter Transportation. 

Mr. Martz? 

Mr. MARTZ. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to extend my gratitude to the committee for the opportunity to speak with you this 

afternoon. 

ACT is an association dedicated to providing commuters with options by engaging in public-private partnerships to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, telework, and transit use. Our members consist of private-sector employers, transportation agencies, transportation management organizations, and universities from across the 

country. 

First, I want to start by thanking you for your commitment to 

complete a transportation bill this year. Little is more important to 

our economy than the completion of a 6-year transportation bill. 

ACT would also like to commend the Chairman for the goals it 

has laid out in advance of a transportation bill. We are glad to see 

the committee recognizes that we must get the most out of our system by doing more with less and that we need to leverage funding 

from as many sources as possible. And these points form the basis 

of ACT’s reauthorization proposal. 

For the purposes of this hearing, I would like to focus on congestion and a handful of simple policy solutions ACT would like to recommend. 

According to Inrix, a leading provider of real-time traffic information, a 3 percent drop in vehicle miles traveled resulted in a 30 percent drop in peak period congestion in 2008. Now, a recession is not 

the way we would like to see demand managed, of course. But the 

experience shows that a small shift in the number of solo comVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
10 

muters during peak periods can provide a notable reduction in congestion. 

A survey conducted by Business Week in 2007 found that when 

commuters were provided with employer-based transportation options such as vanpooling, transit benefits, alternative work hours, 

and telework, one in five workers chose an option other than a solo 

commute during rush hour. 

We believe that the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction 

Program is an excellent model. This statewide program puts the 

onus on local transportation agencies to work with regional employers to create, manage, and market commute transportation options. 

Employers in the region have minimal requirements placed on 

them, such as posting information, and their participation is broadly voluntary. But through this partnership, the program is responsible for taking 28,000 vehicles off the road each day during peak 

commuting hours, a reduction of 12,900 hours of delay in the Central Puget Sound region in 2009, and saves $99 million for the region in congestion costs due to lost time and wasted fuel. 

This program has also leveraged private investment in transpor- tation, as employers voluntarily invested $49.4 million in the Commute Trip Reduction Program—more than $18 for every dollar provided by the State. This is remarkable, considering the State’s biennial financial commitment to this program is just $6.3 million. 

We believe that the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction 

Program should serve as a model for Federal policy. And, as such, 

we support legislation introduced by Congressman Sires called 

‘‘Commute LESS.’’ It is H.R. 260. This legislation would amend the 

planning process and help regional agencies develop employerbased commute relief programs. The legislation would accomplish 

this without adding any mandates to employers and does not require any additional revenue. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention legislation introduced by Congressmen Rogers of Michigan, Young, and Carnahan, 

H.R. 596. This legislation would tweak a provision in Title 49, 

making it easier for public-sector agencies to partner with private 

providers of public transportation. 

When gas prices hit $4 a gallon a few years ago, our company’s 

business grew by 37 percent across 40 cities across the U.S., compared to a more traditional public transit growth of 4 percent, 

which in itself was remarkable. Private providers of public vanpool 

services like my company, VPSI, and Enterprise stand ready to 

bear more of the capital investment burden. VPSI already has over 

$150 million in rolling stock in service, and, with the passage of 

this legislation, we are willing to do more. 

It should also be noted that the vehicles used in this service are 

only produced by American auto manufacturers. We estimate passage of this provision would generate nearly a thousand manufacturing jobs. 

ACT recognizes the policies we mention here are not a silver bullet and that for many Americans driving alone is the most sensible 

option. But we believe these suggestions will help provide more options for commuters, will leverage public-private partnerships, and 

will improve our transportation system in a responsible, efficient, 

and sensible manner. 

11 

Thank you for the opportunity, and we will be ready to do questions later on. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Martz. 

The next witness will be Mr. Robert McBride, the operator of the 

Metro Taxi company in Denver, Colorado, testifying on behalf of 

the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association. 

Mr. McBride? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. As you said, my name is Robert McBride, and I am 

also the president of the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association. Our over 1,000 member companies operate over 100,000 passenger vehicles, transport over 2 million passengers each day and 

over 900 million passengers each year. And, as you said, I am also 

the owner of Metro Taxi in Denver, Colorado. 

The following is a summary of five of our major issues we would 

like you to consider in the next Federal transportation reauthorization bill. 

Private Operator Rights: We urge you to continue to support all 

current provisions of the Federal Transit Act pertaining to the 

rights of private operators to participate to the maximum extent 

feasible in the planning and provision of public transit services. 

Private transportation companies, like my taxicab service in Denver, often provide the first and last segments of a passenger trip, 

whether it is to or from the nearest transit terminal or airport. I 

am pleased to report to you that, increasingly, our industry is contracting with public transit authorities to provide cost-effective 

complimentary ADA paratransit services. This partnership between 

public and private providers needs to be improved and expanded so 

that, collectively, we can afford to enhance the general public’s mobility options. 

Program Consolidation: We support the consolidation of the Elderly and Disabled Specialized Transit Program, the Job Access 

and Reverse Commute, and the New Freedom Program into the Coordinated Mobility Initiative while maintaining current law pertaining to each program in regard to the funding eligibility, labor 

protection, and private operator subrecipient eligibility. 

The New Freedom Program has been exceptionally valuable for 

getting wheelchair-accessible vehicles into taxicab fleets. Without 

this Federal support for these much more costly vehicles, this level 

of new paratransit taxicab service would not exist today. 

Distracted-Driver Legislation: We urge the committee to explicitly recognize in the legislation that State or locally licensed commercial drivers providing for-hire passenger transportation services 

may continue to have access to their dispatch communication service that is necessary for the ordinary conduct of their business, as 

DOT has already done for federally licensed drivers or commercial 

motor vehicles. 

RIDE Act Amendment: We request the committee support modifying the law such that an operator of a transportation terminal 

who is the recipient of Federal funds may not charge a fee to any 

provider or prearranged transportation service except for a fee that 

is charged to the general public or a fee that is determined by a 

DOT rulemaking for the availability of ancillary facilities at the 

12 

transportation terminal, such as restrooms or vending machines 

made available to the drivers. 

Repeal of Federal Labor Protections: In 1964, Congress enacted 

Section 13(c), the transit labor protection provision of the Federal 

Transit Act to maintain employee rights, privileges, and benefits as 

they existed in the private sector prior to Federal/State assistance 

and to protect employees against any adverse effects that might result from the initial provision of Federal assistance to public transit. 

The goal of Congress in enacting Section 13(c), which is now Section 5333(b), was to protect the rights, privileges, and benefits of 

employees as they existed prior to receipt of Federal funds, not to 

create a new series of employee rights, privileges, and benefits. 

These labor protections are no longer needed and intrude into local 

decisionmaking and collective bargaining. In nearly every other industry where such labor protections existed, they have been eliminated. It is estimated that transit operating costs would be reduced 

by hundreds of millions of dollars if this provision is repealed. Section 5333(b) is an unfunded mandate that is too intrusive and too 

expensive to keep on the books. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, the committee, thank you 

very much, for letting us present our views today. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. McBride. 

Our next witness is Ms. Jennifer Dexter, assistant vice president 

for government relations for the Easter Seals Society. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. DEXTER. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and members of the 

subcommittee. We really appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 

In addition to my role at Easter Seals, I serve as the co-chair of 

the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Transportation Task 

Force as well as the Senior Transportation Task Force. 

Easter Seals is very proud of our long history working to increase 

the mobility of people with disabilities and older adults. For many 

years, we have operated a federally funded Project ACTION, as 

well as the National Center on Senior Transportation that we operate in cooperation with the National Association of Area Agencies 

on Aging, both through cooperative agreements with the Federal 

Transit Administration. 

Too often, people with disabilities of all ages lack access to affordable, accessible, and reliable transportation options. The 2010 

Harris Poll, funded by the National Organization on Disability, estimated that 34 percent of people with disabilities report having inadequate access to transportation. This is compared to only 16 percent of the general public. 

Our specific recommendations are covered in depth in my written 

testimony, but they include: increasing overall funding for transit 

and population-specific programs, such as 5310, JARC, and New 

Freedom, and allowing 5310 funds to be used for operating assistance; making sure that there are protections in place to assure that 

the needs of specific populations and providers are protected in program consolidation efforts; increasing the input, involvement, and 

DOT monitoring of stakeholder input into all transportation planning processes; creating a dedicated resource to increase access to 

13 

mobility management services; and continuing and increasing existing targeted technical assistance and education efforts. 

In the short amount of time I have remaining, I would like to 

provide you with a very brief example of how a relatively small 

Federal investment can help increase the ability of someone with 

a disability or an older adult to live, learn, work, and play in their 

community. 

One of the common complaints that people with disabilities and 

older adults have is that, for some people, the best and often only 

way to get around during their daily routines if they can no longer 

drive is a taxi. However, many taxi drivers don’t have the awareness that is needed of how to best serve someone with a disability 

and are either reluctant to pick somebody up or make avoidable 

mistakes that are detrimental to the rider in some way. 

This is exactly the kind of issue that Project ACTION likes to address. In response to this issue, we developed a small pocket guide 

for drivers. It is designed to be kept on the visor with all the other 

materials that the driver might need. It has simple guidance on 

good customer service for someone who needs assistance. We developed it in partnership with our friends, the taxi operators, and 

made it so it met their needs. 

With this simple guide, we have taken the burden off of the individual driver to be an expert on serving people with disabilities and 

made it easy for them to get the information they need and increase the mobility of people with disabilities. This piece is available for free through our clearinghouse, and we have shipped out 

thousands of them. 

We knew the piece was useful and successful when our CEO 

heard back from our affiliate in Australia that they had seen the 

piece in use in taxis over there. 

For those who want more guidance, it is part of a full-scale Taxi 

Toolkit that has all sorts of resources available. And it has also 

been replicated for both transit providers and motorcoach operators. 

I mention this not only because it is a product we are very proud 

of, which we are, but because it is a great example of where having 

resources available to help public-private partnerships develop and 

find solutions on their own, with all of the stakeholders participating, can pay great dividends. It is a process that has been replicated daily in communities throughout the country for a variety 

of mobility issues. 

Addressing our recommendations in the reauthorization will help 

to assure that resources are available and programs have sufficient 

flexibility to continue to respond to real people’s mobility needs and 

new approaches can be formulated to meet changing needs. 

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to continuing 

this dialogue. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Dexter. 

We have now been joined by three additional Members: Mr. Nadler, Mr. Sires, and Mr. Crawford. 

Do any of you wish to make any 2-minute statement at this 

time? 

All right. Thank you very much. 

14 

Our next witness is Ms. Barbara Windsor, the president and 

CEO of Hahn Transportation, Incorporated, testifying on behalf of 

the American Trucking Associations. And Ms. Richardson pointed 

out to me that Ms. Windsor is the first woman who has ever been 

the chairman of the American Trucking Associations. So, certainly, 

congratulations are in order. And we are pleased to have you with 

us today. 

You may begin your testimony. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Rahall, and members 

of the subcommittee, thank you so much for inviting me to testify 

on behalf of the American Trucking Associations. I am Barbara 

Windsor, president and CEO of Hahn Transportation, based in 

New Market, Maryland, and I do serve as the ATA chairman, the 

first female in 77 years. 

Mr. Chairman, a safe and efficient system of highways is essential to our country’s economic well-being, security, and overall quality of life. Your predecessors recognized this reality by creating the 

Interstate Highway System, which has served our country well. 

Every day, freight flows through our ports, across our borders, and 

on our rail, highway, air, and water systems as part of a global, 

multimodal transportation logistics system. 

Highways are the key to this system. Trucks move 70 percent of 

our Nation’s freight tonnage and earn 82 percent of freight revenue. Unfortunately, our current highway system no longer meets 

our needs. In 2009, drivers in metropolitan areas wasted 4.8 billion 

hours sitting in traffic and burning 3.9 billion gallons of excess fuel 

at a cost of $115 billion. The cost to the trucking industry was $33 

billion. 

Mr. Chairman, incremental solutions will not allow us to meet 

the Nation’s current and future transportation requirements. While 

we know that Congress is not receptive to a fuel tax increase, we 

would like the record to reflect that the trucking industry is willing 

to accept a fuel tax increase to help fund infrastructure. 

Tolls on existing non-tolled Interstate Highways are not the answer. Tolls are a very inefficient means of revenue collection, and 

they cause diversion of traffic to alternate routes which are usually 

less safe. 

In addition to more revenue, the Federal surface transportation 

program must be fundamentally reformed to maximize available 

resources. ATA supports a consolidated highway program with eligibility limited to the National Highway System and other highways with significant passenger and freight traffic. 

Funding should also be dedicated toward addressing critical bottlenecks on heavily traveled freight corridors. Furthermore, programs with eligibilities which are clearly not in the national interest must be eliminated or paid for by other sources. 

In addition, ATA supports a moratorium on highway earmarks. 

Project selection must be based on sound economic analysis. We 

also need to cut government red tape and streamline the project 

delivery process by reforming rules that extend the timeline for 

project delivery by 7 to 10 years. 

Mr. Chairman, we can also more effectively utilize our highways 

through the use of more productive trucks. A new Federal-State 

15 

partnership is necessary to promote truck size and weight reforms 

that improve safety, lower freight costs, reduce emissions, and protect public investment in our highway infrastructure. 

Now, turning to safety, the trucking industry is the safest it has 

ever been and continues to get even safer. However, we believe 

that we can do better if we recognize that truck safety is about 

more than just regulation; it is about understanding the factors 

that increase crash risk and behaviors and events that cause crashes. Future FMCSA rules and programs will only succeed to the degree that they truly address crash risk and causation. 

The most innovative and effective future oversight programs will 

be those which provide carriers with the tools to support carrierbased safety improvements. Our written statement includes recommendations addressing fatigue, a drug and alcohol clearinghouse, speed, and, perhaps most importantly, active safety technologies that lower risk and prevent crashes. We also have included several hazardous materials program recommendations for 

the committee’s consideration. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer our views 

on how, collectively, we can improve truck and highway mobility 

and safety. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, good job. Thank you very much, Ms. Windsor. 

And next we are honored to have Mr. Kristopher Kane, a truck 

driver for Quality Carriers, who is testifying on behalf of the 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. 

Mr. KANE. Thank you. And I want to clarify that I am not here 

representing Quality Carriers; I am here representing OOIDA. 

My name, once again, is Kristopher Kane. I am involved in the 

trucking industry now for 25 years, as both an owner-operator as 

well as a company driver. OOIDA represents the interest of smallbusiness trucking professionals and professional truck drivers. 

I will keep my comments brief and sum up our written testimony. In short, truckers are one of the largest contributors to the 

Highway Trust Fund of our Nation’s highway system. Every time 

we fuel, buy new trucks, trailers, tires, and write a check out for 

the annual highway heavy-vehicle usage tax, we contribute to that 

fund. In fact, while heavy-duty trucks only account for 7 percent 

of our highway’s traffic, OOIDA members and other truck companies contribute more than 36 percent of the money going into the 

Highway Trust Fund each year. 

Despite this investment, we continue to see efforts to divert the 

trust fund dollars away from highways and toward other programs 

that have little or no connection to improving the flow of interstate 

commerce. The next highway bill represents an opportunity to halt 

those diversions and refocus the trust fund investments toward 

their original purpose: highways. 

We are willing to entertain a variety of funding mechanisms to 

replenish the Highway Trust Fund, providing that those funds are 

used to maintain our highway infrastructure as well as make the 

improvements on our Nation’s roads and bridges. 

As far as improving other programs, we believe the safest trucks 

on the road are those driven by well-trained, experienced drivers 

who have the ability to travel at the same rate of speed and traffic 

flow. In addition, OOIDA does not support any mandates which unVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
16 

fairly burden truckers and compromise their privacy, such as onboard electronic recorders, or EOBRs. 

Furthermore, OOIDA believes the most pervasive problem in the 

trucking industry’s impact on drivers’ efficiency is excessive detention time. That is long, unpredictable, and often uncompensated 

time that truck drivers spend on the dock waiting to be loaded and 

unloaded. Detention time is more than just a mere inconvenience 

problem for the truckers. We deal with it on a daily basis, and it 

costs society an estimated $6.5 billion a year. 

I personally have been subjected to this detention time throughout my career. One example was one time I was hauling frozen turkeys from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. I arrived at the warehouse 

for a scheduled appointment on a Wednesday only to find out there 

was a computer glitch and I had to wait until Friday evening to 

unload the trailer. I sat there for 3 days and 2 nights. 

Because of the warehouse mistake, I wasted time, fuel, and the 

opportunity to be with my family. I was not compensated for their 

mistake. The mistake did not cost the warehouse anything. In fact, 

it worked to their benefit because we were able to keep their product on my refrigerated trailer until they were ready to receive it. 

Unfortunately, this example is not an uncommon experience for 

truck drivers, who are regularly detained by shippers in 

receivement for hours and even days at a time, essentially because 

the driver’s time is not accounted for in the supply chain. Congress 

has an opportunity to address this issue. I would like to thank Congressman DeFazio for introducing this bill on this issue. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Kane. 

Our next witness is Mr. LaMont Byrd, the director of the Safety 

and Health Department for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Mr. Byrd? 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today 

to convey our views on issues that we feel will improve our surface 

transportation programs, especially those related to motor carrier 

safety. 

While time permits me to discuss only a few of our issues, our 

written testimony provides a more comprehensive overview. 

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents approximately 600,000 commercial drivers who are among the safest and 

most experienced drivers on our Nation’s roads. Truck drivers deserve to have a workplace, our Nation’s roads, that is as safe as 

any factory floor. Unfortunately, that is just not the case. 

While there appears to be a downward trend in fatalities and injuries involving large trucks during the last few years, it is difficult 

to determine the exact reasons for these reductions. Certainly, increased roadside inspections, compliance reviews, and enforcement 

activities and initiatives by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration played a role, but external factors like the recession 

and the likelihood that there has been a significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled also contributed. Nevertheless, 3,380 fatalities 

and crashes involving large trucks in 2009 is just unacceptable. 

17 

Many trucks operated by teamster members are equipped with 

speed limiters, and our drivers report no significant problems or 

safety hazardous as a result of using these devices. Based on our 

experience, the teamsters could support the use of speed-limiting 

devices industrywide, provided that these devices allow trucks to 

attain sufficient speeds to safely merge on to highways, pass slowmoving vehicles, and maintain a safe speed while traveling uphill. 

While the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issued a 

final rule that requires the use of electronic onboard recorders for 

motor carriers that have had a history of serious noncompliance 

with the hours-of-service rule, there have been several legislative 

proposals introduced that will require the use of EOBRs in all 

interstate commercial motor vehicles. 

The teamsters union believes that EOBR technology may be useful in helping to enforce compliance with the hours-of-service regulation, but it does not guarantee compliance with the rule. Drivers 

will still have to manually input data concerning time spent on 

duty not driving; thus, cheaters will still have the opportunity to 

cheat. 

We also think that EOBRs must be tamperproof and have the capability to accurately identify drivers who are operating a specific 

piece of equipment. 

We strongly recommend that, as legislation moves forward mandating the use of EOBRs, that they be used only for compliance for 

hours of service and not to monitor the productivity of drivers. 

The teamsters union has a long history of being proactive in deterring the abuse of drugs and alcohol in the trucking industry. For 

well over 2 decades, the union has negotiated drug and alcohol 

testing programs with many of our employers in the trucking industry. That said, we are aware of several legislative proposals 

calling for a national clearinghouse for drug and alcohol testing 

records. 

While we have significant concerns about the creation of a clearinghouse with respect to driver privacy issues, we would prefer a 

national clearinghouse operated by the Federal Government rather 

than a database where information is collected on a State-by-State 

basis and managed by the States. 

The clearinghouse must be able to: one, protect the driver’s confidentiality; two, provide a reasonable mechanism for drivers to 

learn of and correct reporting errors; and, three, create a uniform 

and fair method for expunging the records of drivers who have 

been successfully rehabbed. 

In closing, none of this safety agenda can be accomplished without dedicated resources. The prospect of looming budget cuts with 

no real increase in the revenue stream may put the United States 

even further behind other nations in developing a transportation 

system that allows us to compete in a global market. 

Thank you. And I will remain available for any questions that 

you may have. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Byrd. 

Our next witness is Mr. Dave Leach, president and CEO of Greyhound Bus Lines, Incorporated. 

Mr. Leach? 

18 

Mr. LEACH. Chairman Duncan and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to present Greyhound’s views on the vital 

role intercity buses can play in bringing cost-effective improvements to the Nation’s surface transportation programs. 

Intercity buses are the most energy-efficient, environmentally 

clean, cost-effective, and flexible passenger transportation mode, 

yet they are largely off the grid when it comes to Federal, State, 

and local planning. It is a rare day when intercity buses are integrated into transportation planning in a meaningful way, and far 

less than 1 percent of Federal public and intercity transportation 

funding goes to intercity buses. 

Here are six steps we recommend that the subcommittee take to 

enable intercity buses to help meet its objectives of better utilization of underutilized assets, doing more with less, streamlining delivery, and developing public-private partnerships. 

Number one, give States more flexibility in implementing the 

Section 5311(f) intercity bus program by making the FTA’s private 

match pilot program permanent. By allowing States to use all of 

a private operator’s unsubsidized costs as a private match and by 

letting States use the match for any Section 5311 project, in the 

pilot program’s 3 years, States have been able to provide new intercity service to 240 communities nationwide without a dime of extra 

Federal expense. 

Number two, assuming there is going to be an intercity component to reauthorization, give States the flexibility to provide capital 

for the development of intercity bus networks. These can provide 

attractive alternatives to the private auto at a tiny fraction of the 

capital costs of intercity rail and with no subsidized operating 

costs. Services like Greyhound’s Bolt Bus and Greyhound’s Express 

have demonstrated the popularity of bus services. The industry’s 

problem is a lack of capital for new equipment. In the last 12 

years, the annual number of motorcoaches in our industry has fallen by 65 percent. 

Number three, continue the Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program to help Greyhound and others to meet the continuing Federal 

mandate for a wheelchair lift on every fixed-route bus it acquires. 

This mandate adds almost 10 percent to the cost of a new bus. 

Without this program, Greyhound will have to reduce its bus purchases by 10 percent. A reduction in fleet will mean less or no service on routes with low ridership. 

Number four, integrate intercity buses into Federal, State, and 

local planning so that their transportation and environmental benefits are fully utilized. 

Number five, ensure that local and State officials treat privately 

operated intercity buses the same as public transit buses with regard to access to and charges paid for federally funded HOV and 

HOT lanes and tolled facilities. 

And last but not least, provide incentives for intermodal projects 

including intercity buses and make those projects easier to plan, 

fund, and implement. 

Greyhound believes that these steps will enable privately operated intercity buses to play a substantial role in creating an improved and more cost-effective surface transportation system. 

Thank you. 

19 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Leach. 

The next witness is Mr. Peter Pantuso, president and CEO of the 

American Bus Association. Mr. Pantuso? 

Mr. PANTUSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ABA is the trade association for the private motorcoach over-theroad industry as well as for the tour and travel industry, all of 

whom have a deep interest in transportation reauthorization. Our 

motorcoach members represent nearly 60 percent of all 

motorcoaches on the road today and provide a variety of expanding 

transportation services to more than 760 million passengers annually. 

The private motorcoach industry, which operates with virtually 

no subsidy, is looking less for funding than it is for opportunities— 

opportunities to access existing programs and existing funding 

sources. A full presentation of our reauthorization proposals is appended to my testimony. 

Our first proposal is that the private bus industry be fully involved in the planning process. A letter that was recently sent by 

our vice chairman cites an example in Allentown, Pennsylvania. 

And it reads, ‘‘The city of Allentown Parking Authority planned 

and built the Allentown Transportation Center, an intermodal facility. Then it asked our company and other bus operators to move 

into it only after it was built. However, it was in the wrong location, without accommodations needed for intercity regular route 

service operations and for our passengers. We have seen this happen repeatedly and believe the consultation requirement that currently exists for these projects should be enforced.’’ 

We also suggest that a staff position in the Office of the Secretary be created that provides support to and reduces obstacles for 

private bus transportation service and all private providers. The 

conversation about public-private partnerships, to date, has focused 

mostly on construction. We believe that should be expanded so that 

the dialogue also includes passenger transportation. 

Our second proposal is to reverse the trend of rural communities 

losing their intercity bus service by continuing the rural intercity 

program that Mr. Leach mentioned, the 5311(f) program, and the 

private match pilot program. 

Third, ABA proposes an Essential Bus Service. The current Essential Air Service program is continually shrinking, yet its costs 

continue to expand. Congress should require the U.S. Department 

of Transportation to fund a pilot Essential Bus Service program 

that also gives operators meaningful access to existing hub airports 

and ground transportation facilities. 

Our fourth proposal is the continuation of the ADA grant program providing wheelchair-lift assistance to comply with the 1998 

requirements for intercity coaches. Grants available under the 

SAFETEA–LU for ADA compliance have been less than one-fourth 

of the total cost, which, estimated by the Transportation Research 

Board, exceeds $40 million annually. 

And, finally, there is a need for capital to revitalize the industry. 

Due in part to continuing Federal mandates, the average purchase 

price of a coach has increased from $340,000 in 2000 to $500,000 

today. New safety mandates coming from Congress and from 

NHTSA will easily increase the cost another $60,000 to $75,000 per 

20 

coach. Increased costs have driven up the average age of the fleet 

by nearly 40 percent. And if that continues, we will see a greater 

loss of these small businesses, our domestic motorcoach manufacturing base, local tourism dollars, and we will see increased congestion as people move from buses to cars. Financial assistance could 

come through a combination of tax credits, grants, low-interest 

loans, access to TIFIA funds, and capital under the infrastructure 

bank. 

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, ABA believes our 

proposals are workable, reasonable, and necessary to ensure that 

our transportation system continues to serve our 760 million passengers annually. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We are always honored to be joined by the former 

Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. 

Young. 

Do you have my statements you wish to make at this time? 

Mr. YOUNG. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for asking, but let us 

hear the witnesses, and I may have a couple questions later on. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thanks very much. 

Our next witness is Captain Steve Dowling of the California 

Highway Patrol on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. 

