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

42–776 PDF 2008

MAINTAINING OUR NATION’S 

HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

(110–133) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 5, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

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 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Allegra, Michael, Assistant General Manager and Chief Capital Development 

Officer, Utah Transit Authority .......................................................................... 6 

Biehler, P.E., Hon. Allen D., Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 6 

Bowman, Hon. Leo, Commissioner, Benton County, Prosser, Washington ........ 6 

Rahn, Hon. Pete K., Director, Missouri Department of Transportation ............. 6 

Schlickman, Stephen E., Executive Director, Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago, Illinois ............................................................................................. 6 

Watson, Linda, Chief Executive Officer, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority .................................................................................................... 6 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 43 

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland ............................................................... 44 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 50 

Oberstar, Hon. James L, of Minnesota .................................................................. 51 

Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., of California ................................................................... 55 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Allegra, Michael ....................................................................................................... 56 

Biehler, P.E., Hon. Allen D. .................................................................................... 62 

Bowman, Hon. Leo ................................................................................................... 72 

Rahn, Hon. Pete K. .................................................................................................. 76 

Schlickman, Stephen E. .......................................................................................... 80 

Watson, Linda .......................................................................................................... 88 

vi 


42776.001
vii 


42776.002
viii 


42776.003
ix 


42776.004
x 


42776.005
xi 


42776.006
xii 


42776.007
xiii 


42776.008
xiv 


42776.009
(1) 

HEARING ON MAINTAINING OUR NATION’S 

HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE 

Thursday, June 5, 2008 

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter DeFazio 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. We have an esteemed colleague who is here and wants to introduce one of the members of the panel and, since he 

is not a Member of the Committee, we sat him down front there 

and then we are going to subject him to a lot of questions after he 

does the introduction. So I hope you know the subject matter. Turn on your mic and go right ahead. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a former Member of the Committee, it is a pleasure to return 

for just a brief introduction. The reason I thought it was important 

to make this introduction is because I find that when we talk about 

public policy here in Washington sometimes it can take on a theoretical level, and there is no substitute for looking at actual practical applications out in the Country. 

When it comes to transit policy, I think it is very instructive to 

look at the experience in my home State of Utah. The witness I 

want to introduce is Mike Allegra who has worked for the Utah 

Transit Authority for 30 years, and he will tell you a remarkable 

story about an agency that has grown, that has met the needs of 

a growing population and brings projects on schedule either on or 

under budget. They have a tremendous track record of being innovative. 

I think that that is instructive for this Committee, to hear some 

success stories. You know often in politics and in the news cycle, 

we hear things that don’t go right and things that aren’t working. 

Mike Allegra is an individual who has been part of a wonderful 

success story. So I am very glad that he is here today to testify before the Committee as you consider setting new policy in advance 

of the next surface transportation bill. 

That is why I really wanted to stop by, just to make that introduction, and then I hope you will take his testimony with great interest, and we can all learn from that. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your willingness to 

let me come before the Committee to do this, and I will yield back 

my time. Happy to answer any questions, though, Mr. Chairman. 

2 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Oh, good. Then, well, how do you think we can finance the need for increased investment in our infrastructure? 

Mr. MATHESON. I knew you were going to do it. 

Can I just jump in on that one second and say in the State of 

Utah, on transit, we have had a remarkable level of public support 

for both local financing as well as Federal funding? We have had 

two major referenda passed in one of the most conservative States 

in the Country where the voters just said, yes, we are ready to step 

up to the plate and provide funding for transportation infrastructure. 

It is partly due to the fact that Mr. Allegra and his agency have 

done such an effective job of letting people know, look, this is what 

you get for what you pay for. I think they have a wonderful track 

record in that regard. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think you identified a key element which is the 

people might be willing to pay more if they can see concrete, not 

to make a pun, results. 

Mr. MATHESON. Exactly. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks for taking the time in coming. 

Mr. MATHESON. Sure. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It sounds like an exciting story we will hear today. 

Well, I want to thank everyone for being here. While they are 

setting up for the witnesses, I will just make a really brief statement. 

I don’t think it is news to anybody in this audience or many people in this Country that we have a severe problem with our transportation infrastructure. The commission report that we received 

earlier this year is, in a lot of ways, a road map, so to speak, of 

that crumbling infrastructure. I think it does an excellent job of 

documenting the needs. 

Obviously, there is going to be tremendous controversy over how 

we can begin to finance the needed additional investment for those 

needs. So I am hoping that today this esteemed panel will help us 

both flesh the depth and breadth of the needs and some possible 

solutions from your own local experience. 

With that, I would turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. Go first to Mr. Mica. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Oh, I am sorry. I didn’t see that the esteemed Mr. 

Mica was with us. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

I don’t want to be taken out of order, but I appreciate the courtesy since I too have a witness. I am pleased that she was admitted 

as one of those who will provide testimony to this panel. I won’t 

be able to stay but wanted to introduce to the Committee, Linda 

Watson. 

She has a great resume and background in transportation over 

20 years. She heads up our LYNX which is the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority. She is the CEO of that body. 

She has worked in Corpus Christi, headed up transportation efforts in both Corpus Christi and Fort Worth, serves on many national, regional, State panels and is an expert in transportation in 

her own right. 

3 

She is going to, hopefully, talk today about the challenges that 

many of our metropolitan, smaller urban area transit agencies are 

facing right now. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, they are hit with a 

dramatic increase in fuel costs and actually hit with a dramatic increase in ridership, and it is creating quite a challenge. So she is 

having to choose between closing down some operations where people are struggling to find an economical way to get around the community to work and just to get across our communities today. 

So I am sure she will address the challenges that she faces and 

that are not dissimilar with other communities and then also the 

challenges—I had a chance to meet with her briefly before this— 

of building transit systems. People, with the falling dollar and increasing fuel costs, are looking for those cost-effective ways that 

also provide environmentally friendlier means and cost-effective 

means of moving people in all of our communities. 

So, with that, I welcome Linda Watson. I thank you for carrying 

on this work. 

Incidentally, too, I had a chance and recommendation to any of 

you. Last week, I did my little Northeast Corridor tour. I had a 

chance to visit the New York City Long Island to Grand Central 

Station/Second Avenue subway extension underneath New York 

City. They are boring through solid rock the first new transportation link, subway link in New York City which will eventually 

connect the JFK air train through the Long Island railroad into 

Grand Central Station. 

But I recommend to all of the members of the panel to get a 

chance to go up there. You go down into the bowels of Manhattan 

and see them cutting through solid rock with the latest technology 

and equipment, a $7.2 billion subway extension which is quite exciting for our biggest metropolitan area in the Country. So, if you 

get a chance, I highly recommend that visit. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I recognize next the Ranking Member, and then we 

will turn to other Members hopefully. Remember you can always 

put your opening statement in the record. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I will be very brief. I want to thank you for holding this hearing 

on maintaining our Nation’s highways and transit infrastructure. 

I also want to thank all of the witnesses for providing the testimony that I am sure will be extremely important to the Subcommittee as we begin the process of reauthorizing the highway 

and transit programs. We have already held a few hearings on this 

subject in anticipation of attempting to have a new highway bill 

out in 2009 without the lengthy delay of the last highway bill. 

Everyone in this room, as Chairman DeFazio said, is aware of 

the challenges that our Nation faces in maintaining our Country’s 

infrastructure. Most of our interstate highways and bridges were 

built in the 1960s and 1970s and are reaching the end of their useful design life. 

Our highways are also suffering from increased wear and tear 

because of the growth in the movement of the freight. The volume 

of freight moved daily has caused more damage to our highways 

4 

than was originally anticipated 40 to 50 years ago when our Nation’s highways were being built. 

However, the condition of our highways isn’t the only challenge 

we face. The large increase in crude oil prices has caused many 

Americans to switch from driving to public transit. This sudden increase in ridership will have a big impact on mass transit systems 

around the Country. 

The existing condition of our Nation’s transit vehicles and facilities is already poor, and this increase in ridership can make a bad 

situation worse in a very short time. It will also have an effect on 

the funding levels for our highways as we move into this next reauthorization bill. 

It is frustrating to many on our side that we continue to refuse 

to increase our oil production in this Country. We don’t have to 

produce it all, but if we would produce just a little bit more, then 

these foreign energy producers would realize that they couldn’t 

keep raising their prices every day. If we don’t have some increased 

energy production in this Country, in other words, if we don’t drill 

for a little more oil, then we are going to run a real risk of shutting 

our economy down because it is already having a tremendous effect 

on trucking, aviation, our farming and everything else. 

So, with that, I will yield back the balance of my time and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I don’t have any requests for opening statements 

on the Democratic side. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I do now, if people can keep their remarks brief. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very brief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am 

thanking you for the hearing on what may be our next SAFETEALU to start laying some of the questions that will help provide 

some of the answers. 

I am very concerned about some of our infrastructure in my 

State and I am sure in other States. We need that investment. We 

need to be able to create the jobs that those investments are going 

to make or bring about. 

There may be a need for a gas tax increase. I don’t know, but 

I think your having these hearings will bring a lot of the information forth and be able to at least understand a lot of what we need 

to face and America must understand. 

As Mr. Matheson from Utah was saying, people will buy into it 

if that funding is going directly into the project that we say it is 

going to go, and that would be the infrastructure repair of our Nation’s highways. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. 

Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I won’t take anywhere near the five 

minutes. I will reiterate some of the points that Mr. Duncan made. 

Mr. Chairman, as far as our domestic issues pressing us, I know 

of no issue that is any more significant than maintaining our Nation’s highway and transit infrastructure. I thank you and Mr. 

Duncan for having called this hearing and thank our witnesses for 

being here. 

5 

I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for his brevity. 

Mr. Carney. 

Mr. CARNEY. I will try to be equally as brief, sir. 

I appreciate your holding this important hearing. 

I really want to extend a special thanks to Mr. Biehler, my own 

State’s Secretary of Transportation, for agreeing to come here. I 

think your observations and your insights are going to add a tremendous amount of gravity to what we are doing here, and I look 

forward to hearing from you. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a Member of this Subcommittee and a citizen who drives, I 

am concerned that maybe we ought to think about three different 

things: 

One, the way we design our highways in the United States. 

Maybe we ought to think that through again. 

Second, what are those highways composed of? Maybe we ought 

to think that through and see if we can use other materials. 

The third thing is the price of crude oil should not be overlooked 

in the cost of highway construction because as crude oil prices go 

up, that costs us more to build highways. 

We need to look at those three items as we move down the road. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

Okay, Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased that we are holding this hearing as part of a series 

of hearings on this immense challenge that we are facing. 

I know each of our districts, our States reflect the challenge that 

we see at the national level in how we are going to meet shortfalls 

in funding and also how we deal with the Federal-State relationship with highway funding and flexibility. I know that is an important issue. I have discussed with former transportation officials in 

my State of Louisiana as well as our current transportation official. 

What flexibilities are needed at the State level? How is that relationship going to play out as we craft another highway bill? 

Finally, just looking at my district where we have immense challenges with Interstate 49 which is a major transportation route for 

trucking and particularly for our energy industry. We have serious 

congestion. How are we going to deal with this and how we are 

going to pay for it is a serious concern? 

We have aged infrastructure. One of the key bridges in my district on Interstate 10 in Lake Charles, Louisiana, is structurally 

deficient. There is an intense debate going on now about safety, 

about the ongoing transportation concerns and also the impact this 

is going to have on the United States because Lake Charles is a 

major refining center for our Country. So this nexus between energy and highways is critically important. 

Finally, I want to mention the need for Interstate 49 which is a 

key hurricane evacuation route between New Orleans, going north, 

6 

to get folks out of New Orleans. It is also a key commerce and energy corridor. 

This should be a national priority. We have been working on this 

for well over a decade. I would hope that as we craft the next highway bill, we will find sufficient funding to complete this absolutely 

necessary piece of infrastructure. 

Mr. Chairman, once again, I look forward to hearing the witnesses, and I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about what is going to happen to 

our funding process in recognizing that we had some $78 billion 

worth of congestion costs in 2005. As we look at the price of gasoline and, of course, our taxes at the Federal level and also our 

State taxes in South Carolina are based on gallons, not price. 

