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

43–276 PDF 2008

CONNECTING COMMUNITIES: THE 

ROLE OF THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN MOVING PEOPLE AND FREIGHT 

(110–145) 

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 24, 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 

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 

VACANCY 

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 

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 

VACANCY 

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 

Bobrowski, Terry, Executive Director, East Tennessee Development District ... 4 

Isaacs, Randy, Director, State Government Affairs for Greyhound Lines, Inc. . 4 

Limehouse, Jr., Hon. H.B., Secretary, South Carolina Department of Transportation ................................................................................................................ 4 

Lynch, Hon. Jim, Director and CEO, Montana Department of Transportation . 4 

McDonald, William, Executive Director, Medical Motor Service ......................... 4 

Pangborn, Mark, General Manager, Lane Transit District ................................. 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 33 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 34 

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland ............................................................... 36 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 41 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 42 

Richardson, Hon. Laura A., of California .............................................................. 47 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bobrowski, Terry ..................................................................................................... 50 

Isaacs, Robert R. ...................................................................................................... 56 

Limehouse, Jr., Hon. H.B. ....................................................................................... 64 

Lynch, Hon. Jim ...................................................................................................... 68 

McDonald, William P. ............................................................................................. 81 

Pangborn, Mark ....................................................................................................... 102 

vi 


43276.001
vii 


43276.002
viii 


43276.003
ix 


43276.004
x 


43276.005
xi 


43276.006
xii 


43276.007
xiii 


43276.008
(1) 

CONNECTING COMMUNITIES: THE ROLE OF 

THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 

IN MOVING PEOPLE AND FREIGHT 

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter A. DeFazio 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The hearing of the Highway Transit Subcommittee 

will come to order, Connecting Communities: The Role of Surface 

Transportation Network in Moving People and Freight. I for one 

am a big believer in continuing to have a national integrated system, one which serves all Americans, and I don’t know where I am 

getting this weird feedback. Where did Jimmy go? He’s wandering 

around with the control panel. I will keep going, hopefully—I am 

hearing a high pitched noise. And I believe that it is something 

that is often neglected in our discussion of Federal transportation 

policy and direction. We tend to focus a lot on a number of the 

huge choke points in the system as we should, as we look toward 

ways to better move people and freight. But we can’t avoid the 

need to serve large areas of the country that are less populated, 

but vital in terms of their production of commodities or vital in 

terms of their recreation resources for all Americans or just vital 

places along the way as freight and people make their way across 

the country. 

Representing a very large district takes me about 7-1/2 hours to 

drive from the northeast corner to the southwest corner, I am perhaps a little more sensitive to this than some of my colleagues who 

can perhaps walk across their district in a heck of a lot less time 

that it takes me to drive across mine. But I believe it will be key 

component of the reauthorization, and I am pleased to have this 

panel here today to contribute their thoughts on how we can better 

address these concerns. With that, I turn to the Ranking Member, 

Mr. Duncan from Tennessee. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want 

to welcome all of the witnesses, but especially Mr. Terry 

Bobrowski, who is the very respected executive director of the East 

Tennessee Development District. I tell people that I have a little 

over 700,000 bosses, and he is one of my bosses, and especially he 

will understand that when I say this, I have told people here in 

2 

Washington that the colors orange and white are almost more patriotic in my district than red, white and blue. 

At about 5 to 11:00 or some time around there I have to leave, 

we have the national champion Tennessee Lady Vols coming up 

today, in fact, already here to go to the White House. And I am 

participating in some events to honor the Lady Vols shortly. But 

I want to thank Chairman DeFazio for holding what I think is a 

very important hearing, and all of the witnesses for coming to participate. Our surface transportation network obviously is very important to the total economic health of our Nation. As we prepare 

to reauthorize the surface transportation programs our diverse 

communities urban and rural and suburban will present different 

sets of challenges that must be met in order to keep up with global 

competition. 

A lot of people are shocked by this in my area because my area 

is such an area of tremendous growth, but two-thirds of the counties in the U.S. are losing population. I am especially concerned if 

we don’t do everything possible to hold down, or at least hold 

steady the price of gasoline, we are going to put the final nail in 

the coffin in many of these small towns and rural areas, because 

those people on average generally have to drive further distances 

to go to work. Any new national or transportation policies we develop must retain the flexibility to address the needs of these very 

different sizes and types of communities. 

The growth and their pasture in freight traffic has raised several 

challenges for rural communities, including an increase in places of 

congestion. That is why I say I hope we don’t end up forcing more 

and more people into the already overly crowded, overly congested 

metropolitan areas, but larger metropolitan areas do have access to 

policy and funding operations that are not available to some of our 

small towns and rural communities. 

For example, many of these less populated communities highway 

tolls and congestion pricing are not options for financing highway 

projects. I have said before that if I were to propose a toll road in 

east Tennessee, I would end up being one of the most unpopular 

people in my own district. 

As we prioritize our Federal transportation policy and funding, 

I hope we did not lose sight of the challenges facing rural communities and small Metropolitan areas. Our witness today represent 

a variety of non-urban areas across the country. I hope they will 

be able to share their perspective and help us better understand 

these challenges and what we need to emphasize as we proceed 

with the next highway reauthorization. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. I understand that Mr. Coble has a 

brief statement. No, Mr. Brown—I am getting mixed up, sorry, 

then we will come back to you, Howard. 

Mr. COBLE. Very well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Duncan, for holding the hearing on this important role that our 

transportation system plays in connecting our nations communities. I would like to welcome all of the members of the panel, but 

particularly would like to welcome South Carolina Secretary of 

Transportation, Buck Limehouse, to the Subcommittee today. Buck 

3 

is a dear friend and has been at the helm of the South Carolina 

Department of Transportation since 2007. Before that, he was the 

SC DOT commissioner, chairman and executive director. He also 

served as a member of the State Transportation Infrastructure 

Bank Board, giving him an intimate knowledge of the connectivity 

needed of the State. 

Mr. Chairman, we have preeminent service transportation system in the world, largely because it connects every community in 

our country together. No point in the lower 48 States is more than 

30 miles from a paved highway. From insuring that freight from 

our Nation’s ports be able to get to shopping centers in middle 

America to align folks who easily travel hundreds of miles away for 

vacation. 

Connectivity is where our surface transportation system is all 

about. Whenever we face significant challenges going into the future, and Secretary Limehouse speak to South Carolina’s experience with these challenges. We face growing congestion that cost 

our Nation some $78 billion per year. Logistically speaking, congestion climbed for the fifth straight year in 2007, hitting a new 

record high of 1.4 trillion. And high fuel costs would only see the 

numbers climb by the end of this year. 

Our Nation’s population set to increase over 140 million over the 

next 50 years. And as much as that population growth is going to 

occur outside of the areas where the original interstate was 

planned around. Right now we have some 70 urbanized areas with 

more than 50,000 people without a direct connection to the interstate. I talk often about the potential for I-73 to not just connect 

Myrtle Beach, which sees some 14 million tourists a year to interstate system, but for the roads to connect entire areas of the country together for the first time. While Myrtle Beach has grown because of its location on the coast, who knows what other communities are along I-73 ready and waiting to grow. That is why I 

think we need to dedicate ourselves to the next highway bill, to develop an interstate 2 program, to provide needed capacity expansion along corridors that connect that area missed during the first 

phase of the interstate system. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Then a brief statement, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

I have noticed that you have one of your bosses from Oregon here, 

Mr. Duncan has two of his bosses from Tennessee, Mr. Brown has 

one boss from South Carolina. I feel slighted, none of my bosses are 

present. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I know of no domestic issue 

that is any more significantly important to us and to America than 

the role of surface transportation network in moving people and 

freight. And Mr. Chairman, I agree with the others, I appreciate 

your having called this hearing, I appreciate the witnesses being 

here. I think it will be a step to help prepare us as we consider 

reauthorizing the Federal surface transportation programs next 

year. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, Howard, I would reflect that the reason that 

we brought people here is we need help to represent our views, we 

know you don’t need any to represent yours. 

4 

Mr. COBLE. So do I. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If there are no further opening statements, we will 

proceed to witnesses. 

TESTIMONIES OF HON. JIM LYNCH, DIRECTOR AND CEO, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. H.B. 

LIMEHOUSE JR., SECRETARY, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; MARK PANGBORN, GENERAL 

MANAGER, LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT; TERRY BOBROWSKI, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EAST TENNESSEE DEVELOPMENT 

DISTRICT; RANDY ISAACS, DIRECTOR, STATE GOVERNMENT 

AFFAIRS FOR GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; AND WILLIAM 

MCDONALD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL MOTOR SERVICE 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And the first witness will be the honorable Jim 

Lynch, director and CEO Montana Department of Transportation. 

Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Jim Lynch, the director of the Montana Department of Transportation. And I appear here today for my Department and four additional State DOTs, those of Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota 

and Wyoming. We think it is terrific that this Subcommittee is 

holding a hearing on the benefits of a connected surface transportation network moving people and freight. 

The network of Federal aid highways plays a critical role in tying 

the nation together, and most of that network is in rural America. 

More specifically, Federal aid highways in our States provide many 

benefits to the Nation. First, our highways provide a bridge for 

through traffic benefiting citizens in areas of origin and destination. Movements between Chicago and Portland, for example, cross 

the rural west, benefiting citizens at both ends. These are benefits 

in terms of moving people, both people and goods, and it is not just 

a casual observation on our part. Federal Highway Administration 

data show that the percentage of truck traffic in our States that 

does not either originate or terminate within the State is above the 

national average. 

In my State, 62 percent of truck moves are through traffic. The 

national median for States is approximately 45 percent. So, trucking in our States is largely long haul, which serves the national interest. There are tourism benefits, Federal aid roads provide access 

to scenic wonders, like Yellowstone National Park and Mount 

Rushmore. These roads assist agricultural and resource industries 

as well. Federal aid roads not on the NHS also enable crops and 

resources to move to market. This can include forest products, 

which I understand is critical in your State, Mr. Chairman. These 

roads also help serve the Nation’s ethanol production and energy 

extraction industries, which are located largely in rural areas. In 

my State, these roads also are helpful in servicing the new wind 

energy installations. 