Captain Dowling. 

Mr. DOWLING. Thank you. 

Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Richardson, and members 

of the subcommittee, I am Steve Dowling. I am president of the 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and I appreciate the privilege 

of addressing you this afternoon. 

CVSA is an organization of State and provincial officials that are 

responsible for the administration and enforcement of commercial 

motor vehicle safety laws for the United States and Mexico. 

Our written statement addresses six issues that we submitted, 

and those include carrier exemptions to the regulations, investment 

in safety technologies, and registration credentialing and data integrity. 

But today I would like to address three of the other topics that 

were submitted, and the first is the Motor Carrier Safety Grant 

Program. The core State safety grant program is the Motor Carrier 

Safety Assistance Program, and since its inception, this program 

has maintained the same general structure while the approach to 

enforcement has evolved. CVSA believes that each of the current 

grant programs contributes to the mission of reducing truck and 

bus fatalities and collisions, but we also believe that there is a better way to align these programs to allow the States more flexibility 

in allocating grant moneys to achieve the desired results. 

CVSA supports the designation of three umbrella grants identified in FMCSA’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. We particularly 

like the idea of the Compliant Safety and Accountability, or CSA, 

umbrella grant as it allows data to be used for targeted enforcement of motor carriers that have serious safety issues. However, 

CSA and its implementation has greatly increased data challenges 

that must be adjudicated by the States. And therefore, when this 

21 

committee looks at the level of funding, we would request that this 

issue be taken into consideration. 

With respect to the maintenance of effort, or MOE, requirements 

in the MCSAP, the current method of shifting the time period for 

which MOE formula is based has become a serious burden for the 

States. CVSA recommends the MOE formula be tied to a stationary 

period, specifically the three fiscal periods preceding the enactment 

of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, and then indexed for inflation. 

As evidenced by FMCSA’s intervention model results, there is a 

direct correlation between enforcement and safety. Therefore, we 

urge the committee to, at a minimum, sustain funding of State programs at current authorization levels. 

Next I would like to discuss bus safety. 

DOT is making reasonable progress, but more needs to be done. 

One specific step would be to restore the States’ ability to conduct 

en-route bus inspections. Restrictions in the current authorization 

prohibit en-route bus inspections except in the case of imminent 

hazard. The same legislation encourages roadside inspection for vehicles carrying freight. CVSA believes this contradiction must be 

corrected by placing a priority on passenger transportation and lifting the en-route inspection prohibition on buses. 

Advancement in crashworthiness and passenger protection systems need to be accelerated into the market. Proven solutions do 

not need further studies, and seatbelts should be mandatory. 

My final topic is truck size and weight. We realize there is an 

interest in improving truck productivity, and CVSA believes the 

first step in this process is to conduct a comprehensive truck size 

and weight study, and safety must be in the forefront of all discussions and analysis. Specifically, performance testing of various vehicle configurations should be conducted to ensure increasing productivity does not come at the expense of safety and bridge and 

highway infrastructure protection. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share our recommendations to further improve highway safety. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

I am so pleased that all of the witnesses thus far have said a lot 

in a short amount of time, and we are moving this hearing along 

much better than I expected. 

Our next witness is Mr. Vernon Betkey, the director of the Maryland Highway Safety Office, testifying on behalf of the Governors 

Highway Safety Association. 

Mr. BETKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to testify today. 

The members of the Governors Highway Safety Association are 

responsible for administering the State highway safety behavioral 

programs, and they do this with one formula grant program, seven 

incentive grant programs, and two penalty transfer programs. 

In the past these programs have been authorized in a piecemeal 

fashion without an overall National Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

with national goals. The association, along with many of its highway safety partners, is developing a national plan. The vision for 

this plan is zero motor vehicle fatalities, with an interim goal of 

halving fatalities by 2030. GHSA recommends that the vision and 

22 

the goal be incorporated into the next authorization and encourages the States to work toward this goal in their Strategic Highway 

Safety Plans. 

The association recommends a streamlined approach to the behavioral highway safety funds. We support a single behavioral safety program, excluding the data program, with earmarks for impaired driving, occupant protection and motorcycle safety. The association strongly recommends a single application and a single application deadline, with all funds allocated by October 1. This 

would make for a more efficient planning process in the States. 

GHSA worked with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to identify a set of 15 performance measures that States 

are using right now in their highway safety plans and programs. 

The GHSA supports this performance-based approach for behavioral funds and recommends that the reauthorization legislation 

focus on the most important measures, which is total fatalities, fatality rates, total serious injuries, and using that on a 5-year moving average. In addition, we would recommend a more standardized 

definition for ‘‘serious injuries.’’ 

The collection and analysis of data is extremely important to 

State planning and evaluation, and GHSA recommends an increase 

in the Section 408 Data Improvement Program. The association 

supports the requirements for States to develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan under Section 148 Highway Safety Improvement 

Program. The process has helped our members strengthen the relationships with other partners in their States and also in local agencies involved in highway safety, and with a more focus on limited 

resources. GHSA recommends updates to the SHSP at least once 

between authorizations. 

When it comes to the carrot and the stick, the association fully 

supports the carrot approach and adamantly opposes new sanctions, as States already are sanctioned for failure to enact seven 

different highway safety laws, and the States are making a lot of 

progress in some of the other areas such as high BAC laws, texting 

laws, graduated driver’s license laws. And we discourage taking 

away the Federal funds that could possibly create more jobs. 

In summary, GHSA recommends the consolidated and streamlining of the grant process, a National Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan, and a continuation of the State strategic highway safety 

planning requirements, more emphasis on performance-based planning, a greater emphasis in data collection and analysis, and no 

sanctions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and we will be 

available for questions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Betkey. 

Our next witness is Ms. Judith Lee Stone, president of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. 

Ms. Stone. 

Ms. STONE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

Last year, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety celebrated its 

20th anniversary. As we have done in the past 2 decades, we want 

to make sure that the transportation reauthorization bill enacted 

in Congress this year has a strong safety component. 

23 

SAFETEA–LU, enacted in 2005, has resulted in the largest surface transportation and infrastructure investment in our Nation’s 

history. Yet during just this authorization timeframe, over 200,000 

people will have been killed on our roads and highways and more 

than 10 million injured, at an economic cost to society of well over 

$1 trillion. 

Let me briefly recommend some key areas where there are tremendous opportunities for safety. 

Without adoption of the safety provisions, the next 5 years will 

likely result in another 200,000 people dying on our highways and 

millions more injured at a numbing human and economic cost. We 

can’t let this happen, and we don’t have to let this happen. 

One of the most significant obstacles in reducing highway deaths 

and injuries is the lack of uniform traffic safety laws among States. 

Included in my statement are several maps showing that too many 

States lack some of the most fundamental safety laws. This is 

where Federal leadership is crucial. 

In the past 20 years, when Congress reinforced the need for 

States to pass life-saving laws by invoking sanctions, States 

promptly acted. This has been successful in achieving uniform 

State adoption of a national 21 drinking age, minimum standards 

for licensing commercial drivers, a zero tolerance law to combat underage drinking and driving, and a .08 BAC law. 

It is important to note that every time Congress used a sanction, 

every State adopted the law. Not one State lost a single dollar of 

Federal highway funds, and many thousands of lives have been 

saved. 

It is even more important to realize, especially in these days, 

that highway safety sanctions do not cost any money to implement. 

States pass the laws, sanctions are not applied, and everyone walks 

away a winner. It is time for Congress to use this approach to encourage State action on several essential and life-saving laws. 

Every State needs a strong and comprehensive teen driving law. 

Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for teenagers in every State. Since 2003, more than 53,000 deaths occurred 

in motor vehicle crashes involving young drivers. There is a patchwork quilt of teen driving laws across the country that jeopardizes 

the safety of our children. It makes no sense to allow a system 

where teens in some States are better protected than in others. 

Advocates support the Safe Teen and Uniform Driver Protection, 

or STANDUP, Act, setting minimum standards for State teen driving laws. The requirements in the bill are based on recommendations by the NTSB, the American Academy of Pediatrics, safety experts, and extensive research and studies. Any doubts about public 

support for getting these laws on the books in every State are put 

to rest by recent scientific surveys saying that in large percentages 

parents want licensing rules that go beyond the STANDUP Act, 

and 74 percent of teens themselves approve of a single comprehensive law that incorporates the key elements of improved teen driving laws. 

Every State needs a primary enforcement seatbelt law. Last year 

about half of those killed in crashes were unbelted. In SAFETEA– 

LU, Congress provided $500 million in incentive grant funds to encourage State adoption of more effective belt laws. Only 10 States 

24 

acted these past 5 years. In fact, in 2010, only one State adopted 

a primary enforcement seatbelt law, and 19 States still need it. 

Every State needs an ignition interlock law to curb drunk driving, and this is an important measure to get tougher on drunk 

driving, and these devices keep impaired drivers off the road, including first-time offenders. 

Every State needs to be ban texting while driving. In 2009, there 

were an estimated 5,474 fatalities and nearly half a million injuries 

and crashes where driver distraction was a factor. Adoption of 

these laws for all drivers sends a message to the public that text 

messaging while driving is unsafe and illegal. 

Every State needs an all-rider motorcycle helmet law. 

Motorcycling deaths have doubled in recent years. In 2009, over 

4,000 motorcyclists were killed and 90,000 were injured. Before 

2009, motorcycle fatalities increased every year for more than a 

decade. 

Research conclusively and convincingly shows that all-rider helmet laws save lives, prevent disabling brain injuries and reduce 

medical costs, but currently only 20 States and DC require all motorcyclists to use a helmet, and these laws are under attack. Last 

year more laws were introduced in State legislatures to repeal allrider helmet laws rather than to enact them. 

And finally, we need to stop increases in truck sizes and weights. 

In the decade from 2000 to 2009, an average of over 4,000 people 

died in truck crashes each year, and more than 1.1 million suffered 

costly injuries. Oversized, overweight trucks are dangerous and destructive. As trucks get bigger and heavier, they have longer stopping distances, they are more difficult to maneuver in the traffic 

stream, they have an increased risk of rollover, and they destroy 

roads and bridges. 

Unfortunately, trucking and shipping interests are already prodding Congress to increase Federal truck size and weight laws, to 

relax the 1991 freeze on large double and triple trailer trucks, to 

set up pilot programs and give special weight exemptions and options to States. It is time to stop this deadly race, and we are in 

support of enacting the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act. 

I just want to close by saying that the quality of life for all Americans depends on a safe and reliable, economical and environmentally sound surface transportation system. There are no acceptable excuses for putting the brakes on adopting proven safety 

measures that will significantly reduce our Nation’s death and injury toll and health care costs as well. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Very good suggestions, Ms. Stone, particularly on 

the texting while driving. I don’t know, it is awfully hard to stop, 

I suppose, but certainly people shouldn’t be doing that. 

Our next witness is Ms. Jan Withers, a member of the national 

board of directors of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and is 

here to testify on their behalf. 

Ms. Withers. 

Ms. WITHERS. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Richardson, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf 

of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 

25 

Drunk driving continues to be the leading cause of death on our 

Nation’s roads. In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in drunk driving 

crashes. As a Nation, we should find these numbers inexcusable. 

The statistics we hear are not just numbers to me. My 15-yearold daughter Alisa was killed by a drunk driver. She was my child, 

not a number. And she is why I am here representing MADD 

today.in 2006, following research and strategies proven to work, 

MADD announced its Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, 

which, first, supports more resources for high-visibility law enforcement; second, requires all convicted drunk drivers to install an ignition interlock device; and lastly, turns cars into the cure through 

the development of advanced in-vehicle technology. 

An ignition interlock is a breath-test device linked to the vehicle’s ignition system. The interlock allows a DUI offender to continue to drive wherever they need to go. They just can’t drive 

drunk. The research on interlocks is crystal clear. Since New Mexico and Arizona have implemented all offender interlock laws, DUI 

fatalities in those States have been reduced by over 30 and 40 percent respectively. 

But MADD is now hitting roadblocks from the alcohol industry 

and DUI defense attorneys as we try to pass this law in State legislatures. In my own home State of Maryland, we have one particular DUI defense attorney who chairs the Judiciary Committee, 

where for the last 3 years he has refused to hold a vote on meaningful ignition interlock legislation. I have submitted a Washington 

Post editorial on the subject for the record. We need this committee’s help to work to find ways in the reauthorization bill to increase the number of DUI offenders required to use the ignition 

interlock device. 

While interlocks are currently the most proven technology available to stop drunk driving, a program is under way to provide an 

advanced in-vehicle option for consumers, which could potentially 

eliminate drunk driving. 

The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS, is a 

result of a research agreement between NHTSA and many of the 

world’s leading auto manufacturers. The purpose of this project is 

to research, develop and demonstrate noninvasive in-vehicle alcohol 

detection technologies that can very quickly and accurately measure the driver’s blood alcohol content. If a driver’s BAC is at or 

about the illegal limit of .08, the car will not start. The Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety estimates that over 8,000 lives could 

be saved if the technology is widely deployed in the U.S. 

MADD asks this committee to authorize $10 million per year to 

continue the existing DADSS research program. It is our hope that 

one day consumers will be able to purchase this technology as an 

option for their car. 

Turning to the grant programs, it is critical that dollars are 

spent on programs that work. SAFETEA–LU traffic safety grants 

represent the majority of funds that States spend on drunk driving 

prevention. You will note in my testimony submitted for the record 

that MADD is offering more specific recommendations regarding 

performance measures and accountability. 

With this committee’s leadership, we will eliminate drunk driving. MADD asks the committee to consider ways to make ignition 

26 

interlocks an important part of the next reauthorization bill. We 

ask for the Congress to turn cars into the cure for drunk driving 

by passing the ROADS SAFE Act. And by revamping highway safety grants programs, changes can be made to ensure States receive 

critical funding and spend it on activities that will save the most 

lives and prevent the most injuries. 

Thank you for your leadership and having this hearing. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Withers. 

Certainly the worst thing that can happen to anyone is to outlive 

a child, and certainly you have the sympathy of all of the Members 

in that regard. 

I am told by staff that just last night you were elected as the new 

incoming chairman or president of the Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving, so congratulations, and we wish you the best in that work, 

very important work. 

Our next witness is Mr. Robert Letourneau of the New Hampshire Motorcycle Education, a New Hampshire motorcycle education specialist, who is here to testify on behalf of the Motorcycle 

Riders Foundation. 

Mr. Letourneau. 

Mr. LETOURNEAU. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, and Ms. Richardson 

and members of the transit subcommittee. Thank you for inviting 

me today to testify on behalf of American motorcyclists. My name 

is Robert Letourneau, and I am here representing the Motorcycle 

Riders Foundation, which is a coalition of State motorcycle rights 

organizations and individual members representing 275,000 motorcyclists. 

I have served on the New Hampshire House Transportation for 

8 years and chairman of the New Hampshire Senate Transportation for three terms. Currently I am serving as a motorcycle rider 

education specialist for the New Hampshire Department of Safety, 

and additionally, I have been a motorcyclist myself for 34 years. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide your subcommittee with 

some thoughts the MRF has on highway safety programs administrated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The 

members of the MRF are appreciative that SAFETEA–LU legislation section 2010 provided $25 million specifically for motorcycle 

safety rider education and motorist awareness of motorcycles. That 

program has reached 48 States and has been extended for 2 years. 

Funding shortfalls for motorcycle safety are present across the 

country. During this time of economic challenge and budget shortfalls, many Governors are raiding the dedicated safety funds generated by licensing fees from motorcyclists to pay for nontransportation programs. When States are running a deficit, they turn 

to the motorcycle programs as a piggy bank. We pray that the next 

reauthorization will not only keep the Federal motorcycle safety 

grant program as a priority, but will also keep in place the safeguards that protect those funds from being used for any other purpose. 

Many nonprofit State motorcycle rights organizations have implemented ‘‘share the road’’ programs and impaired riding reduction programs with private funding sources. These 2010 funds 

could be made available to the nonprofit world to help them continue these life-saving endeavors. 

27 

It is important to note that, due in large part of this program, 

motorcycle fatalities dropped for the first time in 11 years during 

the 2008–2009 time period. The decrease in fatalities from 2008 

and 2009 was by 10 percent. That same report stated that an explosion of motorcycle sales, from 356,000 in 1997 to 1.1 million 

today, is crippling the rider education programs across the country. 

Twenty-nine States have capacity problems and often have waiting 

times for training for over 12 weeks. This is another reason why 

Congress needs to invest more money in motorcycle rider education 

via the 2010 funds. 

We ask that Congress continue this process set in the 

SAFETEA–LU legislation. Consider this: That under SAFETEA– 

LU law the Federal Government spends $1 per motorcyclist per 

year, and ask yourself if you think that is enough. 

Lastly, as a personal observation from myself, who actually sees 

how these grants positively impact the rider training program in 

my State of New Hampshire, I can say categorically that without 

these grants, it would not have been possible to expand our program that will reach many more riders, and the outcome will be 

lives saved because of proper training. 

One area of concern that we are working on right now is—to expand is the returning rider, the baby boomers, if you will. Our data 

shows an increase in fatal crashes in this area, and we are looking 

to create a new curriculum to address this issue. With the regard 

of value for the rider education, consider this example: During the 

first 10 years of our motorcycle education program, having trained 

over 23,000 riders, only 1 of those riders was involved in a fatality, 

and we believe that that rider had a medical event. 

Education is the key to successfully reducing motorcycle fatalities. Our experience is proof positive. On behalf of the MRF and 

the American motorcyclists, I thank you for this opportunity to 

present our concerns and views as you consider safety issues and 

development of a new highway program. And I will also stay to answer questions after the hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Letourneau. 

That is a fascinating statistic that 23,000 riders were trained, 

and only 1 of those has been involved or has been killed. That is 

amazing. That is great. 

Our next witness is Mr. Mortimer L. Downey III, senior adviser 

of Parsons Brinckerhoff, who is here to testify on behalf of the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors. 

I am going to turn the chair over to the Vice Chairman of the 

subcommittee Mr. Hanna, who will preside from here on. And I 

will be here a few minutes more, but I have some other meetings. 

Mr. Downey, you may begin. 

Mr. DOWNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Richardson. It is 

my privilege to be here to talk about the issue of goods movement, 

which is the concern of our coalition. We think this is a real opportunity as you are drafting the new legislation to not only fulfill constitutional requirements with respect to interstate commerce, but 

to make significant investments that will pay off to the economy 

through the efficient, safe movement of goods. 

28 

Our longer statement identifies a number of positions that we believe would be useful in legislation, but let me just touch on three 

key points. 

First, we think you should create a new U.S. Department of 

Transportation Office of Multimodal Freight. Such an office could 

really be the focal point within the Department on an unbiased 

basis to develop the data, the policies, and the strategies that are 

really needed to tune up our freight system and make it an efficient part of the economy. 

Second, we believe that in addition to freight-friendly positions 

throughout all elements of the bill, that there should be a dedicated 

freight program to make investments that are national in scope 

and nature, that can be very beneficial to the operation of the system, that should be selected on an objective and merit-based set of 

criteria, and that can be developed in a partnership with the private sector. Those are the kinds of projects that have been done in 

the past. There have been some real success stories, the Alameda 

Corridor in California being one of them. But there are many other 

such opportunities, and we should provide the basis by which those 

can be moved forward. 

Finally, I believe there should be in the bill and on the freight 

side a real opportunity for partnership with the private sector. 

There are private operators throughout the system; the truckers, 

the railroads, the barge operators. There are private beneficiaries 

in the movement of freight. They are looking for bottom-line improvements to their businesses. We have even heard today that 

some of them are willing to pay to see those bottom-line improvements be put into place. They are willing to be participants in the 

financing of projects, but they like to be part of the process in identifying the system that works and identifying the projects that 

make sense. 

To achieve that, there needs to be an ongoing dialogue with these 

private-sector companies on how the program works, on how the 

system is developing, and we believe there should be a private-sector freight advisory committee for the Department of Transportation to provide input on their strategic planning, to help in the 

criteria for project selection, but primarily to be a forum on how we 

make the system work better and how we create the data that will 

be needed to make good decisions within that system. 

So we look forward to working with you on the committee as legislation is drafted, and certainly we will be here to answer any 

questions this afternoon. But we will be ready to work with you 

throughout the year on this very important effort. 

Mr. HANNA. [presiding.] Thank you very much. 

Our next witness, Mr. Kirk Nagle, CEO and president of the 

American Association of Port Authorities. You are recognized, sir. 

Mr. NAGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Richardson, for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee 

this afternoon. 

The American Association of Port Authorities, representing our 

U.S. public port agencies, has submitted a number of policy recommendations for reauthorization with our written testimony. I 

would like to touch on just several of those issues of particular importance to ports in my oral testimony this afternoon. 

29 

In these challenging Federal budget times, it is particularly important to focus and prioritize on core Federal missions and which 

have a sizable impact on our economy, employment, and our international competitiveness. Transportation infrastructure, particularly that connecting the U.S. to the world, has consistently been 

identified as strongly in the Federal interests since our Nation’s 

founding. This infrastructure is even more important than ever 

with over 25 percent of our Nation’s gross domestic product accounted for by international trade. 

America’s ports are doing their share. They are investing over $2 

billion a year in their infrastructure to accommodate increases in 

trade. However, the constraints and bottlenecks are often on the 

connections to our ports on both the land and the water side. 

AAPA believes that it is important in this reauthorization to elevate freight transportation, including the connections into and out 

of intermodal facilities like ports, to a higher level of focus and priority. 

Among our specific recommendations: to reform and consolidate 

the over 100 existing programs, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned 

in your opening remarks with one of those consolidated programs 

focusing on freight transportation; as well as the multimodal 

freight office that Mr. Downey referenced in his testimony for 

CAGTC. We think it is very important to implement a national 

freight policy with funding targeted at both the Federal and State 

levels to freight, including projects in corridors of regional and national significance. These multistate projects now are difficult to 

advance when much of the cost may be in one State and/or in 

multistate or multijurisdictions, but the benefits are widely disbursed both regionally and ultimately nationally. 

We also think it is vital that the intermodal connections into and 

out of ports, the so-called last, or, we think, more appropriately, 

first mile, are absolutely critical links. And this is often where we 

see bottlenecks when goods are either moving to or away from our 

America’s ports. A Federal Highway Administration study found 

these intermodal connectors to be in worse condition and received 

less funding than their other counterparts in the National Highway 

System. 

Currently it is difficult for these projects to compete in the local 

planning process, which is most often focused more on moving people, automobiles, rather than freight. But these are absolutely vital 

to our economy, they are vital to employment, and they are vital 

to our international competitiveness. 

In addition, AAPA urges that in reauthorization there be an authorization for a National Infrastructure Investments style program, as there is no other general funding source right now for 

port infrastructure. 

And we believe that there should be incentives to encourage 

more short sea shipping and marine highway-type utilization to 

better utilize our Nation’s water assets. We have the benefit of 

being a maritime Nation and having water essentially on all four 

of our coasts, including the Great Lakes, and we think we should 

look and incentivize ways of better utilizing that to lessen the pressure on our highway system. 

30 

Finally, we endorsed the other notion that you mentioned in your 

opening, Mr. Chairman, about the desire to improve project delivery and the permitting process. We support Chairman Mica’s 437- 

day plan to eliminate redundancies, provide concurrent rather than 

consecutive reviews, streamline processes, and delegate NEPA responsibility where appropriate to appropriate State agencies. 

Again, I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify and 

would be happy to answer questions at the proper time. Thank you. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you Mr. Nagle. 

Mr. Johnson, manager, carrier relations, Owens Corning, on behalf of National Industrial Transportation League. You are recognized, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon. My name is Wayne Johnson. I am the manager 

of global carrier relations at Owens Corning in Toledo, Ohio. Today 

I am here representing the members of the National Industrial 

Transportation League as its chairman of the transportation committee itself. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

Like most of you, I drove to work today. And I am here today 

to talk about industrial perspectives in the transportation market. 

Owens Corning depends heavily on transportation infrastructure 

and moves over 570,000 loads a year using all modes of transportation. Trucking represents 495,000 loads of that total of shipments, and over 145 million highway miles traveled every year on 

an annual basis at a cost of $345 million that we spend on transportation on the highway side alone. 

These are not trivial numbers, and we are only one company out 

of the many members we have. Like so many businesses, we depend upon a transportation system that allows us to reach suppliers and customers in a timely and efficient manner. Congestion 

on our highways and our ports, intermodal connections creates inefficiencies, long transit times, missed schedules, production interruptions. All of these are uncompensated costs that harm profitability, inhibit our ability to grow and add new workers. 

Most of our witnesses are probably in broad agreement with the 

nature of this problem. It is time for solutions, and we are enlightened by Chairman Mica’s statement there will be no more shortterm extensions of the surface transportation authorization. 

America is underinvesting in our freight transportation system. 

We are failing to recognize how it supports our economy interests 

and creates an environment for sustained economic growth. Further delay in enacting a new authorization and continued neglect 

of our existing highway investments will compromise American industrial competitiveness. Companies that export, like Owens Corning, will fall behind overseas competitors. The competition is global and relentless. For major importers and retailers, it will mean 

the costs will soar on consumers. And for exporters, importers, and 

companies that do all of their business in the United States, the 

result is the same: We will not be able to add jobs. 

The great recession masked the problems that we have seen in 

the full recovery takes place, but they will come again. The 

chokepoints, backups, delays, and other indicators of deteriorating 

freight transportation systems that were cited daily before the recession will abate somewhat, but as we resume normal production 

31 

and consumption cycles, the underlying problems of infrastructure 

neglect and deferred investments will again make themselves 

known. 

For all of our past efforts, we have never seriously considered or 

attempted to put in place the national transportation system policy. 

I recognize the full integrated system, comprehensive, multiyear 

surface transportation authorization bill is imperative, and we need 

it now. 

There are some proposals now in the line with the Highway 

Transportation Fund into a transportation trust fund. Without 

more details, especially on funding, we will reserve judgment. However, we are concerned in that the attempt to address many shortcomings of our transportation system, there will be unwarranted 

claims on this fund for purposes unrelated to transportation. Users 

of Federal highways should see their taxes, tolls, and other fees 

paid for maintaining and improving and expanding capacity on 

their highways and bridges and system connections and not for 

nontransportation purposes. The industry understands that difficulties in advancing this in the fiscal year and political environment that we are in today. 