So my concern is as the efficiency of cars becomes more miles per 

gallon, what is going to happen to our source of funding? I think 

I would certainly look forward to maybe some solutions from our 

witnesses, at least some recommendations. 

Also, I would like to bobtail back on what Charlie said about 

Louisiana. We have the same problem in South Carolina. We are 

in the process of planning I-73, and we would like to look at maybe 

some different corridors as we look at the next reauthorization bill 

and include several major corridors in the United States to try to 

relieve some of the congestion we find now on our overcrowded 

interstates. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, I thank the Members for their opening statements. 

We will now turn to our witnesses, and the first witness will be 

the Honorable Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri Department of 

Transportation. 

Mr. Rahn. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PETE K. RAHN, DIRECTOR, 

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THE HONORABLE ALLEN D. BIEHLER, P.E., SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; THE 

HONORABLE LEO BOWMAN, COMMISSIONER, BENTON COUNTY, PROSSER, WASHINGTON; STEPHEN E. SCHLICKMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS; MICHAEL ALLEGRA, ASSISTANT 

GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT 

OFFICER, UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY; AND LINDA WATSON, 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 

Mr. RAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. 

I am Pete K. Rahn, Director of the Missouri Department of 

Transportation and currently President of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. I am here to 

talk about the need to increase investment in the Nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

7 

We have grossly underfunded both our State and Federal transportation systems over the last three decades. If we continue this 

downward spiral, we risk losing our status as a global leader as 

well as precious lives. We must recognize China and India are investing hundreds of billions of dollars more every year than we are 

in the United States. 

To put it simply, we must step up now to remain globally competitive or we will end up with a second rate transportation system 

and a much less mobile and prosperous society than we have today. 

Like most States, Missouri’s transportation needs far exceed its 

resources. We have initiated innovative ways to shore up our ailing 

infrastructure. 

With additional funding from a State constitutional amendment 

that directed highway user fees to MoDOT, we have improved 

2,200 miles of our State’s busiest highways in just 2 years, accelerated 53 critical highway projects and moved ahead with $1.6 billion 

in new construction projects. Road conditions have improved on our 

major roads from 44 percent in good condition to 78 percent in good 

condition during the same period of time, but our progress is tenuous. 

Our next priority is improving our bridge inventory. More than 

800 of Missouri’s worst bridges will be repaired or replaced within 

5 years under the Safe and Sound Bridge Improvement Plan. This 

project is an innovative design, build, finance and maintain contract that involves private activity bonds to encourage innovative 

financing and construction. 

The Missouri Bridge Partners Contract Team will finance the 

project’s capital cost, estimated between $600 million and $800 million. Missouri Bridge Partners will also be responsible for design 

and construction of these bridges and structural maintenance for at 

least an additional 25 years. MoDOT will pay for the program over 

25 years with Federal bridge funds. 

While Safe and Sound will fix more than 800 bridges, it will not 

address our large river bridges that span more than 1,000 feet. To 

replace all of the large bridges that need to be fixed would cost in 

excess of $7 billion. To make sure they are at least in satisfactory 

condition would cost $300 million to $500 million over 10 years. Either way, we don’t have the money. 

Innovative solutions and program efficiencies will only go so far. 

What we really need is a significant infusion of money dedicated 

to the Nation’s transportation system. At a minimum, the FederalState local funding partnership must continue, and the historical 

Federal share of 45 percent of capital investment must be maintained. 

Federal highway funding would have to be increased from $43 

billion in 2009 to $75 billion by 2015 just to restore the program’s 

purchasing power back to the 1993 level. 

In addition to more funding, States need flexibility in using Federal aid for asset management approaches that can significantly extend the life of highways and bridges. If we systematically repair, 

then maintain, pavements and structures, they do not deteriorate 

to the point where they have to be replaced. 

We also ask that you make preventative maintenance eligible for 

Federal aid. 

8 

A thorough assessment of the interstate and National highway 

system corridors rehabilitation and construction costs needs is critical. The interstate system has more than 55,000 bridges, many of 

which are reaching 40 to 50 years of age. Bridges and other structures this old usually require substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction. As we go out another 20 to 30 years, they will require 

complete replacement. 

I am very concerned that the investment made in transportation 

by our grandparents that have given us unprecedented mobility 

and prosperity is not being made by our generation. Our children 

and grandchildren will not enjoy the same economic advantages 

and quality of life because of our refusal to pass along a comparable legacy. 

We must either find ways now to fund a transportation system 

that will ensure economic prosperity or be content to sit in traffic 

and watch our highways crumble because of overuse and lack of 

funding. We can’t afford to wait. Jobs and lives are at stake. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

We go next to the Honorable Allen D. Biehler, Secretary of 

Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Biehler. 

Mr. BIEHLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to perhaps tell a little story about 

Pennsylvania. 

But let me just acknowledge a special thanks for the introduction 

by Congressman Carney. It is a pleasure. In fact, he is sitting right 

square in the middle of a target of some of the activities that we 

have been looking at just to raise dollars and can sense the frustration and difficulty of our challenge, and we are not much different 

than the rest of the States around the United States. 

But let me just try and paint a picture a little bit as I see things 

in Pennsylvania. Obviously, transportation funding and infrastructure improvements have always been a challenge, but we are seeing in Pennsylvania and, again, not different than others, forces 

that are at work that have caused us all to radically change our 

approach. Let me just give you a couple of examples. 

I have had the pleasure of being the Secretary now for five and 

half years or so. In the period from 2003 to 2007, the cost of construction increased and inflation related to construction has gone 

up 63 percent in those five years. Never in our history have we 

seen those kinds of increases, and we keep looking around the corner, hoping that there is a brighter day. 

As we looked at the first quarter of 2008, we see hot mix asphalt 

costs, in one quarter versus last year, go up 27 percent. Not surprising, given the petroleum, but it is a huge number. 

Next and more frightening has been steel prices. In the first 

quarter, Pennsylvania has seen its steel prices of fabricated steel 

go up 49.7 percent. We are in a world that we just don’t understand, I would submit. 

Obviously, with fuel prices jumping as high as they have, it has 

been wonderful to see folks flock to transit, but we now are watching our transit friends not being able to catch the ball, if you will, 

as their costs have jumped as well. In Pennsylvania, about 25 to 

9 

30 million dollars more in transit fuel costs related to the diesel 

price increase has been the impact. 

Despite some additional dollars for transit over the last couple of 

years, we are finding ourselves in a situation where they’re just 

struggling simply to keep up and, ironically, may have to cut service because of the increase in diesel fuel simply to catch that problem. So, as I say, we are really in a different situation. 

From a highway standpoint, we have always, on the highway 

side of things, kind of prided ourselves with trying to keep up and 

deal with congestion issues. Let me just tell you about the last 

three cycles that I have been involved as we updated our transportation improvement program, a four-year program we all deal with 

across the United States. The last three cycles in Pennsylvania, 

about 25 or so percent of our program dollars were earmarked for 

capacity improvements or some kind of congestion improvements. 

This cycle, because we have been in such a downslide and needing to change our business, we are now probably going to be in the 

neighborhood of 10 percent. What that tells you is that we have 

had such dramatic changes in these outside forces, if you will, of 

inflation, that that is where we are. 

Another interesting statistic in Pennsylvania is in the last period 

of time, again, while I have been Secretary, we have increased the 

money we have spent on our bridges. Pennsylvania has the horrible 

distinction of having the highest number of structurally deficient 

bridges of any State in the United States. 

We tripled the amount of money we spent on bridge construction. 

Ironically, the number of structurally deficient bridges has gone 

from 5,500 to 6,000 in that same period simply because the age of 

our infrastructure is so high. The average age of our bridges is 50 

years, and so it is like a huge iceberg coming at us. That is our 

real world. 

As I mentioned, the case of the transit industry is no different. 

In the case of the transit industry in Pennsylvania, we have had 

a recent piece of legislation last year that helped the transit industry, especially on the operating side and a little on the capital side, 

but our partners in transit are struggling to keep their fleets in decent shape and the rest of their infrastructure in good shape. Otherwise, they will be slaves to the increased maintenance costs simply to try to operate their system because of those issues and, as 

I say, ironically, at a time when transit demand is at an all time 

high. 

Here is what we have been doing to try to deal with our problem: 

As I mentioned, a huge change in the focus of our program, resaluting the flag of maintenance and sometimes maintenance only, 

and it is sure not what we want to do. So, huge focus on maintenance. 

In the case of our bridge program, my good friend, Pete Rahn, 

is working on trying to deal with 800 bridges over the next 5 years. 

We are trying to deliver in Pennsylvania 1,145 bridges into construction in the next 3 years. Then in the 20 months after those 

3 calendar years, we are trying to deliver another 550 bridges. Simply, our backlog is that awful. 

At the same time, we have to make sure that we are using all 

of our powers to design properly, and so we are shifting to a 100- 

10 

year bridge design. At the same time, we have to focus on our highway design to make sure we are delivering the smallest footprint 

possible because the costs will otherwise outstrip our situation. 

So the bottom line is we are clearly changing the way we have 

focused our business, and the one scary thing for all of us is we 

just don’t know where it is ending. We had hoped that our situation was going to get better. It is not getting better. 

We clearly have to deal forthright with the revenue problem we 

all face, and it is not an easy one. We know that. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. To the extent there are 

questions, I will be happy to answer. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

The Honorable Leo Bowman, Commissioner of Benton County. 

Mr. Bowman. 

Mr. BOWMAN. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Duncan and Members of the Committee. 

I am Leo Bowman. I am a County Commissioner of Benton 

County, Washington State. Today, I am representing the National 

Association of Counties where I serve as Vice Chairman of the 

Transportation Steering Committee. 

I want to thank you for inviting NACo to this hearing on Maintaining our Nation’s Highways and Transit Infrastructure. NACo 

represents the Nation’s 3,066 counties that own and maintain 45 

percent of the total highway mileage in the United States, 44 percent of all the Nation’s bridges. We also own or participate in about 

one-third of the transit systems across the Nation. 

NACo members have made a huge investment in this system, 

and much of what counties do is maintain the existing system. For 

that reason, we agree with the first recommendation of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission: ‘‘The Nation is best served when transportation facilities are 

well maintained.’’ 

This is certainly true as it applies to the three-county region 

where I serve as Vice Chair of the Benton-Franklin-Walla Walla 

RTPO. Our region occupies 4,216 square miles in the lower southeastern Washington State. We have 330 bridges. We have 3,700 

miles of county roads of which only 650 miles are Federal aid eligible. 

Our economy depends on these roads and bridges being well 

maintained. Our region produces over $1 billion in agricultural 

products each year. For these products to get to market cheaply 

and efficiently, we must continue to invest in our mostly rural road 

and bridge system. 

Maintaining the system means upgrading roads and bridges to 

standards that enable these facilities to handle today’s heavier and 

wider vehicles. Seasonal emergency weight restrictions and closings 

are a serious problem for our agricultural economy. 

The other reason maintenance is so important is because of safety. We know that nationally 25,000 people die each year on rural 

roads. This is a fatality rate that is two and a half times greater 

than on urban roads. 

In our region, broken or damaged roadway components get top 

priority. Nothing is more important than safety to our elected officials. 

11 

Let’s talk about financing. Our RTPO forecasts over the next 20 

years, we will collect $561 million of which we will spend $356 million on maintenance. This reflects our historic 63-37 percent split 

between maintenance and operations and new capacity. 

We also have 546 miles of road which are in need of upgrading 

to current all weather and safety standards. We estimate the costs 

of the improvements to be one-half million and one million dollars 

per mile. While that sounds like a lot of money, our engineering 

staff informs us that these upgrades will reduce normal maintenance costs between 80 and 90 percent. 

Almost all of the revenue counties have for maintenance is local 

property taxes and fuel taxes that are shared to us by the Washington State Department of Transportation. This is the central 

issue for counties when faced with substantial needs on our transportation systems. 

Local governments rely primarily on our own source revenue. 

States do share some fuel tax revenue with locals, but the amounts 

are very small and uneven. Nationally, there are few, if any, local 

fuel taxes, relatively few local sales taxes dedicated to transportation, and most counties need to ask for permission to levy a new 

tax. 

As a local elected official of over 11 years, I can tell you that raising property taxes to maintain highways and bridges is politically 

unpopular because it is totally unrelated to the usage of the system 

and our citizens see little connection between better roads and 

bridges and increasing taxes. 