Next, I would like to call the Subcommittee’s attention to the 

map on the last page of my written testimony. As you can see, 

these are the five States that I am talking on behalf of here today. 

If the Federal aid system were limited to the NHS, areas in our 

States as big as entire northeastern States would have no Federal 

5 

aid eligible roads. Connectivity truly would be lost. Also, because 

the Federal Aid System extends beyond the NHS States are able 

to make increased investment on rural routes, enhancing safety on 

those relatively high risk roads. There are also benefits from Federal investment in transit in rural States. Those investments help 

ensure personal mobility, especially for seniors and the disabled, 

connecting them to necessary services. 

Before closing, let me turn to funding issues. Our States face severe transportation infrastructure funding challenges. We can’t 

provide all these benefits to the Nation without Federal funding 

leadership. We are geographically large. We have extensive highway networks and have low population densities. This means that 

we have very few people to support each lane mile of Federal aid 

highway. The national average is approximately 128 people per 

Federal lane mile. In my State, the number is 29, less than onefourth the national average. In addition, citizens in our States 

make per capita contributions to the Highway Trust Fund above 

the national average. The national average contribution to the 

highway account of the Highway Trust Fund is $109 per person. 

Montana’s per capita contribution is $156, 43 percent above the average. 

I also want to emphasize that with low population and traffic 

densities, tolls are not the answer for funding transportation needs 

in rural America. I’ll say it again, tolls just won’t work for us. A 

continued strong Federal funding role is appropriate to achieve the 

national benefits of a connected system including rural States like 

ours. 

In conclusion, Federal investment in transportation in rural 

States like ours provide important connectivity and other benefits. 

Accordingly, the upcoming authorization bill should provide strong 

funding in support of those rural investments. Thank you again for 

the opportunity to testify before you here today. I am available for 

questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. 

I would turn to the Honorable H.B. Limehouse, Jr., Secretary, 

South Carolina Department of Transportation. Mr. Limehouse. 

Mr. LIMEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Buck 

Limehouse, Secretary of Transportation for the State of South 

Carolina. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to you 

and the Members of the Committee today on transportation issues 

of critical importance to the Nation. 

The reauthorization of our highway program, the role of surface 

transportation, including mass transit. I am here on behalf of the 

South Carolina Department of Transportation, but most of the 

items I bring before you of are national interest. We like you are 

concerned about rising fuel prices. Ironically the rise in petroleum 

price decreases our revenues and increases our costs. So we get hit 

on both ends. 

Fewer people travel with high gas prices which means less revenue from fuel sales. In South Carolina, our revenues from motor 

fuel taxes for the last 3 months have been below the 2007 levels 

and we expect that trend to continue. We have put cuts in our administrative budget and we resulted in about 19 million in savings 

at our agency. This money has already been added to our highway 

6 

maintenance budgets. But these are far outweighed by the inflation 

that we have experienced in construction and materials. 

America is in the midst of historic transportation in our approach 

to this problem. On the brink of reauthorization we have an opportunity to nationally address the Highway Trust Fund Equity and 

Federal Highway and Transit programs and congestion mitigation 

while encouraging transportation partnerships. 

First and foremost, the Highway Trust Fund can no longer be 

solely tied to the gas tax, which is calculated as a tax on the number of gallons of gasoline purchased. This is a shrinking revenue 

source. It does not apply to highway users who drive alternative 

fuel vehicles. There must be other sources of revenue from the 

Highway Trust Fund and inflation must be built into a formula 

which takes into consideration the number of miles traveled on our 

highway system. 

Under the enactment of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007, automobile fuel economy standards will increase 40 

percent by 2020. And while we applaud the efforts of fuel efficient 

standards, the issue of reliance on motor fuel user fees is not going 

away and it must be addressed at the Federal level. These two 

issues go hand in glove with each other and they should be addressed simultaneously. 

As you have undoubtedly heard from people like me who represent so-called donor States, the equity of the Federal program is 

not equitable. The Highway Trust Fund is divided, as you know, 

into a highway account and a mass transit account. South Carolina 

has historically been a donor State. This means that we contribute 

more to the trust fund than we received back from highway and 

transit programs. 

We are also a donor State under the IFTA program which requires us to share diesel tax revenues with other States. The distribution formula now guarantees South Carolina a return for highways of $0.92 on the dollar and for transit $0.42 on the dollar. 

Among the 50 States, as Congressman Brown alluded to, we are 

45th in geographic size, yet we own and maintain the fourth largest State highway system in the Nation. This simple fact has a tremendous influence on the State Department of Transportation’s decision-making process. Population growth and economic growth are 

putting an increasing heavy burden on all modes of transportation. 

At the same time, we have to be conscious of using our resources 

wisely, protecting the environment that we all live in and managing the public’s money well so that South Carolinians can get the 

best return for their tax dollars. 

Interstate 73 and the port of Charleston access road project are 

two projects that display the need for investments based on population and economic growth. Growth is occurring near the U.S. 

coast and we are no exception. The population growth in relation 

to infrastructure has exceeded all expectations. Interstate 73, 

which is a congressionally-designated interstate, has a potential to 

substantially reduce congestion and provide an evacuation route 

from the coastline. 

It is my recommendation there have been no funding for these 

new interstates, and it is my recommendation that you consider esVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:09 Jun 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43276 JASON
7 

tablishing a program that will require a 50/50 match to ensure that 

the States and localities are serious about their projects. 

With the economic growth of the international port of Charleston, 

it helps the entire southeast region of the United States. But the 

Port of Charleston, like most of the Nation’s seaports, has been established for centuries and is embedded in a densely populated 

urban area. The efficiency of our ports has been compromised with 

the characteristics of their surroundings which presents obstacles 

to linking these important freight gateways to national highway 

and rail systems. 

If we truly want to connect communities, we must come together 

and change the paradigm of transportation. We need to establish 

a new transportation vision for the next century that involves a 

Highway Trust Fund, equity and transportation and reducing congestion. Thank you for this opportunity. If there are any questions 

I would be glad to entertain them. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Limehouse. 

With that, I would turn to Mr. Mark Pangborn, he’s the general 

manager, Lane Transit District in Oregon, a district that has pioneered the first I believe Small Starts, bus rapid transit project 

with partial fixed guide way systems. And my understanding is 

that you have reached the 20-year projection of ridership in 18 

months. 

Mr. PANGBORN. That is correct, in fact we passed it in 1 year. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 

Mr. PANGBORN. And we are now growing at 20 percent beyond 

that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. Well, thank you. Go ahead with your prepared remarks. 

Mr. PANGBORN. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member 

Duncan and Members of the Committee. I am Mark Pangborn, and 

the general manager for the Lane Transit District. We believe the 

skyrocketing fuel prices, traffic congestion and concerns regarding 

global warming have changed the way Americans look at their 

transportation options. And the conditions are right for a significant shift in our attitudes and perspectives on transportation in the 

country. We know this is true for the Lane Transit district, which 

serves the communities of Eugene and Springfield and a metro 

area of about 250,000. 

We have a very high ridership. This last year, we will carry 11 

million rides and we attribute our success to really three factors, 

one of them is innovation. We were the first system in the United 

States to be 100 percent lift equipped, and that was 5 years before 

ADA. We have bicycle racks on all our buses, fully loaded. We have 

a group pass program with over 70,000 people who are members 

of that program and have a pass that they could use to ride the 

bus all the time. But our most interesting project is the bus rapid 

transit. I will talk about that in just a minute. 

The second reason is LTD offers a variety of services to connect 

people to jobs, appointments and social needs. We can’t expect that 

a single type of service is going to work for all situations and for 

all people. 

And third and most importantly we have been fortunate to have 

a stable operational funding and strong Federal support. Virtually 

8 

every major capital expenditure, from buses to facilities, to our bus 

rapid transit line has been funded in large part with Federal funds. 

This support has been critical to our success. 

Like other systems around the country, our ridership is increasing rapidly. While the ridership increase has put a strain on our 

system and overloads are a problem, our Federally supported investments in facilities and other infrastructure over the years has 

really prepared us for this growth. I would like to tell you a little 

bit about our efforts in the bus rapid transit because I believe it 

is an important new tool in connecting communities. 

LTD has been in the forefront of the development of this bus 

rapid transit concept. Our system, which we call EmX, is a full featured BRT that emulates light rail, with features such as exclusive 

transit ways, transit signal priority, improved stops and stations, 

unique vehicles and really a different image than a conventional 

bus. 

Our first EmX corridor connects downtown Eugene with downtown Springfield and opened for service in January 2007. It is difficult to overstate the interest and excitement that has been generated by the first EmX line. Ridership on this line increased immediately to the 20 years projections and now has exceeded that 

by 20 percent, as mentioned. 

If you look to the slides we have there, that is a great example 

of Federal investment and infrastructure. That is our station in 

downtown Eugene, it is the terminus, west terminus of EmX. 

Could I have the next slide? This is the a photo of the grand 

opening and a collection of photos. You can see, Chairman DeFazio, 

with FTA Administrator Simpson, myself and our board chair 

opening it up. 

Next photo. Here is a good example of what a BRT lane looks 

likes, it is two BRT vehicles passing in a corridor. You can see it 

really looks like a light rail, only it doesn’t have the tracks. It just 

has the concrete ribbons for the buses to run on. 

Next. This is a photo of a typical BRT stop, again looking very 

much like light rail except for the tracks. There is something else 

that is not indicated and that is that we were able to build this entire system for $6 million a mile. That is about one-tenth the cost 

of a typical light rail system. So it really brings this into an affordable range for a number of communities. In response to the exceptional success of the first EmX line LTD is working actively to expand the system. 