We strongly support the use of—reform of vehicle weight limits 

and trucks to give the States an option to allow six-axle tractors 

weighing up to 97,000 pounds on interstate highways as one solution. These six-axle vehicles will, of course, be required to meet the 

safety concerns of lighter trucks today. 

We respectfully urge the committee to identify and promote incentives for moving traffic in off-peak times. It is not easy to accomplish, but we think it can be accomplished by this committee. 

In my submitted testimony I have also offered other recommendations to improve the Nation’s freight transportation contained in a 10-point platform of principles developed by the Freight 

Stakeholders Coalition, which the league is a member. 

Mr. Chairman, I am here to answer any questions afterwards. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Mullings, president and CEO, National Association of Truck 

Stop Operators, you are recognized. 

Ms. MULLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. 

Today I respectfully urge Congress to reject any proposal that 

would jeopardize the jobs of nearly 2 million Americans who are 

employed by travel plazas, truck stops, restaurants, and convenience stores located near interstate exits. 

Some States want to lease out interstate rest areas so they can 

collect fees from a vendor, who will in turn sell food and gas to 

highway motorists. Federal law does not currently allow these 

types of sales at any rest area built after January 1, 1960. If the 

law were to be changed, the State would save on the maintenance 

fees, and the business would generate a profit. 

It might seem odd that someone who represents business could 

be opposed to this idea. After all, this sounds like a great way to 

reduce the size of government by privatizing government services. 

In fact, it does just the opposite. The government is not in the business of selling food and fuel to motorists. The private sector is already meeting the needs of highway users at interchanges throughVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
32 

out this country. Allowing commercial rest areas would actually expand the role and size of government at a cost to businesses and 

the people who work there. 

We already have commercial rest areas in more than a dozen 

States, and we can see for ourselves that they stifle competition 

and business development. On the highways that have commercial 

rest areas, there are 50 percent fewer businesses at the interchanges than along highways with no commercial rest areas. 

Last year I received a call from NATSO member Roger Cole, one 

of the owners of four travel plaza locations along the east coast. He 

told me that one day he became puzzled by the sales data from one 

of his travel center locations. He double-checked the numbers with 

his accountant, who confirmed they were indeed accurate. 

Roger called the general manager of this particular travel center, 

which is located in Maryland. He asked the general manager of 

that location how his sales could have possibly jumped this much. 

I mean, that would have been significant. A 30 percent increase is 

how it increased, and that would have been significant under any 

sort of scenario, but this was in the fall, or early fall, of 2009 at 

a time where businesses all over the country were suffering from 

the effects of the recession. 

When Roger asked him what he had done, he said he was 

stumped. After about a week of record sales numbers, however, he 

realized something. Just across the Maryland-Delaware line, there 

is a commercial rest area called the Delaware House, and it was 

undergoing major reconstruction. The State rest area located on 

the right-of-way of Interstate 95 closed on the very day that Roger’s 

numbers improved so dramatically. The Delaware House sells food 

and fuel as well as convenience items to interstate users. Months 

later the general manager’s hunch was indeed confirmed. On the 

day of the grand reopening of the Delaware House, sales for the 

Maryland location dropped 30 percent, down to the same level 

where they were prior to the closure of the Delaware House. 

This is not a story of businesses fearing competition. Our members face competition every hour of every day that they are in operation. They face competition from those across the street or next 

door to them. It is because of the rest areas’ ideal location on the 

shoulder or the median of the highway that makes this a difficult 

proposition. A vendor can charge virtually whatever they want to 

charge at this rest area because they are operating as a monopoly. 

For example, if you stop at the Delaware House, you can buy a 

fast-food hamburger from HMSHost that leases and operates franchise restaurants there. If you drive 6 miles down the road, however, and get off at an exit, right there is a fast food restaurant, 

the same fast food restaurant, and you can buy that same exact 

hamburger for $1 less. 

Part of that extra dollar goes to the State. It is effectively a tax 

on the public. The remainder of the dollar goes into the pocket of 

the business that was able to bid on the rest area successfully and 

locate there. 

Another one of my members told me that he will pay more than 

$600,000 this year in taxes to Rockbridge County, Virginia, where 

his business is located. If a commercial rest area forces his business to close, more than 140 people will lose their jobs there. The 

33 

county will also lose their tax revenue, and truckers will lose the 

hundreds of parking spaces that he right now provides for free at 

his location. 

During his State of the Union address earlier this year, President Obama said American jobs created by transportation projects, 

quote, ‘‘didn’t just come from laying down infrastructure or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town’s new 

train station or the new off ramp.’’ 

The competitive interstate business community owes its very existence to the visionary leaders who enacted the Interstate Highway Act. As you work to reauthorize the Federal transportation 

program, we are looking forward to working with you to continue 

this competitive environment.thank you for allowing me to address 

you today. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. 

Now we are going to move to questions and answers. I will recognize each Member for 5 minutes, starting with Mr. Young from 

Alaska. 

Mr. YOUNG. I have only one question for Mr. Martz, Jon Martz. 

Is he in the audience? Jon? 

And I do apologize for not being here. I understand you were 

supposed to mention my name in your testimony, and that depends 

on what type question I ask you. 

Mr. MARTZ. I did, and it was in a good context. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. Good. Is this simple. Because car pooling and 

van pooling and things, that is the thing that I am interested in 

especially relieving traffic congestion. 

Can you tell me about the market for van pools over the past few 

years, the history, and the correlation between rising fuel prices 

and the van pool usage? 

Mr. MARTZ. Certainly. 

First off, Chairman Young, let me start by thanking you for your 

interest in this. You have been very involved in your State in local 

van pool programs in both Anchorage and Fairbanks, and I want 

to thank you for that and your leadership over the years. 

To answer your question directly, the demand for van pooling nationwide has increased significantly. With $4-a-gallon gasoline, our 

company alone grew by 37 percent 2 years ago. We held, too. One 

of the things I remember hearing was APTA touted that they grew 

by 4 percent during that time period, but then when gas prices fell, 

their ridership dropped quite a bit. We held, and we continued to 

grow. 

Just since gas prices started increasing in rural and urban areas 

both, we are getting calls from large generators, whether they are 

military bases, nuclear power plants, things like that that are kind 

of not-in-your-backyard type of facilities, that they are concerned 

about how their employees are going to get to and from work, and 

if gas prices continue. And accordingly, we are ginning up some 

business. 

The bad news is gas prices are going up, and it affects the economy; the good news for our business is we are able to serve more 

people because we are able to satisfy that demand. But that is from 

Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico and growing metropolitan areas like 

Honolulu, the space coast, and large metros like Los Angeles, we 

34 

are continuing to grow, and this demand could be met even better 

by using Federal transit funds to leverage private-sector investment in public transportation. 

Van pooling is not a panacea. We are not a silver bullet, but we 

do serve a certain market niche and very effectively. 

Mr. YOUNG. One of the things I know—you are right about Alaska. In 2005, we had 24 van operations in Anchorage alone, and 

now we have about, I believe, 57 vans. So it does work. We are 

finding out—we pay—right now we are paying about $4.50 a gallon 

in Alaska even with all of the oil we have. And for those in the audience, we will hit $5 a gallon for gasoline probably by the first of 

June. And this is going to affect the economy. But more than that, 

just how do people make up for their ability to go to work? They 

will be using pools, buses and transit, which makes it work a lot 

better. 

And for those in the audience, if you have got any influence, we 

have to start producing our fuels in this Nation. The idea we are 

going to buy them from Brazil just makes me want to throw up. 

And I think I love this pooling because it gets people off the road, 

and that is very, very important. 

Mr. Martz, thank you, and again I am quite interested in this 

program, and I hope people understand the importance of it. And 

I do thank you for your testifying today. 

And that is all the questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

I would like to recognize Ms. Richardson from California. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Windsor, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Downey, if you could make your 

way up to the front. I only have a few minutes, so I am going to 

ask the questions quick, and hopefully I can get a quick response. 

Ms. Windsor, you talked about ATA and your willingness to tax 

yourselves, basically the industry, under the commitment that obviously that the funds would be utilized would be done in an area 

to help you do your work better. Fuel tax hasn’t been increased 

since 1993, and, as you know, we have a bill addressing that. 

Could you just restate for the record why you have that commitment, because it is very important. 

Ms. WINDSOR. We believe that, yes, our Nation’s highways are offices. We do believe that it is time for a fuel tax increase provided 

it is used for our Nation’s highways. And when we speak of fuel 

taxes, we speak of all fuel taxes. We are paying a higher fuel tax 

for diesel federally than we do for gasoline, but we believe as users 

of our Nation’s highways we should also invest in them. So, yes, 

we believe in the fuel tax increase. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And, Mr. Byrd, we have had—in the last Congress we had several hearings about size and weight of trucks as 

well as drug testing, and I found it was interesting that you said 

that you—teamsters are open to nationwide testing as long as it is 

a national program. 

Do you want to allude further on that? And if you have any 

thoughts about the size and weight. 

Mr. BYRD. Talking about the national clearinghouse for alcohol 

and drug testing results? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. 

35 

Mr. BYRD. Yes. We are open to establishment of that type of 

clearing house. We would just prefer that it would be maintained 

by the Federal Government rather than on a State-by-State basis. 

It is my understanding that a State like North Carolina currently collects this type of data and has their own database. We 

think it would be more efficient and it would be more protective for 

our driver members if it was maintained—if data were collected by 

the Federal Government and maintained by the Federal Government. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And your testimony for the most part was on 

safety. Was there anything other that you wanted to share that you 

didn’t have an opportunity to cover? 

Mr. BYRD. Basically I am a safety and health director, but, yeah, 

in terms of size and weight, we have—the Teamsters Union has opposed any increases in size and weight of commercial motor vehicles because we don’t think that the country’s infrastructure, the 

road infrastructure, is actually suitable to accommodate the added 

weights. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And, Mr. Downey, you brought up something 

near and dear to my heart, which was freight planning, and it is 

unfortunate that the actual chairman is not here present. 

Could you just reiterate why you believe that an Office of Freight 

Planning, or multimodal, I think, is the term that you used—we 

have a bill that is really pushing that. 

Mr. DOWNEY. I am familiar with your bill, and there is a lot in 

there that we think is important. I spent a number of years at the 

Department of Transportation, and even today it tends to be an organization of silos, some call them ‘‘cylinders of excellence.’’ But 

they keep people focused on the mode of transportation and not the 

function, and I think in terms of goods movement, it is the function 

that counts. Most effective goods movement is, in fact, multimodal. 

Things come off of the ships and containers; they go on to a rail 

line, they go into trucks. 

We really need to be looking at the most efficient way and the 

facilities that will be needed to carry out that efficient way of 

movement. We believe that could best be achieved with a single office within DOT. At one time there was such an office, it was called 

the intermodal office, reporting to the Secretary. It has been 

pushed further down in the organization. We would like to see 

something like that back in a prominent role. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And, Mr. Pantuso and Mr. McBride, if you 

would hop up real quick. I have got 55 seconds. 

Mr. Pantuso, there has been much discussion today about transit. I found that that was pretty interesting. Other than the grants 

and things that are in place, is there any other one thing that you 

think would be so important that could help transit to be able to 

survive, particularly in the rural communities? 

Mr. PANTUSO. Well, again, we represent primarily the private 

bus sector, and I think grants are certainly very, very important, 

but not new moneys. Really access to existing funds and existing 

information. 

The motor coach industry is relatively small, but we are very, 

very independent, small-minded businesses that move 760 million 

passengers. And just having access to some of the available moneys 

36 

that are currently in place for public systems, I think a lot of our 

members can operate much more efficiently and environmentally 

friendlier. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And I apologize. As you can see, I have got a 

binder this thick. Did you already tell us what specifically those 

pools of funds were? 

Mr. PANTUSO. There are a number of resources. There are certainly some existing transit funds. There is access to funding 

through TIFIA, and then if there is a bank, if you will, an infrastructure bank, access to those moneys as well. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And then finally, Mr. McBride—and the Chair 

has been kind enough to give me a few last seconds—it is my understanding in working on some legislation with your limousine 

folks that there are different rules for taxis versus limousines, and 

access to airports and all of that. Is there anything as we are looking at this overall bill that we could do to help your particular industry? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. The limousine and the taxi industry feel they are 

being charged unfairly at airports when making pickups. We are 

either a great resource to bring you to the airport or make a pickup 

on the last leg of your trip, and we are being charged fees by airport authorities that were paid to be built by taxpayer dollars. And 

it is costing us a lot of grief and affecting our bottom line to provide 

services. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So you are talking about the queued area 

where you are waiting? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANNA. I would like to recognize Mr. Sires from New Jersey. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Martz, would you please take the stand, please.Mr. Martz, 

you mentioned that transportation management associations are 

part of your organization. Can you just give me an explanation of 

what they are, and how can this committee be helpful to that association? 

Mr. MARTZ. Transportation management associations, or TMAs, 

are typically like small little chambers of commerce, business service associations that focus on transportation issues for the employees in a close geographic location. They work together. They leverage their assets, their funds, to make more things happen in their 

general area. New Jersey has a more of a statewide network of 

that than probably any other State other than maybe Washington, 

and it is a very effective one. 

TMAs typically run things like last-mile shuttles. They may provide collectively a way to administer the commute-to-work benefit 

for transit and van pool purposes. They may provide real-time transit information in the lobbies of their businesses, things like that. 

And all these things focus on ways to get their employees to and 

from work in a more expedient and a more efficient manner. 

Your bill, by the way, is an excellent example of how a small 

amount of Federal dollars could leverage more private investment 

to get them both at the planning table where the funding decisions 

are made, where they are really not now, but also to look at the 

market-driven approach that these employers are more focused 

37 

upon: How do we get these people to and from work? And not necessarily how the planners think it should be done. They are right 

on the ground. They are right in their face. 

So, yeah, we really appreciate your bill. We think it is a great 

thing. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Martz, if you come from a district like I come 

from, you realize why we have to do something soon, because it is 

just impossible to get around some of the area. We need to put 

something together to get these people back and forth to work. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Hanley. 

Mr. Hanley, I know that transit funding is very important to 

Amalgamated Transit Unions, and it is very important to my constituents in my district. So would you support a 6-year authorization if there was a cut of 20 percent in transit funding? 

Mr. HANLEY. Not only would we not support it, we think that 

would be a criminal act against the people of our cities. You know, 

most of the people in America live in cities, and urban America is 

losing its mobility every day as a consequence of some bad Federal 

policy that exists. But the notion that we would, in the midst of 

this crisis, actually cut the funding to the systems that move our 

people around our cities is unconscionable. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, I couldn’t agree with you more. You know, my 

district is one of those districts where you have to move people to 

work. Especially in New York City—I represent that district that 

faces New York City, and we have to get people to where the jobs 

are created. And New York City is really a job-creating engine in 

the region. So to have a deduction of 20 percent, 30 percent, it 

would be devastating for areas like that. And I am sure there are 

other areas like my area in the country where it would be devastating. So—— 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, Congressman, we have seen massive service 

cuts—historic, by the way; more deep service cuts and fare increases that at any time at least since World War II—over the 

course of the last year and a half. And the consequences are farreaching. It is not just a matter of people who work in transit being 

impacted, but our cities, as I said, are losing mobility. 

I was in Chicago recently speaking to some of the representatives 

of the people who do building service in Chicago. People from 

unions out there, SEIU in particular, who told me in great detail 

about members of their unions who work in building service who 

finish their jobs and have to stay in the buildings that they clean 

for hours waiting for the next bus to come, as a consequence of the 

bus cuts that have happened in Chicago. 

But also, you know, what happened in 2008 when fuel hit $4 a 

gallon was that ridership was higher than at any time, again, since 

World War II on our transit systems. In places like Chicago, the 

transit systems had no way to respond to that. Our systems were 

strangling as a consequence of paying, themselves, the higher cost 

of fuel and not having funding to pay for it. And in Chicago the 

solution was to begin to rip out the seats in subway cars to herd 

people on like cattle. 

These are taxpayers, they are workers. They don’t deserve to be 

treated like that. And Federal policy has been blind over the course 

of the last 2 years to that. And the notion that we would then take 

38 

this a step further and, you know, create a further attack on the 

people who live in our cities who have to get to work every day and 

cut the funding, the Federal funding, that makes those systems 

run, that is just incredible. I can’t believe that anyone would suggest that. 

Mr. SIRES. In my district, we have the Lincoln Tunnel. There is 

a billboard before you enter the Lincoln Tunnel. It says, ‘‘Lincoln: 

Great President, Lousy Tunnel,’’ about moving people around. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANNA. I would like to recognize Mr. Nadler from New York. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I would like to start by reminding Mr. Sires that the Lincoln 

Tunnel is in my district, too. 

Mr. Downey and Mr. Hanley—it connects us. 

Mr. Downey, first of all, if projects of regional national significance created by SAFETEA–LU were structured in a more targeted, competitive program, as it was originally designed to be in 

the original draft of the bill, could such a program, in your opinion, 

sufficiently fund the large-scale national and regional projects that 

our surface transportation system needs? 

Mr. DOWNEY. It could certainly make a good start at that if it 

could be managed in a cost-effective way, in a merit-based way. 

One of the failings within projects of regional and national significance was more than half those projects never got started, while 

others were ready to go and couldn’t get the funding they needed. 

So—— 

Mr. NADLER. As they said it in the original draft of the bill—— 

Mr. DOWNEY. I recall the original draft, yes. 

Mr. NADLER. OK, thank you. 

And secondly, some people have talked about having a transit 

bill or, rather, a transportation bill coming in less over a 6-period 

than SAFETEA–LU did, which would be the case if we were limited to the existing gasoline tax, no other revenue source and no 

increase in the gasoline tax. And they say we should do more with 

less. 

Do you believe we can keep pace and extend and maintain our 

system by doing more with less? Can you think of any other country where an underinvestment strategy has resulted in economic 

growth? And what impact would such underinvestment have on 

goods movement and economic competitiveness? 

Mr. DOWNEY. I think, across the board, if we do not keep pace 

with needs, we will feel the impact of that, whether it is moving 

people in public transport, whether it is the highway system, or 

whether it is goods movement. 

I think in goods movement there is a particular issue, that a 

more efficient goods movement can, in fact, stimulate a more effective economy, where actually it would be creating the revenues that 

would pay for the investment. 

So I don’t think we should shortchange that element of the system. I would be concerned about shortchanging any element of the 

system. Where one doesn’t invest, eventually you pay the price, in 

terms of service declining, physical conditions declining, safety declining. 

39 

You and I remember what the New York City Subway system 

used to be like. And I now sit on the board of the Washington 

Metro system, and we would not like to see that turn into what 

New York had been. We would need to continue simply to maintain 

the services we have effectively. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, because we underinvested in New York, the 

mean distance between failures in the late 1970s was 6,500 miles. 

It is now over 200,000 miles. 

Mr. Hanley, some people have suggested that the trust fund 

should be devoted only to highways, that transit should be funded 

out of other mechanisms, such as general fund appropriations. 

What impact do you think solely funding transit out of the general fund would have on transit agencies around the country? 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, without dedicated funding for transit, we 

would likely have a continuation of the current crisis. It might get 

worse. 

But, also, you know, the notion that transit is somehow—the impact of transit is not felt on our highways is misconceived. The fact 

of the matter is that when we fund adequately mass transit—and, 

also, by the way, intercity transit is part of that notion—we get 

people out of their cars, which helps free up the movement for efficient movement of goods and efficient movement of people. 

So the idea that we should somehow segregate transit and say 

that it is not part of the solution to highway problems I think is 

wrong. And I think that the Highway Trust Fund is an appropriate 

vehicle for funding it, although we would welcome additional funds 

from the general fund. And we do think it is appropriate, at this 

time. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. So I assume that you would support an 

increased Federal investment in transit as a way to help people 

who are struggling with near-record-high gas prices. 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, I would. And I also want to point out that for 

some strange reason in this country we feel that foreign oil producers are the only people allowed to raise the tax on our gas by 

raising the cost of oil. And that—— 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. HANLEY [continuing]. Somehow it wouldn’t be appropriate for 

us, that is mindless. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

One final question for Mr. Downey. There has been a lot of discussion about an infrastructure bank, which I think is basically a 

good idea in many ways. But one of the arguments for the infrastructure—or for some proponents of the infrastructure bank is 

that some elite board of experts would make all investment decisions based on some criteria rather than having Congress make investment decisions. Because, after all, Congress is political and 

might not use the criteria that some elite board would use. 

When we talked a moment ago about merit-based criteria in the 

projects of national and regional significance section of a bill, or, 

for that matter, in an infrastructure bank, do you think that Congress cannot make such decisions, that only some sort of elite 

board should make such decisions because, otherwise, it cannot be 

merit-based? 

40 

Mr. DOWNEY. It has been my experience that one can work with 

the Congress in arriving at those merit-based decisions. 

One of the models has been the New Starts program in transit, 

where extensive study, sometimes too extensive, but extensive, 

solid study arrives at a point where a recommendation can be 

made. Congress’ view is sought at that point, in terms of moving 

the project forward. Once there is agreement, then the project 

sponsors seek the funding through an annual appropriations process. But the congressional involvement, in that program at least, 

in my view, has been very positive. And I would look for something 

similar to that in any freight program. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. HANNA. I would like to recognize Ms.—thank you for your 

patience—Ms. Napolitano from California. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much, sir. 

I appreciate your time. I would also like to have Mr. Nagle and 

Mr. Millar join you up at the desk. 

But for Mr. Downey, should the bill create a freight program to 

address thenegative impact that freight causes in urban communities? Should there be a user fee attached to a freight program? 

And do you have any recommendations? 

This comes out of the fact that I have the whole Alameda Corridor going through my district, and it impacts it, yet railroads only 

put in 3 percent, maybe 2 percent, in kind for the construction of 

a $50 million, $60 million, $80 million project. 

Mr. DOWNEY. I think there is room—there should be room to consider all of the impacts of goods movement and really incorporate 

those externalities into the pricing in one way or another. 

The program, the concept that our coalition has put forward has, 

in fact, been vetted with Environmental Defense Fund. And we are 

very much in sync, in terms of how a good program could work, not 

only for the benefit of freight efficiency but for the communities 

that are involved. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, it is a corridor of national significance 

that brings about 45, 55 percent of the Nation’s goods to this 

area—to the rest of the Nation, and yet we are struggling to have 

some of those paid for. 

One of the things to Captain Dowling, California Highway Patrol—I have always been a strong supporter of the Highway Patrol 

ever since I was in the statehouse. But would you please talk to 

us about the importance of the grade crossing safety programs and 

the construction of grade separation projects? Do you think Congress should continue to fund railroad/highway grade crossing safety programs? Most of the time, or at least in this subcommittee 

when we have had the railroads testify, they have indicated usually they are volunteer safety programs from their end. 

And should we allow an increase in truck size on the freeways? 

And what impact would that have on the safety that you see? 

Mr. DOWLING. Well, in regards to the railroad crossing, as far as 

CVSA and us taking a particular position on that, we are obviously 

concerned with the overall highway safety in that. I don’t know 

that we have really evaluated specifically the funding and volunteer versus specific funding in that. 

41 

In regards to the truck size and weight, I think one of the biggest 

concerns that we have is there really hasn’t been substantial studies that have looked at all the different impacts that that could potentially have. For example, even though there have been some advances in technology that may say that stopping distances may 

only minimally be increased, one of the concerns that we have is, 

what potential impact does that increased size have in crush factors and collisions? And, therefore, it may impact the amount of fatalities versus injuries that would occur in a collision. 

Those are the type of safety analysis that I think needs to be 

done to make sure that whatever decisions are made, as we try to 

become more productive and to balance that economics versus safety, that we are truly having the safety conversation involved in 

that discussion. 

Mr. NADLER. Is anything being done at the State level? 

Mr. DOWLING. Yeah, actually, there are some analyses that are 

going on, including that we are using some computer modeling to 

try to determine some of this. We are hoping to be able to bring 

that. And it is also something that our Size and Weight Committee 

of CVSA is actively engaged in and that we hope to have some 

more information—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I would hope that you would send some 

of those findings to this subcommittee so that we have an idea 

what some of that impact will be. 

To Mr. Millar and Mr. Hanley, some of the witnesses are testifying today and probably tomorrow calling for the mass transit account to be removed from the Highway Trust, something that Mr. 

Nadler just addressed. To me, in my area, we are 13 million people 

in L.A. County, and it takes mass transit. You put a bus, there is 

a freeway accident, it gets hung up just like anybody else. 

What other mass transit—what is the impact it would have on 

transit if we were to look for other alternatives? And, of course, 

folding into that the public-private partnerships that everybody is 

talking about, where we don’t know how to find them yet. 

Mr. MILLAR. We would strongly oppose the separation of mass 

transit from highways. We think President Reagan got it right in 

1983 when he agreed with the Congress to put them together. We 

think it gives the Congress—and this committee is certainly the 

evidence of it—it certainly gives the Congress to consider the tradeoffs between highways and transit in a comprehensive way. So we 

can see no good reason for taking public transit out of there. 

The number-two beneficiary of the transit investment in America 

is the urban motorist, who, according to Texas A&M University, receives over $19 billion a year benefit in reduced urban congestion 

from the fact that transit operates in America. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanley? 

Mr. HANLEY. Well, along the lines of the question about the use 

of buses on highways that are already clogged, you know, there is 

an innovation that has been used all around the world—we are lagging behind many other countries, including in Latin America— 

and that is using bus rapid transit, which dedicates not only highway lanes but also gives a bus the ability to change the signals 

along the way to move the buses more quickly. There are many 

42 

things that are also involved in that, but that is something that we 

have fallen far behind the rest of the world in. 

We had a very slight experiment with this in my hometown, in 

Staten Island, New York. The consequence of adding bus lanes and 

getting bigger buses was that our ridership went up in a year and 

a half about 120 percent on these routes. And, also, the people not 

only got to work faster, in a more reliable fashion, but the cost per 

rider goes down when you give buses the right of way to move. 