I would direct you to a recent publication entitled Financing 

Transportation in the 21st Century: An Intergovernmental Perspective of which I have a copy for every Member here today, which 

was recently released by NACo and 5 other state and local government organizations that describes this issue in detail. 

What would help? One answer is that more Federal resources directed to rural roads and the units of governments that are responsible for them. 

The Highway Safety and Improvement Program needs to be targeted to those roads that need safety improvements, and local governments officials need to be part of the process that develops the 

State strategic highway safety plan, something that current regulations do not allow. 

Related to this, the High Risk Rural Road Program needs far 

more funding than the $90 million currently available. Bridges on 

non-Federal aid roads need more funding, and NACo would support 

an increase in the off-system setaside to at least 20 percent. The 

Surface Transportation Program rural setaside has not been increased since it was instituted in 1991 with the ISTEA program. 

It needs to be adjusted. 

We need an enhanced rural planning process that includes a 

stronger role for local officials. 

And, finally, the project delivery process needs to be streamlined 

so that delays are reduced and the cost for rural counties to use 

Federal funds does not discourage participation in the Federal 

highway program. 

Mr. Chairman, I also serve as the Chairman of the Board of Benton-Franklin Transit, our local bi-county transit agency, and I 

12 

would love to answer questions on that issue as well as those that 

I brought forward today. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. Thank you, Mr. Bowman. 

With that, we would turn to Mr. Stephen E. Schlickman, Executive Director, Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago, Illinois. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. 

The RTA is an oversight agency for Chicago. We oversee the operations of the Chicago Transit Authority which is serving the core 

of our region, the Metro Commuter Rail Agency which serves 

throughout the six-county region of Chicago and Pace Suburban 

Bus. 

Maintenance needs clearly are one of the most important issues 

facing my many worries with our transit system. Thus, I am 

pleased to have the opportunity to address this important matter 

before you today. 

Earlier this year, I am proud to say that we were very successful 

in achieving a victory in Springfield in our legislature when they 

provided us over $500 million in new operating assistance dedicated to our region. It was only a partial victory, however. We had 

also put forward to them billions of dollars in unfunded capital 

needs which they are now seriously considering. 

With an eye towards authorization, Elliot Sander, the head of the 

MTA system in New York, and I formed a loose coalition of the 

largest transit agencies in the Country. All these agencies are rail 

systems, but they also have the most extensive bus systems in the 

Country. 

We call our group the Metropolitan Rail Discussion Group. It includes representatives from New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, 

Boston, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Atlanta, San Francisco 

and Washington, DC. 

We have come together to develop authorization principles, but 

we are working within our trade association, APTA, to develop a 

unified industry position. Our group provides two-thirds of the 

transit trips nationally, but we receive less than half of the Federal 

funding. Our core principle is that the Federal transit program 

should be allocated according to need in order to achieve the maximum impact on issues of national importance. 

We strongly believe that the largest transit systems in the Nation are best able to serve the national interest of limiting the 

growth of traffic congestion, reducing greenhouse gases, improving 

air quality, promoting energy independence and generally providing mobility benefits that support the growth of the Nation’s 

economy through the engines of the economy that you find in the 

largest metropolitan areas in the Country. 

The infrastructure maintenance needs of these systems are 

great. We have just begun a process of conducting a transit capital 

assessment of all of our group’s members to better quantify these 

needs, and we will submit a report to the Committee for the record 

when it is completed. 

However, we believe that the Chicago regional transit system is 

very typical of our members of our group in the larger urban systems. Our strategic plan identified a five-year capital need of $16.1 

13 

billion to maintain, enhance and expand the region’s transit system, and there is tremendous support in our region for this. 

It is not just a city of Chicago issue. It is a suburban and outer 

suburban issue as well. We have strong support for our operating 

needs and our capital needs as evidenced by the success we had in 

Springfield. 

Of this five-year figure, $10.3 billion would be dedicated to maintaining the system. That includes $2.8 billion for rolling stock, $2.1 

billion for track and support structures, $1.4 billion for signals, 

electrical and communications network, $1.8 for improving and replacing support facilities and equipment, $1.1 billion for improving 

passenger facilities and $1 billion for other systemwide improvements. 

But of this $10.3 billion maintenance need, only $2.6 billion is 

funded. Our transit system is deteriorating, and this must be reversed. 

Another issue of concern for large urban transit systems has 

been constrained capacity to deal with increased demand in ridership, particularly what we are experiencing with the higher prices 

of fuel. Many of our systems are bursting with riders during the 

peak hours. We need to add capacity to existing rail lines and can 

do so in very cost-effective ways. 

To meet our maintenance and capacity needs, the largest systems in the Country rely not just on Federal funding but also have 

substantial State and local contributions. While we need to increase Federal capital support, we also need to increase funding at 

the State and local levels. 

While we believe the needs of the largest and oldest systems are 

particularly acute, we recognize that newer systems and smaller 

systems also have importance maintenance needs. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I appreciate your interest in this important topic, and I look forward to 

your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Michael Allegra, Assistant General Manager and Chief Capital Development Officer, Utah Transit Agency. 

Mr. ALLEGRA. Thank you and good morning, Chairman DeFazio 

and Ranking Member Duncan, for inviting the Utah Transit Authority to testify on behalf of all the new rail start cities in the 

United States. 

I particularly want to thank Congressman Matheson for such a 

kind introduction and to the benefit of this Committee, I can shorten my presentation because he gave you most of my bullet points. 

I just arrived from the American Public Transportation Association’s rail conference in San Francisco where Speaker Pelosi talked 

about the same themes that you are hearing about today: investing 

in our transportation infrastructure. In fact, she was quoted as saying, ‘‘The long-term benefits of investing in our infrastructure far 

outweigh the costs.’’ 

In Salt Lake City, we opened our first light rail line 10 years 

ago. We have since opened two more light rail lines and our first 

commuter rail line, tripling our rail network in less than ten years, 

and we are proud to be one of the most cost-effective systems in 

the Country. But it is not enough. 

14 

We are on an aggressive path to double our rail system again by 

2015, and our local leaders are already talking about the need for 

more transit. 

Utah has recognized that we are facing a transportation crisis. 

The ramifications go well beyond mobility and threaten our economic vitality. The business community in Utah, led by the Salt 

Lake Chamber of Commerce, recently supported and led the efforts 

to double our sales tax through a transit referendum in Salt Lake 

and Utah Counties because they recognized this transportation crisis and our connection to economic development and quality of life. 

Although we are investing over $7 billion in highways and transit—it is a multimodal program—we are only about one-third of the 

way there in meeting our $23 billion of needs. 

I would like to share with you for a moment some of the successes we have had in Utah that the Congressman has talked 

about and make a few recommendations for your consideration during the next reauthorization. 

Utah, as you probably know, is one of the most conservative 

States in the Country. It is home to more than 2.6 million residents 

and is the third fastest growing State in the Nation. 

During 2002, we were fortunate enough to host the Winter Olympics. The Utah Transit Authority carried more than 4 million people during 17 days, and it was heralded as perhaps the best transportation system ever for the winter games. 

Not only did the games give our community a very unique perspective on using public transportation, more importantly, it taught 

us all how to resolve our issues collectively at the Federal, local 

and State levels. 

The rapid growth in our system has been financed by a combination of local and Federal funds. The UTA has approximately tripled 

its local revenues in the last seven years, and we have secured four 

full funding grant agreements through the Federal Transit Administration. 

The development of our rail system has also created approximately $4 billion in transit-oriented development, and we believe 

that Utah, like many of the States in this Country, is experiencing 

a transit renaissance. 

Some of the key factors to our success, I would like to share with 

you: 

Number one, we have built all four of our New Starts light rail 

projects ahead of schedule and under budget. 

Just a month ago, we opened up our first commuter rail line, a 

40-mile line extending from Salt Lake City to Ogden to the north. 

We completed this project six months ahead of schedule and under 

budget, and our ridership is already exceeding our expectations. 

This has happened, number one, by a focus on fiscal constraints 

by our organization but also and perhaps more importantly on an 

excellent relationship with our stakeholders: the metropolitan planning organizations, the highways departments, and our congressional delegations. It is really not anymore about the mortar and 

bricks; it is about the relationships. 

Therefore, we believe that Congress should consider a new national transportation policy that allows metropolitan regions the 

flexibility to determine and prioritize their transportation needs. As 

15 

the Interstate Highway System was originally designed to connect 

the Nation’s cities, a new national transportation policy should be 

designed to maintain the health, vitality and international competitiveness of this Country. 

Secondly, the Utah Transit Authority is now embarking on a 

major Transit 2015 Program which is going to build 70 miles of rail 

in the next 7 years. This accelerated program comes about by the 

local support of a referendum and with the great support of the 

FTA Administrator, Jim Simpson, who signed an innovative memorandum of understanding with us to allow us to expedite the Federal funding process. 

This building of 70 miles, some of them with Federal funds, some 

of them not, will allow us a unique opportunity to simultaneously 

compare the project delivery methods and the time required to 

build by Federal versus non-Federal process. We are working with 

the Federal Transit Administration to show them how we might be 

able to streamline the Federal process. 

As you have heard earlier, in addition to expanding our system, 

UTA recognizes the need to maintain its current infrastructure. 

For example, we have needs to replace 1/13th of our fleet every 

year. That translates to approximately 70 buses or $35 million ever 

year. As a New Starts rail city, we are already getting to the point 

where we need to rehabilitate our rail vehicles. 

The fixed guideway modernization program in its current form is 

heavily skewed towards Tier 1 cities or older cities. UTA recognizes 

that these systems have been built 50 to 100 years ago and have 

significant maintenance needs. 

However, we recognize that the transit world has changed dramatically since this rail modernization program was created and, 

like UTA, there are a growing number of cities that have had rail 

system built in the last 10 to 20 years. These newer rail systems 

are beginning to face significant maintenance challenges as well 

and, as such, we believe the rail modernization program should be 

updated to reflect this new reality and changes in the transit industry. 

Additionally, we recognize the need for adding current capacity. 

One of the unique things we have done in Utah is bought used rail 

cars to quickly expand the system and to provide it on a less expensive basis, and we believe that has saved millions of dollars for the 

taxpayers of our community. 

So we believe that the current formula program needs to be considered in terms of adding what is typically called, in the industry, 

core capacity. 

In closing, I would like to make some suggestions for new rail 

start cities: 

We would recommend that Congress retain an 80 percent Federal funding ratio for all capital projects especially the New Starts 

program. I don’t believe that the Utah Transit Authority would be 

where it is today without the heavy infusion of Federal dollars, at 

least for our first project. 

Congress should create incentives to increase State and local investments in public transportation and support innovative financing to leverage funding from all sectors. 

16 

UTA encourages Congress to look at new or revised programs 

that assist in maintaining the systems that we own and to develop 

a new program that provides resources for systems to quickly expand their capacity. 

Finally, UTA supports the recommendations that will be soon 

coming out of APTA to provide a significant increase in the Federal 

transit program with a total investment of no less than $123 billion 

over the 6-year authorization that would support a doubling of ridership over the next 20 years. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you, and 

I am happy to answer questions afterwards. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Allegra. 

Next, we would have Ms. Linda Watson, Chief Executive Officer, 

Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority. 

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you very much for the opportunity to testify to you on the challenges of a bus-only transit system. 

I have been asked to testify today on the maintenance needs of 

the bus system in Central Florida, but you will find most of what 

I have to say will apply to any transit system that includes buses. 

I will also address some of the challenges we face and the role of 

Federal funding and policy decisions on the operation of our system. 

LYNX is the business name for the Central Florida Regional 

Transportation Authority, the agency responsible for providing 

transit services in three counties in Central Florida, and it also includes the City of Orlando. We serve a resident population of 1.8 

million in a 2,500 square miles service area, the size of the State 

of Delaware. 

When you consider the 50 million annual tourists that visit our 

areas and the cars that they rent to get around there, our traffic 

congestion and lost time in traffic increases every single day. 

LYNX provides transportation services to this large urban area 

with only 290 buses which is well below the number of buses used 

in peer cities, anywhere from 100 to 300 fewer buses than some of 

our other peer cities. 