The second EmX line is one of the first to use small starts funding programs that was created with SAFETEA-LU and the project 

is fully funded and we expect to open in 2010, and we’re planning 

for the third line in west Eugene. 

Now while high capacity transit investments have been employed 

almost exclusively in large Metropolitan areas, LTD’s experience 

with EmX demonstrates that high quality transit in communities 

the size of Eugene-Springfield, can have a significant positive impact on the economic growth and livability of the community. A relatively small investment can have a very positive multiplier effect 

on improving a community’s connectivity options. 

With that in mind, we would propose six recommendations for 

the new service transportation bill: Increase the investment in our 

9 

Nation’s transportation system. The backlog and infrastructure for 

needs all modes is significant and must be addressed; reflect the 

changing transportation environment and concerns regarding global warming and peak oil by placing a greater emphasis on transit 

and other alternative transportation modes to meet our future 

transportation needs; streamline project delivery. It still takes too 

long and costs too much money for a project to go from concept to 

implementation; increase funding for FTA small start programs. As 

LTD has demonstrated, this program provides opportunities and 

medium size communities to implement cost effective systems; provide dedicated funding for bus replacement; and, finally, provide 

operational funding for existing ADA required paratransit services. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Pangborn. 

They called for a procedural vote, we will try and move quickly 

through two more witnesses here, Mr. Bobrowski, executive director of the east Tennessee development district, Alcoa, Tennessee. 

Mr. Bobrowski. 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning to 

yourself and Members of the Subcommittee. If you’ll allow me, a 

special greeting to my Congressman, Congressman Duncan, the 

Ranking Member on the Committee. 

My name is Terry Bobrowski, I am the executive director of the 

East Tennessee Development District headquartered in Alcoa, Tennessee. I am also a member of the National Association of Development Organizations Board of Directors and chairman of NADO’s 

transportation task force. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on issues 

surrounding community connections, particularly in small Metropolitan rural regions. We submitted a detailed statement for the 

record, but I will limit my remarks to a few key points. First, the 

Nation as a whole has a vested interest in ensuring that the transportation networks in small towns in rural America are reliable, 

maintained and integrated into the larger national transportation 

system. As Congress works to reauthorize the SAFETEA-LU law, 

it is important that the Federal policy makers take into consideration the unique and pressing highway transit and safety needs of 

small metropolitan and rural America. 

The challenges and pressures facing America’s infrastructure 

network are well documented. The U.S. population is expected to 

grow from 300 million today to 420 million by 2050. Vehicle miles 

traveled are predicted more than doubled to 7 trillion miles by 

2055. Freight traffic growing from 15 billion tons to 29 billion tons 

in 2035. And sadly, 42,000 Americans die each year and 3 million 

more are injured on America’s roadways, 60 percent of those fatalities taking place on 2-lane rural roads. 

While these demographic changes will almost certainly impact 

our major metropolitan hubs, they are already presenting new 

challenges in our Nation’s smaller towns and rural communities. 

These include an aging population requiring new or expanded 

transportation options, seamless connections to global trade and 

commerce centers, and regular maintenance repair of aging roads 

and bridges. 

10 

The lack of modern transportation assets remains a significant 

roadblock for long-term economic development and community competitiveness in far too many of our rural areas. In the eastern portion of Tennessee, we have witnessed firsthand the impact a viable 

and reliable transportation network can have. For example, the Appalachian Development Highway System, or ADHS, is focused on 

connecting previously isolated areas in the 13-State Appalachian 

region with the national transportation system and the results 

from the development of that highway system have been simply 

outstanding. 

Completing the ADHS by 2035 is projected to create 80,500 jobs, 

3.2 billion in wages and generate over 5 million—excuse me, 5 billion in increased economic activities. On a smaller scale in my 

home region, we have a challenge with maintaining a system that 

must serve a diverse variety of needs. We must be able to maintain 

a system to serve the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is one 

of the most advanced scientific research facilities in the world, by 

also paying attention to the small community of Briceville, which 

is located less than 20 miles away from ORNL, very rural community, many homes are not even connected to a rural water system. 

Mr. Chairman, the direct involvement of rural local officials in 

the statewide planning process is also crucial to making transportation networks work more efficiently and effectively. As the transportation networks in rural and small Metropolitan regions have 

become increasingly complex, more and more States have tapped 

into the planning expertise and local official networks original development organizations like my own to help form and staff rural 

planning organizations. Nearly 30 States, including Tennessee, 

have formed RPOs to help identify and rank transportation priorities on a regional basis for consideration by the respective States. 

In 2005, the Tennessee Department of Transportation created 12 

RPOs to serve rural areas not already served by the 11 Metropolitan planning organizations. In the establishment of the RPO network in Tennessee represented a dramatic change from the previous method of establishing transportation priorities within our 

State. Instead of each city and county lobbying for their particular 

project at the State level, our rural cities and counties are now collaborating and cooperating to recommend a list of projects that 

have regional consensus instead of just local impact. Our RPOs 

work hand in hand with and are ultimately responsible to the 

State, that because of our links to local government, we are now 

better positioned to coordinate our State’s transportation plans and 

programs with our regional and local economic development housing and land use priorities. 

We are becoming better equipped as a State to fully link and connect not only the transportation needs of our communities, but also 

our economic development environmental and land use needs. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as this panel develops financing alternatives beyond the Highway Trust Fund, the members of NATO 

encourage you to consider the unique economic conditions and financial capacity of areas outside of the major metropolitan regions. 

We encourage Congress and the administration to pursue and develop new financing models. However, we urge Federal policyVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:09 Jun 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43276 JASON
11 

makers to retain or strengthen existing funding resources that are 

proven to work in our small metropolitan and rural regions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to 

testify before you, and I am available for questions at the appropriate time. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. We have 8 minutes 2 seconds. This is 

the first part of the day, so Mr. Isaacs, can you meet your 5-minute 

time line? 

Mr. ISAACS. I believe I can. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Go ahead. 

Mr. ISAACS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan, Members of 

the Subcommittee. Greyhound and its network of independent 

interline partners, is perhaps the single most appropriate model for 

connecting communities nationwide. Properly operated inner city 

buses can provide revitalized feeder services from rural communities and urbanized areas and the Nation’s transportation grid 

with relatively little investment. 

The infrastructure is in place, and unlike rail or air services, 

buses can go anywhere and provide service at a very low cost. Federal Government statistics shows that inner city buses are the 

most energy efficient and environmentally friendly mode transportation in America. Inner city busses can play an even more essential role in the surface transportation infrastructure. In SAFETEALU, Congress started to focus on the important role of inner city 

bus service by strengthening the FTA bus and bus facilities program, the rural and small urban programs and the over the road 

bus accessibility program. 

When used as intended by statute and regulations, these programs support the viability of nationwide inner city bus service and 

contribute to enhance modal connectivity. These programs are 

starting to generate positive results and should be retained and 

strengthened in the next reauthorization. 

The rural inner city bus network has been in serious decline in 

recent decades. However, we still serve far more communities than 

any other form of inner city transportation. The private automobile 

demographic shifts that were mentioned a few moments ago a serious imbalance in Federal support in the inner city bus service. And 

the emergence of cultural and low cost bus services have all contributed. 

To remain viable, Greyhound has had to focus its networks predominantly on urban to urban markets while trying to maintain as 

much as its rural feeder network as possible. We are actively engaged with State DOTs to reinstate and expand service to affected 

communities nationwide. 

SAFETEA-LU programs and requirements have helped improve 

rural connectivity. The 5311(f) program has now created as a result 

of SAFETEA-LU, a more meaningful dialogue with States and the 

inner city bus industry. It has created opportunities for intermodal 

transportation centers nationwide. Greyhound is now a tenant in 

100 of those facilities with a least another 100 in various stages of 

planning and development where we are able to connect with local 

modes of transportation. 

The SAFETEA-LU and subsequent to SAFETEA-LU with FTA 

we created a pilot local match program using the unsubsidized 

12 

inner city bus service within a State as an in kind match for services which enables the feeder projects established by those services 

to be a lot more stable and provide service on a longer term basis. 

One of those examples is a near feeder service scheduled to connect 

Climate Falls, Oregon Medford, Oregon and Smith River, California in the next few months. The project will reinstate service 

loss during the Greyhound restructuring and connect Climate Falls 

and Smith River existing Greyhound service in Medford. It is to be funded by an FTA 5311(f) grant. And Greyhound will 

provide the local in kind match. An important feature of this and 

other services is that while they make connections for the rural 

inner city bus customers they also connect people with essential regional medical, social service and employment centers. On another 

front and one on which we have been a bit unsuccessful in prior 

reauthorizations is a proposal to create an essential bus service 

program that could supplement and expand EAS type service in 

rural communities to primary airports. An example is Mason City, 

Iowa to Minneapolis, St. Paul. Mason City has EAS service operated into Minneapolis operated by Mesaba Airlines with three 

schedules a day, and a 33-passenger Saab 340. Jefferson Lines 

motor coach operator based in Minneapolis, also operates three 

schedules a day between Mason City and Minneapolis airports and 

55-passenger motor coach. The flight time is 45 minutes and non 

stop Jefferson service would take approximately 2 hours. 

Jefferson’s fare is $80 and Mesaba charges $900. And the 2007 

EAS subsidy to Mesaba was over a million dollars or about $87 per 

passenger. There is a limited market for $900, 45 minutes flight. 

On the other hand, a much smaller subsidy could produce multiple 

affordable and convenient bus trips in a similar market. 

Greyhound and its interlying partners play an essential role in 

connecting rural communities given our flexibility low cost energy 

efficiency and environmental friendliness, we can play an even 

larger role. We have several recommendations, one is make the 

FTA 5311(f) pilot in kind match program permanent, and expand 

its application to enhance implementation of statewide inner city 

bus feeder services. Require FTA to withhold or deny funding to 

any State that fails to comply with the planning and consultation 

requirements, create an essential bus service program, support passenger information transportation systems, reauthorize the over 

the road bus accessibility program. We look forward to working 

with Congress in that regard, the cost is minimal and the payback 

is significant, thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you for being so prompt. The Committee 

stands in recess. 