And, you know, certainly, you wouldn’t allow a cow to sit on the 

railroad tracks. And that is essentially what we are doing with our 

bus system by not being more forward-thinking and building more 

BRTs. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

With the indulgence of the Chair, Mr. Nagle, the port congestion 

is a great issue for us. And it hurts our economy. Like I said, a 

lot of it comes through my district. How can we mitigate the congestion to create more rapid and efficient goods and people movement throughout the country? 

Mr. NAGLE. I think one of the things that should be a focus is 

the intermodal connector side of the national highway system. A lot 

of the ports, whether it is southern California or throughout the 

country, that bottleneck and where you see the congestion are on 

those connections between the port facility and the highway. 

And so we think there should be a specific part of the freight program that is addressing the intermodal connectors that can help 

essentially that last-mile or first-mile connection into and out of 

ports. We think that is an absolutely critical link and is often 

where those bottlenecks are. 

I think it also can get toward some of the things you raised with 

Captain Dowling, in terms of the grade separations, et cetera. That 

can also help, and that can also then help in terms of both the rail 

in and out of ports and also the truck traffic in and out of ports. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But you have also heard that sometimes they 

build it and then they ask the partners to come in, which may be 

deciding a problem. I know it happened in one of the ports, I don’t 

remember if it was in Long Beach or L.A. And so, is that an issue 

also that should be addressed? In other words, working with the 

partners prior to the construction of any of those new systems. 

Mr. NAGLE. What our policy position states essentially is that 

there should, in that type of a scenario, there should be a publicprivate, essentially, partnership where the private benefits are 

identified and, in that case, the private rail company would pay for 

those aspects of the benefits, and then the public benefits would 

be—— 

Mr. NADLER. But you don’t want Congress mandating it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. HANNA. You are welcome. 

I would like to thank everyone for their testimony today. Your 

comments and insights have been very helpful. The witnesses are 

dismissed. 

I would like to thank the audience and everyone, all the stakeholders and participants and citizens for being here. 

43 

If there are no Members that have anything to add, this subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 

30th, at 10:30 a.m. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to 

reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 30, 2011.] 

[Prepared statements and submissions supplied for the record 

follow:] 

44 


Insert offset folio 8 here 65478.008
45 


Insert offset folio 9 here 65478.009
46 


Insert offset folio 10 here 65478.010
47 


Insert offset folio 11 here 65478.011
48 


Insert offset folio 12 here 65478.012
49 


Insert offset folio 13 here 65478.013
50 


Insert offset folio 14 here 65478.014
51 


Insert offset folio 15 here 65478.015
52 


Insert offset folio 16 here 65478.016
53 


Insert offset folio 17 here 65478.017
54 


Insert offset folio 18 here 65478.018
55 


Insert offset folio 19 here 65478.019
56 


Insert offset folio 20 here 65478.020
57 


Insert offset folio 21 here 65478.021
58 


Insert offset folio 22 here 65478.022
59 


Insert offset folio 23 here 65478.023
60 


Insert offset folio 24 here 65478.024
61 


Insert offset folio 25 here 65478.025
62 


Insert offset folio 26 here 65478.026
63 


Insert offset folio 27 here 65478.027
64 


Insert offset folio 28 here 65478.028
65 


Insert offset folio 29 here 65478.029
66 


Insert offset folio 30 here 65478.030
67 


Insert offset folio 31 here 65478.031
68 


Insert offset folio 32 here 65478.032
69 


Insert offset folio 33 here 65478.033
70 


Insert offset folio 34 here 65478.034
71 


Insert offset folio 35 here 65478.035
72 


Insert offset folio 36 here 65478.036
73 


Insert offset folio 37 here 65478.037
74 


Insert offset folio 38 here 65478.038
75 


Insert offset folio 39 here 65478.039
76 


Insert offset folio 40 here 65478.040
77 


Insert offset folio 41 here 65478.041
78 


Insert offset folio 42 here 65478.042
79 


Insert offset folio 43 here 65478.043
80 


Insert offset folio 44 here 65478.044
81 


Insert offset folio 45 here 65478.045
82 


Insert offset folio 46 here 65478.046
83 


Insert offset folio 47 here 65478.047
84 


Insert offset folio 48 here 65478.048
85 


Insert offset folio 49 here 65478.049
86 


Insert offset folio 50 here 65478.050
87 


Insert offset folio 51 here 65478.051
88 


Insert offset folio 52 here 65478.052
89 


Insert offset folio 53 here 65478.053
90 


Insert offset folio 54 here 65478.054
91 


Insert offset folio 55 here 65478.055
92 


Insert offset folio 56 here 65478.056
93 


Insert offset folio 57 here 65478.057
94 


Insert offset folio 58 here 65478.058
95 


Insert offset folio 59 here 65478.059
96 


Insert offset folio 60 here 65478.060
97 


Insert offset folio 61 here 65478.061
98 


Insert offset folio 62 here 65478.062
99 


Insert offset folio 63 here 65478.063
100 


Insert offset folio 64 here 65478.064
101 


Insert offset folio 65 here 65478.065
102 


Insert offset folio 66 here 65478.066
103 


Insert offset folio 67 here 65478.067
104 


Insert offset folio 68 here 65478.068
105 


Insert offset folio 69 here 65478.069
106 


Insert offset folio 70 here 65478.070
107 


Insert offset folio 71 here 65478.071
108 


Insert offset folio 72 here 65478.072
109 


Insert offset folio 73 here 65478.073
110 


Insert offset folio 74 here 65478.074
111 


Insert offset folio 75 here 65478.075
112 


Insert offset folio 76 here 65478.076
113 


Insert offset folio 77 here 65478.077
114 


Insert offset folio 78 here 65478.078
115 


Insert offset folio 79 here 65478.079
116 


Insert offset folio 80 here 65478.080
117 


Insert offset folio 81 here 65478.081
118 


Insert offset folio 82 here 65478.082
119 


Insert offset folio 83 here 65478.083
120 


Insert offset folio 84 here 65478.084
121 


Insert offset folio 85 here 65478.085
122 


Insert offset folio 86 here 65478.086
123 


Insert offset folio 87 here 65478.087
124 


Insert offset folio 88 here 65478.088
125 


Insert offset folio 89 here 65478.089
126 


Insert offset folio 90 here 65478.090
127 


Insert offset folio 91 here 65478.091
128 


Insert offset folio 92 here 65478.092
129 


Insert offset folio 93 here 65478.093
130 


Insert offset folio 94 here 65478.094
131 


Insert offset folio 95 here 65478.095
132 


Insert offset folio 96 here 65478.096
133 


Insert offset folio 97 here 65478.097
134 


Insert offset folio 98 here 65478.098
135 


Insert offset folio 99 here 65478.099
136 


Insert offset folio 100 here 65478.100
137 


Insert offset folio 101 here 65478.101
138 


Insert offset folio 102 here 65478.102
139 


Insert offset folio 103 here 65478.103
140 


Insert offset folio 104 here 65478.104
141 


Insert offset folio 105 here 65478.105
142 


Insert offset folio 106 here 65478.106
143 


Insert offset folio 107 here 65478.107
144 


Insert offset folio 108 here 65478.108
145 


Insert offset folio 109 here 65478.109
146 


Insert offset folio 110 here 65478.110
147 


Insert offset folio 111 here 65478.111
148 


Insert offset folio 112 here 65478.112
149 


Insert offset folio 113 here 65478.113
150 


Insert offset folio 114 here 65478.114
151 


Insert offset folio 115 here 65478.115
152 


Insert offset folio 116 here 65478.116
153 


Insert offset folio 117 here 65478.117
154 


Insert offset folio 118 here 65478.118
155 


Insert offset folio 119 here 65478.119
156 


Insert offset folio 120 here 65478.120
157 


Insert offset folio 121 here 65478.121
158 


Insert offset folio 122 here 65478.122
159 


Insert offset folio 123 here 65478.123
160 


Insert offset folio 124 here 65478.124
161 


Insert offset folio 125 here 65478.125
162 


Insert offset folio 126 here 65478.126
163 


Insert offset folio 127 here 65478.127
164 


Insert offset folio 128 here 65478.128
165 


Insert offset folio 129 here 65478.129
166 


Insert offset folio 130 here 65478.130
167 


Insert offset folio 131 here 65478.131
168 


Insert offset folio 132 here 65478.132
169 


Insert offset folio 133 here 65478.133
170 


Insert offset folio 134 here 65478.134
171 


Insert offset folio 135 here 65478.135
172 


Insert offset folio 136 here 65478.136
173 


Insert offset folio 137 here 65478.137
174 


Insert offset folio 138 here 65478.138
175 


Insert offset folio 139 here 65478.139
176 


Insert offset folio 140 here 65478.140
177 


Insert offset folio 141 here 65478.141
178 


Insert offset folio 142 here 65478.142
179 


Insert offset folio 143 here 65478.143
180 


Insert offset folio 144 here 65478.144
181 


Insert offset folio 145 here 65478.145
182 


Insert offset folio 146 here 65478.146
183 


Insert offset folio 147 here 65478.147
184 


Insert offset folio 148 here 65478.148
185 


Insert offset folio 149 here 65478.149
186 


Insert offset folio 150 here 65478.150
187 


Insert offset folio 151 here 65478.151
188 


Insert offset folio 152 here 65478.152
189 


Insert offset folio 153 here 65478.153
190 


Insert offset folio 154 here 65478.154
191 


Insert offset folio 155 here 65478.155
192 


Insert offset folio 156 here 65478.156
193 


Insert offset folio 157 here 65478.157
194 


Insert offset folio 158 here 65478.158
195 


Insert offset folio 159 here 65478.159
196 


Insert offset folio 160 here 65478.160
197 


Insert offset folio 161 here 65478.161
198 


Insert offset folio 162 here 65478.162
199 


Insert offset folio 163 here 65478.163
200 


Insert offset folio 164 here 65478.164
201 


Insert offset folio 165 here 65478.165
202 


Insert offset folio 166 here 65478.166
203 


Insert offset folio 191 here 65478.191
204 


Insert offset folio 192 here 65478.192
205 


Insert offset folio 193 here 65478.193
206 


Insert offset folio 194 here 65478.194
207 


Insert offset folio 195 here 65478.195
208 


Insert offset folio 196 here 65478.196
209 


Insert offset folio 197 here 65478.197
210 


Insert offset folio 198 here 65478.198
211 


Insert offset folio 167 here 65478.167
212 


Insert offset folio 168 here 65478.168
213 


Insert offset folio 169 here 65478.169
214 


Insert offset folio 170 here 65478.170
215 


Insert offset folio 171 here 65478.171
216 


Insert offset folio 172 here 65478.172
217 


Insert offset folio 173 here 65478.173
218 


Insert offset folio 174 here 65478.174
219 


Insert offset folio 175 here 65478.175
220 


Insert offset folio 176 here 65478.176
221 


Insert offset folio 177 here 65478.177
222 


Insert offset folio 178 here 65478.178
223 


Insert offset folio 179 here 65478.179
224 


Insert offset folio 180 here 65478.180
225 


Insert offset folio 181 here 65478.181
226 


Insert offset folio 182 here 65478.182
227 


Insert offset folio 183 here 65478.183
228 


Insert offset folio 184 here 65478.184
229 


Insert offset folio 185 here 65478.185
230 


Insert offset folio 186 here 65478.186
231 


Insert offset folio 187 here 65478.187
232 


Insert offset folio 188 here 65478.188
233 


Insert offset folio 189 here 65478.189
234 


Insert offset folio 190 here 65478.190
235 


Insert offset folio 199 here 65478.199
236 


Insert offset folio 200 here 65478.200
237 


Insert offset folio 201 here 65478.201
238 


Insert offset folio 202 here 65478.202
239 


Insert offset folio 203 here 65478.203
240 


Insert offset folio 204 here 65478.204
241 


Insert offset folio 205 here 65478.205
242 


Insert offset folio 206 here 65478.206
243 


Insert offset folio 207 here 65478.207
244 


Insert offset folio 208 here 65478.208
245 


Insert offset folio 209 here 65478.209
246 


Insert offset folio 210 here 65478.210
247 


Insert offset folio 211 here 65478.211
248 


Insert offset folio 212 here 65478.212
249 


Insert offset folio 213 here 65478.213
250 


Insert offset folio 214 here 65478.214
251 


Insert offset folio 215 here 65478.215
252 


Insert offset folio 216 here 65478.216
253 


Insert offset folio 217 here 65478.217
254 


Insert offset folio 218 here 65478.218
255 


Insert offset folio 219 here 65478.219
256 


Insert offset folio 220 here 65478.220
257 


Insert offset folio 221 here 65478.221
258 


Insert offset folio 222 here 65478.222
259 


Insert offset folio 223 here 65478.223
260 


Insert offset folio 224 here 65478.224
261 


Insert offset folio 225 here 65478.225
262 


Insert offset folio 226 here 65478.226
263 


Insert offset folio 227 here 65478.227
264 


Insert offset folio 228 here 65478.228
265 


Insert offset folio 229 here 65478.229
266 


Insert offset folio 230 here 65478.230
267 


Insert offset folio 231 here 65478.231
268 


Insert offset folio 232 here 65478.232
269 


Insert offset folio 233 here 65478.233
270 


Insert offset folio 234 here 65478.234
271 


Insert offset folio 235 here 65478.235
272 


Insert offset folio 236 here 65478.236
273 


Insert offset folio 237 here 65478.237
274 


Insert offset folio 238 here 65478.238
275 


Insert offset folio 239 here 65478.239
276 


Insert offset folio 240 here 65478.240
277 


Insert offset folio 241 here 65478.241
278 


Insert offset folio 242 here 65478.242
279 


Insert offset folio 243 here 65478.243
280 


Insert offset folio 244 here 65478.244
281 


Insert offset folio 245 here 65478.245
282 


Insert offset folio 246 here 65478.246
283 


Insert offset folio 247 here 65478.247
284 


Insert offset folio 248 here 65478.248
285 


Insert offset folio 249 here 65478.249
286 


Insert offset folio 250 here 65478.250
287 


Insert offset folio 251 here 65478.251
288 


Insert offset folio 252 here 65478.252
289 


Insert offset folio 253 here 65478.253
290 


Insert offset folio 254 here 65478.254
291 


Insert offset folio 255 here 65478.255
292 


Insert offset folio 256 here 65478.256
293 


Insert offset folio 257 here 65478.257
294 


Insert offset folio 258 here 65478.258
295 


Insert offset folio 259 here 65478.259
296 


Insert offset folio 260 here 65478.260
297 


Insert offset folio 261 here 65478.261
298 


Insert offset folio 262 here 65478.262
299 


Insert offset folio 263 here 65478.263
300 


Insert offset folio 264 here 65478.264
301 


Insert offset folio 265 here 65478.265
302 


Insert offset folio 266 here 65478.266
303 


Insert offset folio 267 here 65478.267
304 


Insert offset folio 268 here 65478.268
305 


Insert offset folio 269 here 65478.269
306 


Insert offset folio 270 here 65478.270
307 


Insert offset folio 271 here 65478.271
308 


Insert offset folio 272 here 65478.272
309 


Insert offset folio 273 here 65478.273
310 


Insert offset folio 274 here 65478.274
311 


Insert offset folio 275 here 65478.275
312 


Insert offset folio 276 here 65478.276
313 


Insert offset folio 277 here 65478.277
314 


Insert offset folio 278 here 65478.278
315 


Insert offset folio 279 here 65478.279
316 


Insert offset folio 280 here 65478.280
317 


Insert offset folio 281 here 65478.281
(319) 

IMPROVING AND REFORMING 

THE NATION’S SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met pursuant to notice at 10:30 a.m. in the 

Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2167, the Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Ladies and gentlemen, take your seats, please. We 

will go ahead and open up the hearing today and I ask unanimous 

consent that members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who are not on the Subcommittee on Highways and 

Transit be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today’s hearing, offer testimony and ask questions. Is there any objection? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. Hearing none, then that will be so ordered. 

Yesterday, we had real good participation from about 16 or 17 

members of the subcommittee, and we will see. I don’t know if we 

wore them out yesterday or not. We had 20 witnesses yesterday. 

We have 20 more today. We had many, many other groups who 

wanted to come testify, but we felt this was about as far as we 

could go and it worked great. 

We had some really great testimony, very helpful, very informative testimony from witnesses yesterday. And, of course, this is 

the second day of this hearing from various interest groups interested in the reauthorization of the Federal Surface Transportation 

programs. 

We heard yesterday from groups representing transit and highway safety, motor carrier and freight mobility businesses and organizations. And, of course, we have great interest in the highway bill 

that we hope and think that we are going to have a real good 

chance of enacting sometime in the next few months. 

At this time, I will turn to Ms. Johnson, who is sitting in for 

Ranking Member DeFazio, who I think will be here shortly. But, 

Ms. Johnson, if you have any comments you wish to make at this 

time, you are recognized. 

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

and I am just sitting in for the Ranking Member who should be 

here shortly. I want to welcome the panel, and I see a former colleague that I am very proud to see on this panel. As far as I am 

320 

concerned, this is one of the most important parts of transportation, especially now, and look forward to listening to the witnesses. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you, and I am going to give him 

a second or two to catch his breath, but the new Vice Chairman 

of the committee was here yesterday, and very helpful to me personally. Mr. Hanna, if you have any comments you wish to make, 

we will hear from you at this time. 

Mr. HANNA. No, sir. We have quite a list of witnesses today. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. Does anybody on 

this side wish to make any opening comments or opening remarks? 

Mr. Holden or Mr. Sires? Yes. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Just a second. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Either one, go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Yes. Welcome, and yesterday was very informative, 

and I want to thank the Chairman for holding this meeting. I come 

from a very congested district. I would like to hear what’s important to you. 

We would all love to have a 6-year reauthorization, but I really 

need to know what is important and what you can endure if there 

are cuts down the line, because our district just has every kind of 

transportation you can think of. And I appreciate all of you being 

here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Harris was here yesterday for almost the entire time, and I 

hope that you found that helpful and informative. And if you have 

any opening statement or remarks, you are welcome to speak at 

this time. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. 

We have a lot of witnesses today. I want to thank the Chairman 

for holding these hearings and for your commitment to getting a 

multiyear authorization. That’s what we hear when we go out into 

the district. We hear problems with the problems. I have a suburban, rural district, and again I hope we can work toward that 

multiyear authorization. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Holden? No comments. 

Chairman Gibbs? 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to say I am sorry I missed yesterday. My transportation system failed me yesterday; but, anyway, I look forward 

to the committee hearing and hear what the witnesses have to say, 

and also a 6-year bill. So our entities back in the States, our local 

governments, can plan road projects. And I think having a 6-year 

bill is very important to get that accomplished. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. Well, thank you very much. 

We have never really done this before in this way, but since we 

had so many groups that wanted to testify, we decided to try to ask 

everybody to start ramping their remarks up after 4 minutes. 

321 

Hopefully, they can get in under 5 minutes in that way, and we 

will hold any questions until the end. And we are ready to start 

at this time, and the first witness is Mr. John Njord. 

I am not sure if I am pronouncing it correctly, but he is a professional engineer and executive director of the Utah Department of 

Transportation, and we are certainly honored to have you with us 

here today. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN R. NJORD, P.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THE HONORABLE SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, ON BEHALF OF THE BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER; TIMOTHY WARE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MID-EAST COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS; ASHBY 

JOHNSON, AICP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, 

HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL, ON BEHALF OF THE 

ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS; FRANK MCCARTNEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION, ON BEHALF 

OF THE INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE, TUNNEL AND TURNPIKE 

ASSOCIATION; BRYAN GROTE, PRINCIPAL, MERCATOR ADVISORS LLC, AND MEMBER, NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING COMMISSION; ADRIAN MOORE, VICE PRESIDENT, REASON FOUNDATION, AND 

MEMBER, NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING COMMISSION; JOHN ROBERT 

SMITH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, RECONNECTING AMERICA; 

SHARON CALVERT, CO-FOUNDER, FLORIDA ALLIANCE; RAYMOND J. POUPORE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

CONSTRUCTION ALLIANCE II; GREGORY M. COHEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE; 

PAUL DIEDERICH, PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL BUILDERS, INC., 

ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS 

OF AMERICA; WILLIAM G. COX, PRESIDENT, CORMAN CONSTRUCTION, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ROAD & 

TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; JOE JEFFREY, 

PRESIDENT, ROAD-TECH SAFETY SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES ASSOCIATION; 

DAVID R. THOMEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MARYLAND MATERIALS, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 

STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION; SCOTT BELCHER, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA; JERRY STUMP, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND COO, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES, ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES; 

KATHY J. CALDWELL, P.E., F.ASCE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS; JOHN BURKE, CEO, TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF BIKES BELONG COALITION; AND DERON LOVAAS, FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION 

POLICY DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. NJORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a pleasure for me to be here with you and the other members of this committee. As you mentioned, I am the executive direcVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
322 

tor of the Utah Department of Transportation, and I have had the 

pleasure over the last 24 years to administer these Federal authorization bills within the State of Utah, the last 10 years of which 

as the CEO of the Department of Transportation. 

What I have witnessed over that time is I have seen that each 

one of these authorization bills has changed the way that we operate as an organization. SAFETEA–LU, as it has been implemented 

within my State, has degraded our ability as an organization to 

make engineering judgments about the projects that we think are 

most important. 

Funding siloes and fractured programs have drive funding decisions more so than engineering judgment. I am sure that you are 

all aware that the lack of certainty about long-term funding has 

stymied our ability to plan long-term as an organization. There are 

artificial hoops that we are required to jump through, hoops that 

we often feel like circus animals jumping through these hoops that 

interfere with our ability to be efficient and effective in the work 

that we do. 

There are duplicative reviews that are required of us. We review 

it and we send it over to Federal Highways for a duplicative review, and that really complicates and makes our challenges much 

more difficult. I don’t know if you knew, Mr. Chairman, members 

of the committee, but we are actually in some cases prohibited from 

considering cost when we make decisions about project level decisions within the Federal Highway Program. 

I know that Congress, you all Members, are concerned about 

fraud abuse and waste. I am not aware of any fraud or abuse within the Federal Highway Program. I am aware of some waste, 

though, and I’d like to share with you specific examples of waste 

within the program. Within my written testimony, which I hope, 

Mr. Chairman, you’ll be able to accept for the record, we describe 

a performance-based block grant program, pilot program, which 

would enable a State like mine, the State of Utah, to demonstrate 

to you what could actually occur within a Federal Highway Program, if engineering judgment were allowed to be fully utilized. 

I will share with you another example of waste. Just recently, we 

were informed that the State of Utah and other States that have 

been using optional exit signs on our interstate are no longer going 

to be accepted. We anticipate in the State of Utah that the implementation of the new standard will cost our State $78 million. 

That’s just one little State, $78 million, and it will provide no additional safety. It will provide no additional merit. And we are very 

concerned about that kind of waste. 

Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous in allowing us to 

come and speak with you today, and I have spoken a little bit 

harsh words, but I want you to understand that we understand 

that we are living in a world of scarcity as opposed to a world of 

abundance. I am concerned, frankly. 

I think that all of you could agree with me that government is 

most responsive to the people that is most close to the people as 

most responsive to their citizens. And it concerns me that when 

folks that are 2,000 miles away from my State are making decisions that they are developing process and making decisions that 

are ‘‘one size fits all.’’ 

323 

In the Utah Department of Transportation we have been very 

successful in accomplishing our work and spending our money very 

carefully. However, ‘‘one size fit all’’ solutions do not always work 

for every single State. In my State, we practice. We actively practice the practice of living within our means and spending only the 

resources that we have, and getting the most bang for our buck. 

I believe as we enter into an era of scarcity within the Federal 

program, it is appropriate for us to reevaluate what we are trying 

to accomplish and begin with the end in mind. What are we trying 

to accomplish? Establish what those goals are, and then let this 

bill, this reauthorization bill, be driven by what we are trying to 

accomplish. 

In a world of abundance there are many things that we are able 

to accomplish through the Federal program. In a world of scarcity, 

I believe, we need to scale those things back and come back to the 

fundamentals of what we are trying to accomplish. We have significant problems if we continue with the Federal processes that we 

are currently working on, which take away local control and take 

away local decisionmaking and put it on a national level. These 

distortions within the program need to go away so that we can be 

successful in accomplishing the mission of moving this great country of ours on the interstate system, on the surface transportation 

system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Director Njord. 

Now I would like to recognize for any remarks or statement or 

comments that he wishes to make, the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I regret that due to problems with air service I was unable to attend yesterday’s hearing, but I am pleased to be here today and 

pleased to see that we are now moving forward with hearings pursuant to reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act. 

I would just ask the witnesses do the best they can to summarize 

what they think are their most cogent points as they go forward. 

You might even react to someone who went before you if you disagree, and give us specifics. And when I was at one of the listening 

sessions with Chairman Mica, he kept, actually—and I won’t do 

that—and I don’t believe Chairman Duncan will, but interrupting 

people and saying ‘‘Be more specific and tell me what I can do in 

terms of making policy changes.’’ 

And just having listened to the first witness I would make that 

sort of admonition to the rest of the panel. You know, give us specific ideas on what we can do in authorization to spend the inadequate resources we have more wisely. In fact, if anyone wants to 

make the case that current resources are inadequate, which I fully 

believe and which two commissions have documented, I would be 

happy to hear from you on ideas on how we can begin to address 

needs beyond what the Trust Fund will accommodate. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the rest of 

the testimony. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thanks very much. And I meant to call 

on Mrs. Schmidt a while ago and I forgot to do that. And I’d like 

324 

to ask her for any comments or statements she wished to make at 

this time. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, and I will be as brief as possible; but, 

sir, you brought up a point I wanted to make in my opening statement, and that is about the mandatory signage that’s coming forward in about 3 years. 

As a former township trustee, our road department did all of the 

signage for the township. Under this mandate, they will no longer 

be able to do that. And while a township of my size, of 50,000 people, can afford to have by signage from a company, other townships 

in the State of Ohio cannot. Some townships in the State of Ohio 

have budgets of less than $50,000, 

Even less of that budget is for their roads. They will be spending 

that money on the mandatory signage instead of on paving the 

roads. The cost of just having the gun to make sure that the illumination of the sign is working is about $40,000. Now, granted, 

local communities can share in that cost, but at a time when States 

are cash-strapped, when we see States that are looking at ways to 

balance their budgets on the backs of local governments. 