A burden of a lack of buses forces 90 percent of our routes to operate on 30 or more minutes frequency. This is occurring while our 

customers are standing at one of our 5,000 bus stops of which only 

about 500 have shelters. It is extremely difficult to take someone 

out of their automobile when the best alternative that you can 

present to them is a wait of an hour and a half or more before their 

next bus arrives. 

Despite the small fleet we operate, the infrequent service and the 

lack of shelters from the intense Florida sun, LYNX has seen ridership increase 24 of the last 25 years, the only exception was right 

after 2001 at September 11th, 2001. Ridership is up 7 percent for 

the first quarter of this calendar year, and that is in addition to 

a 17 percent fare increase that we just implemented in January. 

Central Florida’s population is going to double from 3.5 million 

to 7.2 million by 2050. The State of Florida will soon surpass New 

York as the Nation’s third largest State. 

Our transit system in Central Florida, as well as other systems 

in the State, are woefully unprepared to meet this huge demand 

17 

and provide the transportation necessary to get our workers to 

work and to move our citizens within the community. 

If we are unprepared to move our people within our communities, how can we be prepared to compete globally in terms of 

transportation? 

Federal funds have been absolutely essential in building our capital program including a downtown 24-hour transfer station, an office tower, a 250-bus maintenance garage and 4 super stops. What 

we have been unable to do, though, is maintain these facilities. 

This is where a policy change is needed to help bus-only systems 

build the systems of tomorrow. 

As you know, rail systems have a rail modernization formula 

funding program which allows them to be able to rely on a consistent annual source of funding to keep their systems safe, secure 

and clean. This allows them to not only contain operating costs but 

enhance the transit trip for their customers. 

On the other hand, our 13-year super stops need repairs, improved lighting and security. Although we can use our Federal formula funds for doing this, we have the tough decision to make 

about replacing buses that are well beyond their retirement age or 

maintaining facilities and improving these. 

As America competes in the 21st Century, the Nation’s policymakers have to create a new strategy, a new foundation for keeping the United States the driving force in the global economy. A 

well-planned, highly-coordinated rapid transit system can be that 

foundation. 

Just as public policy in the 1950s pushed American toward a carcentered transportation system, public policy in the new millennium can push America toward a transit-centered transportation 

system. With that in mind, I would like to recommend consideration of the following public policies: 

One, create a separate funding formula category for bus maintenance similar to the rail modernization formula program. This 

would allow bus systems to maintain their fleets and facilities 

without competing with capital needs. 

Number two, dramatically increase capital funding to transit to 

stimulate the development of a national and local rapid transit system. The vision for this rapid transit system should be one that 

connects major cities as seamlessly as the current highway system 

does. The local transit system should be a combination of rail and 

bus that removes the need for a car when in an urban area. 

The third one is to create funding incentives that force local governments to develop smart growth plans such as high density development around multimodal transit systems. 

Four, fund bus-only lanes on both interstate highways and major 

transit corridors in metropolitan areas. 

Five, increase funding for 5316, Job Access and Reverse Commute. As fuel prices continue to rise, the population attempting to 

return to and stay in the workforce is rising, and they are further 

reliant on public transportation. 

Increase funding for 5317, New Freedom Program. America’s 

population is aging and, as gas prices are soaring, that can be a 

lethal combination for a segment of the population that is used to 

being mobile. 

18 

So it seems obvious that a car-centered transportation system 

that worked so well for us in the 20th Century is failing us now. 

We have to find a new effective way of dealing with soaring fuel 

prices and time consuming congestion and pollution. 

Transit is the solution for the 21st Century. It will take bold policy decisions to get people out of their cars, but it was bold policy 

decisions in the 1950s that got them into the cars in the first place. 

China spends 9 percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure, and India spends 8 percent. The United States is heading in the wrong direction and spending less than 1 percent, and 

we have a multi-trillion dollar backlog in deferred transportation 

infrastructure needs. 

Perhaps a more balanced funding of highways and transit would 

give people a real choice and, at the same time, reduce congestion, 

reduce pollution and reduce our addiction to the automobile. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

We will turn now to questions. 

I appreciate all of the testimony. It was helpful, and it laid out 

a number of the issues the Committee has to deal with in approaching reauthorization. 

One thing I heard from both Missouri DOT and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has to do with the issue of flexibility, capital investment versus maintenance. I guess the question, first to 

Mr. Rahn, would be you have identified capital investment backlog, 

as most everybody else has, and yet you are saying you would like 

to see more flexibility in the Federal funds. 

We already started, in the seventies and eighties and particularly more recently, giving more flexibility as the Federal interstate 

system was completed in allowing States to divert money to preventive maintenance. I am not exactly certain why or what additional flexibility you feel you need particularly given the capital investment backlog. 

I just don’t quite understand what you are getting at there. Why 

don’t you tell me? What is it you feel is a real constraint today? 

Be pretty specific. How would you differently use the Federal funds 

and make the decisions between capital investment and maintenance that you can’t do today? 

Mr. RAHN. Mr. Chairman, the flexibility that we would like is 

among these various programs, there are different restrictions on 

any one of these 108 Federal funding categories. Some have the 

flexibility to use within the arena of preventive maintenance, and 

some do not. And so, we are constantly playing a game as to which 

funds can you move into which area to actually deal with the problems. 

You still have to have a discussion and debate with the Federal 

Highway Administration as to the actual definition of what is preventive maintenance versus an ongoing maintenance activity. It is 

very muddled, and it often is determined by the personality of the 

Federal Highway Administration official that you are dealing with 

as to eligibility of one activity over another. 

A clearer, broader statement of eligibility for these funds across 

the board would be more helpful and productive to the management of our systems. 

19 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So you are not asking for a block grant or something. What you are saying is that there are inconsistencies. There 

are way too many stovepipes. You would like to see fewer stovepipes with clearer guidelines on how the money can be moved. 

Mr. RAHN. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 

How about from the perspective of Pennsylvania on that issue? 

Mr. BIEHLER. I would concur with that. There is a much smaller 

number of programs, but still a certain flexibility between those 

programs probably makes the most sense. 

As I deal with my AASHTO colleagues around the United States, 

we certainly see that Pennsylvania’s preservation needs may have 

some similarities to other States. But, boy, our needs are certainly 

different, and the flexibility really will help all of us to then tailor 

those programs to our specific issues. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Given the fact, again, the refrain from everybody, 

and I would expect that there isn’t enough money either at the 

State level or the Federal level. I mean all together. You are looking at innovative ways to enhance that. 

Given the inadequacy, should the Feds perhaps choose a priority 

and say, look, we want to target more of our money to new capital? 

Is that a discussion we should be having here? 

Mr. BIEHLER. I think it is a great question. The reason I think 

so is I think there is clearly a national agenda we all have to struggle with as we turn the corner toward authorization. 

I, personally, think there is a very strong need for a very strong 

national agenda. We need to think through because we are not just 

talking about preservation. We really are talking about greenhouse 

gas and very, very difficult issues, needing to shift people away 

from our current transportation modes and find a way to shift more 

freight moving from highways to rail and so on. 

My colleague, Linda Watson, talked about the importance of an 

intercity rail system and those kinds of things. I certainly concur 

with that. So we have a number of different things. 

I believe in a strong, strong national agenda if we are going to 

be able to keep ourselves globally competitive in addition to then 

having a sustainable environment. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Certainly, I would yield. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is a very, very important policy issue that we 

are going to be facing not just on the transit side but on the highway side. That is the distribution of dollars between capital investment, a one-time investment by the Federal Government in its 

partnership with State and local governments in which the nonFederal partner commits to do the maintenance. 

It was a very long time before we came to the interstate maintenance category in the Federal highway program. The interstate 

program was 90-10: Federal, 90 percent; State, 10 percent. Then, 

it is yours. States, you maintain it. Twenty years, 25 years later, 

we came to establish a maintenance account. 

Now, after many years of investing in transit systems on the capital side, now we are hearing a request for more flexibility for the 

States and for local governments to use funds for maintenance as 

20 

we are hearing an increasing appeal from States to use more of 

their funds for maintenance. 

Maintenance could swallow up the whole Federal Aid Highway 

Program on the highway side. How much do you think it would 

swallow up if we gave the flexibility? 

Say, just blanket, we gave the flexibility to metropolitan areas to 

use money for capital investment or for maintenance, how much 

would be swallowed up in maintenance? 

Mr. BIEHLER. You are probably right. If we don’t have very clear 

goals, we could probably use the entire allocation for maintenance. 

I think you are exactly right, which means that it seems from my 

standpoint that we have to, as clearly as we can. This is not easy 

stuff, not for the faint of heart, but as clearly as we can identify 

what those goals are and what we want to adhere to on a Federal 

basis. 

So it probably means we have to think about hierarchies of systems. The National Highway System means something. Certainly, 

we need to think about continuing intercity freight movement, 

intercity passenger movement and decide what is a reasonable 

partnership between the States and the Federal Government and 

then within the States, the counties and the municipalities. 

I think that you are exactly right. It is those kind of focuses and 

thoughts we need. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Rahn, briefly. 

Mr. RAHN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I believe the heart of your 

question is indicative of the amount that we have underinvested in 

transportation over the decades. The problem is today that we have 

this huge backlog in capital needs. We have a huge backlog in 

maintenance needs. 

I think the fact that you could take the entire Federal program 

and have it swallowed up in maintenance is just simply the fact 

that we have underinvested for three decades. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I agree with that, but we are now at the point 

of a new program. Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Mica and I and 

all the Members of the Committee are going to have some very difficult decisions to make. 

States repeatedly ask Congress for flexibility in the transportation program: give us more categories, more flexibility. Let us 

draw down money out of our bridge program, for example. 

And, what have they done in the last four years? They have 

taken $4.5 billion out of the capital account of the bridge program 

and distributed it elsewhere, and then a bridge collapsed in Minnesota. 

Then what did they do? They turn around and blame the bicycle 

program for a bridge collapse in Minnesota. That is baloney. 

Now we want to have a balance here, and we are not going to 

have unlimited dollars to deal with even though I hope we get as 

close to the recommendation of the Commission as possible, a 50 

percent or better increase in investment. But this pull, the yin and 

yang between capital investment and maintenance, is a matter of 

high policy significance that we are going to have to belabor our 

way through. 

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. 

21 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for helping sort of 

refocus my question. 

So I would direct to Mr. Schlickman and Mr. Allegra the same 

question as modified by the Chairman here because I think we see 

the same question and conflict with transit and you two also. 

I went to Chicago and had an appalling video presentation on the 

state of the L. I saw sections of the L that are kind of held up with 

two by fours. Well, but I mean they are supported. It was a mess, 

and they are running the trains at limited speeds. 

So you can make an argument for the heritage systems need the 

investment, but then Mr. Allegra makes the argument that we 

need to expand opportunities in Western States, in growing States. 

Then that goes to the Chairman’s question. So if you could both 

briefly address that, and then we will move on to Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Let me clarify. The largest, oldest systems that 

I work with, they are not just old systems. They are new systems 

as well. I mean over the last 20 years these systems have been attempting to address the demand for more transit throughout their 

areas due to growth. 

So the growth isn’t just occurring in the Western States or the 

Southwestern States. It is occurring in the older cities, in the 

Northeast, the Midwest and even on the West Coast. We really represent all the need that has been discussed here on the transit 

side. 

With respect to where the Federal Government emphasizes its 

investment in new versus maintain, I think you have to step back 

first and ask how are you best trying to serve your goals addressing those issues of national importance in terms of climate change 

and clean air and energy independence and let that guide you as 

to how you set your priorities. 

Clearly, we have to maintain these systems. These systems are, 

as I said in my testimony, providing over 60 percent of the ridership, and that ridership is dramatically growing into the future. 

I would also caution you, though, to make sure you do not create 

disincentives for State and local investment. We are not coming to 

the Federal Government to solve all of our needs, but we have been 

relying on a Federal program solely for the last five years on our 

capital program. 

Our match is provided by toll credits. As you know, toll credits 

is not real money. That created a big disincentive for our State to 

really address the match requirement they should have stepped up 

and done. So I really caution you in that regard. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just again, to follow up on the Chairman’s question, if the Federal Government gave you total flexibility, could the 

amount of money you are getting from the Federal Government be 

easily swallowed up just by your maintenance needs? 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Yes, but—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I know, but we are trying to magnify or quantify 

the problem. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Yes, it could. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Allegra, very quickly. 