The Committee will come back to order. 

We left off with Mr. Isaac’s testimony, and we are now moving 

to the last witness, Mr. William P. McDonald, Executive Director 

of Medical Motor Service of Rochester, New York. 

Mr. McDonald. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members 

of the Subcommittee. I am Bill McDonald, and I am Executive Director of Medical Motor Service, which is a not-for-profit agency located in upstate New York in a nine-county region which consists 

of rural, suburban and urban communities. 

13 

It is a privilege to be here today—thank you very much—to 

speak to you about some of the issues that are facing an organization such as Medical Motor Service and other not-for-profit agencies as we try to coordinate and provide a wide range of transportation services, primarily to older persons and persons with disabilities and special mobility needs. 

Medical Motor Service is probably one of the oldest organizations 

of transportation in this country. We began in 1919 during the influenza epidemic and started as a volunteer group to take patients 

to hospitals to address critical medical needs at the time. 

We evolved over time, and during World War II, we actually 

stopped using volunteers because of shortages of fuel and the high 

cost of gas and gas rationing, almost facing a situation very similar 

to today in terms of the difficulty of fuel. 

We also expanded our scope of service to meet the needs of not 

just medical, but also children to special education services, adults 

to mental health services, chemotherapy, dialysis, radiation treatment. We do a lot of work with older people to take them to adult 

daycare centers, for shopping access. 

Our role is really to complement the fixed route paratransit services in the communities that we serve. We work in conjunction with 

them, and the way that we complement them is by providing a 

service which is more specialized, has different hours of service of 

broader geographical reach, and, therefore, assist people that can’t 

take the traditional fixed-route service. 

As a not-for-profit agency, coordination is really the name of the 

game for us. People don’t ride our buses because they like to going 

on a bus; they ride them because they need to get to some community services. 

We coordinate in a number of ways. We work with different 

faith-based groups, operating their vehicles for them in exchange, 

bartering some trips. We work with other not-for-profit agencies 

that turn over their 5310 vehicles to us to operate, and we also 

have the more traditional contracts for service. 

The key issues that are facing us as we endeavor to coordinate 

is a lot of what you have heard today, but takes on a special meaning for us. One is fuel. In the last year, our fuel costs have increased 30 percent. Where they comprised 6 percent of our budget 

a year ago, they are now 12 percent of our budget. Meanwhile, our 

ridership has increased 14 percent, and it is becoming more and 

more difficult. 

We could take the increased cost of fuel and provide fully paid 

health insurance to 100 of our drivers each month or buy two vehicles straight up to serve more and more people that are relying on 

our programs. 

Meanwhile, I did want to mention that we—as a not-for-profit, 

while we are exempt from sales tax, we are still required to pay 

the State and Federal fuel tax and excise taxes. 

Unlike some of our colleagues that work transporting school children who are exempt from those taxes, those that transport adults 

are not exempt. In some ways, we see that as an equity issue in 

terms of what we could use that money to provide for service. 

I also wanted to mention that while it is not under the purview 

of this Committee, the Medicaid program is very important for 

14 

many transportation systems throughout the country and provides 

some infrastructure as well. CMS is currently proposing some rules 

that could limit that benefit to low-income, medically challenged 

people and could actually affect the ability of other transit agencies 

to provide the service. 

We are very appreciative of the work of SAFETEA-LU, the opportunity it has provided in funding for not-for-profits, particularly 

through 5310, the ability to flex money. We encourage the continuation of that and also for the initiatives that call for coordination 

of services between human services organizations such as ours and 

other organizations in the community. 

Thank you very much, and we look forward to another 100 years 

of service in upstate New York. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you for your interesting testimony and history. 

I am looking for my question sheet, which I had before I left and 

now it has disappeared. And I had written some notes on it which 

are not on this one. 

Well, let’s start with sort of a couple of general questions. We 

had several witnesses talk about the enhanced funding. That is obviously something that is going to be very much an issue as we go 

into reauthorization. 

I mean, pretty much everyone except Mary Peters would say, and 

those who are her acolytes or she, whoever she is an acolyte of, 

would say that there is not adequate Federal investment in the national transportation system, and we need to enhance that. Our 

first one or two witnesses pointed out problems with the potential 

drop-off in vehicle miles traveled or increase in fuel efficiency in 

terms of relying on the gas tax. 

I mean, we can deal with the fuel efficiency issue by having an 

index that would keep the tax stable according to average fleet fuel 

economy. Obviously, the drop in miles traveled is something that 

will affect the trust fund further. 

I am curious what ideas people would have for the short term. 

We have held hearings on this, and most witnesses seem to feel 

that moving toward a mileage parameter such as has been modeled 

in Oregon is desirable, but probably at least one, maybe two, authorizations out. 

Does anybody have any reflections on what they might do more 

immediately or would do in terms of reauthorization to get more 

funding? 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to try that first? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Go ahead. 

Mr. LYNCH. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, the point of your question is immediately. When you are looking at a number of different 

funding opportunities and scenarios to fund the Highway Trust 

Fund, there is really only one—immediately—and that is a General 

Fund infusion to the Highway Trust Fund. 

I think closely following the next step of being immediate might 

be looking at the fund itself, and looking at some of the exemptions 

that have been allowed in that trust fund—and not take away the 

exemptions, because I think some of the exemptions are in fact important; but let’s recognize that they may be properly a General 

Fund obligation, that today are a Highway Trust Fund obligation. 

15 

I think that is really the only way we are going to do it immediately. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Similar to the ideas that are being bandied about 

to fix the projected shortfall is by recapturing some of that money 

with General Fund contributions? 

Mr. LYNCH. The Wyden-Thune bill is another example, which is 

a federally funded, assisted bonding bill which would provide 

money in a way similar to the Highway Trust Fund. Those would 

be things that would be my recommendation, which would handle 

the problem the quickest right now. 

The VMT is something to look at, but it is a long ways off. I don’t 

think that is something that we could grasp right away. Oregon 

has done a great job in analyzing VMT, but even they, I think, 

would tell us we are a ways off from perfecting that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Pangborn, you said you represent a transit district. Tell me about the stresses on your transit district or what 

you are aware of, and others, because of this very abrupt and very 

high run-up in high fuel prices and, therefore, correspondingly abrupt run-up in your passenger loads. 

Mr. PANGBORN. I have worked for the transit district for 25 

years, and I never could see that I would be in this particular situation. Our ridership has grown 35 percent in 3 years and 17 in the 

last year. I mean, all of the things we worked for and urged people 

to do, they are doing, primarily driven, I believe, by the price of 

fuel. 

At the same time, we are facing a situation where our board just 

approved a significant increase in fares—very difficult one because, 

for a lot of people, it will be hard to absorb even a quarter increase—from $1.25 to $1.50; and we are going to have to cut service because we do not have the funds, we don’t have the revenue 

streams to support the increase particularly in the fuel and the increase in the ADA-required services, our dial-a-ride services. 

They are growing at 15 percent a year, and our revenue source 

is growing at about 7 percent. What we are having to do is rob the 

fixed-route service in order to support the dial-a-ride service. It is 

a travesty, in some sense, because we are getting people on the system that are really accepting it, just in terms of wanting to be on 

transit, and we are running out of capacity and having to cut service. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So we have sort of the perfect storm. People are 

being driven to transit because they can’t afford fuel and transit 

can’t afford the fuel either. So, then, you have got to raise fares on 

the people who are flooding to transit and at the same time cut the 

service, and there will be less availability. 

Mr. PANGBORN. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If there was, say, some emergency injection or authorization to draw on the Transit Trust Fund this year, do you believe that it could be well applied by not only your transit district 

but transit districts across the country to meet a very unanticipated, short-term emergency situation? 

Mr. PANGBORN. Well, I hope it is short-term. It may not be, but 

it would give us the time to find solutions. I mean, that is what 

we need, because otherwise we are going to have to cut service, and 

16 

we will lose that very inertia that we have now. It would be critical, in my estimation. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, Goldman Sachs, who controls a significant 

part of our fuel supply—most people don’t know, but our fuel supply is not controlled by Exxon Mobil, Shell and others—it is controlled by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and others. 

Goldman Sachs keeps predicting $200, and of course, if they are 

long, it is going to $200 because they are making money and they 

are controlling the market. It is unregulated, thanks to a dead guy, 

Ken Lay, and Enron—but they are predicting the prices will stay 

really high only until the election, so they probably know. 

Mr. PANGBORN. Well, I hope it is short-term, because for us a 20 

cent increase in the price of a gallon of diesel represents 1 percent 

service loss. That is what we have to cut in order to make that up. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Twenty—— 

Mr. PANGBORN. A 20-cent increase in the price of a gallon of diesel represents 1 percent of service for us. So we buy 1 million gallons of fuel a year, so 20 cents would be 200,000. That is what 1 

percent of service costs us. 

So if it goes up 20 percent and we don’t have a corresponding increase in revenue, we have to cut 1 percent of service. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. 

We have had several people testify, Mr. Lynch and Mr. McDonald, specifically, and I believe there was one other, about rural sort 

of trying to meet—well, and of course, Greyhound to some extent— 

rural needs, particularly trying to target small communities that 

don’t have viable scheduled service or other transit options—although it seems like Tennessee is doing some interesting and innovative things there. 

I am just curious, I have been asking for some time now how in 

Federal policy we could better address the needs of the dispersed 

rural populations, particularly an aging rural population, cost-effectively. 

And I would be interested in a quick response anybody has on 

that. 

Mr. McDonald. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

One way that would help us is technology. We don’t have access 

on our side of the street, nonprofit agencies, necessarily to a solid 

funding stream for technology; but in the less-populated areas, if 

we can get better scheduling and dispatching and vehicle-locating 

systems, I think that would help in terms of the—and sharing that 

among a variety of service providers in a coordinated fashion, I 

think that could help. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So an IT system that would provide real-time information and routing to those drivers to both save time and fuel? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is very interesting. 