Finding that local governments are going to see their wallets 

stretched. This is not the time, I believe, for us to implement that 

mandatory signage, and so I want to ask the Chairman of this committee if we can work for a way to find it affordable and safe for 

all. And I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

I am especially honored today to have a former colleague, a longtime friend, the Hon. Sherry Boehlert, who was such an effective 

Member of this body for 24 years representing a district in the 

State of New York. 

Congressman Boehlert, we are very pleased to have you here. He 

served with honor and distinction on this committee, and in fact 

during the 6 years that I chaired the Aviation subcommittee, Sherry was Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment subcommittee, which I then later chaired after your chairmanship. 

And you paved a good path and set a good example for all of us 

in many, many ways. It is an honor to have you with us today. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member DeFazio, two friends of longstanding as you have observed. 

I am here on behalf of the Bipartisan Policy Center which was 

founded by four former Senate Majority leaders: Tom Daschle, Bob 

Dole, Howard Baker and George Mitchell; two Democrats, two Republicans, bipartisan, supported by a very able professional staff, 

much like the Congress—bipartisan with a very able professional 

staff. 

The BPC’s mission is to develop and promote policy solutions 

that can attract public support and political momentum to achieve 

real progress. BPC’s transportation policy project is made up of a 

diverse group of experts who have come together to chart a bipartisan vision of critically needed reforms to revitalize and focus our 

national surface transportation programs. 

Our performance driven report, which was released in 2009, 

called for broad and comprehensive reform of transportation policy 

and programs. Our conclusions and recommendations are directly 

325 

relevant to the current circumstances, because we recognized at 

that time the need to spend resources wisely, no matter how much 

funding might be available. 

Our repeated message since 2009 has even greater resonance 

today. U.S. transportation policy needs to be more performance 

driven, more directly linked to a set of clearly articulated goals, 

and more accountable for results. There are three themes I wish 

to emphasize in my testimony. 

First, it is critical, despite current economic hardships and fiscal 

austerity that we continue to invest adequately at our Nation’s surface transportation infrastructure. 

Second, while there is strong and continuing need for adequate 

investment in the Nation’s transportation infrastructure, the combination of a mounting Federal debt, the broken state of the Highway Trust Fund and political resistance to new taxes, will likely result in a scaled back authorization bill. This is the political reality 

of the day. These constrained circumstances and the need to invest 

wisely create an opportunity, indeed establish the necessity for policy and programmatic reform. 

Therefore, third, and perhaps most importantly, Federal transportation policy should be reformed to ensure that Federal resources are clearly targeted toward national priorities. We have to 

do more with less, ensuring that infrastructure investment yield 

the greatest benefit. Investments can be targeted through a performance driven system, able to demonstrate the greatest return on 

the expenditure. That’s what the American people want. 

I would like to offer a few specific suggestions: consolidate, simplify, and in some cases eliminate existing programs to streamline 

the Federal transportation program with an emphasis on the preservation, restoration and enhancement of the existing system and 

facilities. 

Focus the Federal program and investments on specific national 

goals, such as long-term economic growth, energy security and user 

safety. 

Ensure that the Federal program is performance driven, holding 

recipients of Federal funds accountable for the achievement of outcomes. 

Include competitive programs that can spur innovation in States 

and metropolitan regions. 

Reform the transportation planning process to ensure projects 

with Federal resources bring the greatest return throughout the 

lifecycle of the project. 

Encourage leveraging investment of State, local and private resources for transportation and investment. While private capital is 

not a panacea, it can play a larger role than it does today. 

Support local and State innovation and experimentation through 

pilot programs to test options for sustainable user fee revenue, 

such as vehicle mile travel fees. 

In closing, there are fiscal constraints across all sectors of government. Though the need for continued investment in our Nation’s 

infrastructure is evident, we cannot devote resources, much less 

borrowed dollars to programs that provide uncertain returns. We 

need a reformed Federal program that advances investment in the 

Nation’s interest. 

326 

No matter how much money is available, you guys have to determine—guys, I use that euphemistically—men and women have to 

determine the size of the pie. That’s not for us. You determine that. 

We want to make sure it’s parceled out, sliced in the right way. We 

should target investments to the programs and projects that bring 

the greatest returns. 

There is an opportunity to do this through the next surface 

transportation authorization bill, and I look forward, as does the 

Bipartisan Policy Center, continuing to work closely with you and 

your staff to bring the best possible policy for the American public. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Congressman Boehlert. 

I know that many, many people look down on the Congress, and 

maybe at times with good reason, but I also know that all of us 

who serve consider it a very special privilege to serve in this body. 

And the Library of Congress put out a thing last year that said 

that only 500 some odd number, and fewer than 600 people, had 

served in the Congress 20 years or longer. 

So to serve 24 years, like you did, puts in you in a very, very 

small and select group in the entire history of this country. So 

thank you for your service. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just let me add one anecdote. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. You can’t trust a former Congressman with a 

microphone, but I tell people when they say to me: ‘‘What’s Congress really like? What are those men and women up there really 

like?’’ And I tell them, and I proudly tell them, ‘‘Finest collection 

of people that I ever served with, whether they are Republican or 

Democrat, no matter what the region of the country. No matter 

their political philosophy, people come to this House determined to 

do the people’s work to the best of their ability.’’ And I revere this 

institution and I thank all of you for serving in it. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, and that is so true. 

And it’s unfortunate that some of the television shows give people 

the impression that we all hate each other up here, because most 

of us get along well with each other, and especially that’s historically been true on this committee, and I hope we always keep it 

that way. 

Our next witness is Mr. Timothy Ware, the Executive Director 

of the Mid-East Commission from Washington, North Carolina, 

who is here to testify on behalf of the National Association of Development Organizations. 

Mr. Ware. 

Mr. WARE. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member 

DeFazio and members of the subcommittee. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Pull the microphone a little closer, if you can. 

Mr. WARE. Thank you for the opportunity to highlight our ideas 

for improving and reforming our Nation’s surface transportation 

programs, especially for our Nation’s small, metropolitan and rural 

regions. 

Again, my name is Tim Ware, and I am the executive director 

of the Mid-East Commission located in Washington, North Carolina, and also the president of the National Association of DevelopVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
327 

ment Organizations. As the committee crafts a rewrite of 

SAFETEA–LU legislation, we respectfully submit three main recommendations. 

First, Mr. Chairman, Federal transportation plans and programs 

should be linked and coordinated more closely with regional community and economic development strategies and priorities developed by local officials, especially in small metropolitan and rural 

regions. 

This includes the U.S. Economic Development Administration’s 

comprehensive economic development strategy. This process is now 

managed effectively and efficiently by the national network of 382 

economic development districts. 

With fewer public resources available for the maintenance and 

expansion of our transportation infrastructure, we should target as 

well as leverage Federal resources for projects and programs that 

are coordinated and prioritized on a sub-State regional level. 

Second, Mr. Chairman, State transportation officials should work 

regionally with local elected officials and appointed officials as part 

of the statewide transportation planning process. This would solidify local support, accountability and transparency related to the investments of Federal surface transportation resources. 

This was a major goal of the regional transportation planning 

legislation, H.R. 2782, that you, along with Congressman Tim Walz 

of Minnesota and 25 other co-sponsors, championed last Congress. 

Last week we were pleased that Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee re-introduced companion legislation, Senate 625. The members of NADO strongly 

support this important legislation. 

Third, Mr. Chairman, Federal and State policy should take into 

consideration the unique conditions and challenges of our Nation’s 

regions and communities, especially those outside of the major 

metro areas. 

This point includes a range of important policy issues. Among 

these are ensuring that private sector firms and citizens in small 

towns and rural America are connected to global, national and regional hubs, working to reduce rural road fatalities and injuries, 

and meeting the needs for alternative transportation services for 

both private sector businesses and rural citizens. 

As one example, the export agriculture sector remains one of the 

United States’ most competitive with a value of more than $115 billion in 2009, according to USDA’s Economic Research Service. 

To remain at the forefront globally, it’s essential that we expand 

our capacity to aggregate, process and distribute our goods, commodities and services in a timely and seamless fashion, not only 

here at home, but also globally. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we support efforts to strengthen the 

coordination of our Federal transportation investments and plans 

more closely with regional and local community, and economic development strategies, including those supported with other agencies, such as EDA. In States such as Arizona, Kentucky, Missouri, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee, it has been proven 

that when State transportation officials worked regionally and in 

a more cooperative manner with local elected and appointed offiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
328 

cials, as part of statewide transportation planning, Federal investments are more effectively utilized. 

We also want to ensure that our Federal transportation policy 

takes into consideration the vital community and economic development contribution of rural-based industries and sectors to our Nation’s economic, energy and national security. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ware. 

Our next witness is Mr. Ashby Johnson, AICP, the Deputy MPO 

Director for the Houston Galveston Regional Council, who is here 

to testify on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

DeFazio. 

MPO is a nonprofit membership organization established in 1994 

to serve the needs and interests of over 380 Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations nationwide. From the MPO perspective, here are a 

few ideas that would improve project delivery with respect to Federal resources. 

First, metropolitan areas are the nexus of the Nation’s safety, 

freight mobility and system preservation concerns. We need to leverage Federal funding as much as possible, and we can do so by 

suballocating Federal funding to metro regions across all core highway and transit programs. 

Second, we need a clearly articulated Federal transportation mission, and freight should be prominent in that mission. Freight, as 

a matter of national and global competitiveness, most freight is 

going to or coming from metro areas, and most of the Nation’s 

ports whether marine or land-based are in metro areas. MPOs need 

a well-funded freight program or more flexibility in existing programs so that public funds could be used to leverage private investment and freight facilities. 

Third, eliminate duplicative and conflicting transportation planning requirements of Federal highway and transit investment. And 

this gets to some of those hoops that you, Mr. Njord, mentioned 

earlier. 

Fourth, extend the life of completed environmental documents 

from the current 3 years, so that the environmental finding lasts 

6 years. Also, require NEPA lead agencies to use the results of 

planning level analyses, rather than duplicate the effort later on, 

and this will save time and reduce cost. 

Fifth, reform air quality conformity. Conformity is currently focused on process rather than outcome, and is designed to stop 

added capacity roadway projects rather than improve air quality. 

By the way, added capacity roadway projects show far more emissions benefits for air quality, because they reduce congestion and 

idling. And EPA’s new moves and model bears this out. 

Sixth, expand and preserve the eligibility of activities currently 

funded under CMAQ. Congress can increase flexibility in this program by removing the 3-year limit of support for van pooling and 

car pooling, and extending it further. Also extend the eligibility of 

operating cost for new transit services from a current 3 years to 5 

329 

years, and increase support for traffic operations under all programs. 

Lastly, please include a modest increase for planning activities, 

so that metro areas can be full partners with State DOTs and transit operators, and add even more value to the transportation planning process. On that, Mr. Chairman, I will close my remarks. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. 

The next witness is Mr. Frank McCartney, the Executive Director of the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission, who is 

here to testify on behalf of International Bridge Tunnel and Turnpike Association. 

Mr. McCartney. 

Mr. MCCARTNEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, good morning. 

I am the president of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association. IBTTA, as we are better known, is the worldwide 

association for owners and operators of toll facilities and service 

providers to our industry. Thank you for giving us the opportunity 

today to present our recommendations on how to improve and reform the Nation’s surface transportation programs. 

IBTTA is unique among the stakeholders at these hearings. 

While most of the other groups depend on the fuel tax to support 

mobility and infrastructure development, our 60-plus U.S. toll 

agency members do not. They operate more than 5,200 miles of 

highways, bridges and tunnels and receive no Federal or State 

funds. Together, these 60-plus agencies collect about $10 billion in 

tolls annually, which is equal to about one-third of the annual Federal gas tax revenue. 

That’s reason enough to consider tolling and road pricing as alternative funding solutions; and it brings me to IBTTA’s five recommendations to improve and reform the Nation’s surface transportation programs. 

First, we have to remove the barriers to tolling and pricing. Giving States the flexibility to consider tolling, and I stress ‘‘flexibility,’’ to consider tolling is even more critical now when Federal 

and State revenues are constrained. Funding needs are huge, and 

most public officials will not consider raising the gas tax. 

Many lawmakers have said they support tolling for new capacity, 

but not for existing capacity. The fact is reconstructing the highway system, the interstate highway system, will cost far more than 

what it cost to build in the first place. Removing barriers to tolling 

would encourage States to begin the massive effort of reinvesting 

in our system. That investment, in turn, will create jobs and improve the economy. 

Second, we ask that you expand TIFIA resources to between $5 

billion and $10 billion. TIFIA can help advance important transportation projects that would otherwise be delayed or deferred. According to published reports, each dollar of TIFIA assistance can leverage at least $30 in transportation infrastructure investment. That 

is an incredible leverage. 

Third, leave decisions about interoperability to industry experts. 

IBTTA is working proactively and cooperatively with toll industry 

groups to forge a common interoperability agenda. We are concerned that prescriptive Federal standards and guidelines could imVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
330 

pede the industry’s effort to improve broad scale interoperability. 

For this reason we ask you to leave this important work to toll industry experts. 

Fourth, give States, localities and agencies maximum flexibility 

to choose from the financing tools that best align with local needs, 

including the use of public-private partnerships and long-term concession agreements. 

Finally, begin the transition to mileage-based user fees. As we 

come to rely more and more on renewable energy and less and less 

on petroleum based fuels, we must develop a transportation funding mechanism that matches our usage patterns. 

Mr. Chairman, IBTTA is keenly aware of the struggle to manage 

the new traffic demands while continuing to maintain and rehabilitate our existing infrastructure. Tolling isn’t the only solution, but 

it is an important one. IBTTA stands ready to help implement it. 

Call on us. Our members are eager to help you create a new vision. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just one quick question. I understand about the 

prescriptive standard, that the government wouldn’t dictate the 

standard. But how about the government just says we have to have 

an interoperable system? Because I don’t find that the industry is 

moving very quickly toward interoperability. We just say you’ve got 

to have an interoperable system by such and such a date. We won’t 

tell you how to do it, just do it. 

Mr. MCCARTNEY. We would support that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. McCartney. 

Our next witness is Mr. Bryan Grote, the co-founder of Mercator 

Advisors, LLC and a member of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, a very important commission. 

Mr. Grote. 

Mr. GROTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am going to focus on the financing tools that can be used 

to stimulate greater investment, especially in this fiscally constrained environment. My remarks are grounded in the work that 

I do in helping project sponsors develop financial plans and implement capital programs. They also reflect my experience with the 

Federal Government, especially the Department of Transportation. 

I helped design and implement the TIFIA program. I served as 

its first director following enactment in TEA–21. And, of course, 

they do reflect my service on the financing commission as well. In 

particular, Federal credit and tax incentives can be effective tools 

for the following reasons: Project sponsors must identify revenue 

streams; the market discipline of having private and other nonFederal investment helps ensure that projects are economically 

sound and financially viable; the tools can be applied to both public 

and private projects; and they have a much smaller budgetary impact than traditional grants. 

One way for the government to stimulate investment is to offer 

credit assistance through a program like TIFIA. By providing a 

limited amount of patient capital, TIFIA provides powerful leverage, as Frank mentioned, greater than 30 to one in terms of the 

capital investment to the subsidy cost. 

331 

Not surprisingly, the primary recommendation, as you’ve heard 

many times, is to increase funding for the TIFIA program. Two 

years ago, the financing commission recommended a funding level 

of $300 million per year. That would be nearly a threefold increase, 

but given the recent credit demand that has been expressed and 

the anticipated pipeline of major projects, it might be appropriate 

to consider a higher level. Annual funding of $300 to $500 million, 

for example, could support $15 to $25 billion of loans and leverage 

$45 to $75 billion of total investment over the next 5 years. 

Beyond more resources, there are some technical changes that 

could improve the utility of the TIFIA program. I briefly describe 

them in my written testimony; and, just to note, some of those 

would include broadening eligibility to include programs of related 

projects, authorizing upfront contingent commitments for programs 

of related projects that would both mitigate finance risk and help 

DOT manage a highly variable pipeline of projects, allowing truly 

subordinate TIFIA loans for some projects by modifying or even 

waiving the so-called springing lean, and strengthening the TIFIA 

institutional platform. 

Like credit assistance, tax incentives can also stimulate greater 

investment at just a fraction of the scored cost of grants. I know 

tax code changes are not under this committee’s jurisdiction, but in 

developing any comprehensive Federal financing strategy they 

should be considered. 

First, Congress should continue and expand the highway intermodal private activity bond program. The financing commission 

recommended increasing the volume cap and suggested some other 

technical changes that would improve the use of this tool. 

Second, Congress should consider authorizing a qualified tax 

credit bond program for surface transportation. The financing commission recommended that any such tax incentive be structured 

narrowly to facilitate the financing of major projects with large 

public spillover benefits. A tax credit bond program for surface 

transportation could meaningfully supplement the existing Federal 

program supported by the Highway Trust Fund, with a modest 

score budget impact. 

And with that I’ll conclude and thank you again for your time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Grote. And when we 

write our bill we plan to pay close attention to the report from your 

commission, and we recognize that you are one of the leading experts on innovative financing. And while we do not have the final 

say on the taxing provisions, the Ways and Means Committee has 

traditionally accepted our recommendations in that regard, so we 

will certainly be offering some suggestions. 

So we also are pleased to have another member of that commission, Dr. Adrian Moore, who is the vice president of the Reason 

Foundation, and also here on behalf of the commission. 

Dr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeFazio and Members. 

I wanted to open up by building a little bit on Congressman 

Boehlert’s comments about the need to prioritize and shape spending on a performance basis. I think that one of the most fundamental questions the Congress faces with the transportation reauVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00349 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
332 

thorization is how to live within expected revenue. And expected 

revenue is probably adequate in the coming years for a program 

that is focused on products of true national interest, where they 

further interstate commerce that’s not adequate to fund State and 

local programs and needs. 

And so in a lot of ways the coming years are going to be facing 

what exactly is going to be the Federal Government’s responsibility 

to fund, and to what extent are State and local governments going 

to have to take more responsibility for the projects at their levels, 

rather than looking to the Federal Government to help out with 

those things. 

So in that spirit, when the National Infrastructure Finance Commission started looking, we were sometimes painfully bipartisan 

commission and we looked at every mechanism that could fund the 

national transportation program that anyone suggested to us, and 

it was a very long and exhaustive list. And we unanimously arrived 

at the conclusion that the best mechanism in the long run is mileage-based user fees. They are effective, more effective than most of 

the alternatives, more economically sustainable than the alternatives, and at least as far as any of the alternatives. And so by 

our sort of thorough analysis, we concluded that that would be the 

best way to fund the program in the future, but it’s still a mechanism that’s in development. 

We are not ready to pull the trigger on mileage-based user fees 

right now, but fortunately, the work on this is continued, since the 

Commission made that recommendation. We’ve had a number of 

reports come out, notably the National Cooperative Highway Research Program looking at this and laying out very specifically 

what next steps should be. Texas Transportation Institute doing 

something similar, several university reports and even a State-level 

Department of Transportation’s studies. 

The Mileage-Based User Fee Alliance, of which Reason is a member, has been formed to help advance the practice of mileage-based 

user fees; and, most important of all, a number of States with differing level of aggressiveness pursuing the possibility of mileagebased user fees in their own future State funding. And so there’s 

an opportunity in this authorization for Congress to partner with 

State and local governments, to advance our knowledge and our capability to use mileage-based user fees and keep our long-range 

transportation funding flowing from user fees, rather than 

transitioning to less direct and less efficient and less effective 

sources of funding. 

The first need is clearly for larger scale trials at the State and 

local level of mileage-based user fees, and I think that in this authorization Congress should fund on a competitive basis State and 

local governments to conduct such trials, and that the Federal Department of Transportation should ensure that those trials are 

high quality, that everyone benefits and learns from those trials; 

and that they examine the really crucial issues that we know remain with use of these mileage-based user fees, which are how to 

ensure and protect privacy. And this is not an exhaustive list, but 

the highlights: how to ensure and protect privacy; what technologies can be utilized and what structures will work effectively. 

333 

Test an array of geographic and demographic participants and on 

much larger scale than we have to-date reduce the cost of collection 

within the system and explore how this would replace gasoline tax 

or fuel tax, as I should say, as a means for funding the transportation infrastructure. This authorization period is the chance for 

Congress to preserve the user fee principle of funding transportation to empower State and local governments to take the lead in 

developing the means of making these user fees work and to take 

significant steps toward making the next generation of using fees 

viable in time to replace fuel taxes before the current system becomes unviable. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Moore. It’s fascinating that you would be so strongly in favor of a vehicle miles 

travel system when many libertarians and people associated with 

the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine would have the privacy concerns about that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, I think he did express a privacy concern, and 

that is a potential barrier, because I think—and I’ll just see if Dr. 

Moore agrees—that if we’re going to move in this direction, different travel puts different burdens on the system. 

If someone’s choosing to travel at rush hour in a very congested 

city, that’s adding a burden unlike if, say, a rancher has to drive 

20 miles to the general store to just pick up a part for machinery 

or something. And so if we moved in this direction, ultimately, 

would it not need to, you believe, include time, place, that sort of 

thing? 

Mr. MOORE. It would at least need to include that option. It’s not 

clear that it would necessarily have to include that for all participants; and, as you say, as a libertarian I’m pretty fanatical about 

privacy. But I am convinced, having swum in these waters now for 

4 years, that it is perfectly feasible, both technologically and administratively to ensure people’s privacy, while utilizing mileagebased user fees. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah. And I think the State pilots said that. That 

was the direction we were headed last year with the bill, so it is 

a way to explore that better and see that it works. 

One other quick question: In looking at commercial versus individual vehicle, the privacy issues are certainly less significant. A 

lot of companies track their trucks minute by minute. In a way, 

they know where they are with GPS. Do you think we could move 

in more quickly commercially? 

Mr. MOORE. It would be technically easier. I’m not sure it would 

be practically easier, just because, I mean, that then creates its 

own set of fairness issues and potential political problems. And it 

doesn’t get us where we really need to go, which is we need to get 

everybody involved, because familiarity breeds comfort with this 

kind of technology. As people use it, they realize that it works and 

that their privacy is protected. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. But in my State we do have a weight mile 

tax which equitably distributes the cost, and, so, I mean it could 

be done, you know, on a partial basis with the private sector. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you. 

334 

We’ve been joined and want to go to Mr. Petri, but also Mr. 

Southerland came in a few minutes ago. Do you have any statement or comments you wish to make, Mr. Southerland? 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing 

me. 

I am curious about your presentation. I mean, obviously, mileage-based user fees, obviously, we currently have that when you go 

to the pump. I mean the more you drive, the more gas you put in 

your car, the more taxes you pay. 

That’s clearly a user fee by definition, I would think. And I am 

amazed at the hope and the suggestion that the government, who 

in my opinion does not give the American people a proper rate of 

return on their investment, has the ability then to monitor and to 

judge time, place and purpose of an individual driver. I mean I am 

amazed at your hope that this government has the ability to follow 

that. I mean that’s a lot of trust you are placing on a government 

that can’t manage itself very well. 

Mr. MOORE. I would absolutely not advocate that the government 

impose a measurement of time, place and purpose on travel. That’s 

not necessary in order to have a mileage-based user fee system. All 

you need to have is a device that will tell the government this person owes $32.95 this week. It doesn’t have to report any information about where you drove. 

The onboard computer can calculate the fees and only transmit 

the fee; and then dump all of the information it used in order to 

calculate that fee if need be. So it is possible. That’s the only reason I am convinced to advocate for this is that it is possible to have 

a system that does not do that, and it’s superior economically to 

the gas tax. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. I’m going to ask that Mr. Southerland 

hold any more questions until the end as the other Members are 

doing. But do you have any other statement or comment? 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. No. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We are trying to move through these witnesses as 

fast as possible, and our next witness is Mr. John Robert Smith, 

the president and CEO of Reconnecting America, and the former 

Mayor of Meridian, Mississippi. 

Mr. Mayor, honored to have you with us. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, distinguished members of the committee. 

I want to thank you on behalf of Reconnecting America and 

Transportation for America that I co-chair, for holding this hearing 

today on how we may improve and reform our surface transportation programs. Before coming to Washington, DC, about 2 years 

ago, I was a 16-year Republican Mayor of my home town of Meridian, Mississippi. 

Meridian is a small city of 40,000 people, but we are the retail, 

medical, transportation, education, employment, and trade draw for 

350,000 people in 11 rural counties in Mississippi and Alabama. 

And as Mayor, I know firsthand the transportation challenges that 

those who live in small towns in rural America face each and every 

day. 

335 

Mr. Chairman, when we visited in your office, we talked about 

those small cities and rural States, and that’s where I’ll focus my 

comments. It certainly may come as a surprise to some, but Americans who live in these small towns have the same transportation 

needs as those who live in big cities. They need access to jobs, to 

healthcare, to education and to services. 

Long commutes, rising gas prices and shifting demographics all 

impact the prosperity of those communities and the people who live 

in them. Regional intermodal transportation connections are critical to those people, yet many small towns lack the financial resources, the planning capacity, or the authority to implement the 

solutions for their transportation needs. A bold, new policy is needed at the Federal level, but with significant input from State and 

local units of government. 

Transportation for America recognizes that it is important to 

first fix this country’s crumbling transportation infrastructure. In 

fact, we are releasing today a report on the state of disrepair of our 

Nation’s bridges, and I would imagine each of you will have bridges 

in your district on that list. Mr. Chairman, Tennessee is in a better 

position than most of its sister States. 

In addition to repairing our Nation’s infrastructure, we need to 

focus on transportation options that provide choices in this era of 

rising gas prices. Many aging citizens and veterans in small towns 

depend on public transit to go to see their doctor, to go to the grocery store. Working parents need to get to their jobs, to children’s 

daycare and to complete the errands of the day. And our college 

students in small towns need to be able to access the local institutions of higher education and the part-time jobs that most of them 

have to hold down. Public transit must be funded both in urban 

and rural areas. 