Mr. ALLEGRA. The short answer would be pretty soon. We 

haven’t reached that point yet. 

22 

We are very cognizant of the fact that we need to maintain our 

facilities and our services that we operate. Annually, at our organization, our board requires us to develop and relook at a 30-year 

plan. Every year, they adopt a new plan to make sure that we are 

indeed investing and reinvesting in the systems that we built and 

the necessary rehabilitation of the systems that we own: buses and 

rail. 

I think, as I mentioned in my testimony, the core capacity issue 

is also one that is troubling to us as we are seeing double digit increases in our ridership. We are struggling with the ways that we 

can add capacity to the systems that we have already built. So we 

are looking at many innovative and creative ways, and we are trying to leverage the Federal dollars as best we can with the resources we have locally as well as other programs such as transitoriented development and other types of programs that would help 

maintain that base. 

But from our organization’s perspective, it is vital and fundamental. As we have mentioned, replacement of the buses every 12 

to 13 years, it is automatic. It is a part of our program. We recognize we have to do that. 

Our rail system now is approaching 10 years old, and we are beginning to reach the mid-life time period to renovate those light 

rail vehicles. We have an aggressive program in place to look at 

that and a financing plan to do it, but those needs are going to continue to grow. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will just mention one thing before I get to my questions. We 

spent several years in this Committee working on the last highway 

bill which was unfortunately delayed, and we are trying to avoid 

that in this next highway bill. But we worked on a bill that was 

supposed to cover six years, and it was $286 billion which comes 

to about $47.5 billion a year. 

When everybody today has said that we need much more investment in our highway and transit systems in our Country, three 

weeks ago, there was a front page story in the Washington Post 

that said that we had a $295 billion cost overrun in just the Pentagon’s 72 largest weapons systems. That didn’t count the cost overruns that might have occurred in the thousands of other large, medium and small contracts that the Pentagon had. 

Yet, we just blink our eyes about that, and the Pentagon knows 

that we are going to keep on giving them big increases no matter 

how wasteful and inefficient they become because both parties are 

falling all over themselves, trying to prove how patriotic they are. 

It seems to me it is a blind patriotism that says we are just going 

to keep on giving these huge increases to the Pentagon at the expense of all the other needs in this Country. 

We had a report last week on the defense bill that said we are 

going to spend $711 billion this year, more than all the other nations of the world combined, trying to maintain this empire across 

the globe—once again I will say—at the expense of all of these 

needs that we have in this Country. 

23 

I will say that even with the feeling that I have that national defense is one of the most important and legitimate functions of the 

Federal Government, but you can’t give anybody everything that 

they want and just cheat everybody else. 

Mr. Rahn, I am curious as to exactly what is the Missouri Bridge 

Partners. We always hear in this Committee about innovative financing, yet that is one of those terms. Everybody is in favor of innovative financing, but I would like to know if you have used that. 

Have you used innovative financing, whatever that is? I am sure 

it means different things to everybody, but have you used that on 

some project and would you tell us specifically how that worked on 

a specific project? 

Mr. RAHN. Mr. Chairman, the Safe and Sound Bridge Program 

is, in fact, one of those innovative financing projects. For the most 

part, innovative financing means we have borrowed the money, and 

we are paying for it in a way other than normal, but in the end 

we have borrowed money. 

I would just add that our organizations run the same as many 

family households. It is that you would like to pay as you go. When 

you can’t pay as you go, you borrow. If you borrow too much, you 

go bust. 

All around the Country, we are borrowing as organizations, and 

I think it is an indication that we no longer can pay as we go. We 

are looking for some solution, somehow, but they are short term. 

They don’t represent the long-term answer to our transportation 

needs. Ultimately, we have to have more money. 

The Missouri Bridge Partners and the Safe and Sound Program 

is one in which we kept falling behind in our bridge conditions. We 

are deficient. The number of our structurally deficient bridges kept 

growing even though we were putting more and more money into 

it, and we wanted to come up with a radical approach to somehow 

get in front of the curve on our bridge inventory. 

And so, we took 802 of our structurally deficient bridges that 

were environmentally clean, meaning there were not environmental issues associated with them and there were not highway 

safety issues with the bridge. The problem was just simply they 

were old and crumbling. 

So we took these 800 bridges. We put it into a single proposal 

asking industry to come with a proposal in which they would design the bridge replacement or rehabilitation structures. They 

would then build them, and they would finance those for a period 

of 25 years. During that 25-year period, they would be also responsible for the maintenance of those bridges and their ultimate condition. 

So they needed to bring these 800 bridges up to a good condition 

within five years. They then needed to maintain in a good condition 

for 25 years. At the end of 25 years, they needed to still be in a 

good condition. 

In this way, we really are taking a huge portion of our deficient 

bridge structure out of that condition. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have questions for all the other witnesses, and so 

I need to move on quickly. On the borrowing part that you mentioned a while ago. How does your borrowing now compare to, say, 

10 or 15 years ago? 

24 

Mr. RAHN. We are borrowing much more today than we did 10 

years ago. 

We are using the private activity bonds. You were asking about 

innovative financing, and I just wanted to mention that we are utilizing private activity bonds in which the Missouri Bridge Partners, 

which is the private sector team that has been selected to do this 

work, they will use utilize private activity bonds which means they 

can borrow money at tax-exempt status and utilize by a private entity for the benefit of a public sector. 

Then the fact that they borrow the money and we are going to 

pay it back to them falls into this innovative financing. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I just wanted to follow up on the Ranking Member’s question. I read the proposal. I was a bit puzzled because you 

have an initial period where you don’t pay them anything up to 

2012 or something like that, and then you would begin to make 

payments from that point forward. 

What is their rate of return? I mean they have this private activity bond which lessened their cost, but what rate of return or what 

interest payment essentially are you paying? 

Mr. RAHN. We are still at the tail end now of the negotiations 

for contract. We anticipate a contract within the next three weeks. 

So we still don’t have all of that that I can disclose publicly. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. RAHN. But what I can say is that, number one, we have decided that we are going to make some interim payments during the 

five years because the capitalized interest costs were just too great. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. You are going to carry that all forward. We 

have heard about those kinds of loans recently. A lot of people had 

them. 

Mr. RAHN. Exactly. So we have decided that we will make some 

payments based on performance milestones. They are going to have 

to have 150 bridges complete before we will make a payment. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. So you are not going to carry all of it with 

deferred interest forward. 

Mr. RAHN. Right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But you are still going to have some sort of interest. 

Mr. RAHN. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would just be interested in the details when you 

finalize the contract, and I realize if you are in negotiations, you 

don’t want to. But when you conclude that, I would be interested 

because I would like to see a comparison between what it would 

have cost your State to go out and borrow that money straight up 

front and do the work and what you are going to get out of this 

for a rate of return of interest cost in this deal. 

I realize there may be other attributes to it in terms of volume 

or whatever. 

Mr. RAHN. Speed. It is speed plus the fact that we are transferring all of the risk of inflation to that team. We lock in the prices 

for these next five years. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. RAHN. But the rate of return, I will be able to answer that 

question. Because of private activity bonds, the difference between 

the two is not as great as you would expect. 

25 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But anyway, we will. I think we will have more 

questions, and perhaps we will direct them to you in writing as you 

complete the negotiations. 

I am sorry. Thank you. I thank the Ranking Member for that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Oh, that is all right. Those were good questions. 

Secretary Biehler, do you want to make a comment? 

Oh, okay. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Secretary. According to 

your testimony, since 2004, your Department has moved investments from increasing highway capacity to just trying to keep the 

system maintained and in good repair. How much of a shift are you 

talking about and is that going to increase in the future? 

What impact has this had on your system and what do you see 

in, say, the next five years or so? 

Mr. BIEHLER. Yes, clearly, we have made a major shift. We had 

been devoting in the neighborhood of 25 or so percent of our revenues to capacity and congestion relief, physical improvements, and 

then in the series of the last 3 updates of our program, we are 

probably going to be closer to about 10 percent. We just had no 

choice. 

We had no choice because of the deterioration, simply keeping 

the pavement in the case of our highway system in decent shape 

and also the tremendous backlog and structurally deficient bridges. 

With a bridge, it would have to be weight-restricted or closed, potentially shutting off emergency access to neighborhoods. There is 

no choice. 

So we are moving that way, and I don’t know whether the next 

update will be at 5 percent and down to nothing. I honestly don’t 

know. It is really going to be dependent on where inflation goes 

and then where our revenue sources are. 

Unfortunately, well, obviously as with many States, we are dependent on gas tax revenue. I just got a report last night that our 

current 2007-2008 budget which ends at the end of June. We just 

got an update that we are going to be facing something like $99 

million less in gas tax revenue simply because of less use and projected to be about 109 for the next year. 

Obviously, the message is stay tuned because we don’t know 

where gas prices are going. 

So those are the kinds of drastic changes we have had to react 

to. We have no choice. We have, in fact, reacted that way. It is not 

the right answer, but it is what we have had to do. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you this. I know that over the last 

30 or 40 years you have lost several Members of Congress due to 

population decreases or faster population growth in other States. 

Do you know what the projections are for Pennsylvania? 

Are you going to continue to lose population and have you 

factored that into your projections for the future? What are the projections? 

Mr. BIEHLER. We are at about 12 million population in Pennsylvania, and we have been in a 1 to 2 percent growth. 

Now it really, obviously, depends on where you are in the State. 

If you are close to the eastern portion of the State or the southeastern portion of the State, the megalopolis increase is clear. 

There have been population increases in that area and, in other 

parts there have actually been decreases. 

26 

But in terms of the long term, clearly, we have been attempting 

to project ahead what our current revenue sources will produce certainly related to change in people’s driving habits and so on. That 

is why. Next year, the budget was submitted just a few months 

ago. We are getting such surprises because of the rapid rise in diesel fuel and gasoline, and we have had to make adjustments. 

As I say, we are really in a volatile period as we all know. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. I have questions for all, but I will stop 

with Commissioner Bowman. 

Let me ask you this, Commissioner. On average, how much of 

your funding comes from the Federal Government as opposed to 

State and local sources? 

I read a few days ago that two-thirds of the counties in the U.S. 

were losing population. That surprises people in my area because 

I am in a fast growing area. But your county, is it growing and 

what do you think we should do? 

It seems to some of us we need to direct more funding to the fast 

growing areas than the areas that are losing population. How do 

you see this not only in relation to your county but in relation to 

your entire State? 

Mr. BOWMAN. The State of Washington, I believe, is in definite 

growth mode. We, in Benton County, my county, we are experiencing around 2.5 to 3 percent as we have for the last, basically, 

20 years. We are only up to 166,000 in my county. 

My transit agency serves bi-county, mostly bi-county, and we 

have a population right at 200,000 for this transit system. Our 

growth is controlled, but it is very good and it is strong, and our 

economy is good and strong at this point. 

Our transit agency, we have made a decision that we would not 

get involved in a death spiral on borrowing. We owe no dollars to 

anyone for any reason. 

We maintain all of our maintenance and operations through 

fares as well as we just doubled the cost. The citizens just imposed 

doubling of their sales tax dollars that goes dedicated to transit, 

and we just raised our transit fees by up to 20 percent. 

We continue to have growth, 32 percent within the last 5 years 

since the imposition of an additional three-tenths of a percent sales 

tax. In just the last month of April, we had a 20 percent increase 

in utilization even after a February increase of the 20 percent 

boarding fee. 

So those types of things, we just don’t get involved in. We try not 

to get involved in them. 

Mr. DUNCAN. How much of your funding is Federal as opposed 

to State and local? 

Mr. BOWMAN. For transit or for highways? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Both. 

Mr. BOWMAN. That is a really good question. I will have to get 

back to you in writing on that, if I could. Yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

I am going to briefly recognize the Chairman, and then it will be 

Mr. Sires’ time. 

Go ahead. 

27 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really appreciate your questions, your opening statement. 

And, Mr. Duncan, when the Ranking Member was talking about 

the cost overruns in the military budget, I can only say amen to 

his observation about that issue. 