Mr. MCDONALD. That is not typically available to agencies like 

ours. It is more available, it seems, to more transit—traditional 

transit systems. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is very interesting. 

Mr. Isaacs. 

17 

Mr. ISAACS. Let me grow that to a different level, information 

technology. 

The technology exists now to allow persons to go onto the Internet, buy an airline ticket, rent a car, get a taxicab and take care 

of their urban transit needs in order to enable a person that they 

can schedule service on Bill’s system, get to Rochester and grab a 

Greyhound bus and perhaps even buy a ticket for both of those 

services, and then do a seamless trip all the way to their destination. 

That is within grasp, and the further integration of local—nonprofit, public and private services on the local, regional and intercity level is something SAFETEA-LU started. We can take that a 

bit further though. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Again, if you have any specific suggestions in that 

specific area, I would be happy to hear them. 

Mr. Pangborn. 

Mr. PANGBORN. I can give you a very specific example of that. 

We just opened a call center in the Eugene-Springfield area. Before this call center we used to have three systems that managed 

Medicare and our dial-a-ride service. We combined them all in one, 

and the key was technology, as Mr. McDonald said. 

Were we able to—in terms of dispersing who is the best provider 

to provide the trip and how to build that trip and who is going to 

pay for that through these myriad of funding resources, it really requires a very sophisticated IT system in a centralized area-wide 

system. 

But it can be done. It is much more efficient, and it begins to 

provide services out into the more rural areas. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I will just add one more point that 

really dovetails well with the other three, and that is offering more 

flexibility in the other program. 

In rural States, you know, flexibility is very important because 

of the diversity of the riders that we may have and the multitude 

of different types of riders we may have within a transportation 

system. So allowing us more flexibility to spend that Federal dollar 

would support what the three other individuals just testified to. 

In Montana, we grew, in 2005, under the increased funding of 

SAFETEA-LU from 12 providers in Montana prior to 2005 to over 

36. If we had more flexibility within the program—supported with 

additional funding—that would allow us to grow even more providers and offer more affordable opportunities for people to ride 

mass transit. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would appreciate any follow-up you can give us 

on specific barriers to that flexibility. That would be helpful. 

With that, I turn to Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would thank all the 

members of the panel for coming and sharing this insight. 

Mr. Limehouse, in your closing remarks you identified partnerships as the future of transportation funding. I would like you to 

explore that thought a little more, and please mention any active 

partnerships that you have seen that have been successful. 

18 

Mr. LIMEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman—and I have trouble not calling 

Congressman Brown ′′Chairman Brown,′′ because he was Chairman 

of our Ways and Means for so long—but he put together and authorized a bill that provided us with a State transportation infrastructure bank, which I was suggesting might be something that 

could be applied on a Federal level, because this would allow you 

to leverage the existing funds that you have without creating new 

funds. 

Congressman Brown’s act provided one of the most innovative 

programs in the United States, and it is kind of the old theory, the 

good Lord helps those who help themselves. We have, I understand, done more projects under our State infrastructure bank program than all the other States put together. That is my understanding. Major projects, rural and urban, they have been very successful, about $3 billion in new projects, and we got them done. 

We did 27 year’s worth of work in South Carolina in 7 years with 

the use of bonding programs; and we did it under the old pricing, 

so we didn’t get hit by some of this inflation. 

So we are pushing the fact that if you will partner with the 

States, you will see who is really serious about going ahead with 

programs, and they will find other sources of funding to match the 

Federal funds. The program I am referring to, Congressman Brown 

put in a local match so that all the local communities that wanted 

projects or projects that—existing ones improved, like the bridges 

down in Charleston and the interstate in his district, they were required to put up a local match, so they came from a variety of 

sources, but not gas tax. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Limehouse, on the issue with the local match, 

do you know how many counties have actually had referendums to 

implement a local sales tax in order to generate the local match on 

the infrastructure bank? 

Mr. LIMEHOUSE. Congressman, we have a local sales tax in Beaufort, York, Florence, Oconee, Berkeley, Dorcester, Charleston and 

about five or six counties that are putting it on the referendum for 

this year. So they realize that if they don’t put something into the 

fund that we are not going to be able to do all the things—any 

State that is growing can’t keep up with their infrastructure needs, 

so that is what we are going to. 

We are not just using local option sales tax, we are using hospitality tax, we are using local option gas tax, a variety of sources 

to supplement the State and the Federal funds. 

Mr. BROWN. With that background, do any other members of the 

panel have any creative ideas that they have used to enhance the 

road infrastructure in your jurisdictions? 

Mr. ISAACS. If I may, Greyhound has been working very closely 

with a number of State DOTs to improve the number of enhanced 

transportation services statewide and even to replace some of the 

services that have been lost in our reorganization. 

What we are finding—even this week, I had a conversation with 

a rural transit agency in Alabama. Where you have an economic 

engine and a small urban area, you have the ability to raise the 

sales tax, convention taxes and others. 

In rural America, agencies and cities or small towns are struggling to come up with that local match. I knew an agency this week 

19 

that had a capital grant made available through SAFETEA-LU 

that could not raise the local match and had to have the—the grant 

was not fully realized as a result. 

There has got to be some way, especially for rural areas, to help 

meet that. One of our thoughts was to help meet, at least on the 

surface side, with the local in-kind match using Greyhound, unsubsidized Greyhound services of value for that purpose. 

Mr. BROWN. I know the Secretary can probably answer this better than me, but in South Carolina we have what we call a C Fund 

program that actually helps—we called it back in the early parts 

the ′′farm-to-market roads,′′ which helped, I guess, subsidize those 

local communities that could not participate. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Brown, we have worked to get matching 

dollars for some of the Federal transit grants that we have from 

private sources and have found some measure of success with that, 

local businesses that we contract with to provide shopping shuttles, 

as well as foundation and grants that way. 

We have struggled a bit to get flexibility of match with some of 

the other Federal funding sources, however, such as the Administration on Aging; and it seems that we get an unclear message 

about whether we can utilize some of those fundings, put them together, if you will, to buy a vehicle. And it would certainly be helpful to have that flexibility. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is gone. 

The dialogue I was trying to create is the fact that our Highway 

Trust Fund up here is certainly underfunded, I think, by about $8 

billion. We are trying to reconcile that now. 

But what I wanted to just identify was the struggling the States 

are having to try to meet the congestion problems they have had 

within the States, and also as we increase the mileage of our vehicles and actually have less funds coming in with the gas tax. 

I would hope that this Committee would take a look at trying to 

find some alternative ways to finance the reserve fund. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I am open to ideas on that, 

so I would be happy to have that discussion. 

Mr. Arcuri. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the panel for being here. I would like to 

especially thank Mr. McDonald, my neighbor from New York. I 

apologize for not getting back in time for all of your testimony, but 

I heard the end, and thank you for being here and sharing your 

perspective with us. 

Gentlemen, I just have one question. I am from a district that 

has several cities, small cities in it. They all have mass transit 

companies in them. Some are the same companies, some share the 

same company between municipalities, others have independent. 

My concern is this: The companies are good at getting people 

from the inner city, the cities to the suburbs, but how are we going 

to get the people from the rural areas, who are really suffering, 

into the urban areas where many of them do their shopping? They 

seem to be suffering the most as a result of the gas prices. They 

have to come the longest distances. 

20 

I mean, do we put the lines in? Do we run the lines to the rural 

areas and hope that they will come? You know, ′′build it and they 

will come′′? Or do we wait until the demand gets to the point where 

we have to then bite the bullet for the short term and let the lines 

run even if the ridership is down very low? 

Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on it? 

Mr. Isaacs? 

Mr. ISAACS. With respect to rural service, the shifting demographics don’t always support building the service and they will 

come. 

I think the successes that we have seen with our efforts are linkages between the existing—there are, what, roughly 1,000 rural 

transit operations throughout the United States, and the extent to 

which those rural transit agencies can link with inter-regional and 

intercity services coming into Rochester where there may be an 

intermodal facility, where modes are all present—Amtrak, regional 

rail, ground, and others—can certainly enhance the mobility of 

rural customers. 

But—sometimes it may be a demand-response service coming 

from the rural area into the more urbanized area, but the network 

is there. I think building a bridge among the disparate players to 

integrate the services long term is a good policy idea. 

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. McDonald? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, Mr. Arcuri, I think that one of the ways is 

to take those resources in those rural areas, whether it is an Office 

for the Aging vehicle and so on—and it gets to that technology and 

coordination piece again, where if we can have better communication and better linking of those existing resources, and know where 

they are and how to dispatch them better, we could build on that 

and run a shuttle into a more urban area. 

And we are doing that. I think we can do more of that. The investment doesn’t have to be huge vehicles and fixed route lines always; it can be more of a coordination focus, removing those barriers, though, that prevent an Office for the Aging vehicle to be 

used in another fashion, for instance. 

Mr. ARCURI. Well, now I guess the tough question, how do we get 

that message out? How do we get that message out to people in the 

rural communities that the services—that services will be granted 

at the following times? 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. PANGBORN. I don’t think it is difficult to get the message out. 

There is a pent-up demand out there; they are looking for it. There 

are communication services. There are a number of social networks 

that are already established. It is really to have the service. 

One example—and flexibility is really the key—is what’s called 

the deviated fixed route, is that you have—you put it out and say, 

we are going to run a bus from this little small community into a 

large community twice a day or every 2 days, whatever it is, and 

here are the days; and if you live within so many miles of that, we 

will actually come off route and pick you up. 

You start doing that, and soon you will build a market that 

maybe you can even add more service because people will start 

finding ways to get to it. 

21 

People work very hard to get to that transportation they need. 

You just need to have it out there and accessible to them. That is 

our experience anyway. 

Mr. ARCURI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LYNCH. Congressman, I might add, in Montana we are rural. 