Additionally, the quality of life that transportation options provide is important. When I first came to DC 2 years ago, there was 

a lot of discussion about this term ‘‘livability.’’ Well, I found it was 

what we had been doing in Meridian, Mississippi, for 16 years, but 

we called it economic development. Those transportation connections and the economic development they brought empowered people to make decisions without being hindered by distance or gas 

prices. Whatever term you want to put on it doesn’t matter. 

People want to live where they want to live, work where they 

want to work, and they want to get there in a cost-effective and 

timely manner. Providing transit options leads to increased investment in city centers that are on the downside, and I saw that in 

Meridian where we invested $1 million on the behalf of the city, 

which leveraged $5 million in ISTEA funds. 

And with that we built the South’s first multimodal transportation center, totally revived Main Street, brought people back 

downtown to work and to live, brought entertainment and job options into our downtown and leveraged an additional $135 million, 

a public-private sector investment within three blocks of that facility. The return was worth the investment; not only to the people 

in Meridian, but in the 11 rural counties surrounding it. And it’s 

been successful in other States, in North Carolina, in Congressman 

Coble’s district, both in Greensboro and Salisbury. Investing in 

transit has brought economic development into the downtowns. 

336 

Chairman Duncan, imagine if the congested area of Gatlinburg, 

Pigeon Forge and Sevierville in the Smoky Mountains had some 

transportation alternatives to move visitors and conventioneers to 

the sites and hotels that they want to go to. That would be a huge 

step in relieving the traffic bottlenecks on U.S. 441 and Highway 

66, and I visit that area yearly. 

To conclude, small cities in rural States are part of a national 

transportation system, and the people who live in them have the 

same concerns as their neighbors in big cities. We must have a balanced approach in this 6-year authorization bill, hearing the voice 

of big cities with small cities and rural areas alike. And we have 

specific policy recommendations on the rural side that we have offered in my written testimony. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mayor Smith. 

And we’re now honored to have as the next witness Ms. Sharon 

Calvert, the co-founder of the Florida Alliance, and a leading citizen activist in the State of Florida from Tampa, I understand. 

And Ms. Calvert, you may begin. 

Ms. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide public testimony to the 

Transportation Subcommittee on Highway and Transit Hearing. 

I represent the Florida Alliance. It’s a coalition of grassroots organizations in the State of Florida, representing thousands of citizens across the State, what have focused on transportation issues 

in Florida over the last year. 

We want to ensure that the taxpayer stakeholder is allowed to 

provide input and ideas, as we are the users and the funders of the 

transportation projects. 

There are limited resources available today to fund transportation projects. The economic climate insists that those limited resources be used for the must-do needs and not the nice-to-do expenditures. 

Therefore, the Highway Trust Fund must be reformed to its 

original core functions. To that end, we support the Transportation 

Empowerment Act, which was introduced by Senator DeMint in 

April of 2008, and H.R. 632, which is the Highway Fairness and 

Reform Bill, recently submitted by Arizona Congressman Flake. 

These bills empower the States to collect most of the Federal gas 

tax monies that are currently being sent to Washington, and reverses the trend that started in 1982, when ten earmarks were included in the Transportation Reauthorization Bill, and those earmarks grew to over 7,000 in 2005. 

The Transportation Empowerment Act and H.R. 362 could reduce Federal bureaucracies and empower the States to determine 

their own transportation priorities. 

These bills would allow donor States, like the State of Florida, 

to retain 100 percent of their gas taxes, rather than receiving only 

about 80 cents back for every dollar sent to Washington 

Secondly, regarding the Highway Trust Fund, approximately 38 

percent of Federal gas taxes are diverted from roads and highways, 

the largest diversion being made to transit programs. 

Rediverting those funds back to roads and highways will bring 

the much-needed revenue to improve our roads, highways and 

337 

bridges, which are used on average by 98 percent of Americans who 

travel every day. 

Thirdly, all transportation projects should be required to pass 

cost-effectiveness criteria, state its return on investment, reflect 

the share of the total cost paid by users, and what the benefits that 

other taxpayers get from their share of the cost. 

Transportation projects must not consider livability criteria, 

which is subjective, cannot be well defined or quantified. 

Immeasurable livability objectives perversely justify projects that 

increase traffic congestion, increase travel times, and raise housing 

prices. 

Capital projects must prove they have funding to support the ongoing operations, maintenance, and periodic major rehabilitation, 

replacement or reconstruction, that’s required to sustain the 

projects. 

For example, there is currently a backlog of major maintenance for existing rail systems of $78 billion. 

Transit projects should be approved, only if they improve automobile travel times, and do it at a lower cost per passenger mile 

than any alternative, including expansion of highways. 

Effective use of these limited resources for transportation 

projects require efficient use of the resources by setting measurable 

goals with the ability to meet those goals at the lowest cost with 

the greatest benefit. 

Furthermore, private bus service, which exists in Florida and 

throughout the Nation, moved more people last year than Amtrak. 

We need to remove barriers and regulation to encourage private 

sector solutions, such as local shared taxi services, which resemble 

airport shuttle service, that many airports provide. 

These types of services exist today in Atlantic City and Puerto 

Rico. 

And finally, there are innovative solutions on the horizon to support personal mobility, which includes intelligent traffic management, and cooperative adaptive cruise control. Those allow more 

throughput on existing roads. 

Road solutions, such as the double-decker Selmon Expressway in 

Tampa, Florida, increase capacity without having to acquire additional right-of-way. 

And we also cannot discount telecommuting, which will decrease 

congestion on our roads at zero cost to the taxpayer. 

Thank you again on behalf of the Florida Alliance, representing 

the taxpayer stakeholder for this opportunity to provide testimony. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Calvert. A very fine testimony. 

Our next witness is Mr. Raymond Poupore. Is that the correct 

pronunciation? 

Mr. POUPORE. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Executive vice president of the National Construction Alliance. And you may begin. 

Mr. POUPORE. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, and the distinguished members of the Highway and Transit Subcommittee. 

On behalf of the National Construction Alliance II, better known 

as NCA II, which is a partnership between the International Union 

338 

of Operating Engineers and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 

both unions represent about 1 million construction workers that 

build our Nation’s infrastructure. And boy do we need jobs. 

Let me get right to the point, Mr. Duncan. The NCA II believes 

that the primary obstacle to improve in the Nation’s surface transportation programs relates to Highway Trust Fund solvency. 

While other issues, particularly environmental streamlining to 

more quickly deliver projects, should be addressed by Congress, as 

committee members well know the needs of the Highway and Transit Program have simply outstripped the revenue dedicated to the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

In order to improve the health of the national economy, which is 

precisely what is at stake with this committee’s work on the reauthorization of the Nation’s surface transportation programs, Congress should focus on shoring up the Trust Fund to meet the Nation’s surface transportation deficiencies and revive the ailing construction economy. 

You know, the NCA II commends the administration for acknowledging the dramatic needs in the transportation sector, and 

proposed in a spending level for reauthorization of $556 billion that 

recognizes America’s substantial transportation deficiencies. 

For Congress to enact a reauthorization that falls short of our 

demonstrated transportation needs would, in our judgment, result 

in weaker economic recovery, persistent high unemployment in the 

construction sector, unstable Highway Trust Fund, more dangerous 

bridges and highways, and American economic vulnerability in the 

face of unrelenting global competition. 

Yet, as you well know, the revenue question remains. That is the 

most politically challenging issue facing reauthorization on both 

sides of the aisle, and with the administration. 

While the NCA II supports a variety of innovative financing 

mechanisms for an appropriate range of projects, there exists a 

fundamental need for real revenue in the Highway Trust Fund. 

Let me be perfectly clear. The NCA II supports a gas tax increase. For over 50 years, a gas tax has proven to be an equitable, 

efficient funding mechanism, but is one that has failed to keep pace 

with inflation and the level of need. 

We reached the same conclusion as the two commissions that 

were created under SAFETEA–LU to examine the future of the 

transportation program: An increase in the gas tax is necessary in 

the short term. 

This is no time for Congress to back-peddle on the surface transportation investment levels that the country so badly needs. China 

and our other global competitors are not waiting. 

In short, we need this committee’s leadership to help solve the 

revenue question. 

Now on the other side, tens of thousands of operating engineers 

and carpenters are out of work. They want to build our Nation’s 

infrastructure. We have the highest unemployment rates since the 

Great Depression in construction. We’ve got 2 million people that 

are construction workers that are unemployed right now, that want 

to help build our Nation’s infrastructure. 

They want to contribute. The do not want to draw unemployment. They would rather be paying taxes to help reduce the deficit. 

339 

You know, when I look at the work of this committee, one thing 

becomes clear. And I know you’re very conscious of the massive 

debt our country has. I have seven grandchildren. I don’t want to 

leave them in debt. 

But I know, and I think you know, that the debt was not caused 

by this committee or investment in our infrastructure. We need to 

invest in our infrastructure if we want to compete in this global 

economy that we’re in. If we want to bring America back to where 

it really needs to be, Mr. Duncan, your committee has to do this 

work. We have to get this bill reauthorized. 

And I’ve been around this town long enough to know how long 

it takes to get a 6-year bill reauthorized. It always seems to take 

a couple extra years. Maybe we should look at a 10-year bill, or 

something longer. 

But as Labor, we stand ready and willing to work with your committee. We thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And if Chairman Hanna will yield to me for a moment? 

Mr. HANNA. Certainly. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Poupore, I agree with you. And I’ve said many 

times and in many places that we need to stop rebuilding Iraq and 

Afghanistan and start rebuilding the United States of America. 

Mr. POUPORE. I agree. 

Mr. HANNA. [presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Poupore. This is my 25- 

year card as a member of your union. 

Mr. POUPORE. Thank you. 

Mr. HANNA. I just thought I’d point that out, if you don’t mind 

me indulging myself. Thank you. 

Mr. Greg Cohen, president and CEO, American Highway Users 

Alliance? Thank you for being here. You’re recognized. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you for inviting me, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

DeFazio. 

The Highway Users Alliance brings together a wide range of 

users that contribute to the Highway Trust Fund. Our members include AAA clubs, trucking and bus companies, motorcyclists, and 

RV-ers. These and hundreds of other businesses and associations 

represent millions of highway users from coast to coast. 

We have long supported the idea of a self-sustaining, user fee 

supported Highway Trust Fund. Despite myths to the contrary, as 

Mr. Poupore said, fuel taxes that support the Trust Fund had been 

relatively stable, albeit inadequate. 

We’d like to work with the committee also on an innovative financing. We’ve long supported tax credit bonds, but we have been 

very concerned by the administration’s infrastructure bank proposal, which gives US DOT staff sole authority to select the 

projects that receive funding. 

In addition, we’d support an effort to make greater use of the 

general fund for a variety of transportation programs, including 

roads. 

As States face the fiscal realities, a critical way Congress can 

help is by reducing bureaucratic barriers that delay project approvals. 

340 

At a minimum, Congress should be vigilant in ensuring that new 

and time-consuming planning requirements do not find their way 

into this next bill. 

Instead, we ask that Congress review and eliminate as many existing requirements as reasonable. To streamline project approvals, 

Congress could do a great deal, including setting hard deadline for 

interagency reviews and expanding the existing NEPA pilot delegation program from SAFETEA–LU to all States. 

Some have suggested that the Federal Government should have 

increased control over local planning project selection and the distribution of money. We strongly disagree. 

Instead, Congress should authorize a bonus fund that provides 

formula funds to States that meet performance criteria that you, 

the Congress, set. 

By doing so, you’d create incentives for States to take on projects 

of Federal interest, without twisting their arms or micro-managing 

their project selections. 

We recommend prioritizing performance in four national needs: 

One is safety; 

Two is congestion relief; 

Three is truck-free corridors; 

And four is aging critical infrastructure. 

On the first, safety: Nearly 34,000 annual deaths occur on American roads. Most involve lane or road departure, a preventable 

problem. In addition to prioritizing the new Safety Core program, 

we also support robust funding for high-risk rural roads, investments to aid older drivers, and the surface transportation safety 

bill that Mr. Rahall, Mr. Petri, Mr. Shuster, and Ms. Corrine 

Brown all cosponsored this year. 

In addition to guaranteeing funding for safety programs, their 

bill also allows the States to certify their need for proprietary safety products that further their strategic safety plans. And we join 

AASHTO in supporting that. 

On congestion relief, there are numerous ways to address congestion. We support giving States a wide latitude to approach these 

problems, but add that capacity improvements need to be among 

the menu of options available. 

As our economy rebounds, highway travels increased 15 months 

in a row. As long as the economy continues to expand, high gasoline prices are not going to reduce traffic. 

People drive to participate in the economy, to access the full 

range of services and products that improve their lives. All this 

driving is actually good for America and good for livability. 

But if our transportation system is inadequate, congestion develops and productivity declines. Today, that costs us $115 billion a 

year, just in wasted fuel and time alone. 

On truck corridors, expansion of the national highway system, 

including the interstate system, as well as freight bottleneck relief, 

should be a critical priority in the next authorization bill. 

Federal leadership from Congress is needed here. The Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate 

commerce. And we need to have consistent national freight mobility, and we need to continue unimpeded commerce on our toll-free 

interstate highway system. 

341 

On renewal and replacement of aging infrastructure, our major 

highways are showing their age. The administration has proposed 

getting our roads and bridges up to a good state of repair. We 

agree. But they must also be brought up to a good state of operation. 

That can involve capacity as well as improved conditions of pavements and bridges. You can’t just improve the condition of the 

pavements and bridges and not provide for the good operation of 

that road. 

In conclusion, we’re completed committed to helping you get this 

bill done this year. We believe you can do it, and we appreciate 

being your partner in this effort. 

Our members are now growing. We’re now a 13,000-strong social 

network of highway enthusiasts. We’re standing ready to help provide you the support you need, both inside the Beltway and outside, to get this legislation enacted. 

Thanks again for the invitation to be here. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. Paul Diederich, president, Industrial Builders on behalf of 

the Associated General Contractors. You’re recognized, sir. 

Mr. DIEDERICH. Thank you for your patience in sticking around 

and listening to this testimony. 

My company was started by my father in 1953, and we’ve been 

a member of the AGC of America since that time. And since Friday 

of last week, I’m a vice president of the AGC. My dad testified 

twice in support of a highway bill, and this is my second time at 

bat. 

The reason I come here is to highlight the importance of a continuing strong Federal role in transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. It’s vitally important to a company like 

ours to have some certainty that there will be work for us to compete for on an ongoing basis. 

The lack of a long-term authorization bill and a series of extensions has had an impact on our industry. We can’t make long-range 

plans about hiring decisions, and we defer equipment purchases. 

It’s had an impact on the people who work for us. Construction 

careers that built the country look a lot less attractive if the government turns the program on an off like a light switch. 

The challenge in writing the next surface transportation authorization is: How to prioritize targeted investments in the face of declining Highway Trust Fund revenue. Current Trust Fund revenue 

does not meet the maintenance demands of the Federal aid highway system, much less address the need for additional capacity, 

intermodal improvements, eliminating bottlenecks, and improving 

safety. 

When Eisenhower signed the first highway bill in 1956, the user 

fee was three cents a gallon. And a first-class postage stamp was 

exactly the same amount. Today the user fee stands at 18.4 cents 

per gallon, which is about six times the rate of 1956. 

On the other hand, a first-class stamp costs 44 cents, which is 

roughly 14 times the amount that it was in 1956. 

It’s critical that we continue to invest in our Nation’s infrastructure in order to maintain the integrity of what we have as well as 

to improve in areas of need. 

342 

The once-clear objective of the Federal air program was to connect the Nation from east to west and north to south. That objective now has proliferated to more than 100 different funding subcategories. 

AGC believes that the primary Federal role should be to facilitate interstate commerce. To maximize a smaller Federal investment, the Federal involvement should be focused just on the national highway system. 

This newly focused Federal program must allow States the greatest flexibility to make strategic decisions on the national highway 

system improvements that will best address the nationwide objective. 

For the rest of the needs, a program like the Surface Transportation Program could allow access to a more flexible program without the existing suballocations. 

Reform must also be addressed in project delivery and streamlining. Delays in project delivery can increase the cost of projects 

and deny users the benefits of their investment. 

AGC strongly supports the efforts of this committee and the Federal Highway Administration to address project delivery. 

The Federal-State partnership should include more decisionmaking designated to the States. AGC has included a list of these 

project efficiencies in our written statement, that we encourage the 

committee to consider. 

There will be a great need to provide supplementary revenue 

streams for traditional transportation infrastructure funding. Any 

potential financing tool must be carefully applied. 

Public/private partnerships, for example, have their place and 

their limits. Some policy makers portray these partnerships as the 

silver bullet to solving the investment gap in our transportation 

system. 

The fact is that the majority of transportation projects are unable 

to financially support PPP investment. In addition to PPPs, the 

next bill should include a transition to the next generation of Federal revenue for infrastructure investment. 

We’ve included many suggestions in our written statement. 

We urge the committee to take the steps necessary to bring some 

certainty to the market and to reform the program in a way that 

allows for the prioritization of the greatest needs of our surface 

transportation network. 

We thank you for inviting AGC to participate in this hearing, 

and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Diederich. 

Mr. William Cox, president, Corman Construction, Inc., on behalf 

of American Road and Transportation Builders Association. You’re 

recognized, sir. 

Mr. COX. Good morning, Mr. Hanna and Ranking Member 

DeFazio. And thank you for that introduction. 

Corman Construction is one of the Mid-Atlantic’s larger contractors. We specialize in the construction of bridges, highways, underground utilities, tunnels, and marine facilities. 

My grandfather started the firm in 1920, and we’re currently in 

our fourth generation as family-owned and operated company. 

343 

We greatly appreciate your calling today’s hearing, and for this 

committee’s ongoing leadership in pushing the enactment of a 

multiyear surface transportation reauthorization bill. 

Since 2008, the reauthorization of the Highway and Transit Programs have been the subject of two congressionally mandated commissions, two other independent commissions, dozens of House and 

Senate hearings, and countless stakeholder recommendations. 

Mr. Hanna—and please excuse my sports analogy in the spirit of 

March Madness—I think it’s time to get the authorization bill on 

the court and in play. And we look forward to the committee’s 

doing that. 

The Surface Transportation Program is commonly referred to as 

a jobs bill. While this is certainly true, this characterization frankly 

undersells the value of this critical legislation. Certainly Federal 

transportation investments create jobs in the construction sector, 

but it’s not the Federal Government’s responsibility to support my 

industry. 

However, it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to ensure 

the efficient movement of commerce among the States. In today’s 

global economy, a country’s transportation infrastructure capabilities are either a competitive advantage or a stumbling block. This 

is something our economic rivals around the world have already 

recognized. 

Furthermore, every manufacturing plant in the U.S., every retail 

store, every plumber and service worker, every trucker, and nearly 

80 million total American jobs depend on our highways, airports, 

transit and railroads for inputs and to deliver products and services. 

The efficiency of the Nation’s surface transportation network directly impacts the health of these dependent industries. And it’s in 

this context, the job creating potential of a long-term Federal transportation reauthorization bill must be considered. 

ARTBA strongly supports realigning the structure and mission of 

the highway and transit programs around clearly defined national 

objectives, such as good movement and improved system performance. 

Achieving these outcomes will require program reforms to ensure 

the use of Federal transportation funds as performance-driven, 

transparent, and accountable. My written testimony includes a 

number of specific recommendations to improve the Nation’s surface transportation network, leverage Federal funds, and accelerate 

the transportation project review and delivery process. 

Mr. Hanna, I’ve spent more than 40 years in the transportation 

construction industry, where being the lowest competitive bidder is 

integral to securing future work. I’m keenly aware of the bottom 

line and the need to control costs. 

At the same time, I know strategic investments in capital and 

personnel are essential for my company to grow and prepare for 

the future. 

There is a difference between investment and spending in the 

business world, and this is certainly true about the transportation 

programs. This incredibly important parallel should not be overlooked, as well-intended efforts to reform Federal spending priorities go forward. 

344 

In closing, we recognize writing and enacting a multiyear reauthorization bill will not be easy. The most important thing members of this committee can do at this stage, however, is to produce 

legislation and jump-start the process. 

Until this is done, we’re all missing an opportunity to provide a 

long-term foundation for full economic recovery and renewed competitiveness. 

Thanks again for the opportunity to appear before you. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Cox, and thank you for your candor. 

And congratulations on the long success of your family and to you. 

Mr. Joe Jeffrey, president, Road-Tech Safety Services, Inc, on behalf of American Traffic Safety Services Association. You’re recognized, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. JEFFREY. Mr. Hanna, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk about the critical need for a multiyear transportation 

authorization. 

My name is Joe Jeffrey, and I am Chairman of the American 

Traffic Safety Services Association. ATSSA’s member companies 

manufacture, distribute, and install roadway safety devices, such 

as pavement markings, signs, guard rail, median barrier, and other 

infrastructure safety features, as well as provide temporary traffic 

control. 

I’m also president of Road-Tech Safety Services, a Californiabased company that specializes in traffic control equipment for the 

highway construction industry. 

Making the road itself safer is different from other aspects of 

roadway safety, like seat beats and distracted driving. 

I believe Mr. Duncan personally understands this, as he’s related 

the stories to us of the concrete guardrail that protected him from 

a head-on crash last year. 

ATSSA believes that safety must be a core focus of the next authorization. In this economic climate, where all must do more with 

less, we understand that growing any program is going to be a 

challenge. 

Our recommendations for safety improvements are proven, costeffective ideas that offer a significant return on investment, which 

will help move our Nation toward zero deaths on our roads. 

One of the most successful components of SAFETEA–LU is the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program. This program has been the 

critical factor in reducing roadway fatalities nationwide. 

According to a June 2010 SAIC study, which I asked to be entered into the record, every $1 million obligated by the HSIP saves 

seven lives and provides a 42 to 1 return on investment. In these 

times of limited Federal resources, it is important that we make 

strategic investments that will make a difference in the lives of 

American people. 

ATSSA’s recommendations are included in my full testimony, but 

include an increase to the HSIP funding levels with a target of 10 

percent of overall highway program dollars, and that HSIP funds 

not be allowed to be transferred to other programs. 

It is our suggestion to include language in the HSIP, to get dollars down to locals for sign and striping upgrades. 

345 

SAFETEA–LU also created the High Risk Rural Roads Program, 

which aims to increase safety on the Nation’s rural roads. ATSSA 

has recommended an increase to this program, which is vital to the 

American Transportation network. 

An individual is 21⁄2 times more likely to die on a rural road than 

on an urban one. That indisputable fact alone should cause us to 

place a special emphasis on these roadways, including targeted 

funding. 

A national coalition called the Roadway Infrastructure Safety Coalition has emerged to advocate on behalf of this issue. 

As the United States population ages, it is going to be critical to 

make the roads as safe as possible for our older citizens. It is estimated that by 2025, one out of four American drivers will be 65 

years of age or older. In SAFETEA–LU, Section 1405 raised awareness for the need to invest in infrastructure safety for older drivers, 

but no funds were appropriated. 

ATSSA is recommending that funds be available in the next authorization to allow States to make improvements to aid older drivers and pedestrians. 

The Coalition for Older Roadway User Safety has been created 

to focus attention on this issue. 

With low-cost investments geared toward the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program, high-risk rural roads, and older driver safety, we will be able to make great headway in reducing fatalities. 

In addition to creating jobs, and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, this next authorization bill will save the lives of thousands of Americans. 

As a small businessman, I understand the importance of 

prioritization when it comes to using limited funds. These recommendations will help to make a dramatic improvement in the 

daily lives of countless Americans. 

Mr. Hanna, Ranking Member DeFazio, I thank you and the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. David R. Thomey, executive vice president, Maryland Materials, Inc., speaking on behalf of National Stone, Sand, and Gravel 

Association. Thank you for being here, sir. 

Mr. THOMEY. Thank you, Mr. Hanna, Ranking Member DeFazio. 

I represent Maryland Materials, Inc. We’re a family-owned business located in Cecil County, on I–95, in Dr. Harris’ district. 

Last year we quietly celebrated our 50th anniversary. Last week 

I was elected chairman of the board of the National Stone, Sand, 

and Gravel Association at its annual convention. 

And I appear before you today on behalf of NSSGA. 

The Association is the largest mining association by product volume in the world. Our members represent 90 percent of the 

crushed stone, and 70 percent of the sand and gravel consumed annually in the U.S., and employ 111,400 people, hard-working men 

and women. 

Aggregates are a basic material that are taken for granted, but 

are essential to built environment, and are used in most public 

work projects, including roads and highways, dams and bridges. 

346 

Due to high transportation costs, proximity to market is critical. 

Thus, 70 percent of our Nation’s counties are home to an aggregates operation. 

Aggregates make up 94 percent of asphalt and 80 percent of concrete. 

Despite the large amount of aggregates used in all kinds of construction, our industry has experienced the most severe recession 

in its history. Production of aggregates in the U.S. has gone from 

over 3 billion metric tons in 2006, valued at $21 billion, to 1.9 billion metric tons in 2009, at a value of approximately $17.2 billion, 

a nearly $4 billion decrease. 

The company I work for has not been immune from the economic 

downturn. Sales reached their peak in 2006, and they have diminished by over 50 percent during the past 3 years. 

During that time, our small workforce reduced from approximately 60 employees to a current level of 23. The people we lost 

were hard-working, dedicated men and women, who held good-paying, high-paying jobs. 

Most are still looking for work that will make them whole financially. 

I’ve heard it said that polling shows that unemployment does not 

resonate with the American people with respect to the highway 

bill. I can tell you, it certainly resonates with my ex-employees. 

That being said, the aggregates industry remains optimistic. 

To a one, they believe that passage of a multiyear robust surface 

transportation bill will create good well-paying American jobs, restore economic growth, and enhance our global competitiveness. 

Specifically, we agree that the highway program has lost focus 

and we would support elimination of the diversion of Highway 

Trust funds to projects that are unrelated to surface transportation. 

We support increased investment in our Nation’s infrastructure 

and recognize no one financing mechanism is a panacea. 