If we had had the same proportion of overruns in transportation, 

there would be a national outcry and criminal investigation going 

on in every transit agency and every highway department in America. But if it is in the military budget, it is all right. Well, it is not 

all right there, and it is not all right anywhere else. 

Now this panel has given us some very important testimony 

which I greatly appreciate. But I want all of you to come back to 

the point that Chairman DeFazio started on and I elaborated 

which is that of a proper balance between Federal funds for capital 

investments and maintenance and what is the appropriate national 

policy and appropriate balance in the partnership between the Federal Government and, in the case of highways, States and, in the 

case of transit systems, local governments. 

Ms. Watson, you gave a very clear six-point statement of issues 

you would recommend for us, one of which really caught my attention because I was talking about it all this past weekend at various 

transportation events in my district and I have been elsewhere, 

and that is the relationship between land use and transportation. 

We see it in aviation. We see it in the highway program. We see 

it in the transit program. 

You focused on: ‘‘incentives that force local governments to develop smart growth plans, high density development around 

multimodal transit systems.’’ 

We have seen the effect of capital investment clustered around 

transit stops on the light rail systems of this Country. The Dallas 

Area Rapid Transit is one, nearly a billion dollars clustered around 

20 stops on the DART West. Before they even started on DART 

East, there was $125 million of capital investment announced for 

the planned stops along that system. 

Here in Washington, D.C., over $25 billion in capital investment 

clustered around stops. 

That investment and we can go system by system all around the 

Country, which I won’t do, and point out how transit has attracted 

development, but we need to take the model, turn that model 

around and establish the land use policy first. 

I visited a community that required a developer to put in the 

bike lanes, to put in the pedestrian walking paths, to put in stops 

for bus service before they even plotted out the land they are going 

to develop for housing and for shopping centers. It required WalMart in planning its development to put in bicycle access, bus access before they began their development. 

What incentives do you recommend that we might include in the 

next transportation bill to encourage and to stimulate wise, smart 

growth, compact growth, land use policy connected to multimodal 

transportation systems? 

Ms. WATSON. I think perhaps maybe something similar to what 

has been done with the highways system. When the highways were 

built, Federal funds were made available for the construction of 

28 

those and, maybe knowing or not knowing, that created in many 

senses the suburbs and that kind of sprawl development. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Really, in the development of the interstate program, first, a national plan was laid out to connect cities of 50,000 

population or greater. That was not a land use plan. That was connecting with what already is. We need to prevent the sprawl. 

Ms. WATSON. Yes, and everything you have said, I would agree 

with. I think we are very similar in thinking on that. 

There is a lot of people moving into the inner cities, whether they 

are baby boomers or X/Y generation. People like the dense development and walkable communities where they can work and attend 

entertainment events in similar areas. 

I believe the communities that are doing the smart growth planning that is friendly to our environment could be incentivized with 

funding available for transit facilities, assuming they have those 

comprehensive development plans that encourage and develop that 

kind. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would like to ask all the other members of the 

panel to comment, but I don’t have time. I have to go to other 

transportation issues and have to curtail my questioning. 

But I want all of you to think about this. You are all premier 

thinkers and leaders and policy implementers in your respective 

roles, and we need your thoughts. Supplement your testimony. 

Help us to get to the New Jersey model. Ten percent of all transportation in the State of New Jersey is by transit. They have 

achieved the national goal that we should set for America. 

If we achieved a 10 percent mode shift to transit, we could save 

all the oil, the equivalent of all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. That is 550 million barrels a year. Multiply that by $130 plus 

a barrel. That is a huge savings. 

The cost to get there is minuscule compared to the cost we are 

sending overseas. 

Mr. Chairman, I will have to suspend there. I would love to pursue this further. I know I just get exasperated that we are not further along than we are in this Country with our surface transportation. 

We have come a long way from the day I remember when I was 

on the staff here, and the Congress started the Urban Mass Transit 

Administration. I remember the critics who said, what do you mean 

we are going to start bussing Catholics to church? It took a long 

time to get over that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Boustany. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think Chairman Oberstar raised some very good historical 

points earlier about priorities. 

Then in some of that discussion, Mr. Rahn, you mentioned the 

108 different programs and the need for clarity, and perhaps that 

is something this Committee needs to look at as we go into the 

next highway bill in providing more clarity about those guidelines, 

about what constitutes preventive maintenance versus repairs and 

so forth, and we need to provide the oversight to make sure that 

the Department is doing what it is intended to do. 

29 

I want to step and sort of take the 30,000-foot view for a minute. 

Clearly, we have funding issues at the local, State and Federal levels. When you have that kind of scarcity with increasing costs and 

unpredictability on commodities such as asphalt, cement, steel and 

so forth, when you have scarcity, you need a good strategy, a good 

strategic plan. 

Are you satisfied? Are each of you satisfied with the strategic 

plans in your respective States and could you highlight any deficiencies you see in those strategic plans? I will let you each comment on that. 

Mr. RAHN. Mr. Chairman, the strategic plans that we have in 

place are all constrained by the dollars that we predict are going 

to be available, and so I believe that we have good strategic plans 

with the constraint of available dollars, but the strategic plan does 

not get us where either we want to go or the public wants us to 

go. I believe it gets us where the public apparently wants to pay 

for. That is the issue. 

We are, in many cases, performing triage. We are determining 

within our programs and within the modes, what are we going to 

let to continue to slip, what are we going to do away with as we 

move forward as we have to address the issues. The inflationary 

costs within the construction industry far exceed the CPI that the 

average consumer has seen over these last decades. 

The pressures upon us, the usage, the deterioration of our system, all of these things we do factor in. We, in fact, do have strategic plans in place, but they continue to show a path of continuing 

to crumble infrastructure, higher congestion and fewer choices 

available to the public. 

So, if we can change that paradigm, if we can change the inputs 

into it, we can end up with a different strategic plan. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Well, I heard Biehler mention earlier the need 

for a national agenda, and I am trying to understand what does 

that mean because I don’t think we can dictate here in Congress 

or the U.S. Department of Transportation can dictate from the topdown what our strategy is going to be. I believe it needs to come 

from the ground up. 

I want to make sure that, State level, States are doing all that 

they can to come up with a good plan, given the resources we have 

because we are going to have to deal with the resources that we 

have, in effect, unless we come up with other innovative ways to 

finance this. 

And, are the rural communities really integrated well into those 

State strategic plans, Mr. Biehler? 

Mr. BIEHLER. I would love to talk about that. 

At the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, in our case, 

we have four primary focus areas. One is preservation of our system to the extent that we can. 

Next is intelligent transportation systems. We are probably not 

going to have enough money to address capacity. So we are going 

to use as much as we can, cameras and information systems, to 

maximize the utility of the current system. 

Next is we will never forget about safety in the case of the highway system especially. 

30 

Then, finally, it is much more generalized, but you talked about 

a 50,000-foot level issue. It is connecting transportation investments to land use and other policy. Boy, is that a mouthful. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. That is critical, given different industries in certain areas where you may set priorities because of certain strategic 

industries, evacuation routes depending on circumstances. Certainly on the Gulf Coast, we have evacuation route concerns. Then, 

of course, congestion is an overriding concern for everyone. 

So I appreciate that. 

Mr. BIEHLER. We are looking at exactly what you said. We are 

not just looking at urban areas but also rural areas, and we need 

to be able to think and encourage land use patterns that are most 

efficient from a transportation standpoint. 

If that means thinking about development patterns so that people, to the extent that they are encouraged to walk and bicycle, 

even in rural areas, is a good thing. In Pennsylvania, we have lots 

of precious core towns that we want to help encourage that kind 

of development as opposed to the kind of sprawl that will make 

people so reliant on only auto travel. It is just the wrong thing to 

do. 

In Pennsylvania, we have also put significant subsidy into, as an 

example, an intercity rail line between Harrisburg and Philadelphia. That one line has grown dramatically even before the most 

recent fuel increase. 

So, having a balance of different kinds of modes including public 

transportation, whether it is within an area or between areas, is 

critical. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. 

Anybody else want to comment? I think my time is up but, yes, 

please. 

Mr. BOWMAN. I thank you very much. 

I would refer you back to my testimony where I said, in fact, that 

the highway safety improvement program used to be targeted to 

those roads that need safety improvements and local government 

officials need to be part of that process that develops the strategic 

highway safety plan. Current regulations do not allow local governments to be involved in that process. 

So is it a good process? Is it a good plan? I really don’t know because I am not allowed to be part of it, and so I don’t know the 

arguments that built it. So if we were there, we would have a better idea of that. 

I would also mention again that in my community the citizens, 

one, they voted in, themselves, a 5 percent gas tax increase. They 

allowed our State legislature to bring in a 9.5 percent gas tax increase within the last 5 or 6 years. 

The reason for that was because every dollar, every dime went 

to a project specific. They were projects that they could see, and 

they felt they concurred with that need. 

Now, in our local community, we did. In fact, the citizens doubled 

their sales tax. They did allow and encourage us to increase their 

boarding fees because they could see the outcome of that. It was 

not a deep hole. 

So I think if the citizens in my communities at least, can see the 

need, they would generally buy into that. We are going to test them 

31 

again on police and safety here this fall. But we have tried that on 

transportation, and it seems to work when they can see the need. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Very quick and very blunt, every time you do 

an authorization, you set goals for that authorization. They are set 

out there, and they are somewhat tied to the planning process. 

From my perspective, there is lip service paid to those goals at 

the regional and State levels. I do not believe that there is a strong 

incentive for urban areas or even States to seriously address those 

goals, and there is no accountability. 

I think the Revenue Commission called for performance measures. We are doing performance measures in Chicago, and they are 

tied directly to a strategic plan. 

So, in terms of dictating, sure, I don’t think you should be dictating the details of a capital improvement program, but you certainly should seek adherence to your national goals and you should 

have some way of measuring that. We support that. 

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. HIRONO. [Presiding.] Thank you. Thank you very much. Let’s 

proceed to questions by Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you and the panelists for being here. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SIRES. I heard you mention that you are doing a capital assessment in metropolitan areas. I know it is not complete, but can 

you tell me what factors you are taking into consideration? 

I am from New Jersey, and I am very interested. At the end of 

your process, if we could have a copy of it, I would be very interested. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. SIRES. But what factors are you taking into consideration? 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Well, simply what we are doing is we are surveying our members—New Jersey is one of them—to give us their 

capital needs in a uniform way according to a set of criteria or not 

criteria but categories: rolling stock, facilities, electrical and communications. 

Give us that information. We will aggregate it for you and submit it for the record. That will sort of give you the baseline view 

of where we are at with our unfunded maintenance needs. That is 

out intent. 

Mr. SIRES. The ultimate goal is what? 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. To give you a better picture of how serious the 

maintenance needs are particularly for the largest transit systems 

in the Country. 

I tried to give you an example of those maintenance needs by 

using Chicago, but what I would like to provide the Committee in 

a more definite detailed summary, and that is what we intend to 

do. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. 

I assume that everybody that is on this panel are directors. 

Whether it is a different State, you are going through a similar 

process. What are the factors that you use to cut back because obviously there is not enough money to run your systems? 

32 

Everything is getting more expensive. I heard you mention steel. 

I heard you mention asphalt. What is your criteria when you start 

cutting back? 

Sooner or later you are going to have to start. Do you go with 

manpower first? I assume that is the last thing you go for. 

Mr. BIEHLER. Yes, I would be happy to. 

We have done everything from having a much greater use of recycled asphalt as an example. 

We have clearly had a different focus on our design, looking at 

the footprint of when we have newer construction to see if we can 

end up with, in this case, a roadway that has a smaller footprint 

than we have typically designed for in the past. 

We have simply cut out huge amounts of capacity projects that 

we no longer can afford. We have either called for them to be rescaled smaller or simply stopped. 

We also are focusing in the case of our bridge system on making 

sure we are looking at 100-year design. So when that project is any 

new bridges are put in place, we have a longer life. 

We have also in the case of our bridge system had a special preservation program to simply try to extend the life of our structures. 

So we are trying quite a series of activities. 

Then, finally, we are walking into the very difficult issue of trying to think about better land use connection with transportation 

investment. It is more difficult because, obviously, the Department 

of Transportation doesn’t control land use. It is all the 2,550 some 

odd municipalities within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and 

we need to have that partnership. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Biehler, wasn’t Pennsylvania working with New 

Jersey Transit to link right all the way up to New York City? 