In fact, we are as rural as it gets. We were able to, in just less than 

3 years, triple the ridership, the entities serving riders in the State 

of Montana, going from 12 to over 36. 

In what we did, as I mentioned earlier, flexibility is very important. But in that flexibility, I think you also need to encourage, in 

a way, providing revenue to those agencies that are willing to coordinate, meaning that they are not just going to take their rider, 

they are going to take a multitude of riders. 

I believe you also—we need to look at how we are positioning 

those buses. You know, buses should be going to—buses and trains 

and airplanes should be going to the same areas rather than dropping somebody off 15 miles from another location and another form 

of transportation. I think that is an enhancement to mass transit 

that is very much needed even in rural States. 

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Limehouse. 

Mr. LIMEHOUSE. Congressman, we had a situation that goes right 

to the point of your question. I found that there were numerous 

providers that were all going by the same place, so in our State last 

year we diverted the funding to some of the other agencies where 

we didn’t have the ridership. And so, you might be going to medical 

treatment, or you might be going to work, but the same provider 

is now carrying multiple passengers of different persuasions. 

So it has worked out pretty well. It is certainly better for us because it is cheaper for us to pay somebody else than to run the 

same route with nobody on the bus. 

So that is what we are doing. Thank you. 

Mr. ARCURI. Very good. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

Howard, do you have any questions? You don’t have to have any 

questions, but if you have one, I will entertain them now. 

Mr. COBLE. I will ask one very quickly. Thank you. Pardon my 

late arrival. I had to go to the floor, as you all know. 

Mr. Limehouse, my neighbor to the south, in your testimony you 

speak of the Highway Trust Fund’s inability to effectively meet the 

demands of the motoring public. What alternatives, solutions, 

would be a better option for financing our Nation’s surface infrastructure? 

Mr. LIMEHOUSE. Congressman, we have to get away from the 

number of gallons purchased, because it is not in our national interest to use a large number of gallons of motor fuel. So the tax 

has to be based on the number of lane-miles or some calculation 

that is usage and not number of gallons of gas you buy. 

In our State and also in North Carolina, because we have aggressive programs right now because we are growing, both tourism and 

other—you know, manufacturing, we feel that we should partner 

with the local communities and the Federal Government to come 

up with and get private business involved in the transportation 

systems. 

22 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Lynch, at the table, you probably are the most rural State 

represented here today. Let me ask you a two-part question. 

Should Federal dollars continue to be a central part of financing infrastructure needs in rural States, A; and, B, how do rural States 

attempt to leverage resources to maximize each Federal dollar they 

receive for their transportation systems? 

Mr. LYNCH. Congressman, the answer to the first question is, 

yes, and primarily because of what we are dealing with in our— 

the five States that I am talking about. In particular, in Montana, 

for example, we basically have—24 of our 56 counties have less 

than two people per square mile. So, to find some resources from 

the citizenry within the State of Montana is very difficult for increasing funding. We need a strong Federal role in highway transportation for the State of Montana. 

We maximize—we have a very high state gas tax. And, as I said 

in my written testimony, ours is $156 per capita in what we contribute to the Federal highway account, which is far above the national average. And we have a high gas tax in Montana, but we 

also have a lot of uses—we are a bridge State. Our State provides 

opportunities for other States, and that is why the Federal role, I 

think, is very important for our State. 

We match every Federal dollar we receive, and we do it very efficiently. We have a pavement management system to make sure we 

put the money on the roads that need the attention and not necessarily a favored project anywhere. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The next set of questions will be from Ms. Hirono. 

I have to complete a call to my governor on an urgent issue, so 

I am going to ask her to assume the Chair and excuse myself from 

the panel. She will take over in a moment. 

Ms. HIRONO. [presiding.] Mr. Limehouse, I think I heard you saying something about you were able to do 37 years of infrastructure 

work in only 7 years. 

Can you just tell me a little bit more about that, because one of 

the things that we have heard in our various hearings is that it 

takes so long to get the Federal money, to go through all the hoops 

and to do anything. So I am very interested to hear how you all 

did it. 

Mr. LIMEHOUSE. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

What we determined was that the cost of construction, materials 

and labor was going up faster than the interest that we would have 

to pay on bonds, so we bundled together all of the projects around 

our State that we thought we would need to do; and we calculated 

with the use of an aggressive bonding program through the infrastructure bank that we formed under the legislation that Congressman Brown authored. We went out and hired large companies to 

break it down so that they will—you know, all of the State was 

represented, and we completed those projects in 7 years. 

So now a small portion of our Federal and State funds go to service debt instead of building roads. We have found it to be extremely 

successful, and it was a fantastic cost savings to the State. 

23 

Ms. HIRONO. Now, we don’t have a Federal version of an infrastructure bank, right? I mean, that was one of the bills suggested, 

I think it was only last week, in one of these hearings that we have 

had here. 

Would you recommend that the Federal Government look to paying for Federal infrastructure needs through this kind of an entity 

or through a bonding kind of a fund-raising mechanism than what 

we currently have? 

Mr. LIMEHOUSE. In my opinion, if you authorize that immediately, that would get us through this crisis period, because then 

you would only—only the projects that States were really interested in, or local communities were focused on that had need would 

go forward, because if they had to help, they wouldn’t be so quick 

to ask for funding. 

So I think a national infrastructure bank along the lines that we 

developed would be very helpful right now, particularly in this period of time where no one can keep up with construction costs that 

are rising so quickly. If you bonded out, you made your projects, 

you would fix those costs today. 

We also use design bill and other things that set the costs on the 

front end, so that we didn’t have them escalate through the life of 

the project. Those are the techniques that we are using to control 

our costs in South Carolina. 

Ms. HIRONO. Do the other panelists have anything to add? Do 

you agree that we should look to other ways of raising money to 

pay for our infrastructure needs? Bonding? 

Having an infrastructure bank at the Federal level may be one 

way. Do you have any thoughts, any of the other panelists? 

Yes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Congresswoman, I mentioned in my testimony and 

also here, the Build America Bonds program is a good program. 

Why I think it is good for rural States is that it guarantees money 

to the rural States. Infrastructure banking plans, they are okay as 

long as the mechanism is, but how are you going to get the funds 

to States like Montana and the other four that I represent that 

have small amounts of funding. 

You know, a $50 million project in Montana has never happened. 

I think most of these infrastructure banks and large programs are 

talking about $500 million projects or programs. So, I think when 

you look at funding sources you can’t lose sight of the needs that 

rural America has and the limitation they have to participate in 

such mega-programs. 

Ms. HIRONO. Well, I can completely agree with that because I 

represent a district that is six islands, and five of the six islands 

don’t really have much of a transportation system to begin with. 

I have another question about—but I think one of you mentioned 

that we—or many, several of you may have mentioned that we 

have these funding silos for highways, for aviation. There is some 

suggestion that maybe we should not have these silos, to create 

more flexibility, intermodal flexibility not just within the Highway 

Trust Fund, to have flexibility there, but to allow—to think in 

terms of intermodal so that we can use these various funds in ways 

that will allow States, as well as the Federal Government, to estabVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:09 Jun 19, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43276 JASON
24 

lish some priorities in a different way than we currently approach 

the issue. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, Congresswoman. I just want to reiterate 

how important that is for agencies such as ours and other not-forprofits and small rural transit where what we could do with what 

is a small rounding error in a highway project is phenomenal. 

To the extent that it is easier to flex some of those dollars between these silos and have local planning areas and local communities have some authority in saying that, would be just an incredible boost and help to community transportation. 

Ms. HIRONO. Do the rest of you agree with that kind of an approach? We would have to do a lot of changes to Federal law in 

order to allow that kind of flexibility, wouldn’t we? 

Yes. 

Mr. PANGBORN. Yes, the SAFETEA-LU did actually build in 

some flexing between highway dollars and transit. I know in Oregon that money was flexed at the State level and went into 

projects such as was mentioned by the last speaker, and we have 

used it at LTD. Of course, it is a double-edged sword. 

Right now, you have this big press coming to have more emphasis on transit. At the same time the roads are in really tough circumstance also. But at least you make it a local decision. It is 

made at the level where people really have to live with the product. 

It is not-- you know, the Federal Government acknowledging it is 

a need, but letting the decision be made locally in a flexible way; 

and I think that is appropriate. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. I believe my time is up. Does anyone 

else have questions? 

Mr. Carney? 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a question for the 

entire panel. 

We know how much it costs, or we have a rough estimate, at 

least, of how much it costs to fix the Nation’s infrastructure. 

Do we have any idea of the cost if we don’t? Feel free, panelists, 

to jump in on that one. 

Mr. MCDONALD. A lot more. 

Mr. PANGBORN. I wish I could give you a number. I can tell you 

in some ways, you know. I talked about, we are having to raise 

fares and cut services. 

I just was at a public hearing last week where there were 35 people, all testifying, saying that if you cut my service, I will lose my 

job; I have no other means to get to my job. If you cut my service, 

I will not be able to go to school, because I will have to move. You 

know, that is very difficult. 

So, I mean, there are some real, real issues here in terms of people, just economic viability of a community if, in fact, we don’t really make an investment. 

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. McDonald. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Congressman, to that point, I know in the areas 

of nonemergency medical transportation, there have been some recent studies that have done an analysis of the cost benefit. And the 

higher cost of not getting people to medical care for preventive 

services is quite staggering. I don’t know what those numbers are, 

25 

but the Transportation Research Board did a recent study, which 

is available. 

I mean, it is staggering. It is what you think it would be. It is 

more than just not being able to get down a highway because it is 

not fixed. Or cross a bridge; I mean, it has life-threatening implications and higher health care costs as well. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

Yes, Mr. Bobrowski. 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. I think a great example is the Appalachian Development Highway System within a large region, a 13-State region. That program was developed back in the 1960s, and continues 

now and is expected to be completed in 2035. 

That really is the primary region that the Appalachian region 

has been able to achieve progress towards parity with the rest of 

the country. It really is based upon transportation, removing isolation, allowing folks economic opportunities. 