Third, we support bringing more clarity to the process of assessing indirect and cumulative environmental impact analysis and 

mitigation. And, we urge that more common sense be brought to 

the process through increased agency collaboration and flexibility 

for the States. 

Fourth, we urge giving aggregate resource identification and protection higher priority in land planning, so that these natural 

building blocks are not inadvertently sterilized. 

And fifth, we support regulatory reform with FHWA as the lead 

Agency in surface transportation project review. 

I’ve heard it said from colleagues and from others that you do not 

hear from our industry the way that you hear from other interest 

groups. And I believe that’s true. You see, it’s not in our DNA to 

come and ask anyone for anything. 

What most of our people want is simple: The freedom to follow 

their dreams. 

Mr. Hanna, we build more than roads and highways and buildings. We build the homes where we raise our families, we build the 

schools where we educate our children, in hopes that they will have 

a brighter future. 

347 

We build the American dream. And before anything else, we 

want to assure that that dream is still possible for all Americans. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomey. 

Mr. Scott Belcher, president, Intelligent Transportation Society 

of America. You’re recognized. 

Mr. BELCHER. Thank you, Mr. Hanna and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. 

ITS America represents more than 16 hundred public agencies, 

private industry leaders and research institutes, that are focused 

on the use of technology to address America’s transportation problems. 

This Nation is facing budget deficits requiring all governments to 

do more with less. In the transportation setting, these challenges 

will only be exacerbated by a growing population, rising congestion 

levels, and growing vehicle miles traveled. 

It’s clear we cannot go forward with business as usual. 

As many States and cities across the country will attest, 21stcentury technologies are proving among the most viable and costeffective methods for addressing transportation problems in the 

current budget environment. 

From smart highways that reduce traffic gridlock, to crash-avoidance systems, to fully modernized freight management systems, to 

stress-sensing bridges, to buses that give commuters real-time arrival and departure information, to electronic tolling system that 

allow vehicles to travel through tolling gates without stopping, 

smart technologies have become essential to getting the most out 

of our transportation system. 

Technology is no longer a nice-to-have amenity. It’s now a musthave solution for cash-strapped agencies looking to stretch limited 

dollars. 

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, found that ITS enabled operational strategies 

have provided a 9 to 1 return on investment. Nine to one. 

Here are a few examples: 

Synchronized and adaptive traffic signals provide a 40 to 1 return on investment in time and fuel savings by adjusting signal to 

real-world traffic conditions. Real-time traffic information systems 

can return $30 million in safety, mobility, and environmental benefits for a $1.2 billion investment, according to the GAO. 

Incident management systems like Florida’s Road Rangers program have been found to yield at 25 to 1 return on investment by 

improving crash and incident responses. 

We’ve included a number of ITS America’s recommendations for 

advancing these and other technology solutions as part of my written testimony, which also includes a suggested framework for 

transitioning to a more accountable and performance-based system. 

But one specific proposal I’d like to draw the committee’s attention to is H.R. 995, the Smart Technologies for Communities Act, 

which was recently introduced by Congressman Mike Rogers and 

Russ Carnahan, who co-chair the bipartisan ITS caucus. 

This bill would create a competitive pilot program for up to six 

communities to serve as model deployment sites for large-scale deployment of intelligent transportation systems. Such programs as 

348 

a potential mileage-based user fee that could vary by congestion 

level, time of day, or other factors; a comprehensive approach to 

performance management and a connected vehicle network, which 

the Department of Transportation estimates could potentially prevent or reduce the impact of four out of five unimpaired vehicle 

crashes. 

This bill has been introduced by a broad coalition of auto makers, 

highway and transit leaders, safety and environmental advocates, 

manufacturers, transportation engineers, and other infrastructure 

and innovation leaders. 

The bill would also provide a model for leveraging private-sector 

investment and innovative financing tools to modernize the Nation’s transportation infrastructure, while spurring job creation and 

strengthening U.S. economic competitiveness. 

And these are the kind of jobs that the President is talking 

about. 

We would urge the committee to adopt this bill and consider ITS 

America’s other recommendations as you work to reauthorize the 

Surface Transportation Bill. 

Finally, I’d like to personally invite all the committee members 

who are interested in learning more about these solutions to join 

us in Orlando, October 16th through 20th, where ITS America will 

host the 18th World Congress on ITS. The World Congress comes 

to the United States every 3 years, and it’s the largest transportation technology event in the world. 

And lastly, I’d like for you to think of ITS America as your Smart 

Technology’s resource, and we’re here to help in any way that we 

can. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. 

And Chairman Mica has just walked into the room, so I yield to 

him for as much time as he may require. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Hanna. And thank you for chairing 

today’s hearing, and hearing from a number of national stakeholders. And while I haven’t been able to join you for the whole 

proceedings, I thought when we proposed having these stakeholders’ meetings, that it would be good to have everyone who had 

suggestions, recommendations, and represented groups from across 

the country to be heard in our committee, as we tried to put together a comprehensive transportation policy, funding formulas, 

and guidelines for probably what will be the next decade. 

I intend for this to be a 6-year bill and cover all modes. As you 

know, we passed an extension for the balance of this fiscal year, 

and I am appreciative of your help and all of those others who 

worked toward that goal. 

We have some breathing time. We needed some stability. There 

had been six extensions, and that’s not the way to operate the Nation’s transportation agencies or partner with the States and locals 

and others. 

In an effort to have everyone heard, some folks had the opportunity and a series of many hearings we did throughout the United 

States, and listening sessions. 

In fact, one in Cortland, New York, last week with Mr. Hanna’s 

constituents and others. And I did one in my back yard. And I was 

349 

not here, but I had intended to introduce Ms. Sharon Calvert, cofounder of the Florida Alliance, and who provided testimony. She 

came from Florida as a citizen leader of one of the most influential 

activist groups that we’ve ever seen, influencing national policy and 

representing 120 grassroots organizations. 

Some of the tea party folks that are in town are well represented 

by her presentation. She’s president of the Tampa Group. And also 

the impact that they’ve made, not only at the House of Representatives but in national politics. 

I have had an opportunity to look at her testimony and it conforms with my goal of doing more with less and using innovation 

in a time when we are constrained again by revenue and by the 

indebtedness that the Nation is facing. It’s probably our most serious economic and now turned into a national security issue. 

So I’m pleased to have someone from my State and I welcome 

them and others who have come today. In our other hearings 

across the country, I was out with Mr. DeFazio, who has joined us, 

the former Chair of the Highway and current Ranking Member. We 

were out on the West Coast, landed in Portland, down in Vancouver and never realized their proximity until that trip. 

But I appreciate his leadership in working with us, and again, 

those who testified. 

We have announced a Members’ hearing next week. Is that what 

date? The 5th? The 5th. And I hope we can get another notice out 

to all the Members of the House, not to talk on projects but to talk 

on policy and what they would like to see as provisions in this longterm important transportation measure. 

With that, I apologize. I’m in, I’m out. I’ve got a group waiting 

that I promised to address. 

But again, I compliment you, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. DeFazio, in 

your efforts to hear from all the different groups. After hearing 

these good ideas we’ll begin together. 

As you know, out in California I promised when we did a bicameral, bipartisan hearing with Ms. Boxer, the Democrat counterpart, I promised to buy beer and pizza, after we hear from everyone 

to sit down and start discussing crafting the bill, and Ms. Boxer 

asked if we could have fruit shakes. 

So it’s going to be beer, pizza, and fruit shakes for Members. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. Whatever we have to do to get the very best, most responsible legislation possible. 

Mr. HANNA. John? 

Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. HANNA. As co-chair of the bipartisan craft brewers’ caucus, 

can I choose the beer, so we have good beer? 

Mr. MICA. Absolutely. 

In fact, I’m so generous, Mr. DeFazio, I’m going to let you buy 

the beer. But—— 

Mr. HANNA. I’ll check and maybe we can get it done later, but 

we got to look at the ethics rules—— 

Mr. MICA. So pleased to have Sharon Calvert come all the way 

from my State of Florida and join us, and provide testimony. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Mica. 

350 

Mr. Gerald Stump, Chief Operating Officer, Wilbur Smith Associates, on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies. 

You’re recognized, sir. 

Mr. STUMP. Mr. Hanna, Ranking Member DeFazio, thank you. 

It’s an honor to be here today to testify on behalf of ACEC, the 

American Council of Engineering Companies, where I’ve had the 

privilege of serving as National Chairman. 

As we speak, hundreds of senior executives of ACEC member 

firms are here on Capitol Hill to underscore to your colleagues that 

infrastructure investment, particularly a long-term transportation 

bill, is essential to economic recovery and national competitiveness. 

I want to make one clear and very specific point this morning. 

The transportation bill you write should empower America’s engineering industry to do what we do best, and that’s to design innovative solutions that help our State and local clients deliver transportation improvements faster, more efficiently and with greater 

long-term value to the taxpayer. 

Transportation agencies that effectively harness the private sector are able to manage a wider array of projects at one time and 

adapt quickly to changing economic conditions and fluctuating 

workloads. 

Contracting out to the private sector helps departments meet 

strict deadlines, accommodate specific technical expertise requirements, and spur innovative solutions, all of which lower total 

project life-cycle costs. 

In contrast, policies that mandate the use of government inhouse engineering work forces stifle innovation and competition, 

limit access to experienced service providers and dampen economic 

growth. 

I noted several specific project examples in my written testimony 

to demonstrate the tremendous benefits of contracting with private 

engineering firms. Let me highlight one of those projects now that 

happens to be in Chairman Duncan’s district. 

It involved the redesign of Interstate 40 through downtown 

Knoxville. We provided comprehensive planning and design services for the Tennessee Department of Transportation that reduced 

the planned construction schedule by more than 23 months by closing down the freeway, rerouting traffic in a way that minimized 

disruptions to the traveling public, and preserved access to the central business district and the University of Tennessee’s main campus. 

With a context-sensitive approach, we also converted the project 

from a situation where the State was likely going to be sued by 

multiple local opposition groups to one where the community 

broadly supported the project through public service announcements. 

The volume and scope of design work was so extensive that it 

would have required the DOT to hire a significant amount of new 

staff or likely postpone every other project in the State in order to 

get it done. By engaging the private sector, the DOT was able to 

save more than $20 million in hard construction costs alone, avoid 

additional employee salary and long-term benefit costs, and successfully deliver a much-needed transportation improvement to the 

public years ahead of schedule. 

351 

Due to the creativity and innovative solutions provided by our 

private sector firm, all of this was accomplished along with a much 

safer project, which minimized disruption to the traveling public. 

So at a minimum this committee should reject any legislative 

proposal that would limit the ability of State agencies to utilize the 

experience and expertise of engineering firms to deliver quality 

services and products. 

I also want to express my concern to the committee about reports 

that we’ve received that some State departments of transportation 

are actively marketing their services to local governments in direct 

competition with the private sector. 

From what we’ve been told, it’s not uncommon in these instances 

for DOT representatives to contact county and city officials to offer 

engineering and design services and thereby undermine private 

sector firms who are offering to provide those services for local 

projects. 

This activity violates the core principle that government should 

not actively compete with its citizens. We’re concerned about this 

practice, and that it may also present a fundamental conflict of interest for a department that has the power to approve, disapprove, 

speed up or delay plans submitted by local agencies to those departments. 

I recently met with Chairman Duncan, who mentioned to me 

that at every White House conference on small business since 1955, 

either the number one or number two concern that’s been expressed has been freedom from government competition. 

This anti-competitive practice must be curtailed. 

At the same time, Mr. Hanna, we want to highlight that there 

are those DOTs that work very well with the private sector, 

partnering with and harnessing that private sector to more efficiently and effectively deliver projects to the public. 

We encourage the committee to review how those State DOTs effectively manage and utilize the project delivery capabilities of the 

Nation’s engineering firms. 

And finally, let me applaud the committee for focusing its attention on the problems with environmental and other regulatory reviews that unnecessarily delay projects. 

Our list of recommendations on this subject is included in my 

written testimony, and you’ll find that it’s consistent with what 

you’ve heard from other experts this morning, and at other meetings. 

Thank you, Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Stump. 

Ms. Kathy J. Caldwell, P.E., president, American Society of Engineers. Do you agree that there is a danger in competition between 

the public and private sector when the private sector—— 

Ms. CALDWELL. I think there’s a natural partnership there in 

finding the balance. Is the key, of course, the American Society of 

Civil Engineers has a different mission and focus than is presented 

by our partners, in several other initiatives. 

We are an organization of individual members, differing from 

ACEC, which is an organization of corporate members. 

But I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, Mr. Hanna, 

and members of the committee. 

352 

The American Society of Civil Engineers is pleased to offer our 

views on how to improve and reform the Nation’s surface transportation programs. ASCE remains concerned with the increasing and 

continued deterioration of the Nation’s infrastructure. 

In our 2009 Report Card, the Nation’s roads received a grade of 

D-minus; bridges a C; and transit a grade of D. 

A multiyear surface transportation bill with increased funding 

levels is necessary to address this documented investment gap. 

ASCE also supports a review of the 108 transportation programs 

to determine how reforms can be implemented to create a streamlined, more efficient system. 

ASCE urges changes to expedite the regulatory process for infrastructure projects at the Federal, State, and local level. Inefficient 

regulatory processes delay implementation of needed transportation improvements, frequently increasing project costs. 

The goal must be to allow infrastructure projects to proceed in 

a timely manner, while protecting the environment. 

Mandating concurrent reviews and designating a single administrative agency would improve and shorten the approval process. 

While the development and implementation of transportation 

projects in an efficient and environmentally sound manner is important, expedited environmental reviews of high-priority projects 

must be considered more frequently. 

Congress should enact a surface transportation authorization 

that enhances and improves connectivity. Congress should be working to address the movement of freight, as our economy will benefit 

by relieving freight congestion through capacity building in appropriate corridors. 

Another beneficial reform would be to provide flexible funding for 

multimodal transportation systems. 

Therefore, a new surface transportation authorization should include the creation of a program funded with dedicated revenue to 

provide new capacity and operational improvements focused on the 

efficient movement of freight. 

Lastly, ASCE supports a reliable sustained user fee approach to 

building and maintaining the Nation’s highway and transit systems. 

By increasing the motor fuels tax, a much-needed infusion into 

the Highway Trust Fund would be provided, while reducing the 

deficit in the long run. 

In the long term, however, with effects of increased fuel efficiency, other funding methods must be explored as well. A mileagebased system for funding surface transportation programs needs 

further study. 

Additionally, innovative financing, such as public/private partnerships, design/build, Build America bonds, the expansion of 

TIFIA, and an infrastructure bank can accelerate infrastructure development and have a powerful economic effect compared to conventional methods. 

We must find new and innovative ways to fund and finance the 

transportation infrastructure needs of our Nation, because relying 

solely on traditional sources of funding and financing are no longer 

sufficient. 

353 

You have requested solutions. The American Society of Civil Engineers stands by to work with you in those solutions, as you develop a robust Surface Transportation Authorization, which is 

founded on a strong national vision, program reform, adequate 

funding, and an integrated, multimodal transportation system. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Ms. Caldwell. 

Mr. Burke, president and CEO of Trek Bicycle Corporation, on 

behalf of Bikes Belong. You are recognized, sir. And thank you for 

being here. 

Mr. BURKE. Thank you so much for having me, Chairman Hanna 

and Ranking Member DeFazio. I am here to speak on behalf of the 

U.S. bicycle industry, and also Bikes Belong Coalition. Trek Bicycle 

does over $800 million in sales. We also employ 1,100 people here 

in the United States. 

The bicycle business is a significant business in the United States. There is over $6 billion done in the bicycle business. Each 

and every year there is 15 million to 20 million bicycles sold. That’s 

more than cars and trucks combined. There is more than 1 million 

Americans involved in bike or bike-related businesses. There is 

over 4,000 bicycle retailers in small, medium, and large towns 

across America. The bike business provides a growing number of 

high-paid professional jobs in engineering, designing, manufacturing, marketing, and logistics. 

The Federal spending over the last 15 years on bicycle and pedestrian projects has been a great investment for America. And 

there is a number of reasons for that. 

The first reason is the bicycle has reduced congestion. If you take 

a look at car trips today, more than 50 percent of car trips, when 

you go out on the road, are less than 3 miles. The bicycle is a very 

simple solution there. If you take a look at 2009, over 4 billion trips 

were taken by bicycle. That set a record. A specific example is in 

Minneapolis, where a Federal investment allowed a project called 

Midtown Greenways to happen. It’s used by over 3,500 cyclists 

every day. That one greenway transports more people than 75 percent of the city streets in Minneapolis. 

The second reason the Federal investment on cycling has been 

great is it’s been simple and cost effective. The transportation bill, 

1.5 percent of the money goes to biking and pedestrian projects. 

Biking and walking make up 12 percent of the mode share. That’s 

a great value. If you take a look at—one example is Portland, Oregon, where Portland spent $57 million over the past 15 years to 

improve bicycle infrastructure. If you take a look at the cost of putting 1 mile of four-lane highway through an urban setting, it’s 

about $40 million. Bicycles offer a very cost-effective solution for 

transportation in the future of America. 

The third great investment that the last transportation bill made 

was Safe Routes to Schools, where this program was started. If you 

take a look back in time when I went to school—and many other 

people in this room did—1970, 35 percent of kids either rode their 

bikes or they walked to school. Today that number is less than 5 

percent. In the last transportation bill with Safe Routes to School, 

in that time period, over 10,000 schools have enacted Safe Routes 

programs. They have reported increases anywhere from 20 to 200 

354 

percent. For the first time in this country’s history, we are starting 

to move back to getting more kids walking and biking to school. All 

this has been done with the investment. 

In conclusion, the bicycle offers a simple solution to a lot of complicated problems. The bicycle can reduce congestion. It can reduce 

our dependence on foreign oil. The bicycle can help to combat the 

obesity epidemic in America. The bicycle can do all this for less 

than 11⁄2 percent of the transportation bill. The bicycle is a proven 

success, and it is a cheap date. 

I would like to close with one specific recommendation for the 

next Federal transportation bill. We need to maintain the integrity 

of the transportation enhancements and the Safe Routes to School 

program. These programs are doing great things for our communities, our business, and our Nation. 

Thank you very much for having me. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you for being here. Mr. Deron Lovaas. Close? 

Mr. LOVAAS. Close. Deron Lovaas. 

Mr. HANNA. Oh, Deron. I’m sorry. 

Mr. LOVAAS. Yes, no worries. 

Mr. HANNA. Federal transportation policy director, Natural Resources Defense Council. You are recognized, sir. Thank you for 

being here. 

Mr. LOVAAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 

for inviting me to testify. And since I am batting clean-up, I will 

walk through some specific ideas that we have for inclusion in the 

transportation bill. 

And to set the stage, we all know we have deferred maintenance 

of roads and bridges, transit systems, and other assets across the 

country. And we all know that Presidents from both political parties as far back as Richard Nixon have called for reduced oil 

dependance. So, how do we build a safer, smarter, and more fuelefficient transportation system? 

First, we need to make better use of taxpayer dollars. Repair jobs 

and public transportation investments have high rates of return. 

Jobs are created in project construction indirectly through the manufacturing supply chain, and workers spending wages domestically. 

We need national policy objectives for economic benefits, mobility 

and access, safety, oil savings, and environmental quality, as well 

as State and regional objectives and long-range plans in transportation improvement programs with incentives for initiatives that 

contribute to those goals. 

Two, we need to tackle chronic under-investment and maintenance of our transportation system: 500 hundred bridges failed between 1989 and 2003 alone, and nearly 8,000 bridges are currently 

in disrepair. Fortunately, 86 percent of respondents in a recent national poll supported a fix it first policy that focuses on maintaining 

existing transportation systems before we build new ones. We need 

a fix it first standard for all modes, funding exclusively for repairs, 

and performance measurement for adequate progress toward a 

state of good repair for the whole system. 

Three, breaking the oil habit in transportation is key, since it accounts for 70 percent of the Nation’s oil use. Consumers deserve 

more mobility choices, and this is backed by a broad set of energy 

355 

and transportation experts as part of a project initiated by our 

partner, the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. 

And there is a 10-point plan I will just walk through very quickly. One, we need to ensure the price of fuel better reflects oil security costs. Two, we need to deploy more high-occupancy toll or hot 

lanes, as well as congestion pricing. Three, we need to make sure 

that transit dollars are allocated to optimize oil savings. Four, we 

need to increase auto insurance choice, so consumer payments 

hinge on how much people drive. Five, we need to provide transit 

vouchers for mobility choice for low-income households. Six, we 

need to increase commuting options as well as telecommuting. 

Seven, we need to send more—a gas tax revenue back to local 

areas where the most traffic is generated, and where there is the 

most oil savings potential. Eight, we need to improve local land development rules. Nine, we need to deploy more smart traffic management. And, 10, we need to deploy cost-effective intercity rail options as justified by cost efficiency and oil displacement potential. 

It’s important to make leveraged investments. 

We do need to improve project delivery also, while keeping in 

mind that environmental and preservation laws account for a small 

share of total transportation project delays. And in most cases, 

time must be taken to get the most complex or controversial 

projects right. 

Having said that, we need incentives to link planning and project 

reviews, increase use of mitigated categorical exclusions and findings of no significant impacts, comprehensive planning initiatives, 

so environmental impacts, as well as benefits, can be identified 

early in the process, and design flexibility for transportation 

projects to avoid environmental impacts. 

Next, we need to make sure to move goods faster and more cleanly. We can modernize the freight system, improve its efficiency, 

while we reduce environmental impacts. We need a national plan, 

a multimodal freight office at DOT, project eligibility for Highway 

Trust Fund spending with economic and environmental performance standards, as well as merit-based competitive grants. 

Next we need to make sure to protect water, since storm water 

run-off threatens drinking water and rivers, and the lakes and 

streams where we swim, fish, and play. New and rehabilitated Federal aid highways and roads should meet a performance standard 

to reduce storm water runoff and meet clean water requirements. 

And last, we need to protect wildlife threatened by sprawling development, often driven by poorly planned transportation investments. What we need is standardized collection and analysis of 

wildlife vehicle collision data, better sharing of data between transportation and resource agencies, support for early resource agency 

involvement, and planning and consideration of wildlife passages 

during bridge assessments. 

NRDC and our allies look forward to working with you, as well 

as the committee staff and the Congress, to get a new expanded reformed transportation bill passed as soon as possible. And thank 

you very much, and I am all alone at the witness stand. 

Mr. HANNA. You won’t be for long. 

[Laughter.] 

356 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it. We 

will proceed to questions. I will recognize each Member for 5 minutes, starting with Ranking Member DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s an interesting format. Twenty witnesses is a lot. Thank you all for your time and 

your testimony. I certainly heard some grounds for agreement on 

streamlining efficiency, flexibility, and accountability. Those were 

objectives that we were trying to build into reforms of the Federal 

Department of Transportation—the proliferation of programs, and 

their simplification—in the last authorization. And I hope the new 

majority follows through on some of those proposals. 

The one thing I’d like—and it’s hard to haul people back up one 

at a time, so I’m really not going to engage in much of that. But 

my one observation is that someone toward the end there mentioned competitiveness and talked about international competitiveness, business, and our reliance on the transportation system. 

And I couldn’t agree more, and feel that our disinvestment—we 

are projected now to reduce our real expenditures about 30 percent 

if we stick to what is projected to come in out of the Trust Fund. 

We heard some testimony that PPPs can fulfill a small part of that; 

there are some who will say somehow this is going to become a 

massive new solution. It won’t. It can’t. They have to be revenuegenerating projects in order to involve the private sector. But we 

do want to use those as a tool. There are other tools—we heard 

TIFIA—all those things can help. 

But the core program still needs to be robust, and I don’t think 

it will be. So I am going to ask a question where I will ask people 

to raise hands. We had the ‘‘Paving Our Way: A New Framework 

for Transportation’’ Finance Commission report. We had the National Surface Transportation Policy Revenue Study Commission 

report. Both of these were done when the Republicans controlled 

the House, the White House, and the Senate. They were bipartisan, 

and they came to the same conclusion: a tremendous lack of investment. 

Roughly, we are $46 billion—let’s say, between the two of them, 

$50 billion—under just maintaining the existing system. And if we 

wanted to begin to compete with the rest of the world, build a 21stcentury system, we’re short about $75 billion a year. Then, we have 

the report card from the Society of Civil Engineers. This all adds 

up to just a tremendous shortfall. 

So, of everyone who testified today, I would like to see a show 

of hands on how many are familiar with all three of those. 

[Show of hands.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, let me do it the other way. Who has not read 

or is not familiar with all three? 

[Show of hands.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Ms. Calvert, I would recommend to you that 

you look at those, because you want to talk about the future of 

America, our future in the world, these point to a huge problem 

that we have. She was honest enough not to raise her hand; there 

may have been someone else who didn’t raise their hand. So I appreciate that. But anyway, if you are going to be involved in these 

issues, I do recommend them to you. 

357 

So, we had discussion of VMT. I appreciate particularly the discussion by the Reason Foundation, and I share the privacy concerns. I think there is a way we can get there. I am concerned 

about equity issues, which didn’t seem to get much coverage. I still 

believe that you put a lot more burden on the system in rush hour 

in an urban area creating congestion than rural, and I think there 

needs to be some differential on how people are charged. But somehow you have to do it with total protection of privacy. And that is 

why State pilots—that is why we were not moving there in our consideration of the bill, but we think States should voluntarily pilot 

if they want—can help assure that we can do things that way. 

How many people think that VMT, of those who testified, is 

something that we should begin to move toward in this authorization? I just want to see. 

[Show of hands.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is quite a significant show of hands. Thank 

you. 

And then, one other question would be, as was noted, we have 

not raised the gas tax since 1993. There has been a little bit of inflation since 1993. We are looking at maybe $.65, $.70 on the dollar 

when you spend that money of what we could buy back then. One 

idea that I think should be examined is what if we indexed the existing user fee gas tax to construction cost inflation, so that we do 

not lose more ground, at least. How many people would support 

that sort of an idea who testified? 

[Show of hands.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is a pretty good show of hands, thank you. 