Wasn’t there a railroad yard or something they were working on? 

Mr. BIEHLER. Yes. Yes, clearly so. 

Mr. SIRES. With all these cuts, is that going to be a problem in 

the future? 

Mr. BIEHLER. It may well be. 

I would also point out when you mentioned Pennsylvania and 

New Jersey. We have been working with the New Jersey Department of Transportation on something called a Smart Transportation Design Guidebook. Again, it is kind of a joint effort that we 

are going to both benefit from as we just turn the corner and think 

of our jobs differently. 

Mr. SIRES. You wanted to add something, Mr. Bowman? 

Mr. BOWMAN. Yes. Just on the small community aspect of it, we 

just go back and reevaluate and prioritize projects. Part of that, a 

huge part of that is just the reevaluation of which one is costing 

us the most to maintain and trying to do the upgrade on that. So 

we can actually reduce the maintenance, as I said, from 80 to 90 

percent by doing a good job on those upgrades. That is a real key 

to us. 

Mr. ALLEGRA. Thank you. I would like to highlight a couple of 

things we are quite proud of in Utah. There are four of them in 

particular I would like to mention and put on the table. 

One of them is our construction methodologies. I think we are 

enabled to use very innovative construction techniques that allow 

us to be very creative in the way we deliver projects. We have done 

33 

design, bid, build. We have done design, build. We are using construction manager general contractor. 

We are now looking to our new approach, where we share risks 

with the contractors and designers, called alliancing. That has been 

fortuitous to us in terms of delivery of our projects. 

As we build our capital projects, we sign very delicate agreements with local governments so that our expectations of what we 

are building are met as well as maintaining the cost of keeping up 

those facilities. So we don’t allow the cities to get us to build things 

that are going to be very expensive to maintain. 

Thirdly, we are using existing facilities for our maintenance 

shops. In fact, when we acquired the Union Pacific Railroad in 

Utah, they gave us a maintenance facility. We probably have the 

lowest cost maintenance facility in the United States because we 

are using and reusing buildings that have been out there. 

Then, lastly, I appreciate the State of New Jersey and New Jersey Transit because we have been acquiring used rail cars to supplement our fleet. We have 29 NJT Comet Cars that we acquired 

from NJT to help us supplement our fleet and get more service on 

the road for less cost. 

Mr. SIRES. So I am correct to assume that the last thing you 

would do is cut manpower, no? 

Mr. ALLEGRA. Not in our case. We are rapidly, rapidly growing. 

The last thing we want to do in the transit industry is reduce services. So one of the things you have heard today is that we are having a fuel surcharge, and we have had a successful outcome just 

recently in Utah about saying as the price of diesel fuel goes up 

for our fleets, we need to incur that cost, some of it, ourselves by 

belt-tightening, but more of that comes from an increase in our 

fares. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

I think I am way past my time. Thank you very much for your 

courtesy. 

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Schlickman, did you want to make a very short 

comment. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Yes. On your last point about labor, what will 

happen on the operating side if you don’t maintain the system is 

you become more inefficient on the operating side. That eats into 

your ability to pay for day to day operating expenses. When that 

is challenged, then you have to consider possibly cutting service, 

and then that means cutting labor. So they are intertwined. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Biehler, great to see you again. Thanks for being here, 

Secretary. 

On page three of your testimony as well as page four, I know you 

refer to the two proposals under consideration in Pennsylvania, 

leasing the turnpike as well as Act 44 which would provide for the 

tolling of Interstate 80 on the northern tier. 

I just want to be clear for the record that the Commonwealth is 

pursuing both. Well, Act 44 is a law. You are waiting approval of 

tolling of I-80 from the Federal Highway Administration. 

34 

Is it my understanding that your application must be resubmitted? It was sent back to make revisions and changes, is that 

correct? 

Mr. BIEHLER. That is correct. 

Mr. DENT. Will you be resubmitting that application with 

changes and simultaneously seek to lease the turnpike? 

Mr. BIEHLER. The application that was submitted by the Turnpike Commission was found to need additional augment. 

Mr. DENT. Right. 

Mr. BIEHLER. The Commission is in the process of trying to finish 

revisions to get it submitted. But, yes, the answer is yes. 

At this point, we don’t know if the tolling of Interstate 80 will 

be approved by the Federal Highway Administration. 

Mr. DENT. Right. 

Mr. BIEHLER. The Governor, Governor Rendell, has been a real 

champion for trying to increase infrastructure investment. In his 

continued effort, he has said that he simply wanted to know what 

it would mean if we considered privatizing the Pennsylvania Turnpike, in effect, leasing similar to Indiana. In fact, that process was 

completed, at least in terms of taking bids, a few weeks ago. 

It turned out, surprisingly, that the amount of proceeds project 

from the Act 44 that included tolling I-80 would be if you leased 

the turnpike as an alternate, leasing the turnpike would produce 

something like $100 million plus more per year over a period of 75 

years than would the Act 44. 

So the Governor wanted to and is in the process of talking to the 

general assembly to see if they are willing to consider that. 

Mr. DENT. The question I am getting from some of my constituents, Mr. Secretary, is this: If I-80 is to be tolled and approved by 

the Federal Highway Administration, would then the Commonwealth still seek to privatize the turnpike system, knowing that I80 would now be part of the turnpike system? 

Mr. BIEHLER. The Governor has proposed as part of his proposal 

to lease the turnpike, that he has proposed not to lease Interstate 

80. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. So I-80 would not be part of any lease. 

Mr. BIEHLER. Just so the Committee knows, this Act 44 depended on increasing the turnpike tolls by about 25 percent beginning in 2009 and about 3 percent thereafter was their projection, 

coupled with tolling Interstate 80 for the first time at the same toll 

structure which would mimic the main line of the Pennsylvania 

Turnpike. They are about 60 to 75 miles apart but parallel across 

the State. 

Interestingly enough, the private marketplace in this recent bidding showed that it would provide enough up-front dollars to be invested to be able to pull off of that not only the amount equal to 

this other option, but in fact it would exceed it by an amount in 

excess of $100 million. 

Mr. DENT. So I can tell my constituents that should I-80 be 

tolled, that would not become part of a privatized turnpike? 

Mr. BIEHLER. That is what the Governor’s proposal is. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. The other question I had too: Should I-80 be 

tolled, should the Federal Highway Administrator approve that, 

35 

have you given consideration in terms of traffic diversion off of I80 onto other routes including I-78? 

I’d like to get that information. If you don’t have it, please send 

it to me at some point. I would like to see it. 

Mr. BIEHLER. I would simply mention, Mr. Dent, as part of the 

analysis that the turnpike is required to do is to examine that. So, 

when that is done, we will make sure that they know that you are 

interested and make sure it gets sent. 

Mr. DENT. I just would like to see whatever analyses have been 

done on diversion. 

Mr. BIEHLER. Sure. 

Mr. DENT. Coming out of New Jersey, I suspect there will be a 

lot of traffic coming down off 287 on the 78, avoiding I-80, should 

it become tolled. 

Mr. BIEHLER. Sure. 

Mr. DENT. A second comment, there was a national publication 

that I know caused you some concern and heartburn with respect 

to Pennsylvania’s bridge funds being diverted elsewhere. I know it 

created a lot of heartburn. Some Members of the Committee were 

concerned about that. 

I just wanted to give you the opportunity to explain what was 

in that document and why maybe you weren’t diverting a third of 

your bridge funds for other purposes. 

Mr. BIEHLER. More than meets the eye there. The Federal Bridge 

Program—interestingly enough, you talked about flexibility earlier—allows 40 to 50 percent of those dollars to be used and transferred to other programs. Pennsylvania took full advantage of that 

and I think, unless I am mistaken, was the leader in all of the 

States in terms of the amount of money in bridge funds that were 

shifted to other programs for the Federal permission. 

Makes you want to ask why did you do that when you have perhaps the largest number of structurally deficient bridges of any 

State in the United States? 

Well the answer is pretty simple. First of all, the amount of 

money that we shifted, we spent much more on our bridge program 

in Pennsylvania than all of the money combined that was in shifting. What really was going on was simply to be more efficient in 

terms of our bookkeeping. 

The Federal requirements are that if you use bridge funds on a 

project—let’s say you have a five-mile highway you are rebuilding 

and there are three or four bridges in that stretch, you have to 

keep two sets of books. And so, what we decided was to transfer 

the money elsewhere, use other portions of Federal dollars to build 

it. 

It is sort of a net zero sum game, but if you were interested in 

picking at us, you could try to make a story out of it. The bottom 

line, though, is we have spent so much more on our bridge program 

than that program would even allow. We were just trying to simply 

be able to have an efficient book. 

Mr. DENT. What was the name of that document? It was a report. Was it in Transportation Week? 

Mr. BIEHLER. Yes. In fact, I wrote you a letter. 

Mr. DENT. I know. You sent me a long, extensive letter. 

36 

Mr. BIEHLER. If you are interested in seeing that, I would be 

happy to provide it to the Committee. 

Mr. DENT. You might want to circulate that to the entire Committee. 

Mr. BIEHLER. Sure. I would be happy to. 

Ms. HIRONO. Mrs. Napolitano, please proceed. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have listened with great interest to the testimony given here 

today. While there is nobody from my neck of the woods in California, it is interesting to hear the different ways that you have addressed some of the issues that you have in transportation in your 

areas. 

I listened with great intent in regard to the comparison of foreign 

investment versus U.S., but many of the States have not invested 

much in their infrastructure. I can tell you California has been one 

of them. So they rely mostly on Federal funds instead of being able 

to invest in our own infrastructure. 

Why is that? Anybody? 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. I will address from the transit perspective, and 

I mentioned it earlier. 

We have, unfortunately, gotten into a position where we will do 

a five-year capital program at the State level that winds up dragging out to ten years rather than five years. The reason for that 

is that those capital programs are largely bond programs and require new revenue sources, new revenue streams in order to pay 

for those bonds. When the program expires, there unfortunately is 

a lack of political will really to identify new revenue streams which 

usually comes in the form of a tax, mostly in the user fee area. 

What I mentioned specifically earlier is that on the transit side, 

I mean we used to be able to say that if you don’t do a new State 

capital program, we are not going to be able to match Federal dollars and those Federal dollars are going to fall off the table and go 

to some other State. 

But we have this toll credit opportunity, and they know we have 

toll credits because we have an Illinois Toll Highway Authority 

that produces hundreds of millions of dollars in tolls each year, and 

those toll credits replace real money for matching purposes. So that 

is a huge disincentive. 

There isn’t a clear incentive to come up with real money for 

matching. Again, it sort of takes away the opportunity for people 

to find the political will to do what they need to do. 

Now, that said, the backlog of capital projects in the State of Illinois is huge and is putting a great pressure at the State level to 

do a capital initiative, and we will do a capital initiative. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Schlickman. I think you have 

hit the nail on the head, though, the political will. 

I have very short time, if you would answer it very quickly, sir. 

Mr. RAHN. Yes, ma’am. 

The Federal share on capital expenditures for a highway program is 45 percent. It has pretty stayed within that realm over the 

last several decades. It has probably shrunk. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So you are suggesting it should be increased? 

Mr. RAHN. It has actually shrunk a couple of percent. So the idea 

that the Federal Government has picked up a larger share of the 

37 

construction in the realm of highways is fact not borne out by the 

facts. It is the States have been contributing dollars toward that 

at about 55 percent. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, many of the things that are coming up, 

and one of my concerns is the rail versus highway, in other words, 

getting people out of their cars and into mass transit. Given the 

higher gasoline cost, that is going to reduce taxes that are going 

to be available to the States which then brings on more reliance 

on rail. 

However, the railroads own a lot of the rail itself, so their biggest 

producer of funds is goods movement versus commuters. That 

brings in rail crossings, the railroad grades separations which are 

critical to be able to move not only commuter but goods movement. 

How is it that we may be able to marry it, if you will, or be able 

to put priorities to increase the ridership and still maintain the 

economy that goods movement brings, especially from the West to 

the East? 

Yes? 

Mr. RAHN. I don’t have an answer for you. That is a huge problem that we have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. Allegra and then Mr. Schlickman. 