Certainly that has occurred within our region. U.S. Highway 25E 

is a highway that is going to cut about 60 miles of travel between 

folks coming from the east going to the west, and is also going to 

be designated—we hope it is going to be designated as a National 

Scenic Byway. So there are tremendous tourism possibilities. 

There is economic development there. There is efficiency and effectiveness there. 

Today, our Tennessee Department of Transportation has turned 

into an operation and maintenance organization primarily, not able 

to develop new projects. That is a big, big problem for our rural 

areas and something that is backlogging; it is going to continue 

into the future as Federal recessions occur, so things are getting 

much worse. 

Mr. CARNEY. So you wouldn’t mind seeing some more ARC highway miles allotted? 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. We would love to see more miles. 

Mr. CARNEY. Me, too. 

Anyone else on the larger question? 

Yes, Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Congressman, you know, it is a very important question, but also a very difficult one to answer. I think it would be difficult for States, you know, rural States like ours, which do not 

have a large population. 

I am assuming, when you say you no longer fund the Federal 

transportation system, two things happen: You are just not funded 

at all and no repairs are made. Or do you look at other ways of 

funding within that State? There are States that would just not be 

able to pick up that load—look at the size of Montana and 600 

miles across and the bridging that you have. 

The second cost you have is, it wouldn’t just be the cost to Montana. There is a tremendous amount of economic engines that are 

being developed, from Portland and Seattle to Chicago to Minneapolis, that not having a transportation system across the State 

of Montana wouldn’t mean they would move their goods to another 

route. It would mean they would probably lose their business to another entity that could move their goods more efficiently or better. 

So the cost is insurmountable and would keep multiplying in that 

respect. 

26 

So—but when you look at the dollar aspect of a job, I can tell you 

that if we don’t maintain our roadways, we can go from $1 million 

a mile to $4 million a mile in a very short period of time. If we 

have to totally turn our roads back to gravel, which some provincial 

governments north of our border have done because they have lost 

funding, that would be detrimental to the Federal transportation 

system; and it is probably a route we would not want to go down. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. Anyone else? 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. No further questions. 

Ms. HIRONO. Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. I will be very brief. I am really here in 

support of my colleagues because I come from a pretty area that 

has highways everywhere. So when I read the material last night 

about rural roads and all this, it was a true learning experience. 

So I am here to support my colleagues. I have one question, 

though. 

There is discussion here in Washington about consolidating some 

of the Federal transportation grants to States. While the aim is to 

reduce the red tape and to speed the flow of funding to communities, are there potential pitfalls that you worry about that could 

adversely affect your particular communities? 

If so, what could we do to help you if that, in fact, occurs? 

We have had—let me just summarize my question that I just 

asked you there. We have had several Committee hearings, and 

they have said we need to take the programs from 100 down to 10, 

and this would be one of them. 

What do you see the impacts would be, and how can we prevent 

you from being harmed in that way? 

Yes. 

Mr. PANGBORN. I think consolidation and flexibility, which has 

been a theme that we have talked about here at the table, is an 

important goal. 

What you have in place is a whole system that has been built 

up to accommodate the Federal silos of funding. So I think a wholesale kind of consolidation might throw kind of the local decision 

process into chaos, and it would take a while to adjust. 

I think a ratcheting down in terms of consolidation would be a 

good idea, though, because it would allow that greater flexibility 

and more local decision-making. But probably over a period of time, 

either during the 6-year course of a bill or over the course of a couple of bills, it takes a long time for local governmental decisionmaking processes to adjust. You have got this whole system, and 

if you do it quickly, it really doesn’t accomplish where you want to 

go because you get poor decisions instead of reasoned decisions. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. McDonald. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, Congresswoman. I have been in community 

transportation for 25-plus years, and I can say, probably, it would 

be worth the risk in terms of the trade-offs. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. That is very interesting. 

Mr. MCDONALD. If you were to have more consolidation, have 

more local control and say, because the silos, I just conclude, prevent a lot from happening. For people with disabilities and the elderly, which is the group that we work with, there is so little 

27 

money now in Federal transit funds dedicated to that purpose, that 

I think the risk is worth it for us. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time to our great Chairman and 

Chairwoman. 

Ms. HIRONO. Chairman Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for covering bases 

while Mr. DeFazio tends to other issues. It is good to be have you 

in the chair. 

Ms. HIRONO. It is good to be here. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You are a strong advocate of public transit, and 

we appreciate that very much. 

This hearing is very important for the future of transportation. 

I have been distracted by other Committee activities this morning, 

one of which was a session with the travel and tourism interests 

from across the country. Mr. Mica and I, actually, our Full Committee Ranking Member and I are making a presentation to travel 

and tourism interests about the need to sustain transportation in 

the future for support of this third most important economic sector 

in most of our States. 

But so much of travel and tourism is centered around attractions 

in rural communities, I pointed out that Yellowstone and Grand 

Teton National Parks attract 9.5 million visitors a year. That is 

five times the population of Montana, and Wyoming combined. You 

can repeat that all across the country. 

Now, in the aviation situation, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Brown, who is a champion for travel to South Carolina 

for tourism investment in South Carolina, he knows very well that 

if everybody had to drive there, they wouldn’t come. 

You have to—you need all the modes. We need to upgrade the 

high-speed rail service on the East Coast. We need to invest in the 

Midwest high-speed rail initiative. We need to invest in the southern tier, in the northern tier, service that used to be the Empire 

Builder to the West Coast from Minneapolis-St. Paul. California is 

one-fourth of all of Amtrak passenger traffic, but between these 

great points of interest are small towns, rural communities that 

are not adequately served by public transit. 

As the public has reached out for transportation alternatives in 

this high-fuel-price era again, although much more than in the 

1972-to-1974 oil crisis or in the mid-1980s when we had another 

spike in oil prices—and after Gulf War I there was a spike in oil 

prices, but it quickly subsided; this is long and sustained. 

People are looking for transportation alternatives. 

The problem is, we have underinvested in transit until the 

ISTEA legislation of 1991, when we began to increase the percentage out of the Highway Trust Fund into transit systems and to establish a set-aside, a separate account, formula program for rural 

transit, the 5311 program. But in that period of time from, say, the 

1960s until the mid-1990s, there was so little investment that our 

manufacturing capability moved offshore. 

I held hearings in 1985, 1986, 1987 on the Buy America program, 

working well in highways, working well in the Corps of Engineers, 

the Clean Water Program—terrible in transit because the capability to produce all the parts had moved offshore. Allied Signal is 

28 

about the only domestic manufacturer, and they were outsourcing 

much of their work because there was no market for it. 

The market is there now, and those transit systems are aging. 

Transit buses should be replaced every 6 or 7 years; you find buses 

now that are running 1.5 million miles in urban centers. Our rail 

cars are—in light rail, commuter rail systems, street cars are rusting out. 

You go to places like Chicago, which has the second largest transit system in America, 800 million trips a year; and they are welding pieces in, holding their rails into the support structures of their 

rail cars, of their bus system. You look underneath, it is all rusting 

out, and they don’t have the capital to replace. 

Worse are the rural areas, smaller communities. 

When I was growing up, we didn’t have a car. My father had a 

very firm world view, if you can’t walk there or take the bus there, 

you don’t need to go there, wherever ′′there′′ is. So for one summer 

he bought a 1937 Ford to go fishing. And he would come home from 

work in the underground mine, and then we didn’t know enough 

to drain the radiator, so the block froze and the car was scrapped, 

and we never again had a car. 

But we always had the Greyhound bus. And you would get on 

the Greyhound bus and go over to Hibbing, just 6 miles from Chisholm, to see my grandmother and family over there. We would go 

across the range; that is the iron ore mining country. Then the 

automobile just sort of squeezed out bus service. 

So who is providing transportation services to small communities 

with aging populations who don’t want to move to urban centers, 

who have needs that are provided by urban centers such as, well, 

say, in Hibbing, a population of 20,000, of Virginia, a comparable 

population, Duluth? 

But if you live 30 miles out in the countryside, how do you get 

there? The Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency has a bus 

service, and similar economic opportunity agencies provide this 

service. It is not provided by a multicounty transit agency; it is not 

provided by a multicommunity transit agency. 

We have to find ways to provide that service. 

In hearings that I held also in the late 1980s on a multiplicity 

of transportation services into small towns or into rural areas, we 

found that those who are making calls on homes to take persons 

to medical visits or simply to shopping in minivans or minibuses 

often found someone on the floor with a heart attack or a stroke. 

They are providing a medical service. They are providing support 

service. Yet this is not part of an organized transportation service; 

it is part of some other function of government. 

All right, now, you are all practitioners of the art. What do we 

need to do to 5311 with the $2 billion that we allocated over the 

5 years of SAFETEA? What changes do we need to make in service, 

public transportation service to small communities, in what ways, 

to assure sustainability so that people don’t have to move out of 

their homes, don’t have to crowd into multiliving facilities where 

they will enjoy their quality of life and live a better life and not 

be in some sort of public-supported activity like a nursing home or 

congregate-care activity? They can live independently, but they 

need transportation. 

29 

All right, there you are, there is your charge. You are going to 

write the next transportation bill, this part of it. Tell me what you 

want to do. 

Yes, Mr. Isaacs. 

Mr. ISAACS. With respect to rural transportation, intercity bus is 

essential, as you know. We have worked with your office many 

years now. We have worked with the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity through Judy Byman for many years. You have been an advocate for rural transit for a long time. 

There is still a discrepancy between the funding levels and the 

population levels in rural areas, so increasing the Federal funding 

for rural areas to at least match the population comparable to the 

percentages would be one step in the right direction. 