And then, here is the second part of that. I have begun to examine and am working with some folks on, if we did index it—there 

are certain ways we can make assumptions under the Budget Act 

and other things that we are constrained by, in terms of pay-asyou-go—about the income over a certain period of time. Set a time 

table to repay some bonds, and then use that projected additional 

income so we could perhaps do $40 billion to $60 billion in bonding 

up front on this bill to get the number back up and to make a lot 

more urgent investment and/or preservation needs. 

How many people think it would be a good idea, if we could 

index, that we would do some up-front bonding to enhance the program all together? 

[Show of hands.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Again, a pretty good show of hands. Thank you. 

Again, I find there was a lot of good stuff there, a lot of you gave 

very good and provocative testimony. And were we in a more normal format, I would have followed up with a lot of you with individual questions. But thank you for being here, thanks for participating, thanks for participating in my little bit of experimental 

polling there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. I will yield a little time to myself to ask 

a question next. Thank you. 

Mr. Grote, why should Congress increase the cap on private activity bonds if the current $15 billion bond allowance has not been 

fully utilized? 

358 

Mr. GROTE. A good question. Our commission did recommend increasing the cap, but it didn’t say when. So we acknowledge your 

point. It has not been fully utilized. Part of it is the pipeline of 

projects, in this economy. 

We do think, as more State and local governments look into public-private partnerships, that demand will grow. When we hit the 

$15 billion cap and an increase might be needed, I think it was our 

view that would happen probably before you get around to talking 

about the next Federal reauthorization bill. So I would put that in 

the context of if you are looking at a multiyear bill, probably that 

cap would need to be increased within the next 5 or 6 years. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Njord, in 

your testimony you highlighted the need for this bill to streamline 

project delivery, the process. Can you provide us with concrete examples where Utah DOT has streamlined the delivery process? 

Mr. NJORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the question. 

It’s interesting that you ask that question right now, since last 

week the Utah Department of Transportation delivered what we 

call the Superbowl of bridge moves in Utah. We moved a bridge. 

We believe it is the largest bridge ever moved in the Western 

Hemisphere, at 354 feet, into place in a matter of a few hours. 

All of you have experienced driving through a construction 

project that might last 6 to 9 months where we are building a new 

bridge. In this situation, we built the bridge off-site, closed down 

the freeway at 11:00 p.m., and by 4:00 a.m. the next morning the 

bridge was in place and ready to be used. I think that is one example of how we can, if we are given the latitude to deliver our 

projects creatively, to accomplish that. 

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I think the Utah Department 

of Transportation was the first department in the country to employ design-build back in 1997, when we reconstructed the highway 

in Salt Lake County. Design-build, CMGC, other creative methods 

have enabled us to deliver very large projects in a very rapid fashion. 

For example, we are under construction right now on a project: $1.725 billion, 25 miles of freeway in Utah County. It is going to 

be completed in 35 months. It is 25 miles of new freeway, 10 interchanges, 63 bridges, 35 months. That is accelerated construction. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you for that, and thank you for waiting so 

long. 

Mr. NJORD. My pleasure. 

Mr. HANNA. Congressman Boehlert—oh, here you are. How are 

you doing? 

Mr. BOEHLERT. I am doing well, and it gives me a great deal of 

pleasure to see a successor from my congressional district in the 

chair. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling me back. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. It is an honor. How long will it take to 

make the surface transportation programs more performancebased? Can it be done in the next reauthorization bill, in your opinion? 

Mr. BOEHLERT. It certainly can. And we have outlined a course 

to follow. And we are working very closely with the very able professional staff on this committee, both sides. But we have got to get 

real about this whole business. And the American taxpayers are 

359 

demanding more from government. And what they are demanding 

from government is a clearly stated set of goals, what we hope to 

accomplish by any program, how we hope to get there. We need 

metrics to measure performance, and we have got to do things differently in the future. 

We have five stated objectives we have outlined: economic 

growth—jobs should be everyone’s new favorite four-letter word, so 

economic growth—national connectivity metro accessibility—because 80 percent of our people live in the city, so they have got to 

get there, and the young people are more and more concentrating 

in our urban centers; we have to always focus on safety; and finally, on energy security and environmental sustainability. Those 

are five worthy objectives. 

This committee has a golden opportunity to really get serious 

about changing the way we have done things in the past. Let’s not 

do it the same old way. Most people are sort of fed up with that. 

They want to change. And I think this committee historically has 

always been in the forefront of change. And I would encourage you 

to continue to do so. 

And take advantage of the resources of the Bipartisan Policy 

Center. If we didn’t have it, we would have to invent it, because 

you have got Republicans and Democrats—admittedly, has-beens 

or used-to-be’s, you know, former senators, former congressmen— 

who are interested in shaping public policy in a responsible way. 

Republicans and Democrats, and then a very able professional 

staff. That is a model for this committee with a very able professional staff to follow. 

So, and the natural question comes down to financing. Where are 

we going to get the money? Show me the money. Somebody won 

an Academy Award once for uttering that phrase, ‘‘Show me the 

money.’’ Well, I am not speaking for the Bipartisan Policy Center 

now, I am speaking only for myself, my personal opinion. We have 

got to go to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). That is a fee—for use. 

And, in the interim, until we phase into that, I would put a quarter 

a gallon tax on gasoline right away to get the money in. 

I mean, improving the infrastructure of America is an absolute 

imperative. We can’t let it crumble. Creating new jobs? Jobs would 

be all over the place, people building. And that is America in its 

finest hour. 

So, I am glad, Mr. Chairman—and I like calling you Mr. Chairman—I am glad, Mr. Chairman, you are in the chair, and I thank 

you for the opportunity to appear here and share some of my thinking. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Congressman Boehlert. And you are an 

extremely difficult act to follow, but I will do my best. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you so much. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you for being here. Ms. Richardson? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask 

Mr. Diederich—I apologize if I pronounce your name wrong—Mr. 

Cox, Mr. Thomey, and Ms. Caldwell to come forward for a couple 

of questions. 

For Mr. Diederich—thank you—and Mr. Cox and Mr. Thomey, I 

have the same question for all three of you. If you could, answer. 

When we were first looking at the statement that is in the ARIA, 

360 

the American Recovery and Investment Act, one of the things, unfortunately, Mr. Summers thought was that we couldn’t do all the 

projects and spend the resources and do the investment needed 

within a short period of time to be able to have the jobs and see 

the results. 

Could you give this committee some confidence that if, in fact, we 

had the resources and we passed a good, solid bill that enabled us 

to do the projects, that you feel you could do them in a timely way? 

Mr. DIEDERICH. Well, there is no question that the money that 

was authorized to be spent in the stimulus was—a lot of it was mill 

and overlay work. And one of the things that our firm does is the 

milling, and we act primarily as a subcontractor to asphalt paving 

companies. And last year and the year before, we were—part of the 

stimulus bill required that we report how many stimulus-related 

projects we had. And I think last year we did 54 projects that were 

stimulus-based, and the year before we did about 21. So—— 

Ms. RICHARDSON. And you were able to handle them, is the—— 

Mr. DIEDERICH. We were able to handle them. And that was one 

of the only equipment investments that we made, was to buy another—actually, two—mills because of that act. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Thomey? 

Mr. THOMEY. Even with the stimulus our production capabilities 

were about 40 percent of what they normally would have been during good times, as far as the economy is concerned in 2006, 2007. 

We are a small company. We participated in, I know, three stimulus—and there was no problem at all. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. And Mr. Cox? 

Mr. COX. I think the stimulus funds that were directed in the 

transportation and infrastructure area were well spent, and I think 

that the industry had the capabilities to handle them. Our firm 

only really had two of them, both with the Park Service, one of 

which is the rehabilitation of the Reflecting Pool at the Lincoln Memorial, which is ongoing. 

But certainly they served a very needed purpose at that time, to 

fill the gap, if you will, in the unemployment area, at least in construction that was in the infrastructure portion. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. I asked those questions of you gentlemen 

because we—if we have—part of the discussion will be whether we 

are doing a highway build that is, you know, $200-plus billion 

versus doing one that is 500-plus. The question would be if we have 

those dollars and we can do that investment, do we have the resources, do we have the companies to be able to do the work and 

to get it done, and it sounds like the answer to that question is yes, 

which I agree with. 

Ms. Caldwell, you talked about an openness to the industry taxing itself. And I wanted to ask you to take a look at H.R. 1122, 

which happens to be a bill that I authored that would call for an 

increase in the diesel tax. And it would also set up a dedicated 

freight office within the Department of Transportation. It would 

allow us the vision and the focus on those policies to do the connecting, and so on. 

So, one, I wanted to ask you and your organization if you would 

take a look at the bill. And two, if you could, just share with us 

why you feel the freight system is not connected. You said we needVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:07 Oct 03, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00378 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\HEARINGS\112\HT\3-29-1~1\65478.TXT JEAN
361 

ed to connect it. But if you could, give your experience of what the 

problems are, and why it is not—turn your mic on. 

Ms. CALDWELL. Sorry. Yes, interconnectivity, as far as the movement of goods from ports and on roadways. So the multimodal system is what we were addressing. And we are in support of an increase in fuel taxes to provide an infusion into the Highway Trust 

Fund now, while we look at alternate sources of funding, including 

the VMTs. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. And is Mr.—is our Honorable Mr.—your— 

Mr. Boehlert, is he still here? Did he step out? Could you grab him 

for me? OK. 

Ms. Caldwell, could you just say—which I think is really important—transportation—I also serve on Homeland Security—tend to 

be fairly bipartisan committees most of the time. Could you share 

with us your perspective of why there shouldn’t just be a no tax 

opinion, why there needs to be at least some sort of openness? 

You know, I—in this case, the tax hasn’t been increased since 

1993. It’s not like we’re taxing everything. Why would you make 

the argument—and if anyone else would like to chime in—that, you 

know, this should be really considered in a bipartisan fashion, and 

why it is not anti-business or hurting the economy? 

Ms. CALDWELL. I guess I would liken it to another sector of the 

infrastructure. If you think about the fact that every morning we 

get up and we turn on our faucet, we know that there is going to 

be water there to make our morning cup of coffee, but our water 

is very, very inexpensive. 

And so, it is an education process, an openness, transparency in 

saying, ‘‘This is what it costs to deliver that service.’’ And I don’t 

think Americans are looking for something for nothing. I think if 

they understand the value of the service that is being delivered, 

they are more than willing to pay their share of the cost of that 

service. 

So that would be one example that I think would—could easily 

be transferred to the ability to get to work, the ability to have services delivered, so forth, in the transportation sector. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

Mr. COX. Representative? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Sure. 

Mr. COX. ARTBA, for a number of years, has promoted what they 

call the critical commerce corridors, which is specifically a project 

to improve the connectivity between ports, railroads, and highways 

for the freight movement. And I do believe that the—some of the 

other industry groups—the American Trucking Associations and 

others—are in favor of that kind of selective taxing, as long as the 

dollars are used for those purposes. And we promote that and support that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Agreed. OK, I yield back. My time has expired. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. Mr. Belcher, are you out there? There 

you are. Thank you. Just a quick question. 

Do you, as Intelligent Transportation Society of America, do you 

agree with Mr. Moore, that you can address a highway user mileage fee and still maintain privacy issues? 

362 

Mr. BELCHER. I do. I do. We have had plenty of experience in a 

variety of industries protecting privacy, one which was represented 

by IBTTA in the tolling industry. We have a great record of protecting people’s privacy in that industry. 

We think about the lessons we have learned from credit card 

companies, cell phone companies that all are in the business of 

gaining personal information and using it, but not making it available. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all for 

your testimony, your time today, and your interest. If there are no 

further questions, I would ask unanimous consent that the hearing 

record remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided 

answers to any questions that may be submitted to them. So, with 

that, thank you. 

In addition—you can tell I am new at this—I ask unanimous consent that during such time as the record remains open, additional 

comments offered by individuals or groups may be included in the 

hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again for their testimony 

today. If no other Members have anything else to say, this subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you again. 

[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements and submissions supplied for the record 

follow:] 

363 


Insert offset folio 282 here 65478.282
364 


Insert offset folio 283 here 65478.283
365 


Insert offset folio 284 here 65478.284
366 


Insert offset folio 285 here 65478.285
367 


Insert offset folio 286 here 65478.286
368 


Insert offset folio 287 here 65478.287
369 


Insert offset folio 288 here 65478.288
370 


Insert offset folio 289 here 65478.289
371 


Insert offset folio 290 here 65478.290
372 


Insert offset folio 291 here 65478.291
373 


Insert offset folio 292 here 65478.292
374 


Insert offset folio 293 here 65478.293
375 


Insert offset folio 294 here 65478.294
376 


Insert offset folio 295 here 65478.295
377 


Insert offset folio 296 here 65478.296
378 


Insert offset folio 297 here 65478.297
379 


Insert offset folio 298 here 65478.298
380 


Insert offset folio 299 here 65478.299
381 


Insert offset folio 300 here 65478.300
382 


Insert offset folio 301 here 65478.301
383 


Insert offset folio 302 here 65478.302
384 


Insert offset folio 303 here 65478.303
385 


Insert offset folio 304 here 65478.304
386 


Insert offset folio 305 here 65478.305
387 


Insert offset folio 306 here 65478.306
388 


Insert offset folio 307 here 65478.307
389 


Insert offset folio 308 here 65478.308
390 


Insert offset folio 309 here 65478.309
391 


Insert offset folio 310 here 65478.310
392 


Insert offset folio 311 here 65478.311
393 


Insert offset folio 312 here 65478.312
394 


Insert offset folio 313 here 65478.313
395 


Insert offset folio 314 here 65478.314
396 


Insert offset folio 315 here 65478.315
397 


Insert offset folio 316 here 65478.316
398 


Insert offset folio 317 here 65478.317
399 


Insert offset folio 318 here 65478.318
400 


Insert offset folio 319 here 65478.319
401 


Insert offset folio 320 here 65478.320
402 


Insert offset folio 321 here 65478.321
403 


Insert offset folio 322 here 65478.322
404 


Insert offset folio 323 here 65478.323
405 


Insert offset folio 324 here 65478.324
406 


Insert offset folio 325 here 65478.325
407 


Insert offset folio 326 here 65478.326
408 


Insert offset folio 327 here 65478.327
409 


Insert offset folio 328 here 65478.328
410 


Insert offset folio 329 here 65478.329
411 


Insert offset folio 330 here 65478.330
412 


Insert offset folio 331 here 65478.331
413 


Insert offset folio 332 here 65478.332
414 


Insert offset folio 333 here 65478.333
415 


Insert offset folio 334 here 65478.334
416 


Insert offset folio 335 here 65478.335
417 


Insert offset folio 336 here 65478.336
418 


Insert offset folio 337 here 65478.337
419 


Insert offset folio 338 here 65478.338
420 


Insert offset folio 339 here 65478.339
421 


Insert offset folio 340 here 65478.340
422 


Insert offset folio 341 here 65478.341
423 


Insert offset folio 342 here 65478.342
424 


Insert offset folio 343 here 65478.343
425 


Insert offset folio 344 here 65478.344
426 


Insert offset folio 345 here 65478.345
427 


Insert offset folio 346 here 65478.346
428 


Insert offset folio 347 here 65478.347
429 


Insert offset folio 348 here 65478.348
430 


Insert offset folio 349 here 65478.349
431 


Insert offset folio 350 here 65478.350
432 


Insert offset folio 351 here 65478.351
433 


Insert offset folio 352 here 65478.352
434 


Insert offset folio 353 here 65478.353
435 


Insert offset folio 354 here 65478.354
436 


Insert offset folio 355 here 65478.355
437 


Insert offset folio 356 here 65478.356
438 


Insert offset folio 357 here 65478.357
439 


Insert offset folio 358 here 65478.358
440 


Insert offset folio 359 here 65478.359
441 


Insert offset folio 360 here 65478.360
442 


Insert offset folio 361 here 65478.361
443 


Insert offset folio 362 here 65478.362
444 


Insert offset folio 363 here 65478.363
445 


Insert offset folio 364 here 65478.364
446 


Insert offset folio 365 here 65478.365
447 


Insert offset folio 366 here 65478.366
448 


Insert offset folio 367 here 65478.367
449 


Insert offset folio 368 here 65478.368
450 


Insert offset folio 369 here 65478.369
451 


Insert offset folio 370 here 65478.370
452 


Insert offset folio 371 here 65478.371
453 


Insert offset folio 372 here 65478.372
454 


Insert offset folio 373 here 65478.373
455 


Insert offset folio 374 here 65478.374
456 


Insert offset folio 375 here 65478.375
457 


Insert offset folio 376 here 65478.376
458 


Insert offset folio 377 here 65478.377
459 


Insert offset folio 378 here 65478.378
460 


Insert offset folio 379 here 65478.379
461 


Insert offset folio 380 here 65478.380
462 


Insert offset folio 381 here 65478.381
463 


Insert offset folio 382 here 65478.382
464 


Insert offset folio 383 here 65478.383
465 


Insert offset folio 384 here 65478.384
466 


Insert offset folio 385 here 65478.385
467 


Insert offset folio 386 here 65478.386
468 


Insert offset folio 387 here 65478.387
469 


Insert offset folio 388 here 65478.388
470 


Insert offset folio 389 here 65478.389
471 


Insert offset folio 390 here 65478.390
472 


Insert offset folio 391 here 65478.391
473 


Insert offset folio 392 here 65478.392
474 


Insert offset folio 393 here 65478.393
475 


Insert offset folio 394 here 65478.394
476 


Insert offset folio 395 here 65478.395
477 


Insert offset folio 396 here 65478.396
478 


Insert offset folio 397 here 65478.397
479 


Insert offset folio 398 here 65478.398
480 


Insert offset folio 399 here 65478.399
481 


Insert offset folio 400 here 65478.400
482 


Insert offset folio 401 here 65478.401
483 


Insert offset folio 402 here 65478.402
484 


Insert offset folio 403 here 65478.403
485 


Insert offset folio 404 here 65478.404
486 


Insert offset folio 405 here 65478.405
487 


Insert offset folio 406 here 65478.406
488 


Insert offset folio 407 here 65478.407
489 


Insert offset folio 408 here 65478.408
490 


Insert offset folio 409 here 65478.409
491 


Insert offset folio 410 here 65478.410
492 


Insert offset folio 411 here 65478.411
493 


Insert offset folio 412 here 65478.412
494 


Insert offset folio 413 here 65478.413
495 


Insert offset folio 414 here 65478.414
496 


Insert offset folio 415 here 65478.415
497 


Insert offset folio 416 here 65478.416
498 


Insert offset folio 417 here 65478.417
499 


Insert offset folio 418 here 65478.418
500 


Insert offset folio 419 here 65478.419
501 


Insert offset folio 420 here 65478.420
502 


Insert offset folio 421 here 65478.421
503 


Insert offset folio 422 here 65478.422
504 


Insert offset folio 423 here 65478.423
505 


Insert offset folio 424 here 65478.424
506 


Insert offset folio 425 here 65478.425
507 


Insert offset folio 426 here 65478.426
508 


Insert offset folio 427 here 65478.427
509 


Insert offset folio 428 here 65478.428
510 


Insert offset folio 429 here 65478.429
511 


Insert offset folio 430 here 65478.430
512 


Insert offset folio 431 here 65478.431
513 


Insert offset folio 432 here 65478.432
514 


Insert offset folio 433 here 65478.433
515 


Insert offset folio 434 here 65478.434
516 


Insert offset folio 435 here 65478.435
517 


Insert offset folio 436 here 65478.436
518 


Insert offset folio 437 here 65478.437
519 


Insert offset folio 438 here 65478.438
520 


Insert offset folio 439 here 65478.439
521 


Insert offset folio 440 here 65478.440
522 


Insert offset folio 441 here 65478.441
523 


Insert offset folio 442 here 65478.442
524 


Insert offset folio 443 here 65478.443
525 


Insert offset folio 444 here 65478.444
526 


Insert offset folio 445 here 65478.445
527 


Insert offset folio 446 here 65478.446
528 


Insert offset folio 447 here 65478.447
529 


Insert offset folio 448 here 65478.448
530 


Insert offset folio 449 here 65478.449
531 


Insert offset folio 450 here 65478.450
532 


Insert offset folio 451 here 65478.451
533 


Insert offset folio 452 here 65478.452
534 


Insert offset folio 453 here 65478.453
535 


Insert offset folio 454 here 65478.454
536 


Insert offset folio 455 here 65478.455
537 


Insert offset folio 456 here 65478.456
538 


Insert offset folio 457 here 65478.457
539 


Insert offset folio 458 here 65478.458
540 


Insert offset folio 459 here 65478.459
541 


Insert offset folio 460 here 65478.460
542 


Insert offset folio 461 here 65478.461
543 


Insert offset folio 462 here 65478.462
544 


Insert offset folio 463 here 65478.463
545 


Insert offset folio 464 here 65478.464
546 


Insert offset folio 465 here 65478.465
547 


Insert offset folio 466 here 65478.466
548 


Insert offset folio 467 here 65478.467
549 


Insert offset folio 468 here 65478.468
550 


Insert offset folio 469 here 65478.469
551 


Insert offset folio 470 here 65478.470
552 


Insert offset folio 471 here 65478.471
553 


Insert offset folio 472 here 65478.472
554 


Insert offset folio 473 here 65478.473
555 


Insert offset folio 474 here 65478.474
556 


Insert offset folio 475 here 65478.475
557 


Insert offset folio 476 here 65478.476
558 


Insert offset folio 477 here 65478.477
559 


Insert offset folio 478 here 65478.478
560 


Insert offset folio 479 here 65478.479
561 


Insert offset folio 480 here 65478.480
562 


Insert offset folio 481 here 65478.481
563 


Insert offset folio 482 here 65478.482
564 


Insert offset folio 483 here 65478.483
565 


Insert offset folio 484 here 65478.484
566 


Insert offset folio 485 here 65478.485
567 


Insert offset folio 486 here 65478.486
568 


Insert offset folio 487 here 65478.487
569 


Insert offset folio 488 here 65478.488
570 


Insert offset folio 489 here 65478.489
571 


Insert offset folio 490 here 65478.490
572 


Insert offset folio 491 here 65478.491
573 


Insert offset folio 492 here 65478.492
574 


Insert offset folio 493 here 65478.493
575 


Insert offset folio 494 here 65478.494
576 


Insert offset folio 495 here 65478.495
577 


Insert offset folio 496 here 65478.496
578 


Insert offset folio 497 here 65478.497
579 


Insert offset folio 498 here 65478.498
580 


Insert offset folio 499 here 65478.499
581 


Insert offset folio 500 here 65478.500
582 


Insert offset folio 501 here 65478.501
583 


Insert offset folio 502 here 65478.502
584 


Insert offset folio 503 here 65478.503
585 


Insert offset folio 504 here 65478.504
586 


Insert offset folio 505 here 65478.505
587 


Insert offset folio 506 here 65478.506
588 


Insert offset folio 507 here 65478.507
589 


Insert offset folio 508 here 65478.508
590 


Insert offset folio 509 here 65478.509
591 


Insert offset folio 510 here 65478.510
592 


Insert offset folio 511 here 65478.511
593 


Insert offset folio 512 here 65478.512
594 


Insert offset folio 513 here 65478.513
595 


Insert offset folio 514 here 65478.514
596 


Insert offset folio 515 here 65478.515
597 


Insert offset folio 516 here 65478.516
598 


Insert offset folio 517 here 65478.517
599 


Insert offset folio 518 here 65478.518
600 


Insert offset folio 519 here 65478.519
601 


Insert offset folio 520 here 65478.520
602 


Insert offset folio 521 here 65478.521
603 


Insert offset folio 522 here 65478.522
604 


Insert offset folio 523 here 65478.523
605 


Insert offset folio 524 here 65478.524
606 


Insert offset folio 525 here 65478.525
607 


Insert offset folio 526 here 65478.526
608 


Insert offset folio 527 here 65478.527
609 


Insert offset folio 528 here 65478.528
610 


Insert offset folio 529 here 65478.529
611 


Insert offset folio 530 here 65478.530
612 


Insert offset folio 531 here 65478.531
613 


Insert offset folio 532 here 65478.532
614 


Insert offset folio 533 here 65478.533
615 


Insert offset folio 534 here 65478.534
616 


Insert offset folio 535 here 65478.535
617 


Insert offset folio 536 here 65478.536
618 


Insert offset folio 537 here 65478.537
619 


Insert offset folio 538 here 65478.538
620 


Insert offset folio 539 here 65478.539
621 


Insert offset folio 540 here 65478.540
622 


Insert offset folio 541 here 65478.541
623 


Insert offset folio 542 here 65478.542
624 


Insert offset folio 543 here 65478.543
625 


Insert offset folio 544 here 65478.544
626 


Insert offset folio 545 here 65478.545
627 


Insert offset folio 546 here 65478.546
628 


Insert offset folio 547 here 65478.547
629 


Insert offset folio 548 here 65478.548
630 


Insert offset folio 549 here 65478.549
631 


Insert offset folio 550 here 65478.550
632 


Insert offset folio 551 here 65478.551
633 


Insert offset folio 552 here 65478.552
634 


Insert offset folio 553 here 65478.553
635 


Insert offset folio 554 here 65478.554
636 


Insert offset folio 555 here 65478.555
637 


Insert offset folio 556 here 65478.556
638 


Insert offset folio 557 here 65478.557
639 


Insert offset folio 558 here 65478.558
640 


Insert offset folio 559 here 65478.559
641 


Insert offset folio 560 here 65478.560
642 


Insert offset folio 561 here 65478.561
643 


Insert offset folio 562 here 65478.562
644 


Insert offset folio 563 here 65478.563
645 


Insert offset folio 564 here 65478.564
646 


Insert offset folio 565 here 65478.565
647 


Insert offset folio 566 here 65478.566
648 


Insert offset folio 567 here 65478.567
649 


Insert offset folio 568 here 65478.568
650 


Insert offset folio 569 here 65478.569
651 


Insert offset folio 570 here 65478.570
652 


Insert offset folio 571 here 65478.571
653 


Insert offset folio 572 here 65478.572
654 


Insert offset folio 573 here 65478.573
655 


Insert offset folio 574 here 65478.574
656 


Insert offset folio 575 here 65478.575
657 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 576 here 65478.576