Mr. ALLEGRA. Thank you. 

Perhaps Utah is a good example where we have formed a wonderful partnership with the Union Pacific Railroad. In 2002, we 

purchased perhaps all of the railroad rights of way in our urban 

areas and allowed the railroads to continue to run their service. So 

we actually bought a portion of their railroad right of way and are 

now running our own passenger service next to their freight services. 

We are quite proud of that model, and that is one of the reasons 

that has allowed us to greatly expand our system. So, in Utah, you 

will see and you have heard that we are rapidly expanding our system, and our local community has agreed to pay for that investment. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Very good. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. We have an excellent relationship with virtually all the freight railroads. They all converge on Chicago. We 

have the largest freight rail hub in the United States, third largest 

in the world. 

Our commuter rail system runs on largely freight rail tracks, but 

as you probably know and you have probably heard of the CREATE 

program that Chicago and the State and the Association of American railroads have put forward to address a huge capacity problem 

that we have. That needs to be addressed. 

Again, we need the political will at the State level to step up and 

match what might be provided from the Federal level. It is clearly 

a Federal issue. I mean we have freight backing up all the way to 

Los Angeles. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, it might be a Federal issue, sir, excuse 

me, but it is also a railroad issue in many areas. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. Certainly. They are partners in the process, 

and they need to make a commitment as well. 

38 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I have the Alameda Corridor East going 

through my district which brings in over 50 percent of the Nation’s 

goods to the eastern area, and yet I have 54 crossings. Only 20 are 

going to be grade separated. 

Not only is that going to slow down the train traffic, but it is also 

going to be more imposing on the community and the quality of 

life, the environment, the safety. You name it. So those are issues 

that I am contending are going to have to be part of what the new 

surface transportation authorization is going to have to address. 

Mr. SCHLICKMAN. I totally agree. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I think I am running out of time, ma’am. I 

think the gentleman wants to have just one word. 

Ms. HIRONO. Very quickly. 

Mr. BOWMAN. Thank you. 

Very good question. My experience has been two-fold. One is rail 

crossings that you are talking about. It is a huge issue for me. I 

fight with the railroad company all the time and get nowhere. I get 

lip service, and nothing happens. That is another 25-minute discussion. 

However, the success is that we actually in Washington State, in 

my community, have what is known as Rail Ex. This is where everybody brings their produce into one location. Within four days, it 

is on a train. Within five days after that, it is actually in New York 

State, and it is local produce. 

So it is some type of a program. I am not sure how that works, 

but it is working well for us. In fact, they are doubling that process 

now. It is two times a week they are going out with that. So there 

are some successes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Biehler, you mentioned earlier that, oh, using cameras, 

things like that, that you could increase the capacity in the system. 

I am always amazed. Being on the Committee for several years 

and driving around, you notice things like signage. Sometimes signage is totally screwed up and, as a result, it really does exacerbate 

the problem. 

Again, I know you don’t know it exactly, but is there a lot of lowhanging fruit by doing those kinds of things, getting that straight, 

that we can increase the capacity a little bit more? 

Certainly we have to spend a lot of money on the infrastructure, 

but what can we do in regard to that that we can almost fix overnight? 

Mr. BIEHLER. Yes, I think it has been pointed out especially in 

very congested corridors if you can do incident management much 

better. It is a huge issue. 

People have talked about having delay being as much as 50 percent related to these temporary incidents of crashes or breakdowns 

and so on and how that has a huge impact on the capacity of the 

system for a short period of time. But coupled, it really, really 

makes a difference. So if you can get out there quickly and remove 

those that is the kind of thing we are talking about. 

39 

The other thing is simply providing better information to the 

public about blockages that are in the system 10 miles ahead allows people to react differently. 

So, no. I think it is one of those low-hanging fruit issues simply 

as we have seen in a number of States that have campaigned. Simply retiming traffic signals, something as small as that can make 

a 10 to 15 percent difference in your system. 

Now the average rider, I am not sure they sense what a 10 percent increase is, but it means something, and it certainly means 

something in terms of fuel economy and so on. There are a number 

of those things that we ought to be moving ahead more rapidly on. 

We are trying to do that in Pennsylvania. We have a ways to go, 

but we are certainly heading that way. 

So, no. Those are things we absolutely should do. But to think 

that that now takes care of the problem is probably not accurate 

at all, but it is certainly stuff that we ought to put in our back 

pocket. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. It is not going to take care of the problem, but it 

is in many cases fairly inexpensive to do. Even, in some cases, 

spending a lot of money down the road still doesn’t take care of 

that problem if that makes sense. 

So something that would be helpful to me is any suggestions. We 

don’t have time now but any suggestions, if you could just write a 

little note as to how we can incentivize people to do that, I think 

would be very, very helpful. 

Mr. Rahn, in your testimony, again, being in Arkansas next door, 

it is kind of scary. You mentioned tremendous increases in traffic, 

truck traffic in the future and stuff. Then also in your written testimony, you testified to the fact that much of the infrastructure in 

Missouri is in dire straits as it is through the rest of the Nation. 

I guess the question is how are you using the assets that you 

have now? 

How are you maximizing to kind of keep things? 

What are your best practice areas of keeping things going? 

Mr. RAHN. Right now, most of what we are dealing with are surface treatments. I-70 is now 52 years old, and it is mush underneath. We will put a three-inch overlay on it, and it will be smooth 

for a while. But with 35 to 40 percent truck traffic on it, it doesn’t 

last. 

What we are doing right now is just trying to hold it together. 

The bottom line is, though, we need to reconstruct I-70. Our costs, 

we have a clear DIS on it: $3.5 billion to rebuild I-70 across the 

State, and we have zero dollars. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. How much loss in buying capacity have you experienced in the last 15 years, would you guess? 

Mr. RAHN. It is huge. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Sixty percent? Fifty percent? 

Mr. RAHN. It is 60 to 80 percent with what we are seeing in inflation right now. Our projection has been that it would be 80 percent by 2015, but I believe with current inflation rates, that is 

going to occur much sooner than that. 

So the dollars that we are putting into this are buying so much 

less. 

40 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I think the figure that Dan Flowers uses, again, 

this was several months ago, prior to the oil runup and things. I 

think his was 60 percent in the last 15 years. Those numbers are 

very helpful to us because you feel like you are doing something, 

but when you actually look, that is just staggering to deal with. 

I appreciate your testimony. Not only your verbal but your written testimony was very good. 

Mr. Bowman, very quickly. 

Mr. BOWMAN. Real quickly, it is interesting. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. [Presiding.] Very quickly, because we are going to 

try to get you out of here without having you wait through a bunch 

of votes. 

Mr. BOWMAN. Thank you. 

Coordination of signal lights in Washington State, there is a citizens’ initiative that would require exactly that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Thank you. 

We have two remaining people with questions and, in order of arrival, first would Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Very briefly, there are all kinds of reasons for wanting to support rail transit, and I was particularly interested, Mr. 

Allegra, in your testimony. 

Turning to pages four and five of your testimony, you make some 

recommendations. I would just like to know which of these recommendations are best done by Congressional action, via statute, 

statutory changes? Can you just go over very quickly? 

Mr. ALLEGRA. Yes, I can if you are referring to those that are 

starting with allowing for the exceptions. 

Ms. HIRONO. Yes, pages four and five. 

Mr. ALLEGRA. Many of them are referring to the New Starts 

process that we are heavily involved. 

Ms. HIRONO. Honolulu City and County is one of the New Starts 

programs, and that is why I am interested. 

Mr. ALLEGRA. I am aware, and I have been helping the Mayor 

there through this process. 

There are many of those issues that we are working through the 

APTA and the Federal Transit Administration to streamline the 

process. 

Ms. HIRONO. Are there any that require Congressional or statutory clarification or authorization in your suggestions? 

Mr. ALLEGRA. Perhaps the one dealing with the New Starts rating called the Transportation System User Benefits. That is one of 

the Federal requirements that I am aware of, and there is some 

keen interest, I believe, in Congress as to relooking at that factor. 

Ms. HIRONO. What about on page five of your testimony, you had 

some suggestions on streamlining project delivery? Any of those require or are best done by Congressional or statutory action? 

Mr. ALLEGRA. I don’t believe so. 

Ms. HIRONO. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Those are good questions, and we are 

always interested in ideas on how to streamline the process there. 

We have been trying to get them to develop rules that are congruent with the law. We don’t think they have, and any ideas you 

have would be great. 

Ms. Richardson. 

41 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Earlier today in the discussion, there was much talk about flexibility. I am one of the new kids on the block. I just recently served 

in local government less than a year ago and then in the State Assembly. So I would welcome any suggestions you have as we go 

through this SAFETEA-LU process. 

Any suggestions that you would like to see, very specific, about 

the flexibility required, I would be willing to bring those forward 

with the Chairman and seek help because I saw that very closely 

in serving in local government, which leads me to my question. 

One of the things that I found in local government is that oftentimes the Federal funds that were available were only available or 

they were very restricted to doing the actual project itself, and 

there were great restrictions having to do with the preplanning, 

the design, which oftentimes the time period that it takes to do 

that, to bring these projects to fruition, to make these changes, and 

maintenance oftentimes isn’t included. 

Do you find that to be the case? This might be more a question 

directed to Mr. Bowman. 

Mr. BOWMAN. I’m sorry. Could you repeat that? I was trying to 

write down your own request on the flexibility. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. My question was, do you find that the maintenance funding is so restrictive that it doesn’t allow you to pay for 

all aspects towards the improvements? 

What I mean by that is in the capital investment side, there are 

great restrictions prohibiting you from using funding on the planning side, on the design side, et cetera. So my question is have you 

found that to be the case on the maintenance side as well? 

Mr. BOWMAN. Maintenance side, again, we just try never to use 

Federal money or somebody else’s money for maintenance because 

it is so inflexible and so insecure and so on. So we just try not to 

build anything we cannot afford to maintain, and then we try to 

maintain it the best we can without using any other funds to do 

that just to keep ourselves safe. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Do you find that on the capital investment side 

to be a challenge? 

Mr. BOWMAN. Obviously, yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to conclude by just saying that as we 

move through this process I think that is one area we should consider which is at what point along the phases can local governments and State utilize the funding. 

The second thing would be us seriously looking at requiring, with 

Federal funding, regional planning. What I mean by that, in addition to being on the council I was a member of SCAG which is the 

Southern California Association of Governments. Given our limited 

funding, I think one of our pushbacks should be in addition to the 

gains that we will provide is requiring future projects must have 

regional benefits, and that way we can cover as much as possible. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. She is a new Member of 

the Committee but has been very incisive in her observations and 

questions, and we look forward to working with her, with her experience. 

42 

I can think of another way we could approach it. It would be 

with regional planning, we might give more flexibility and, without 

regional plans, we might be more prescriptive, something along 

those lines. 

We are also interested in working on this multiple stovepipe 

issue which was raised earlier and flexibility, but we also have to 

determine what the proper priorities are for the Fed investment 

versus the State investment. That is an ongoing dialogue, I think 

we will want to have with all of you. 

I want to thank you for taking your time to be here today, for 

presenting testimony. I think we can agree on one thing which is 

we need to invest more. Now we have to figure out in what form 

and how we are going to raise the money. Anybody who has great 

ideas for that, let me know. 

Thank you very much. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

43 


42776.010
44 


42776.011
45 


42776.012
46 


42776.013
47 


42776.014
48 


42776.015
49 


42776.016
50 


42776.017
51 


42776.018
52 


42776.019
53 


42776.020
54 


42776.021
55 


42776.022
56 


42776.023
57 


42776.024
58 


42776.025
59 


42776.026
60 


42776.027
61 


42776.028
62 


42776.029
63 


42776.030
64 


42776.031
65 


42776.032
66 


42776.033
67 


42776.034
68 


42776.035
69 


42776.036
70 


42776.037
71 


42776.038
72 


42776.039
73 


42776.040
74 


42776.041
75 


42776.042
76 


42776.043
77 


42776.044
78 


42776.045
79 


42776.046
80 


42776.047
81 


42776.048
82 


42776.049
83 


42776.050
84 


42776.051
85 


42776.052
86 


42776.053
87 


42776.054
88 


42776.055
89 


42776.056
90 


42776.057
91 


42776.058
92 

Æ 


42776.059