Maintaining the relatively small subsidies going to intercity bus 

service would help, and enabling those agencies that are out 

there—the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency—to be able to 

link with intercity bus services, so that you do have a local provider providing that service to the next larger town that can connect with intercity bus services. The same way with Amtrak, with 

the remaining air network that will be around in the years future 

and intermodal air transportation centers is, in my way, in my 

mind, the best bang for the buck. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, rather than creating a new intercity transportation system, we already have Greyhound, Jefferson lines, several other intercity private sector services. Is contracting with a 

transit—rural transit agency sufficient? 

Mr. ISAACS. It helps. Other than the 5311(f) program, there is no 

funding that enables that kind of connectivity to exist. Where it 

does exist, you have a local champion that takes it on. 

So to the one question that Ms. Richardson raised about what is 

the downside of removing the funding silos, one downside is making sure that those programs that are funded for rural areas, at 

least are funded at an appropriate level with some guarantees that 

there are going to be some funds available for them. 

But a program that would not only encourage those who want to 

do it locally, but make it the law of the land, would be very helpful. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I paid particular attention to a question from Ms. 

Richardson, a new Member of Congress, that every time she walks 

into this Committee room, she has got her thinking cap on. We appreciate that. 

I just have to make a personal disclaimer about Greyhound. 

Greyhound started in my district between my hometown of Chisholm and Hibbing, our next-door-neighbor town, by bus, Andy, who 

started driving miners to work in his 1926 Hupmobile. 

Go ahead, Mr. McDonald. My late wife is from Rochester, New 

York. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Oh, okay. It is a great place. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I spent a lot of time up there. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Beautiful time of year up there right now. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. Lilacs. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, exactly. 

In some of the more rural areas of Monroe County, Rochester, 

there are a lot of faith-based and volunteer groups that are providing some of that transportation that you were referring to, and 

30 

other not-for-profits. I think what would help is some support for 

infrastructure, for vehicles, for communications, for technology, 

that could link them together and provide them some of the vehicles, literally, to do their work and share those vehicles. 

So whether that can be achieved through 5311 or 5310 or some 

sort of flexible pot—but to take some of the existing entities that 

are in the community and help build them up, not only the traditional transit approach, but a lot of services being provided that 

way, and some are starting to get diminished with the high cost 

of fuel and ability to do it. 

But I think there are some creative ways to do that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We need a public entity, an oversight, to be the 

dispenser of grant funds. You can’t have the Federal Transit Administration making thousands and thousands of individual grants, 

but to major—so do you have some thoughts about creating, say, 

a multicounty, a multicity, rural transit provider entity, such as exists already? 

Mr. MCDONALD. You have—— 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Mr. Chairman, in my district that regional organization already exists, the East Tennessee Resource Agency. And 

they typically coordinate the area offices on aging—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. —which served an awful lot of the population 

that uses rural public transportation. So those organizations are already out there in many, many cases. Our particular organization 

serves 16 counties and the entire State of Tennessee is served by 

human resource agencies that operate rural transportation systems. So I would advocate for using those existing organizations as 

conduits through which Federal funds could flow. And in all of 

these agencies are experiencing very, very significant—well, the 

squeeze is on of course. The aging population is placing more demand on the systems, and then, of course, operating costs are going 

through the roof. And in our particular district the replacement of 

very, very expensive vehicles is a particular problem as well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do they operate on a regularly scheduled basis? 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. They do, yes, they do. And every county is 

served—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And under what overall jurisdiction is the human 

resources program? 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. We have 16 counties that are served by the 

human resource—or Knoxville. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the board an entity of the 16 counties? 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Yes, sir, it is. The board is composed of the mayors of the 16 counties. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay. That could be a very good model for elsewhere in the country. Others have thoughts? Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, you asked what we’d do if we had 

been given responsibility to write this portion of the bill. I think 

the first thing that I would do is thank you for the increase in Federal funding that we got and respectfully ask you to keep it up in 

the next bill. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh, we will, it will be bigger. 

Mr. LYNCH. And under what we have done under the Schweitzer 

administration, Governor Schweitzer in Montana, for the first time 

31 

in years, if not the history of Montana, we have actually brought 

together two agencies which deal with rides—and that is the Department of Transportation and the Office of Public Health—and 

the grant money that they receive to provide ridership. And we are 

trying to coordinate our efforts with their efforts where we can 

maximize the Federal funding that we receive through Medicare 

and other sources through public health and that that we receive 

through the SAFTEA-LU in providing rides and transportation opportunities. We have grown a lot in Montana since that. Since 

2005, we have gone from 12 transit providers to 36. That may not 

sound like a lot, but for a rural State like Montana, where some 

of us even still ride horses, that is a big improvement. 

One of the obstacles that we have seen, I think can be addressed 

by offering the flexibility, which I have talked about earlier, and 

through coordination within State agencies that deal with rides. 

What is important is really working the coordination level and trying to consolidate services to the users—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Mr. LYNCH. —of the transit system. And oddly enough, and surprising to me, our obstacle has not always been just from the governmental standpoint, but also the riders. And understanding that, 

you know, some riders don’t want to ride with other riders. When 

we are consolidating elderly with disabled and whatnot, there is 

sometimes problems. And I think our agency, our State, has taken 

a leadership role in trying to educate and basically eliminate some 

of the perceived conceptions of why two different uses of transportation systems within our State can’t function on the same bus. 

Now, there are going to be exceptions, but I think that is really the 

big effort that we need to do at a State level from a governmental 

standpoint. 

You asked earlier if there was a governmental agency that is responsible. I think that is a very proactive move the States can 

make in trying to encourage people to share the ride. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You touch on something that is very important 

and that is consolidating the multiplicity of services provided under 

the aegis of different Federal and non Federal programs. I found 

in hearings I have conducted in ’87, ’88, 137 Federal Government 

programs that provide funding for transportation services, most of 

them not in the Department of Transportation and the agencies 

weren’t talking to each other. 

Is that Mr. Clinger, a former Member of Congress, a Republican 

from Pennsylvania, a Ranking Member and myself, he and I were 

exasperated. So finally, I said we need to coordinate all of these. 

So we had three different cabinet officers whose departments were 

engaged in funding transportation activities. I said we’re going to 

have a hearing, and all three of you are going to come. And we are 

going to find out how to coordinate. So they came and said, we 

have agreed on a coordinating counsel. When did you do that that? 

This morning. 

Yes, Mr. Pangborn. 

Mr. PANGBORN. Just to reemphasize that, you know the silos at 

the Federal level, the funding silos have built up the same silos at 

the State level. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, that is exactly right. 

32 

Mr. PANGBORN. To get the Department of Transportation to talk 

to the Department of Health and Human Services with all these 

myriad of rules, the one thing the Federal government could do in 

the legislation is require that coordination and consolidation. So if 

you want the money, you have got to set up the system that it happens at the local level. That would be absolutely critical. Because 

they deal from different perspectives, and it is very hard to get 

them to sit at the table and talk the same language. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It hasn’t changed in 20 years. Mr. Isaacs. 

Mr. ISAACS. And with respect to what you can do. What we have 

noticed over the past many years is that with what was previously 

the urban mass transportation programs and now the FTA programs, is that State DOTs have typically been grant managers for 

those smaller programs. And in some states you haven’t seen as 

much focus on statewide public transportation planning where the 

state can take the lead role in becoming the advocate and the 

champion for linking all the rural services and regional operators 

into a statewide network with some Federal guidance and some 

oversight about what they should be planning and how they should 

be planning it. I think State DOTs can play that role very effectively. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. McDonald. That is a very good thought, I appreciate that. 

Mr. MCDONALD. One the requirements of SAFETEA-LU, which 

was a very positive gain, was the requirement that public transit 

and human services engage in a planning and develop local plans. 

And we have done that in our community and I am sure others 

across New York. So I would say that continuing that requirement 

is certainly in order. And then looking at again that local 9 county 

region, some strategic recommendations were developed. A lot of 

those had to deal with what we talked about today access to information and the creation of a central number and database, the use 

of technology, supporting specialized transportation as well as 

many recommendations on public transit. So continuing that requirement as has been said, which exists now in a new way and 

strengthening it in the reauthorization would be a very positive 

and continuing that process. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are down to about 6 or 7 minutes left on the 

vote. I would invite you to combine your thoughts and give us some 

principles, if you will, for improving service to rural communities 

through public transit, including over the road, inner city bus services, transit type activities and your thoughts about coordination 

and consolidation. Give us whatever number of points you think 

would be beneficial. We need to merge those into legislative language in the very near future as we prepare for the authorization 

bill next year. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. HIRONO. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to thank all the panel members for your input and ideas. And since 

the Chairman has put out a request to you, I am looking forward, 

along with the Members of the Committee for that information 

from all of you. Thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

33 


43276.009
34 


43276.010
35 


43276.011
36 


43276.012
37 


43276.013
38 


43276.014
39 


43276.015
40 


43276.016
41 


43276.017
42 


43276.018
43 


43276.019
44 


43276.020
45 


43276.021
46 


43276.022
47 


43276.023
48 


43276.024
49 


43276.025
50 


43276.026
51 


43276.027
52 


43276.028
53 


43276.029
54 


43276.030
55 


43276.031
56 


43276.032
57 


43276.033
58 


43276.034
59 


43276.035
60 


43276.036
61 


43276.037
62 


43276.038
63 


43276.039
64 


43276.040
65 


43276.041
66 


43276.042
67 


43276.043
68 


43276.044
69 


43276.045
70 


43276.046
71 


43276.047
72 


43276.048
73 


43276.049
74 


43276.050
75 


43276.051
76 


43276.052
77 


43276.053
78 


43276.054
79 


43276.055
80 


43276.056
81 


43276.057
82 


43276.058
83 


43276.059
84 


43276.060
85 


43276.061
86 


43276.062
87 


43276.063
88 


43276.064
89 


43276.065
90 


43276.066
91 


43276.067
92 


43276.068
93 


43276.069
94 


43276.070
95 


43276.071
96 


43276.072
97 


43276.073
98 


43276.074
99 


43276.075
100 


43276.076
101 


43276.077
102 


43276.078
103 


43276.079
104 


43276.080
105 

Æ 


43276.081